Until the courts address the idea that "disparate impact" is proof of de facto discrimination, you have your problem. Even if, as Reagan attempted, you limit the scope of Civil Rights Laws, the scope can always be subsequently expanded. From a functionalist perspective, once you build the bureaucracy, it will continue to carry out its mission even if the original targets have disappeared. The goal is to invent new forms of discrimination, as we have seen, to support an ever expanding mission. Reagan's failed tactical efforts were ultimately futile even if he had succeeded. After all, H.W. Bush gave us the ADA under his administration, so now any time you try and sack an incompetent white person you get an ADA suit. Reagan was a failure here, seeking tactical victories while his enemies scored strategic victories, and "Zombie Reaganism" is, of course, the Con Inc. take on Reagan distilled and refracted to please the Kochs Brothers and the Paul Singers of the world.
Further, given the halo surrounding civil rights (and the manifest evils of segregationists in the South), there is a cultural dimension in that civil rights occupies the place of social legitimacy, and opposition to civil rights immediately places one in the demonic category. Conservatives support for civil rights is largely based on what they see as "racism" on the grounds of merit, and so pro-white affirmative action is as bad as pro-black affirmative action, because they are both forms of nepotism, so conservatives are unwilling to reject anti-racist norms, and you get the motte and bailey effect. You don't see anyone on the mainstream right defending freedom of association, even the Libertarian presidential candidates say how they support CRA. Nothing can change until there is a shift on the moral scale of legitimacy.
Further, public opinion largely opposes affirmative action, but the public probably doesn't understand the actual degree of group disparities which would be exposed if affirmative action were ended. So you have a political problem in that if efforts succeed, they will probably both energize opponents and reduce public support.
Reagan's tactical failure was largely motivated by giving some red meat to the base, there was no strategy and there has never been any real strategy on the right as these policies are frankly bipartisan (maybe moderate Republicans are "traitors" but the GOP has a lot of traitors, and it needs them to win elections).
Civil Rights has social legitimacy, it has a large bureaucracy for enforcement, it is largely supported by major corporations and donors, Hollywood and the MSM unanimously push content supporting its narrative, and Reaganism offers, at best, tactical and temporary pyrrhic victories. Yes, public opinion disfavors its excesses, but never to the point of questioning the major assumptions. It would take 30 years of cultural movement, and the right surrendered all cultural output to the left for over a generation. Good luck taking that back. The real mistake of Nixon and Reagan was the idea that controlling the courts was more important than controlling the culture, that legality was more important than legitimacy. Yet, that mistake continues today.
Zombie Reaganism really means playing lip service to Reagan while advocating for contrary policies. Bush 41 was the first. He ran as Reagan's 3rd term, but never believed in Reaganism, effectively wearing a Reagan skinsuit.
Bush kicked out all the Reaganites as soon as he took office, all the whole deceiving the public. He rejected Reagan's policies and twisted conservativism with gleeful support of the Neocons.
The last 34 years have seen Republicans leaders claim Reagan even as they reject him, his policies, and his followers. This is Zombie Reaganism, not the strawman you present.
Repeal the Civil Rights Act? ...are you serious? Never in this entire essay have you examined the original reasons for prohibitions against race-based discrimination. You allow those reasons no material importance to the freedom and prosperity of those affected by such discrimination? Even if wokeness is the great danger you suggest, is a reversion to the pre-Civil Rights Movement norm the price you'll be willing for (other, non-white) citizens to pay?
Also, has "wokeness" in the vague and, again, totally un-defined and underexamined meaning you're assuming, existed since the Civil Rights Act was passed? I have only been hearing people like you complain about it in apocalyptic terms in the last half-decade or so. Though I'm at least old enough to recall the "Political Correctness" wars of the 1990s, too. Even if we loop them together, and accept your argument that Reagan was some bulwark against the menace of wokeness through the 1980s, that still leaves us with a few decades unaccounted for since the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Was wokeness in occultation during this time? Or, like bankruptcy, does wokeness happen slowly, and then all at once?
But that's the thing about wokeness, isn't it? It can be whatever you need it to be to justify your ideological hobbyhorse de jour? It's a useful placeholder that can stand in for the "Jihadism" or "International Communism" of generations past. Because those Conservatives also had arguments against the Civil Right Movement that merely covered up a racist lack of concern about the civil rights of their fellow Americans.
Hanania cites George HW Bush as one of the prominent Republicans that undermined efforts to oppose wokeness. That was was Reagan's pick for VP and Reagan's chosen successor and that certainly mars his reputation as a leader of opposing wokeism.
One of Hanania's links cites David French defining Reaganite conservatism as "an ideological movement that was more or less united around the famous ‘three-legged stool’ of ‘social conservatism, fiscal restraint, and muscular internationalism." 1980's social conservatism was associated with Jerry Falwell and Jim Bakker; history has not been kind to that. On "fiscal restraint", Reagan was a mixed bag. On "muscular interventionism", that is the big dumb war machine that Hanania mocks. That three-legged stool of Reaganism sounds terrible. Next, David French and Jonah Goldberg and the other prominent pundits who've recently championed Reaganite conservatism are entirely pro-woke and devoted to undermining Republican efforts to oppose wokeness.
This is a great, fascinating article. The anti-woke movement should learn from history, and learn from Reagan's strengths and contributions to the cause. But at the same time, Reagan had plenty of flaws and Reagan's name and Reaganite branding are probably of limited value to present-day efforts to counter wokeness.
I don't think these laws have much to do with the infiltration of WOKENESS. Sure, they provide these wackos a premise for this WOKENESS. But it's the acquiescense of the administrations to these the flimsy interpretation and application of these laws that best explains this cancer. And, of course, the age-old problem is that tyrants are always on the assault, while conservatives simply defend. Conservatives may have to lose ground until they decide to go on the offensive, but even then, they will simply push to restore just equilibrium, if they can re-establish that. The tyrants are like the Terminator. These malcontents and Darwin's losers never look within to see their problems. They derangedly think others are their problem, and throw tantrums, alledging social injustice. Ayn Rand said the only effective counter-arguments must be moral ones, and Conservatives have no grasp of philosophical morality, only religious posits that don't appeal to rational, young people.
"Despite most Americans opposing racial quotas, a bipartisan cartel made sure that affirmative action in gov contracting survived its most serious threat since it was created by the Nixon admin."
I'll admit that while I don't agree with the woke movement, I also don't agree with this article's calls to action against it. But mostly, I finished this article wondering, "Why? What ideas led this 'bipartisan cartel,' and WHY?"
Certainly, bipartisansim today seems to accomplish many of the most useless but well-lobbied ideas. But was it for donations back then? Or was it really a sincere wish for the minority vote?
It's a conundrum, because the left loves government, the right hates it. There's a dense and thorny thicket that had grown up around these laws, and yes, competent, dedicated, intelligent conservatives could clear it, creating more freedom and better outcomes from everyone. But who's going to do that? There are armies of progressives who will jump at any chance to play some sort of role in advancing the left's agenda, thousands of new ones getting minted by the higher education system every year. The vast majority of conservatives are steering clear of higher education in general, or going straight into STEM or business. Our only real hope is for the five conservative SCOTUS justices to nuke some of it from orbit.
“Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 made gender discrimination in schools and universities a federal issue”.
No. It made SEX discrimination...a federal issue. Given that the Biden administration is replacing sex with gender (identity) in Title IX & Title VII via its Title IX proposal, the SEX not GENDER distinction is critically important.
I think the scope of the article is too narrow. In my opinion Reagan's primary legacy will always be the 1986 amnesty bill. Regardless of any executive orders of high court appointments, this bill transformed California into a democratic state in perpetuity, and handed the Democrats an electoral juggernaught. Furthermore, the demographic transformation of the entire southwest is one of the primary reasons we will never be able to repeal any of this awful legislation. With a reduced percentage of the population, and thus voting power, American Whites will continue to take it on the chin with little recourse, and Reagan directly facilitated that with his immigration policy.
What are your thoughts on Reagan's approach to immigration? Some say his pro-immigration stance is the reason California has turned blue, and he lacked a populist mindset against the dangers of low wage illegal immigration that along with Nafta created other problems we see today.
"In the decades after Reagan, conservatives have found themselves captivated by causes as worthy as making sure Bill Clinton didn’t have too much fun with his interns, the need to democratize Iraq and Afghanistan for some reason, “Benghazi,” and now flying to Taiwan."
The above, from this well written piece, is so correct and gets overlooked in the mess of stupidity that has now permeated conservatism or if not conservatism, at least the Republican Party. Saying that, I have never been a conservative but have leaned more toward classical liberalism/Libertarianism which are more aligned to freedom and to personal responsibility (polar opposite of victimhood).
A lot of your writing has echoes of Paul Gottfried, a paleocon who wrote about how PC is promoted by the 'managerial state.' But Gottfried and other paleocons hated Reagan and viewed the Reagan Revolution as a betrayal of the American Right. I wonder what he would think about this essay.
Until the courts address the idea that "disparate impact" is proof of de facto discrimination, you have your problem. Even if, as Reagan attempted, you limit the scope of Civil Rights Laws, the scope can always be subsequently expanded. From a functionalist perspective, once you build the bureaucracy, it will continue to carry out its mission even if the original targets have disappeared. The goal is to invent new forms of discrimination, as we have seen, to support an ever expanding mission. Reagan's failed tactical efforts were ultimately futile even if he had succeeded. After all, H.W. Bush gave us the ADA under his administration, so now any time you try and sack an incompetent white person you get an ADA suit. Reagan was a failure here, seeking tactical victories while his enemies scored strategic victories, and "Zombie Reaganism" is, of course, the Con Inc. take on Reagan distilled and refracted to please the Kochs Brothers and the Paul Singers of the world.
Further, given the halo surrounding civil rights (and the manifest evils of segregationists in the South), there is a cultural dimension in that civil rights occupies the place of social legitimacy, and opposition to civil rights immediately places one in the demonic category. Conservatives support for civil rights is largely based on what they see as "racism" on the grounds of merit, and so pro-white affirmative action is as bad as pro-black affirmative action, because they are both forms of nepotism, so conservatives are unwilling to reject anti-racist norms, and you get the motte and bailey effect. You don't see anyone on the mainstream right defending freedom of association, even the Libertarian presidential candidates say how they support CRA. Nothing can change until there is a shift on the moral scale of legitimacy.
Further, public opinion largely opposes affirmative action, but the public probably doesn't understand the actual degree of group disparities which would be exposed if affirmative action were ended. So you have a political problem in that if efforts succeed, they will probably both energize opponents and reduce public support.
Reagan's tactical failure was largely motivated by giving some red meat to the base, there was no strategy and there has never been any real strategy on the right as these policies are frankly bipartisan (maybe moderate Republicans are "traitors" but the GOP has a lot of traitors, and it needs them to win elections).
Civil Rights has social legitimacy, it has a large bureaucracy for enforcement, it is largely supported by major corporations and donors, Hollywood and the MSM unanimously push content supporting its narrative, and Reaganism offers, at best, tactical and temporary pyrrhic victories. Yes, public opinion disfavors its excesses, but never to the point of questioning the major assumptions. It would take 30 years of cultural movement, and the right surrendered all cultural output to the left for over a generation. Good luck taking that back. The real mistake of Nixon and Reagan was the idea that controlling the courts was more important than controlling the culture, that legality was more important than legitimacy. Yet, that mistake continues today.
Zombie Reaganism really means playing lip service to Reagan while advocating for contrary policies. Bush 41 was the first. He ran as Reagan's 3rd term, but never believed in Reaganism, effectively wearing a Reagan skinsuit.
Bush kicked out all the Reaganites as soon as he took office, all the whole deceiving the public. He rejected Reagan's policies and twisted conservativism with gleeful support of the Neocons.
The last 34 years have seen Republicans leaders claim Reagan even as they reject him, his policies, and his followers. This is Zombie Reaganism, not the strawman you present.
I'd love a followup piece explaining what should have been done instead to address the civil rights of blacks in 1964.
Repeal the Civil Rights Act? ...are you serious? Never in this entire essay have you examined the original reasons for prohibitions against race-based discrimination. You allow those reasons no material importance to the freedom and prosperity of those affected by such discrimination? Even if wokeness is the great danger you suggest, is a reversion to the pre-Civil Rights Movement norm the price you'll be willing for (other, non-white) citizens to pay?
Also, has "wokeness" in the vague and, again, totally un-defined and underexamined meaning you're assuming, existed since the Civil Rights Act was passed? I have only been hearing people like you complain about it in apocalyptic terms in the last half-decade or so. Though I'm at least old enough to recall the "Political Correctness" wars of the 1990s, too. Even if we loop them together, and accept your argument that Reagan was some bulwark against the menace of wokeness through the 1980s, that still leaves us with a few decades unaccounted for since the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Was wokeness in occultation during this time? Or, like bankruptcy, does wokeness happen slowly, and then all at once?
But that's the thing about wokeness, isn't it? It can be whatever you need it to be to justify your ideological hobbyhorse de jour? It's a useful placeholder that can stand in for the "Jihadism" or "International Communism" of generations past. Because those Conservatives also had arguments against the Civil Right Movement that merely covered up a racist lack of concern about the civil rights of their fellow Americans.
Hanania cites George HW Bush as one of the prominent Republicans that undermined efforts to oppose wokeness. That was was Reagan's pick for VP and Reagan's chosen successor and that certainly mars his reputation as a leader of opposing wokeism.
One of Hanania's links cites David French defining Reaganite conservatism as "an ideological movement that was more or less united around the famous ‘three-legged stool’ of ‘social conservatism, fiscal restraint, and muscular internationalism." 1980's social conservatism was associated with Jerry Falwell and Jim Bakker; history has not been kind to that. On "fiscal restraint", Reagan was a mixed bag. On "muscular interventionism", that is the big dumb war machine that Hanania mocks. That three-legged stool of Reaganism sounds terrible. Next, David French and Jonah Goldberg and the other prominent pundits who've recently championed Reaganite conservatism are entirely pro-woke and devoted to undermining Republican efforts to oppose wokeness.
This is a great, fascinating article. The anti-woke movement should learn from history, and learn from Reagan's strengths and contributions to the cause. But at the same time, Reagan had plenty of flaws and Reagan's name and Reaganite branding are probably of limited value to present-day efforts to counter wokeness.
I don't think these laws have much to do with the infiltration of WOKENESS. Sure, they provide these wackos a premise for this WOKENESS. But it's the acquiescense of the administrations to these the flimsy interpretation and application of these laws that best explains this cancer. And, of course, the age-old problem is that tyrants are always on the assault, while conservatives simply defend. Conservatives may have to lose ground until they decide to go on the offensive, but even then, they will simply push to restore just equilibrium, if they can re-establish that. The tyrants are like the Terminator. These malcontents and Darwin's losers never look within to see their problems. They derangedly think others are their problem, and throw tantrums, alledging social injustice. Ayn Rand said the only effective counter-arguments must be moral ones, and Conservatives have no grasp of philosophical morality, only religious posits that don't appeal to rational, young people.
"Despite most Americans opposing racial quotas, a bipartisan cartel made sure that affirmative action in gov contracting survived its most serious threat since it was created by the Nixon admin."
I'll admit that while I don't agree with the woke movement, I also don't agree with this article's calls to action against it. But mostly, I finished this article wondering, "Why? What ideas led this 'bipartisan cartel,' and WHY?"
Certainly, bipartisansim today seems to accomplish many of the most useless but well-lobbied ideas. But was it for donations back then? Or was it really a sincere wish for the minority vote?
It's a conundrum, because the left loves government, the right hates it. There's a dense and thorny thicket that had grown up around these laws, and yes, competent, dedicated, intelligent conservatives could clear it, creating more freedom and better outcomes from everyone. But who's going to do that? There are armies of progressives who will jump at any chance to play some sort of role in advancing the left's agenda, thousands of new ones getting minted by the higher education system every year. The vast majority of conservatives are steering clear of higher education in general, or going straight into STEM or business. Our only real hope is for the five conservative SCOTUS justices to nuke some of it from orbit.
“Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 made gender discrimination in schools and universities a federal issue”.
No. It made SEX discrimination...a federal issue. Given that the Biden administration is replacing sex with gender (identity) in Title IX & Title VII via its Title IX proposal, the SEX not GENDER distinction is critically important.
I think the scope of the article is too narrow. In my opinion Reagan's primary legacy will always be the 1986 amnesty bill. Regardless of any executive orders of high court appointments, this bill transformed California into a democratic state in perpetuity, and handed the Democrats an electoral juggernaught. Furthermore, the demographic transformation of the entire southwest is one of the primary reasons we will never be able to repeal any of this awful legislation. With a reduced percentage of the population, and thus voting power, American Whites will continue to take it on the chin with little recourse, and Reagan directly facilitated that with his immigration policy.
Good post.
Excellent post.
What are your thoughts on Reagan's approach to immigration? Some say his pro-immigration stance is the reason California has turned blue, and he lacked a populist mindset against the dangers of low wage illegal immigration that along with Nafta created other problems we see today.
"In the decades after Reagan, conservatives have found themselves captivated by causes as worthy as making sure Bill Clinton didn’t have too much fun with his interns, the need to democratize Iraq and Afghanistan for some reason, “Benghazi,” and now flying to Taiwan."
The above, from this well written piece, is so correct and gets overlooked in the mess of stupidity that has now permeated conservatism or if not conservatism, at least the Republican Party. Saying that, I have never been a conservative but have leaned more toward classical liberalism/Libertarianism which are more aligned to freedom and to personal responsibility (polar opposite of victimhood).
A lot of your writing has echoes of Paul Gottfried, a paleocon who wrote about how PC is promoted by the 'managerial state.' But Gottfried and other paleocons hated Reagan and viewed the Reagan Revolution as a betrayal of the American Right. I wonder what he would think about this essay.
Amazing Nostradamus tweet by the Arizona guy... It shows how even a stopped clock is right 2x a day