Were Goldwater (left) and Wallace really that far apart? | AP photo composite by POLITICO Right-wing race-baiting?

We are living through an ugly season of racial politics.

Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell’s Confederate History Month pronouncement, the racist fulminations of tea party leader Mark Williams and the vilification of the black Agriculture Department official Shirley Sherrod marked low points. Even Dr. Laura has gotten into the act, with an n-word-filled rant. That Sarah Palin is strongly defending.


Michael Gerson, the former George W. Bush speechwriter who now writes for The Washington Post, pointed to the dangers that racism poses to the conservative cause in particular. “Given our history,” Gerson warned, “the tea party movement has a positive duty to assure African-Americans that it is the second coming of Barry Goldwater, not of George Wallace.”

But did Gerson have it entirely correct? True, Gov. Wallace of Alabama was a sneering racist. Sen. Goldwater of Arizona, on the other hand, was a conservative constitutionalist. History suggests, however that Gerson is overstating the difference between the two.

Because when it came down to the basic issue of racial justice, Wallace and Goldwater shared common ground.

This has lessons for today. Some conservatives may want to muzzle Williams and other racist demagogues in their ranks. But when it comes to policy, what the government should do in matters regarding racial justice, the distinction between the “strict constitutionalists” and the race-baiters should not be overstated.

In the 1960s, Goldwater was the golden boy of a resurgent conservative movement. He may have been on the far right of American politics, but he was no racial demagogue. Unlike Wallace, Goldwater did not traffic in racial slurs.

But Goldwater had condemned the 1954 Supreme Court ruling Brown v. Board of Education, which desegregated schools as “not based on law.” In 1962, federal troops restrained white mobs trying to prevent James Meredith, a black student, from attending the University of Mississippi. Goldwater said this federal action violated states’ rights.

In 1964, Goldwater voted against the Civil Rights Act, saying it threatened to create a “police state.” As biographer Rick Perlstein notes: “Of the genuine police state in the nation’s midst — Mississippi — he said nothing at all.”

Goldwater clearly liked some constitutional principles more than others. For him, the right of states to trample the freedom of African-Americans trumped equal rights as guaranteed under the 14th Amendment.

The Southern segregationists had found a hero in Goldwater. Sen. Strom Thurmond, Wallace and other race-baiting Southern Democrats embraced the new Mr. Conservative of the Republican Party.

Goldwater, on the other hand, thought Wallace was a racist thug. But both sides understood the political value of an alliance. Wallace boasted, according to Perlstein, “It must be apparent to a one-eyed N —- h who can’t see good outta his other eye that me and Goldwater would be a winning ticket.”

Goldwater’s personal dislike of Wallace was real enough, and the Goldwater-Wallace ticket wasn’t to be. But even the blind could see that Goldwater’s conservative principles undermined the constitutional rights of black Americans. When it came down to what mattered in terms of government policy, Mr. Conservative and the racial demagogues shared a common platform.

Forty years later, much remains the same in the conservative movement.

A good measure of the conservative positions on race is demonstrated in the 2010 Texas Republican state platform. As the document states, “the embodiment of the conservative dream in America is Texas.”

The platform has its share of racial taunts, like restoring Confederate plaques to the state supreme court building. But more than the racial slights, it’s the Texas Republicans’ policies that look heavily stacked against African-Americans, other minorities and the urban poor.

Take the issue of voting rights and political representation. Even with the Voting Rights Act of 1965, black Americans continue to face disfranchisement and underrepresentation. And the Texas Republicans appear to have searched high and low for policies and measures to keep it that way.

Consider these policies of the Texas GOP:

• The Census: The urban poor live unstable, hard lives. They move often, and those without permanent homes often camp out with relatives or friends, or sleep in garages. This is one reason why the urban poor are usually undercounted by the Census. Since the urban poor usually support Democratic candidates, the Texas GOP seems to like it that way.

To address the undercount, the Census has proposed using statistical sampling. Every statistician — including every political pollster — knows that sampling is an essential tool for obtaining accurate population counts.

Yet, Texas Republicans fiercely oppose any use of sampling by the Census. Meanwhile, they offer no other proposals to address the persistent undercount problem. The result is that African-Americans and other minorities are denied voting power and resources.

• Voter Registration: The urban poor also face hurdles in exercising their right to vote — everything from the lack of a permanent address to difficulties in getting to the polls.

Texas Republicans are raising those hurdles higher yet. They are now demanding voter ID cards, double and triple documentation, waiting periods, re-registration and repeal of Motor Voter laws — all in the name of preventing voter impersonation.

Yet, despite aggressive prosecution of a number of African-American senior citizens, Texas has apparently processed only nine voter impersonation cases in the last eight years — out of the 20 million votes cast in that time.

In 1902, Texas first adopted a poll tax and other barriers to voting. White Texans had been whipped into frenzy by false claims linking African-Americans and voter fraud. The result was that black Texans were driven from the polls and essentially barred from the vote for the next 60 years.

Today, Texas Republicans respond to the false claims on Fox News about African-Americans stealing votes. So they demand measures that are likely to bar hundreds of thousands of mainly poor, African-American and other national minority citizens from voting.

• Felon Voting: Illegal voting is extraordinarily rare. But Texas Republicans are especially concerned about ex-felons attempting to vote.

After the Civil War, the former Confederate states adopted felon voter laws. These laws disfranchised former slaves arrested on often trumped-up charges, or who otherwise ran afoul of the white-controlled judicial system.

But these laws remain on the books. And, despite efforts in 19 states to address the problem, today these laws disfranchise more than five million citizens, including 13 percent of black men.

The war on drugs underscores the injustice. Many Americans of all income levels and races use marijuana or other illegal substances.

If you live in the right zip code or go to the right school, however, drugs may be merely a youthful indiscretion. You can even do drugs and be president — just ask the past three White House occupants!

But in the wrong part of town, a drug infraction can mean a felony. Last year, the police made more than 1.7 million drug arrests, putting hundreds of thousands of poor and minority youth behind bars. This violates fundamental principles of equal rights and justice.

And the Texas Republicans seem to want to compound the violation. Their platform demands that marijuana misdemeanors be raised to the level of felonies. Research suggests that this is likely to have little or no impact on marijuana use.

But one thing is sure: Many more African-American, Latino and other minority citizens are likely to be permanently disenfranchised — stripped of their right to vote.

Why does the Texas Republican platform endorse so many ingenious ways to disfranchise black and minority citizens? Is this the second coming of Wallace and other bigots? Or is it the return of Goldwater and other right wing constitutionalists?

Or perhaps this question is not the right one.

Just as in 1964, in terms of policy — the real effect on the rights and lives of African-Americans and other minorities — the Goldwater versus Wallace distinction probably makes little difference.

Perhaps a better question is how are we to put back on the political agenda the ideals of equal rights and justice as promised in the 14th Amendment?

Here, there is no time to waste, as the Texas GOP joins the national Republican leadership in beating the drums for a 14th Amendment rewrite. They seek to strip more Americans of their rights by denying the birthright citizenship of mainly Latino children.

These conservatives seem to pick and choose their constitutional principles. Yet, like Goldwater, they tend to consistently make choices that undermine the rights of African-American and minority citizens.

Charles Postel, an associate professor at San Francisco State University, is the author of “The Populist Vision,” which won the Bancroft Prize in American history.

This article tagged under: Opinion

Racism

Barry Goldwater