Much of the commentary and spin I've read and heard in the aftermath of Hillary Clinton's recent remarks about the Civil Rights movement miss the problem with her assessment. She said, "Dr. King’s dream began to be realized when President Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ... the power of that dream became real in people’s lives because we had a president who said we are going to do it."Of course, Congress passed the act, not Lyndon Johnson, though he was a strong advocate for it both as vice president and then, after John Kennedy was assassinated, as president. JFK's death also made it easier for Johnson to get the late president's desired legislation passed.
The problem as I see it is not really any attempt to diminish the accomplishments of Martin Luther King, but rather not understanding that all change starts with the people. Movements move, if you will, from the bottom up. Johnson didn't wake up one day and decide that he wanted to rid the South of Jim Crow laws.
The parents from Topeka, Kansas, that brought the Brown v. Board of Education case (eventually decided by the Supreme Court in 1954); the brazen murder of Emmett Till for speaking to a white woman in Mississippi (1955); the year-long Montgomery Bus Boycott (1955); the integration of Little Rock Central High School by nine black teenagers; the Nashville lunch counter sit-ins (1960); the Freedom Riders (1961); Birmingham authorities turning fire hoses and German shepherds loose on children who were peacefully marching (1963); a quarter million Americans marching on Washington (1963) -- each of these and hundreds of other events and actions are what made the difference.
Many people -- black and white -- were beaten, humiliated and some of them were killed before our political leaders decided that something had to be done. So don't tell me that Lyndon Johnson's signature is what made things happen. The will of the people is what made our "leaders" take action. That is what is wrong with Hillary Clinton's statement.
3 comments:
There's a good book on the role of Dr. King and Lyndon Johnson in the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964:
Judgment Days: Lyndon Baines Johnson, Martin Luther King Jr., and the Laws That Changed America by Nick Kotz.
I've read a few chapters and can say that what I've read was a good read.
I certainly would not dispute the role of social movements in the passage of legislation. But I think the truth is that massive (and disruptive) social changes, like the Civil Rights Act of 1964, are the result of strong social movements, a sympathetic (or possibly bullied) Congress, and a sympathetic (or possibly bullied) President. And to sustain such laws takes a sympathetic (or constrained) judicial system. It helps to have the media calling attention to the issue. It also requires a political, economic, and social context that is conducive to social change.
Many have argued quite persuasively that Kennedy was not exactly expending much in the way of political capital to pass any new civil rights laws, much to the frustration of leaders of the African American civil rights movement. Kotz alludes to that in this book. As I read more about that history, I too find it hard to believe that Kennedy could not have made some meaningful headway on civil rights before his assassination. You could argue that the Cold War got in the way and there was the legitimate fear of losing the Southern vote, but that is little comfort to the many people who waited (and died waiting and fighting) for this government to recognize their basic civil rights.
Johnson's motivation was suspect too, but he was blessed with the social context that was conducive to the passage of such legislation, and he had the political skills to make it work. So, Clinton's reading of history isn't too far off the mark. The civil rights movements started in the 19th century but, if Kotz's interpretation of history is correct, it took a president to force a Congress to transform those demands into law.
The more important question is how relevant this is today. I'm not sure that we have the social, political, and economic context conducive to progressive social changes like we saw in the 1960s emanating from the White House. I would like to be wrong on that, but I don't see any of my favored candidates being able to move Congress in a progressive direction right now. And a president can't make those kinds of changes without Congress.
Clinton's uncle may have been involved in some racist actions down South. We don't know for sure.
Good point, though sometimes it's hard to arrive to definite conclusions
Post a Comment