Paul Revere by Cyrus Dallin, North End, Boston

~~~

~~~

Friday, April 4, 2008

WHEN LIBERALISM'S MOMENT ENDED



NOTE:

John McCain opposed honoring Dr. King with a holiday.

WASHINGTON, April 4, 2008, 2008 /PRNewswire-USNewswire via COMTEX/

John McCain today brought his effort to reinvent himself for the general election to a new low by misleading the voters on his full record on a holiday honoring Dr. Martin Luther King. McCain tried to suggest that his opposition to a holiday honoring Dr. King was limited to his 1983 vote against a federal holiday. In reality, McCain maintained his opposition to it until at least 1989, voted against funding for the commission working to promote the King Holiday in 1994, and used divisive language about state's rights to defend himself. McCain even supported Republican efforts to repeal a holiday in his state in 1987.

1983: McCain Voted Against Law Creating National Martin Luther King Holiday. In 1983, McCain voted against passing a bill to designate the third Monday of every January as a federal holiday in honor of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. That was the year the holiday was passed into law, supported by 338 members of the House and 78 members of the Senate. [1983 House Vote #289, 8/2/1983; 1983 Senate Vote #303]

1987: McCain Supports AZ Governor's Effort to Rescind Martin Luther King Day as State Holiday. In 1987, Arizona Governor Evan Mecham rescinded "what he termed an illegal executive order by his predecessor, Democrat Bruce Babbitt, to establish a state holiday honoring the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr." Speaking to the Arizona Teenage Republican Convention, when asked about Mecham's decision to rescind the holiday, "McCain said that he felt Mecham was correct in rescinding the holiday." [Washington Post, 1/14/1987; Phoenix Gazette, 4/13/1987]


1989: McCain Urged Lawmakers to Create State Holiday, But Expressed Opposition to Federal Holiday. In 1989, McCain expressed his support for a state law recognizing an Arizona Martin Luther King Jr. holiday. But, McCain said, "I'm still opposed to another federal holiday... but I support the (Arizona) Martin Luther King holiday because of the enormous proportions this issue has taken on as far as the image of our state and our treatment towards not only blacks but all minorities." [Phoenix Gazette, 5/2/1989]


1992: McCain Endorsed Proposition Creating State Holiday. "McCain endorsed Proposition 300, which would establish a paid state holiday honoring the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr." [Phoenix Gazette, 10/28/1992]


1994: McCain Voted To Strip Federal Funding From the MLK Federal Holiday Commission. In 1994, McCain voted to prohibit federal funds for the Martin Luther King Jr. Federal Holiday Commission. The Commission was established in 1984 "to encourage the observance of King's birthday." According to Al King, head of the California chapter of the commission, the organization "helped keep 'senators' and 'representatives' feet to the fire to recognize the holiday." [1994 Senate Vote #127, 5/24/1994; Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 5/24/1995, 5/26/1995]

Source: foxbusinessnews.com

Ronald Reagan also opposed honoring Dr. King with a holiday. He recanted only after Congress passed the King Day bill with an overwhelming veto-proof majority (338 to 90 in the House of Representatives and 78 to 22 in the Senate). Remember--this is the man who opened his presidential campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi, where three civil rights workers were murdered. Of all the places in this great country, why did he chose that place of dishonor?

In appearing at the fair, Reagan did something that neither conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater or President Richard Nixon did. He was the first presidential candidate in the near century that the fair had been held to speak at the event. Indeed, he deliberately and calculatedly chose the Neshoba Fair to kick off his presidential campaign. When Reagan took the stage, with dozens of Confederate flags festooning the fairground, the crowd chanted, "We want Reagan." A beaming Regan shouted back, "There isn't any place like this anywhere." There was thunderous applause, and rebel yells.





Ronald Reagan was opposed to the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act and characterized them as "...humiliating to the South."

This is the man whom the Conservatives have conferred sainthood on. Some saint. He was a calculating politician who knew how to play the Southern voters' fears and prejudices for votes.

Don't tell the Republicans. They're too busy worshipping a lie.

***********************************************

When Liberalism’s Moment Ended

By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Friday, April 4, 2008;
Washington Post






Forty years ago, American liberalism suffered a blow from which it has still not recovered. On April 4, 1968, a relatively brief but extraordinary moment of progressive reform ended, and a long period of conservative ascendancy began.






The assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. and the ensuing riots that engulfed the nation's capital and big cities across the country signaled the collapse of liberal hopes in a smoky haze of self-doubt and despair. Conservatives, on the run for much of the decade, found a broad new audience for their warnings against the disorders and disruptions bred by reform.

A shrewd politician named Richard Nixon sensed the direction of the political winds. When President Johnson's commission on urban unrest released its report in early 1968 and blamed the previous year's rioting on "white racism," Nixon would have none of it. The commission, he said, "blames everybody for the riots except the perpetrators of the riots." He urged "retaliation."

Nixon knew that his call for law and order was drawing working-class whites away from their alliance with the New Deal and the Great Society. "I have found great audience response to this theme in all parts of the country," Nixon wrote to former president Dwight D. Eisenhower.

It is easy to forget that the core themes of contemporary conservatism were born in response to the events of 1968. The attacks on "big government," the defense of states' rights, and the scorn for "liberal judicial activism," "liberal do-gooders," "liberal elitists," "liberal guilt" and "liberal permissiveness" were rooted in the reaction that gathered force as liberal optimism receded.

From the death of John F. Kennedy in November 1963 until the congressional elections of November 1966, liberals were triumphant, and what they did changed the world. Civil rights and voting rights, Medicare and Medicaid, clean air and clean water legislation, Head Start, the Job Corps and federal aid to schools had their roots in the liberal wave that began to ebb when Lyndon Johnson's Democrats suffered broad losses in the 1966 voting. The decline that 1966 signaled was sealed after April 4, 1968.

Liberals themselves share blame for the waning of their movement. Just because right-wing politicians used "law and order" as a code for race did not mean that concern about crime was illegitimate. On the contrary, the country was in the opening stages of a serious crime wave and had good reason to worry about rising violence.






Liberalism itself was cracking up in 1968. Liberals had turned on each other over Johnson's Vietnam policy. The old civil rights coalition splintered as advocates of racial integration warred with defenders of Black Power, a slogan voiced in 1966 by a young activist named Stokely Carmichael.






Martin Luther King left this earth at a moment of gloom, at least about the short term. "I feel this summer will not only be as bad but worse than last time," he said, four days before his death, in a sermon at Washington's National Cathedral. He was referring to the urban riots of the previous summer. And then came the days of chaos that followed his assassination.






"For those who had dreamed the dreams of the New Frontier, and shared the hopes of a Great Society, this was perhaps the darkest moment of the entire decade," wrote Godfrey Hodgson, a British journalist who stands as one of the wisest chroniclers of the 1960s.









Forty years later, is it possible to recapture the hope and energy of the days and years before that April 4? Has liberalism spent enough time in purgatory for the country to revisit how much was accomplished in its name and to acknowledge that the nation is better off for what the liberals did?






In "The Liberal Hour," an important new history of the '60s that will be published in July, Colby College scholars G. Calvin Mackenzie and Robert S. Weisbrot note that for all its deficiencies, the period of liberal sway "demonstrated what democratic politics can produce when public consensus crescendos, when coherent majorities prevail, and when skilled leaders provide direction, inspiration, and relentless energy."






For decades before the 1960s, conservatism was held in contempt by large swaths of the intellectual and political class. It was one of the great achievements of William F. Buckley Jr., whose death we mourned a few weeks ago, to insist that respect be paid to the great tradition whose cause he championed.






Now is the moment to put an end to our contempt for liberalism. There was business left unfinished on that fateful day in 1968, and it is time to take it up again.

8 comments:

Patrick M said...

Liberalism may get another run at control.

Conservatism did begin to resonate at the end of the 60's due to the radicalization of the left. And in the 80's, we saw the dominance of conservative ideals. But since then, conservatism has lost its way. From the senior Bush's departure from Reaganomics in 1990, conservatism has lost its way among the political class. There was a brief resurgence in 1994 with the Contract With America which was again lost by 2000. The six years of the Bush administration was marked by "conservatism Lite", a philosophy that mixes some conservatism with big government solutions.

Perhaps it is time for honest liberalism to grip the country (I shudder), as from my side of the debate, the "conservative" leaders are not conservatives or leaders any longer. But is there a liberal politician out there that will just be a liberal.

City Troll said...

I read this story and almost peed myself laughing so hard. EJ as usual has it entirly wrong.

And since the death of King his dream has been hijacked by the poverty pimps and blacks have been treated in the same manner as the house slaves of old.

Just look at how they react to any black that wonders off the plantation of liberalism. Like Thomas, Powel, or Rice.

But I know you can never grasp that. You don't even understand what a Progressive is, or are you a proud communist?

Anonymous said...

Trillions of dollars later after the failed "Great Society" the liberal has still kept the black man in his low position in the democrat party and society. The many that now see that this has always been the case are lifting themselves up and away from poverty and the poverty pimp leadership. They see that being addicted to government handouts and having to rely on the government has done nothing but make their condition even worse.
E.J. Dionne couldn't be more wrong. Now is the time to finish off the despised and tyrannical "liberalism". When will the leadership of the race hustlers let Martin Luther King's words come true?

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character".

The conservatives with whom I associate understand these words and live their lives that way but the liberals still see nothing but skin color and division. We're sick of it and we're sick of the race hustlers that promote division like Wright, Sharpton, Jackson and Jackson junior.They refuse to let King's words be the guide to race because with those words those leaders are rendered obsolete.

Shaw Kenawe said...

"...the liberal has still kept the black man in his low position in the democrat party and society."

Um, How many black Republicans are presently serving in the Senate and House? Hmmmm?

Zero. None. Nada. NOT ONE.

The 40 Afro-Americans serving in the House are all, every single one, DEMOCRATS (including the two non-voting members from D.C.).

And who has a chance of being the Democratic nominee for President of the United States? An Afro-American DEMOCRAT and the only black man in the Senate.

John McCain was AGAINST a Martin Luther King holiday, and as my updated post shows, it wasn't some "mistake." He kept opposing it on the state AND federal level until it became apparent it would be bad for his national political ambitions.

And your Saint Ronnie was no better.

He was against a Martin Luther King holiday as well and was forced into signing the bill when it was passed by both houses with a vote that his presidential veto could not override.

Ronald Reagan also called the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act "...a humiliation to the south."

He's your hero, not mine. And he connived and coldly calculated what he had to do to get the southern vote.

And it worked.

j_g says that the Democratic Party keeps the black man "in his low position?"

The facts I just posted are evidence for exactly the opposite.

WHERE ARE THE BLACK REPUBLICAN MEN AND WOMEN IN CONGRESS?

Nowhere to be found. THEY DON'T EXIST.

WHY?

Don't Republicans want the black man or woman to attain political parity?

Or maybe black people find the Democratic Party more welcoming and beneficial to them.

Why do African Americans OVERWHELMINGLY vote Democratic?

You wouldn't want to suggest that they don't know any better, would you? That would make y'all sound patronizing and condescending. It would suggest that you think you know what's better for the Afro-American voters, not them.

Maybe Afro-Americans OVERWHELMINGLY vote Democratic because they know how the Republicans really feel about them.

q.v., The number of Repupblicans against the Martin Luther King holiday and Reagan's idiotic statement on the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act.

Shaw Kenawe said...

city troll,

It is only on conservative blogs--actually the wingnut-type blogs-- that I continue to see Barack Obama's middle name spelled out.

Those people who continue to do so apparently believe that will deter voters from voting for him. They actually believe that there are as many people as crazy as they are who think a person's name brands him or her as a "terrorist/murderer."

It's too pathetic. These types of people, of course, are too ill informed to know that Hussein in the Muslim world is as common as the name "John" in the Western/Christian world.

In fact, Hussein means "blessed one" in Arabic and some of this country's good friends in the Arab world actually had that name--King Hussein of Jordan, for example.

It is so laughable that the small minded people who hope to tarnish Barack Obama by continually including his middle name in their posts only point up their appalling ignorance and racism.

Talk about treating someone like a "house slave."

Your side has been shameful in spreading vicious lies and calumny about Senator Obama.

Don't lecture me or any other Democrat on mistreating black people, until you've come to terms with what you are doing to Barack Obama.

Communist?

Oh Gawd. Get with the 21st century, you're supposed to call anyone you disagree with a "terrorist."

I support Barack Obama; therefore, you must label me a "terrorist."

Come on. Be a dutiful little wingnut.

City Troll said...

personaly I hope Obama is your parties nomination. He is by far the easier of the two candidates to defeat.

I am curious I said nothing about his middle name, it could be Millhouse as far as I'm concerned. Why did you bring it up?

Progressive as in wilsonian "Progressives" which what you are all calling yourself was and has always been based on Marx. Look it up.

So you really don't know that your philosophy is based on communism... how sad

Shaw Kenawe said...

"And since the death of King his dream has been hijacked by the poverty pimps and blacks have been treated in the same manner as the house slaves of old."--citytroll

That is a curious statement since what is implied in it is that black Americans don't know enough to break free from a party that you contend treats them as "house slaves of old."

Even worse is your and j_g's implication that black Americas are too dumb to see how terribly the Democratic Party treats them and keeps them DOWN. That's the implication.

Since approx. 96%--it may even be higher--98% of the voting Afro-American population affiliates itself with the Dems, you must have a terrible opinion of their ability to discern what THEY perceive is the party that best represents their interets.

Your and j_g's bleatings about the Democrats ill treating Afro-Americans and keeping them in their "low position" and "poverty pimp leadership" is a terribly racist accusation, since you asert that:

1) all Afro-Americans are in "low positions" [they're not]; and

2) Afro-American citizens don't know when a party or a political philosophy is hurting them--only you patronizing conservatives know what's best for this group of Americans.

Afro-Americans--almost 100% of the voting population--freely and intelligently associate themselves with and are welcomed in the Democratic Party--that reflects admirably on the Democrats and says volumes about you conservatives and your Republican Party.


I am curious I said nothing about his middle name, it could be Millhouse as far as I'm concerned. Why did you bring it up?--citytroll

Because I have seen conservatives use Obama's middle name as a kind of shibboleth to imply he's unAmerican. Talk about keeping people in their place!

Also Teddy Roosevelt was a Progressive. As was his cousin Franklin. The Progressives/Liberals have done much to move this country forward.

Stop with thowing around the "commie" crap. It's old, old, old.

Is that all you got?

repsac3 said...

The commie (or marxist, or stalinist, or socialist, or...) thing has always made me laugh, as well... While 20th century progressivism has borrowed from Marx, it's like saying our Democracy makes us all like Greeks & Romans... Much of our American law is based on the laws of England. Perhaps that makes us all tories, too... You know, Hitler was an artist, so I guess that means all artists are Nazis...

I agree with Patrick that it's likely that the left is on the ascendency, much as some try to deny it. These things go in cycles, as Americans react to the failures of those in charge, whoever they are... The right is starting to factionalize (just as the left so often does), and that will diminish their power. In time, the left will either go too far, or break up into little groups, and we'll lose power, again... The same cycle will repeat until we change either our government, or ourselves...