Before Reagan, there was Nixon
By Eric Grunin
The vague sentiments of Reaganism translated into brutal policies that required putting certain groups back in their place. Blacks recognized this right away, and most women did soon enough. Ordinary white male working stiffs took a bit longer to see that they were targets, too. -- William Greider, 1982
Much of the post-election discussion has brought to mind the presidency of Ronald Reagan. His cabinet, like the current slate, was a rogues' gallery:
- Secretary of State Alexander Haig was all too eager to assert control after the attempted assassination of Reagan:
What he says here is simply wrong: he's not next in line after the VP. He later advocated firing a nuclear warning shot to intimidate the Soviet Union. He resigned soon afterwards. - Attorney General Edwin Meese resigned due to a government contract scandal.
- Secretary of Transportation Andrew L. Lewis Jr. destroyed the air traffic controllers union (PATCO).
- Interior Secretary James Watt was an anti-environmentalist, and was forced to resign after this hit the papers:
Interior Secretary James G. Watt, upset by a Senate vote barring him from leasing any more Federal land for coal mining, told a business group today that he was being advised on the issue by ''every kind of mixture you can have. I have a black, I have a woman, two Jews and a cripple.''
But we must go further back. Despite the evil of Reagan and his henchmen, there wasn't the same feeling of a country at war with itself. For that we have to go back further, to the Nixon era.
The divide was one which we would recognize today. Diverse college-educated urban crowds protesting, and white working-class suburbanites enraged at them, voting Nixon into office. Nixon's 'silent majority' is virtually the same demographic as that which put Trump into office.
(More context here, full text here, full speech here.)
As much as one tries to analyze this in terms of class struggle, it appears to be about culture. Start by looking at the city/country divide: the word civilization itself comes from civitas, 'city'. That is: those who rail against the liberal culture of the cities are rejecting civilization itself. Think back to the stereotypical Nixon supporter, railing against "the hippies." What did they hate about the hippies? For starters, they questioned militarism, gender norms, patriarchy, consumerism, and white supremacy. Yup, we've been here before.
What is to be done?
Historically, there are two strategies that work.
First, it's absolutely and annoyingly necessary to keep making noise. Protest everything. If nobody seems to care, move on to another topic. Even though most of your protests will go unnoticed, keep going! One of the problems you highlight will catch the public's attention, and you won't know which until it happens. Besides, public pressure is the only thing that will slow them down.
Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress. - Frederick Douglass, 1857
Second, watch for those in power to trip up. This administration in particular is rife with incompetents and fools, and the more they can be embarrassed, the more that must resign in disgrace, the slower they can move against us. If they won't resign, impeach them.
It has been asked: but wouldn't a President Pence be worse? No. Pence and his cohort are already in control, things will be no worse if the pretense is dropped. The difference is that a career politician like Pence, no matter how loathsome, is far less likely to get us all killed with a tweet.
Recent Comments