Op-Ed
OP-ED: No, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Didn’t Call Ronald Reagan a Racist. But She Should Have
SAN ANTONIO OBSERVER —
By Michael Harriot
One of my earliest memories in life was the night Ronald Reagan was elected president because it was also the night I prayed harder than I ever have in life.
During the presidential campaign of 1980, I distinctly remember being terrified after I heard an adult say: “If Reagan is elected, he will send black people back in the cotton fields.” So, on the night of the election, when I heard my grandmother and mother in the next room say that he had won, I got down on my knees.
I didn’t know how to pick cotton. Would I have to give up my dream of playing point guard for the Los Angeles Lakers and my future side hustle as a tambourine player in Earth Wind & Fire to get a cotton-picking degree in picking cotton? Why would I even need to go to kindergarten if I was doomed to a life on the plantation? I had already started my tambourine lessons! I needed to talk to Jesus about this.
While I now realize that my 6-year-old self couldn’t properly understand sarcasm, the memory underscores the feelings of most black people who survived the era of trickle-down economics, the War on Drugs and the demonization of the Welfare Queen. So imagine my surprise when I learned that there are white people who didn’t know that Ronald Reagan is considered by many to be the most racist president in modern, pre-Trump history.
According to Mediaite and the Caucasian Pearl-Clutching Weekly, Rep. Ronald Reagan (D-NY) was interviewed at the South by Southwest Festival on Saturday and made comments that really rankled some Republicans. Although I’ve never personally experienced a “rankling,” I imagined it is not pleasant.
Mediaite reports:
AOC was interviewed Saturday at the festival by The Intercept Senior Politics Editor Briahna Gray, and discussed Reagan’s political exploitation of race, without explicitly calling him a racist.
“One perfect example, I think a perfect example of how special interests and the powerful have pitted white working-class Americans against brown and black working-class Americans in order to just screw over all working class Americans,” Ocasio-Cortez said, “is Reaganism in the eighties, when he started talking about Welfare Queens.”
She said that Reagan presented a “resentful vision of essentially black women who were doing nothing, that were sucks on our country,” and that Reagan gave people who were “already subconsciously trained to resent” black women “a different reason that’s not explicit racism, but still rooted in a racist caricature, it gives people a logical, a quote ‘logical’ reason to say ‘oh yeah, I know, toss out the whole social safety net.”
White people love Ronald Reagan.
Ronald Reagan is a conservative icon even more beloved than white things like the Hallmark Channel, pumpkin patches or oversized American flags. Since 1988, Republicans have been searching for another populist GOP Messiah to return America to the glory days of unbridled capitalism and unabashed whiteness. So conservatives and right-leaning moderates were stunned to hear that not everyone has the same regard for the former champion of white fear mongering. But Ocasio-Cortez’s comments were common knowledge to others.
I was flabbergasted to learn that white America had no idea that people felt this way about Reagan. In the 1980 election, Reagan garnered 14 percent of the black vote, according to the Roper Center. But after four years of Reagan, only 9 percent of black voters cast a ballot for Reagan in the 1984 presidential race. Even more telling, in his second bid for office, 66 percent of whites voted for the Gipper. Since the passage of the Voting Rights Act, no president has won an election with a bigger gap between black and white voters.
And while many people wrongly assume that Ocasio-Cortez called Reagan “a racist,” what she really said was that his policies exploited racism, similar to our current White House Grand Dragon. Any examination of Reagan’s presidency reveals one thing to be true.
Ronald Reagan was the white man’s president.
Ronald Reagan is one of the first candidates who employed racial dog whistles to practice “identity politics.”
During his first try at the Republican nomination in 1976, he tried to vanquish then-President Gerald Ford by voicing his opposition to the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act and the Fair Housing Act. Coretta Scott King said she was “scared that if Ronald Reagan gets into office, we are going to see more of the Ku Klux Klan and a resurgence of the Nazi Party.”
In 1980, Reagan kicked off his campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi, at the Neshoba County Fair, where local Klansmen were still being protected after the white supremacist, Mississippi Burning murders of civil rights workers in 1964.Political candidates had avoided the area for years before Reagan kicked off his campaign to a raucous crowd of 10,000 white people listening to him champion “states rights.”
During Reagan’s presidency, he vetoed an anti-Apartheid bill and initially opposed making Martin Luther King Jr.’s birthday a federal holiday. His stances against affirmative action grew stronger, leading him to direct his justice department to issue directives against hiring practices in 56 states, counties and cities.
In fact, Justin Gomer and Christopher Petrella of the Washington Post credits Reagan with inventing the Republican narrative that affirmative action equals reverse racism, writing:
More than any other modern U.S. president, it was Ronald Reagan who cultivated the concept of so-called reverse discrimination, which emerged in the 1970s as a backlash against affirmative action in public schooling as court-ordered busing grew throughout the country. During these years, a growing number of white Americans came to believe civil rights programs and policies had outstretched their original intent and had turned whites into the victims of racial discrimination.
His other strategies for dismantling civil rights protections were much more nefarious. He loaded federal courts with judges who were hostile to civil rights laws. Before he was nominated to the Supreme Court, staunch conservative Clarence Thomas was in charge of the Justice Department’s Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. And while many assume it was her position on Roe v. Wade that earned Sandra Day O’Connor a nomination from Reagan to the Supreme Court, many forget how she played the “lead role in decisions that undid certain affirmative action policies and the cold treatment she generally gave plaintiffs of color who alleged discrimination.”
Reagan’s trickle-down economics disproportionately affected people of color, causing the biggest disparity in black and white unemployment since the repeal of segregation. After 1963, the number of children who experienced segregation in American schools decreased dramatically until the Reagan administration’s opposition to busing brought the downward trend to a standstill. In 1976, Reagan created the idea of the “welfare queen”—stoking the idea that “strapping young bucks” were somehow using government assistance to buy T-Bone steaks and Cadillacs. To this very day, the GOP perpetuates this racist, dog-whistle trope to demonize immigrants and minorities as bloodsucking parasites living off government handouts even though these programs benefit poor whites the most.
But nowhere was Reagan’s anti-black policies more evident than in his continuation of the War on Drugs. He began his “zero tolerance” drug initiative by demonizing the epidemic of crack cocaine as an inner-city problem while the data showed that whites used it more. When his administration implemented the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, he established mandatory minimums for crack cocaine that were much harsher than the penalties for powder cocaine.
According to the Drug Policy Alliance, when Ronald Reagan took office, there were 50,000 people incarcerated for nonviolent drug offenses. By 1997, 400,000 people were imprisoned for nonviolent narcotics crimes, largely because of Reagan-era mandatory minimums. But it wasn’t whites who were being sent to jail. Despite the fact that whites and blacks used illegal drugs at about the same rate during the Reagan era, the percentage of black people arrested for illicit drugs increased dramatically while the white arrest rate stayed relatively flat.

Photo: TheRoot
The furor over Ocasio-Cortez’s comments reveals the way white America mistakenly defines racism. To them, racism exists in heads and hearts alone, not in deeds. It is the notion that fuels bigots to adamantly declare that they can’t be racist because they know what’s in their hearts. It causes congressman to defend Donald Trump’s racism by parading one of his lone black employees out while ignoring his actions.
It might be true that Ronald Reagan didn’t have a speck of animus toward black people. Maybe some of his best friends were black. Even though it is impossible to know how Reagan felt about black people in his heart, it is also irrelevant.
Ronald Reagan’s heart didn’t explode the black prison population. His heart didn’t cause an explosion in wealth inequality, dismantle civil rights, demonize black people, infuse racism into politics, widen the black unemployment gap or perpetuate economic, social and political disparities at every turn.
His policies did that.
So, even though Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez didn’t call GOP Jesus a racist, maybe she should have. Because, if Ronald Reagan’s presidency wasn’t racist, then racism does not exist. At this very moment, black communities across America are still recovering from the Reagan era.
But at least I still have these cotton-picking tambourine skills.
This article originally appeared in The San Antonio Observer.
Activism
OPINION: Your Voice and Vote Impact the Quality of Your Health Care
One of the most dangerous developments we’re seeing now? Deep federal cuts are being proposed to Medicaid, the life-saving health insurance program that covers nearly 80 million lower-income individuals nationwide. That is approximately 15 million Californians and about 1 million of the state’s nearly 3 million Black Californians who are at risk of losing their healthcare.

By Rhonda M. Smith, Special to California Black Media Partners
Shortly after last year’s election, I hopped into a Lyft and struck up a conversation with the driver. As we talked, the topic inevitably turned to politics. He confidently told me that he didn’t vote — not because he supported Donald Trump, but because he didn’t like Kamala Harris’ résumé. When I asked what exactly he didn’t like, he couldn’t specifically articulate his dislike or point to anything specific. In his words, he “just didn’t like her résumé.”
That moment really hit hard for me. As a Black woman, I’ve lived through enough election cycles to recognize how often uncertainty, misinformation, or political apathy keep people from voting, especially Black voters whose voices are historically left out of the conversation and whose health, economic security, and opportunities are directly impacted by the individual elected to office, and the legislative branches and political parties that push forth their agenda.
That conversation with the Lyft driver reflects a troubling surge in fear-driven politics across our country. We’ve seen White House executive orders gut federal programs meant to help our most vulnerable populations and policies that systematically exclude or harm Black and underserved communities.
One of the most dangerous developments we’re seeing now? Deep federal cuts are being proposed to Medicaid, the life-saving health insurance program that covers nearly 80 million lower-income individuals nationwide. That is approximately 15 million Californians and about 1 million of the state’s nearly 3 million Black Californians who are at risk of losing their healthcare.
Medicaid, called Medi-Cal in California, doesn’t just cover care. It protects individuals and families from medical debt, keeps rural hospitals open, creates jobs, and helps our communities thrive. Simply put; Medicaid is a lifeline for 1 in 5 Black Americans. For many, it’s the only thing standing between them and a medical emergency they can’t afford, especially with the skyrocketing costs of health care. The proposed cuts mean up to 7.2 million Black Americans could lose their healthcare coverage, making it harder for them to receive timely, life-saving care. Cuts to Medicaid would also result in fewer prenatal visits, delayed cancer screenings, unfilled prescriptions, and closures of community clinics. When healthcare is inaccessible or unaffordable, it doesn’t just harm individuals, it weakens entire communities and widens inequities.
The reality is Black Americans already face disproportionately higher rates of poorer health outcomes. Our life expectancy is nearly five years shorter in comparison to White Americans. Black pregnant people are 3.6 times more likely to die during pregnancy or postpartum than their white counterparts.
These policies don’t happen in a vacuum. They are determined by who holds power and who shows up to vote. Showing up amplifies our voices. Taking action and exercising our right to vote is how we express our power.
I urge you to start today. Call your representatives, on both sides of the aisle, and demand they protect Medicaid (Medi-Cal), the Affordable Care Act (Covered CA), and access to food assistance programs, maternal health resources, mental health services, and protect our basic freedoms and human rights. Stay informed, talk to your neighbors and register to vote.
About the Author
Rhonda M. Smith is the Executive Director of the California Black Health Network, a statewide nonprofit dedicated to advancing health equity for all Black Californians.
Activism
OPINION: Supreme Court Case Highlights Clash Between Parental Rights and Progressive Indoctrination
At the center of this controversy are some parents from Montgomery County in Maryland, who assert a fundamental principle: the right to shield their children from exposure to sexual content that is inappropriate for their age, while also steering their moral and ethical upbringing in alignment with their faith. The local school board decided to introduce a curriculum that includes LGBTQ+ themes — often embracing controversial discussions of human sexuality and gender identity.

By Craig J. DeLuz, Special to California Black Media Partners
In America’s schools, the tension between parental rights and learning curricula has created a contentious battlefield.
In this debate, it is essential to recognize that parents are, first and foremost, their children’s primary educators. When they send their children to school — public or private — they do not surrender their rights or responsibilities. Yet, the education establishment has been increasingly encroaching on this vital paradigm.
A case recently argued before the Supreme Court regarding Maryland parents’ rights to opt out of lessons that infringe upon their religious beliefs epitomizes this growing conflict. This case, Mahmoud v. Taylor, is not simply about retreating from progressive educational mandates. It is fundamentally a defense of First Amendment rights, a defense of parents’ rights to be parents.
At the center of this controversy are some parents from Montgomery County in Maryland, who assert a fundamental principle: the right to shield their children from exposure to sexual content that is inappropriate for their age, while also steering their moral and ethical upbringing in alignment with their faith. The local school board decided to introduce a curriculum that includes LGBTQ+ themes, often embracing controversial discussions of human sexuality and gender identity. The parents argue that the subject matter is age-inappropriate, and the school board does not give parents the option to withdraw their children when those lessons are taught.
This case raises profound questions about the role of public education in a democratic society. In their fervent quest for inclusivity, some educators seem to have overlooked an essential truth: that the promotion of inclusivity should never infringe upon parental rights and the deeply held convictions that guide families of different faith backgrounds.
This matter goes well beyond mere exposure. It veers into indoctrination when children are repeatedly confronted with concepts that clash with their family values.
“I don’t think anybody can read that and say: well, this is just telling children that there are occasions when men marry other men,” noted Justice Samuel Alito. “It has a clear moral message, and it may be a good message. It’s just a message that a lot of religious people disagree with.”
Justice Amy Coney Barrett raised a crucial point, noting that it is one thing to merely expose students to diverse ideas; it is quite another to present certain viewpoints as indisputable truths. By framing an ideology with the certainty of “this is the right view of the world,” educators risk indoctrination rather than enlightenment. This distinction is not merely academic; it speaks to the very essence of cultivating a truly informed citizenry.
Even Justice Elena Kagan expressed concern regarding the exposure of young children to certain materials in Montgomery County.
“I, too, was struck by these young kids’ picture books and, on matters concerning sexuality, I suspect there are a lot of non-religious parents who weren’t all that thrilled about this,” she said.
Justice John Roberts aptly questioned the practicality of expecting young children to compartmentalize their beliefs in the classroom.
“It is unreasonable to expect five-year-olds, still forming their worldviews, to reconcile lessons that conflict fundamentally with the teachings they receive at home,” he said.
As was noted in my previous commentary, “The Hidden Truth In The Battle Over Books In American Schools”, what lies at the heart of these debates is a moral disconnect between the values held by the majority of Americans and those promoted by the educational establishment. While the majority rightly argue that material containing controversial content of a sexual nature should have no place in our children’s classrooms, the education establishment continues to tout the necessity of exposing children to such content under the guise of inclusivity. This disregards the legitimate values held by the wider community.
Highlighted in this case that is before the Supreme Court is a crucial truth: parents must resolutely maintain their right to direct their children’s education, according to their values. This struggle is not simply a skirmish; it reflects a broader movement aimed at reshaping education by privileging a state-sanctioned narrative while marginalizing dissenting voices.
It is imperative that we assert, without hesitation, that parents are — and must remain — the primary educators of their children.
When parents enroll a child in a school, it should in no way be interpreted as a relinquishment of parental authority or the moral guidance essential to their upbringing. We must stand firm in defending parental rights against the encroaching ideologies of the education establishment.
About the Author
Craig J. DeLuz has almost 30 years of experience in public policy and advocacy. He has served as a member of The Robla School District Board of Trustees for over 20 years. He also currently hosts a daily news and commentary show called “The RUNDOWN.” You can follow him on X at @CraigDeLuz.
Activism
Oakland Post Endorses Barbara Lee
Barbara Lee will be able to unify the city around Oakland’s critical budget and financial issues, since she will walk into the mayor’s office with the support of a super majority of seven city council members — enabling her to achieve much-needed consensus on moving Oakland into a successful future.

As we end the celebration of Women’s History Month in Oakland, we endorse Barbara Lee, a woman of demonstrated historical significance. In our opinion, she has the best chance of uniting the city and achieving our needs for affordable housing, public safety, and fiscal accountability.
As a former small business owner, Barbara Lee understands how to apply tools needed to revitalize Oakland’s downtown, uptown, and neighborhood businesses.
Barbara Lee will be able to unify the city around Oakland’s critical budget and financial issues, since she will walk into the mayor’s office with the support of a super majority of seven city council members — enabling her to achieve much-needed consensus on moving Oakland into a successful future.
It is notable that many of those who fought politically on both sides of the recent recall election battles have now laid down their weapons and become brothers and sisters in support of Barbara Lee. The Oakland Post is pleased to join them.
-
#NNPA BlackPress3 weeks ago
MLK Bust Quietly Removed from Oval Office Under Trump
-
Activism3 weeks ago
Oakland Post: Week of May 7 – 13, 2025
-
Activism4 weeks ago
Oakland Post: Week of April 30 – May 6, 2025
-
#NNPA BlackPress3 weeks ago
Trump Abruptly Fires First Carla Hayden: The First Black Woman to Serve as Librarian of Congress
-
Activism2 weeks ago
New Oakland Moving Forward
-
Activism2 weeks ago
After Two Decades, Oakland Unified Will Finally Regain Local Control
-
Activism2 weeks ago
Oakland Post: Week of May 14 – 20, 2025
-
Alameda County2 weeks ago
Oakland Begins Month-Long Closure on Largest Homeless Encampment