If Cuba were a racist apartheid-style system rather than a Communist dictatorship, no one would be so eager to do business with it.
Sadly for Lowry's comical attempt at revisionist history, there was no shortage of conservatives "eager to do business" with apartheid South Africa. Among them were the National Review and President Ronald Reagan.
As Jacob Heilbrunn documented at length, the National Review was an early, vocal supporter of the Afrikaner regime and its deepening apartheid system in South Africa. In a 1960 editorial, NR declared, "the whites are entitled, we believe, to pre-eminence in South Africa." And 26 years later--at the height of the global debate over sanctions against and divestment from Boer-controlled South Africa--little had changed for William F. Buckley's rag:
To what extent is the vast majority of South African blacks intellectually and practically prepared to assume the social, economic, and political leadership in a highly industrialized country?
As Heilbrunn explained, conservative defenses for the brutal, racist apartheid regime evolved over time:
These apologies came in several stages. Throughout, conservatives defended apartheid, but the tactical emphases shifted over the decades. During the first stage, in the 1960s, conservatives depicted blacks as racially inferior to whites and praised the homelands policy of South Africa. In the second stage, in the 1970s, conservatives painted apartheid as a necessary evil; the Soviet threat required the United States to support South Africa. In the final stage, in the 1980s, the right decried the move toward divestment and sanctions, argued that capitalism would save the country, and portrayed Nelson Mandela and the African National Congress as pawns of the Kremlin.
In the face of growing domestic and international pressure, President Reagan nevertheless vetoed the 1985 Anti-Apartheid Act. At a time when the U.S. accounted for about one-fifth of direct foreign investment in South Africa, Reagan agreed with UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher that sanctions would be "immoral" and "repugnant." As he explained to Zambian President Kenneth Kaunda on March 30, 1983, "We made clear we detest Apartheid but believe we can do better with S. Africa by persuasion." Reagan's diaries show that he didn't just denounce "extreme actions" like divestment, but criticized the Nobel Peace Prize-winning Bishop Desmond Tutu as "naïve." (The Gipper also confessed that "I was not a fan of Bishop Tutu" in part because "the Bishop seems unaware, even though he himself is Black, that part of the problem is tribal not racial.")nothing changes on the right wing they still deny racial existence and still blame those they impose it on as the reason that they experience what we do because of their denial which will never lead to cooperation their book says if it ain't broke don't fix it, denial does not constitute broken even in Reagan world. it also shows that republicans will always put profit before anything else, what they can get is the first order of business.
remember Beohner early on saying things like i got 98% of what i wanted or their interpretation of compromise, "Democrats do what we want" but what they want is what they tell Americans they want do they really listen or hear or are they just programmed to follow orders without question, that is what the southern republicans are trying to pass as school curriculum for kids a continuation of the tea party indoctrination summer camps where your kid gets the right wing ideology hammered in.
http://gawker.com/5814150/roger-ailes-secret-nixon+era-blueprint-for-fox-news
http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/tea-party-child-indoctrination-camps
