4 ms·
The National Review has been nothing short of reactionary propaganda from its outset. They vehemently opposed the Civil Rights Movement in its era, including ru
by claudeganon 6y ago
The National Review has been nothing short of reactionary propaganda from its outset. They vehemently opposed the Civil Rights Movement in its era, including running unsigned editorials with such lovely sentiments as “In the Deep South the Negroes are, by comparison with the Whites, retarded”
https://www.mediamatters.org/national-review/national-reviews-ugly-civil-rights-history https://www.mediamatters.org/national-review/national-review...
- rayiner 6y agoDemocrats were literally the party of segregation when Buckley wrote that (there would have been no New Deal coalition without the support of segregationists). He was vastly out of step with Republicans at the time, and he did a 180 by 1965, the year after LBJ flipped the Democratic Party on the civil rights act. It’s a shameful period of American history, but unless you’re going to stop voting Democrat over what some Democrats said in 1957...
- claudeganon 6y agoI’m not a Democrat and we weren’t talking about voting anyway. And these are the kind of sentiments Buckley continued on with after 1965, so please spare me the “different times”’pleading: > In a 1986 New York Times op-ed (3/18/86), Buckley urged that ‘everyone detected with AIDS should be tattooed in the upper forearm, to protect common-needle users, and on the buttocks, to prevent the victimization of other homosexuals.” https://fair.org/home/william-f-buckley-rest-in-praise/ https://fair.org/home/william-f-buckley-rest-in-praise/