ShareThis Page
Reagan & blacks |

Reagan & blacks

| Tuesday, February 22, 2011 12:00 a.m

Ronald Reagan, who narrowly lost the Republican Party’s presidential nomination in 1976, realized that his party needed to broaden its base into a durable coalition that would help its members win and maintain office at the local, state and national levels. Speaking before a gathering of conservatives in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 15, 1977, just five days before Jimmy Carter took the oath of office, Reagan emphasized this point, stating:

“The New Republican party I envision is still going to be the party of Lincoln and that means we are going to have to come to grips with what I consider to be a major failing of the party: its failure to attract the majority of black voters.”

Throughout the late 1970s, Reagan continued to exhort fellow Republicans to face this problem, and he worked to win the black vote after he won his party’s presidential nomination in 1980. Speaking at the Urban League convention in New York on Aug. 5, 1980, he proclaimed, “I am committed to the protection and enforcement of the civil rights of black Americans. This commitment is interwoven into every phase of the programs I will propose.”

Two days earlier, Reagan had given a speech in Philadelphia, Miss., where civil-rights workers James Chaney, Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner had been murdered in 1964. His statement that “I believe in states’ rights” concerned Rev. Andrew Young, who said, “Code words like ‘states’ rights’ and symbolic places like Philadelphia, Miss., leave me cold.” Young asked, “Is Reagan saying that he intends to do everything he can to turn the clock back to the Mississippi justice of 1964?”

For decades, Reagan had discussed the tenets he considered to be fundamental to the constitutional functioning of the United States. Instead of using code words in his speeches, Reagan expressed his deeply held principles in straightforward language.

Did these words hurt him as he was attempting to extend his reach• Not with the majority of voters.

On Election Day 1980, Reagan outperformed Carter among most categories of U.S. citizens. He was backed by 26 percent of Democrats, 55 percent of independents and 86 percent of Republicans, and he was popular with many other categories of voters — except for nonwhites, who remained loyal to the incumbent. In 1976, 85 percent of nonwhites voted for Carter; in 1980, he won 86 percent of the nonwhite vote.

No Republican president or presidential candidate has successfully ascertained an effective way to extend the party’s reach to black voters. Discussing principles such as the rights of states outside of a larger political context has the sound of code language and does not broaden one’s base.

Reagan understood that fact and his fall 1980 campaign focused sharply on the economy and defense. Though it was too late to sway the black vote, Reagan was building upon his vision of a Republican party organized around conservative principles as a means of broadening the tent. It was a vision he talked about frequently as he assumed leadership of his party and the conservative movement in the late 1970s.

Reagan established the rhetorical base for a broader tent. It is time for the party to realize his vision.

Kiron K. Skinner is the co-author of “Reagan, in His Own Hand” and other books. She is on the advisory board of the George W. Bush Oral History Project, teaches international relations at Carnegie Mellon University and is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution.

Categories: News
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.