Posts tagged "Ronald Reagan"

h/t: Sahil Kapur at TPM

In a desperate attempt to make himself look presidential, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R-WI) is claiming that Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War by busting U.S. unions.

According to the Washington Examiner, Gov. Walker said:

When Ronald Reagan took that action against the air traffic controllers, that in my mind was the beginning of the end of the Cold War. And the reason was, from that point forward nobody doubted how serious Ronald Reagan would be as president. Our allies knew that they could trust him, that he was rock solid. Our adversaries knew not to mess with him. And even though he presided over an incredible buildup in our nation’s national defense, in our military, we had very few, very limited military engagements during his eight years as president.

To me, if you have a strong America led by a strong president who makes serious statements about what they mean not only on national security and foreign policy, but on all other issues, we’re not going to be faced with many of these situations because people will know if they’re allies we can be counted on and if they’re adversaries not to mess with us. And when we have an America where … Prime Minister Netanyahu was in the White House getting the cold shoulder from the president who still can’t figure out exactly where they stand on Israel, and when you have… a red line in discussions about Syria which apparently (he) was never serious about doing anything about, no wonder, whether you were in Iran or Russia, or anywhere else around the world, no wonder people feel certain comfort taking action because they don’t see this administration as willing to act. I’m not necessarily encouraging that we draw red lines all over the place. My sense is just, you shouldn’t point a gun at somebody if you’re not prepared to shoot.

Gov. Walker (R-WI) envisions himself as a 2016 Republicans presidential candidate, and he thinks that he is ready to lead the free world, because he too, busts unions. Walker’s retelling of the Reagan myth is so far off base that it is absurd.

The Soviet Union did not watch Ronald Reagan bust the air traffic controllers union, and then decide to call it a day. Scott Walker has taken two unrelated events, lumped them together, and drawn a laughably illogical conclusion. As with all Republican presidential nominating contests real issues don’t matter. The whole process is nothing more than a showcase of who can talk the toughest.

Republicans love tough talk. They are addicted to it, but Scott Walker’s problem is that he has no foreign policy experience. In order to make himself look like a viable national contender in 2016, Walker had to invent the myth that Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War by busting American unions.

His argument was illogical, ridiculous, and it made no sense. It also perfectly sums up the crackpot conservatism that Scott Walker is using to destroy Wisconsin, while plotting a 2016 run for the White House.

Hopefully the citizens of Wisconsin boot out Koch Brothers/ALEC/union-busting toady and renegade corrupt thug Scott Walker in November. And his reign as President— if elected in 2016— will destroy our nation worse than Bush 43/Reagan ever did. 

h/t: Jason Easley at PoliticusUSA

stinkyjr:

Truth…

Wisconsin Republican Gov. Scott Walker is claiming that he voted for Ronald Reagan, but this is impossible because Walker wasn’t old enough to vote in 1980 or 1984.

During an interview with Right Wing News, Walker said:

It was, I mean, it’s so frustrating. I mean, you think in modern American history we’ve never had someone running for re-election with an unemployment rate so high that ultimately won the election. I believe Mitt Romney is a good man. I think he would have been a good president, but I think he was mis-served by many in his campaign, many of whom believed, I think incorrectly, that Ronald Reagan won under similar circumstances almost exclusively on the idea that the question was making the election an referendum on Jimmy Carter. In fact, I quote the famous line that Reagan used, “You’re better off today than you were four years ago.” The problem is the Romney camp thought that was the entire focus of the campaign.

They failed to see that Reagan’s campaign…… that statement was the closing argument in one of the last debates. It was a way of wrapping things together, but his campaign was much more than just being against Jimmy Carter. It was much more aspirational and Americans could see — and to this day 33 years later — you can still look back and say that and vote for Ronald Reagan. I remember, I was a teenager, had just become a teenager and voted for Ronald Reagan — limited government, you know, smaller government, lower taxes, strong national defense. You knew what you were getting. You knew how a Reagan administration, a Reagan presidency was going to be better for you.

The problem is that Scott Walker was 13 years old in 1980, and 17 years old in 1984. The legal voting age is 18. There is no way that Scott Walker could have legally voted for Ronald Reagan unless he committed voter fraud. This is another example of why Scott Walker could be a formidable 2016 candidate for the Republican presidential nomination. The man will lie about anything. He has no conscience when it comes to lying.

Walker has taken the strategy that every Republican candidate uses of selling themselves as the next Reagan to a whole new level. He has invented a fictional connection between himself and Ronald Reagan. Scott Walker isn’t the heir apparent to Ronald Reagan. His ability to lie, and bland personality, puts him right in line with Mitt Romney. The difference is that Walker has the credibility with the far right that Romney always lacked.

h/t: Jason Easley at PoliticusUSA

After Robin Roberts of Good Morning America came out of the closet, it was only a matter of time before Americans For Truth About Homosexuality head Peter LaBarbera attacked her for being gay. In an interview with Vic Eliason of VCY America yesterday, LaBarbera blasted Roberts for her “defiance” and lamented that “every coming out is a tragedy.”

“And how sad that our First Lady and the White House in general and President Obama as well, all celebrate homosexuality,” LaBarbera added.

Eliason also seemed to be confused by Roberts’ gender. 

Later in the interview, LaBarbera invoked Ronald Reagan’s “evil empire” speech to explain his campaign against gay rights.

“The homosexual so-called marriage movement is evil,” LaBarbera said. “We need to do what Reagan did with communism, we need to come right out there and say: this movement attaching the God-ordained good of marriage to an abomination which is homosexuality, calling that marriage, that’s evil, it’s an evil movement.” He went on to claim that “the homosexual so-called marriage movement has become a huge platform to corrupt children” as its message “corrupts the minds and the souls of young children.”

Later, the two also railed against the transgender community as Satanic, and Eliason likened transgender people to circus “freak shows”.

From the 01.02.2014 edition of VCY America’s Crosstalk:

h/t: Brian Tashman at RWW

Calling the delegation “nursery school stuff,” Beck declared that Putin “eats people like you for breakfast” and asserted that the entire nation of Russia is “mocking you and laughing at us.”

Instead, Beck suggested that Obama should show up unannounced at the opening ceremony and enter flanked by two gay athletes, because that would send a message!

But, on the bright side, Beck said that Obama’s feckless weakness is making Americans ready for a strong, decisive leader like Ronald Regan again … one who just might happen to be named Ted Cruz.

 

Ted Cruz may be Ronald Reagan,” Beck said. "He may be our Ronald Reagan because that guy does not take prisoners. That guy is a thousand times smarter than 99% of the politicians I have ever met - and many of them combined. Really smart. Plays for keeps. Knows what’s true. Is clean, is ethical.  I mean, that guy might be Ronald Reagan."

From the 12.18.2013 edition of TheBlaze Radio Networks’ Glenn Beck Radio Program:

Ted Cruz would be the worst president this country’s ever (worse than Dumbya AND Reagan combined) had if he gets elected to the White House. 

h/t: RWW

Pat Buchanan helped craft Ronald Reagan’s strong stance against sanctions on South Africa’s apartheid regime, and in a column today questions former Secretary of State James Baker’s claim that Reagan regretted his veto of sanctions legislation.

Buchanan writes that he “never heard a word of regret” from Reagan and “nor should there have been any,” since Reagan’s opposition to sanctions was “both courageous and correct.”

“Reagan was determined to block Moscow’s drive to the Cape of Good Hope. And in that struggle State President P. W. Botha was an ally,” Buchanan writes of the apartheid leader.

h/t: Brian Tashman at RWW

As the movement for public and private divestment from apartheid South Africa grew throughout the United States in the 1980s, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) aggressively mobilized against South African divestment, stymying state and federal efforts to sanction, isolate, and divest from the Pretorian regime, according to documents newly uncovered by People For the American Way and the Center For Media and Democracy.

ALEC used state and federal policy papers, monthly newsletters, “fact-finding” missions, panel discussions led by lobbyists on the payroll of the South African apartheid regime, and other means to pursue an anti-divestment agenda, one that relied solely on “corporate beneficence” to pressure the country to reform. This effort, in turn, was funded by corporations that were heavily invested in South Africa and had the most to lose from divestment.

In 1984, ALEC described itself as the “nation’s oldest and largest individual membership organization of state legislators and Members of Congress, with over 2,000 members.” ALEC’s reach and access to policymakers was then, just as it is now, formidable.

ALEC used this access to lobby state legislators and even key members of the Reagan administration to stand against divestment, playing a key role in delaying meaningful U.S. action to pressure the apartheid regime.

The Serious Threat of Social Investing

In 1984, ALEC held a “Celebrity Golf Tournament” at its annual meeting in San Diego. The tournament’s champion, a financial services company representative, won a silver tea set donated by the Zale Corporation, a diamond retailer with operations in South Africa. For hitting the longest drive, state senator John Donley of Colorado received a go-cart replica of an Indianapolis 500 race car donated by Texaco, Inc., an oil company with operations in South Africa. ALEC’s annual fundraising report that year featured aphoto of a state representative from Missouri standing alongside then-ALEC executive director Kathleen Teague as they admired these prizes. “ALEC,” the report noted, “serves as a liaison between lawmakers and the business community.”

Protecting corporate interests was (as it still is) ALEC’s raison d’etre, and corporate interests were severely threatened by the South African divestment movement. Large American corporations including Exxon, the Dow Chemical Company, IBM, and Pfizer Inc. held substantial, high-yielding assets in South Africa. All of these were members of the American Legislative Exchange Council.

By 1985, the United States was South Africa’s largest trading partner and the source of one-third of the country’s international credit. American corporations controlled roughly 50 percent of South Africa’s oil industry; 75 percent of its computer industry; and 23 percent of its auto industry. U.S. investors held approximately $8 billion in shares in South African mining industries. The divestment movement directly threatened the bottom lines of many major ALEC corporations.

Yet, as ALEC made clear in its literature at the time, the divestment movement indirectly threatened much more than just profits made from South Africa. The possibility of “social investing” taking off in the United States threatened profit margins of corporations across the world. “The underlying problem is the strategy itself,” ALEC posited in a 1983 policy paper. “Although South Africa is the initial target it is not likely to be the last… If successful on the South African issue, these activists can be expected to broaden their disinvestment strategy. And, it will be increasingly difficult to contain because a precedent for it will have been established by state law.”

With so much on the line, ALEC and ALEC corporations knew they had to act swiftly to squash divestment efforts.

ALEC and the Reagan White House

In 1983, ALEC distributed a “legislative update” to its members and coalition partners titled, “The States and South Africa: A Study of the Disinvestment Issue.” The 16-page memorandum was published on ALEC letterhead and edited by J. Daniel Bray, the director of ALEC’s research department – a department that, according to ALEC fundraising literature from 1982, “strive[d] to facilitate the exchange of information and greater cooperation between the private sector and state government.”

ALEC distributed the memorandum to key members of the Reagan administration, with astounding results. In an article published in ALEC’s monthly newsletter in January 1984, the organization boasted of the impact the memorandum had on administration policy, writing “Since the publication of … ‘The States and South Africa: A Study of the Disinvestment Issue,’ several prominent leaders and groups, including the U.S. Department of State, the Department of Agriculture, the United States Trade Representative, and the Secretary of Commerce have gone on record against divestiture.”

ALEC had good reason to assume that it had directly influenced Reagan administration policy on divestment: Both U.S. Trade Representative William E. Brock and U.S. Secretary of Commerce Malcolm Baldridge wrote personal letters to ALEC’s executive director, Kathleen Teague, to assure her of their opposition to divestment.  Baldridge’s letter directly referenced ALEC’s white paper:

We urge American firms doing business there to improve their obligation to social responsibility. Without mandating that they must do so, we will continue to encourage U.S. companies to voluntarily adhere to the Sullivan principles, which are committed to equal pay in employment practices, non-segregation of work facilities, and the training and promotion of blacks. Your Legislation Update does an excellent job of highlighting the accomplishments of U.S. firms in promoting real social change in South Africa. I hope that State and local legislators carefully consider these accomplishments.[emphasis added]

ALEC’s ties to the Reagan administration ran deep. Every year for the first six years of his presidency, Reagan addressed ALEC’s annual “Washington Briefing,” which brought state legislators to Washington to discuss White House initiatives and “solicit their active support back home.” In the words of one White House official, the process helped identify “a cadre of effective spokesmen for the president’s policies.”

ALEC demanded reciprocation for such access to state lawmakers. A 1986 White House memo discussed ALEC’s request that the Reagan administration hold “some sort of ‘event’ for the top players in each state” working against South African divestment because “ALEC believes some sort of ‘reward’ or recognition would be useful” in keeping up morale for anti-divestment efforts.

Yet even the Reagan administration, which staunchly opposed divestment throughout the ‘80s, was viewed by many in ALEC to have “sold out” when Reagan issued a toothless executive order in 1985 prohibiting certain trade with South Africa.

ALEC and the States

As a state-based organization, ALEC was also tremendously effective at pushing anti-divestment policies at the state legislative level. In the previously mentioned 1986 White House memo, an administration official confirmed that “ALEC is providing most of the intellectual firepower to those state legislators fighting disinvestment petitions.”

One way ALEC provided this “firepower” was by hosting training sessions for ALEC lawmakers led by industry insiders. At its 1983 annual meeting in Philadelphia, ALEC offered a “legislative working session” led by a Mobil Oil Corporation lobbyist and the director of a South African business association whom a South African business magazine later named “the most effective foreign lobbyist in Washington.”

In 1986, ALEC held an “issue workshop” at its annual meeting in Denver titled, “The South African Divestment Movement: 1986 and Beyond.” The workshop was led by International Public Affairs Consultants Inc., a lobbying firm that was on the payroll of the South African government at an annual rate of $390,000.

When divestment legislation was pending in a statehouse, ALEC would disseminate talking points to its members in that state. A front-page article in ALEC’s May 1984 newsletter demonstrated how effective the organization could be at blocking divestment legislation.

“Illinois political observers are convinced,” the article stated, “that the pin that punctured the balloon was the disinvestment economic impact analysis of the Illinois pension fund portfolios prepared by the American Legislative Exchange Council and distributed to House members in the late afternoon on the day before the expected vote.” According to ALEC board member and Illinois House Minority Leader Penny Pullen, because of the ALEC memo, “[the bill’s] central nervous system is dead.” The article went on to explain how ALEC members used similar tactics to thwart divestment bills in Rhode Island and Nebraska.

[…]

ALEC’s playbook for opposing South African divestment in the 1980s provides something of a guide for its efforts today to unravel social, economic, and ecological progress.  Notably, as activists mobilize to divest endowment funds from fossil fuel companies and transition to a green economy, ALEC is doing everything in its power to stop these efforts from taking off.

In issue areas from worker’s rights to prison privatization to corporate tax breaks, we can expect that ALEC will continue to use skewed polling and cherry-picked spokespeople to push the agenda of its corporate funders to state and federal lawmakers.

h/t: Calvin Sloan at RWW

thepoliticalfreakshow:

The world is celebrating Nelson Mandela as a selfless visionary who led his country out of the grips of apartheid into democracy and freedom. But some of the very people lavishing praise on South Africa’s first black president worked tirelessly to undermine his cause and portray the African National Congress he lead as pawns of the Soviet Union.

In fact, American conservatives have long been willing to overlook South Africa’s racist apartheid government in service of fighting communism abroad. Below is a short history, and some explanation, of how conservatives approached Mandela with the hostility they did:

1960s

National Review predicts end of white rule would result in “the collapse of civilization.”

buckley_00_wide-7a104d09795dd943bd5974b090bed25499b510e0-s6-c30

After Mandela was sentenced to life in prison, the magazine observed that “The South African courts have sentenced a batch of admitted terrorists to life in the penitentiary, and you would think the court had just finished barbecuing St. Joan, to hear the howls from the Liberal press.” By March of the following year, conservative Russell Kirk argued in the pages of the magazine that democracy in South Africa “would bring anarchy and the collapse of civilization” and the government “would be domination by witch doctors (still numerous and powerful) and reckless demagogues.”

1980s

Reagan described apartheid South Africa as a “good country.”

121026075512-04ronald-reagan-story-top

After President Jimmy Carter imposed sanctions on South Africa Reagan reversed course, labeling the African National Congress a terrorist organization. As he explained to CBS’ Walter Cronkite in 1981, the United States should support the South Africa regime because it is “a country that has stood by us in every war we’ve ever fought, a country that, strategically, is essential to the free world in its production of minerals.” In 1985, he told an interviewer: “They have eliminated the segregation that we once had in our own country — the type of thing where hotels and restaurants and places of entertainment and so forth were segregated — that has all been eliminated.” He later walked back the comment.

Jerry Falwell urges supporters to oppose sanctions.

Screen shot 2013-12-06 at 9.38.22 AM

The late Jerry Falwell urged “supporters to write their congressmen and senators to tell them to oppose sanctions against the apartheid regime.” “The liberal media has for too long suppressed the other side of the story in South Africa,” he said. “It is very important that we stay close enough to South Africa so that it does not fall prey to the clutches of Communism.”

180 House members opposed free Mandela resolution.

Screen shot 2013-12-06 at 10.14.11 AM

In 1986, 145 Republicans and 45 Democrats voted down a none-binding House resolutionurging the Government of South Africa to indicate its willingness to negotiate with the black majority by granting unconditional freedom to Nelson Mandela, recognizing the African National Congress; and establishing a framework for political talks. This included Dick Cheney, John McCain, Newt Gingrich, Dan Coats, Pat Roberts, Joe Barton.

20 Senators and 83 House members oppose sanctions.

Screen shot 2013-12-06 at 10.05.48 AM

The 1986 bill cut virtually “all U.S. economic ties with South Africa, requiring American companies to cease operating there within 180 days.” Lawmakers had to override Reagan’s veto. Sens. Thad Conrad, Orrin Hatch and Reps. Hal Rogers, Joe Barton, and Howard Coble all voted against imposing sanctions on the regime.

Jack Abramoff leads think tank dedicated to tearing down Mandela.

Screen shot 2013-12-06 at 9.40.45 AM

In 1986, the South African government helped fund and establish The International Freedom Foundation (IFF), a conservative think tank designed to “reverse the apartheid regime’s pariah status in Western political circles” and “portray the ANC as a tool of Soviet communism, thus undercutting the movement’s growing international acceptance as the government-in-waiting of a future multiracial South Africa.” The Washington branch of the IFF listed, among others, Senator Jesse Helms, James Inhofe as advisers. The lobbyist Jack Abramoff led the organization.

U.S. Senator testified in support of the apartheid government.

Screen shot 2013-12-06 at 10.00.37 AM

“In the late 1980s and early ’90s, after returning from his Mormon mission to South Africa,” Flake lobbied for South African interests and in 1987, “testified before the Utah State Senate in support of a resolution expressing support for the government of South Africa while racial segregation laws were enforced — largely to support U.S. mining interests in the region.”

Now, it would be unfair to say conservatism spoke univocally in condemnation of Mandela. A group of upstart Republicans in the mid-80s, led by Reps. Vin Weber, Robert Walker, and Newt Gingrich pushed hard for the United States to take a more critical stance on apartheid.

But this group was bucking the conservative mainstream at the time. “South Africa has been able to depend on conservatives in the United States … to treat them with benign neglect,” Weber said. That has a lot to do with the enduring conservative hostility towards rapid change. Conservatives see broad challenges, even to oppressive systems, as dangerous “revolutionary” change, whereas slower “evolutionary” tweaks in a better direction would be preferable.

Reagan’s South Africa point man, Chester A. Crocker, made this revolutionary/evolutionary binary into one of his three main principles for thinking about South Africa policy. “The circumstances in South Africa do not justify giving up on the hopes for evolutionary change (as distinguished from a revolutionary cataclysm),” he wrote in a famous Foreign Affairsessay. Many in the West, Crocker believed, held “a mistaken assumption that American and South African clocks are synchronized-that our impatience signifies the imminence of the revolution.”

It was Crocker, of course, who was mistaken, writing only about a decade before Mandela was freed from prison. But this skepticism about the possibility and desirability of radical change (Crocker seemed to think any dissolution of the apartheid government would necessarily be in part a violent one), together with the obvious cultural affinity that mainstream conservatives felt with Westernized Afrikaner elites, made conservatives distinctly inclined to view Mandela’s calls for political transformation with jaded eyes.


1990s

Screen shot 2013-12-06 at 10.26.07 AM

Heritage Foundation says Mandela is no “freedom fighter.” “Americans nevertheless have reasons to be skeptical of Mandela,” the foundation warned as he planned to visit the United States in 1990. “First, Nelson Mandela is not a freedom fighter. He repeatedly has supported terrorism. Since Mandela’s release from prison and his subsequent refusal to renounce violence, the Marxist-dominated ANC has launched terrorism and violence against civilians, claiming several hundred lives.”

Conservative think tank links Mandela to communists. “When Mandela made his first visit to the United States in 1990, following his release from prison, the IFF placed advertisements in local papers designed to dampen public enthusiasm for Mandela,” Newsday reported. “One ad in the Miami Herald portrayed Mandela as an ally and defender of Cuba’s Fidel Castro. The city’s large Cuban community was so agitated that a ceremony to present Mandela with keys to the city was scrapped.


2000s

National Review labels Mandela a “communist” for opposing the Iraq war.

nro_mandela-24

“[Mandela’s] vicious anti-Americanism and support for Saddam Hussein should come as no surprise, given his long-standing dedication to Communism and praise for terrorists. The world finally saw that his wife Winnie, rather than being a saintly freedom-fighter, was a murderous thug.”

This positioning of Mandela as being on the wrong side of a divide between “friends” and “enemies” — once communism, in the 2000s Saddam and terrorism — is the most important ideological lesson to learn from this history of hostility to Mandela. Conservatives have a deep tendency to judge foreign conflicts principally by the proximity of each side to the enemy du jour.

The treatment of South Africa in Jeane Kirkpatrick’s famous “Dictatorships and Double Standards” essay, where she argued that authoritarian anti-Communist states were more amenable to transition to democracy than revolutionary socialist governments, exemplifies this point nicely. She listed Jimmy Carter’s more confrontational South Africa policy as an example of the Carter Administration taking “at face value the claim of revolutionary groups to represent ‘popular’ aspirations and ‘progressive’ forces–regardless of the ties of these revolutionaries to the Soviet Union.”

Modern conservatives explaining the movement’s Mandela position in the past 12 hours have repeatedly employed Kirkpatrick-style to argue that conservative positions were, at the time, reasonable. “In retrospect, it’s easy to think of Mandela as the grandfatherly statesman,” Matt Lewis writes, “but the Soviet Union posed an existential threat; it’s not like nuclear weapons weren’t aimed at us. Such a thing has a way of focusing your priorities. In that milieu, one can understand why the U.S. would have been very cautious about anyone who had even ‘dabbled’ in Communism.” Deroy Murdock describes the view at the time as “Nelson Mandela was just another Fidel Castro or a Pol Pot, itching to slip from behind bars, savage his country, and surf atop the bones of his victims.”

Now, both Lewis and Murdock readily admit that this view was in hindsight mistaken. But the overemphasis on the friend/enemy distinction that blinded conservative’s to the justness of the ANC’s cause has hardly gone away.

h/t: Huffington Post

The news today of Nelson Mandela’s passing is also time to reflect on the complicated relationship between Mandela and his anti-apartheid African National Congress (ANC) with the US, which did not always support the anti-apartheid struggle. In fact, American conservatives lobbied the federal government in the 1980s to withhold support from the anti-apartheid movement.

President Reagan added the ANC to the US terrorism watch list, a designation not removed until 2008, and unsuccessfully vetoed sanctions against the apartheid regime. Many Republican lawmakers did break with the Reagan administration’s stance, but “all 21 [Senate] votes to sustain the veto were cast by Republicans.”

Mandela faced criticism from Republican leaders including Dick Cheney, who described Mandela’s ANC as a “terrorist organization,” and Jesse Helms, who “turned his back during Mandela’s visit to the U.S. Capitol.” Even in 1998, Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly lumped Mandela together with notorious dictators.

The late Jerry Falwell urged [PDF] his supporters to write their congressmen and senators to tell them to oppose sanctions against the apartheid regime. “The liberal media has for too long suppressed the other side of the story in South Africa,” he said. “It is very important that we stay close enough to South Africa so that it does not fall prey to the clutches of Communism.”

“South Africa is torn by civil unrest, instigated primarily by Communist-sponsored people who are capitalizing on the many legitimate grievances created by apartheid, unemployment and policy confrontations,” Falwell continued.

Finally, we should, if possible, invest in South Africa, because this inevitably improves the standard of living for nonwhites there.

Now is not the time to turn our backs on South Africa. The world has witnessed the Soviets capture nation after nation. They have been particularly aggressive in Africa. South Africa must not be the next victim!

David John Marley notes in Pat Robertson: An American Life that Robertson criticized the ANC because it was “led by communists and was hostile to Israel” and “far too radical an element to ever work with,” while “his campaign literature made similar claims for the need to support the white government.”

The televangelist regularly spoke ill of Mandela’s group and his Christian Broadcasting Network ran segments critical of sanctions against the apartheid government as Congress debated sanctions.

In 1986 The 700 Club did a series of reports on South Africa and the white government’s struggle against the African National Congress. While many socially liberal religious leaders decried the apartheid regime, Robertson openly supported it because he felt that it was a bastion against communism. For Robertson, everything else was secondary to defeating what he saw as the enemies of God. Robertson sent a copy of The 700 Club program to Freedom Council’s Dick Thompson to have it forwarded to Pat Buchanan, who in turn promised to show it to the president. Reagan’s attitude toward South Africa was one of his most controversial foreign policy stands, and Robertson was one of Reagan’s few allies on the policy.

Sam Kleiner mentions that now-Sen. Jeff Flake, anti-tax activist Grover Norquist and disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff were also active in lobbying against the anti-apartheid movement:

Jack Abramoff, now a disgraced former lobbyist convicted of fraud, conspiracy and tax evasion, got much of his start from his work with South Africa. Abramoff visited the country following his term as National Chair of the College Republicans in 1983 and met with pro-apartheid student groups linked to the South Africa’s Bureau of Security Services. In 1986, he opened the International Freedom Foundation. Ostensibly a think tank, it was later revealed as a front group for the South African Army as part of “Operation Babushka” meant to undermine Nelson Mandela’s international approval. The group had over “30 young ideologues in offices on G Street in Washington, Johannesburg, London and Brussels” working on propaganda in support of the South African government.



Like Abramoff, GOP tax guru Grover Norquist became enamored with the conflict in South Africa and went there to extend his support. Norquist ran College Republicans from 1981 to 1983 and went to South Africa in 1985 for a “Youth for Freedom Conference” sponsored by South African businesses. While other college students, such as Barack Obama, had been active in anti-apartheid work, this conference was seeking to bring American and South African conservatives together to end that movement. In his speech there, Norquist said, “The left has no other issue [but apartheid] on campus. Economic issues are losers for them. There are no sexy Soviet colonies anymore.” A few months after the conference, Norquist went to Angola to work with Jonas Savimbi, the rebel leader that Abramoff valorized in his film. Norquist became a ghost-writer for Savimbi’s essay in Policy Review. When he returned to Washington, he was greeted in conservative circles as a “freedom fighter,” and he proudly placed an “I’d rather be killing commies” bumper sticker on his brief case.

A few years later and much further along in the anti-apartheid movement, a young Jeff Flake (now a senator from Arizona) became active in lobbying for South African mining interests in the late 1980s and early ’90s, after returning from his Mormon mission to South Africa. As a graduate student at Brigham Young University, he testified against an anti-apartheid resolution in the Utah State Senate and then became a lobbyist in Washington for Smoak, Shipley and Henry, a lobbying firm specializing in representing the South African mining industry. Flake went on to personally represent the Rossing Uranium plant in Namibia, which had been a major target of anti-apartheid activists for its discriminatory and unsafe practices.

Decades later, these Republican leaders would prefer not to have their adventures in South Africa mentioned. While Abramoff went down in a corruption scandal, Norquist went on to remake himself into a libertarian anti-tax activist, and Flake moved back to Arizona. The anti-communism that motivated the Republican allegiance to South Africa fizzled with the end of the Cold War, but the history of the Republican entanglement with South Africa remains one of the party’s darker episodes.

President Obama can proudly talk about how his first political act was in response to apartheid. While a few Republicans stood against apartheid, much of the Republican Party has nothing to offer about its position at the time but silence. I wouldn’t expect any reflections on apartheid from Abramoff, Flake or Norquist anytime soon.

Also, Tyrant Margaret Thatcher, the deceased former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, once declared Mandela a “terrorist.”

h/t: Brian Tashman at RWW

youngprogressivevoices:

commodifiedsouls:

reagan-was-a-horrible-president:

brogeoisiepig:

haha

ha

itd be funnier if he didnt set the groundwork for conservatism fucking the country

LOL! This makes my brain hurt.

Oh, My. God.

ow.

More proof that conservatism is a mental disorder. 

breakingnews:

AP: The final chronological installment of President Richard Nixon’s secretly recorded tapes was released Wednesday. The tapes, which total about 3,700 hours of conversation, were secretly made by Nixon, recording his calls and meetings.

In the latest and final installment, Nixon’s phone…