Tuesday, March 23, 2010
New Hypocritical Apoplectic Hell No Blues
I was taught to respect my elders, and I usually do (especially now that I'm fast approaching elderhood myself). But what can one say about the two women here who oppose universal health care even though their age group receives it?
Fair and balanced:
A drop in the bucket of the swath???
"The Catholic Church has a buncha leftists in it."
Would that it were true: I might still go to church.
Bob Forrest is going Republican:
Monday, March 22, 2010
What They're Saying
James Fallows writes:
Keith Ellison (D-MN and the only Muslim member of Congress):
And last but not least, the meltdown from the man who would be Speaker of the House of Representatives. Here he is -- John Boner with his top hit "Hypocritical Apoplectic Hell No Blues":
For now, the significance of the vote is moving the United States FROM a system in which people can assume they will have health coverage IF they are old enough (Medicare), poor enough (Medicaid), fortunate enough (working for an employer that offers coverage, or able themselves to bear expenses), or in some other way specially positioned (veterans; elected officials)... TOWARD a system in which people can assume they will have health-care coverage. Period.Katie Connolly:
More significant though is the political difficulty of arguing against the benefits of the bill, especially the ones that kick in early. Republicans will have to tell people with preexisting conditions that their new ability to access coverage will be withdrawn. They’ll have to tell young people and their parents that young folks won’t be able to stay on the family plan. They’ll have to tell Americans that they’re fighting to allow insurance companies to drop sick people from their rolls once more. Those aren’t easy fights to have. Health-care reform was much easier to dog before it actually becomes law.Newt Gingrich:
...the most radical social experiment . . . in modern times. They [Democrats] will have destroyed their party much as Lyndon Johnson shattered the Democratic Party for 40 years [with the enactment of civil rights legislation in the 1960s].What an odious, repellent man. He ran like Custer trying to take that one back.
Keith Ellison (D-MN and the only Muslim member of Congress):
For me, this legislation represents progress toward universal health care for all Americans. Every landmark piece of legislation had a beginning. Women’s rights did not end with the 19st Amendment; Civil Rights did not end with the signing of the 1965 Voting Rights Act; Social Security enacted in 1935, and Medicare in 1965, did not begin as we know them today. So too is it with this health care reform bill. It is a beginning – and an important one,Paul Krugman:
This is, of course, a political victory for President Obama, and a triumph for Nancy Pelosi, the House speaker. But it is also a victory for America’s soul. In the end, a vicious, unprincipled fear offensive failed to block reform. This time, fear struck out.
And last but not least, the meltdown from the man who would be Speaker of the House of Representatives. Here he is -- John Boner with his top hit "Hypocritical Apoplectic Hell No Blues":
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Sunday Funnies & Arts
As always, click to enlarge...
Looks like Bart Stupak has decided to vote "aye" on health care reform. If so, this pretty much seals the deal, with House Democrats increasingly confident that they have the votes to pass the bill...
Read this fascinating backgrounder from the New York Times about how the Democratic leadership rallied from from Scott Brown's upset victory in Massachusetts to put the party on the brink of passing its most far-ranging social legislation since the mid-60s. Nancy Pelosi comes across especially well, most notably when she dismisses a panicked Rahm Emmanuel's argument for piecemeal bills as "kiddie care"...
I Just Don't Know What To Do With Myself...
Cockney rhyming slang...
Women of European reputation unite!...
Newsweek explains how health care reform reduces the deficit...
Harry Truman leaves Washington...
New Orleans slave sale, 1861 (click to enlarge):
(Thanks, Editilla)
A buoyant President Obama addressed Congressional Democrats yesterday. He's at his best...
Nihil Obstat writes that, in the wake of yesterday's teabagger slurs and threats aimed at John Lewis and Barney Frank, it's time to treat these "people" for what they are:
Terry, Nichols, Eric Rudolph and Timothy McVeigh's direct descendants : domestic terrorists who need the FBI up their asses the way Cheney was up Bush'sDistributor Cap doesn't like the health care bill but supports it anyway...
Saturday, March 20, 2010
The Time Has Come
The health care bill that the House will vote on tomorrow calls to mind Winston Churchill's quip about democracy being the worst possible system except for all of the others. Now, in the case of health care there are preferable alternatives stretching from a weak public option to single payer. But I've become less and less convinced that those were ever feasible. The Democratic caucus was always split on the issue, and the further legislation moved to the left, the fewer votes it would have gotten. As the Republicans hinged their strategy for returning to power on the failure of any health care legislation, none of them were ever going to vote for it no matter what it contained. At the health care summit, President Obama pointed out that, by opposing the bill, Republicans opposed a number of provisions that they had historically supported.
So, the votes were always going to have to come exclusively from the majority, and the Democratic majority was never unified on the best approach. (In defense of the Democrats, it's a lot easier to unite against a necessarily complex piece of legislation than to oppose it in lockstep.) Moreover, no organized, widespread grassroots pressure in support of single-payer or a public option ever emerged, so there was never any serious pressure from the left for an alternative. Say what you will about the teabaggers, they show up in numbers and make their voices heard; progressives never really got the boots on the ground. (Nate Silver argues here that even if they had, their impact would have been minimal. It's an interesting read in which he applies probability theory as opposed to insider analysis.)
So, we're left with a bill whose abortion provisions abridge the constitutional rights of half the country and that brings 30-35,000,000 mostly subsidized customers to health insurance companies, a group whose greed and pointlessness would make a parasite uneasy. But, I'm for the bill, and in the end it's not even a hard call.
History says that should this bill fail, it will be approximately 20 years before another president takes on health care reform. Harry Truman tried first in 1948. Lyndon Johnson tried again in 1965, one of the peak years of American liberal power, and settled for Medicare and Medicaid. Richard Nixon flirted with health care reform briefly in 1971, but he was distracted by wars in Vietnam and Cambodia and never attracted the support of an indifferent public by pushing seriously against conservative and liberal opposition. Health care reform was tabled was tabled until 1993, when Bill Clinton tried and spectacularly failed.
Since 1993, the current system has developed more cracks than the San Andreas Fault. Rising rates have forced individuals and small businesses to drop insurance and have inhibited the increase of real wages as businesses struggle to maintain benefits. Even so, companies have more and more asked employees to assume higher co-pays for ever more limited coverage. Moreover, the preexisting medical conditions of millions of Americans preclude them from having insurance even if they can afford it. Others have run up against the limits of their policies, and still more have had coverage dropped in the middle of expensive ongoing treatment for pernicious diseases.
Unless something changes, the future appears even more bleak. Sooner or later, financial pressures on state and local governments will force them to consider cutting benefits. Increasing global competition from companies that don't have to worry about offering health insurance will give them a competitive edge over American businesses. Real wages will continue to stagnate and possibly decline. Twenty years from now, the only people with insurance they can trust will will work for the federal government or a successful company in an industry that competes for people. Or they will be independently wealthy. If you're Bill Gates, Mitch McConnell, or a software engineer, you'll be in good shape. All others...
I'm convinced that this is the practical alternative to not passing this bill. Whatever its flaws, the legislation
And, damn it, I also don't want to see the obstructionists and the haters win. I'd hate to see that become the blueprint for legislative success...
It takes a lot of guts to bully a man with Parkinson's Disease, but these teabaggers are more than equal to the task. What's the word for this? "Repellent" comes to mind...
Stupid & Contagious is happy that Bob Dylan's Love and Theft is Newsweek's #2 album of the decade, but wonders what it means...
If you thought the French horn was George Martin's idea, think again:
So, the votes were always going to have to come exclusively from the majority, and the Democratic majority was never unified on the best approach. (In defense of the Democrats, it's a lot easier to unite against a necessarily complex piece of legislation than to oppose it in lockstep.) Moreover, no organized, widespread grassroots pressure in support of single-payer or a public option ever emerged, so there was never any serious pressure from the left for an alternative. Say what you will about the teabaggers, they show up in numbers and make their voices heard; progressives never really got the boots on the ground. (Nate Silver argues here that even if they had, their impact would have been minimal. It's an interesting read in which he applies probability theory as opposed to insider analysis.)
So, we're left with a bill whose abortion provisions abridge the constitutional rights of half the country and that brings 30-35,000,000 mostly subsidized customers to health insurance companies, a group whose greed and pointlessness would make a parasite uneasy. But, I'm for the bill, and in the end it's not even a hard call.
History says that should this bill fail, it will be approximately 20 years before another president takes on health care reform. Harry Truman tried first in 1948. Lyndon Johnson tried again in 1965, one of the peak years of American liberal power, and settled for Medicare and Medicaid. Richard Nixon flirted with health care reform briefly in 1971, but he was distracted by wars in Vietnam and Cambodia and never attracted the support of an indifferent public by pushing seriously against conservative and liberal opposition. Health care reform was tabled was tabled until 1993, when Bill Clinton tried and spectacularly failed.
Since 1993, the current system has developed more cracks than the San Andreas Fault. Rising rates have forced individuals and small businesses to drop insurance and have inhibited the increase of real wages as businesses struggle to maintain benefits. Even so, companies have more and more asked employees to assume higher co-pays for ever more limited coverage. Moreover, the preexisting medical conditions of millions of Americans preclude them from having insurance even if they can afford it. Others have run up against the limits of their policies, and still more have had coverage dropped in the middle of expensive ongoing treatment for pernicious diseases.
Unless something changes, the future appears even more bleak. Sooner or later, financial pressures on state and local governments will force them to consider cutting benefits. Increasing global competition from companies that don't have to worry about offering health insurance will give them a competitive edge over American businesses. Real wages will continue to stagnate and possibly decline. Twenty years from now, the only people with insurance they can trust will will work for the federal government or a successful company in an industry that competes for people. Or they will be independently wealthy. If you're Bill Gates, Mitch McConnell, or a software engineer, you'll be in good shape. All others...
I'm convinced that this is the practical alternative to not passing this bill. Whatever its flaws, the legislation
- puts a national policy in place for a sector that accounts for 16.5% of the economy
- allows people with preexisting conditions to obtain insurance
- ends the inhuman practice of rescission
- eliminates payout ceilings
- allows parents to cover their children until age 26
And, damn it, I also don't want to see the obstructionists and the haters win. I'd hate to see that become the blueprint for legislative success...
It takes a lot of guts to bully a man with Parkinson's Disease, but these teabaggers are more than equal to the task. What's the word for this? "Repellent" comes to mind...
Stupid & Contagious is happy that Bob Dylan's Love and Theft is Newsweek's #2 album of the decade, but wonders what it means...
If you thought the French horn was George Martin's idea, think again:
Thursday, March 18, 2010
That's It for the Other One
I recently had an instructive exchange with a teabagger over on fivethirtyeight.com. This guy makes his teabagger meetings sound about as threatening as a sewing circle, filled with high-minded Hallmark rhetoric about reducing the size of Big Government for the safety and financial future of the country. Other readers on the blog have at times expressed concern over the racist and violent imagery coming from 'bagger rallies, but he consistently ignored these comments.
Just for fun, I called him on it and accused him of sticking his head in the sand. His response essentially implied that said reports were a figment of the liberal imagination and the neither I nor anyone else could cite actual instances of racist imagery or threats of violence. When I provided citations, he answered (I think this was the point) that he personally had an African-American minister and that therefore there was no racism or violence among the 'baggers.
Now, this guy is a supercilious twit whose intellectual reach doesn't go any further than a melange of Republican/Libertarian talking points. It was all too easy to yank his chain (forgive me, Father, for I have sinned), so I told him to stop hiding behind his minister's robes and either quit the ostrich thing or admit that he agreed that racist and violent imagery was a legitimate teabagger tactic. He made a snarky, flip comment about the likely results of the November election. He didn't respond at all after I contributed (with citations) a revolting description of a typical lynching and asked if he could finally understand that threats of sexually mutilating our African-American president coupled with calls for states' rights might seem racist to some people. I concluded that he was a fellow traveler with purveyors of racism and violence pornography, and said so. (I rather liked that phrase!)
So, are the teabbaggers racist? Even I will concede that if an African-American conservative showed up at a 'bagger coven, he or she would be greeted with open arms. But what if fifty or a hundred appeared? What if the group was a mix of African-Americans and Latino immigrants? That they would be welcomed, I'm less sure about.
At heart, there's a nativism or tribalism underlying 'bagger meetings that makes them little different in spirit than an Afghan mountain man using homemade weapons to repel outsiders. That's why the 'baggers hate Obama, don't like immigrants, and in fact don't like anyone who doesn't agree with them right down the line. They claim to love America, but it's a peculiar kind of a America composed exclusively of members of their tribe. They love America, maybe, but in the end they hate most Americans.
At one level, it's easy to understand the impulse and even sympathize with it. The 'baggers feel invaded, and history is replete with invaders who conquer and enslave. Pretty soon the paranoia about the Other kicks in, the talk of violent resistance and civil war grows, the paranoia escalates, and the anger grows more intense.
But just because the impulse is understandable doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't rise above it. I mean, isn't that what we're called to do either by our god or by our consciences? The liberal imagination not only allows for a diverse world, it celebrates the possibilities of such a world. The 'baggers see this as naive, no doubt, as they reach for their guns and agitate for open carry laws. Maybe so, but I'd much rather live in my world than theirs. At least I'm not afraid to go to downtown Seattle in the daytime and least I love Americans.
Last week, the 'baggers mustered only a few hundred people to protest health care legislation, not exactly the March on Washington. Over time, I don't think the 'bagger backlash can survive its lack of know-how. Ironically, what they need most in order to last as an independent movement are the skills that only community organizers bring to the table. In other words, they need ACORN and Barack Obama, the one group and the one person they despise above all others. Sometimes, life is funny...
Hawaii sez "Enough! No more requests for birth certificates! He was born here, already"...
Just for fun, I called him on it and accused him of sticking his head in the sand. His response essentially implied that said reports were a figment of the liberal imagination and the neither I nor anyone else could cite actual instances of racist imagery or threats of violence. When I provided citations, he answered (I think this was the point) that he personally had an African-American minister and that therefore there was no racism or violence among the 'baggers.
Now, this guy is a supercilious twit whose intellectual reach doesn't go any further than a melange of Republican/Libertarian talking points. It was all too easy to yank his chain (forgive me, Father, for I have sinned), so I told him to stop hiding behind his minister's robes and either quit the ostrich thing or admit that he agreed that racist and violent imagery was a legitimate teabagger tactic. He made a snarky, flip comment about the likely results of the November election. He didn't respond at all after I contributed (with citations) a revolting description of a typical lynching and asked if he could finally understand that threats of sexually mutilating our African-American president coupled with calls for states' rights might seem racist to some people. I concluded that he was a fellow traveler with purveyors of racism and violence pornography, and said so. (I rather liked that phrase!)
So, are the teabbaggers racist? Even I will concede that if an African-American conservative showed up at a 'bagger coven, he or she would be greeted with open arms. But what if fifty or a hundred appeared? What if the group was a mix of African-Americans and Latino immigrants? That they would be welcomed, I'm less sure about.
At heart, there's a nativism or tribalism underlying 'bagger meetings that makes them little different in spirit than an Afghan mountain man using homemade weapons to repel outsiders. That's why the 'baggers hate Obama, don't like immigrants, and in fact don't like anyone who doesn't agree with them right down the line. They claim to love America, but it's a peculiar kind of a America composed exclusively of members of their tribe. They love America, maybe, but in the end they hate most Americans.
At one level, it's easy to understand the impulse and even sympathize with it. The 'baggers feel invaded, and history is replete with invaders who conquer and enslave. Pretty soon the paranoia about the Other kicks in, the talk of violent resistance and civil war grows, the paranoia escalates, and the anger grows more intense.
But just because the impulse is understandable doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't rise above it. I mean, isn't that what we're called to do either by our god or by our consciences? The liberal imagination not only allows for a diverse world, it celebrates the possibilities of such a world. The 'baggers see this as naive, no doubt, as they reach for their guns and agitate for open carry laws. Maybe so, but I'd much rather live in my world than theirs. At least I'm not afraid to go to downtown Seattle in the daytime and least I love Americans.
Last week, the 'baggers mustered only a few hundred people to protest health care legislation, not exactly the March on Washington. Over time, I don't think the 'bagger backlash can survive its lack of know-how. Ironically, what they need most in order to last as an independent movement are the skills that only community organizers bring to the table. In other words, they need ACORN and Barack Obama, the one group and the one person they despise above all others. Sometimes, life is funny...
Hawaii sez "Enough! No more requests for birth certificates! He was born here, already"...
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Europe's Promise
Monday, I heard Steven Hill, author of Europe's Promise, speak about the book and what the United States could learn from the way European nations conduct social policy. Personally, I believe that we can learn a great but will apply little. The average conservative would have listened to Hill's reasoned presentation and then told him to move to Europe if he thought it was so great. But the presentation was thought-provoking, especially when he demolished some of the myths and preconceptions that obscure American understanding of Europe. Here are a few of them:
France and Germany have single-payer, government owned and operated health care systems.
Not so. Both countries, along with Belgium and Luxembourg, provide universal health care access through payroll deductions and a pool of private, not-for-profit insurance companies.
Europe's economies are socialistic and moribund.
Actually, Europe is a powerful, thriving capitalist entity with more Fortune 500 companies than the United States and China combined, and the World Economic Forum says that it has some of the most competitive economies in the world. Small businesses? They provide about two-thirds of European jobs compared to one-half of American jobs.
Europeans pay more taxes than Americans.
Yes and no. European tax rates are higher, but they cover what amount to hidden taxes in the United States, such as college tuition, co-pays, deductibles, sick leave, and parental leave.
The United States is more technologically innovative than Europe.
Depends on what you mean. European firms may not be developing the latest in military hardware or dominate the software wars, but Europe has high-speed trains and leads the world in green technologies such solar arrays, high tech windmills, hydrogen and electric cars, and sea power. It's no accident that Europe is the most energy-efficient continent.
OK, but the United States has national and world defense responsibilities that Europe doesn't have.
The European Union and its nations emphasize diplomacy in world affairs over the application of military force. As Hill explains,
None of this will change anyone's mind, but it may give you a few bullets in the ammo belt the next time you find yourself in a tangle on Facebook...
St. Patrick's Day Irish Stew: To my little home in Westport, in the county of Mayo...Happy St. Patrick's Day, Lakewood style...Irish immigrants...Bob Dylan sings "One Irish Rover"...
Chad Finn remembers Nomah. Me, I'll never forget him. With Pedro Martinez, Nomar Garciaparra revived Boston baseball. I've seen some great clutch hitters, including David Ortiz and Edgar Martinez, and Nomar is right up there with them. As Finn writes, everything Nomar hit or threw was a line drive...
Happy Birthday, Nat! Get your kicks on Route 66! (Maybe Nat was Black Irish?)
France and Germany have single-payer, government owned and operated health care systems.
Not so. Both countries, along with Belgium and Luxembourg, provide universal health care access through payroll deductions and a pool of private, not-for-profit insurance companies.
Europe's economies are socialistic and moribund.
Actually, Europe is a powerful, thriving capitalist entity with more Fortune 500 companies than the United States and China combined, and the World Economic Forum says that it has some of the most competitive economies in the world. Small businesses? They provide about two-thirds of European jobs compared to one-half of American jobs.
Europeans pay more taxes than Americans.
Yes and no. European tax rates are higher, but they cover what amount to hidden taxes in the United States, such as college tuition, co-pays, deductibles, sick leave, and parental leave.
The United States is more technologically innovative than Europe.
Depends on what you mean. European firms may not be developing the latest in military hardware or dominate the software wars, but Europe has high-speed trains and leads the world in green technologies such solar arrays, high tech windmills, hydrogen and electric cars, and sea power. It's no accident that Europe is the most energy-efficient continent.
OK, but the United States has national and world defense responsibilities that Europe doesn't have.
The European Union and its nations emphasize diplomacy in world affairs over the application of military force. As Hill explains,
velvet diplomacy has been instrumental in bringing greater peace, democracy, and prosperity to the former communist dictatorships of eastern and central Europe, as well as to neighbors such as Turkey, Ukraine, and others in its periphery. All told, this “Eurosphere” links two billion people -- one-third of the world, including many Arab countries -- to the European Union and its way of doing things.Even so, the combined standing armies of European nation number over 2,000,000 soldiers. Anyway, we can see how far military adventurism has gotten us.
None of this will change anyone's mind, but it may give you a few bullets in the ammo belt the next time you find yourself in a tangle on Facebook...
St. Patrick's Day Irish Stew: To my little home in Westport, in the county of Mayo...Happy St. Patrick's Day, Lakewood style...Irish immigrants...Bob Dylan sings "One Irish Rover"...
Chad Finn remembers Nomah. Me, I'll never forget him. With Pedro Martinez, Nomar Garciaparra revived Boston baseball. I've seen some great clutch hitters, including David Ortiz and Edgar Martinez, and Nomar is right up there with them. As Finn writes, everything Nomar hit or threw was a line drive...
Happy Birthday, Nat! Get your kicks on Route 66! (Maybe Nat was Black Irish?)
Monday, March 15, 2010
What's In A Word?
Forty-five years ago today, President Lyndon Johnson addressed a joint session of Congress on national television, urging them to pass legislation that guaranteed the voting rights of all Americans regardless of color. A determined and pugnacious Johnson rocked back and forth like a heavyweight looking for an opening as he admonished Congress for taking eight months to pass the 1964 Civil Rights Act and demanded that it pass voting rights legislation expeditiously. He got his wish: The 1965 Voting Rights Act passed both houses in less than four months.
The immediate impetus for Johnson's speech was the Selma to Montgomery civil rights march, which deteriorated into mayhem before it got out of Selma. An appalled nation watched televised accounts of police attacking peaceful marchers with clubs, police dogs, and fire hoses. Johnson seized the opportunity to deliver one of the most momentous speeches of the American presidency. In the first five minutes of the speech, Johnson cut to the chase: "There is no Negro problem...there is only an American problem." About a minute into the speech, he framed the events in Selma as a pivotal event in the American fight for freedom:
To southern politicians, Johnson's reference to Appomattox must have felt like a battering ram to the solar plexus. By invoking Lee's surrender to Grant, he sent the message that the Civil War had not been about states rights; it had been about ending slavery and extending freedom to all Americans. With that single word, he undercut the white South's entire rationale for opposing civil rights legislation, aligning it with slavery and injustice. With that single word, he forged a connection between the ideals of the Revolution, the fight to end slavery, and the fight to extend political rights to all. In effect, Johnson exposed the southern deification of states rights as a lie to rationalize injustice.
Worse for them, Johnson was a southern politician himself, so no segregationist could complain that a carpetbagging northerner was imposing his values on a southern way of life. That, combined with the images from Selma, swept away the fiction -- the lies, really -- that the south had and would continue to have racial harmony if only they were left to their own devices.
Johnson was nothing if not a masterful politician who well understood the import and effect of political language. He had alternatives to Appomattox: He could have selected from among such uncontroversial and more immediate patriotic locales as San Juan Hill, Chateau-Thierry, and Normandy. But by choosing Appomattox, he sent a message to the white south: From here on in, they had a choice of being on the right side of history or the wrong side of history. But they should be under no illusions that they were on the moral side of events...
My father remembers the speech well. We lived in Columbus, Ohio at the time, little knowing that soon we would be Texans ourselves. Dad watched it on television and thought it was great. He listed Johnson's many accomplishments in education, civil rights, and health care, then -- like almost every liberal of his generation -- lamented that Vietnam had destroyed a potentially great presidency...
No one knew it then, but 1965 was to date the historical high water mark for the liberal presidency. Johnson was immensely popular: When he flew to Detroit for a speech, cheering throngs lined his route from the airport. In addition to the Voting Rights Act, 1965 saw major federal initiatives in education and the passage of Medicare/Medicaid...
You can write to the Texas Education Agency to express concern about the content of Texas textbooks, which will ripple out to many other states. The link is here...
The immediate impetus for Johnson's speech was the Selma to Montgomery civil rights march, which deteriorated into mayhem before it got out of Selma. An appalled nation watched televised accounts of police attacking peaceful marchers with clubs, police dogs, and fire hoses. Johnson seized the opportunity to deliver one of the most momentous speeches of the American presidency. In the first five minutes of the speech, Johnson cut to the chase: "There is no Negro problem...there is only an American problem." About a minute into the speech, he framed the events in Selma as a pivotal event in the American fight for freedom:
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.Watch:
To southern politicians, Johnson's reference to Appomattox must have felt like a battering ram to the solar plexus. By invoking Lee's surrender to Grant, he sent the message that the Civil War had not been about states rights; it had been about ending slavery and extending freedom to all Americans. With that single word, he undercut the white South's entire rationale for opposing civil rights legislation, aligning it with slavery and injustice. With that single word, he forged a connection between the ideals of the Revolution, the fight to end slavery, and the fight to extend political rights to all. In effect, Johnson exposed the southern deification of states rights as a lie to rationalize injustice.
Worse for them, Johnson was a southern politician himself, so no segregationist could complain that a carpetbagging northerner was imposing his values on a southern way of life. That, combined with the images from Selma, swept away the fiction -- the lies, really -- that the south had and would continue to have racial harmony if only they were left to their own devices.
Johnson was nothing if not a masterful politician who well understood the import and effect of political language. He had alternatives to Appomattox: He could have selected from among such uncontroversial and more immediate patriotic locales as San Juan Hill, Chateau-Thierry, and Normandy. But by choosing Appomattox, he sent a message to the white south: From here on in, they had a choice of being on the right side of history or the wrong side of history. But they should be under no illusions that they were on the moral side of events...
My father remembers the speech well. We lived in Columbus, Ohio at the time, little knowing that soon we would be Texans ourselves. Dad watched it on television and thought it was great. He listed Johnson's many accomplishments in education, civil rights, and health care, then -- like almost every liberal of his generation -- lamented that Vietnam had destroyed a potentially great presidency...
No one knew it then, but 1965 was to date the historical high water mark for the liberal presidency. Johnson was immensely popular: When he flew to Detroit for a speech, cheering throngs lined his route from the airport. In addition to the Voting Rights Act, 1965 saw major federal initiatives in education and the passage of Medicare/Medicaid...
You can write to the Texas Education Agency to express concern about the content of Texas textbooks, which will ripple out to many other states. The link is here...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
