Frozen Toothpaste

One presidential candidate is lighting up the New York Times Opinion page with impassioned attacks and defenses. No, it’s not Barack Obama, Ron Paul, Hillary Clinton, Mike Huckabee, Jon Edwards, Rudy Giuliani, Dennis Kucinich, or Mitt Romney. It’s Ronald Reagan.

The crucial question of the day, if you’re reading the New York Times Opinion pages at least, is whether or not Ronald Reagan was making a veiled appeal to the Southern white electorate in his 1980 campaign.

The claim, made many times by columnists Paul Krugman and Bob Herbert, is that Reagan, by speaking about “state’s rights” when he visited the Neshoba County Fair outside of Philadelphia, Mississippi in 1980, was sending a conscious message to white racists that he was on their side. Because Philadelphia was famously the location of the murder of three civil rights activists in 1964, the choice of location was both an intentional and powerful message by the Gipper that, like Nixon and Goldwater before him, he wanted the vote of Southern white supremacists.

To Krugman especially, this is absolute proof that the Republican party was racist and is thus worthy of little more than disdain. It’s one of his central, and oft-mentioned problems with Republicans. It was mentioned at least three times in his recent book, The Conscience of a Liberal.

So it was hard to ignore when David Brooks, a rather conservative columnist at the Times, took issue with the claim. In last Friday’s column, “History and Calumny,” Brooks made his opinion completely clear, even as he obfuscated about who was really to blame.

Today, I’m going to write about a slur. It’s a distortion that’s been around for a while, but has spread like a weed over the past few months. It was concocted for partisan reasons: to flatter the prejudices of one side, to demonize the other and to simplify a complicated reality into a political nursery tale.

The distortion concerns a speech Ronald Reagan gave during the 1980 campaign in Philadelphia, Miss., which is where three civil rights workers had been murdered 16 years earlier. An increasing number of left-wing commentators assert that Reagan kicked off his 1980 presidential campaign with a states’ rights speech in Philadelphia to send a signal to white racists that he was on their side. The speech is taken as proof that the Republican majority was built on racism.

Brooks then goes on to explain — with no shortage of credible citations to emphasize his point — that the week after receiving the nomination, Mr. Reagan was actually trying to recruit black voters — mostly Democrats since the presidency of Franklin Roosevelt — to join the Republican movement. As Brooks says, “Reagan delivered a major address at the Urban League, visited Vernon Jordan [a black lawyer, activist, and adviser to President Clinton] in the hospital where he was recovering from gunshot wounds, toured the South Bronx and traveled to Chicago to meet with the editorial boards of Ebony and Jet magazines.”

As Timothy Noah made clear on Slate that same day, Brooks column was clearly about Krugman, though it (intentionally) failed to mention him by name. After reading Noah’s piece I thought the matter was rather finished. That is until I read Tuesday’s page, in which Bob Herbert renewed the claim with full force: Reagan was aware of and happy with his racist provocation in Mississippi. In Mr. Herbert’s words:

The murders were among the most notorious in American history. They constituted Neshoba County’s primary claim to fame when Reagan won the Republican Party’s nomination for president in 1980. The case was still a festering sore at that time. Some of the conspirators were still being protected by the local community. And white supremacy was still the order of the day.

That was the atmosphere and that was the place that Reagan chose as the first stop in his general election campaign. The campaign debuted at the Neshoba County Fair in front of a white and, at times, raucous crowd of perhaps 10,000, chanting: “We want Reagan! We want Reagan!”

Reagan was the first presidential candidate ever to appear at the fair, and he knew exactly what he was doing when he told that crowd, “I believe in states’ rights.”

Reagan apologists have every right to be ashamed of that appearance by their hero, but they have no right to change the meaning of it, which was unmistakable. Commentators have been trying of late to put this appearance by Reagan into a racially benign context.

That won’t wash. Reagan may have been blessed with a Hollywood smile and an avuncular delivery, but he was elbow deep in the same old race-baiting Southern strategy of Goldwater and Nixon.

Mr. Herbert, like Mr. Brooks, doesn’t explain that the primary “Reagan apologist” he’s concerned with is a fellow Times columnist.

Comparing the two columns, its undeniable that Brooks makes a more persuasive case about Reagan’s goal during the first week of his campaign. Mr. Herbert’s rebuttal completely ignores the strong and credible argument made by Kevin Drum (and cited by Mr. Brooks) at the left-of-center Washington Monthly that though Reagan’s history on racial issues is embarrassing — notable for his opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights act, his ignorance of South African apartheid, and his attempts to roll back the 1965 Voting Rights Act — this story is overblown.

Perhaps Mr. Reagan was a racist and a race-baiter, but I’m not sure why it’s worth debating in a newspaper. The obvious interpretation, as is so often the case in questions of history, is that the past is serving as a proxy for the present. By highlighting this story Krugman and Herbert intend to raise questions about racism in the modern Republican party. Brooks defense is an attempt to claim that race is a non-issue to the party and its backers.

But I just wish the New York Times Opinion page would stop using the 1980 Philadelpha Speech as a stand-in for legitimate questions of modern politics. Let’s honestly address an interesting and non-emotional question, like if “law-and-order conservatives,” who oppose anything but wholesale deportation for illegal immigrants, are really just racists. I’m sure that’s an issue we can all talk about in a relaxed and detached manner…

I’m not even sure where I first heard the term “Professional Human Beings,” but it’s an idea I can’t seem to shake. I often think that the world needs more Professional Human Beings.

But I should be clear: this is different than needing more “professionals.” Professional Human Beings are people who spend their time being the best people they can be; “professionals” usually spend their time being stiff and condescending.

Inherent in the meaning of being a professional is the idea that you get paid, primarily for your expertise and skill. So, for there to be Professional Human Beings, I suppose I would have to find a way to pay them. Pay them for being the best people they can.

Maybe it would come from my pocket, though that’s unlikely given my current finances. Perhaps it could be a charity soliciting donations, like the Red Cross. Perhaps we could find a single rich man to back it. Perhaps we’d have to just give Professional Human Beings metaphorical money.

But then maybe Professional Human Beings wouldn’t need to be it’s own foundation. In some ways, I think we could say that there are already very similar organizations. Winners of the Nobel Peace Prize are generally people I would consider for inclusion in my group, are they’re already paid — at least as the prize currently works — for making the world a better place (whether or not they’re fostering peace in a traditional sense).

More locally, many television channels, for example, reward “everyday heroes.” Though these people aren’t generally paid when honored, the nomination and ceremony probably provides nearly as much validation as any amount of money would.

There are also volunteers in the United States being compensated for their good works, thus made professional. The Peace Corps is perhaps the most famous example of this, but the newer Americorps is a more accurate approximation of what I think Professional Human Beings should be.

One of the hardest things about truly pursuing the Professional Human Beings idea is that it must, necessarily, make value and character judgments. This is fraught with issues. Is a chronic philanderer who does a great work combating poverty and disease worthy of being a Professional Human Being? Is someone who is always kind and friendly, but offers no material relief to the suffering worthy of the title? These are just the most superficial of the pitfalls that such an idea has to face down.

Though these are real difficulties, the Nobel committee shows that they can be balanced, at least for an annual prize. Even though their choices are not always venerated, especially Al Gore among American conservatives, there is general agreement that their selection is both fair and worthy of praise.

Perhaps the most unsatisfyingly vexing question is why it is necessary to create a reward for Professional Human Beings. In short, it shouldn’t be and isn’t. It shouldn’t be necessary because all people should be good people, doing good. It isn’t necessary because the people that would be likely to become paid members of Professional Human Beings would probably do what they’re doing without the incentive. But it is possible that a few people would change behavior based on the possibility of acclimation or financial reward.

I’d count it as unlikely that I or anyone else will ever create a mechanism to reward Professional Human Beings. But I still like the idea.

I’ve reviewed quite a few movies in the time I’ve been writing reviews here. I’ve also managed to talk about a few books, a few podcasts, a few web-only video projects. But all of that has been, to varying degrees, frustratingly pedestrian. So today, something truly unusual: a review of my time raking leaves yesterday afternoon.

For whatever reason, it seemed to be leaf day in the neighborhood yesterday. On arriving home from breakfast, the neighbors on both sides were using leaf blowers — a toy I neither have nor particularly want. While I was raking my leaves, someone two houses down got out his leaf vacuum and went to town with another toy I’m not sure I’d want.

There’s something elegant, not to mention green, about a rake. It’s not exactly the fastest way to move leaves or grass clippings, but it’s more peaceful. Something about using a motor to move leaves — either pushing or pulling them — feels wrong to me. And it makes the excercise a feel much more industrialized, something I’ve always thought yard work was supposed to be a buffer against.

Having said all that, I understand the appeal of powered lawn instruments. Using an unpowered lawnmower to cut tall grass is something few people would ever choose to do. It’s also something that — with riding mowers becoming common in even small yards — few people have ever done. And like that unpowered lawnmower, raking massive piles of leaves, and loading them into bags by the armful isn’t exactly easy work.

But even with the long work and the soreness in my out-of-shape body, I’m glad I used a rake. When the grayness of yesterday’s fall sky was broken by the sun, I noticed. I couldn’t not notice. And I noticed that the man with the leaf vacuum didn’t notice. Perhaps the difference was simply a matter of temperament, but I think it has at least a little something to do with that rake.

Were I without a yard, or a large quantity of leaves in need of removal, I’m not sure I’d much miss the act of raking. After all, the biggest advantage that it had when I was young — jumping into the large pile amassed — is hardly something I would think to do now. The number of leaves I would require for the task is certainly larger than the number the trees produce.

And I can’t avoid the constant nagging thought that raking leaves, like mowing grass, is an absolutely absurd thing to do. At least in this part of the country, we water and fertilize grass encouraging it to grow, and then chop off the part that has grown. So too do we rake up leaves, presumably for the health of the grass, when it’s rather likely that properly decomposed leaves would make rather good fertilizer for that grass.

Regardless, it is an experience I would certainly recommend for those with the time, energy, and desire. It’s not be the most fulfilling work in the world, but it may come close.

Believe it or not, there was a time and when the rich and greedy — let’s make them monocled as well — captains of industry had something grave to fear in these United States beyond the possibility that their indefensible tactics would be caught and stopped by government oversight. There was a time when the people, yes the people, could stand up to their employers and demand better working conditions, better pay, or better practices.

Before I go too far into a mythical and unrealistic vision of the unionized past, three key facts should be made explicit. First, this country was never well-unionized beyond a few enclaves — primarily the public sector and heavy industries. Second, to the extent that unions were ever powerful, they never reached high up the job ladder. And finally, unions never secured unlimited government support, tacit or explicit. Since the presidency of Franklin Roosevelt, no doubt the most supportive of all American presidents, laws have been making it ever more difficult to organize.

Overarching those facts is the most salient of all: ever fewer people belong to labor unions. Unions are small and getting smaller. The fracturing of that labor market, the departure of most heavy industry, and stricter organizing rules make the future look bleak.

The most powerful unions in this country are probably those least in need of organizing. The Writers Guild of America went on strike on Monday — but television and film writers are hardly the ideal of blue-collar workers that unions are usually associated with. Writers may not be the best paid workers in Hollywood, but they’re hardly scraping by month-to-month.

For blue-collar workers, the last time the once-powerful United Auto Worker’s struck, during negotiations with Chrysler, the strike lasted less than six hours. This isn’t because the privately-owned car company feared the losses that would come from a prolonged strike, but because it was absurd for them to have a strike while workers were asking for so little.

The causes of the weakness of organized labor in this country are both long-standing and new, international and extremely local. Perhaps most saliently in our history, unions struggle as “communistic” and thus immediately distasteful. They’re also no match for the growing and compartmentalized white-collar job market that seems to be this country’s future.

Further, few of the emerging industrial powerhouse — Brazil and China, but India, and perhaps Mexico as well — have well-organized labor movements. This allows costs there to be not only low for “first world” standards, but also low in comparison to what the workers would feel they deserve. The low cost of manufacturing elsewhere means that manufacturing unions, like the UAW, can’t ask for much because the workers they represent could be easily and cheaply replaced if they demand much.

All of this bodes poorly for labor unions in this country. And whether you fête or mourn the passing of organized labor, it’s hard to deny that it’s passing diminishes the say of average people in the economy. The primary way for people to make sure that a company doesn’t misbehave is increasingly being reduce to reliance on concerned “whistle-blowers” — who aren’t faring too well either — and government oversight. I, for one, am none too happy about that.

For those who don’t know, Ron Paul is a Republican candidate for president. His “netroots” are bigger and stronger than any other Republican candidate, perhaps stronger than any other candidate. Any positive story about Ron Paul that makes it to Digg or Reddit is almost certain to make the front page.

All of this begs the questions: Who is Ron Paul? And why are people supporting him?

In the shortest form, Ron Paul is a conservative libertarian, a former obstetrician, and a Congressman from the state of Texas. He’s the only Republican running against the war in Iraq and he’s for the abolition of about as much government as people want him to kill.

All of that’s interesting, and certainly rare among Republicans. But how did Ron Paul raise over $4 million in a single day — more than anyone but Hillary Clinton? After all, most count him as unlikely to get the Republican nod, his support is well under 10% in both the early primary states and across the nation. This turns on its side the notion that a candidate only gets money for being electable.

In seeing all of this, I can’t avoid the feeling that Ron Paul’s supporters like him mostly for what he’s not. His supporters seem to thrive on news of every “mainstream” slight of their candidate — most recently Fox New’s Sean Hannity has been fueling their ire. They also love to rail against the fact that when he wins after-debate polls, they’re regularly dismissed as hacked. Though such stories would seem to validate the idea that Paul is a non-electable non-entity, they actually energize his “netroots” and help him to raise ever more money.

So let’s make a short list of the things Ron Paul isn’t: (1) he’s not a “neoconservative” hawk — in fact his foreign policy is probably the most isolationist of any candidate; (2) he’s not a mainstream candidate — validated by the repeated stories of scorn; (3) he’s not a traditional Republican — he’s unaffiliated with and unsupported by the “Religious Right,” and doesn’t seem troubled by that; (4) he’s against the IRS and most other government entities — whether or not he’s for the FairTax, people like that he hates parts of the government as much as they do.

I can’t avoid the feeling that this list of the things Mr. Paul is not does more to empower his support and fund raising than anything he is. Nowhere do we see reasoned defenses of his isolationist foreign policy, or validation for the idea that the federal government should be made as small as possible. And his supporters seem to thrive on that very fact, they never seem to find it odd, or uncomfortable.

Ron Paul’s support seems to be both diffuse and uninformed. As just one example, Daniel Meissler who calls himself “a serious Ron Paul supporter” came to a shocking realization in September: “Ron Paul is Seriously Flawed as a Candidate: We’re Just So in Love with Him that We’re Not Paying Attention.” Though I’m tempted to say that the headline alone points to the fact that few supporters know much of what he stands for, a quick list of some of Mr. Meissler’s grievances:

1. He doesn’t believe in the separation of church and state
2. He’s not for federally funded public education (federally subsidized college loans)
3. He not for national health care
4. He would abolish consumer protections
5. He would abolish the EPA and other environmental safeguards
6. He would overturn Roe vs. Wade

All of these “flaws” are things that one would legitimately expect from a libertarian Republican, but Mr. Meissler (and many who commented on his post) were unaware. Seduced by what he was not, they had — and Mr. Meissler still does — supported him regardless of his positions.

In a country satisfied with neither its president nor its legislature, Ron Paul allows people something to turn to and support that is clearly not of the tradition of those institutions. He’s been adopted by the disillusioned and the distracted, satisfied by what he’s not, untroubled by what he is. The successes of his campaign are, to me, the perfect illustration of the independent voter’s malaise with modern American politics. But that hardly means he’d make a good president.