Submitted Without Further Comment

President George W. Bush pays tribute to the National Review on its 50th anniversary:

Many of the more important changes of the 20th century happened because the National Review stood strong, and that's a fact -- that's a fact of history.

Whole thing here.

We Will Prevail: President George W. Bush on War, Terrorism and Freedom, a National Review book, here.

Comments

[joe]

Did he go on to say "And many others, like the end of segregation and the abandonment of the concept of 'white people's rights,' happened despite the National Review's standing strong?"

[norbizness]

"Special mad props to my homey John Derbyshire! A living testament that you can have a crippling addiction to psychedelic mushrooms and still get published by a 'conservative' national magazine!"

[Warren]

That's it! I'm takin down my shoot'n irons and topping off the tank. Nutten's gonna put a stop to the voices till I get that trunk full.

[MayDay72]

Did he go on to say "And many others, like the end of segregation and the abandonment of the concept of 'white people's rights,' happened despite the National Review's standing strong?" -joe

Probably not. But I wouldn't place those issues in a strict right versus left and Republican versus Democrat model. The civil rights acts were passed with a lot of Republican support...And a lot Democratic stonewalling. Even Barry Goldwater supported most of them. LBJ wrote a nice letter to the Republicans in Congress thanking them for their support. One of the most reactionary individuals was Senator Al Gore (Sr.). Not only did he oppose the civil rights legislation...He actually tried to pass a bill that would have turned back the clock to the old Jim Crow laws.

[jf]

MayDay72:

Come on, you're just making stuff up, now. Everyone knows that every Republican hates the darkies, and there has never been a single Democrat who wouldn't sign his house and wife over to the first black man who asked.

[uhh...]

The liberal Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act ... and then lost control of the party to Goldwater.

You know, the Southern Strategy and all. NR was fiercly segregationist even if the GOP wasn't always. There are good things NR has done (and historically it IS important), but they also have quite a bit of shame they've never owned up to.

[jf]

uhh,

Not defending the Repubs at all for the "southern strategy", but at the same time, don't backwoods cracker hicks deserve representation too?

[Dylan]

MayDay72:

Obviously, you're quite correct that you can't look at the civil rights era and easily draw a line between Republicans' and Democrats' views on integration. Many Republicans did support civil rights, and the Jim Crow South was dominated and supported by Democrats.

But joe was talking specifically about NR, and, especially in the 50s and 60s, they were pretty clear about their take on the civil rights movement, and it pretty much coincides with what he said.

American Renaissance, a modern organization that promotes "white identity politics," lays out the case pretty thoroughly in an article, refering to the modern National Review's embrace of integration and the 60s civil rights acts as a "decline."

http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2005/01/the_decline_of.php

[M1EK]

Those who mention that "the Republicans voted for Civil Rights and Dems voted against it" are being willfully misleading. Today's crop of Republicans comes more from those Dixiecrats who voted against it than from the business-minded Northeasterners who voted _for_ it.

And yet they keep mentioning it again and again, whenever this subject comes up. I wonder why that is.

[WFB]

The bloviation and eristic inveighing of miscreant naifs aside, erudite souls are cognizant of my periodical's lapidary prose, exegetical excogitation, and its reification of the conservative ideal.

[Eric the .5b]

Who really believes any of these changes happened because of anything in the National Review?

[Number 6]

Eric the .5b- Off the top of my head:
Buckley
Jonah Goldberg
Dubya

[Dylan]

From the article I linked to above:

[Buckley] sympathized with the Southern position writing, "In much of the South, what is so greatly feared is irresponsible, mobocratic rule, and it is a fear not easily dissipated, because it is well-grounded that if the entire Negro population in the South were suddenly given the vote, and were to use it as a bloc, and pursuant to directives handed down by some of the more demagogic leaders, chaos would ensue." He also warned of "a suddenly enfranchised, violently embittered Negro population which will take the vote and wield it as an instrument of vengeance, shaking down the walls of Jericho even to their foundations, and reawakening the terrible genocidal antagonisms that scarred the Southern psyche during the days of Reconstruction."

This obviously didn't happen -- from what I understand, a good deal of the worst racial violence occurred in the north.

And I would change the first sentence to:
"In much of the South, what is so greatly feared is irresponsible, mobocratic rule by the black people who've been suffering under white irresponsible, mobocratic rule for a century."

[Isaac Bartram]

I found it sort of amusing that when Condie Rice addressed the Rep convention in 2000 she made a big deal about being a Republican because her grandfather was welcomed by the Republican Party in Georgia(?) to register to vote.

She neglected to mention that the Southern delegations in the audience were filled with the children and grandchildren of the Democrats who had actively worked to keep her grandfather from voting.

While the signs "Democrats lynched our grandfathers" carried by some young blacks at a Republican rally a few years ago might have been technically accurate it was ironic that they were marching with the grandsons of those same democrats.

Some people's historical perspective are lacking. Only a few of them are deliberately lying.

My head spins when I look at the roughly 150 yrs of history since the Civil War and see the cycles of political realignments that occured while the two parties tried to claim some kind of philosophical continuity.

[R C Dean]

The civil rights acts were passed with a lot of Republican support...And a lot Democratic stonewalling.

Too true. Who led the filibuster against it?

Those who mention that "the Republicans voted for Civil Rights and Dems voted against it" are being willfully misleading. Today's crop of Republicans comes more from those Dixiecrats who voted against it than from the business-minded Northeasterners who voted _for_ it.

Oh, I dunno. It is pretty much a fact that the Dems were the prime movers and defenders of segregation back in the day. George Wallace wasn't a Republican, folks.

Today's crop of Republicans comes more from those Dixiecrats who voted against it than from the business-minded Northeasterners who voted _for_ it.

That would explain Kleagle Byrd, I suppose.

Really, though, I think Bartram said it best. The realignments over the last 40 or 50 years have rendered arguments about which Party is the more racist pretty moot.

Since I regard affirmative action as racism, and identity politics as the kissing cousin of racism, I vehemently deny that the Democrats can claim any moral superiority on this issue, but that doesn't mean the Republicans have pure hearts either.

[Frank]

Since we are kicking out the racists skeletons in the political closets...
Anyone want to comment on LewRockwell.com and the libertarian movement?
Mind you most of our problems comes from guys in the LP who drink silver and turn themselves blue (and people wonder why the LP is America's 3rd largest 3rd party), but seriuosly, those guys like Thomas Woods are part of our movement, then we got some racial issues to duke out as well...

[Isaac Bartram]

In all fairness RC the senator from WV is an exception and Wallace was a reluctant racist (although that in itself says a lot about his character). The same might be said about LBJ himself, who, as Senate majority leader, led the filibuster against the 1957 Civil Rights Act and then pushed thru the 1964 act (thus instantly looking better than Goldwater who was so clueless he couldn't see the political ramifications of opposing the bill*).

For the most part the dixiecrats have in the style of Strom, Jesse and Trent crossed over to the GOP. The only difference is that old-style Jim Crow racism is gone, and no one party can claim credit for its demise.

As I said, it's hard to keep your head from spinning they change so fast.

*And I say that as someone who would have voted for Barry if I'd been old enough.

[Eric the .5b]

Off the top of my head:
Buckley
Jonah Goldberg
Dubya

Apparently. I always thought Buckley was better than that. *shrug*

[joe]

"But I wouldn't place those issues in a strict right versus left and Republican versus Democrat model."

Nor would I, Mayday. Liberal versus conservative, cetainly. But as you note, there used to be liberals in the Republican Party, and they played a major role in the cause.

And I'm certainly not taking the heat for the partisan squabble that broke out on this thread, because I've got clean hands this time.

[joe]

Matt,

I want you to know that at least one of us sees the irony of the magazine "standing athwart history yelling stop" being credited for causing many of the historic changes of the 20th century.

[Douglas Fletcher]

joe, rest assured, you are the absolute prophet of irony.

I recall that the National Review was Reagan's favorite magazine & the source of many of his ideas about politics -- I think there's a good case just from that the magazine has had a lot of influence (if there's any dispute about that).

[M1EK]

"Really, though, I think Bartram said it best. The realignments over the last 40 or 50 years have rendered arguments about which Party is the more racist pretty moot."

No. It's not moot to point out that with one or two exceptions (the supposedly contrite Byrd and the crazy Zell), the guys who opposed those pesky civil rights bills all moved into one party and that they remain there to this very day.

[Tom Crick]

Many of the more important changes of the 20th century happened because the National Review stood strong, and that's a fact -- that's a fact of history.

Now that the heat's off--no more elections--we get all the wacky stuff unfiltered.

*circus music*

...It's kinda like when Tom Cruise fired his publicist and everything went bonkers. ...He was always like that though, right?

...Gotta love the wacky stuff!

[Tom Crick]

Maybe the President will say something about driver's licenses...

...Then Badnarik can say, "See, that wasn't so wacky!"

[jf]

Matt,

I want you to know that at least one of us sees the irony of the magazine "standing athwart history yelling stop" being credited for causing many of the historic changes of the 20th century.

Yeah, because advocating the slowdown government control of every aspect of our lives created no historical changes. Nor did adamantly opposing the Soviet Union, pressing for the repeal of wage and price controls, pressing for the lowering of taxes, or urging the appointments of SCOTUS justices who actually believed the Constitution meant what it said, instead of what the justices wanted it to say.

"[S]tanding athwart history yelling stop" meant telling the government to slow down its social engineering and at least look at the results, rather than pressing ahead with every feel-good domestic policy it could come up with. Perhaps we'd all be better off living in LBJs "Great Society", but I doubt anyone but joe will argue in favor of that proposition.

[jf]

What is up with the formatting on this site today? This is twice I've have my html get screwed up. Have you changed the Movable Type settings?

[Shem]

He also warned of "a suddenly enfranchised, violently embittered Negro population which will take the vote and wield it as an instrument of vengeance, shaking down the walls of Jericho even to their foundations, and reawakening the terrible genocidal antagonisms that scarred the Southern psyche during the days of Reconstruction."

Jesus Christ. Can somebody tell me how exactly "The Klansman" became the source of America's information on the years immediately following the Civil War for 80 years?

[Tom Crick]

Perhaps we'd all be better off living in LBJs "Great Society", but I doubt anyone but joe will argue in favor of that proposition.

I thought we are living in Johnson's Great Society. ...I thought we were proposing a rational alternative to the way things are.

[jf]

I thought we are living in Johnson's Great Society. ...I thought we were proposing a rational alternative to the way things are.

I happen to believe that things could be a lot worse. Reagan (that National Review reading bastard!) helped overturn a good number of Great Society programs, such as the War on Poverty. The ultimate defeat of the Great Society came when President Clinton signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996.

Oh yeah, that evil bastard Newt Gingrich had something to do with that, too.

[scott]

National Review has never been a racist magazine. Oppostion to the Civil Rights Laws were led by two seperate groups: Racists, and principled libertarians and conservatives. National Review clearly fell into the latter group, as do I. Like most libertarians, I vehemently oppose the aspects of the Civil Rights laws that intrude into the area of private property and free assocation. Not the highest issue on my to do list, but still, that is the correct postion from a perspective of liberty. That doesn't make me a racist. Only a statist could make such an absurd suggestion.

[Tom Crick]

Oppostion to the Civil Rights Laws were led by two seperate groups: Racists, and principled libertarians and conservatives.

Could you be a little more specific about the libertarians that opposed civil rights laws? I know you said that you are a libertarian and that you opposed them, but can you name some prominent libertarians that opposed civil rights laws?

...and which laws did they oppose specifically?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act

Only a statist could make such an absurd suggestion.

You know, there's a fallacy in that statement somewhere.

[Dylan]

scott,

I understand the objections to parts of the civil rights acts that screw with freedom of association and property. I understand how a libertarian-minded person like Goldwater could have problems with them without being a racist.

However, did you read the article I cited? The objections that Buckley and co. raise to the civil rights laws go way beyond worrying about government telling private business owners how to run their own businesses, or whom private groups have to admit. They pretty explicitly imply that black people are an inferior group of people who shouldn't have a voice in their own communities. They objected to giving black people the vote, for God's sake. How can you argue from a libertarian perspective that a group of people who are beholden to a government should have no voice in that government? Meanwhile, the "civilized" culture that does have a voice sics dogs on peaceful demonstrators and either actively participates in or turns a blind eye to lynch mobs and other utterly repulsive behavior.

[Tom Crick]

jf,

I'm a huge fan--as some here will attest--of Reagan's, and I can't think of many bad things to say about Newt either. ...Mister, we could use men like that again!

...If only the Republicans hadn't turned their backs so!

Although we've made some progress against Johnson's disastrous war on poverty, HUD is still with us, Medicare and Medicaid persist and Head Start's still with us too.

[David T]

"Like most libertarians, I vehemently oppose the aspects of the Civil Rights laws that intrude into the area of private property and free assocation."

But that has nothing to do with the position of National Review or the southern segregationists for whom it apologized during the 1950's. In fact, private discrimination was not the big issue then--it was segregation in *government* schools, denial of the right to vote, etc. And on those issues National Review either openly supported or at least "understood" the South...

[mudfoot]

Two distinct types of racists opposed the Civil Rights Act--libertarians and statists.

Reminds me of the ex-YAFfer I knew who used to counter-protest South Africa in favor of Apartheid because the ANC had some communists in it.

LIBERTARIANISM:
Dope, guns, fucking in the streets.
And white hoods.

[James Kabala]

There are so many inaccuracies in this thread I don't know where to begin.
For starters, I don't know where mayday72 got his information, but Al Gore, Sr., although he did vote against the Civil Rights of 1964, was not a segregationist. He refused to sign the Southern Manifesto, supported voting rights and open housing legislation, and was always backed by the Tennessee NAACP.
On the other hand, it is not true that the Republicans who supported the Civil Rights Act were northeastern liberals. The bill was backed by many solid conservatives from the Midwest and West, as were most other civil rights bills of the 1950s and 1960s. The most civil-rights-friendly prominent poltician of the pre-Brown forties was probably Robert Taft, unless you count Hubert Humphrey as "prominent" at that stage in his career. And while Thurmond did become a Republican, ex-segregationists like Sam Ervin, William Fulbright, Herman Tallmadge, Russell Long, John Stennis, Fritz Hollings, and, of course, Robert Byrd did remain pillars of the Democratic party establishment well into the post-civil rights era.

[jf]

jf,

I'm a huge fan--as some here will attest--of Reagan's, and I can't think of many bad things to say about Newt either. ...Mister, we could use men like that again!

...If only the Republicans hadn't turned their backs so!

Although we've made some progress against Johnson's disastrous war on poverty, HUD is still with us, Medicare and Medicaid persist and Head Start's still with us too.

I completely agree with every word. I'm just saying some progress has been made, and in great part it was by a couple of people who certain posters on this board can't find enough fault with.

[James Kabala]

Typo alert: I meant to write that pro-civil rights Republicans were not ALL northeastern liberals. Of course, many of them were.
Also, Condi's father was from Alabama.

[MayDay72]

For starters, I don't know where mayday72 got his information, but Al Gore, Sr., although he did vote against the Civil Rights of 1964, was not a segregationist. -James Kabala

Sheesh! Well, I'm not sure what your definition of a "segregationist" is...But this is what I was thinking of when I wrote that...

Al Gore, Sr. did not stop at simply voting against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In addition, Congressional Quarterly reported that Gore attempted to send the Act to the Senate Judiciary Committee with an amendment to say "in defiance of a court desegregation order, federal funds could not be held from any school districts." Gore sought to take the teeth out of the Act in the event it passed.

Link...
http://www.nationalcenter.org/P21NVDavisGore599.html

[MayDay72]

Okay...After some thoughtful deliberation...

I do hereby officially withdraw any and all previous comments that I have made on this thread. And I do hereby officially accept full responsibility* for the strange "this-political-party-is-slighly-more-free-and/or-less-repressive-than-that-political-party" game above. In the future I shall try to avoid these "lesser-of-two-evil-major-political-parties" discussions entirely since little seems to be accomplished in such a manner.

Party "A": Vote for us! We're slightly less Fascist than that other party. And we might let you keep some of your porn provided that you turn over all weapons more dangerous that rubber bands and plastic sporks to us ASAP.

Party "B": Support us! We're not quite as Marxist as those other guys. And you might be able to keep your own firearms assuming that you give up all rights to own any material more obscene than cheesecake photos of Ann Coulter or Michelle Malkin.

*Joe probably needs some rest from being the scapegoat, bearer of bad news and sacrificial lamb around here anyway.

[jf]

MayDay72:

Sadly, the only choices we have are Party "A" and Party "B" (because Party "C" is dominated by wackos and nincompoops. And yes, I am a dues-paying member of Party "C".). And from your descriptions, while Party "B" are complete fucks who have shown in the last 3 years that they don't have to ability to govern a day care center, Party "A" will always scare the hell out of me. The Dems are only for liberty when it scores them votes (abortion, gay marriage, rights for certain minorities), while the Repubs at least occasionally make noises about how government needs to be reduced.

Just because the current President is an absolute fuckwit doesn't make the Dems a better choice, in my opinion.

[scott]

The other thing you guys are missing in this debate, which was important to National Review, was the Federalist aspect. I may be against racist, anti-libertarian laws in Mississippi, but that doesn't mean I support the right of the Federal Government to do anything about it. I would have marched with MLK, but I wouldn't have supported Federal intervention. Just as I would never support Federal intervention in all the stupid, anti-libertarian laws that might come out of California or NYC. Taging Conservatives as racists is just lazy. For years the real racists hung out in the Democratic party. When the Democratic party went from a positon of active support of segregation to a position (just as racist, I might add) to active support for racial preferences, the white racists had no choice to leave the Democratic Party. The only option left for them was the colorblind ideology of the conservative movement. That white racists prefered colorblindness over policies that actually favored blacks at the expense of whites is hardly surprising, and it doesn't reflect poorly on the GOP at all. In fact, quite the opposite. The GOP achieved what the Dems never were able to do. They brought the segregationists into their fold without accepting their racist ideology.

[joe]

jf needs a humor transplant.

[K. West]

They brought the segregationists into their fold without accepting their racist ideology.

I think the counter-theory is that the racist ideology has been assimilated by the Republican Party secretly and tacitly. We may be seeing media-savviness more than colorblindness. The Republican party intial response to Katrina was surprisingly bad. One wonders what really does lurk in those hearts.

[joe]

Damn, even after having quotes from magazine shoved in their faces, in which Bill Buckley refers to the "negroes" as "the inferior race," some of you people still insist, no no they were just federalists. Denial ain't just a river in an anti-federalist continent, boys.

No enemies on the right, eh? I suppose Bull Conor was just a federalist in a hurry.

Maybe you should keep this thread in mind the next time scott and jf slag people for marching against the war in ANSWER rallies.

[Isaac Bartram]

Also, Condi's father was from Alabama.

Thanks for the correction. My memory was shaky on that, hence the question mark.

And while Thurmond did become a Republican, ex-segregationists like Sam Ervin, William Fulbright, Herman Tallmadge, Russell Long, John Stennis, Fritz Hollings, and, of course, Robert Byrd did remain pillars of the Democratic party establishment well into the post-civil rights era.

Indeed broad generalizations cannot be made here.

[jf]

joe:

That's twice you've brought up my name, and I have no idea what you are talking about. My humours are well in balance, and I've never said anything about people marching in ANSWER rallies.

I would, however, be interested to see if you've wriggled your way out of the contradiction you created for yourself in the Washington Nationals stadium thread.

[joe]

Then go back to that thread, as there is no contradiction, just different reactions to different circumstances.

"My humours are well in balance" Sigh, I know it's not funny, if you have to explain it, but for your benefit...

When National Review was launched, Buckley wrote an intro in the first issue in which he stated that the magazine's mission was to "stand athwart history shouting stop." Now, George Bush compliments them for causing great, historical changes. This is irony, because they are being honored for doing exactly the opposite of they declared their mission to be.

Get it?

[jf]

joe

I've already answered you on this point. If I'm supposed to laugh at your wit without comment, sorry to disappoint you.

[joe]

Oh, I see. It's like a feminist explaining why a blond joke isn't funny.

Well, bully for you, I guess.

[James Kabala]

May Day: I'm stil not sure that quite means that Al Gore was anti-Brown, but since we agree on the basic point that many Southern Democrats were anti-civil rights and remained powerful Democrats in good standing, rather than becoming Republicans like their colleague J. Strom, isn't it worth getting hung up on this particular individual.

[James Kabala]

I meant to write "it isn't," not the question-like "isn't it." It's my second meaning-altering typo in this thread. I should hit Preview before I post, shouldn't I?

[Jarod]

LIBERTARIANISM:
Dope, guns, fucking in the streets.
And white hoods.

TROLLING:
Sweeping assertions, sensational accusations, a lack of logical argument or cited reference.
And baby raping.

[Dylan]

scott,

I agree. Unfortunately, Buckley and his friends at NR were not racist libertarians. They were racists who supported letting the South continue Jim Crow, a decidedly non-libertarian institution.