John Miller needs to realize that National Review, though founded in 1955, need not apply the same beliefs of the time to the present day. I like Ike as much as the next guy, but we've moved on. Cars have seatbelts. The Dodgers no longer play in Brooklyn. Men are not expected to wear fedoras anymore. And perhaps as a direct result of all of these things, people believe in the very least in equality of opportunity amongs all races.

Also today, John McCain courted black voters in Cleveland.

In addition to the quotes you cite, Helms once called his state's flagship school "the University of Negros and Communists" -- which (needless to say) he didn't intend as a compliment. The guy wasn't just opposed to affirmative action and the Black Panthers; he was an old-school, out-and-out racist. There's something seriously wrong with people at places like NR who won't at least acknowledge that fact as they extol his putative virtues.

Rozenson -- For what it's worth, NR circa 1955 was nothing if not anti-Ike. Slamming moderate, wishy-washy, soft-on-Communism Republicans was basically it's raison d'etre.

... But their unalloyed celebration of Helms is a staggering indictment of movement conservatism's views on race....

This is over the top. it's an *indictment* of one guy being way overly ideological. It seems pernicous to me to smuggle in innuendos about the racism of movement conservatives.

Pol Pot did not oppose peace! No! He opposed a particular vision of peace!

Joseph Stalin did not oppose democracy! It would be historically ignorant to say so! He opposed a particular vision of democracy.

Osama bin Laden doesn't oppose America! Goodness, no! He opposes a particular vision of America!

Ad nauseum, black is white.

basman: go google Free Republic and race and check out some of the choice comments by foot-soldiers in the movement.

Yes, indeed.  Go Chait!

It's unkind to speak ill of the dead, but Helms deserves an exception to the rule.  My favorite "low" for him was chuckling about the n-word with Bob Novak on CNN crossfire.  However, in deference to the be-kind-to-the-dead-and-their-survivors principle, I'll say this: he was largely right abut the United Nations.  

You're right, lymon1, my mama did tell me if I couldn't speak nicely of someone, then don't say anything.

So.....here goes......

<silence>

<crickets>

Oh, to hell with it...

basman,

The National Review's editorial on the front page today (7/708) also celebrated Helms with only minor caution in their editorial today.  No, as Chait notes, Helms 'vision' needs to be wholly repudiated before anyone mistakenly thinks the conservative movement is through with racism.

http://tinyurl.com/5j54na

I can't help but think about BHO's BFF Bill Ayers, unrepentant ex-Weatherman. According to conservatives, anyone who could pass Ayers in the fermented yak milk section of Whole Foods without punching him is a suspect American (courtesy of Noemie Emery in the Weekly Standard). To the extent this is arguing that building bombs to use against fellow Americans is an unforgivable sin, no matter what one does in later life, this liberal has some sympathy - the Weathermen are not heroes to me, and I'm pretty sure this is true for most of us. (I also note that Ayers deserves even less chance at rehabilitation because, as noted at the outset, he seems not to regret his acts in the 60's.)

But - when Ayers dies, he will not be eulogized by liberals as a tireless worker for peace, or a fearless opponent of the Vietnam War. (And he sure as hell won't be eulogized, even in the Nation, as a "man of peace" without any mention that his actions on behalf of peace included plots to blow things up - if any liberals decide to praise Ayers' for his bombs, they will do so directly, not pretend it never happened, as conservatives are doing with Helms' segregationist past.) Instead, when they talk about his anti-war activities, they will criticize Ayers for the bomb-throwing, and won't have any difficulty saying that it was morally wrong and strategically counter-productive.  They won't have any difficulty saying this because it's true. They also won't have difficulty saying this because no matter how much it may hurt the feelings of some 60's survivors who think the only problem with the Weathermen was that they didn't go far enough, the liberal coalition will not be diminished if everyone who thinks violent oppostion to American policy is justified stays home or votes for Nader on election day.

Not so for conservatives. In choosing to praise rather than bury Jesse, and more importantly in choosing to completely gloss over the fact that Helms was a segregationist when it was cool, and never ceased his race-baiting nor moderated his tone after segregation was outlawed, conservatives clearly must believe that their coalition cannot survive without bigots. Or, if "bigots" is too harsh, let's say that the coalition cannot survive without stoking White resentment at beneficial, indeed absolutely critical social change. Which is another thing the conservative movement thinks it cannot do - articulate what lessons they've learned from being utterly wrong on the fundamental moral issue of mid-20th Century America, and how those lessons have informed the movement's positions today.  

Androscoggin,

Helms didn't exactly say "Negroes" in his famous line about UNC...

lymon,

It is not always wrong to speak ill of the dead, especially when the dead guy is an unrepentent racist like Jesse Helms. Helms, by the way, is still dead.

Jesse's version of civil rights was called Jim Crow. The Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments guaranteed rights to black people. We just needed to enforce the Constitutional Amendments we already had, not put additional laws on the books!

Jesse Helms, racist, is still dead.

Here, here Chait. After Helm's death I was very dismayed by the white washed eulogies published in various media outlets and given by many republicans. Everyone seemed to be praising this man as a fine public servant who was dedicated to freedom. Such blatant bull crap! Jesse Helms was an lifelong racist and bigot who was opposed to the principles of freedom. If he had his way, people like me (read black women) would still be relegated to working as washerwomen and mammies and would have no access to education and advancement. I don't think that speaking the truth is speaking ill of the dead. I rather people be honest rather than put forth outright lies. Perhaps such a policy would further encourage people to lead exemplary lives worthy of praise once they die rather than to spend their days working for the cause of hatred and division.

And will remain dead tomorrow.  While this conservative agreed with Helms on some issues, Jesse was totally wrong on race, and if he was not overtly racist, skirted waaaay too close to the edge, even unto the end.

Whereas Strom Thurmond repented (mostly) of his sins of the Jim Crow days, Jesse never really did.  So if you wish to praise Helms for his anti-Communism, his advocacy of limited government, OK.  But he was wrong on race.

Any credit Helms may get for being "right" regarding the UN is buried under a ginormous pile of extremism, viciousness and bile. It's like saying Osama bin Laden is "right" about the U.S. because you think pop culture has gotten a little too trashy.

I went back and forth on whether it was OK to be glad that Helms had shuffled off this mortal coil, because of that whole "don't speak ill of the dead" issue. But the guy was at the top of my list of exceptions to that rule, along with bin Laden and Barry Switzer.

Barry Switzer?

Longhorn or Cornhusker: which one are you, Woody?