RANGER AGAINST WAR: The Rest of the Story <

Thursday, January 17, 2008

The Rest of the Story

Now all you sucker. D.J.’s
Who think you’re fly

There’s got to be a reason

And we know the reason why

--
Word Up, Cameo
_________

The above militantly cited pre-Korn, in honor of Ms. Ehrenreich.

I cannot understand how the press and the people get so hung up on minutiae when events of great moment hang like a damoclean sword centimeters above our heads. Talk about living in a spin zone.


The latest tempest in a teapot swirls around Hillary's impudence to suggest that a white man, Lyndon Baines Johnson at that, was instrumental in passing Civil Rights legislation. Everyone has had their say, but I will address Barbara Ehrenreich's post at
HuffPo. She should know better, yet has hopped on the p.c. soapbox like everyone else.

She even manages to wangle in Bo Derek's cornrows, dating herself a tad. Following her logic, a black student who excels at Harvard Law School is appropriating the white paradigm of corporate success, and therefore, an oreo. This is really not cool and hip analysis.


She has told half of the truth: that any great societal shift can only occur following mass protest from the people. The change starts with you. Truth.

Then this:

". . .Clinton's LBJ remark reveals something more worrisome than racial tone-deafness - a theory of social change that's as elitist as it is inaccurate. Black civil rights weren't won by suited men (or women) sitting at desks."

Huh? Ehrenreich's statement, like the rest of the blather out there, is sophistry. This is not an either-or proposition.

Mass movements alone do not shift policy. That change does not come without the backing of the courts and/or the legislators. How was Hillary lying by stating a fact?

Civil Rights was not a spontaneous movement. Great organization was required to marshal the boots on the ground. Ehrenreich mentions a few of the black foot soldiers; she mentions none of the whites. This movement would not have been successful in changing the status quo had not members from many divergent strata joined in unison.

The civil rights workers in the 50's and 60's knew it was a multi-pronged war in which the press must be harnessed to garner sympathy. It was not a good day for the movement if the attack dogs or the fire hydrants were not turned on.


In addition to the pressure of the protests, the assassination of John F. Kennedy was instrumental in allowing for the speedy passage of a large number of initiatives which had languished in committee prior to his death.

In homage to Kennedy, these were railroaded through following his death. One need only look at JFK's voting record to see this. Change would have come, but at a much more gradual pace. His assassination was not essential, but catalytic.


Going back further, JFK might not even have been elected had it not been for the one-woman campaigning of former First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt, a great friend of the black community, on his behalf.

After securing Kennedy's promise prior to the elections that he would advocate for equal housing rights, Roosevelt executed a coast-to-coast lecture circuit of black churches, sans Secret Service protection. A dicey undertaking at best, and one performed out of sheer moral convection.

"'Change' is this year's Democratic battle cry, but if you don't know how it happens, you're not likely to make it happen yourself. A case in point is Clinton's 1993 "health reform" plan. She didn't do any "listening tour" for that, no televised town meetings with heart-rending grassroots testimonies. Instead, she gathered up a cadre of wonks for months of closed-door meetings. . ."

Ehrenreich goes on the criticize Hillary's herculean efforts to change health care during Bill Clinton's administration. But she was not president then, so criticizing her lack of success is moot. That Hillary attempted to contribute to a change is laudatory, for having 49 million citizens without health care is a great disgrace for such a mighty country, and I see no commensurate efforts on behalf of the Bush's.


Are we so afraid -- so politically correct out of some latent residual hypocrisy and bigotry -- that we can't speak frankly and fully about these things? To disallow the acknowledgment of the instrumental presence of whites and politicians in writing and enacting the legislation of the civil rights movement is to feign historical blindness.

To call Hillary's acknowledgment of the fact of the necessity of coalition "most unfortunate" is disingenuous.


To what avail? This is another moment where we need solidarity to resuscitate the U.S. Unfortunately, the ego spectacle that is our electioneering process threatens to fragment and distract us from the real ills that presently afflict us.

Perhaps the flap just reaffirms the fragmentation that is our society.

Labels: , , , ,

9 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

What a screwy world we live in. Black is white, up is down. We no longer honor the truth. Hillary Clinton had it right: it was LBJ that did the heavy lifting. JFK was a lightweight. Bill Clinton wasn't the "first black president." LBJ was. The monstrous mistake of Vietnam has overshadowed the man's truly significant domestic accomplishments.

LBJ was the last giant of a president. Since him, we've had criminals, charlatans, well-intentioned boobs and apparatchiks.

LBJ is a truly tragic figure in American history.

Saturday, January 19, 2008 at 12:22:00 AM GMT-5  
Blogger Lisa said...

publius,

We have short memories for the things that matter, and have surrendered our incisive powers to live in a wonderland of all spin, all the time. Soma -- "All the advantages of Christianity and alcohol; none of their defects." Right?

I like your summary:

"Since him, we've had criminals, charlatans, well-intentioned boobs and apparatchiks." That's about the size of it.

Saturday, January 19, 2008 at 1:54:00 AM GMT-5  
Blogger rangeragainstwar said...

Publius,If your statement about LBJ is correct then what does that say about America and our system of choosing leaders?I'm referring to your PARA. 2.
As i consistently espouse VN seems like an exercise in sanity compared to the PWOT.
JFK was a light weight because he couldn't deliver on his vision and promises.I won't waste words comparing him to any of the current hopefuls. jim

Saturday, January 19, 2008 at 10:26:00 AM GMT-5  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Get the money out of politics, it is basically as simple as that.Require you politicans to live like monks while they serve, and watch the fat run away. In Scandinavia, several ministers have had to leave the job over taxi-bills unaccounted for . Its a good model.

Saturday, January 19, 2008 at 2:01:00 PM GMT-5  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And Soma is right. Read Neil Postmans "Amusing ourselves to Death", Lisa?

Saturday, January 19, 2008 at 2:02:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger Lisa said...

fnord,

Yes, I think amusing ourselves to death had it precisely right. GWB has the pulse beat of America when he tells them to go shopping and all will be well. We seem to enjoy going gently into that good night.

Saturday, January 19, 2008 at 6:55:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger Lisa said...

fnord,

Re. the asceticism you suggest, I would not require them to live like monks, but I would require them to live as common citizens. The perks and privileges of national and state leadership are corrupting.

For example, GWB has a fleet of helicopters to service the WH, when one or two would do the job. Or, he could borrow one from the Air Force as needed.

All federal official are riding the gravy train, and it's doubtful any taxi bills are disputed. These entitlements to the wealthy are a large part of our political problem.

Saturday, January 19, 2008 at 7:02:00 PM GMT-5  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jim, I don't know what there is about my post that needs any amplification. What you see is what you get. And nowadays it seems pygmies is what we get. I'm not the first to term LBJ a "giant." He was a man of huge appetites, capable of evil and also, as we saw WRT civil rights, much good. LBJ was warned that he would lose the south for the Democratic Party if he pushed the civil rights agenda. Yet he did it. And we know what happened in the south.

LBJ was a crass and insensitive man, incredibly well-versed in D.C. political games. There is a good chance he feathered his own nest as well. Plus he was the recipient of a bogus Silver Star. Despite all of his baggage, however, IMO, were it not for Vietnam, LBJ would be in that "great" president category. He and FDR did more for the common American than any other president in the 20th century. Personally, I don't think JFK cared all that much about these things; I think much of his high-flown rhetoric was just throw away political verbiage. I think a lot of people in this country should replace those photos of JFK prominently featured in their homes with photos of LBJ.

LBJ came from racist Texas. In his early life, he never betrayed any true commitment to civil rights. Yet as president, he was an absolute dynamo in this area, a true believer. He went back to what he was as a young congressman during FDR's presidency. We forget his roots because of Vietnam. I admire him for who he was, but I can never forgive him for Vietnam. But that's just me. The guy who views LBJ as the last giant.

Sunday, January 20, 2008 at 9:27:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger rangeragainstwar said...

publius,

Jim is actually in agreement with you, he says. However, because he has a tendency not to state things bluntly, he can be misunderstood. Too, I think he didn't quite address your point.

Of JFK you say, "I think much of his high-flown rhetoric was just throw away political verbiage." I think you are correct, and that is why we must be careful not to be carried away on the wings of pretty talk, without muscle.

I think we both feel that JFK was a lightweight on the issue, and agree that LBJ acted from conviction and intent on the matter of Civil rights.

--Lisa

Monday, January 21, 2008 at 12:13:00 PM GMT-5  

Post a Comment

<< Home