Letters to the Editor

An endorsement that might matter Could Rep. James Clyburn -- or the words that motivate him -- swing African-American voters toward Obama in South Carolina? Tim Grieve [2008-01-11]

• Clinton's view is top-heavy and misleading.

  Ok, a couple of things.

  First, the LBJ comment itself. On its face, it's factually sound, sure. LBJ was the guy who finally got the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed -- Since Kennedy had been shot several months before, it's an open question as to whether the young, inspiring Kennedy could've done it or not. (Or, for that matter, was even inclined to. Neither JFK nor Attorney General RFK were particularly strong leaders on civil rights during the Kennedy administration, although JFK was heading that way, and RFK later become an important voice for the movement, before his own untimely murder.)

  But Clinton's characterization of civil rights is also top-heavy and highly misleading about the nature of the movement. The civil rights movement in the South has roots going back to WWII and before, but it really took off as a spontaneous movement for freedom all across the South -- notwithstanding Brown v. Board, Montgomery, and Little Rock -- beginning with the Greensboro sit-ins in 1960, when young, ordinary black teenagers began taking enormous personal risks to challenge Jim Crow. It was the sit-ins, and later the Freedom Riders -- actions taken by people just like you and me -- which really brought civil rights to the attention of the Kennedys. Over the next several years, African-Americans and white liberals continued the movement all across the South...in Birmingham, Selma, and elsewhere.

  Dr. King, who had been instrumental in the Montgomery boycotts, emerged as a passionate, charismatic leader of the movement, and his words, at Birmingham, the March on Washington, and elsewhere, inspired white and black America to believe that racial injustice could no longer be tolerated in this nation. But he was not alone. Countless other leaders -- John L, Lewis, Bayard Rustin, Fannie Lou Hamer, James Farmer -- also played important roles. And most important were the people, the thousands of individuals who risked everything -- including, sometimes, their lives -- for the cause of racial equality. (See John Dittmer, Local Color...or any other book about the civil rights movement, for that matter.) And why? They risked their lives because they hoped for something better -- They believed America could come together and be more than what it was.

  As for LBJ, the fact he was a Southerner, and formerly the legislative master of the Senate, helped enormously in passing Civil Rights legislation. But so too did the television reports everyday of men, women, and children facing down racist cops and fire hoses in the name of simple justice. Go look at LBJ's Special Message to Congress on Youtube or elsewhere. "We Shall Overcome" -- Now, where do you suppose he got that from?

  Second, and this is very important, Clyburn took issue at more than just the LBJ remark. He was also angry about the general "false hope" negativity perpetrated by the Clintons in NH. For example, the "Man from Hope"'s shameful and embarrassing "fairy tale" screed: "To call that dream [of an Obama presidency] a fairy tale, which Bill Clinton seemed to be doing, could very well be insulting to some of us." Or all the talk of "false hope" in general: "It is one thing to run a campaign and be respectful of everyone’s motives and actions, and it is something else to denigrate those. That bothered me a great deal."

  I'm with Clyburn. Clinton's historical analysis, like her shameful and disgusting rhetoric of "false hope," is extraordinarily dismaying. What happened to "It takes a village"? Along with the political lowballs of last week in NH -- the patently false abortion mailer and mandatory minimum drug hysteria flouted by the campaign -- it's the sheer brazenness of their shift in message that I can't forgive the Clintons for. I mean, am I misremembering things, or didn't they once believe in a place called Hope? Or was that just convenient spin, and hope is really just a "fairy tale" when it's working against the Clintons? Almost of their actions in New Hampshire suggest the latter.

  And, since our identities have come to matter so much of late: I'm white. I'm male. I'm an Obama supporter. I grew up in Clyburn's district. I'm finishing a US History PhD at an Ivy League university (so I have some sense of what I'm talking about here), and I spent several years working for the Clinton rapid-response team (including during l'affaire Lewinsky, when columnists such as Sid Blumenthal and Joe Conason called us constantly.) So, I'm not and never have been a reflexive Clinton hater -- if anything, seeing this widespread, overstated notion that the MSM hates the Clintons encourages me to think we were pretty good at our jobs back then.

  -- KcM | GitM
  [Read KcM | GitM's other letters]
  Permalink Flag Friday, January 11, 2008 10:35 AM
  Click "Submit Flag" if you feel this post is inappropriate. Explain why below if you wish.

  Cancel