Over the past few days, Paul Krugman and Bob Herbert have been giving David Brooks a history lesson about Ronald Reagan's infamous 1980 visit to Philadelphia, Mississippi, where sixteen years earlier, three civil rights activists had been murdered by white supremacists.
During Reagan's visit, he proclaimed his support for states' rights, a rallying cry for racists opposed to federal civil rights legislation.
Debating whether or not Reagan's trip was racist is not only absurd, it misses the essential point: Ronald Reagan's presidency was disastrous for black Americans.
In this diary, I will focus on one aspect of Ronald Reagan's presidency: the growing economic gap between black Americans and white Americans.
Before getting into numbers, I'd like to share the relevant portion of Reagan's speech with you. (I posted it on YouTube. Other than editing the start and stop times, I didn't edit the clip at all.)
Plainly, Reagan's reference to "states' rights" was directly related to race. As you can hear from the audio, it is part of a discussion of welfare recipients, who Reagan calls "them," in contrast to "the rest of us."
It wasn't a hellfire-and-brimstone speech, but it didn't need to be. The symbolism of Philadephia, MS and the defense of states' rights in the context of a discussion on welfare makes Reagan's meaning plain.
Indeed, using coded language, Ronald Reagan made a promise: to put the interests of white non-Hispanics first.
It was a promise he kept.
As you probably know, there is a huge gap between blacks and whites when it comes to income.
Let's take a look at median household income.
In 2006, the median household income for white non-Hispanics was $52,423. For blacks, it was $32,132.
In other words, in 2006, the median black household income was 61% that of white non-Hispanics.
One important fact is that the ratio of black to white non-Hispanic incomes isn't constant -- it changes.
For example, when Bill Clinton took office, blacks earned 56% as much as whites. When he left office, they earned 65% as much. Now, under Bush, it's back down to 61%.
If you notice a pattern, you're right.
I've compiled the percentage change in the ratio for black and white median household income for each presidential administration going back to 1984.
A negative number means the gap between whites and blacks got larger; a positive number means the gap got smaller.
1984 (Reagan I) > -1.4%
1988 (Reagan II) > -0.6%
1992 (Bush 41) > +1.6%
1996 (Clinton I) > +7.5%
2000 (Clinton II) > +7.4%
2004 (Bush 43) > -5.4%
(Here's a link to the raw data from the Census Bureau.)
In 3 out of 4 Republican administrations, the already large income gap between blacks and whites grew.
Meanwhile, in Clinton's two terms in office, the gap narrowed -- considerably.
Under Reagan and Bush 41, the ratio of black median household income to white non-Hispanic household income worsened most severely for lower income blacks.
For blacks households in the 20th and 40th percentiles, the ratio dropped 9.6% and 3.9%, respectively.
Under Clinton, the ratios improved -- by 31.1% and 23.3%, respectively.
And now in Bush 43's first term, they ratio worsened once again, dropping 9.1% and 5.8%.
(Here's a link to the raw data, also from the Census Bureau.)
The point is simple: over the last quarter-century, there has been a strong correlation between income inequality and the party in control of the White House.
Put another way, if you want to know whether or not Republicans are racially biased, you don't need to know a damn thing about Ronald Reagan's racist speech in Mississippi.
Just look where the rubber meets the road: income.
If you do that, the story is pretty clear.