Lyndon B. Johnson: We Shall Overcome

by: Paul Rosenberg

Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 11:01


I want to address a fundamental misunderstanding that seems to be directed at just about everyone here at Open Left-the notion that just because we frequently critricize Obama, we therefore hate him.  This is, quite frankly, such an absurd notion on its face that I've been remise in not addressing it sooner. So let me be as clear as possible:  To criticize a politician is not necessarily to attack him.  Indeed, it is simply the most basic duty of a citizen, and a necessary precondition for the politician being criticized to reach their full potential.

Our leaders are not kings, indeed, they are not even our leaders.  They are followers of the true leaders-those who recognize injustice and refuse to accept it.

Left: Civil Rights marchers paid the price of freedom in Selma, Alabama a week before LBJ took up their cause and introduced the Voting Rights Act, using their rallying cry, "We Shall Overcome." Congressman John Lewis was among those beaten.

Officeholders, on the other hand, may not be true leaders, but they are (1) public servants and (2) official leaders.  On both counts, listening and responding to public criticism is, quite simply, an integral part of the job they've taken on.  Bad things happen when they forget this-but worse things happen when the people themselves forget this.  And that's what we seem to be in danger of, when Obama supporters start treating him like a man who can do no wrong, a man that none of us should criticize.  We rightly criticize coservatives for taking this same attitude toward palapable fools, but the atttitude itself is fust as flawed when directed toward far superior men.

And that's where Lynodon Johnson comes it.  You see, the Vietnam War was such a terrible event in our history, such a long, drawn-out, bloody crime, that it's difficult for most people to remember all the other things that Lyndon Johnson did-the things that, unlike the Vietnam War, he actually believed in.  In order to really understand how bad the Vietnam War was, morally and political for our nation, you have to appreciate how good Lyndon Johnson really was.  He was, in terms of his domestic record, the second greatest President of the 20th Century-second only to FDR.  Part of his greatness was born of his own intentions, and part of it came from his openness to others.

Paul Rosenberg :: Lyndon B. Johnson: We Shall Overcome
I planned this diary yesterday afternoon, and then, in the evening, Bill Moyers made it immensely easier by talking precisely about the incident I was going to focus on, and how Johnson got there-that is, LBJ's speech introducing the Voting Rights Act, in which he took up the Civil Rights Movement's rallying cry, and said, on behalf of the entire nation, "We Shall Overcome."

Taking advantage of this fortuitous coincidence, I'll let Bill Moyers-who was a White House staffer at the time-carry the ball, striking a near-perfect balance:

BILL MOYERS:... Many many years ago, I was a young White House Assistant, when President Johnson at first wanted Martin Luther King to call off the marching, demonstrations, and protests.  The civil rights movement had met massive resistance in the south, and the south, because of the seniority system, controlled congress, making it virtually impossible for congress to enact  laws giving full citizenship to black Americans, no matter how desperate their lives. LBJ worried that the mounting demonstrations were hardening white resistance.

He had been the master of the Senate, the great persuader, who could twist your arm with such flair and flattery you thought he was actually doing you a favor by wrenching it from its socket.  He reckoned that with a little time he could twist enough arms in Congress to end, or neutralize, the power of die-hard racists - all of them, including some of his old mentors, white supremacists who threatened to bring the government, if not the country, to its knees before they would see blacks eat at the same restaurants, go to the same schools, drink from the same fountains, and live in the same neighborhoods as whites.

As the pressure intensified on each side, Johnson wanted King to wait a little longer and give him a chance to bring Congress around by hook or crook.  But Martin Luther King said his people had already waited too long. He talked about the murders and lynchings, the churches set on fire, children brutalized, the law defied, men and women humiliated, their lives exhausted, their hearts broken.  LBJ listened, as intently as I ever saw him listen.  He listened, and then he put his hand on Martin Luther King's shoulder, and said, in effect:  "OK. You go out there Dr. King and keep doing what you're doing, and make it possible for me to do the right thing."  Lyndon Johnson was no racist but he had not been a civil rights hero, either.  Now, as president,  he came down on the side of civil disobedience, believing it might quicken America's conscience until the cry for justice became irresistible, enabling him to turn Congress. So King marched and Johnson maneuvered and Congress folded.

NEWS COVERAGE: President Johnson calls for all Americans to back what he calls a turning point in history.

BILL MOYERS: The Civil Rights Act of 1964 ended segregation in public places. 

MARCHERS: "We shall overcome...

BILL MOYERS: But they weren't done.  King kept on marching, this time for the right to vote, and once again Johnson kept his word, and did the right thing. As one of his young assistants, I stood on the floor of the House that ides of March when morality and politics converged, and watched the faces of congress transfixed...mesmerized... knowing they were riding the surf of history as the president of the United States enlisted all of us in the cause.

LYNDON JOHNSON: It's all of us, who must overcome the crippling legacy of bigotry and injustice. And we shall overcome.

BILL MOYERS: As he finished, Congress stood and thunderous applause shook the chamber. Johnson would soon sign into law the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and black people were no longer second class citizens.  Martin Luther King had marched and preached and witnessed for this day.  Countless ordinary people had put their bodies on the line for it, been berated, bullied and beaten, only to rise, organize and struggle on, against the dogs and guns, the bias and burning crosses.  Take nothing from them; their courage is their legacy. But take nothing from the president who once had seen the light but dimly, as through a dark glass - and now did the right thing. Lyndon Johnson threw the full weight of his office on the side of justice. Of course the movement had come first, watered by the blood of so many, championed bravely now by the preacher turned prophet who would himself soon be martyred. But there is no inevitability to history, someone has to seize and turn it.  With these words at the right moment -  "we shall overcome"  - Lyndon Johnson transcended race and color, and history, too - reminding us that a president matters, and so do we.

This was Johnson's-and America's-finest hour, and it's the true measure of classical Greek tragedy that it should be all but forgotten due to how differently Johnson reacted to the issue of the Vietnam War-a war he did not believe, but that he felt he had to fight, or risk losing the political power to accomplish anything else, or even, possibly, risk beng impeached.  Because it should not be forgotten, I'd like to quote some passages from Johnson speech, which was given shortly after the first Selma-to-Montgomery march had been stopped by a bloody police riot at the Edmond Pettis Bridge-an event known as "Bloody Sunday." 

One week later, before the third, and ultimately successful march was held, Johnson gave the following speech-in effect letting the marchers know that they had already won over the nation.

Johnson said, in part:

I speak tonight for the dignity of man and the destiny of Democracy. I urge every member of both parties, Americans of all religions and of all colors, from every section of this country, to join me in that cause.

At times, history and fate meet at a single time in a single place to shape a turning point in man's unending search for freedom. So it was at Lexington and Concord. So it was a century ago at Appomattox. So it was last week in Selma, Alabama. There, long suffering men and women peacefully protested the denial of their rights as Americans. Many of them were brutally assaulted. One good man--a man of God--was killed.

There is no cause for pride in what has happened in Selma. There is no cause for self-satisfaction in the long denial of equal rights of millions of Americans. But there is cause for hope and for faith in our Democracy in what is happening here tonight. For the cries of pain and the hymns and protests of oppressed people have summoned into convocation all the majesty of this great government--the government of the greatest nation on earth. Our mission is at once the oldest and the most basic of this country--to right wrong, to do justice, to serve man. In our time we have come to live with the moments of great crises. Our lives have been marked with debate about great issues, issues of war and peace, issues of prosperity and depression.

But rarely in any time does an issue lay bare the secret heart of America itself. Rarely are we met with a challenge, not to our growth or abundance, or our welfare or our security, but rather to the values and the purposes and the meaning of our beloved nation. The issue of equal rights for American Negroes is such an issue. And should we defeat every enemy, and should we double our wealth and conquer the stars, and still be unequal to this issue, then we will have failed as a people and as a nation. For, with a country as with a person, "what is a man profited if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?"

There is no Negro problem. There is no Southern problem. There is no Northern problem. There is only an American problem.

And we are met here tonight as Americans--not as Democrats or Republicans; we're met here as Americans to solve that problem. This was the first nation in the history of the world to be founded with a purpose.

The great phrases of that purpose still sound in every American heart, North and South: "All men are created equal." "Government by consent of the governed." "Give me liberty or give me death." And those are not just clever words, and those are not just empty theories. In their name Americans have fought and died for two centuries and tonight around the world they stand there as guardians of our liberty risking their lives. Those words are promised to every citizen that he shall share in the dignity of man. This dignity cannot be found in a man's possessions. It cannot be found in his power or in his position. It really rests on his right to be treated as a man equal in opportunity to all others. It says that he shall share in freedom. He shall choose his leaders, educate his children, provide for his family according to his ability and his merits as a human being.

To apply any other test, to deny a man his hopes because of his color or race or his religion or the place of his birth is not only to do injustice, it is to deny Americans and to dishonor the dead who gave their lives for American freedom. Our fathers believed that if this noble view of the rights of man was to flourish it must be rooted in democracy. This most basic right of all was the right to choose your own leaders. The history of this country in large measure is the history of expansion of the right to all of our people.

Many of the issues of civil rights are very complex and most difficult. But about this there can and should be no argument: every American citizen must have an equal right to vote....

The Constitution says that no person shall be kept from voting because of his race or his color.

We have all sworn an oath before God to support and to defend that Constitution. We must now act in obedience to that oath. Wednesday, I will send to Congress a law designed to eliminate illegal barriers to the right to vote. The broad principles of that bill will be in the hands of the Democratic and Republican leaders tomorrow....

This bill will strike down restrictions to voting in all elections, federal, state and local, which have been used to deny Negroes the right to vote....

The command of the Constitution is plain. There is no moral issue. It is wrong--deadly wrong--to deny any of your fellow Americans the right to vote in this country.

There is no issue of state's rights or national rights. There is only the struggle for human rights. I have not the slightest doubt what will be your answer....

But even if we pass this bill the battle will not be over. What happened in Selma is part of a far larger movement which reaches into every section and state of America. It is the effort of American Negroes to secure for themselves the full blessings of American life. Their cause must be our cause too. Because it's not just Negroes, but really it's all of us, who must overcome the crippling legacy of bigotry and injustice.

And we shall overcome....

I remember hearing that speech as a young teenager. It was one of the few times-indeed, perhaps the only time-when a President's speech has moved me to tears.  First, it sent shivers down my spine.  Then, it moved me to tears. I have no doubt that Lyndon Johnson was a great man and a great President, in part because of that speech, and the legislation that followed from it.  But classic Greek tragedies only befall great men, and within a couple of years, I would be one of those who marched against the Vietnam War, and chanted, among other things, "Hey! Hey! LBJ! How many kids did you kill today?"  I regret chanting that, not because it was wrong.  I regret chanting that, because it was necessary in response to a great man who had lost his way.

As a result, I shall always deem it necessary to speak out and criticize our leaders, and do so sooner rather than later.  It is a dire mistake to "give our leaders the benefit of the doubt," when silence betrays our own conscience, and potentially paves the way for enormous folly.  This is, if anything, all the more true for a leader who is "one of our own."  I have never felt the degree of respect for a President that I felt for Johnson after that speech, and after he signed the Voting Rights Act that that speech introduced.  And I have never felt more betrayed by a President, either, after he dug in his heels on Vietnam.

So, with that past in mind, please be assured that whatever criticism I have today, of Barack Obama or any other Democratic leader, is only a pale echo of the criticism I had of LBJ.  They have, after all, not fallen nearly so far.  They have never come close to his heights.  I may never be able to change that.  But I will do everything in my power to prevent them from falling to his depths.

That is my simple duty as a citizen of the United States.


Tags: , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Criticism of your criticism (0.00 / 0)
My complaint about your criticism of Obama was directed at the implicit acceptance of the media's "gaffe culture". You built an entire indictment on a few words uttered in an interview. There are important substantive criticisms of Obama - for example, his evasive language on Iraq. But interpreting some remarks about Reagan's impact on politics into a claim of support of reactionary politics, adds credence to the media's insistence that "gaffes" and media invented "patterns of gaffes" should be allowed to drive the debate. The next "dean scream" moment is inevitable. What is not inevitable is whether the blogs, the only media not explicitly controlled by the right, will join in the hysteria.

Classic refusal of an Obama supporter... (0.00 / 0)

......to come to grips with what your candidate said. If you had told me a month ago that Senator Obama would have expressed admiration and a desire to emulate Ronald Reagan I would have thought you trying on some sick joke.

We've heard this 'excuse' before. Doesn't wash. Please stop treating this site like a laundromat.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.


[ Parent ]
Liberal Reagan (0.00 / 0)
Whereas a month ago I was hearing Obama supporters often calling him a Liberal Reagan, so it didn't surprise me at all.  I really hope Obama can win reelection in 2012 with 40+ states that solidifies a new voting habit for a generation.

I do agree he should be more clear, more often.  Sometimes he takes the extra sentence to remind the listener disagrees with Reagan's policies, sometimes he doesn't.  He tends to assume that is obvious.  And it is.  Even the criticism on this site doesn't imply he likes Reagan's policies, only that he uses Republican talking points or encourages the myth of Reagan or something like that.

Some of this criticism is fair and I agree with it.  But most of the criticism seems to go well beyond reason.

If you really want to get pissed, check out Hillary's web site where it specifically lists Reagan as one of her favorite presidents.


[ Parent ]
Not true (4.00 / 1)
She praised Reagan's communication skills.  She did say that she respected George W. Bush, though, something I believe Obama has done as well.

http://www.dailykos....


[ Parent ]
It's never obvious in our media climate (4.00 / 2)
If Obama is going to reject Reaganism, then he needs to say it every time he invokes Reagan.  Because, to our media, Reagan = the center.  They cite him as one of hte top five presidents ever when they publish lists, and comparing yourself to him without condemning him just adds to the legacy of The Gipper. 

Perhaps it isn't fair, but it is.


[ Parent ]
That will really help him win votes (0.00 / 0)
of independents and disaffected former Republicans, of whom there are many in the Western states. 


John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

[ Parent ]
Three responses: (4.00 / 2)
1)He's sure as hell not going to win over a lot of voters in a Democratic primary by praising Reagan

2)What he's doing isn't going to help him in the general, either, since his opponent will be, much more legitimately, claiming Reagan's mantle

3)Arguing against Reagan won't turn off moderate voters, if he explains why he is arguing against Reagan using facts, reason and his spectacular oratory skills.  If we are going to move the country to the left, we are going to have to reject trickle-down economics, stupid military interventionism, and the game of good dictator/bad dictator.  If he wants to talk about the symbolism of Reagan, and some of the good things Reagan did, I can live with that.  But he has to also balance it by explaining why the Reagan Presidency was horrible.  Every time he invokes Reagan.

Or he can just use FDR as his paradigmatic example of a transformative presidency.  FDR certainly changed the direction of the country far more than Reagan did, anyway, without the baggage that Reagan had.

Why even bring Reagan up as a positive example?  Why contrast Clinton/Nixon against Reagan, instead of against Reagan/FDR?  Maybe he meant to, certainly he balances somewhat elsewhere, but he's played this game too much for it to just be one odd statement that doesn't fit into his overall framework.  It is a pattern. 


[ Parent ]
In Fact.. (0.00 / 0)
If he wants to bring folks together, and he wants to salute a Republican in doing so, then the logical choice is Eisenhower.

The technical term for this is "a no-brainer."

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"


[ Parent ]
There Are Many Way To Do Such Things (0.00 / 0)
Why assume he can only do so in a hostile, divisive manner?

He can also praise Reagan for things he did that violate coservative orthodoxy--like raising taxes, which he did rather often, or negotiating with Gorbachev at a time when the conservative establishment was having a heart attack over it.

There are lots of options, once you disenthral yourself from the Versailles conventional wisdom.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"


[ Parent ]
But It Wasn't A Gaffe (4.00 / 4)
It wasn't an accident, a mistake, or an off moment. It was quite deliberate, quite conscious, quite calculated, and quite emblematic of a persistent pattern of how Barack operates.

Furthermore, given that (a) he doesn't have such large record of accomplishments (not a big thing for me, per se, but a fact, nonetheless), and given that (b) he is a very skilled and powerful speaker, who (c) talks a lot about how people talk, this sort of talk on his part deserves to be, indeed, cries out to be of even greater prominence than it otherwise would.

In short, he is very much asking us to take this sort of talk very seriously, and that is precisely what we are doing.  The only thing is, we strongly disagree--and it's a very substantive, highly consequential disagreement.

Finally, omparing this to the "Dean scream"--a complete media fabrication--is simply more of the sloppy, downright false equivilence-drawing that Obama himself was engaged in.

We get hysterical about facts.  It's our thing. Deal with it.

Deal with it by dealing with the facts, not adding to the spin.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"


[ Parent ]
oh come on (2.00 / 2)
If you read Obama's book, you will find his mention of Reagan is consistent with his theories about how US politics operates. He certainly may be wrong about those theories, but the claim that mentioning Reagan's rhetorical and political success implies an endorsement of his policies is laughable and at the level of the media invented "pattern" of Al Gore's prevarication. In his book, Obama specifically contrasts the optimism and hope of Reagan's rhetoric with the misery and horror of his actual governance. It's plausible, I guess, that a guy whose career went from IAD organizer (you know, Saul Alinsky's Chicago IAD?) to civil rights attorney to state legislator whose major accomplishments were limiting police brutality, a member of what is essentially a black liberation church, a man whose political organization is constructed from leaders in the old Harold Washington and Jesse Jackson Jr. machine - might be a secret advocate of Reaganism, but you'd need a much better argument. Perhaps an argument with some evidence beyond tendentious inference would be good.

There is a great deal of historical revisionism about the Carter years. Ted Kennedy's insurgent campaign against Carter developed many of the same themes that Reagan did. Kennedy lambasted Carter's "malaise" speech, his pessimism, his calls for working people to sacrifice. Kennedy went after the Bert Lance economic policies and the cynical geopolitics of Zbig. The fact that Reagan was able to capitalize on that rhetoric and use it to advance his miserable ideology is hard to deny - although that seems to be a popular project. There is a tendency to dismiss Reagan's appeal as just an appeal to racism and that seems to me to be an excuse for the failure of progressives. Obama's claim is that laundry list liberalism cannot create a strong progressive movement and has been successfully negated by advances in winger propaganda and changes in social structure. Critics seem to believe that this is tantamount to accepting the right wing frame - and that is just bullshit.


[ Parent ]
A Book Is Not A Campaign Appearance (0.00 / 0)
And surely Obama must know this.

It's way past time that his supporters learned this as well.

This is about reinforcing messages to low-info voters.  It's about reinforcing vs. challenging fundamental political narratives.  Everything you're saying is irrelevant to the real point here.

In his book, Obama specifically contrasts the optimism and hope of Reagan's rhetoric with the misery and horror of his actual governance.

And we wouldn't be having this conversation if he'd said the same thing in the interview that he said in his book.

Gosh, I wonder why?

the claim that mentioning Reagan's rhetorical and political success implies an endorsement of his policies is laughable and at the level of the media invented "pattern" of Al Gore's prevarication.

To the contrary.  No one should know better than Obama how his words would be taken, and it strains credulity to think that he's not fluffing Reagan's image by the careful way he phrased what he said.  There are Obama supports here at Open Left who are praising him specifically for doing that. He is going with the flow of Versailles deceptive narratives, not challenging them.  This makes him the anti-Gore, and not in a good way.

Obama's claim is that laundry list liberalism cannot create a strong progressive movement and has been successfully negated by advances in winger propaganda and changes in social structure.

I don't have a problem with that. I make the same argument myself.  I have a problem with his failure to produce the alternative and flog it constantly, rather than trying to channel Timmeh, Chris Matthews and Frank Luntz.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"


[ Parent ]
interviews do not have footnotes (0.00 / 0)
Obama is explaining, in that interview, that he gets what made Reagan appealing to some people. And contrary to myth, it was not racism (for some parts of his constituency). Your complaint is that he does not issue an immediate disclaimer, but he has no obligation to do so. In fact, I think it is critical that the Democrats appeal to people who have found the patriotism and faux-libertarianism of Reaganism appealing.

Your other criticism has more weight. In fact, Hillary did a much better job in the Nevada debate of shaping the discussion to her strengths. Obama, however, has a delicate requirement of acting strong without acting like a dangerous negro - and that is something he would be utterly stupid to forget.


[ Parent ]
Jerome nails it today when he points out... (0.00 / 0)

.........as I did several days ago, that Senator 'Hope' was speaking to the conservative board of directors of a conservative 'newspaper'. In short, Obama was pandering.

Many feel he went over the line in using the nutball racist Reagan to do so. I am one such. Obama has conclusively forfeited any claim to being a progressive candidate with this obsequious performance on top of his numerous other instances of throwing progressive ideas and policies under the bus.

His supporters need to accept that he a typical pre-Youtube pol who fails to understand he can't say one thing one day and the opposite the next.

I'm sick of hearing the same tired repetitive bs coming from the Oborg, a Corrente nickname, and if you think Paul is hard on Senator 'Hope' read ya some Lambert.

In the words of the ReichWingers which Obama wants so much to 'compromise' with: Get over it.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.


[ Parent ]
I love Lambert (0.00 / 0)
That is all.

[ Parent ]
Valatan Put It Perfectly Above (0.00 / 0)
Valatan:

If Obama is going to reject Reaganism, then he needs to say it every time he invokes Reagan.  Because, to our media, Reagan = the center.  They cite him as one of hte top five presidents ever when they publish lists, and comparing yourself to him without condemning him just adds to the legacy of The Gipper.

Perhaps it isn't fair, but it is.



"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

[ Parent ]
he "needs to " in what way? (0.00 / 0)
For what reason? A minority of the liberal base is annoyed, but obviously Kos represents a large chunk who don't care.

It appears as this is a matter of control. Obama does not need to make the WBAI listening audience happy in order to become president.


[ Parent ]
You're 180 Degrees Off (0.00 / 0)
It's the low-information liberal voters he's been hemoragging to Clinton since Iowa.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

[ Parent ]
Newspaper editorial boards are not low information (0.00 / 0)
audiences.  Remember that was where the original "Reagan" quote came from.  I don't know about the Las Vegas paper interview, but the SF Chronicle devoted essentially a whole page to Obama's interview with them, some excerpts and the campaign's response to some of Hillary's charges.  I would not be surprised if they endorsed him.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

[ Parent ]
Newspaper Editorial Boards Are Surprisingly Low Information (0.00 / 0)
When you look at their written endorsements, which are often not just shallow, but factually inaccurate, sometimes even downright false.

For all the information that's available to them, not a whole lot of it seems to register.  I looked at this pretty damn carefully during the "You're Accountable" campaign to pursuade Bush-endorsing papers from 2000 to not endorse him in 2004.

But that's not really the point--though it's related.  It's about broad narrative themes.  This is what editorial boards and low-information voters have in common.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Ed boards endorsed him either.  He talks like a goo-goo, and most Ed boards are goo-goos.  They hate partisan rancor.  Which is usually defined as "Democrats fighting back."

But the point is, from a purely egotistical "What's in it for Obama?" point of view, he doesn't have to kiss Reagan's butt to gain these endorsements.  They could live with a more historically accurate response from him, which would have benefits he loses in the process.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"


[ Parent ]
"Oh, come on"? (0.00 / 0)
  Is there any weaker way to respond to a comment than to say "Oh, come on"?
  There's an old saying that for lawyers when the law is against you, argue the facts; when the facts are against you, argue the law; and when the law and the facts are against you, pound the table. "Oh, come on" is the equivalent of pounding the table. 
  Your criticism seems to be that no one should believe what Obama has said about Reagan, because no progressive would say anything that stupid. There's more than one way to resolve that apparent contradiction. It's possible, for example, that Barack Obama has always said and done exactly whatever it took to advance the interests of Barack Obama--first to establish his base in the Black community to facilitate his move into politics, and then to show the Whites that he's not like what they think of as all those other scary Black politicians, so he can go farther. That wouldn't be unusual for an ambitious politician. Many politicians take their old base for granted and try to appeal to new constituencies whose interests are at odds with their old base, as they attempt to climb the greasy pole to the top.  Why is it unthinkable that Obama is doing so as well?

[ Parent ]
no (0.00 / 0)
"Your criticism seems to be that no one should believe what Obama has said about Reagan, because no progressive would say anything that stupid."

What Obama said was fine. My objection is to unsupported inferences that are contradicted by his career and organization.


[ Parent ]
Great Diary about LBJ! (4.00 / 2)
You said all the important things about him.

Great Diary about LBJ! (0.00 / 0)
You said all the important things about him.

Emerson on McClellan (0.00 / 0)
In July 1862, Emerson wrote in his journal --

Why are people so Sensitive about the reputation of General McClellan? There is always something rotten about a sensitive reputation. Besides, is not General McClellan an American citizen? And is not the first attribute and distinction of an American to be abused and slandered as long as he is heard of?

"There is always something rotten about a sensitive reputation." Fits Commander Codpiece to a tee.


Fair criticism (0.00 / 0)
Most of the Obama supporters here, myself included, have never said Obama is perfect or that leaders should not be criticized.  What we reacted to very strongly was criticism based on distorting what Obama said.  Matt's post about Obama's statements about Reagan, for example, distorted Obama's statements and his meaning, and that set off attempts to explain what various of us thought Obama said and meant. 

What has happened in our politics is that too often people have gotten attached to their candidates and/or their ideas about politics to the extent that they cannot listen fairly to what anyone says, most especially someone they do not support or who supports someone they do not support.  Instead, many candidate statements are taken out of context and distorted to advance the cause of a favored candidate.  Nothing a disfavored candidate says can be taken fairly--everything is seen through a lens of partisanship, by which I mean attachment to a candidate or cluster of ideas.  Too many reactions become knee-jerk.

I suppose we have to expect this of the Clintons and their surrogates and the other candidates who want desperately to win.  But to the extent we here are also exploring politcs and political tactics, we have to learn at least occasionally to step back, take a longer view, listen, and see what we can learn from what others say.

For an example, see Marcos' several posts at  Daily Kos about Obama's statement that for several years the GOP seemed to be the party of ideas.  As Markos notes, that is precisely what he and Jerome said in "Crashing the Gate", and they tried to analyze how they did it, and what we might learn from that.  It in no way meant an endorsement of those (pernicious) ideas.  Can we all at least understand that?


John McCain--He's not who you think he is.


Let's Be "Perfectly Clear" (4.00 / 2)
First, the main purpose of this post is two-fold--to provide some historical persepective, while reminding folks that bottom-up liberal democratic culture has a different logic to it than what we get from the right wing and from Versailles.

This is something we all seem to need reminding of from time to time, but a few commentators have really gotten carried away in mischaracterizing what's been going on here, and I thought it was a good sign that it was time to set the record straight about how we differ from the trickle-down/divine right of kings crowd.

Most of the Obama supporters here, myself included, have never said Obama is perfect or that leaders should not be criticized.

That's certainly true of most, but there is starting to be a more kool-aid style strain coming from some quarters, and I think its best to address it now, when most folks can agree on my main thrust, regardless of who they support.  The fact that anyone makes arguments that tend in that direction is a warning sign we all should heed.

Second, there is, in fact, considerable confusion about what Obama was actually saying, and this is a persistent feature of his campaign, and indeed, of his entire modus operandi.  His defenders even mount defenses based on the supposition that he's dog-whistling, and we're simply not "with it" enough to hear.  So the claim that Matt was distorting what Obama said is not simply an indicment of Matt, even if true.

If this were an isolated incident, and if no one else in the blogosphere were talking about it, then you'd have pretty good case against Matt.  But none of that is true.  This doesn't mean that Matt is automatically right.  It doesn't mean that he's beyond criticism.  It simply means that you should be debating with him point-by-point on the merits of his argument, not resorting to some sweeping argument not grounded in specifics.

Finally, regarding the whole "party of ideas" thing, there are two fundamental points to be kept in mind:

(1) The GOP is not the party of ideas.  They are the party of organized information and message flow.  These are two very, very different things, and we will never beat them at their own game if we do not get crystal clear about what that game is.

For example, down to this very day, think tanks on the left and right follow two radically different models.  On the left, they are basically still pre-1970s style applied graduate schools.  Solving problems is their reason for being, even though the political apparatus for implementing their solutions has long vanished, like the mountain roadway beneath a cartoon character's feet. On the right, they are basically advertising agencies with strategic planning departments. The Overton Window is their reason for being.

(2) Markos and Jerome are political activists and commentators.  It's their job to discuss things like this, even if they get it wrong from time to time.  If they don't get things wrong sometimes, then they aren't really pushing themselves, or us.  They are in the job of putting stuff out, getting feedback, and refining their ideas through a continuous process of give and take.  Obama is not.  He is a politician, an officeholder, a spokesmodel, a de facto party representative, and when he uncritically validates a fundamental branding slogan of the other side, he is doing something that is radically different than what Markos and Jerome were doing, even if Markos himself is confused about the difference.

Obama has a well-established habit of playing the pundit, which he almost always does with utter banality at best, and with an anti-progressive spin at worst.  This is not really what a Democratic politician ought to be doing, obviously.  If they want to play the pundit, they should be tearing down the rightwing/Versailles conventional wisdom, not reinforcing it.  It's all the worse in Obama's case, since he has such obvious gifts that are being horribly misused in the process.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"


[ Parent ]
Yes and No (0.00 / 0)
I partially agree with this.  I also get frustrated when people talk of dog-whistling or try to build up Obama as if he has some super-secret grand plan and we just need to wait for the big switcharoo.  That kind of talk doesn't help.

And although I swear that what Obama is doing seems completely reasonable and he is perfectly honest and straight forward on what he plans to do, I must admit that since everyone seems to have a different opinion I'm must be wrong about how clear this is.  (Even though I know I'm not, dagnabit!.)

But I disagree with you on how to promote liberalism.  Or more specifically, I disagree he is doing what it sounds to your ears what he is doing.

If you actually listen to conservatives, one of the things they hate is liberals preaching to them on how much smarter they are.  You can't just tell them they've been idiots for all these years and now it is time to see the light.  It doesn't matter if it sounds like we talk this way to us, only that it sounds that way to them.

When I talk to conservatives I know, I sound an awful lot like Obama.  I recognize were we agree on things, which is always more then where we disagree.  People really are people, our similarities outweigh our differences.  The very concept that one side is filled with evil people and the other is all good is a very conservative paradigm.

Then, once you walk over to where they are standing, it is quite easy to point out the flaws on their side because they already know them.  Then you can show why this other way is actually better.

So personally, I think Obama's gifts are being used wonderfully.


[ Parent ]
absolutely (4.00 / 1)
What I get from the firestorm on Obama is a demand that Obama validate the self image of a certain segment of activist liberals. "You were right all along, and smarter than the others".

[ Parent ]
It's Not About Anyone's Self-Image (0.00 / 0)
It's about burying historical truth.

That's a Republican thing, and we're not down with it, or else we'd just be Republicans.

What's so hard to understand about that?

No complex psychology of personal hangups.  Just, you know, "The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth."

Mom and apple pie, dude.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"


[ Parent ]
what obama said is utterly true (4.00 / 1)
You are not complaining that his statement is false, you are complaining about his failure to accompany it with a ritual declaration.

Edwards statement in Foreign Policy about Reagan is false.
Obamas statement is true.


[ Parent ]
No, It's Demonstrably False, As My Diary Showed (4.00 / 1)
Obama said:

"I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people, he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing."

But I showed quite clearly that there were not only high rates of support for government spending, but that these rates had reached a low point before Reagan took office, and rose fairly substantially throughout the 1980s.

For the umpteenth time: Obama is simply repeating the standard rightwing/Versailles narrative about Reagan, which is simply not true.  And the more honest, historically literate, and non-defensive Obama supporters realize this, and acknowledge he could have done a better job.

Wallowing in denial doesn't really help anyone, especially when we could be having a productive discussion about how he might do a better job next time.

That's the whole point of my diary here: we are much better off realistically facing up to and responding to the complexities of our leaders, rather than making excuses for them.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"


[ Parent ]
the real history is closer to Obama's (0.00 / 0)
"I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating."
Obama 2008

"I seek an active presidency, with a vision for the nation. That vision is not a set of sentiments. It is not a collection of buzzwords…It does not mean declaring 'the moral equivalent of war' while neglecting to mobilize the nation. It does not mean calling the tax system a "disgrace to the human race" while surrendering the fight for tax reform. It does not mean calling nuclear power 'a last resort' while making in a first priority.

"Vision in the presidency demands deeds matched to ideals."

Senator Kennedy wants to be an active President, a vital President, for our times. He wants to be the President who finally achieves full civil rights - who sees an ERA in this nation and who passes an economic bill of rights for women. He wants to be the President who at last closes tax loopholes and tames monopoly, so the free enterprise system will truly be free. He wants to be the President who brings national health insurance to safeguard each American family from fear of bankruptcy due to illness, and the President who opens hospitals, not closes them. He wants to be the President who finally stops urban deterioration and revitalizes the inner city economy. He wants to be the President who finally brings about the federalization of welfare. He wants to be the President who halts the dependence on a nuclear future that could hazard the future itself. He wants to be the President who guides an America powerful enough to deter war and strong enough to do the work of peace in the world.

He wants to be the President who will do good not just for the moment, but for all time, and not just for the loudest factions, but for the average Americans who want - and deserve - a good American life.

Ted Kennedy, 1980


[ Parent ]
Excuse Me, But (0.00 / 0)
You've just made my point, not yours--on several different levels simultaneously:

(a) The change in direction--epitomized by Carter's failings cited here--preceeded Reagan, and wasn't limited to the GOP.

(b) The problems facing the nation came from lack of direction in dealing with the problems of the 1970s (not the 1960s), and the failure to fully follow through on advances of the 1960s.

(c) Reagan's defeat of Carter was not a triumph of conservatism over liberalism, since Carter wasn't a liberal--except, of course on human rights.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"


[ Parent ]
you are shifting grounds (0.00 / 0)
Obama said that Reagan had captured peoples's feelings that the government was not responsive and so on. You claimed that your polls showed otherwise and that Obama was just repeating Republican talking points. I showed that, on the contrary, Ted Kennedy was critiquing Carter's government on the very same issues - indicating that Obama was describing a very real phenomena, not repeating Republican talking points.

[ Parent ]
Nonesense! (0.00 / 0)
Kennedy's critique wasn't at all what Obama characterized Reagan's as.

Reagan attacked Carter as a symbol of the 60s.

Kennedy attacked him for betraying the 60s.

The fact that you can confuse and conflate the two is indicative of the bluriness and incoherence of Obama's position(s), and how they are being defended.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"


[ Parent ]
you want it all tied up in a package (0.00 / 0)
Obama said that Reagan appealed to people's discontent with the nonaccountable government. You said that was just repeating a Reagan falsehood and I showed that Ted Kennedy also said the government was non-accountable. Your underlying premise is that a critique is part of an entire worldview, but that's not correct. Reagan was able to capture people's feelings that the government was unaccountable and that things were going wrong  - which is exactly what Obama said.

[ Parent ]
Too Much 60s=Not Enough 60s (0.00 / 0)
A fascinating equation!

There is no spinner who can compare with the true believer, certain that his stance is rock solid.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"


[ Parent ]
well one of us is certainly wrong (0.00 / 0)
and you are convinced that your opinion is rock solid. But the core of your earlier post was a series of polls showing, according to you, that there was no massive popular discontent with government. And that's just nonsense.

[ Parent ]
You Are An EXCELLENT Spin Doctor (0.00 / 0)
As is Obama.

But that's just the problem.

An awful lot of us just don't buy the spin. Even worse, we don't like the fact that he has repeatedly resorted to spinning like this, rather than speaking honestly and forthrightly.

Your argument is, basically, that Obama wasn't praising Reagan, even though that's what it sounded like.  He was actually praising Ted Kennedy.  Only he didn't mention Ted Kennedy's name, because he had his fingers crossed.  Or something.

For the umteenth time, here is what Obama said:

"I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people, he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing."

Not one word about Ted Kennedy.

Not. One. Word.

But a clear statement that folks were fed up with unaccountable government--which is de facto endorsement of Reagan's "Government isn't the solution.  Government is the problem" (not an endorsement of Kennedy's call for universal health care).  Only my diary clearly showed, with rock solid figures, that people simply didn't believe that.

In short, you're the one who's being ridiculous here, and with every comment, you dig yourself in deeper, and deeper.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"


[ Parent ]
dude what was the next sentence? (0.00 / 0)
Because he then went on to mention JFK.

And Ted lost. Reagan set the stage because Ted lost to the Pat Caddell wing of the Democratic party.


[ Parent ]
The reagan thing would be a lot less problemeatic (4.00 / 1)
if he hadn't spent his entire campaign Sister Souljahing.  Everyone's reacting to this incident like it was just that one thing, when in fact, it's been a pattern.

[ Parent ]
Sister Souljahing (0.00 / 0)
Sister Souljahing?  Where has he attacked liberals?  I know of a few cases where people overreacted, which, in the spirit of this post, was good; Obama stopped saying a few phrases he didn't realized offended the left.  Any actual examples?

Saying you understand why someone likes Pepsi isn't the same as saying Coke sucks.


[ Parent ]
I don't have time to go around looking up all of the examples, but (4.00 / 2)
exhibit 1

and the McClurkin thing is another really obvious example. 


[ Parent ]
But That's Simple NOT What He's Doing (0.00 / 0)
Where in that interview did he talk about the horrible things that Reagan did?  I'm not saying he needs to shrilly denounce Reagan.  He can be diplomatic about it.

But not silent.  (And no, saying it once in a book is not sufficient.  Endless repitition is the essence of political messaging.)

It's not about how smart you are.  It's about a basic grasp of historical facts.  (I've got a diary about that all ready to go. Will be posting it in a few minutes.)  And this is all I'm asking that Obama deliver.

In short, I think that the Obama you see does not actually exist.  If he did, I would probably already be supporting him.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"


[ Parent ]
Absolutely (0.00 / 0)
I hear the same thing from people who come from different backgrounds than mine and aren't political junkies, but are decent people who are interested in seeing some of our policies addressed, and who are utterly diosgusted with the last 7 years of GOP rule.

Liberalism did take a very serious hit from 1968 to the present, so much that most people here rebrand themselves as "progressives."  (Some really are further Left than "Liberals," at least as that term was used by those who criticized the Dem party from the Left.)  That so many people simply turned away from poliitcs in the 1990's and up to, maybe 2005, was one of the things that allowed the Bush/Cheney regime to amass so much power.

We can try to understand what needs to be done for progressive ideas to get a better hearing and have a chance of getting actually enacted, or we can flog our candidates until they unequivocally repudiate Reagan and everything he did.  That is really going to energize young people and get them to participate, and it is really going to attract cross-over votes.

Now maybe nice only works in Iowa and not enywhere else, maybe Hillary isn't really as polarizing as I fear, maybe the GOP will nominate Huckabee and he will be so scary that all sane people back Hillary--who knows?  I just think that there is a level of ideological purity and genuflection to traditional Left ideas that is being demanded of Obama that certainly isn't of Hillary, and she looks to be the clear front-runner going into Feb 5.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.


[ Parent ]
What You Keep Avoiding Is The Klutz Factor (4.00 / 1)
And that's putting it generously, given that Obama has gone out of his way to diss progressives at various different times.  And the fact that we all know he's no klutz.

But, simply put, it's not the attempt to reach out to others that bothers me.  It's the brain-dead way he goes about it, by simply mouthing right-wing/Versailles platitutdes.

The proof is in the pudding.  He could have said something similar in spirit so far as reaching out is concerned, but factually accurate that would have upset movement conservatives, not progressive Democrats.  And that upset would have been good, because it would have divided the reachable conservatives from the unreachable ones.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"


[ Parent ]
That last paragraph is probably the clearest statement (0.00 / 0)
that I've heard ina  while about why this whole thing is problematic

[ Parent ]
weird rules, randomly applied (0.00 / 0)
Obama is not.  He is a politician, an officeholder, a spokesmodel, a de facto party representative, and when he uncritically validates a fundamental branding slogan of the other side

So, when John Edwards writes in Foreign Policy that Reagan's "tear down the wall" was part of an era when people knew that the US President and the United States meant good things - an explicit endorsement of a ridiculously false and fundamentally evil branding slogan, we don't see any reaction. And Ronald Reagan, beacon of freedom, a lie that Bill Clinton has also endorsed, is enormously offensive and duplicitous.

But when Obama says that Reagan tapped into people's resentments - resentments that were, as I mentioned, also expressed very forcefully by Ted Kennedy in opposition to Carter - then he is validating a republican talking point?


[ Parent ]
A Fair Points, But It Leaves Out A Lot Of Context (0.00 / 0)
I am not an Edwards supporter, and it's precisely this sort of lack of consistency on Edwards' part that is a good share of the reason why.

I may vote for him (and I may not), but I have much to criticize him for as well.

That said, however, Edwards' failure is nowhere near as damaging to the core of his campaign.  It's still an egreggious historical distortion that he is giving his blessing to, and reinforcing.  But it doesn't cloud or damage the core of his campaign message.

With Obama, it utterly clouds any sense of what he means and intends to do in brining people together.  That's why it's a far more salient issue.  Also, the fact that Obama is significantly ahead.  If Edwards were neck-and-neck, then there would be more cause for highlighting his iconsistencies more--but, still, they would have to be weighted in terms of how much they affect his core rationale.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"


[ Parent ]
you can deduce anything from such vapor (4.00 / 1)
Here's a consistent theme in Edwards: His anti-corporate theme is totally superficial and not anchored to any deeper analysis or any history - in fact his legislative history is pretty conservative. He just repeats "I want to fight corporations" as if that was sufficient. However, whenever we see a detailed analysis - such as his Foreign Policy paper, we see a deeply conventional moderate-conservative.

On the other hand, Obama's entire premise is around blowing off all the "checklist" positioning of prior campaigns and positioning himself as the post-reagan-era candidate. His policy positions are all consistent with his history as an organizer and civil rights attorney, but he will go out of his way to insist on himself as not fitting into the stereotype of liberals, the branding of liberals, that has been so successful for the republicans. Even if Obama was actually saying that Reagan was a wonderful president - which he is not - it would have no bearing on his program or values. The insistence on some kind of generational loyalty oath strikes me as profoundly mistaken. If someone can take office, and in the name of Reagan, destroy the thug political alliance, I'll cheer.


[ Parent ]
Non-Responsive (0.00 / 0)
This is simply a canned pro-Obama rap we've all heard 1000 times before, and is totally unrelated to what I wrote.

I know you can do better than that.  A lot better.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"


[ Parent ]
the definitive statement (0.00 / 0)
From the brilliant Driftglass

http://bp3.blogger.c...


[ Parent ]
You're complaining that the republicans are the party of ideas? (4.00 / 1)
Fine.

Offer up some ideas, then.

That is not what Obama's campaign has been about, though.  He has offered up ideas in response to the other two campaigns, but other than a vague notion of bipartisanship, he's offered little evidence as to how he plans to govern, in terms of substance.  This lends obvious comparison to the last Democrat who behaved in this manner, Bill Clinton, who was also a tremendous orator preaching a sort of bipartisanship, and who avoided substantive claims while talking about change and hope.


[ Parent ]
Substance (0.00 / 0)
Substance.

Seriously, he has the details, just go look.  It is ironic, but those who complain about his lack of substance are actually complaining about style.  The substance is there, he just doesn't talk at length about it on the stump. 

Some people like the wonky style, some prefer grand generalities.  That's fine.  Just realize you are criticizing his style, not his substance.

(If, after looking through the site you still think substance is lacking, feel free to say so.  I doubt you honestly can, but I could be mistaken.)


[ Parent ]
Having Ideas On A Website Is Not Enough (0.00 / 0)
If you aren't making ideas and policy proposals prominent and integral to your campaign, then you aren't reaching low information voters and you aren't influencing the political narrative.  You don't have to provide all the details.  The website is fine for that.  But if you don't integrate the essential logic of your ideas into your campaign, then for all political intents and purposes, you might as well not have them at all.

I find it incredibly strange that people who praise Obama for his skill as a campaigner can't understand the logic of this objection, and have to have it spelled out for them.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"


[ Parent ]
Perhaps (0.00 / 0)
I'll admit my view is highly warped.  I see policy discussions on blogs that compare and contrast candidates, etc.  I have very little sense what low information voters hear.  Certainly the key Democratic concerns, higher wages, better world relations, etc., are all there.

It certainly true he spends much of his time on process instead of policy.  But then again, so does Edwards, just in a different way.

I will point out, though, that Democrats consider Obama more liberal than Clinton, so something is getting through.  (Republicans reverse this.)

But I do agree that the central theme of his candidacy is not formed around policy.  His central theme is we can all get together to solve our problems using government action.


[ Parent ]
And That Leaves A Pretty Big Hole, Now Doesn't It? (0.00 / 0)
But I do agree that the central theme of his candidacy is not formed around policy.  His central theme is we can all get together to solve our problems using government action.

How hard would it be to articulate, broadly, the principles that should guide us in solving those problems?

Personally, I have no problem with most of the traditional conservative concerns, since they are largely mythical.  The vast majority of "waste, fraud and abuse" for example, comes at the Pentagon, which for many years has been so messed up that it can't even be audited.  And as for "fiscal conservatism," the one thing we know for damn sure from 12 years of Reagan/Bush and going on 8 years of Bush II is that conservatives aren't "fiscally conservative".  Everyone else under the sun is, compared to them.  So let's just call it "fiscally responsible," and say, of course we are.  Who wouldn't be?

So, if Obama wanted to, he could easily articulate a framework for problem-solving that respected sensible conservative concerns without bothering me in the least.

But he hasn't done that, and therein lies the problem.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"


[ Parent ]
I can agree with that (4.00 / 1)
One of the problems of these internet debates is there are so many voices we often respond to one comment but in our head responding to similar comments made by others.  I think you've convinced me on where Obama can and should improve.

There are a lot of true Obama haters out there and I still think most of the criticism is an overreaction, but that doesn't mean their isn't a core truth there.  Obama should do a better job laying out the his whole case.

So, if Obama wanted to, he could easily articulate a framework for problem-solving that respected sensible conservative concerns without bothering me in the least.

To my ears he has done that.  But the very fact that you don't hear it basically means you are correct.  Communication is all about what is heard, not what is said.


[ Parent ]
some people think he has (0.00 / 0)
Larry Lessig, for example.

[ Parent ]
How naive.... (0.00 / 0)
if Obama doesn't 'talk about it....' on the stump does 'it' really exist?

Answer no. As has been seen, repeatedly, if the Obama campaign is caught doing something stupid or slimy it's never because he did anything 'wrong' it was a low level staffer's fault. This is just a different variation of the Obama 'double-secret dog-whistle' that Matt, Paul and I are too 'not with it' to get.

Until Obama forms his own lips around policy in stump speeches why.....

He can do whatever he likes if elected.

Please stop taking this guy at his word and take a hard look at what he has said he stands for.

Besides getting elected that is.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.


[ Parent ]
Our anti-democratic culture (4.00 / 1)
It's funny to me that much of the debate in the media was over who deserved credit for the Civil Rights Act, MLK or LBJ.

How about neither?

The Civil Rights movement was a bottom-up, mass popular movement. MLK didn't create the movement; the movement picked him as its standard-bearer, a very different thing. And LBJ didn't just get up one day and decide to let blacks have equal rights - black people stood up and demanded it.

In this country, we seem to have an almost fascistic tendency to see all political change as being the result of some great leader's wisdom and fortitude, as if he or she did it all by themselves, and a bunch of other people jumped on the bandwagon. The civil rights movement created Martin Luther King, not the other way around. And LBJ, by pushing the Civil Rights Act through, at least partially redeemed what would end up being a Vietnam-tainted legacy.

What if LBJ hadn't passed the Civil Rights Act? What do you think would have happened? Would blacks have just gone home and said, "I guess Lyndon isn't going to let us have equal rights"? I don't think so.


Oh really? (4.00 / 1)
So why isn't Myanmar a free state then?  Or China?

Mass movements aren't inevitable and Moyers' comments on this subject specifically reject what you said - history is not inevitable.  People make change and sometimes, individual persons.

Iraq didn't invade itself.  George W Bush did.  Al Gore would almost certainly have not done so. 

And LBJ did decide one day, to put the full force of his influence and office behind passing civil rights legislation.  Then he sent federal troops to enforce it.


[ Parent ]
Woah There! (4.00 / 1)
Jason isn't saying that history is inevitable.  He was simply saying that the movement grew from the bottom, and was not going to give up if it was disappointed by actions at the top.

And I daresay that in the long run, the same will prove true of the people of Burma and China.  The Burmese in particular have certainly not given up, or been distracted into parochial nationalism.  The Chinese leadership is much more adept, and US political responses have given them enormous advantages in consolidating low-information support.  It's going to take a lot longer there.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"


[ Parent ]
ok (4.00 / 1)
Fair enough.  It had more asperity to it than I really intended.

[ Parent ]
No fan of LBJ am I but... (0.00 / 0)

.......we should recognize that he moved the process of granting real civil rights to blacks quite a distance down the road. Which he really didn't need to do.

It cost the nation in other ways as it set the stage for the horrific run from Nixon to Bush.

To....

What next? It would be interesting indeed to see Obama against the McCain/HuckaBee! coalition.

But I'd really rather take a pass on that.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.


[ Parent ]
Bill Moyers (0.00 / 0)
Here's his great essay on MLK and LBJ: http://youtube.com/w...

[ Parent ]
Good Points! (0.00 / 0)
There was a reason I included those photos!

And Johnson himself made the very same points, in his way.  It's from a passage I was going to include, but the passages I did include were already so long.  Anyway, here it is now:

  The real hero of this struggle is the American Negro. His actions and protests, his courage to risk safety, and even to risk his life, have awakened the conscience of this nation. His demonstrations have been designed to call attention to injustice, designed to provoke change; designed to stir reform. He has been called upon to make good the promise of America.

And who among us can say that we would have made the same progress were it not for his persistent bravery and his faith in American democracy? For at the real heart of the battle for equality is a deep-seated belief in the democratic process. Equality depends, not on the force of arms or tear gas, but depends upon the force of moral right--not on recourse to violence, but on respect for law and order.

Note, too, the very different vision of law and order than Nixon would have.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"


[ Parent ]
There's all sort of multiple causation here (0.00 / 0)
Obviously, a movement without a good leader fails.  Would Barry Godlwater have signed all of those civil rights laws?  Would he have advocated as stongly in their favor?  Would LBJ have been able to garner as much support in congress as he did without the political capital from the Kennedy assassination and the huge landslide victory in 1964?  What if the movement had decided to engage in more violent forms of protest?  Or to eschew media coverage, so that Nothern homes didn't see black children getting hit by fire hoses?

All of these things would have changed the civil rights movement.  Maybe some of them would create no substantive changes, maybe some of then would have resulted in a better final civil rights package. 

Of course the movement is important.  But to cleaim that leaders aren't important, and that they didnt' all have their roles to play is silly.


[ Parent ]
True But (0.00 / 0)
It's also true that there's usually an abundance of leaders available, once you get a movement going to a certain stage.  The problems come when they have been over-emphasized, and then they start screwing up, or are killed.

Important as King was, there were many able leaders in the Civil Rights Movement, including the Reverand James Lawson, who actually introduced King to the Ghandian approach.  But they hadn't been the focus of such intense attention, and thus no one wsa able to step into his shoes.  Still, if he had not been there from the beginning, the movement still would have grown without him, simply because there is always an abundance of leadership potential.

This is not to deny the importance of leadership.  It is only a comment on it's relative abundance, which is generally not appreciated.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"


[ Parent ]
Great work, Pablo... (4.00 / 1)
It is truly a tragedy of Sophoclean magnitude that LBJ's legacy should be so conflicted. He deserved to be canonized for his courage in bringing the country together behind the justice of civil rights for all. But he was aware from the very start that the Gulf of Tonkin "incident' was a scam, and still exploited it to bring about the war he seemed to think he needed to retain his grip on domestic power.

He had driven me so far away from my previous admiration of him that I was unable to bring myself to vote for Humphrey, and instead voted for Nixon, who pledged (lied) to summarily end the war. After Nixon, I have never trusted another pol NOT to lie when it suited them.

Anyway, thanks for the reminder. In honor of MLK's birthday and his legacy, may I commend listening to his April, '67, sermon at Ebeneezer Baptist, in which he announces his intention to take on the (LBJ) war-machine. Many folks believe it was this speech/sermon that effectively was his death warrant.


MLK himself epitomized this duty (4.00 / 1)
That is the part of the MLK legacy that tends to be forgotten: his vehement stance against the Vietnam war.  Many people, especially in the civil rights movement, felt that MLK betrayed LBJ and went "too far" in condemning the war.  And yet he did because it was the right thing to do.

Audio of LBJ's 'We Shall Overcome' speech (4.00 / 1)
mp3

It is your duty (4.00 / 1)
to criticize those in power if you think they are wrong.  But it is awfully silly to spend your energy going after Obama for saying something about Reagan when people can't even agree on the meaning of what he said.  Obama is a complex guy trying to put together a governing coalition and everything in his history suggests that the coalition he wants to put together will be progressive.  He might not make it because he's running against a well-oiled machine that has been up one side of the political street and down the other and is pulling out all the stops in a very nuanced way.  Nevertheless, he's giving it a great try.  And you!  You are wasting your time and ours (as I am wasting mine replying to you) pointing out how nefarious Obama was for talking about Reagan.  It was nice of you to give us a history lesson on LBJ.  That had some merit.  But if you want to "speak power to power" why don't you go after power that has destroyed and ruined lives instead of making mountains out of molehills.

Nice Speech, But (0.00 / 0)
at the end of the day, Obama is trying to out-triangulate Clinton.

And I'm one of those who sees this as badly selling short--if not selling out--the very coalition you speak of.

The larger point of this diary is that my criticism is not specific to this campaign.  If Obama wins, this criticism will be even more necessary than it is now.

LBJ got us mired in Vietnam after winning the biggest landslide election since FDR in 1936.  I can't possibly think of anything more important than ensuring against a similar squandering should Obama win this November in anything like a similarly strong showing.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"


[ Parent ]
Nice Speech from you also (and clever putdown), But (4.00 / 1)
at the end of the day you don't change the dynamic by scolding politicians for things you don't like. If you want to organize and deliver or withold votes from them, then that is another matter.  I'll bet you never ran for anything in your life. LBJ was the peace candidate against Goldwater (remember the little girl and the flower and the bomb?).  You were probably applauding him, but, as you say, he got us mired in Vietnam (and his friends Brown and Root made a lot of money in the process).  You have to look at where a man comes from - and who he is beholden to - as well as what he says.  I worry about Obama, but I'm willing to cut him some slack because or where he comes from and what he has done to this point in his life, and because he can inspire people to a degree that just doesn't happen with the other candidates.  You, on the other hand, think he is a sellout and that you can pressure him to be better if you chide him.  Bye the way, have you ever thought that the things Obama brings up allows people like you to point out the horrible nature of the Reagan era?  That's all to the good.  Maybe you should thank him for it!

[ Parent ]
You're The Bitter, Personal One Here, Dude! (0.00 / 0)
And the notion that engaging in a political debate is somehow entirely separate from being engaged in political organizing?

There's a name for that:

    Braindead!


"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

[ Parent ]
sticks and stones... (0.00 / 0)
Sensitive aren't we?

[ Parent ]
problematic (4.00 / 2)
If we can't agree what the meaning of what Obama said is, then isn't that representative of a problem?  For a candidate running largely on great communication skills and outreach, if large sections the population are hearing different things from statements he makes, we must assume this is on purpose at some level.  It's not like this is the first time he's made controversial remarks with multiple interpretations.

How many times must this happen before it's fair to assume it is a strategy, and to read into the intent of that strategy and worry about what lies behind it?


[ Parent ]
Uh-oh! (0.00 / 0)
You let the cat outa dat bag.....

Again!

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.


[ Parent ]
none (0.00 / 0)
Wonderful article - thank you so much for writing it.

I always knew LBJ from Vietnam, and was amazed last year when I read a biography of him (the name of which escapes me, but it's recent) and learned about all of the amazing things he accomplished.  He's fascinating in all of his contradictions and tragic in that all most of us learn about is Vietnam. 


my problem with Obama's invocation of Reagan (4.00 / 3)
First off, I might well end up voting for Obama; I prefer Edwards, but it doesn't look like the guy is going to make it.  Still, I'm troubled by him.

Obama's supporters will explain that he is invoking Reagan because he hopes to transform the country in a progressive direction the way that Reagan transformed the country in a conservative direction.  However, there's a problem with that. Reagan wasn't merely sunny and optimistic.  He also pledged support, during his campaign, for extremely conservative policies, as well as huge tax cuts.  He could then argue, when he won, that he had a mandate for those policies.  In addition, he sent clear signals to the most reactionary forces in American politics that he was their guy, like starting his campaign in Philadephia, Miss., site of atrocies in the 60s, with a "states' rights" speech.

But on domestic issues, Obama simply doesn't have strongly progressive proposals.  Even if he wins a large victory in the general election, what does he have a mandate for?

To be a Reagan of the left, he would need to combine his rhetoric of unity with rhetoric that actually moves the country to the left.  Otherwise he's just another Bill Clinton figure, with no clear mandate to do anything, able only to triangulate, accepting conservative terms for what is politically possible and what isn't.

I still might well vote for him because Hillary is the same sort of centrist, wonkish candidate domestically, and I trust Obama's judgment more than Hillary's on foreign policy and security issues.  But we're in a Democratic primary, and I'd like to see him more strongly pushing Democratic ideas.  So far his domestic position papers are imitations of those from Edwards and Clinton.


Donate to Open Left









QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.


blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search