Opinion of the Ku Klux Klan

[justfollowingtheelections]

The Democrats may have a bad record on civil rights, but lets not forget this.

My friends, to those who say that we are rushing this issue of civil rights, I say to them we are 172 years late. To those who say that this civil-rights program is an infringement on states’ rights, I say this: The time has arrived in America for the Democratic Party to get out of the shadow of states' rights and to walk forthrightly into the bright sunshine of human rights.

 Let us do forget the evil passions and the blindness of the past.

Hubert Humphrey at the 1948 National Democratic Convention.

Once the Democratic Party adopted Humphrey's position, Strom Thurmond left the party.  He would later join the Republicans.

Thurmond praised President Nixon and his "Southern Strategy" of delaying desegregation, saying Nixon "stood with the South in this case"

Also, Ronald Reagan said this in 1980 in Mississippi:
I believe in states' rights

[Darth Maul]

The Democrats may have a bad record on civil rights, but lets not forget this.

My friends, to those who say that we are rushing this issue of civil rights, I say to them we are 172 years late. To those who say that this civil-rights program is an infringement on states’ rights, I say this: The time has arrived in America for the Democratic Party to get out of the shadow of states' rights and to walk forthrightly into the bright sunshine of human rights.

 Let us do forget the evil passions and the blindness of the past.

Hubert Humphrey at the 1948 National Democratic Convention.

Once the Democratic Party adopted Humphrey's position, Strom Thurmond left the party.  He would later join the Republicans.

Thurmond praised President Nixon and his "Southern Strategy" of delaying desegregation, saying Nixon "stood with the South in this case"

Also, Ronald Reagan said this in 1980 in Mississippi:
I believe in states' rights

I agree the democrats do have alot of pros on civil rights but the Republicans do. Reagan also said in his MLK day speech.

"Abraham Lincoln freed the black man. In many ways, Dr. King freed the white man. . . . Where others—white and black—preached hatred, he taught the principles of love and nonviolence."
-Ronald Reagan

Supporting statesrights does not make you racist. I get what you mean about Thurmond though but its important to remember many racists stayed with the democrats Hollings,Smathers,Wallace.

[justfollowingtheelections]

The Democrats may have a bad record on civil rights, but lets not forget this.

My friends, to those who say that we are rushing this issue of civil rights, I say to them we are 172 years late. To those who say that this civil-rights program is an infringement on states’ rights, I say this: The time has arrived in America for the Democratic Party to get out of the shadow of states' rights and to walk forthrightly into the bright sunshine of human rights.

 Let us do forget the evil passions and the blindness of the past.

Hubert Humphrey at the 1948 National Democratic Convention.

Once the Democratic Party adopted Humphrey's position, Strom Thurmond left the party.  He would later join the Republicans.

Thurmond praised President Nixon and his "Southern Strategy" of delaying desegregation, saying Nixon "stood with the South in this case"

Also, Ronald Reagan said this in 1980 in Mississippi:
I believe in states' rights

I agree the democrats do have alot of pros on civil rights but the Republicans do. Reagan also said in his MLK day speech.

"Abraham Lincoln freed the black man. In many ways, Dr. King freed the white man. . . . Where others—white and black—preached hatred, he taught the principles of love and nonviolence."
-Ronald Reagan

Supporting statesrights does not make you racist. I get what you mean about Thurmond though but its important to remember many racists stayed with the democrats Hollings,Smathers,Wallace.

I don't disagree with any of that.  I'm just saying that you can't base your vote on what Woodrow Wilson said 100 years ago.

States rights however have always been a code word for discrimination.  It's states basically saying "we know the rest of the country doesn't agree with us, but we would like to keep our peculiar institutions no matter how despicable they may be."

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

You guys ruined a perfectly good troll thread.

[Darth Maul]

The Democrats may have a bad record on civil rights, but lets not forget this.

My friends, to those who say that we are rushing this issue of civil rights, I say to them we are 172 years late. To those who say that this civil-rights program is an infringement on states’ rights, I say this: The time has arrived in America for the Democratic Party to get out of the shadow of states' rights and to walk forthrightly into the bright sunshine of human rights.

 Let us do forget the evil passions and the blindness of the past.

Hubert Humphrey at the 1948 National Democratic Convention.

Once the Democratic Party adopted Humphrey's position, Strom Thurmond left the party.  He would later join the Republicans.

Thurmond praised President Nixon and his "Southern Strategy" of delaying desegregation, saying Nixon "stood with the South in this case"

Also, Ronald Reagan said this in 1980 in Mississippi:
I believe in states' rights

I agree the democrats do have alot of pros on civil rights but the Republicans do. Reagan also said in his MLK day speech.

"Abraham Lincoln freed the black man. In many ways, Dr. King freed the white man. . . . Where others—white and black—preached hatred, he taught the principles of love and nonviolence."
-Ronald Reagan

Supporting statesrights does not make you racist. I get what you mean about Thurmond though but its important to remember many racists stayed with the democrats Hollings,Smathers,Wallace.

I don't disagree with any of that.  I'm just saying that you can't base your vote on what Woodrow Wilson said 100 years ago.

States rights however have always been a code word for discrimination.  It's states basically saying "we know the rest of the country doesn't agree with us, but we would like to keep our peculiar institutions no matter how despicable they may be."

Fair enough. I base my votes onb ideology in which I agree far more with the GOP but still the GOP has a far better record then the democrats im not trying to say all democrats are racist but that the GOP has always supported civil rights even when it was unpopular.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

HO, of course, and not just for being a racist Democrat organization.   But why is this even a question?

This member of Lincoln's party begs to disagree.

He's a filthy Southerner, he doesn't count.

David Duke was also originally a Democrat.  He ran for the Louisiana state legislature twice as a Democrat and lost.  He won when he ran as a Republican.  When he ran for the Senate and for Governor of Louisiana, the GOP rejected him.  In the latter, they even ran ads attacking him for his racist past.

The Democrats may have a bad record on civil rights, but lets not forget this.

My friends, to those who say that we are rushing this issue of civil rights, I say to them we are 172 years late. To those who say that this civil-rights program is an infringement on states’ rights, I say this: The time has arrived in America for the Democratic Party to get out of the shadow of states' rights and to walk forthrightly into the bright sunshine of human rights.

 Let us do forget the evil passions and the blindness of the past.

Hubert Humphrey at the 1948 National Democratic Convention.

Once the Democratic Party adopted Humphrey's position, Strom Thurmond left the party.  He would later join the Republicans.

Thurmond praised President Nixon and his "Southern Strategy" of delaying desegregation, saying Nixon "stood with the South in this case"

Also, Ronald Reagan said this in 1980 in Mississippi:
I believe in states' rights

The Southern strategy was actually about convincing pro-civil rights Southerners to vote Republican as a protest against the Democrat segregationists.  The vast majority of segregationists never switched from Democrat to Republican, even if Thurmond did.  And when Reagan said he believed in states' rights, he clearly didn't have race in mind, as civil rights had been resolved as an issue by that time.  Anybody who says that "states' rights" was a code word, even then, is basing it more on conspiracy theory than fact.  You can give states all the rights you want and segregation is NEVER coming back.
Nixon's civil rights record was one of the best of any president.  He raised the civil rights enforcement budget by seven times, sped up school desegregation to the highest levels since Brown v. Board, and appointed more racial minorities to administration positions than any of his predecessors, including LBJ.  Watch this campaign ad from 1960 to see what I mean.  The GOP certainly doesn't have a perfect civil rights record either, but it's a heck of a lot better than the Democrats' record.

The Democrats may have a bad record on civil rights, but lets not forget this.

My friends, to those who say that we are rushing this issue of civil rights, I say to them we are 172 years late. To those who say that this civil-rights program is an infringement on states’ rights, I say this: The time has arrived in America for the Democratic Party to get out of the shadow of states' rights and to walk forthrightly into the bright sunshine of human rights.

 Let us do forget the evil passions and the blindness of the past.

Hubert Humphrey at the 1948 National Democratic Convention.

Once the Democratic Party adopted Humphrey's position, Strom Thurmond left the party.  He would later join the Republicans.

Thurmond praised President Nixon and his "Southern Strategy" of delaying desegregation, saying Nixon "stood with the South in this case"

Also, Ronald Reagan said this in 1980 in Mississippi:
I believe in states' rights

I agree the democrats do have alot of pros on civil rights but the Republicans do. Reagan also said in his MLK day speech.

"Abraham Lincoln freed the black man. In many ways, Dr. King freed the white man. . . . Where others—white and black—preached hatred, he taught the principles of love and nonviolence."
-Ronald Reagan

Supporting statesrights does not make you racist. I get what you mean about Thurmond though but its important to remember many racists stayed with the democrats Hollings,Smathers,Wallace.

I don't disagree with any of that.  I'm just saying that you can't base your vote on what Woodrow Wilson said 100 years ago.

States rights however have always been a code word for discrimination.  It's states basically saying "we know the rest of the country doesn't agree with us, but we would like to keep our peculiar institutions no matter how despicable they may be."

Fair enough. I base my votes onb ideology in which I agree far more with the GOP but still the GOP has a far better record then the democrats im not trying to say all democrats are racist but that the GOP has always supported civil rights even when it was unpopular.

Rockefeller, I absolutely agree.  I'm a Republican both because of their proud history of fighting for civil rights against Democrat opposition, and also because I'm more closely aligned with them on current policy matters.

[Mechaman]

Okay serious question here:

We've all had the "well my Civil Rights history is better than your Civil Rights history!" debate.  Okay, whatever.

But, with that said, instead of obsessively dwelling on the past, why not, well do something for minorities today?

Just a thought.

[Lief 🗽]

And when Reagan said he believed in states' rights, he clearly didn't have race in mind, as civil rights had been resolved as an issue by that time.

rofl

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Okay serious question here:

We've all had the "well my Civil Rights history is better than your Civil Rights history!" debate.  Okay, whatever.

But, with that said, instead of obsessively dwelling on the past, why not, well do something for minorities today?

Just a thought.

Stop trolling

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Which version?  While all have been horrible, they haven't been equally horrible.  For instance, the modern KKK is laughably horrible.

Which would you recommend to a friend?

The modern relatively toothless version for refugees from the 19th century is the least horrible.  The Reconstruction, 1920s, and Civil Rights Era KKKs are all horrible in different fashions.

The 1920s version was the least violent of the three, but had the potential to go nationwide.  If it hadn't been for the improprieties its leadership engaged in, it might well have survived as a strong organization into the 30s and become our version of the Nazis and Fascists.

The Reconstruction era KKK was the most violent, but at least had the relative virtue of being single-minded in its purpose.  The anti-Semitism and anti-Catholicism of the later versions wasn't there in general, tho the first KKK was so disorganized, there probably were some

The Civil Rights Era KKK was the dying gasp of institutionalized racism. Once stripped of its official support, it morphed into the almost pitiable version of today. Only that it is still capable of occasional acts of violence keeps the modern KKK from being actually pitiable in their pathetic quest to restore a past that never was.

So is that 3 or 4 versions of the KKK?

[Maxwell]

Also, Ronald Reagan said this in 1980 in Mississippi:
I believe in states' rights

Wait, you mean Ronald Reagan thinks the 10th Amendment exists? How shocking!

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

So is that 3 or 4 versions of the KKK?

Three strong ones and weak current version.  "33/5" is a bit of numerical symbolism some of the idiots in the KKK like.  33 is 3 times 11 and K is the eleventh letter so that stands for the KKK without being obvious, while 5 stand for a hoped for fifth era of the KKK in which it would be powerful again.  Not that I think it ever will.  Even if white supremacism ever made an unexpected comeback as significant political force, I doubt it would associate itself with the legacy of the KKK.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Supporting statesrights does not make you racist. I get what you mean about Thurmond though but its important to remember many racists stayed with the democrats Hollings,Smathers,Wallace.

Poor argument. So they retained Democratic affilation. Liberal Republicans remained Republicans too, but this political generation died out. If we're discussing voters in general, then one can't possibly deny Dixiecrats started to vote Republican, while former liberal Republican Yankees started to vote Democratic.

As of Hollings, the man started desegregation in South Carolina way before fellow Southern Democrats were even ready to consider accepting this. Calling him the racist is ignorant.

(I know I'm responding to banned sock, but still )

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

How did I know that this thread would turn into Oldiesfreak barfing out his alternate history of the Southern Strategy?

Look, I understand that from 1968 to the present, most of the GOP has avoided the overt racism of George Wallace, which would obviously backfire. What the Republican Party has appealed to in the white South and in the Midwest is covert racism. Instead of "segregation now, segregation forever!", Nixon used codewords like "urban crime". Reagan talked about "states' rights" and "a lady on the South Side of Chicago who abuses welfare". The Romney campaign openly and bluntly lied about how Obama was attempting to have the 1996 welfare reform repealed, a clear appeal to the covert racists who were strong Clinton supporters.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

Also, Ronald Reagan said this in 1980 in Mississippi:
I believe in states' rights

Wait, you mean Ronald Reagan thinks the 10th Amendment exists? How shocking!

Thought*

He's dead

[Oldiesfreak1854]

How did I know that this thread would turn into Oldiesfreak barfing out his alternate history of the Southern Strategy?

Look, I understand that from 1968 to the present, most of the GOP has avoided the overt racism of George Wallace, which would obviously backfire. What the Republican Party has appealed to in the white South and in the Midwest is covert racism. Instead of "segregation now, segregation forever!", Nixon used codewords like "urban crime". Reagan talked about "states' rights" and "a lady on the South Side of Chicago who abuses welfare". The Romney campaign openly and bluntly lied about how Obama was attempting to have the 1996 welfare reform repealed, a clear appeal to the covert racists who were strong Clinton supporters.

It's not alternate history, it's fact.  Your argument is a myth at best and a conspiracy theory at worst.  George Wallace was a Democrat who never changed parties, even if his racial views did, and Nixon was a champion of civil rights.  And if racists are so Republican, then why were they such strong Clinton supporters?  After all, wasn't it Clinton who was jokingly referred to as "the first black president?" Here are three points I want to make:

1. It would have made no sense for Nixon to pander to racists, covertly or otherwise, in 1968, because George Wallace was running as an overt racist.  It would be like Romney campaigning in California or Obama campaigning in Texas in 2012--it's pointless because those voters are safely in your opponent's column.  Nixon's running mate, Spiro Agnew, was a strong supporter of civil rights who had defeated a segregationist Democrat for governor of Maryland in 1966.  That's no smart way to win the votes of bigots.  Plus, if race was still such a hot issue in 1968, then why would overt racism have backfired on Nixon but not on Wallace?

2. Reagan made his statement about states' rights in 1980.  While it was certainly in an unfortunate location (Philadelphia, MS), it doesn't mean that he was trying to pander to racism. By 1980, race had largely been resolved as an issue.  Even today, you can give states all the rights you want and segregation is NEVER coming back.  States' rights was a concept that was simply distorted by some very bad men to advance their own agenda.  And as for welfare abuse, there are plenty of people (even on the South Side of Chicago) who abuse welfare and aren't black.  To assume that Reagan was talking about a black woman like that is racist on your part.  And as for Reagan's personal racial record, read this.  This story was confirmed by Reagan's teammate to a liberal columnist shortly after Reagan became president.

3. Finally, do you really believe that Romney could get away with racism, even covert racism, in 2012?  His father was active in supporting civil rights, even participating in civil rights marches as governor of Michigan.  What makes you think that Romney, who was clearly very heavily influenced by his father, would be more racist than him?  He was simply stating that work requirements are necessary to make welfare effective and help lift people out of poverty instead of making them dependent on handouts.  (And that goes for all races.)

Supporting statesrights does not make you racist. I get what you mean about Thurmond though but its important to remember many racists stayed with the democrats Hollings,Smathers,Wallace.

Poor argument. So they retained Democratic affilation. Liberal Republicans remained Republicans too, but this political generation died out. If we're discussing voters in general, then one can't possibly deny Dixiecrats started to vote Republican, while former liberal Republican Yankees started to vote Democratic.

As of Hollings, the man started desegregation in South Carolina way before fellow Southern Democrats were even ready to consider accepting this. Calling him the racist is ignorant.

(I know I'm responding to banned sock, but still )

Yeah, but that was long after race was resolved as an issue.  And why did Holllings oppose desegregation and the removal of the Confederate flag at the South Carolina capitol if he was so progressive on racial issues?

Also, how do you explain this picture of Hollings with JFK?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Yeah, but that was long after race was resolved as an issue.  And why did Holllings oppose desegregation and the removal of the Confederate flag at the South Carolina capitol if he was so progressive on racial issues?

Also, how do you explain this picture of Hollings with JFK?


[/quote]

Wrong, not long after race issue was resolved.

While Governor, Hollings rejected calls from the Dixiecrats (pretty much the entire South Carolina political establishment which was ready to raise hell) to actively resist court decision to desegregate Clemson University (by admitting Harvey Gantt) or even shut it down. Instead he flatly ordered the state to comply and made sure there were no riots or violence, as it happened during similar proceedings in Alabama or Mississippi. You really think it was easy decision not only to make but also to enforce? That took guts.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Yeah, but that was long after race was resolved as an issue.  And why did Holllings oppose desegregation and the removal of the Confederate flag at the South Carolina capitol if he was so progressive on racial issues?

Also, how do you explain this picture of Hollings with JFK?

Wrong, not long after race issue was resolved.

While Governor, Hollings rejected calls from the Dixiecrats (pretty much the entire South Carolina political establishment which was ready to raise hell) to actively resist court decision to desegregate Clemson University (by admitting Harvey Gantt) or even shut it down. Instead he flatly ordered the state to comply and made sure there were no riots or violence, as it happened during similar proceedings in Alabama or Mississippi. You really think it was easy decision not only to make but also to enforce? That took guts.
[/quote]
Hollings also led the fight against desegregating lunch counters in South Carolina as well, and he was a leading participant in a conference to organize a "segregationist bloc" to fight segregation

Source: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/811459/posts (But it cites articles from the New York Times when these events occurred).  He also voted against confirming Thurgood Marshall to the Supreme Court.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Oldiesfreak should take note that his chief ally in this thread and basically the only person on the forum who has sided with him on this stuff is a now banned sock troll.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

He also voted against confirming Thurgood Marshall to the Supreme Court.

Oldiesfreak logic: Senators Alexander (R-TN), Barrasso (R-WY), Bennett (R-UT), Bond (R-MO), Brown (R-MA), Brownback (R-KS), Bunning (R-KY), Burr (R-NC), Chambliss (R-GA), Coburn (R-OK), Cochran (R-MS), Corker (R-TN), Cornyn (R-TX), Crapo (R-ID), DeMint (R-SC), Ensign (R-NV), Enzi (R-WY), Grassley (R-IA), Hatch (R-UT), Hutchison (R-TX), Inhofe (R-OK), Isakson (R-GA), Johanns (R-NE), Kyl (R-AZ), LeMieux (R-FL), McCain (R-AZ), McConnell (R-KY), Murkowski (R-AK), Nelson (D-NE), Risch (R-ID), Roberts (R-KS), Sessions (R-AL), Shelby (R-AL), Thune (R-SD), Vitter (R-LA), Voinovich (R-OH), and Wicker (R-MS) are all anti-Semites, because they voted against confirming Elena Kagan.

[Sopranos Republican]

Oldiesfreak is absolutely right on the past. But I think we Republicans need to do a much better job at reaching minorities in the present. I don't believe the Republican Party is a bunch of racists like some people seem to think. I tend to think a lot of minorities, not all, but a lot are more conservative then their voting patterns would indicate. But they simply refuse to vote for the Republican party because they believe that we hate their skin color. I think that we need to very simply need to let them know that our policies are made for everyone, not just white people. And another good place to start would be to call out some of the people who have made very insensitive comments, like that Rapert guy from Arkansas, let everyone know that we won't stand for that nonsense.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I know, OK? The point wasn't "Fritz Hollings was a tireless fighter for civil rights since the day he was born", but he did deserve credit for his actions regarding Clemson crisis in 1962.

He also voted against confirming Thurgood Marshall to the Supreme Court.

Oldiesfreak logic: Senators Alexander (R-TN), Barrasso (R-WY), Bennett (R-UT), Bond (R-MO), Brown (R-MA), Brownback (R-KS), Bunning (R-KY), Burr (R-NC), Chambliss (R-GA), Coburn (R-OK), Cochran (R-MS), Corker (R-TN), Cornyn (R-TX), Crapo (R-ID), DeMint (R-SC), Ensign (R-NV), Enzi (R-WY), Grassley (R-IA), Hatch (R-UT), Hutchison (R-TX), Inhofe (R-OK), Isakson (R-GA), Johanns (R-NE), Kyl (R-AZ), LeMieux (R-FL), McCain (R-AZ), McConnell (R-KY), Murkowski (R-AK), Nelson (D-NE), Risch (R-ID), Roberts (R-KS), Sessions (R-AL), Shelby (R-AL), Thune (R-SD), Vitter (R-LA), Voinovich (R-OH), and Wicker (R-MS) are all anti-Semites, because they voted against confirming Elena Kagan.

To be fair, Southern votes against Marshall were mostly motived by race politics, though it's pretty good characteristic of Oldies' logic.

It was pandering to the base, that would go nuclear if they voted "aye". Amusingly, 20 years after voring against Marshall's confirmation, Hollings supported Jesse Jackson for the Democratic nomination.

[All Along The Watchtower]

1. It would have made no sense for Nixon to pander to racists, covertly or otherwise, in 1968, because George Wallace was running as an overt racist.  It would be like Romney campaigning in California or Obama campaigning in Texas in 2012--it's pointless because those voters are safely in your opponent's column.  Nixon's running mate, Spiro Agnew, was a strong supporter of civil rights who had defeated a segregationist Democrat for governor of Maryland in 1966.  That's no smart way to win the votes of bigots.  Plus, if race was still such a hot issue in 1968, then why would overt racism have backfired on Nixon but not on Wallace?
RY/9236_12_02_13_4_59_48.png[/img]

It absolutely made sense for Nixon to pander to covert racists, since Wallace had a lot of support among the "overt" racists but little support outside of that. However-and this is something that needs to be understood especially by you-whether you were Democratic, Republican, or Independent back then, or even now, if you were a white American, chances were, you were at least a covert racist.

Racism is by no means, no means limited to "uneducated hicks" from the rural  South or Appalachia, etc... There were (and still are) plenty of educated, "mainstream", suburban (and urban) middle-class and affluent white Americans who, though they may say they are "tolerant" or "progressive" on issues like, say, most civil rights issues, would not want (or be at best, somewhat uncomfortable with)  black or other (mostly) non-white "undesirable" elements in their neighborhoods, in their schools, in their churches, marrying their children....the list goes on.

Someone openly segregationist and bluntly anti-intellectual  like George Wallace, in 1968, offended most educated white middle-class suburbanites. But someone like Richard Nixon (or indeed,  Ronald Reagan in 1980) talking about "urban crime" and "law and order" or "welfare queens" or "states rights"...well, such ideas were (and still are, frankly) quite mainstream among white middle-class Americans. Indeed, there were millions of this "Silent Majority" of Americans who were upset by (among other things) civil rights legislation going "too fast", and Nixon took full advantage of such white middle-class fears.

Racism is not merely a personal belief or prejudice. It is an ideological framework for political and social control. This needs to be understood.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

1. It would have made no sense for Nixon to pander to racists, covertly or otherwise, in 1968, because George Wallace was running as an overt racist.  It would be like Romney campaigning in California or Obama campaigning in Texas in 2012--it's pointless because those voters are safely in your opponent's column.  Nixon's running mate, Spiro Agnew, was a strong supporter of civil rights who had defeated a segregationist Democrat for governor of Maryland in 1966.  That's no smart way to win the votes of bigots.  Plus, if race was still such a hot issue in 1968, then why would overt racism have backfired on Nixon but not on Wallace?
RY/9236_12_02_13_4_59_48.png[/img]

It absolutely made sense for Nixon to pander to covert racists, since Wallace had a lot of support among the "overt" racists but little support outside of that. However-and this is something that needs to be understood especially by you-whether you were Democratic, Republican, or Independent back then, or even now, if you were a white American, chances were, you were at least a covert racist.

Racism is by no means, no means limited to "uneducated hicks" from the rural  South or Appalachia, etc... There were (and still are) plenty of educated, "mainstream", suburban (and urban) middle-class and affluent white Americans who, though they may say they are "tolerant" or "progressive" on issues like, say, most civil rights issues, would not want (or be at best, somewhat uncomfortable with)  black or other (mostly) non-white "undesirable" elements in their neighborhoods, in their schools, in their churches, marrying their children....the list goes on.

Someone openly segregationist and bluntly anti-intellectual  like George Wallace, in 1968, offended most educated white middle-class suburbanites. But someone like Richard Nixon (or indeed,  Ronald Reagan in 1980) talking about "urban crime" and "law and order" or "welfare queens" or "states rights"...well, such ideas were (and still are, frankly) quite mainstream among white middle-class Americans. Indeed, there were millions of this "Silent Majority" of Americans who were upset by (among other things) civil rights legislation going "too fast", and Nixon took full advantage of such white middle-class fears.

Racism is not merely a personal belief or prejudice. It is an ideological framework for political and social control. This needs to be understood.

"Urban crime" and "law and order" were not racist codewords.  Even if people were covertly racist, they would've voted for Wallace anyway because even if Nixon wanted their votes, Wallace was clearly the racist candidate.  Nixon was a consisyent supporter of civil rights, even after becoming president.  And besides, how do you describe "urban crime" and "law and order" with any other term?

[Maxwell]

Also, Ronald Reagan said this in 1980 in Mississippi:
I believe in states' rights

Wait, you mean Ronald Reagan thinks the 10th Amendment exists? How shocking!

Thought*

He's dead

Nonsense, Zombie Ronald Reagan is the front-runner in 2016!