History Lesson 26/2/2020

To make the 1980s fit into our overall argument, we have to recognise that if there is some
regression not everything is lost, and if there is some overall loss, it doesn’t tale us back to Jim Crow.
It is a regression but not a complete collapse.

How far did the rise of neo-conservatism mark a turning point in the development of African
American civil rights.

Neo-conservatism, going back, conservative conception of the good society is rooted in a time gone
by and there is some sense in which they wish to return to the good old days. Sense of the way in
which politicians have tried to resolve social issues during the period from 1933-1976 have been
misguided. The era of the new deal, the fair deal (Truman) the great society (johnson) what we see
are a series of initiatives driven by the democrat party. They try to use the federal government and
federal initiaves te develop a burecracy to pass national laws which have the effect of bringing
America together as a nation and imposing more common, national standards. By the 1960s see the
introduction of national civil rights laws, national minimum standard of health care. Series of laws
that have in effect, extended new rights in relation to social and economic welfare. Neo-
conservatism puts emphasis that on the intervention of the federal government and federal agencies
to shape America is a massive social experiment at its most extreme social engineering to
homogenise America through the creation of too large federal beuaracy.

Emphasises the virtues and the importance of the local and states’ rights of diversity in terms of
states should govern their own decision making as oppose to federal beaurocrats.

Implicit idea of the recovery of greater local freedom. States’ rights advocates emphasised the
arbitrary nature of federal intervention and so come to see the federal government in much the
same way as the men of the revolutionary years saw the British government. It is invasive of
people’s freedoms.

The federal gov has done paradoxically for all sorts of high minded reasons has sought to do good,
the effect has been harmful and socially regressive and has given rise to certain social. Referred to
socialism has created something adverse. Link between growth of federal government and the
soviet union with a centrally strong and managed economy.

Neo-conservatism says reduce the size of government and to return to those social values and ethics
that once made America great, that refers to small government, individual responsibility and a free
market.

Release the natural engeries of a creative people and the result will be prosperity. Too large a
federal government thwarts enterprise and frustrtates the natural vitatility and inguinuity of the
American people.

Restoration of conservative values and evangelicalism and protestant evangelical church. Strong link
about religion and revitalising the American soul and restoring social values. Neo-conservatives
would see the 1960s as a period of scepticism, too great of an emphasis on science and the
liberation of society through science, the pill. Unnatural scientific development which is socially
detrimental undermines conservative values etc…

Days of rage – urban America ablaze,

Tend to see 1960s as a turning point, a positive turning point, high point of liberalism and by the
1960s is tsarting to deliver civil rights and one of the effects of extending civil rights is to trigger
frustration, and very often the most revolutionary moments they face are when they embrace
change.

You can see if you introduce a small amount of change, you rasie expectations and encourage people
to aspire to greater and if not, if they don’t immediately find these changes you see frustration.

At long last the American government was waking up to the fact that there were small changes
although these haven’t changed their lives theys till have to deal things on an everyday level,
actually those legal changes don’t correct all the social and economic discrimination and justice of
the last 300 years and there is a boiling over, summers of discontent throughout the 1960s are
characterised by urban unrest, riot, considerable degrees of violence and destruction.

Blank Panther movement. Americans have the right to bear arms, immediately as African-Americans
gets this right, the government closes down their rights. Only becomes an issue because the people
bearing guns are black.

1967 streets of Detroit, massive riot and urban disturbance in 1967 where ultimately the national
guard had to be called out to maintain order, reflected the growing disenchantment of African-
Americans, they were living in slum accommodations paying astronomical rents etc… denied all sorts
of work and tempers boiled over. Added to the issues of Vietnam.

This began to have an impact on white middle class reception.

The assassination of April 1968 MLK and then RFK, these assasinations are massive moments, figures
associated with civil rights being shot.

Kerner commission to explore what the state of America was and what the relations between
different groups were. By 1968, Lyndon Johnson ignored the Kerner Commission that said it was
moving to two different societies, white and black, what was more apparent was the perisistence
and prevalence of these two things. There were people in America in the 1960s who were
determined to preserve things as America was and preserve things as they knew. This development
was becoming more prevalent in northern America, amny of the conernes about affirmative action
and the civil rights commission, was being epressed by people in the north where segregation wasn’t
legal but had existed in a de facto sense. The de facto thing was threatened by civil rights
commission which created discontent with extending economic and social equality in the north was
socially uncomfortable at a time when the American economy was faltering, the ever expanding
cake that had made it easy to give people that hadn’t had things some more without any
consequences for the rest of the population.

Now as the cake is shrinking, the problem for whites is that means giving things up, if not for them
but for their children and that represents and erosion of their situation.

Look at the 1980s

George Wallace, in the 1968 election. 1962 governer of alabama, in many ways he is the foil at a
gubenatoiral level is a foil to the civilrights movement in alabama. The events in the 1960s

He made a speech in montgomerrry where he made it clear thate he would defend segregation. To
stand up as an out and out racist would impede your national appeal because these views are seen
as totally unacceptable in the North, apart from being a segregationist, he emphasiseses states’
rights which in a way defends segregation because leave it to the people of albama, don’t bring
national standards, disgusing what he really means that the federal gov is taking away right of white
people’s power. Clever, tacitical approach and he talks a great deal after 1965 about the need to
maintain individual freedom against the homogenising federal government.

Thwarting access to the university of alabama which had been granted by the federal gov for an
African-american student, symbolically putting himself in front of national gov forcing. Actually no
way he can stop it and has to give way, but he is very keen to show himself as a man of the white
community of alabama. He walks the walk and actively as a governor seeks to do, by 1964 with the
passage of the voting rights and civil rights act. One of the things he says as a Texan, makes a telling
comment, I’ve lost the south for a generation because he as a democrat has committed a betrayal
and has betrayed those who saw the democrat party as a defender of segregation and of jim crow.
That leaves the door open to those who are disenchanted and so in 1968, he stands as a 3rd
candidate in the election, amny disenchanted democrats who can never bring themselves to vote
republican, will vote George Wallace, and he picks up a lot of votes, picks up a lot of votes in north
eastern and north western states.

This is because say look at trade unions. They had developed in the United States, American
federation of labour and afl and cfo joing together in 1965, big union organisation and traditionally
had supported civil rights, walter wroyter, Specifically in automobile workers union. Unions
prevalent in big mass production industries they were largely white. And as a consequence, large
preserves of industry where preserved to white people and couldn’t get access to good jobs.

As a consequence of things like civil rights act these really good jobs are slowly opened up to African-
americans and can advance into and up the trade union ladder. Many white and blue collar workers
are very annoyed, taking their jobs, federal gov taking away the right of trade unions to run their
own affairs. Concerns not too different to those of George Wallace, changing society in a way that
was actually to the disadvantage of those worse off in society, acquires a popular appeal amongst
the small, ordinary people in America and that message resonates in the North, in places that were
deeply hostile to Jim Crow.

He’s taking away people that might have actually voted republican.

Richard Nixon’s campaign of 1968, had run against kennedy in 1960 and was back in campaigning
mode and sees an opportunity in 68, keving Philips the emerging republican majority, sees evidence
of this, southerners disaffected by democrats now prospective republicans and George Wallace is a
thorn in his side and so Nixon has to play pretty hard to win over the disaffected northerners and
southers. He emphasises the silent majority, lots of talk about rights, the Vietnam war and social
issues and in all of the political activism, the voice of the middle class silent majority have lost their
voice, he presents himself as standing for them who are the main stay of American society. He plays
to their cncern of law and order andhe empahsises the law and order party, and the other dimesion
of Vietnam (probably big issue), Nixon emphasising the importance of law and order pulling together
law and order and he wins the election. What does he do, Nixon is not a neo-conservative he is a
liberal conservative.

He does engage with the issue of civil rights, he is advised by Daniel Patrick moymhan is a legendary
figure who wrote a number of interesting books. The Negor family. Big issues that arise from family
issues, very controversial.

“The issue of race could benefit from a period of benign negelect” it would benefit from less profile,
so divisive and controversial in 1968 that it is not benefitting anyone with the amount of tension,
allow things to cool doen and tempers to subscide. Lets focus on other things, in that sense he wants
to difuse the issue of race. Undermine the democrat party and to somehow build up greater support
for the republicans and a more limited attitude for civil rights.

One of the causes for him, of the impoverished state of African-american community was the very
high rate of children who didn’t have a father at home. Much higher for African-americans than
other races. Not surprising that many African-american children are growing up with civil rights, they
have disorganised social rights and are more likely to fall into criminality.

Why are they poor etc…

Does this fit the trend yes, more extensive social and economic rights and yet family breakdown has
been harmed by that, is it that government intenvention is bad and harmful, spend more state
money giving child support to single mothers means you get more of them. Exacerbate family
breakdown, that is an interpretation that plays into that conservative reaction that comes in the
1980s.

The flaw is a verys triaght forward one, in a way his implication is that African-americans are the
authors of their own downfall, this is complete rubbish and the reason why you have a high
incidence of mothers at home on their own, is that African-americans are poor and have to travel to
work and this puts stresses on family life but it is not the consequence of them making bad decisions
it is the effect of the social and economic pressures that they are under and they are poorer than
other groups and so are more likely to experience this. The logic of the conservative argument is
self-spending.

It is the case that during these years 65-75 african-americans are in recitie of more help and yet at
the same time their situation in terms of family breakdown does worse, and yet it is actually because
the economy is going through a bad patch and the areas where they have been employed are going
badly. The car industry faces issues of the rising competition of german and Japanese cars that can
be produed cheapr and better.

American cars are very big, and use a lot of fuel and in the 70s the price of oil has shot through the
roof and so many American car manufacturers start to outsource start to outsource production to
other countries, in Detroit and Michigan there are fewer cars and so close plants and so
paradoxically African-americans have just broken into this work, and at just the moment that the
costs are risining to the point where it is less competitive and so they make the African-american
workforce unemployed and so there is growing poverty and the African-americans are
disproportuonaley affected.

Do these figures show that federal welfare produces social problems but it can be used for this
argument.

Like the sound of reducing welfare on African-americans.

As Nixon puts emphasis on amount of money going to welfare, he increases amount of affirmative
action in other ways. Black capitalism encourage African-americans to become big successes and lift
themselves out of poverty.

What will Nixon do to African-american communities through this – on the one hand seems to be
encouraging those who are successful to be more successful, has the effect of increasing class
division in the African-american communities. If you are an African-american and you want more
rights, you would vote democrat, who will bear the cost of his programme is the poor African-
american poor.

He can point out that it is possible.

Beningn neglect, kind of ignores many African-americans who are poor and in a more precarious
situation, a split in the community in terms of outcomes. Whilst he favours black capitalism. Many
small businessmen who are white will be quite angry about it, and so it does nothing to stop racism
but further entrenches it because it makes everything seem unfair and there is a sense of
resentment.

Nixon is a period of transition.

Launches the war on drugs. Drugs it could be perceived is an issue at that time. But it is really about
marginalising black people and creating categories that can be identified as subversive of the social
order and it can justify a more brutal law and order policy, it can be used to wipe out black panthers.
Manning marable, shows that in the early 1970s the black panthers are sytemactially targeted and
killed on a vast scale. The government was petrified of black panthers. Fred Hampton, killed by
police. Frankly just an assassination by the police.

When one looks at the work of the black panthers, no doubt that when look at membership (grown
from California to other urban members) no doubt number of them where involved in the murky
world of drugs hewey newton, however that shouldn’t surprise us, operating in poor and deprived
African-american communities, initially fashioned as self-defense who shadowed local poliemen, so
that there was someone watching the policie.

Also engaged in breakfast clubs and schools for those children who didn’t have enough to eat, the
purpose of which was to support the local community. Do we target people who run food banks,
dow e see them as socially subversive.

Boston and busing, residential segregation. W.Arthur Garrity ruled that the way in which education
as run in boston was unconsititional fundingidentified disparities and found that the system
breached the law and students from one district wanted a constituency that would favour equal
outcomes, but this produced massive blackslash because poor white districts where chosen to be
integrated, he lived in a district that wouldn’t be identified, but the poor white areas would be
bused, poor whites found the federal gov turning it into their own area.

Iuuse is traumatic and eventually people give up.

Regents vs Bakke case 1978 very important case regarding affirmative action.

He got better grades over an African-american who was preferred over him, got to supreme court,
provoked very important decision, up until 1978 quotas were lawful and it was ok to give additional
support to African-americans to gain accessto white institutions.

Move from quotas to race is a one factor that should be taken into account. Important piece of
contextual information that could no longer.

Many felt quotas should correct historic injustice.

In the aftermath of this case, the number of African-americans gaining access sharnk significantly
represented 15% of applicants but only 6% of the accepted disproportionaley affected.

Reagan opposed to 64 and 65 and affirmative action, quite reactionary and conservative. He
identified government as the problem not the solution

Reagan transformed the south into two party system with more republicans than democrats, the
change of fortunes is down to this man. Appealing to George Wallace supporters.

Chief Justice William Rehnquist, supreme court becoming more conservative. This guy believed that
Plessy vs ferguson was right. Interprets what constitution means.

Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas.

Robert Bork was a very conservative nominee and turned down by the senate. Teddy Kennedy
believed that a whole raft of legal judgments would be trashed by this man, deemed to be too
conservative, however there is a push to transform it.

Clarence Thomas replaces Thurgood Marshall, even though there is an attempt to maintain an
African-American presence there is a move away from the liberal dimensions

Also mass incarceration, the new jim crow michelle alexander.

The number of African-americans goes up way more sharply than whites and so are disproprtionaley
incarcerated, far more had a criminal recod than a college degree. This is falling victim to racially
motivated legislation. If you were convicted for selling cocaine then that was a misdemenour (white
middle class) if you are convicted for selling crack cocaine (disrporortionately used by poorer
African-americans) that is a felony and a prison sentene and at this time see the three strikes and
you are out, three felonies and become permanently incarcerated.

Actually unfair legislation.

Bush, Dukakis and Willie Horton, dog whistle in the election.

The assault on Rodney king and the los angeles riots of 1992

However, there is some correctives.

We aint’t what we ought to be steven tuck, writes about 1980s far more positively.

This isn’t the full picture.