President Obama Re-Elected - Page 1079

my point, and let this serve as a response to radiatoren also, is that one cannot look at historical sociopolitical shifts as one dimensional events which occur suddenly and in a vacuum, unaffected by those ideas which came before them and made up the ideological world they lived in. whether there was some specific (by specific I mean localized, not general) occurrences of pandering to racist/segregationist elements by specific Republicans or Republican campaigners is not what I am challenging. rather, I challenging two assertions made by the reference to the "southern strategy" as a possible explanation for the alleged anti-intellectualism in the Republican party, allegedly driven by the more conservative elements.

the first assertion (which is implied) is that the Southern Strategy was, and remains, a driving force of intellectual development within the party and movement (Republican and conservative). the second assertion, more explicit in nature, was that there is an anti-intellectualism that composes enough of a part of the conservative/Republican ideology that it could be considered as an accurate, general label.

for the first assertion, I can point to the fact that segregation itself was fought by as many conservative Republicans as progressive ones. in fact, it was not the progressives who drove abolition and later anti-segregation; they simply attached themselves to the Republicans in the late 1800s, early 1900s due to Republican support of an inclusive society. the progressives were primarily redistributive, their support for an inclusive society was largely coincidental. it was not that they supported anti-segregation for the sake of anti-segregation as much as it was a rather practical way to gain votes and grow the tax-paying base at the same time. this is not to say that there were no legitimately anti-segregationist progressives, just that in general, redistribution took precedence over any kind of racial equality.

I could spend hours going through the nuances of Republicanism in the 1900s, but let's skip that and accept the History channel's somewhat simplistic explanations (which completely neglect the 1920s and 30s), so that we can examine the "Southern Strategy's" effect on today's Republicans as an anti-intellectual force. i would assert that both arguments are wrong, 1) that the southern strategy has any consequential effect whatsoever on modern conservative-Republican ideology, and 2) that the southern strategy was, itself, either racist or anti-intellectual. One must ask oneself why the very people who supported desegregation rather vehemently would then turn around without warning and court the segregationists? why would Goldwater and Nixon, both noted anti-racists and anti-segregationists in the 50s and 60s, suddenly in the mid-60s become racist, segregationists? it makes no sense because it didn't happen that way.

the "southern strategy" was as much about anti-Communism as it was about anti-redistribution. further, segregation at that point had become centered around the issue (among other issues) of the federally enforced desegregation of public and private society. many of the people who found themselves on the side of the segregationists on the issue of forced busing, for example, were not racists at all, and in fact some were members of the NAACP and had participated in anti-segregation movements in the 50s and 60s. some of them were even blacks themselves, who opposed busing on the grounds that it was both ineffective and was a federal overreach. their opposition for federally enforced desegregation and affirmative-action were entirely intellectual. it was these people, who were also largely anti-Communist, that the Republicans sought to court. the Democrats (among others) painted it as anti-segregation and as betrayal, and were actually very successful in the propagation of that image.

as for the Southern Strategy being a force on today's policies and ideologies, I would argue that it was in no way a new or radical thing, what the partakers of the so-called "Southern Strategy" were suggesting and arguing for. they argued for anti-Communism, anti-federal expansion, and for the strict maintenance of law and order. these ideas, whether inherently racist or not, were not new and were not receiving some kind of special attention. the writings of William F. Buckley Jr. were by far more influential to the ideological modern conservative than the opinions of some Nixon campaign adviser.

obviously this explanation above is incomplete, as I've completely neglected mentioning the Roosevelt's, the Rockefeller's, Coolidge, the Great Depression, WW2, WW1, Woodrow Wilson, Bull Conner, George Wallace, and have given only the tiniest of nods to Buckley and the National Review. but I think it should suffice to at least show that claiming the "Southern Strategy" was either explicitly and generally racist, or that it was based in anti-intellectualism, is false. as for it being relevant to today's ideology, I would say that the claim is so wild and unsupported as to require significant evidence to even be uttered. one might as well claim the sky as being red and then declare that the onus is on me to prove otherwise.

now, onto the idea that the Republicans are generally anti-intellectual at all. this comes from 1) the rejection of the conservatives of progressivism and redistribution and, 2) the conservative opposition to the perceived progressive take-over of academia. I would argue that the conservative argument against progressivism is very rational and is based on the writings and opinions of very educated men and women who were anything but anti-intellectual. as for whether the conservative perception of academia is correct or well-founded, well, that is not an argument I am prepared to have. it would require hours of research on my part, and would likely have a less-than desirable result. one might argue that conservative ideology is irrelevant to today, or is unworthy of being given attention by our educators, and this is an opinion that cannot be effectively argued by the conservative. what is clear, however, is that the modern conservative ideology is not given nearly the attention by educators as the modern liberal ideology is. the student or scholar is undeniably more likely to hear the arguments against McCarthyism, than the arguments for it's necessity and desirability. whether this is appropriate or not is up to you, but don't accuse those who feel that it is inappropriate to exclude one side of the argument from our teaching about the argument of being anti-intellectual.

as for us deciding which words are "codewords" or not, I will simply leave you with the suggestion that if one assumes a priori that certain phrases or words contain implicit racism than one has effectively engaged in the fallacy of poisoning the well. which could be construed as being anti-intellectual. just sayin'.

(I realize this is short on sources, but most of this is... well, some of it is common knowledge. as for the rest, either take my word for it or prove how not anti-intellectual you are and find some sources that prove me wrong.)