Op-Ed

OP-ED: No, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Didn’t Call Ronald Reagan a Racist. But She Should Have

SAN ANTONIO OBSERVER —

Published

6 years ago

March 15, 2019

One of my earliest memories in life was the night Ronald Reagan was elected president because it was also the night I prayed harder than I ever have in life.

During the presidential campaign of 1980, I distinctly remember being terrified after I heard an adult say: “If Reagan is elected, he will send black people back in the cotton fields.” So, on the night of the election, when I heard my grandmother and mother in the next room say that he had won, I got down on my knees.

I didn’t know how to pick cotton. Would I have to give up my dream of playing point guard for the Los Angeles Lakers and my future side hustle as a tambourine player in Earth Wind & Fire to get a cotton-picking degree in picking cotton? Why would I even need to go to kindergarten if I was doomed to a life on the plantation? I had already started my tambourine lessons! I needed to talk to Jesus about this.

While I now realize that my 6-year-old self couldn’t properly understand sarcasm, the memory underscores the feelings of most black people who survived the era of trickle-down economics, the War on Drugs and the demonization of the Welfare Queen. So imagine my surprise when I learned that there are white people who didn’t know that Ronald Reagan is considered by many to be the most racist president in modern, pre-Trump history.

According to Mediaite and the Caucasian Pearl-Clutching Weekly, Rep. Ronald Reagan (D-NY) was interviewed at the South by Southwest Festival on Saturday and made comments that really rankled some Republicans. Although I’ve never personally experienced a “rankling,” I imagined it is not pleasant.

Mediaite reports:

AOC was interviewed Saturday at the festival by The Intercept Senior Politics Editor Briahna Gray, and discussed Reagan’s political exploitation of race, without explicitly calling him a racist.

“One perfect example, I think a perfect example of how special interests and the powerful have pitted white working-class Americans against brown and black working-class Americans in order to just screw over all working class Americans,” Ocasio-Cortez said, “is Reaganism in the eighties, when he started talking about Welfare Queens.”

She said that Reagan presented a “resentful vision of essentially black women who were doing nothing, that were sucks on our country,” and that Reagan gave people who were “already subconsciously trained to resent” black women “a different reason that’s not explicit racism, but still rooted in a racist caricature, it gives people a logical, a quote ‘logical’ reason to say ‘oh yeah, I know, toss out the whole social safety net.”

White people love Ronald Reagan.

Ronald Reagan is a conservative icon even more beloved than white things like the Hallmark Channel, pumpkin patches or oversized American flags. Since 1988, Republicans have been searching for another populist GOP Messiah to return America to the glory days of unbridled capitalism and unabashed whiteness. So conservatives and right-leaning moderates were stunned to hear that not everyone has the same regard for the former champion of white fear mongering. But Ocasio-Cortez’s comments were common knowledge to others.

I was flabbergasted to learn that white America had no idea that people felt this way about Reagan. In the 1980 election, Reagan garnered 14 percent of the black vote, according to the Roper Center. But after four years of Reagan, only 9 percent of black voters cast a ballot for Reagan in the 1984 presidential race. Even more telling, in his second bid for office, 66 percent of whites voted for the Gipper. Since the passage of the Voting Rights Act, no president has won an election with a bigger gap between black and white voters.

And while many people wrongly assume that Ocasio-Cortez called Reagan “a racist,” what she really said was that his policies exploited racism, similar to our current White House Grand Dragon. Any examination of Reagan’s presidency reveals one thing to be true.

Ronald Reagan was the white man’s president.

Ronald Reagan is one of the first candidates who employed racial dog whistles to practice “identity politics.”

During his first try at the Republican nomination in 1976, he tried to vanquish then-President Gerald Ford by voicing his opposition to the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act and the Fair Housing Act. Coretta Scott King said she was “scared that if Ronald Reagan gets into office, we are going to see more of the Ku Klux Klan and a resurgence of the Nazi Party.”

In 1980, Reagan kicked off his campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi, at the Neshoba County Fair, where local Klansmen were still being protected after the white supremacist, Mississippi Burning murders of civil rights workers in 1964.Political candidates had avoided the area for years before Reagan kicked off his campaign to a raucous crowd of 10,000 white people listening to him champion “states rights.”

During Reagan’s presidency, he vetoed an anti-Apartheid bill and initially opposed making Martin Luther King Jr.’s birthday a federal holiday. His stances against affirmative action grew stronger, leading him to direct his justice department to issue directives against hiring practices in 56 states, counties and cities.

In fact, Justin Gomer and Christopher Petrella of the Washington Post credits Reagan with inventing the Republican narrative that affirmative action equals reverse racism, writing:

More than any other modern U.S. president, it was Ronald Reagan who cultivated the concept of so-called reverse discrimination, which emerged in the 1970s as a backlash against affirmative action in public schooling as court-ordered busing grew throughout the country. During these years, a growing number of white Americans came to believe civil rights programs and policies had outstretched their original intent and had turned whites into the victims of racial discrimination.

His other strategies for dismantling civil rights protections were much more nefarious. He loaded federal courts with judges who were hostile to civil rights laws. Before he was nominated to the Supreme Court, staunch conservative Clarence Thomas was in charge of the Justice Department’s Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. And while many assume it was her position on Roe v. Wade that earned Sandra Day O’Connor a nomination from Reagan to the Supreme Court, many forget how she played the “lead role in decisions that undid certain affirmative action policies and the cold treatment she generally gave plaintiffs of color who alleged discrimination.”

Reagan’s trickle-down economics disproportionately affected people of color, causing the biggest disparity in black and white unemployment since the repeal of segregation. After 1963, the number of children who experienced segregation in American schools decreased dramatically until the Reagan administration’s opposition to busing brought the downward trend to a standstill. In 1976, Reagan created the idea of the “welfare queen”—stoking the idea that “strapping young bucks” were somehow using government assistance to buy T-Bone steaks and Cadillacs. To this very day, the GOP perpetuates this racist, dog-whistle trope to demonize immigrants and minorities as bloodsucking parasites living off government handouts even though these programs benefit poor whites the most.

But nowhere was Reagan’s anti-black policies more evident than in his continuation of the War on Drugs. He began his “zero tolerance” drug initiative by demonizing the epidemic of crack cocaine as an inner-city problem while the data showed that whites used it more. When his administration implemented the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, he established mandatory minimums for crack cocaine that were much harsher than the penalties for powder cocaine.

According to the Drug Policy Alliance, when Ronald Reagan took office, there were 50,000 people incarcerated for nonviolent drug offenses. By 1997, 400,000 people were imprisoned for nonviolent narcotics crimes, largely because of Reagan-era mandatory minimums. But it wasn’t whites who were being sent to jail. Despite the fact that whites and blacks used illegal drugs at about the same rate during the Reagan era, the percentage of black people arrested for illicit drugs increased dramatically while the white arrest rate stayed relatively flat.

Photo: TheRoot

The furor over Ocasio-Cortez’s comments reveals the way white America mistakenly defines racism. To them, racism exists in heads and hearts alone, not in deeds. It is the notion that fuels bigots to adamantly declare that they can’t be racist because they know what’s in their hearts. It causes congressman to defend Donald Trump’s racism by parading one of his lone black employees out while ignoring his actions.

It might be true that Ronald Reagan didn’t have a speck of animus toward black people. Maybe some of his best friends were black. Even though it is impossible to know how Reagan felt about black people in his heart, it is also irrelevant.

Ronald Reagan’s heart didn’t explode the black prison population. His heart didn’t cause an explosion in wealth inequality, dismantle civil rights, demonize black people, infuse racism into politics, widen the black unemployment gap or perpetuate economic, social and political disparities at every turn.

His policies did that.

So, even though Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez didn’t call GOP Jesus a racist, maybe she should have. Because, if Ronald Reagan’s presidency wasn’t racist, then racism does not exist. At this very moment, black communities across America are still recovering from the Reagan era.

But at least I still have these cotton-picking tambourine skills.

This article originally appeared in The San Antonio Observer.

By Michael Harriot

Posts by By Michael Harriot

Up Next

COMMENTARY: Jobs Report Shows What ‘African Americans Have to Lose’ Under Trump

Don't Miss

With confidence and ‘courage,’ Tami Sawyer declares candidacy for Memphis mayor

By Michael Harriot

Click to comment

Commentary

Harris Dominates First Presidential Debate as Trump Struggles to Defend Record

NNPA NEWSWIRE — Vice President Kamala Harris positioned herself as a problem-solver, taking on issues like housing, childcare, and the economy. In her opening statement, she outlined her “opportunity economy” plan, which focuses on bolstering the middle class. “I was raised as a middle-class kid, and I am actually the only person on this stage who has a plan that is about lifting up the middle class and working people of America,” Harris said. She detailed a $6,000 child tax credit as part of her plan to support young families.

Published

6 days ago

October 2, 2024

Oakland Post

Former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris during their first presidential debate Philadelphia on Tuesday night. Photo: Screen capture from ABC News feed of the debate.

By Stacy M. Brown, NNPA Newswire Senior National Correspondent

Vice President Kamala Harris decisively took control of the first presidential debate against former President Donald Trump in Philadelphia on Tuesday night, delivering a performance that put Trump on the defensive for much of the evening. Moderators David Muir and Linsey Davis of ABC News kept a tight handle on the debate, significantly improving from CNN’s June handling of Trump and President Joe Biden.

The debate began with a surprise as Harris approached Trump to shake his hand and introduced herself as “Kamala Harris,” an unusual move that set the tone for the night. Trump’s trademark scowl stayed in place throughout the debate, as Harris pressed him on his legal woes and diminished his record. Displaying her prosecutorial skills, Harris consistently turned the conversation toward Trump’s convictions, his business fraud case, and his role in the January 6 insurrection.

Harris positioned herself as a problem-solver, taking on issues like housing, childcare, and the economy. In her opening statement, she outlined her “opportunity economy” plan, which focuses on bolstering the middle class.

“I was raised as a middle-class kid, and I am actually the only person on this stage who has a plan that is about lifting up the middle class and working people of America,” Harris said. She detailed a $6,000 child tax credit as part of her plan to support young families.

Trump, by contrast, criticized the Biden-Harris economy, calling it “the worst period of time” he had seen. He defended his tariff policies and took aim at Harris, labeling her a “Marxist” while also accusing her of copying his economic policies. “I was going to send her a MAGA hat,” Trump quipped.

Abortion rights were another major focus of the night. Trump, when asked if he would veto a federal abortion ban, declined to answer directly, stating, “I won’t have to,” and arguing that the end of Roe v. Wade had satisfied everyone. Harris, in turn, vowed to restore Roe’s protections through federal legislation if elected.

“I pledge to you: when Congress passes a bill to put back in place the protections of Roe v. Wade as President of the United States, I will proudly sign it into law,” she said.

As the debate went on, Trump repeated several conspiracy theories, including a claim that migrants were eating pets in U.S. cities, which Muir quickly fact-checked. Trump doubled down, citing “people on television” as his source. Harris largely let Trump’s more outlandish statements pass, opting to stay on policy while allowing the moderators to address his factually inaccurate remarks.

In one of the most heated moments, Harris invited viewers to attend a Trump rally for themselves, commenting, “He talks about fictional characters like Hannibal Lecter and windmills causing cancer. You’ll notice people start leaving his rallies early—out of exhaustion and boredom.”

Trump, visibly irritated, retorted that he holds “the most incredible rallies in the history of politics,” but the debate soon returned to more substantive issues like crime and inflation.

The night clearly contrasted Biden’s earlier debate with Trump, as Harris managed to keep Trump on the defensive. Trump continued to fixate on conspiracy theories and past grievances, while Harris stayed focused on presenting her vision for the future.

With fewer than 60 days until the election, the debate sets the tone for what will likely be a hard-fought campaign. As the debate ended, Harris closed with a message to the American people: “This is about who we are as a country. The choice is clear—between chaos and leadership, fear and hope.”

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Commentary

Opinion: In First Presidential Debate, Harris Exposes Trump’s Inadequacies

She’s still calling herself the underdog, but the biracial woman from Oakland, half Black and half Asian American, just changed the race for the presidency of the United States. If you ever doubted Kamala Harris’ ability to be our nation’s leader, everyone who watched Tuesday’s debate saw how fully capable she is of the job. She belongs in the White House.

Published

6 days ago

October 2, 2024

Oakland Post

Screenshot from Presidential Debate.

By Emil Guillermo

She’s still calling herself the underdog, but the biracial woman from Oakland, half Black and half Asian American, just changed the race for the presidency of the United States.

If you ever doubted Kamala Harris’ ability to be our nation’s leader, everyone who watched Tuesday’s debate saw how fully capable she is of the job.

She belongs in the White House.

Harris not only bested Donald Trump in arguing the facts; she showed how totally inadequate Trump is to again be our country’s Commander-in-Chief.

Harris deftly made her case on issue after issue, while baiting and manipulating Trump on the economy, on abortion, and on immigration.

Imagine how Putin and other world leaders play Trump. Harris exposed Trump for all to see. It wasn’t exactly an “emperor has no clothes” moment. It was more like “the twice impeached, convicted felon on 34 counts” has no business running for president. Trump is unfit mentally for the job, if not unfit morally.

It must have been a disappointment for deep MAGA to see their candidate so incapable of holding his own against Harris. At one point, she had him defending the crowd size at his rallies after she said people were leaving because he was boring.

And then instead of real policies that impact our lives, the former president spoke passionately about… his crowd size.

When that happened, I think everyone could see: Harris ate his lunch.

Going into the debate, the consensus in this tight race was that it was a virtual tie with Trump one point ahead.

But after their first meeting ever in a head-to-head-match up, CNN’s instant poll showed Harris winning the debate well beyond any margin of error, 63 percent to 37 percent.

There’s more distance between the two than previously understood. The debate exposed that.

TRUMP’S LIES

At the beginning of the week, I said the only way Trump could win the debate was if he “played nice.”

But the bully just couldn’t do it.

Acting presidential was just one lie Trump couldn’t pull off in another debate night mired in Trump lies.

Did his administration really do “a phenomenal job in the pandemic” when over a million Americans are dead? Is Kamala Harris “a Marxist and everybody knows it”? And what about those cat-eating immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, where every local official confirmed to news organizations that the story was false. There was even a lie on that Trump lie, when the former president said the immigrants were eating cats AND dogs. No, it’s just one lie. Just cats is enough.

And all that was just a fraction of the lies Trump told in the 90-minute debate.

Still, even with all that, I wouldn’t say Kamala Harris “whooped” Donald Trump.

It was more like general domination.

In fact, she had him at “Kamala Harris.”

When Trump seemed to dismiss the possibility of an opening handshake, Harris forced the issue. She walked toward Trump’s podium, reached out her hand, and introduced herself by name.

That gesture put Trump on the defensive all night.

About the Author

Emil Guillermo is a journalist and commentator. See his micro talkshow on YouTube.com/@emilamok1

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Activism

Access Better Health with Medically Tailored Meals – Transforming Health Through Nutrition for Medi-Cal Patients

Medically Tailored Meals are one of 14 new services offered through Medi-Cal that provide members with access to new and improved services to get well-rounded care that goes beyond the doctor’s office or hospital.

Published

3 weeks ago

September 19, 2024

Oakland Post

Stock Photo

Advertorial

Launched in 2018, the Medically Tailored Meals pilot program was designed to help Medi-Cal patients with congestive heart failure by reducing hospital readmissions and emergency department visits by providing tailored meals meeting specific dietary needs.

The program’s success in improving health outcomes and reducing costly emergency room visits encouraged the Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) to expand the Medically Tailored Meals program to all 58 counties through Medi-Cal transformation and a new set of services called Community Supports.

Medically Tailored Meals: Overview

Malnutrition and poor nutrition can lead to severe health outcomes, especially among Medi-Cal patients with chronic health conditions. Medically Tailored Meals aim to improve health outcomes, reduce hospital readmissions, and enhance patient satisfaction by providing essential nutrition.

Key Features:

Post-Discharge Delivery: Meals are delivered to patients’ homes immediately following discharge from a hospital or nursing home.
Customized Nutrition: Meals are tailored to meet the dietary needs of those with chronic diseases, designed by registered dietitians (RD) or certified nutrition professionals based on evidence-based guidelines.
Comprehensive Services: Includes medically tailored groceries, healthy food vouchers, and food pharmacies.
Educational Support: Behavioral, cooking, and nutrition education is included when paired with direct food assistance.

Key Benefits:

Address Food Insecurity: Mitigates poor health outcomes linked to food insecurity.
Support Complex Care Needs: Tailored to individuals with chronic conditions.
Improve Health Outcomes: Studies show improvements in diabetes control, fall prevention, and medication adherence.

Patient Testimonial:

“My diabetes has gotten better with the meals. I’ve kept my weight down, and I feel much better now than I have in a long time. I’m one of the people this program is meant for.” — Brett

Eligibility:

Eligible Populations: Eligible Medi-Cal members include those with chronic conditions like diabetes, cardiovascular disorders, congestive heart failure, stroke, chronic lung disorders, HIV, cancer, gestational diabetes, and chronic mental or behavioral health disorders. Also, those being discharged from a hospital or skilled nursing facility or at high risk of hospitalization or nursing facility placement are also eligible.

Service Limitations: Up to two meals per day for up to 12 weeks, extendable if medically necessary. Meals eligible for reimbursement by alternate programs are not covered.

Cost Savings and Improved Health Outcomes:

Health Outcomes: Research indicates a 22% to 58% decrease in emergency department visits and a 27% to 63% decrease in inpatient admissions among Medically Tailored Meals recipients, translating to significant health care cost savings.

Project Open Hand: A Success Story

Project Open Hand has been a leader in providing Medically Tailored Meals, significantly impacting the lives of Bay Area Medi-Cal patients with chronic illnesses. Since its inception, Project Open Hand has delivered nutritious meals to individuals with diabetes, HIV, and other serious health conditions, demonstrating remarkable health improvements and cost savings.

Key Achievements:

Improved Health Outcomes: Project Open Hand’s research found a 50% increase in medication adherence among recipients of Medically Tailored Meals.
Reduced Hospitalizations: Their program showed a 63% reduction in hospitalizations for patients with diabetes and HIV.
Enhanced Quality of Life: Patients reported better health and increased energy levels.

Project Open Hand ensures that each meal is prepared using fresh, wholesome ingredients tailored to meet the specific dietary needs of its clients. By partnering with Medi-Cal managed care plans, Project Open Hand continues to provide life-saving nutrition to those who need it most.

Join Us in Our Mission

You can experience the profound impact of Medically Tailored Meals by joining the Medi-Cal Community Supports services initiative. Your involvement can make a difference in promoting your health through nutrition.

Learn More

For more information about Medically Tailored Meals and how to get involved, call the state’s Medi-Cal Health Care options at 800-430-4263 or contact your local managed care plan.

In Alameda County, Medi-Cal recipients can contact:

Alameda Alliance for Health: 510-747-4567
Kaiser Permanente: 855-839-7613
In Contra Costa County, Medi-Cal recipients can contact:
* Contra Costa Health Plan: 877-661-6230
Kaiser Permanente: 855-839-7613

In Marin County, Medi-Cal recipients can contact:

Partnership Health Plan of California: 800-863-4155
* Kaiser Permanente: 855-839-7613

In Solano County, Medi-Cal recipients can contact:

* Partnership Health Plan of California: 800-863-4155
Kaiser Permanente: 855-839-7613

Your health and well-being are your health care provider’s top priority. Medically Tailored Meals are designed to enhance quality of life by advancing health care through the power of nutrition. Experience the benefits today and take the first step toward a healthier you.