Krugman speaks the truth on why Reagan won. It wasn't "optimism", "clarity", or Dem "excesses"

[jackson_dem]

One of the things that is most riling about Obama's comment is it gave more credibility, since it comes from the mouth of the biggest star in the Democratic Party, to the revisionist history the Rethugs have created, especially the one around Reagan. This is designed to bury their shameful past and allow them to never have to accept responsibility for their actions and the consequences of them. Many Rethugs believe racism no longer exists in a significant degree. Perhaps if they knew the truth about their party's rise they would take a different view and side with us on things like affirmative action.

-snip-

The centrality of race — and, in particular, of the switch of Southern whites from overwhelming support of Democrats to overwhelming support of Republicans — is obvious from voting data.

For example, everyone knows that white men have turned away from the Democrats over God, guns, national security and so on. But what everyone knows isn’t true once you exclude the South from the picture. As the political scientist Larry Bartels points out, in the 1952 presidential election 40 percent of non-Southern white men voted Democratic; in 2004, that figure was virtually unchanged, at 39 percent.

-snip-

True, he never used explicit racial rhetoric. Neither did Richard Nixon. As Thomas and Mary Edsall put it in their classic 1991 book, “Chain Reaction: The impact of race, rights and taxes on American politics,” “Reagan paralleled Nixon’s success in constructing a politics and a strategy of governing that attacked policies targeted toward blacks and other minorities without reference to race — a conservative politics that had the effect of polarizing the electorate along racial lines.”

-snip-

In light of the Mcclurkin incident, Obamites should bear in mind this truth Krugman speaks about Reagan.

-snip-

Reagan’s defenders protest furiously that he wasn’t personally bigoted. So what? We’re talking about his political strategy. His personal beliefs are irrelevant.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/19/opinion/19krugman.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

[xchrom]

1. dems, liberal. progressives -- what ever name you wish -- our ''leaders'' left

the legacy and history alone -- they -- we never really challenged the right as they ''sanctified reagan history''.

in that way we never challenged the word liberal -- reagan and reagan history became something the conservatives could fly up the flag pole and everyone would salute -- even though we knew very different.

i cannot abide obama -- that business with donnie and the four gospel acts -- his comments about gay folk gaining the rights for equality
by being in relationships and behaving better and now this.

but -- it was a smart move on his part -- cynical - and certainly it now becomes part of the ''sanctified history'' of reagan --
but he knows he can get away with it -- because tom brokaw nor anyone else is going to challenge his remarks with reality.

[aquart]

2. I'm pretty sure I did. Loudly, purposefully, and contemptuously.

[robbedvoter]

3. Lots of us did. The fact that the official narrative ignored us, doesn't cancel the fact

that we exist - anymore than Bush calling protesters "focus groups" canceled us.
I don't care what the "leaders'< did with the meme - the truth exists with the people - the voting people. To the extent this is allowed to get out, it won't prove a brilliant move. Not anymore than "a bird in hand..."[br />Obama is risking his natural base - democrats - to chase after a mythical/media made one - "Raygun democrats". Like the "soccer moms" and "security housewives" and other marketing devices - this was just bull. Anyway, 8 years of Bush definitely wiped whatever Raygun worship out of anyone but the bozos running for POTUS for GOP and their genetically deficient 3% following.
So, it's cynical AND misguided.

[Perry Logan]

4. In Obama World, you're racist if you acknowledge LBJ's role in passing the Voting Rights Act...

...but if you're inspired by the race-baiting union-buster Ronald Reagan, you're a man of vision.

[izquierdista]

5. I'm going to play Devil's advocate here, Perry

Suppose Obama is just playing to the right, bringing the Reagan Democrats back into the fold, and causing much gnashing of teeth on the progressive side. Does that mean he won't take a hard left after Inauguration Day and make FDR look conservative?

Seems like there was someone back in 2000 who forgot all about the talk of the campaign and did what he wanted anyway.

[OHdem10]

6. This has shown Obama's Naivte. Doing this in a Democratic

Primary shows poitical cluelessnes. It might have nt
seemed so egregious if it were a general election.
Kicking Liberalism in the teeth has been a GOP tactic.


.

[izquierdista]

10. Maybe he is more shrewd than you think

He won't have to look so obvious running to the center after the nomination. I'm kind of looking forward to an Obama/Edwards ticket. Those two could really do a lot of good for the country.

[flpoljunkie]

11. Very good analysis. Obama is seeking to create a working majority to get things done in Washington.

[LostinVA]

14. If either HRC or JRE did this, the cries of "pandering" and "triangulating"

Would be DEAFENING.

[izquierdista]

16. I don't think so

It would be very quiet, because it's what we've come to expect from HRC.

[NoBorders]

7. Wow. Krugman has become an anti-Obama shill.

I wasn't sure if his repeated anti-Obama stuff was just coincidence, but this pretty much confirms it. You can find fault with any candidate, but he's obviously chosen to go after Obama.

[chimpymustgo]

8. No. Krugman is a goddam reality check. And Obama and his supporters should listen CAREFuLLY.

I don't know what is motivating Obama - naivete, arrogance, ignorance - BUT THIS "STRATEGY" is vile and stupid with Democratic voters - with ANY voters.

Thank you Paul Krugman for the eloquent history lesson so many of us were trying to talk about over the last couple of days. Obama needs to do a gut check.

[geek tragedy]

13. He doesn't mention Obama in this column. n/t

[Clark2008]

9. That's a nice pile of horseshit.

Southern white men voted for Bill Clinton AFTER Reagan was president; therefore, I conclude that most of what non-Southerners say regarding this alleged "Southern strategy" and race is a pile of horseshit.

Southern men want a strong leader - they may be reluctant to bestow that on a woman, true (sexism is more rampant than racism down here) but if a Democratic man were tough, it wouldn't matter that he was a Democrat.

That said, I don't think we have one running this year, so it's a moot point. They'll default to the Republicans because Republicans, as a result of media bias, are automatically considered tougher than Democrats.

[Perky]

Comparing 1952 and 2004 is pretty bogus

in 1952 Strom Thurmond ran on the dixiecrat ticket.

before and after that the numbers were far larger.Yje numbers changed dramatically.

[Perky]

12. Comparing 1952 and 2004 is pretty bogus

in 1952 Strom Thurmond ran on the dixiecrat ticket.

before and after that the numbers were far larger.Yje numbers changed dramatically.

[Strawman]

15. Good article, but it wasn't just the South

"Reagan Democrats" in here in MI ate that race-baiting shit up. But Krugman's larger argument is spot on.