Hacker News Reader

Comment by acdha | Hacker News Reader

This is such an important bit of history for anyone who’s ever thought George Takei is too liberal or outspoken. His childhood was profoundly shaped by reactionary bigots, and then coming of age as a gay man in that era he had to face another life-altering prejudice. He was phenomenally lucky to be a talented actor and get a huge break but that also means he’s keenly aware of just how much is at stake if that kind of people regain power.

An older friend was married to someone who was held in Manzanar. I drove by with them in the 2000s and the mood was somber. His life got a lot better after the war and he was able to spend most of his retirement fishing off of the coast in San Diego but it’s hard to forget that your home country saw you as a threat even while a child.

View on HN

> it’s hard to forget that your home country saw you as a threat even while a child.

And it’s the inability to forget that kept a citizenship question off the 2020 census[0], a reminder of the long lasting impact the internment still has on the US.

[0]https://www.npr.org/2018/12/26/636107892/some-japanese-ameri...

What does one have to do with the other? Japanese internment was racist because US citizens of one race were being treated differently than US citizens of a different race.

Now, maybe you believe that citizenship shouldn’t be a salient category for treating people differently, but that’s an entirely different argument that has nothing to do with internment.

It’s curious that the NPR article doesn’t take exception with the question on the census that’s actually related to internment, which is dividing up American citizens by race and ethnicity.

Internment started with forcing non-citizens to register with the state. The census question was essentially the same process, but on a national scale.

> There have been 23 decennial censuses since 1790. All but one between 1820 and 2000 asked at least some of the population about their citizenship or place of birth. The question was asked of all households until 1950, and was asked of a fraction of the population on an alternative long-form questionnaire between 1960 and 2000. In 2010, the citizenship question was moved from the census to the American Community Survey, which is sent each year to a small sample of households.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/18-966_bq7c.pdf

That's not at all true. The citizenship question was removed from the 2020 Decennial Census by the Supreme Court in Department of Commerce v New York (2019) which held the Department of Commerce failed to provide a genuine justification for the decision to add the citizenship question (as required by the Administrative Procedure Act), instead providing a contrived and pretextual explanation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_of_Commerce_v._New_...

That was the administrative reason why the question was not permitted. The case was raised to begin with because of fears it would result in undercounting non-citizens, who would be less likely to respond because the don’t trust that the data would remain private. This explanation is outlined in the section called “2020 Census” in the Wikipedia article you linked.

The article doesn't actually state the question, just links to a very large document that probably has it in there but I couldn't find it.

What was the question in particular?

page 11 of https://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=4426784-Plan...

"Is this person a citizen of the United States?"

Thanks!

The difference you can speak and be heard. I cannot.

I’m not sure what you mean by that. Why can’t you be heard?

Ah yes, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, a well-known "reactionary bigot".

It is a difficult thing for some people to understand. But sometimes good people can do bad things.

Were most of his policies based on the betterment of the oppressed? Absolutely.

Did he oversee one of the most objectively bigoted things that happened in 1942? Absolutely.

Was Roosevelt a bigot? I do not know.

But, is it fair to say that he was a reactionary bigot? Maybe.

That's the thing about people. They're very, very rarely one thing to the exclusion of all else. Violent racists can be outstanding community members on a very local scale. Extremely inclusive pacifists can be assholes to the people in their lives.

I routinely have to hear from left-leaning friends about how me and my family should be killed. They're completely ok with fantasizing about mass murder since they're Good People and their targets are acceptable. All their eat the richery is extra funny since the worst offenders are well paid programmers. They are of course not in line for the guillotine or the wall. Their comments about Christians are likewise really funny stuff to listen to. Just a constant, unthinking stream of abject bigotry from people who consider themselves openminded. I don't think they realize what they sound like to people outside their bubble.

> I routinely have to hear from left-leaning friends about how me and my family should be killed.

Uhuh. Sure you do.

Is it so unbelieveable that people hopped up on self-righteousness might end up behaving like garbage?

Yes, it is extremely difficult to believe that you "routinely have to hear from left-leaning friends about how [you and your] family should be killed". It's so comically exaggerated that I must assume you're either trolling or delusional.

Most charitably, my guess is you've developed a persecution complex which has you hearing a comment like (as an example) "the US would be better off if the GOP just disappeared" as "we must murder all conservatives".

Meanwhile, one side of the political spectrum appears more likely to inspire actual politically-motivated violence, and it's not the one you seem to be pointing the finger at:

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2122593119

> In short, our individual-level examination found that among radicalized individuals in the United States, those adhering to a left-wing ideology were markedly less likely to engage in violent ideologically motivated acts when compared to right-wing individuals.

...

> When compared to individuals associated with a right-wing ideology, individuals adhering to a left-wing ideology had 68% lower odds of engaging in violent (vs. nonviolent) radical behavior (b = −1.15, SE = 0.13, odds ratio [OR] = 0.32, P < 0.001). On the other hand, the difference between individuals motivated by Islamist and right-wing causes was not significant (b = 0.05, SE = 0.14, OR = 1.05, P = 0.747). Expressed in terms of predicted probabilities, the probability of left-wing violent attack was 0.33, that of right-wing violent attack was 0.61, and that of Islamist violent attack was 0.62.

Which, of course, is just more data backing up the many many analyses that right-wing violence is by far a greater threat than left-wing violence (this is from 2020):

https://www.csis.org/analysis/escalating-terrorism-problem-u...

> Overall, right-wing terrorists perpetrated the majority—57 percent—of all attacks and plots during this period, compared to 25 percent committed by left-wing terrorists, 15 percent by religious terrorists, 3 percent by ethnonationalists, and 0.7 percent by terrorists with other motives.

...

> Our data suggest that right-wing extremists pose the most significant terrorism threat to the United States, based on annual terrorist events and fatalities.

In fact, it's become institutionalized as this point. A recent poll showed that '30% of Republicans agree with the statement, “Because things have gotten so far off track, true American patriots may have to resort to violence in order to save our country.' Alarming? I'd say so.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2022/01/05/a...

So, hey, let's pretend for a moment that you are in fact surrounded by crazed lefties that talk to you about exterminating you and your family over your political views. There's one big difference between them and folks on the American right: They're far less likely to actually do anything about it.

I think you need to find some new friends.

I’ve never witnessed as much bigotry as when I lived in San Francisco

Abraham Lincoln supported enshrining slavery in the constitution. Einstein and MLK were serial adulterers. George Washington owned slaves. Let's not even start on Columbus.

There's something about human nature that makes us want to think of influential people as saints but rarely do they live up to that standard. We'd be far better off if we could banish this tendency from society.

Would be it any better to say "non-reactionary bigot"?

I think "reactionary bigot" is just a commonplace phrase often said perfunctorily, but I'm not sure the meaning of the original comment would change if the word "reactionary" was deleted. The argument over the word seems pedantic in the context. The original point is that Takei faced multiple forms of bigotry in his life.

Why would it be better? Internment was a reactionary policy! GGP is raising an objection over labels that are accurate.

> Internment was a reactionary policy!

The definition of reactionary is "opposing political or social liberalization or reform".

Whereas internment was a reaction, indeed an overreaction, to the war with Japan, based on the bigoted fear that Japanese-Americans were loyal to Japan rather than to America. Not exactly the same.

Yes, if you are exclusively pedantic, then it is not an exact fit in the meaning. I would argue that the common use of the word reactionary = person who reacts to something inappropriately.

But getting lost in pedantry instead of just moving through common usage when in regular human discourse is useless. There is no reason to walk down that road, other than to obfuscate any point the other person is trying to make behind a smoke screen of pseudo-intellectualism.

Sort of like I tried to do with those last two sentences.

This is a pretty pedantic debate but my reason for using it was that I think a factor in this wasn’t just generic anti-Asian sentiment but also the idea that they were new and challenging the image of the United States as a white country. California politics had a nasty “yellow horde” streak which feels distinct from, say, bigotry directed against native Americans or, in the south, Mexicans which tended to recognize their historical presence, treating them as kind of hapless children needing white guidance rather than invaders.

I think you're trying to make a point other than your sentence's literal meaning, but I'm too distanced from modern domestic US history to know. Can you clarify and elaborate?

The issue is combing reactionary and bigot. The internments were done the watch for Franklin Roosevelt and the New Deal coalition - a left leaning political movement that laid the foundations of the modern American welfare state. There were definitely many blatant examples of bigotry in the policies of this movement but they were far from reactionary.

Social issues change over time but the also correlate with otherwise unrelated social/political/economic issues so trying to apply political issues from 80 years ago into the modern era is going to lead to some incongruous positions.

The modern American welfare state was also reactionary and bigoted towards black people and minorities. It’s important to recognize that much of the social programs explicitly excluded people of color and then used their understandeable lower quality of life due to lack of safety nets as a justification for further racism. Black people have bad neighborhoods, but of course black people didnt get government housing assistance to repair anything, because the federal programs for that explicitly excluded them.

The same FDR signed Executive Order 8802, forbidding ethnic and racial discrimination in the defense industry and federal government.

And yet the federal housing administration continued to explicitly respect racist homeowner association laws (btw homeowner associations were originally created to enshrine into bylaws that no black people may rent or purchase a property), continued to offer lesser or worse terms, or would broadly consider black people too risky, until congress passed the fair housing act of 1968, decades later.

It was nonetheless the first time the Federal Government prohibited racial/ethnic employment discrimination, and was the first civil rights executive order since Reconstruction.

George Washington and Thomas Jefferson helped found the US and gave the world ideas of democracy. They also both owned slaves, imagined democracy as just for white male landowners, and under nearly any modern interpretation of the power dynamic Thomas Jefferson raped and fathered children with his slaves.

Maybe we should stop pretending these people who did some good things for the country were perfect gods. You can praise their accomplishments while still pointing out their flaws.

I think there is also a obsession with presentism and applying modern morals to the past. It is almost as if the point of historical study is to sit in judgement, opposed to understand how the world worked and changed.

Ask most people what the defining characteristics or deeds of Washington of Jefferson and they respond with the points above.

Are those the most impactful or noteworthy characteristics of those individuals? I don't think so. Perhaps they are interesting context for understanding their other deeds or the human condition, but certainly not the primary impact they had on history.

I've never met anybody who thinks FDR was a "perfect god". Abe or Washington, sure, but no such personality cult exists for FDR. So what are you even responding to? I have not criticized anybody for pointing out FDR's flaws (which were numerous and are widely acknowledged.)

The New Deal coalition included the entire Jim Crow southern democratic establishment.

They weren't the opposition, they were a key part of the coalition.

True. But the broader point is that transposing political positions from 100 years ago into modern politics is always verging on anachronism. In many ways the modern American welfare state and the modern Democratic Party both originate in the South through the populist movement and William Jennings Bryan. But consider: does William Jennings Bryan's opposition to teaching evolution in public schools have anything to do with agricultural subsidies or inflationary monetary policy? He very publicly advocated for all of these positions, but trying to bring this association into modern debates about interest rates or public education is a distraction.

It's interesting to consider the trajectory of ideas/movements.

Lots of professional-class liberals today consider "populism" to be a dirty word. Would they have been Hoover Republicans in that era?

Maybe. Hoover was a politically moderate, 54 year old, Stanford educated engineer from the West with a successful career in both industry, and civil service administration? Sounds like a great candidate on paper (honestly sounds better than the current front runners for 2024 at any rate). We often forget that he was actually very successful/effective in every previous post he had served in prior to the Great Depression. Hoover's reputation has been badly tarnished by his response to the Great Depression (which was totally inadequate to the magnitude of the task at hand). He could have and should have done a lot of things differently but instead he made ideologically motivated policy decisions that did not pan out. But to be fair, it is also not entirely his fault that he took office on the eve of the largest global economic catastrophe in history. He would probably be remembered much more fondly had he taken office in place of Harding or Coolidge 8 years prior.

Yeah I too wouldn't describe FDR's coalition as reactionary. As well that coalition was deeply weird. Included the Industrial Labor, Socialists, the old southern Aristocracy and Blacks.

Random observation. The US has almost forgot that before WWII that Pols, Italians, eastern Europeans, Irish, etc were distinct. And Asians were even farther out.

I know for a fact that my silent generation dad feels prejudice against Chinese. Even though he hates it's there. My grandmother was an antisemite though oddly not prejudiced against Mexicans or blacks. That whole family was salt of the earth. And half were unreformed bigots as well.

People are weird. The past is not the present.

FDR was the president who had the Japanese Americans removed to concentration camps. He's a hero of the left and one of the presidents who would least likely be described as a "reactionary bigot" in any other situation.

More broadly I object to this very modern attitude wherein people in the past who did things we consider wrong today were evil bigots. Which is not to say they weren't wrong.

It’s ok to praise FDR for the New Deal and also recognise that sending all Japanese people (and not German or Italian people) to internment camps was a bigoted, evil thing to do.

What do you want? For us to say “ah well, that’s just how it was back in the day”? You’re the one incapable of nuance if you want to put everything FDR did into one bucket or the other.

Japanese, Italians and Germans were declared Enemy Aliens: https://www.thc.texas.gov/preserve/projects-and-programs/mil...

I believe that the only reason most German-Americans were not interned is because they were too large a portion of the population to intern without seriously negatively effecting the war effort.

My evidence for this belief is the fact that Japanese-Americans represented a third of people living in Hawaii, more than 150k of them, yet in Hawaii only ~1800 Japanese-Americans were interned. About 1%. This, despite the fact that Hawaii was closer to the war than the rest of America, and despite the fact that the Niihau incident occurred in Hawaii. Interning a third of the population of Hawaii simply wasn't practical, so in Hawaii they had to exercise much more discretion.

Furthermore, some people believe that Executive Order 8802, which forbade ethnic and racial discrimination in defense industries, was intended more to prevent discrimination against German-Americans and Italian-Americans than against African-Americans. Supposing that is true, it evidences the perception of FDR's administration that discrimination against German-Americans, despite their skin color, was a plausible scenario and would harm the war effort if permitted.

Further evidence for the plausibility of ethnic discrimination against Germans, despite their skin color, is easy to find during WWI. Across America and the UK, German families (including the Royal Family..) changed their names to conceal their German origins. Schools stop teaching German, businesses were renamed, sauerkraut became "liberty cabbage" (freedom fries, anyone?) The Red Cross even forbade people with German last names from joining.

tl;dr: The federal government recognized the potential appetite for discrimination against German-Americans, but forbade this because German-Americans were a very large portion of the population and excluding them would harm the war effort. At the same time the federal government perpetrated discrimination against Japanese-Americans, except they exercised more discretion in Hawaii where Japanese-Americans were a very large segment of the population.

> Interning a third of the population of Hawaii simply wasn't practical

> At the same time the federal government perpetrated discrimination against Japanese-Americans, except they exercised more discretion in Hawaii where Japanese-Americans were a very large segment of the population.

Hawaii, not a US state at the time, was largely occupied by the US military prior to Pearl Harbor. After Pearl Harbor its residents were subject to martial law and their civil rights were suspended. The situation there was not analogous to the situation on the mainland, so I wouldn't use it to draw any conclusions.

> the only reason

Your thesis isn't wildly off-base, but how often is anything done by humans done for one single, solitary reason?

> Hawaii, not a US state at the time, was largely occupied by the US military prior to Pearl Harbor. After Pearl Harbor its residents were subject to martial law and their civil rights were suspended. The situation there was not analogous to the situation on the mainland, so I wouldn't use it to draw any conclusions.

This isn't the reason relatively few Japanese-Americans were interned in Hawaii. Compare it to Alaska. Like Hawaii, Alaska was an incorporated US territory. Japanese-Americans were ordered out of Alaska or interned.

The reason general internment didn't happen in Hawaii is because:

> "The powerful businessmen of Hawaii concluded that the imprisonment of such a large proportion of the islands' population would adversely affect the economic prosperity of the territory.[74] The Japanese represented "over 90 percent of the carpenters, nearly all of the transportation workers, and a significant portion of the agricultural laborers" on the islands.[74] General Delos Carleton Emmons, the military governor of Hawaii, also argued that Japanese labor was "'absolutely essential' for rebuilding the defenses destroyed at Pearl Harbor."[74] Recognizing the Japanese-American community's contribution to the affluence of the Hawaiian economy, General Emmons fought against the incarceration of the Japanese Americans and had the support of most of the businessmen of Hawaii.[74]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment_of_Japanese_America...

Japanese-Americans were a third of Hawaii's population, so interning them all would have been a disaster for Hawaii's economy and harmful to the war effort. That's why it didn't happen in Hawaii. German-Americans, unlike Japanese Americans, were a very large portion of the population in all states and territories, not just Hawaii. The needs of economy and war obviously wouldn't tolerate the internment of all German-Americans, so it didn't happen.

If you think general internment of German-Americans would have been implausible regardless of population size, because the Germans were white, you need to remember that perception of race has never been a rational matter. During WWI, Germans were racially 'othered' in the UK and US by assertions off Germans being "asiatic Huns" and similar nonsense. Nevermind that you couldn't visually distinguish an average German from an average Anglo, racial othering is obviously not bound to rationality. This inclination to racially other the enemy is only tempered by substantial ethnic overlap between the two warring parties. Where there is substantial ethnic overlaps, discrimination will be officially discouraged and resisted because it impairs the war effort (e.g. Executive Order 8802). Where there is little ethnic overlap, racial or ethnic discrimination often become convenient to the government and becomes officially sanctioned.

> This isn't the reason relatively few Japanese-Americans were interned in Hawaii. Compare it to Alaska. Like Hawaii, Alaska was an incorporated US territory. Japanese-Americans were ordered out of Alaska or interned.

What I was driving at, which sort of complements what you quoted, is: what would have been the rationale of sending all those Hawaiian Japanese-Americans to an internment camp in the midwest to be watched over by military police when they were in Hawaii, under martial law, being watched over by military police?

General Delos Carleton Emmons, the military governor of Hawaii, also argued that Japanese labor was "'absolutely essential' for rebuilding the defenses destroyed at Pearl Harbor."[74] Recognizing the Japanese-American community's contribution to the affluence of the Hawaiian economy, General Emmons fought against the incarceration of the Japanese Americans and had the support of most of the businessmen of Hawaii.

The interesting thing is, in a 100% wartime economy with full employment, depriving the economy of the labor of all those other Japanese-Americans in the continental United States was hurting the war effort as well. Not as acutely as tearing a big chunk out of the Hawaiian economy would, but still, not very rational.

> If you think general internment of German-Americans would have been implausible regardless of population size, because the Germans were white, you need to remember that perception of race has never been a rational matter.

I think internment of German-Americans would have been less likely, not implausible or impossible. The differences of Japanese-Americans in terms of dissimilar appearance and less shared culture would have greased the skids of racism, as it were. And yes, it's fair enough to point out that it doesn't always work that way and sometimes really, really similar groups engage in ethnic othering.

People can praise or criticize FDR for whatever they like. I'm objecting to the name-calling, not the idea that the internment of Japanese Americans was wrong.

Would you not describe the internment of Japanese Americans as reactionary or as bigotry? Which label do you actually disagree with? OP wasn't just mindlessly adding invectives; they used those words for a reason.

You can recognize an action both being a product of its time and being objectively wrong.

I think a good lesson here is that wrongness is not a monopoly owned by just one political ideology.

> He's a hero of the left and one of the presidents who would least likely be described as a "reactionary bigot" in any other situation.

those people have a pretty hypocritical and one-dimensional way of looking at history

> More broadly I object to this very modern attitude wherein people in the past who did things we consider wrong today were evil bigots.

but not me, I'm awesome

Wow, I don't think I've ever seen anyone dial a strawman argument to 11 quite like you just did. Nobody was talking about FDR until you hamfistedly brought him up in a reply to a post (indirectly) lamenting a period of history rife with racism. Prejudice was rampant all across the "political spectrum", but prevalence is not a measure of justice or humanity. Nor does any individual's competency in one area somehow ameliorate their flaws in other areas.

What they did is the literal definition of bigotry. They rounded up as many Japanese-Americans as they could and put them in prisons under heavy guard without any cause other than other people that look like them attacked a military base.

It was objectively wrong then, and it is wrong through all of time.

I believe they actually rounded them up to steal their farms in California. Japanese farms were the most productive back then, and they held almost all the best farms. During the war, they had their land and things stolen by politically connected neighbors.

http://www.sfmuseum.org/hist9/harvest.html#:~:text=The%20Wor....

>other than other people that look like them

You yourself are describing the people rounded up as Japanese (yes, with a qualifier). They were people more likely to have loyalty to an enemy state, weren't they? It was certainly a blunt tool; and not an issue I've looked at in detail; but do you expect FDR to have done nothing?

Interesting for me to consider whether UK was right to round up Germans for WWII, rather difficult when that includes the Royal Family, but they did imprison something like 10% of "Germans" living in the UK (I don't know if they were British, just visiting, naturalised, or what).

Is it ok to imprison people without cause? No, the answer you are looking for is no.

Right, that got us a long way. Is it OK to have less than 100% certainty before you detain someone? Would you detain one innocent person if it meant keeping 1000 murderers off the street?

If either of those is "yes" then we're just looking at where the line is.

Would you accept imprisonment if you knew it was keeping 1000 murderers off the street?

Do people who support Nazism deserve to get punched? Even if they're innocent of any crimes (a very oft heard sentiment from people who would otherwise say they value the rule of law)?

Nothing about war is OK, but sometimes we have to compromise on what we'd like to happen. I think it's interesting to try and be honest with oneself and ask where the line is.

Would I automatically lock up adults who described themselves as associated with an enemy country, when at war, probably not; but I wouldn't give them every freedom either. Indeed during times of war it is normal to curtail general freedoms. Would I consider it unjustifiable to lock up people who appear to be associated with an enemy country, also probably not. I guess I consider that sometimes it is acceptable, morally, to lock innocent people up ... no justice system could [barring future technology that can provide certainty on past events] ever lock anyone up without such a consideration.

I'm interested if you or others have anything to try and develop my thinking in this area. Thanks.

FDR is an example of how a politician can be called a Socialist in the United States while also being extremely reactionary and push racist policies.

If nothing else, this goes to show how far the scale is tipped in favor of right wing ideas and policies in the states and still is. The fact Biden, a fairly conservative politician, can be called a "Communist" with a straight face is an indictment of the American education system.

The labels don't even mean anything after a while. You can actively be enforcing fascist policies and still be labeled a socialist due to a population wide inability to understand what words mean.

Just to echo what other people said, the people who put American citizens of Japanese descent into prison camps were unambiguously bigots, and a lot of that was based on people wanting to assert that the United States was for white people (contrast with the much softer treatment of American citizens who were ethnically German and Italian).

The fact that some of the political leaders who approved that did other things doesn’t mean we shouldn’t hold them accountable for a venal act – I would argue the contrary since they’re otherwise praised and it’s important to remember that our heroes are not perfect and should not be copied without improvement. One can make similar statements about how, for example, programs like social security or the GI bill were both good for many people of lower class backgrounds but also carefully designed and implemented to benefit black people less than white people.

> softer treatment

Those countries didn’t attack directly in full force like the IJN did, by orders of magnitude. European Axis sunk a few American supply ships in international waters aiding their enemies.

There’s also the Niihau incident, which directly informed the response.

Truth is folks then had a tiny fraction of information that we have today—including hindsight. It’s unclear you would do any better in the same circumstances.

Yes, Japan struck first - nobody’s arguing that. My point is that after the United States was formally at war with all of the Axis powers, every American citizen of Japanese descent was forced into prison camps and significant financial loss. That didn’t even happen to all of the German or Italian citizens in the United States at the time, much less American citizens with roots in those countries.

(Also, a few supply ships is whitewashing somewhat – hundreds of Americans traveling on civilian vessels were killed by the German navy and there were dozens of American flagged ships sunk prior to Pearl Harbor. No, not what the Japanese navy did but more than enough to have served as grounds for war if the US wasn’t trying so strenuously to stay out.)

(Was thinking of ships near the US East coast. If you have passenger ships entering a war zone, well then it was understood there were risks.)

The point I was trying to get at was that if you were faced with the same life-threatening decisions you'd likely decide the same. And if different it would only because of random chance. Not because you are smarter or more virtuous than FDR & Cabinet.

Shit, Truman had to decide to drop a nuke on the basis it would save more lives in the long run—with incomplete information. I don't envy those decisions at all.

History can be "profoundly shaped" by more than whoever was President of the United States at the time.

I don't think it's fair to take what was obviously a phrase that was being spoken in a broad sense, inject your own words into that phrase, and then attack that person for the words you inserted.

He caved to the bigots out of a sense of pragmatism. Same way Abe Lincoln said he'd let slavery continue if it would preserve the union. Or, more recently, Bill Clinton signing the Defense of Marriage Act. He disavowed it later in life, but signed it because he didn't think he had a choice.

Yeah actually: https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/roosevelt-j....

There were anti-racist people at the time, even in his own cabinet, who resisted the calls for internment.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com