Jan. 14, 2008
History Vindicates Clinton
The New Republic: Remarks On LBJ, MLK Jr. Reflect Reality Of Civil Rights Movement
-
Play CBS Video Video Clinton, Obama Clash On Race Jeff Greenfield analyzes the war of words that occurred after former President Bill Clinton dismissed Sen. Barack Obama's stance on the Iraq war as a "fairy tale."
-
Video Clinton Addresses Race Issue Critics have accused her of racial insensitivity and now, presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton is accusing her Democratic rivals of inflaming the controversy. Jim Axelrod has more.
-
Video Eye To Eye: Hillary Clinton "Only On The Web": Katie Couric spoke to Hillary Clinton about her comeback in New Hampshire and whether an emotional moment helped boost her appeal among voters.
-
(AP)
-
Photo Essay Hillary Clinton A look at a life and career full of firsts.
-
Interactive Civil Rights In America A look back at the key people and events of the civil rights movement.
In war, truth is the first casualty - but in politics, it appears that the first victim is history.
The latest maiming of the historical record and elementary historical logic has come over Martin Luther King, Jr., Lyndon B. Johnson - and the presidential primaries of 2008. The media echo chamber is now booming with charges that Senator Hillary Clinton has disparaged Dr. King, praised President Johnson in his stead, and thereby distorted the history of the civil rights movement. It is the latest evidence, say the talking heads, that Clinton is running a subtly racist campaign - or, as the theology and African-American studies professor Michael Eric Dyson worded it on MSNBC, that she is carrying a message with an "an implicit racial subtext."
Ben Smith of Politico was among the first to stir things up, charging that remarks by Clinton on MLK and LBJ offered "an odd example for the argument between rhetoric and action" that Clinton has been making in her contest with Senator Barack Obama.
By the time the charge reached Maureen Dowd's column in The New York Times on Wednesday, it had morphed into a false claim that Clinton actually compared herself to Johnson - a comparison Dowd claimed she never thought "any living Democrat" would do in trying to win the New Hampshire primary. (Dowd had 1968 and Vietnam on her mind, which, unfortunately, was not the matter in dispute: civil rights.)
Now, Representative James E. Clyburn, the most prominent African-American elected official from South Carolina, has picked up the ever-changing story and implicitly accused Senator Clinton of denigrating Dr. King and the civil rights movement. "We have to be very, very careful about how we speak about that era in American politics," Clyburn told The New York Times.
So - let us very, very carefully look at that historical record.
In a pair of television interviews earlier this week, Clinton made the uncontroversial historical observation that Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement put their lives on the line for racial equality, and that President Johnson enacted civil rights legislation.
Her point was simple: Although great social changes require social movements that create hope and force crises, elected officials, presidents above all, are also required in order to turn those hopes into laws. It was, plainly, a rejoinder to the accusations by Obama that Clinton has sneered at "hope." Clinton was also rebutting Obama's simplistic assertions about "hope" and the American Revolution, the abolition of slavery, and the end of Jim Crow.
The historical record is crystal clear about this, and no responsible historian seriously contests it. Without Frederick Douglass and the abolitionists, black and white (not to mention restive slaves), there would have been no agitation to end slavery, even after the Civil War began. But without Douglass's ally in the White House, the sympathetic, deeply anti-slavery but highly pragmatic Abraham Lincoln, there could not have been an Emancipation Proclamation or a Thirteenth Amendment. Likewise, without King and his movement, there would have been no civil rights revolution. But without the Texas liberal and wheeler-dealer Lyndon Johnson, and his predecessor John F. Kennedy, there would have been no Civil Rights Act of 1964 or Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Hope, in other words, is necessary to bring about change - but it is never enough. Change also requires effective leadership inside government. It's not a matter of either/or (that is, either King or Johnson), but a matter of both/and.
Behind this argument over Clinton's comments lies a false, mythic view of the 1960s in which the civil rights movement supposedly pushed Johnson and the Democrats to support civil rights against their own will. In fact, the movement and the elected officials were distinct but complementary elements in the civil rights politics that changed America.
Civil rights protests mounted gradually after 1945. By the spring of 1963, amid the protests in Birmingham, Alabama, a civil rights revolution was plainly underway, undertaken by ordinary black Americans who had outrun their own leadership (including Dr. King), let alone the federal government. President Kennedy, who had to work with a conservative Congress dominated by Southern senators, had initially been cool to civil rights legislation, lest it doom his entire presidency. But he finally embraced the cause in a momentous speech to the nation on June 11, 1963, which became a prelude for a major civil rights act to come.
Kennedy's speechwriter, Theodore Sorensen, describes the June 11 address as a turning point in the history of civil rights politics as well as in JFK's presidency. Kennedy knew well, Sorensen observes, "that it would make other legislation impossible ... and he knew how much was riding on it, politically and historically. He knew all of that." Lyndon Johnson, perhaps as much as any politician of the time, understood the political and historical stakes just as well. As Senate Majority Leader, he had pushed through the Congress, in 1957, the first piece of civil rights legislation since the Reconstruction era.
Picking up the murdered Kennedy's mantle, Johnson used his mastery of congressional politics to push through the momentous Civil Rights Act in 1964. A year later, Johnson responded to the movement's battles in Selma, Alabama, by proposing and shepherding through to enactment the equally momentous Voting Rights Bill of 1965. And in June of that year, Johnson's famous commencement speech at Howard University launched what he called "the more profound stage of the battle for civil rights," which laid the foundation for affirmative action in hiring.
In all of these instances, Johnson responded with political courage as well as sincere conviction about racial equality, but, like Kennedy (and, for that matter, Lincoln) before him, he also needed events to create a climate when his political skills could be applied. Johnson's relations with Martin Luther King were often tense, and the two men parted ways in 1967 over King's opposition to the Vietnam War. On the fundamental issues of civil rights reform, though, Johnson and King were in close contact and worked together as allies. And when Johnson, in his speech to Congress on voting rights in 1965, quoted and embraced the civil rights battle cry - "We Shall Overcome" - Dr. King openly wept. He called Johnson at the White House. "It is ironic, Mr. President," said King, "that after a century, a southern white President would help lead the way toward the salvation of the Negro."
Martin Luther King led the movement; Lyndon B. Johnson supported that movement, played the politics, guided the legislation, and signed it into law. Both were indispensable to the civil rights successes of the 1960s. To acknowledge both denigrates neither man. Describing such an acknowledgement as a denigration of Dr. King is, at best, bad history. At worst, it is a manipulative and inflammatory racial appeal concerning a crucial era in American history - an era that needs very, very careful consideration indeed. Either way, the current heated rhetoric demonstrates that the utopia of post-racial politics has hardly arrived.
By Sean Wilentz
If you like this article, go to www.tnr.com, which breaks down today's top stories and offers nearly 100 years of news, opinion, and criticism.
| If you like this article, go to www.tnr.com, which breaks down today's top stories and offers nearly 100 years of news, opinion, and criticism. |
Best-selling author Mitch Albom on his first nonfiction work since "Tuesdays with Morrie."
- 1
- 2
- next
See all 33 CommentsPosted by guysdigdirt
She''s already alienated Al-Maliki (when she called for his resignation last summer) and Musharraf (when she insisted giving him money meant she could tell him what to do after the Bhutto assassination) - I''m not even sure they''ll talk to her at this point.
Just goes to show you people really are the same where ever you go . . .
Posted by joshdestardi at 05:22 PM : Jan 15, 2008
If Obama gets the nomination he will be a huge force, because that will mean that there is monumental ground swell of new supporters and voters. This might mean even greater turnout for the House and Senate races also. The Republicans have 4 seats in play in the Senate and a bunch in the House. They can paly the I hate Hillary Card in their races, but they probably can''t do that with Obama. The Republicans aren''t going to lay down by any means but an Obama nomination would be more predictive of a political landslide.
Obama 08
Why is that? Every time someone posted something very helpful for you to think about, the Obama guys reacted like possessed. I think that you guys are from Obama campaign and try to cover the truth by a very dirty trick.
Stop it now.
Why are you so ignorant?
Hillary might be correct in her thought but she is assuming that she can be effective and specifically more effective than Obama. Why is that? I don''t think she can make that case. Aside from Bill, Clinton and Obama will still attract the same level of political talent to the White House. Hillary will also be saddled with the "We Hate Hillary" caucus of the Republican party. She will be trying to lead against obstructionist the whole time.
Obama when elected will be effective because he is a pragmatist. He knows the art of compromise, but I beleive he can lay on persuaion to move the American Public and Congress to act as well as any leader in the last 20 years. He is young but thoughtful person who will also attract the same level of talent to manage and work through all the difficult issues that face the US.
What is more important the idea or the execution. I think both and I think Obama will do it best.
Obama 08
-------------------------
What a shame. I always voted for Dem I will vote for GOP if he(Obama) get nominated
Posted by HenryVu at 05:46 PM : Jan 14, 2008
HenryVu,...Collect Your thoughts,Regroup,..NOW,..Is The Worst time in US history to vote republicon.
Remember" Friends Never Let Friends Vote republiCon "
She is the status quo. The world sees her as a war monger, just like Bush. Bush even admitted it today. We need a fresh face.
They have their hooks in your souls %u2026%u2026.beware they can jerk anytime the need ratings
This Triaged Newsweek, Wapo, NBC, MSNBC tweety spit baller Obama cheerleading squad of co-captains, I cried when he speaks we don%u2019t need women we need men that brought you last weeks the B is dead, showed their fingerprints clearly this weekend in the airing of the kickoff Jackson Jr. Dyson hate baiting scarlet R claims, just like last weekend when the B was dead. I am waiting for the MSNBC-NEWEEK-NBC-WaPO triaged the ho in the race sucked the donkey off while wearing a blue dress story next week.
----
Posted by Vet_SK at 07:41 AM : Jan 15, 2008
EXACTLY, WE WANT A REAL CONSERVATIVE IN THERE THIS TIME...!!!!!!
Obama couldn''t get the black vote away from Hillary Clinton. They were waiting for anything, ANYTHING they could use to get it! This is it folks!
Wake up folks! This gutless wonder kid, is WORSE than Bush because he intends to step into the White House and MAKE change. He has no clue that in order for change this is a two party system and you cannot reach across lines while drawing a racial line!
This attack on the Clintons is laughable if it wasn''t so absolutely swiftboating. I cannot tell you how many times I have heard my republican family and friends says that if Hillary wins she will only win because she has the black vote. Racial bias at it''s best!
I originally thought Obama might be one of the good guys, but I''m not sure I can vote for him, even though it is totally against everything I know to vote for another republican.
The Neocons do not want to run against Hillary Clinton, and Obama has obviously been sipping some of their Kool-Aid.
As a result I''''m inclined to conclude that you are under the age of 40 years and have no actual knowledge of events of the time, having in stead come to belief in some personal "fairy tale" about the recent history of the u.s..
Posted by p-syrus at 07:49 PM : Jan 14, 2008
While you have proven your ability to read, if you were submitting this narrative in a formal paper, you would no doubt be cited for plagiarism. All you did was reiterate what the article by Wilentz already propagated.
I will surmise that you have surpassed the age of 40. As such, I would implore you to educate those who are younger than you rather than ridicule them and to do so with a little more civility. The harshness of your critique of random_radar''s point of view is quite unnecessary and serves no useful purpose. Forums such as this are only productive so long as ALL participants feel comfortable expressing their views without being bullied by those who disagree.
By the way, if everyone held to your assertion that it is necessary to have been alive during a period in history in order to have an understanding of it, there would be no validation of the study of history and the lessons which can and should be learned from it.
As a result I''''m inclined to conclude that you are under the age of 40 years and have no actual knowledge of events of the time, having in stead come to belief in some personal "fairy tale" about the recent history of the u.s..
Posted by p-syrus at 07:49 PM : Jan 14, 2008
While you have proven your ability to read, if you were submitting this narrative in a formal paper, you would no doubt be cited for plagiarism. All you did was reiterate what the article by Wilentz already propagated.
I will surmise that you have surpassed the age of 40. As such, I would implore you to educate those who are younger than you rather than ridicule them and to do so with a little more civility. The harshness of your critique of random_radar''s point of view is quite unnecessary and serves no useful purpose. Forums such as this are only productive so long as ALL participants feel comfortable expressing their views without being bullied by those who disagree.
By the way, if everyone held to your assertion that it is necessary to have been alive during a period in history in order to have an understanding of it, there would be no validation of the study of history and the lessons which can and should be learned from it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_Wilentz
"Wilentz, a family friend of Bill Clinton, appeared before the House Judiciary Committee on December 8, 1998 to argue against the Clinton impeachment."
Next we''re going to need disclaimers on articles and news reports.
Posted by random_radar
That is not only wholly untrue but smacks of the sort of mythology engendered by the ignorant. This statement amply demonstrates your complete ignorance on the subject of the civil rights movement.
As a result I''m inclined to conclude that you are under the age of 40 years and have no actual knowledge of events of the time, having in stead come to belief in some personal "fairy tale" about the recent history of the u.s..
The civil rights movement was popularly based but had no power to effect actual CHANGE.
The states were dominated by local interests which in the south were predominantly racist in their public policies. The nation generally was not concerned with issues involving minorities being more focused on national defense & economic development.
When the federal GOVERNMENT got involved as a result of the interest of national POLITICIANS (NOT public civil rights advocates) then POWER was brought to bear AGAINST the STATES to ENFORCE REAL CHANGE in both the state practices as well as federal policies with regard to civil rights.
MLK was responsible for changing popular ATTITUDES about race in America, but it was GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS & POLITICIANS who actually produced CHANGE in the treatment of minorities. Of these, LBJ''s support was especially critical at the time.
- 1
- 2
- next
See all 33 Comments