LBJ’s lesson
November 5, 2008, 10:56 am
Posted by David Gibson
For what it’s worth, I was struck by this NYT op-ed by Johnson biographer Robert Caro back in August. Caro pinned his piece to Obama’s convention speech, but what remained with me was the remarkable transformation he described in LBJ: From good ol’ Texas pol to civil rights leader. Such development is something to be hoped for, indeed expected, in any leader as they assume high office. Perhaps it is also something for both fans and foes of Obama to ponder.
Indeed. Although, if civil rights leaders had attacked and demonized LBJ the way some Catholic bishops have condemned Obama, I wonder whether history would have been different.
Eduardo, Faithful Citizenship was written before anyone knew who the final candidates for the office of the President were.
Y impression pf Obama is that he is a very gentle person who cares deeply about the marginalized. If the bishops were to come up with some persuasive arguments against abortion I’m sure they would find a sympathetic ear. LBJ changed. I’m sure Obama could if he were persuaded of the rightness of the cause .
I am not sure that LBJ really did change. He was not known for being racist (neither was George Wallace — read the pre-election column in the NYT regarding John Lewis). What LBJ did that was transformational was to decide in a definitive, irreversible way to go with the better angels of his nature, but those angels were already there. Not every Southern person is or was a dyed in the wool racist. Indeed, most Southern politicians in the 1950s probably understood that segregation was as unsustainable as slavery over the long run. They lacked the courage of their convictions and cared too much about the trappings of their continued success to back LBJ up in a way that really would have moved the country much further forward. LBJ had courage in addition to conviction. He also had tremendous pressure in the form of outrage over the murders of voting rights activists, and sorrow at the death of JFK. It was a unique historical moment and we are much better off that he rose to the occasion.
Excellent posting and like you, hope that change and a leader can change but it brings to mind a number of events and thoughts:
a) did my MA Amer. History thesis on Government Decision-making and Vietnam using records from the LBJ library on the campus of UT in Austin;
b) the multi volume biography of LBJ by R. Caro is a work of art and captures the complexity and tragic flaws of this man;
c) if you compare this election moment to LBJ and Civil Rights, you need to remember that LBJ was also a tragic figure, haunted by Vietnam and driven from office. Yes, he changed on civil rights but he failed in foreign policy….could history repeat itself?
d) there is a new American opera that was just released – “August 4, 1967″ – that is the day of the Gulf of Tonkin attacks and when the bodies of three civil rights activists were found in Mississippi. On the one hand, LBJ is starting a war and at the same time calling the parents of these three victims. The juxtapose and emotional conflict is overpowering and emotional.
Finally, as I reflect on those bishops who issued partisan and single issue statements (some in very inflammatory ways), what was a Catholic African-American feeling and thinking in the pews? Here was an extraordinary moment in our history and the bishops (almost totally) ignored the achievement; missed the fact that although the civil war was fought in the 19th century, equality and diversity were still missing-in many ways, the war was still being fought in many different arenas. What impact will this have on the world; on the way people see American and the American promise? Did any bishop speak to that? Yes, abortion may be our new “civil war” but like the slavery civil war, it will take more than a single issue or supreme court vote to change society, culture, and law and the struggle may go one for 150 years.
It is the Mission of the Catholic Church to speak the Truth. A Catholic African-American is a Catholic American of African ancestry, who believes in the Sanctity of Life and the Sanctity of Marriage and the Family. The Sanctity of Life and the Sanctity of Marriage and the Family is not a partisan issue.
Interesting discussion and valuable contributions – very thought-provoking.
if we’re drawing a parallel between the struggle for civil rights in the ’60′s and the stuggle to guarantee the right to life in this decade, then we have a very long way to go before we can expect President Obama to embrace the better angel of his nature. I suspect Barbara is right that it would take a unique confluence of circumstances.
I’m an optimist, but it’s difficult to imagine what circumstances could come together in the next four or eight years to bring about such a stunning reversal, not only in Obama’s personal views, but also the views of the American public. I know it is his transformational and inspirational side that appeals to so many folks, but he is, at a foundational level, a shrewd and pragmatic politician. I think he’d need to see a critical mass of popular support before unleashing that particular angel.
LBJ noted that with his civil rights legislation that the South would be lost to the Republicans for decades. The Republicans got the South by default not by any merits on their part. Same with this modern “issue.”
Fitting that a black person would be the one to win a couple of States in the South for the first time since the time when it was solidly democratic.
Republicans did NOT get the South by default. First, even in Mississippi and Alabama, many statewide offices are still held by Democrats, which is a testament to how deeply embedded the Democratic party was in the South after the Civil War. They are very conservative it is true, but they are not Republican. It took effort to break that hold in national elections.
The national Republican Party through Richard Nixon, Harry Dent and then Lee Atwater made a conscious choice to appeal to racially based resentment of Southern whites. The Republican Party had been very moderate on civil rights issues, and in some respects, perhaps, even more moderate than many Democrats, certainly more moderate than many Southern Democrats. Condaleezza Rice, to name one, is a Republican because her father was a Republican like almost all registered Black voters were at the time. Because the Republican Party was the party of Lincoln. In many ways, the Democratic Party faced the same choice in the 1960s that the Republican Party faces today: which faction would it follow when the regional divisions were all but untenable within a single party?
If Richard Nixon and the Republican Party had arrived in 1968 at approximately the same position they have today — the voting patterns in the U.S. would not have been nearly as polarized as they are now. In other words, they could have argued about “means and methods” (affirmative action, busing) on the one hand, but expressed unwavering support to ending de jure segregation. We would be so much better off if they had. They didn’t, and here we are.
Nancy, you don’t really think Eduardo was talking about “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship,” do you?
Barbara, sounds like you are getting picky. Certainly Nixon took advantage of the opportunity but the South had already voted for Goldwater before that. http://www.consortiumnews.com/2003/120103.html
Well, Mollie, if he wasn’t, he certainly can explain exactly what he was talking about. Eduardo, what do you mean by your statement, “the way some Catholic bishops have condemned Obama”…? Should they have supported Obama’s positions on abortion and the redefining of Marriage and the Family rather than condemn those positions?
What political savvy!
I’ve long been a fan of Robert Caro, epecially since his early monumental work on Robert Moses and his impact on Ne wyorkCity.
(For folk in the city, if you’ve never read “The Power Broker,” I suspect it’s worth a read today.)
Johnson was much a man of his upbringing and Barack will also be; but Obama is a man of openness from whom I expect some change and growth while he brings grace and civility to us in a hard time.
Bill D’s comments on how minorities are affected by Catholic leadership’s approacxhes is highly germane -again see Massingale today, for example. There is the further problem of gay Catholics after Prop 8 wins yesterday.
While some here seem to think there’s only one way to proclaim the Gospel – shoot from the lip – I hope our hierachy shows some political sophistication. Cardinal George’s “terse” (Rocco’s word) congratulation to Obama may well be an uneasy truce.
To have your voice heard, you need to understand and respect who you’re talking to if you want collaboration.
Jim –
What would Obama do if by some near-miracle the bishops — or somebody else — came up with some persuasive arguments that abortion at least sometimes kills persons? I can’t be sure, but I expect Obama might at least use his bully pulpit to *start* changing minds. And if he is eventually Chief Justice he might further the cause some more,
As I said on another thread, I don’t expect this country to be ready to discuss the subject rationally until the generation of radical feninistss are gone, and perhaps their daughters’ generation with them. How’s this for a real horror: recently one of the radical feminists said while discussing FOCA that every woman is entitled to a dead baby! Such harpies will not be defeated easily. Even at this point I doubt that Obama would stand with them.
Barbara –
In the 1920′s the Republicans here in New Orleans appointed a black man as head of the Port of New Orleans, a plum political appointment. Sen. Ransdall of Louisiana, a Democrat, addressed a letter to him as “Mr.” Ransdall’s opponen in his next campaign made an issue of it.
As you indicate, the South was never simple. Still isn’t.
“What would Obama do if by some near-miracle the bishops — or somebody else — came up with some persuasive arguments that abortion at least sometimes kills persons? ”
Hi, Ann,
I could be wrong, but from what I can tell, Obama approaches the the question of abortion, not in a particularly philosophical or theological perspective – such things being “above his pay grade” – but as a legal scholar. He believes that abortion is a right that the US Constitution grants women. I think thta, were his views to metamorphize in some eway, it would come from legal theory or argumentation.
Another job for the laity, not the bishops :-)
Hi, Jim,
I suspect you’re right about Obama and the law. However, there is a part of Roe v. Wade that says that the right of privacy shall prevail only because, the justices said, they did not know how to answer the fundamental question: when does ensoulment take place? Put into ordinary language, that means: how can you identify a person when you find one?
It seems to me that that fundamental question must be answered by a combination of biology (man is an animal), psychology (man is rational) and philosophy which attempts to answer the epistemological and metaphysical question : “how do we know what specific kind of thing a living thing is??
So Roe v. Wade not only allows for legal revisions dependent on philosophical answers, but, it seems to me,requires philosophical answers if “the right to life” questions are ever to be settled.. But I suspect that the courts will stumble along trying to deal with “life” in different trimesters or orther landmarks and biological increments all the while avoiding the basic question largely for lack of competent help from the philosophers, Maybe in a pluralistic society that’s all they *can* do. I can’t help but hope, however, that other pressing issues (e.g., triage issues that might become pressing when money runs out for health care) will force the Court to look at the issue again.