Byron Williams2013-05-21T21:28:55-04:00Byron Williamshttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/author/index.php?author=byron-williamsCopyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc.HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Byron WilliamsGood old fashioned elbow grease.It aint COINTELPRO...BUTtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.32817032013-05-15T17:45:23-04:002013-05-15T19:17:25-04:00Byron Williamshttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/byron-williams/
CNN recently obtained an email sent by a top aide to President Barack Obama, in which the aide discusses the Obama administration reaction to the attack on the U.S. posts in Benghazi, Libya. According to CNN, the actual email contradicts from how sources inaccurately quoted and paraphrased it in previous accounts to different media organizations.
Not to mention the unavoidable stench of politics that accompanies Benghazi, serving mainly to obfuscate more important issues. But the IRS allegations go to the heart of who we are as a republic.
So far the president has said the right things, offering that he has "no patience" for such behavior if the allegations turn out to be true. The president also stated at a press conference, "I'll do everything in my power to make sure that nothing like this happens again."
The IRS recently identified two agents as "overly aggressive" in their handling of request by conservative groups.
Though the IRS's preliminary explanation may indeed be the correct one, it hearkens back to the "few bad apples" alibi used to explain the torture of detainees at Abu Ghraib.
But these latest allegations resurrect a dark chapter in American history.
Between 1956-1971, orchestrated by FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, the Counter Intelligence Program (COINTELPRO) operated a series of covert and at times illegal activities. Its goal were to survey, infiltrate, and discredit domestic political organizations.
According to FBI records, 85 percent of COINTELPRO efforts targeted those on the political left that Hoover deemed "subversive." This illustrious list included communist and socialist organizations, the Black Panther Party, as well as those associated with the Civil Right Movement, in particular Martin Luther King.
In 1963, on the heels of King's keynote address at the March on Washington, William Sullivan, head of COINTELPRO wrote:
"In the light of King's powerful demagogic speech. . . . We must mark him now, if we have not done so before, as the most dangerous Negro of the future in this nation from the standpoint of communism, the Negro, and national security."
Soon after, with the approval of Attorney General Robert Kennedy, King was under constant surveillance, which included bugging his hotel rooms, until his death in 1968. It wasn't until the United States Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities also known as the "Church Committee," led by Idaho Senator Frank Church in 1975, did these activities become public knowledge.
There is nothing to suggest the latest IRS allegations have reached the level of COINTELPRO activities, but there can simply be no tolerance for such practices.
That the IRS has targeted conservative organizations is almost irrelevant to the story. Charges that those working for the federal government can take it upon themselves to target groups they oppose personally should be abhorrent to every American regardless of political ideology.
Though it is unrealistic to expect the president can oversee every aspect of the government, he does have a responsibility to conduct a full investigation that explains what happened and why.
Even if nothing were inappropriate, it would still raise questions about the administration of such practices if only groups with a certain political orthodoxy were targeted.
We've been down this tragic road before, maybe not to the level of Hoover, but it unearths memories of America at its worst.
Given the enormous issues that this country faces, the last thing needed is another distraction. But this one cannot be swept under the rug, engulfed by the weight of the latest news cycle.
It is unrealistic to expect that a government that we are unable to trust can effectively address the issues that are critical to the nation.]]>Nixon at 100tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.32460412013-05-09T11:46:54-04:002013-05-10T10:13:10-04:00Byron Williamshttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/byron-williams/
Dark, complicated, brilliant are among the adjectives commonly used to describe Nixon. All would be accurate, but Watergate is the cloud that looms over his legacy.
Recently, I visited the Nixon Presidential Library and Museum in Yorba Linda, California. To the library's credit, Watergate is the first exhibit. From copies of canceled checks of $250,000 to damning recordings, where one hears the president brazenly stating that lying would be the most viable option, there is no attempt by the library to cover up Nixon's culpability.
This approach achieves two goals. First, it removes any suspicion that the library would seek to whitewash the Nixon legacy. Second, it allows one to view the rest of the Nixon legacy unencumbered by the haze of Watergate.
The extreme Nixon critics are supported by the pillars of Watergate on the left and his backing of price controls on the right. While Nixon stands in recent history as one of the most disliked presidents, Watergate and price controls do not tell the entire story.
According to a September 2012 New York Times article, Nixon is second among " America's Greenest President" behind Theodore Roosevelt and ahead of Jimmy Carter. Without Watergate, it becomes easier to see that Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency, and signed the Clean Air Act, and the Marine Mammal Protection Act
There are myriad reasons to be critical of Nixon's Vietnam policy. But Vietnam must be viewed through the lens of realpolitik of 18 years and three American presidents who systematically kicked the can down the road, and a fourth president, Lyndon Johnson, who on day-one was handed a ripening quagmire and did not possess the anti-Communist bona fides to do what needed to be done.
Nixon negotiated an end to the Vietnam conflict where the last U.S. troops left in 1975--10 years after Defense Secretary Robert McNamara reportedly told Johnson the war was not winnable by any metric America used to declare victory.
Where Nixon generally receives his highest marks is his trip to China. It was an important step to normalize relations between two nations that had not been on speaking terms for 25 years.
His staunch anti-communist stands over the decades allowed Nixon to do something, though clearly in the United State's interest, no liberal would dare. Moreover, Nixon's trip to China was the first step to challenge the long held unexamined assumption by the West in general and the United States in particular: Communism was not a one-size-fits-all proposition.
The goals of Chinese Chairman Mao Zedong were not the goals of the Soviet Union's Josef Stalin, and subsequently Nikita Khrushchev or Leonid Brezhnev.
Back in 1963, six years before becoming president, Nixon was thinking about China. As a private citizen he met with French President Charles de Gaulle who cautioned Nixon it was not in the best interest of the U.S. to leave China "isolated in their rage."
It would appear Nixon's uncontrollable insecurities are perhaps the only thing that stands between his being considered a great president. But those uncontrollable insecurities was crucial to who Nixon was, they can be found in his great moments as well as his failures.
The unanswerable question remains: could Nixon have been president without those insecurities?
Too bad he was unable to heed the advice he gave to his staff on his final day as president: "Always remember, others may hate you, but those who hate you never win unless you hate them and then you destroy yourself."]]>Chris Broussard is an NBA reporter, not a public theologiantag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.31956542013-05-01T16:43:08-04:002013-05-01T16:45:05-04:00Byron Williamshttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/byron-williams/
A number of NBA players outwardly showed support. They demonstrated the obvious in that they were under no illusion that Collins coming out will prohibit the sun from rising in the East. It bears no impact on their lives or livelihoods.
But there are some, who have yet to read the memo that we are now in the 21st century. They use the toxic elixir of conjecture and selective biblical understanding to form a bastion of moral security against the methodical phenomenon of progress.
On the ESPN show "Outside the Lines," NBA reporter Chris Broussard stepped out of his familiar role of informing viewers of what teams must do to move on in the playoffs, and into a less familiar one of public theologian.
"I'm a Christian. I don't agree with homosexuality. I think it's a sin, as I think all sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman is.... If you're openly living in unrepentant sin, whatever it may be ... that's walking in open rebellion to God and to Jesus Christ."
It is important to note Broussard was asked for his personal opinion on-air and the network was already familiar with his views. Back in 2009, when asked was the NBA ready for an openly gay player, Broussard stated:
"I think the NBA is ready for an openly gay player... players will tolerate a homosexual teammate or opponent."
But those critical of Broussard's most recent remarks are met with the common refrain: "What about his right to free speech?"
No one is attempting to take away Broussard's free speech. But free speech should not be confused with immunity from criticism. Embedded in Broussard's comments about Collins is the antiquated belief that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice akin to bellbottoms and platform shoes.
Broussard's remarks are the continuation of an unfortunate legacy that puts forth a selective theological understanding to offer a sociological theory in order to describe a physiological reality.
To justify his brand of Christian beliefs, Broussard offered his friendship to openly gay writer LZ Granderson as proof that he is not bigoted. It is the proverbial catchphrase: "It's not that I don't like gays and lesbians, but my faith won't allow me to affirm their humanity."
The irony here is that Jesus said more about judging others than he did about homosexuality. Yet, to use Broussard's language, he freely, in open rebellion, cast judgment on Collins' faith because his orientation differs from the dominant culture.
In fact, Jesus' most emphatic command to his followers is the requirement to love. It is an inconvenient love that requires one to love even their enemies. Moreover, he says nothing about "like."
In the Christian theological context it is quite possible to love someone, without liking or agreeing with them. I doubt Martin Luther King actually "liked" Birmingham Public Safety Commissioner Eugene "Bull" Connor, but he understood that his humanity was inextricably linked to Connor's regardless of his personal feelings.
Broussard's comments do not rise to the level of hatred exemplified in Birmingham 1963, but it does represent a belief that will soon be permanently enshrined to 20th century orthodoxy.
I don't see how anyone could read Collins' Sports Illustrated article with an open heart and not appreciate the journey that led to his coming out.
In terms of professional sports, Collins' took the courageous step to shine a light on what many already knew to be true--homosexuality exists in professional sports. But his real value will be to countless numbers of young people in high school and college that may now feel empowered to follow in his footsteps.]]>King's 'Letter From Birmingham Jail'tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.30873602013-04-16T15:16:14-04:002013-04-16T15:16:22-04:00Byron Williamshttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/byron-williams/April 16 commemorates the 50th anniversary of Martin Luther King's 'Letter From Birmingham Jail.' Below is an excerpt from my forthcoming book 1963: The Year of Hope and Hostility.
Eight white clergy published an a piece on April 12, 1963 in the local Birmingham newspaper titled: "A Call for Unity." They wrote:
"We the undersigned clergymen are among those who, in January, issued 'an appeal for law and order and common sense,' in dealing with racial problems in Alabama. We expressed understanding that honest convictions in racial matters could properly be pursued in the courts, but urged that decisions of those courts should in the meantime be peacefully obeyed."
The statement's third paragraph was particularly stinging for it could have easily been written by any number of white business leaders in opposition to Project C, by referring to the seemingly universal view that saw King as an outside agitator:
"However, we are now confronted by a series of demonstrations by some of our Negro citizens, directed and led in part by outsiders. We recognize the natural impatience of people who feel that their hopes are slow in being realized. But we are convinced that these demonstrations are unwise and untimely."
The clergy specifically noted in their statement that they supported the efforts of "certain local Negro leadership, which has called for honest and open negotiation of racial issues in our area." A number of Negro clergy, jealous of King, would have most likely supported this suggestion. If for no other reason than it would have placed them in a role of local prominence.
Alluding to the promise offered with Boutwell's victory over Connor in the Birmingham mayoral race, a view shared by the Kennedy Administration, they added:
"Just as we formerly pointed out that "hatred and violence have no sanction in our religious and political traditions," we also point out that such actions as incite to hatred and violence, however technically peaceful those actions may be, have not contributed to the resolution of our local problems. We do not believe that these days of new hope are days when extreme measures are justified in Birmingham."
The eight clergymen closed with a direct appeal to Birmingham's Negro community to reject King's methods on nonviolent civil disobedience:
"We further strongly urge our own Negro community to withdraw support from these demonstrations, and to unite locally in working peacefully for a better Birmingham. When rights are consistently denied, a cause should be pressed in the courts and in negotiations among local leaders, and not in the streets. We appeal to both our white and Negro citizenry to observe the principles of law and order and common sense."
Though a mere 428 words it was the most powerful statement against King and the SCLC's efforts in Birmingham. Among King's detractors this was no doubt the most stinging blow. Not once did the clergy address King by name, but their references could not conceal -- nor was there any real attempt to do so -- that he was the target of their disagreement.
The Negro clergy, who did not directly participate in the movement, could be dismissed due to their jealousy of King and fear of possible reprisal had they actively participated, as could the Kennedy Administration, who viewed the problem through a myopic political lens. But these eight white clergymen were not apologists for Jim Crow. They had engaged in public displays of defiance against the tradition of segregation. They had been critical of Alabama Governor George Wallace's inaugural address in January. Several of these clergymen had taken personal stands not only in support of civil rights, but also against issues such as the death penalty and later the Vietnam conflict. Their theological perspective was rooted in a place where King believed he could find solidarity. This reality no doubt fueled King's dismay as Jones slipped him the newspaper that contained the clergymen's statement passed by the guards on duty. But Jones was doing more than covertly keeping King abreast of what was happening on Birmingham's streets while he was incarcerated.
On Jones' next visit he was greeted with a letter that King said he was writing in response. By Jones' own admission he did not take the writing serious in the beginning, he was busy holding up the legal end working with Belafonte who was in contact the Kennedy Administration, and Walker, who coordinated events on the ground in Birmingham, especially with King incarcerated. Moreover, the response was written on the sides of newspaper or whatever King could get his hands on. With each subsequent visit Jones found it challenging to keep King focused on the business at hand, King seemed preoccupied with writing a response to the eight white clergy. But Jones decided to pacify King. Writing may be the only thing that stood between hope and hopelessness as he languished in Bull Connor's jail.
What Jones did not know at the time was that the newspaper he had slipped to King -- outlining the clergy's strong disagreement of his methods -- would unleash a political, theological, historical, and moral epistle that had been dormant in King's soul. The final product, King's "Letter From Birmingham Jail," is an unparalleled document in American history. It is a 6,800-word retort that is masterfully organized around what Aristotle considered the three primary forms of persuasion: ethos, pathos, and logic. It remains, in the opinion of many, not only King's best work of 1963, but represents the pinnacle writing of his illustrious career.
It is unlikely any other group of dissenters could have unearthed the prophetic impulses that King demonstrated in his Letter. Yet, King's response was as if he had made the clergymen stand proxy for those opposed to Project C as he deftly moved from humble pastor to prophetic theologian, and to an American historian deeply committed to the country's democratic values seemingly at will. While the clergy limited their critique to the events of Birmingham, King not only responded to their local charges but he also widened the response by taking the clergymen on a whirlwind historical journey as he reviewed the ongoing epic battle between justice and injustice. King drew on the Judeo-Christian traditions of the Old Testament prophets. He linked the movement to the Exodus narrative, so critical to the liberation efforts of African slaves and their theology in America. He called on the thinking of the Roman Catholic theologian St. Thomas Aquinas, American Protestant theologian Paul Tillich, Jewish philosopher Martin Buber, and poet T.S. Eliot among others. But King's Letter was not merely a lofty piece of prose formulated into a concise document.
King attacked the provincial notion that not being from Birmingham made him an outside agitator, reminding the clergy, "injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
King wrote from the perspective of the suffering Negro:
"Perhaps it is easy for those who have never felt the stinging darts of segregation to say, 'Wait.' But when you have seen vicious mobs lynch your mothers and fathers at will and drown your sisters and brothers at whim; when you have seen hate-filled policemen curse, kick, and even kill your black brothers and sisters; when you see the vast majority of your twenty million Negro brothers smothering in an airtight cage of poverty in the midst of an affluent society; when you suddenly find your tongue twisted and your speech stammering as you seek to explain to your six-year-old daughter why she can't go to the public amusement park that has just been advertised on television, and see tears welling up in her eyes when she is told that Funtown is closed to colored children, and see ominous clouds of inferiority beginning to form in her little mental sky, and see her beginning to distort her personality by developing an unconscious bitterness toward white people; when you have to concoct an answer for a five-year-old son who is asking, "Daddy, why do white people treat colored people so mean?"; when you take a cross-country drive and find it necessary to sleep night after night in the uncomfortable corners of your automobile because no motel will accept you; when you are humiliated day in and day out by nagging signs reading "white" and "colored" when your first name becomes "Nigger," your middle name becomes "boy" (however old you are) and your last name becomes "John," and your wife and mother are never given the respected title "Mrs."; when your are harried by day and haunted by night by the fact that you are a Negro, living constantly at tiptoe stance, never quite knowing what to expect next, and are plagued with inner fears and outer resentments; when you are forever fighting a degenerating sense of 'nobodiness' then you will understand why we find it difficult to wait."
King used history to indicate that the clergymen's observations of SCLC's tactics of breaking the law was overly simplistic:
"We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was 'legal' and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was 'illegal.' It was 'illegal' to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler's Germany. 'Even so, I am sure that, had I lived in Germany at the time, I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers. If today I lived in a Communist country where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are suppressed, I would openly advocate disobeying that country's anti-religious laws."
King directly addressed the clergymen's point that the demonstrations were untimely given that Boutwell had defeated Connor:
"One of the basic points in your statement is that the action that I and my associates have taken in Birmingham is untimely. Some have asked: "Why didn't you give the new city administration time to act?" The only answer that I can give to this query is that the new Birmingham administration must be prodded about as much as the outgoing one, before it will act. We are sadly mistaken if we feel that the election of Albert Boutwell as mayor will bring the millennium to Birmingham. While Mr. Boutwell is a much more gentle person that Mr. Connor, they are both segregationists, dedicated to maintenance of the status quo. I have hoped that Mr. Boutwell will be reasonable enough to see the futility of massive resistance to desegregation. But he will not see this without pressure from devotees of civil rights. My friends, I must say to you that we have not made a single gain in civil rights without determined legal and nonviolent pressure. Lamentably, it is an historical fact that privileged groups seldom give up their privileges voluntarily. Individuals may see the moral light and voluntarily give up their unjust posture; but as Reinhold Niebuhr has reminded us, groups tend to be more immoral that individuals."
On being called an extremist King did not shy away from the characterization. He responded directly to the charge using pathos, ethos, and logic to turn the definition of extremist on its head using an inverted order of history to make his point.
King wrote:
"But though I was initially disappointed at being categorized as an extremist, as I continued to think about the matter I gradually gained a measure of satisfaction from the label. Was not Jesus an extremist for love: 'Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.' Was not Amos an extremist for justice: 'Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.' Was not Paul an extremist for the Christian gospel: 'I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus.' Was not Martin Luther an extremist: 'Here I stand; I cannot do otherwise, so help me God.' And John Bunyan: 'I will stay in jail to the end of my days before I make a butchery of my conscience.' And Abraham Lincoln: "This nation cannot survive half slave and half free.' And Thomas Jefferson: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal...' So the question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we will be. Will we be extremists for hate or for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice or for the extension of justice? In that dramatic scene on Calvary's hill three men were crucified. We must never forget that all three were crucified for the same crime -- the crime of extremism. Two were extremists for immorality, and thus fell below their environment. The other, Jesus Christ, was an extremist for love, truth and goodness, and thereby rose above his environment. Perhaps the South, the nation and the world are in dire need of creative extremists."
King had transformed the local criticism of eight clergymen into a national response for the movement. His "Letter From Birmingham Jail" is probably the most important document written during the Civil Rights Movement (1955-1968). Not even the depravity of being confined to Bull Connor's jail cell could derail this work -- though it did not hurt that King's isolation allowed him to center his thoughts. Like the Apostle Paul, King had produced this stellar document while incarcerated. He was inspired by the 428 words emanating from those whom King may have wrongly assumed understood the movement's plight. And if these eight clergy could not understand, it could stand to reason that America did not understand. The "Letter From Birmingham Jail" responds to its collective critics, and inspires its supporters, in philosophical, theological, political, and moral tones that the gradualism previously experienced in Albany Georgia, what many moderate-liberal forces were now advocating in Birmingham was simply unacceptable.
Jones may not have initially understood the impact of King's Letter; his primary focus, as an attorney, lay elsewhere. But Walker fully understood the magnitude. Walker reportedly stayed up nights dictating and deciphering King's penmanship from the scraps of paper, and the newspapers that King used to write in the margins as he formulated his thoughts.
The impact of King's Letter initially was felt far more internally than it was experienced externally. The Birmingham effort was not riding on an apex of momentum at the time King wrote the Letter. Walker's enthusiastic embrace of the Letter was not shared as he attempted to place it in various publications. It was far too long for most so-called mainstream publications, the Negro press did not publicize it, and only a few theological journals showed any interest. But King's time in jail had not been in vain. Nine days after his arrest he was released on bail. The enthusiasm King created by writing his Letter had not reached masses, as Birmingham on the ground had not changed much in the nine days he sat behind bars. But the enthusiasm King's Letter created internally would soon be experienced externally by a most unlikely source.]]>Exploring History Tells Us About Marital Traditionstag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.30395802013-04-11T15:52:28-04:002013-04-11T16:10:46-04:00Byron Williamshttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/byron-williams/a recent post. Several readers took umbrage with the following statement:
"Can we at least agree that so-called traditional marriage is a phenomenon of Western civilization? Those who oppose marriage equality based on biblical teachings must know that the notion of traditional marriage ends in the 4th chapter of Genesis."
Some accused me of being uniformed, but my specific reference was to Lamech who takes two wives in Genesis 4:19.
The Bible is not a linear document. Moreover, the 66 books that comprise it are not immune from the burden placed on other literary works, which is to be read in its context.
But the statement from last week's post unleashed in some the unfortunate concoction of emotion, assumption and personal bias. So I thought it appropriate that I focus this week's piece on a brief history of marriage.
The definition of marriage is a subjective moving target embraced largely by those who view themselves as standing atop the citadel of so-called traditional marriage. It is the term "traditional marriage" that allows those who oppose marriage equality, based on biblical understanding, the belief that their position possesses the moral high ground.
I know marriage carries the long-established definition of being between one man and one woman, but marriage as it is articulated in the Bible bears little resemblance to what we now have in 21st century Western civilization. Marriage has been just as fluid in its evolutionary process as the rest of society.
The primary purpose of marriage to which the Bible refers was procreation, and at least one child had better be a male heir. Sexual compatibility, mutuality, intimacy and certainly sexual faithfulness, at least for men, were neither values nor concerns of ancient marriage.
In this light, our contemporary, but antiquated notion of the word marriage becomes loaded with stuff that should not be part of the current marriage equality debate.
The Bible chronicles individuals such as Jacob, Moses and David as having participated in the common pattern of multiple wives.
I would dare say that such arrangements would be incongruent with the thinking and beliefs of most people in contemporary Western civilization.
For centuries, long after the Greco-Roman world served as the cradle of intellectual civilization, marriage was a privilege for the wealthy; its necessity was based on class.
Official marriage stood for centuries as a right reserved for those who had money, property and or a name to pass along. Neither the state nor the church saw a reason to marry the socially inconsequential.
Clearly, marriage has evolved since the days when the Old Testament prophets walked the earth. Five thousand years ago, the dissolution of a marriage could result in the perception that a woman could not bear children. It's been nearly 50 years since marriage was premised on procreation.
In 1965, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Griswold v. Connecticut that marriage is not based on procreation. The case involved a Connecticut law that prohibited the use of contraceptives. The Supreme Court invalidated the law on the grounds that it violated the "right to marital privacy."
The history of marriage defined as one man and one woman depends greatly on where one begins the narrative; the same holds true for the procreation arguments being sufficient reasons to sustain the existing matrimonial paradigm.
Through this lens, opposition to marriage equality stands on the slender thread of emotion, assumption and personal bias, placing more emphasis on personal likes than constitutional values.
But that is the wonderful paradox of the American experiment, commitment to the Constitution is superior to how one feels. Equality can only be secure when it is granted to all with little regard for one's personal likes.]]>Is the Supreme Court Charged With Constitutional Interpretation or Soothsaying?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.29659202013-03-28T08:12:24-04:002013-03-28T08:12:31-04:00Byron Williamshttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/byron-williams/
But you want us to step in and render a decision based on an assessment of the effects of this institution (same-sex marriage), which is newer than cellphones or the Internet? I mean we -- we are not -- we do not have the ability to see the future.
In order to seemingly maintain the status quo, Alito is suggesting to rule in favor of marriage equality members of the Supreme Court must step out of its traditional role as the body that interprets the Constitution and assume that of a clairvoyant, oracle, soothsayer, or tarot reader.
Can we at least agree that so-called traditional marriage is a phenomenon of Western civilization? Those who oppose marriage equality based on biblical teachings must know that the notion of traditional marriage ends in the 4th chapter of Genesis.
What about the wilted argument that Proposition 8 represents the will of the people? It's true that a majority voted to ban same-sex marriages in California, but the will of the people must stay within framework of the Constitution. Moreover, the state constitution does not trump the federal.
This latter concept was adopted at Appomattox Virginia on April 9, 1865 and was reinforced by the ratification of the 14th Amendment on July 9, 1868.
What is the rational basis to defend the subjectivity of traditional marriage that it requires one be blind to the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause? What is the rational basis for California to maintain three class distinctions, as a result of Proposition 8, when it comes to marriage?
There are those who can marry, divorce, and remarry; there are those could marry, divorce, but cannot remarry; and there are who are denied the aforementioned in totality.
But Alito's reticence seems based on the inability to know the future. Is that the burden of the court?
Alito's concern feels less like a legal consideration as more like the stench of privilege that justifies doing nothing. It is a concern that would have defeated Brown v. Board of Education that struck down the notion of separate but equal; it would have also ruled against Loving v. Virginia that stated bans on interracial marriage were unconstitutional.
Furthermore, Alito is incorrect when he suggests the court is asked to render a decision based on something (same-sex marriage) that is newer than cellphones or the Internet.
Same-gender couples have engaged in relationships that would otherwise be defined as marriage since the beginning of recorded human history. Even that misses the point of what Alito and his colleagues are asked to do.
Alito is offering the strict constructionist perspective that limits a judge to apply the text only as it is spoken. While it is true that same-sex marriage does not appear in the Constitution, I am certain equality appears prominently. Is that not the burden before the court?
The micro issue, in this case same-sex marriage, may indeed be new, but the macro issue is at least 145 years old -- equal protection under the law. Moreover, the Constitution is a macro document.
It is the macro perspective that allows the Constitution the elasticity to evolve with a changing society conveying the same power that it possessed when it was ratified in 1788.
One need only consider those who were originally excluded when the Constitution was approved that are now part of the illustrious "We the People."
Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1820 that slavery was a complex issue and needed to be solved by the next generation. If one reads the 14th Amendment, marriage equality is not a complex issue.
But are we not the next generation?]]>Smiley's Poverty Tour Extends to the 'School-to-Prison Pipeline'tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.29247862013-03-26T16:59:11-04:002013-03-26T16:59:16-04:00Byron Williamshttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/byron-williams/
It's not that presidential candidates openly discussed those on the underside of life last year, but Smiley and West, through their "Poverty Tour," gave it a name and face that had been lacking for several decades.
As an extension of the "Poverty Tour" Smiley will host a primetime special on PBS that looks at the connection between the juvenile justice system and the dropout rate among American teens, as well as the efforts by educators, law enforcement professionals, judges, youth advocates and at-risk teens themselves to end what has become known as "the school-to-prison pipeline."
According to Smiley, "One of the most significant problems that our country faces that does not get the attention it deserves is the reality of the school-to-prison pipeline."
Or to put it another way, Smiley blunted states, "We are criminalizing our children in ways we never have."
Smiley's report unveils a juvenile justice system that is pervasive nationwide that has been hamstrung by an ineffectual zero tolerance policy.
"We have gone into overdrive on zero tolerance, which has turned out to be punishment on steroids," Smiley said.
Stuff that once earned students a detention or a one-day suspension -- such as foul language, fighting, or truancy -- is now part of the criteria that saddles them with a police record. Smiley's findings reveal a student expelled for excessive gum chewing.
"You end up kicked out of school for chewing gum, you're hanging out, and that turns into truancy, the next thing you know, you're in front of a judge," he said.
It is hard to fathom but the notion of zero tolerance is systematically trickling downward to younger and younger students.
One case in Florida, the sheriffs were called to address the unruly behavior of a 7-year-old girl that resulted in her being handcuffed and arrested. In my interview with Smiley, he states schools have become the number one location for student arrest.
By visiting a cross section of America, Smiley demonstrates the draconian zero tolerance policy is not reserved for specific groups. Though African American and Latino students are disproportionately impacted, the policy is inclusive in its scope with no bearing to color.
"I saw so many white kids on lockdown. It's not just a black thing or a brown thing; this is an American catastrophe," Smiley said.
Silently, without much fanfare we are giving up on far too many of our children. What does connect these students with varying ethnicities to this comprehensive policy is poverty.
"Poverty has so many tentacles. There is a direct link between poverty and the criminalization of our children," Smiley stated.
The zero tolerance policy is not exclusively focused on low-income communities, but there is little doubt that the overwhelming majority of its application falls on those who come from impoverished backgrounds.
The link that Smiley draws between education, or lack thereof, and poverty is undeniable. The underlying question that Smiley's work raises: How can school reform be addressed in any meaningful way without addressing poverty?
Moreover, how can the same tough-on-crime mentality that is reserved for adults, is also applied to children, and expect that schools will produce constructive members of society?
In several recent columns I have opined that in order for reform to occur in underperforming schools there must be a corresponding transformation of school culture. If Smiley's work is any indicator, the cultural transformation that has occurred in far too many schools has been to provide children with same failing policies once reserved for adults.
Tavis Smiley Reports, "Education Under Arrest," premieres Tuesday, March 26. Check your local listings or go to the website www.pbs.org/tavis/reports.]]>Will 21st Century America Finally Embrace the Values of the 19th Century?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.28197682013-03-07T19:15:35-05:002013-05-07T05:12:01-04:00Byron Williamshttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/byron-williams/
A recent Field poll shows that 61 percent of California voters now back same-sex marriage -- twice the support when the question was originally posed in 1977. In 2008, Proposition 8, which provided only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid in California, passed by a 52-48 margin. President Barack Obama is publicly on board along with 75 high-profile Republicans.
More than 200 businesses ranging from high tech to high finance recently signed on to a friend-of-the-court brief in Windsor v. United States, a case challenging the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).
The court will hear the aforementioned same-sex marriage cases at the end of March, with rulings expected in June.
How the Supreme Court rules is anybody's guess. But the recent trend of public support for same-sex marriage does indicate a growing number of Americans are finally catching up to where the country's stated values were in 1868.
For all of the controversy surrounding same-sex marriage over several decades, it is an issue, constitutionally speaking, that was resolved with the ratification of the 14th Amendment. The same-sex marriage debate has been based largely on how individuals felt with little regard for the constitutional premise that the issue rested on.
Section one of the 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868, states:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Three years before the 14th Amendment was ratified, the concept of equal protection under the law, contributed to the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln's final public statement on April 11, 1865, supporting voting rights for those blacks that served in the Union Army drew the ire of John Wilkes Booth who was in attendance.
Booth reportedly said to a friend, "That means (n-word) citizenship. Now, by God, I'll put him through. That is the last speech he will ever make." Three days later, Booth made good on his promise.
From its inception, the notion of equality has always faced an uphill battle. It is a tension fostered between American ideals and its application.
Section one of the 14th Amendment was the basis for women's suffrage and civil rights -- transformative movements that are seen much clearer through the light of hindsight. But it was the contemporary reliance on the blinders of fear and emotion that created decades of stagnation on issues that today is part of the nation's standard.
It has been with steadfast patience that the 14th Amendment remained undeterred by public opinion that suggested the nation was not ready to expand the collective definition of equality.
Section one also possesses 168 years of institutional memory. It fully understands that how the country feels about an issue is not a constitutional consideration.
If the Supreme Court upholds Prop.8 and DOMA, would it not suggest there is a hidden caveat of subjectivity embedded in the 14th Amendment? The country would remain stuck in the quagmire of arrested development, unduly pacified by fear and emotion.
It should be a concern to all Americans if the Amendment that guarantees equal protection under the law rests on the slender thread of how some Americans feel.
Continued bans on marriage equality would also raise the question: when will 21st century America catch up to the values it ratified in 1868?]]>Time for a Significant Increase in the Nation's Minimum Wagetag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.28068782013-03-05T12:30:51-05:002013-05-05T05:12:01-04:00Byron Williamshttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/byron-williams/du jour -- be it the recent election, Benghazi, gun violence, the sequester, the nomination of Chuck Hagel as secretary of defense or whether Florida Sen. Marco Rubio sips water during his response to the State of the Union -- that serves to muddy the water regarding one of the most pressing issues for most Americans: the widening gap of income disparity.
Bill Moyers recently reported on his weekly PBS program that between 2009 and 2011, income fell for 99 percent of working Americans. It rose (11 percent) for the top 1 percent.
Such analysis invariably invokes the stale response of class warfare from defenders of the status quo.
Taxes were raised on the top earners from 35 percent to 39.6 percent -- individuals making more than $450,000 a year. Meanwhile, the payroll tax rate for roughly 150 million Americans was increased 48 percent from 4.2 percent to 6.2 percent.
Such outrageous displays of inequality have become common and any criticism of the current economic system is usually protected by select members of the 99 percent who hope to some day gain admission into the 1 percent.
During his State of the Union speech, President Barack Obama received a standing ovation, by the Democratic side of the chamber, when he called for the minimum wage to be increased to $9 an hour. A good start, but it is less than the president's proposal during the campaign.
According to economist Dean Baker, after more than a decade of losing ground to inflation, an increase to the minimum wage is long overdue.
Baker argues that productivity has doubled since 1969, but the minimum wage no longer keeps pace. Baker concludes that had the minimum wage kept pace with productivity, it would currently stand at $16.50.
The common retort against raising the minimum wage at all, let alone to $16.50, has been it will hurt those it is intended to help. If the minimum wage is increased, it is argued, employers will be forced to cut jobs. And that by raising the minimum wage, fewer people would be hired.
But the White House estimates 15 million people would benefit from an increase to the minimum wage. If the minimum were closer to the $16.50 per hour that Baker recommends, it would create a multiplier effect.
Those individuals would spend more money on goods and services, which would spur the economy by creating more demand, which creates more jobs. But the current federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour cannot achieve that outcome; neither can the $9 an hour that the president proposes.
Economist Richard Wolff recently opined that a number of economists with a wide range of political perspectives concluded the employment change resulting from an increase in the minimum wage is negligible.
"At the very least though," Wolff contends, "we have transformed the lives of 15 million American working people and their families from one of impossible to get most of what America offers, to a situation where at least you're closer to a decent minimum life."
Our economy could be strengthened by an increase in the minimum wage that keeps pace with productivity.
Are we content to remain silent, cajoled into the perpetual state of reaction by cable news shows' latest outrage while the gap between those on the top and on the bottom continues to widen?
To accept the current economic trend as normal is to believe the Gilded Age represents the good old days. Can't we do better?]]>The Philosophical Tug-of-war of School Voucherstag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.27323222013-02-21T13:04:40-05:002013-04-23T05:12:01-04:00Byron Williamshttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/byron-williams/
What happens when our particular orthodoxy falls short? Should we maintain it by viewing every issue as if it were a nail to justify the relentless use of the sole tool in our possession -- the hammer? Or should we think beyond the self-imposed constraints that we embrace?
I am proud to state unequivocally that I am philosophically liberal. But the public conversation often times requires more than philosophical predictability. My philosophy, or anyone else's, should not be the end point of discussion, merely the beginning.
Where one comes down on an issue should be influenced not only by political philosophy, but also the circumstances that result from raising moral questions.
I have long opposed school vouchers; and philosophically continue to do so.
School vouchers (often referred as school choice) are state-funded scholarships that pay for students to attend private school. The most common application for school vouchers have been for low-income students, especially those who attend low performing schools.
The idea of providing parents with a voucher to attend a private school is attributed to University of Chicago economist Milton Friedman in the 1950s.
It assumes vouchers to be a free market choice that drives competition in the marketplace, resulting in a better product -- in this case higher student achievement.
Supporters assert that vouchers provide a quick way out of struggling schools for low-income students. Detractors portray vouchers as something much different.
No public policy is a panacea and vouchers on the surface appear to do more harm than good. By redirecting public school funds to private institutions, the latter is strengthened by further weakening the former.
This potentially is a counterintuitive viewpoint that will cause more damage to already struggling public schools. Moreover, if one consistently takes the best and brightest from public schools, doesn't school vouchers become a systematic method that further diminishes the quality of student achievement in public education?
The manner that students qualify for vouchers is also troubling. Invariably students are selected through a voucher lottery, which seems to be a terrible way to determine access to a quality education. The luck and chance required to create the educational inequity is also the methodology used to escape.
Shouldn't true equity mean the ability for every child to attend a good school in their neighborhood?
The aforementioned criticisms of school vouchers (all of which I share) must also be balanced against a single moral question: Should parents of students in underachieving public schools be forced to wait until student achievement improves?
I can't imagine a single parent would opt to leave their child in an underachieving school, if the possibility exists to leave. That is a universal trait that holds for even the strongest critic of vouchers.
Student achievement in underperforming schools is also linked to a parallel culture. It is a culture in many cases that eschews high achievement, critical thinking, and opportunities for higher education.
If the culture is not altered in underachieving schools, there can be no significant change in achievement.
The school voucher debate is a tug-of-war vying for philosophical superiority that places parents and students of underachieving schools in the tenuous middle. Whoever triumphs, the majority of students and parents will be left in the muddy moat of no possibility.
If the school voucher debate wins, a few more students might slip through the cracks, while further harm is done to public education. If those opposing school vouchers are victorious, the few parents whose children might win the voucher lottery will have the honor of waiting until student achievement improves in a meaningful way to public education.]]>Remember When "I Support the Troops" Was Part of Our Political Discourse?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.26325132013-02-07T17:02:40-05:002013-04-09T05:12:01-04:00Byron Williamshttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/byron-williams/
The Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2008 has been referred as the Post 9/11 GI Bill. But does the bill go far enough?
The original GI Bill which passed in 1944, provided a range of benefits for returning World War II veterans, including low-cost mortgages, low-interest loans to start a business, tuition to attend college, high school or vocational education.
By the end of the program in 1956, roughly 2.2 million veterans had used the GI Bill education benefits in order to attend colleges or universities, and an additional 6.6 million used these benefits for some kind of training program.
That was how America welcomed back the "greatest generation"; what about those serving in Afghanistan and Iraq? The former stayed too long and the latter should have never been fought.
Not that long ago politicians tripped over themselves to be the first, the loudest, and the gaudiest to proclaim support for the troops, while yellow ribbons adorned bumper stickers and lapels became commonplace.
But the overt acts of support were merely part of a successful propaganda campaign (one of the few lessons learned from the Vietnam experience) to conflate support for the soldiers with the mission.
Questioning the government's policies in Afghanistan and Iraq became synonymous with disloyalty. Many elected officials, hiding behind the veil of the soldier's courage, shrewdly and pathetically misdirected any criticism of the policy as an attack on those actually engaged in battle.
The majority of the nation, particularly true for the Iraq war, abdicated an authentic love of country for a perceived safety that was fortified by demagoguery and cowardice.
But as the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq wind down, and the global war on terror takes on a new shape, are we doing everything possible to support those who served?
Verbal support for the troops alone does not factor the lion's share of sacrifice that was placed on the backs of a finite few military families. Moreover, "I support the troops" seductively obfuscates the reality that the origin of all wars in a democracy is political.
Opposition to war but maintaining support for our soldiers is not competing interests. I certainly fall into this category, especially when it came to the Iraq war -- the most misguided enterprise in this nation's history.
Some might offer Vietnam as the winner of that dubious award. The difference between Vietnam and Iraq was time. When Lyndon Johnson became president in 1963, Vietnam was already a mess, originating in 1945 at the Potsdam Conference, spanning over three presidential administrations.
The Vietnam veteran was not subjected to multiple tours of duty as the soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq. This is the only way to sustain military operations in two countries with an all-volunteer armed force. But how many re-enlistment bonus checks can one receive to offset the impact of multiple tours?
One need not be a trained psychologist to reach the conclusion that multiple tours in the theater of war are unhealthy. It normalizes the abnormal, making it increasingly difficult to return to ordinary life.
Shouldn't more be done to help those who return home with posttraumatic stress disorder? Can we not see the divorce and suicide rates for returning veterans are at disturbing levels?
If there were genuine support for the soldiers, a second GI Bill would be a no-brainer. Perhaps our definition of "support the troops" is limited in scope.
It is easier to "support" them in uniform as they go off to fight than to "support" them when they return home as the broken residue of our political decisions for which the vast majority possesses no skin in the game.]]>A Missed Opportunity to Bring Back Jefferson Smith and Strom Thurmondtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.25433042013-01-25T14:39:02-05:002013-03-27T05:12:01-04:00Byron Williamshttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/byron-williams/Mr. Smith goes to Washington.
The young naïve Jefferson Smith who refused to be a stooge for the political machine holds the Senate floor to fight corruption until he collapses from complete exhaustion.
The tangible image is South Carolina Sen. Strom Thurmond, who held the Senate floor for a record 24 hours and 18 minutes. Thurmond's efforts delayed the Senate vote on the Civil Rights Act of 1957. Thurmond insinuated that the bill, which would ensure that black voters would have ready access to polling booths, was unconstitutional and tantamount to "cruel and unusual punishment."
But neither the mythical image of Smith nor the tangible image of Thurmond accurately portrays the contemporary use of the Senate filibuster. Rule 22 allows for an "invisible" filibuster in that the minority need only state their intention to filibuster.
Rule 22, as it has been applied recently, places the majority as subservient to the will of the minority. Consider a sampling of bills that had majority support but could not be debated during the past four years:
• Paycheck Fairness Act, legislation that would ensure men and women who do equal work receive equal pay had 52 votes.
• Disclosure Act, which banned U.S. corporations controlled by foreign governments from influencing election outcomes through the use of campaign contributions had 59 votes.
• Bring Jobs Home Act, which would have given tax incentives to companies that bring jobs back to the United States had 56 votes.
Rule 22 gives the minority the power to hold up existing laws, block judicial appointments, and allows all senators to hold the entire body hostage to extract something that could not be obtained by majority vote.
Use of Rule 22 in this manner becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Senators are allowed to hide in the shadows, declaring their intent to filibuster, derail bills that have majority support, and then go on television bemoaning the president's inability to lead.
It now appears a bipartisan agreement has been reached on modest reforms to the filibuster. Lawmakers would end the use of a procedural tactic that forces the majority party to find 60 votes to bring a bill to the floor, which often kills it before debate begins.
This is certainly a good start; any debate that diminishes the current dysfunction is good for the American people. But to the surprise of almost no one, it doesn't go far enough.
True reform would have included the spirit of Jefferson Smith and Strom Thurmond. The talking filibuster would make the minority accountable for their actions.
If the minority wishes to stall the process, which is their right, they must hold the floor by reciting everything from their reasons for opposition, the Constitution, the book of Leviticus, to their grandmothers biscuit recipe. Let the American people see how the process is being derailed.
Would there be 41 senators voting to support the aforementioned process if it were televised on C-SPAN? The talking filibuster increases public accountability if the minority wishes to obstruct the process.
Elections have consequences; there is a reason a party is in the minority. But politics is cyclical.
Those in the minority will once again return to the majority; and it is doubtful they will support the current process, even with its new reforms.
But the failure to institute the talking filibuster was a loss opportunity to remove a layer of the "shirts and skins" mentality that is pervasive in our politics, where right is predetermined by political allegiance.
Regardless of one's political perspective, the people's business is dependent on discussion, debate, and ultimately a vote. It has no room for unaccountable obstruction.]]>The Gun Debate Has No Room for One-size-fits-all Thinkingtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.24968152013-01-17T17:54:40-05:002013-03-19T05:12:01-04:00Byron Williamshttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/byron-williams/
The gun debate is held hostage by a nonsensical one-size-fits-all discussion. The responsible sportsperson, demented psychopath, and career criminal are conveniently co-mingled by the National Rifle Association to feed the canard that advocates for common sense gun safety want to take away everyone's right to responsibly own a gun.
As long as this version of the one-size-fits-all discussion exist, the mentally ill, along with violent movies and video games will serve as convenient scapegoats.
Other countries have mentally ill populations, violent movies and video games. What they don't have is corresponding levels of gun violence. Why?
President Barack Obama unveiled a series of proposals, which included an assault weapons ban, a ban on high-capacity magazine clips, and closing the loopholes on background checks. These were designed, as White Press Secretary Jay Carney stated, "to reduce gun violence and prevent future tragedies like the one in Newtown, Conn."
With the world's highest number of guns per capita, the president's proposals feel akin to slamming the barn door just before the last cow, which happens to also be afflicted with mad cow disease, escapes. There is nothing offered by the president that can "prevent future tragedies like the one in Newtown." But that does not mean the president should do nothing and accept the status quo.
The other side of the gun debate is also guilty of a one-size-fits-all discussion.
If one were to combine Newtown, along with the tragedies in Tucson, Ariz., in 2011, Fort Hood in 2009, Aurora, Colo., in 2012, and Columbine in 1999 the death total represents slightly more that half of those killed in Oakland last year.
Newtown and similar tragedies create a cacophony of reactionary public discourse that mutes the consistent drip of murder that occurs in urban areas throughout the country.
Many would welcome the banning of assault weapons, high-capacity magazine clips, and closing the loopholes for background checks, but would it curtail the gun violence that is pervasive in so many areas of urban America?
In urban cities, the unregistered firearm presents more of a problem than any of the issues the president sought to address last week. Cities like Oakland need draconian unregistered firearm laws.
There could be a grace period to register guns that have been inherited or obtained through other legitimate methods. But after that period passes possession of an unregistered firearm should carry a heavy penalty. Gun buy-back programs make for good publicity but do little to address the problem.
Would this completely eliminate black market gun sales? No. But it could serve as a strong deterrent for some.
Anti-litter campaigns began in the 1950s. Before 1980, 11 percent of Americans used seat belts. Over time these campaigns have proven successful in changing behavior. Likewise, something must be done to change the behavior of unregistered guns.
Does the president's current proposals possess the potential to change behavior in Detroit, St. Louis, Oakland, Washington, D.C., or other cities marred by gun violence?
In reaction to Newtown and other high-profile tragedies, the president has put forth the most aggressive gun safety agenda in a generation. Perhaps these measures will make it less likely that guns will fall into the wrong hands.
But banning assault weapons, magazine clips and closing loopholes on background checks will not adequately address the gun violence in urban America; it requires a different conversation.
The gun debate is multifaceted, and I doubt anyone has the entire answer. This is the problem with one-size-fits-all thinking -- there are too many complexities for which the solution offered simply does not fit.]]>Book Excerpt: 1963: The Year of Hope and Hostilitytag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.24743782013-01-15T15:28:47-05:002013-03-17T05:12:01-04:00Byron Williamshttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/byron-williams/
Below is an excerpt from Chapter 1 of my forthcoming book: 1963: The Year of Hope and Hostility.
George Wallace's tenacity and ambition were on display early in life and they would serve him well in his meteoric political rise, but it would also prove to be his Achilles heel and make him an unwitting ally to the Civil Rights Movement led by Martin Luther King, Jr. But in 1963, Wallace was gaining national attention by offering segregationists in Alabama and elsewhere momentum to a cause that had been on the defensive for nine years.
In 1954, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously overturned Plessy v. Ferguson in its Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka decision. As a result, de jure segregation was ruled to be in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. For 58 years the South had the Supreme Court on its side. Though Brown did not end segregation, it was the first sign that the tide had shifted. On the surface it might appear somewhat contradictory that the George Wallace circa 1954 differed from the George Wallace who gave the inauguration speech in 1963.
It has been argued by a number of historians that George Wallace was primarily committed to his own political ambitions. There is no doubt that Wallace's ambition served him well in some cases but it permanently damaged him historically in others.
From 1950-52, Wallace requested and was appointed by his one-time mentor and later political adversary "Big" Jim Folsom to the board of trustees of the all-black Tuskegee Institute founded by Booker T. Washington. He also endorsed and campaigned for Stevenson in 1956. And when Wallace ran the first time for governor in 1958, he ran as an anti-Ku Klux Klan candidate, going as far as refusing their endorsement.
These episodes hardly qualified Wallace as liberal on race. There is little in Wallace's background to suggest support for Brown v. Board of Education. Being a southern moderate did not make one a de facto friend of the Negro; it simply meant that one was less vitriolic in their public support for black inequality. Wallace did, however, receive the endorsement of the NAACP in his 1958 gubernatorial bid. At the same time, Wallace's television commercials boasted of his ability to defeat the NAACP based on his 1956 convention battles, ensuring a moderate civil rights plank in the Democratic platform. In that commercial he referred to the NAACP as "enemies of the South." Wallace's moderate view on race was evident by his own words from a 1958 campaign commercial:
"I want to tell the good people of this state as a judge of the third judicial circuit if I didn't have what it took to treat a man fair regardless of his color then I don't have what it takes to be the governor of your great state."
Nevertheless, Wallace lost the 1958 governor's race by 64,000 votes, marking a turning point in Wallace's political career.
Speaking with his aides, there was common agreement that his opponent John Patterson's stance on segregation was stronger and he had enjoyed the support of the Klan. To which Wallace reportedly said, "Well boys, no other son-of-a-bitch is ever going to out-nigger me again."
Over the years there has been some dispute as to whether Wallace actually made the statement. Wallace maintained he never said it. Marshal Frady used the quote in his 1968 biography of Wallace. However, Stephen Lesher, who was Wallace's official biographer, sides with Wallace. And Bill Jones, who was with Wallace that night, cannot recall Wallace making the statement. But to borrow a line from the movie, The Man who Shot Liberty Valance, "when the legend becomes fact, print the legend." Therefore, this unadulterated example of political ambition run amok has become a part of the Wallace lore. Moreover, whether or not Wallace actually said that he would not be "out-niggered again" is secondary. His actions following his 1958 loss would strongly suggested that he would not be "out-niggered" again regardless of the accuracy of the quote.
The political odyssey of Wallace, who went from a young war veteran entering politics advocating progressive policies, only later to descend into the politics of racism following the loss of his lifetime dream of being elected Governor of Alabama in 1958, is a case study in unbridled ambition.
His use of demagoguery for the purposes of attaining political power and playing on racial fears catapulted him into the national spotlight for more than a decade. He would become even more of an enigma later in his political career by being returned to the governor's mansion in 1983 with the overwhelming support of the black people of Alabama whom he once sought to deny equal protection under the law.
But Monday January 14, 1963 and his subsequent actions that year have gone a long way, fairly or unfairly, in defining who Wallace was -- along with his lasting impact on the political discourse up to the present day. In fact, Wallace's inauguration speech may have set the tone for the year that would be one of hope and hostility.
January 14, 1963 was the coldest day on record in almost 80 years, but that did not deter huge crowds from celebrating the inauguration of the man who had adopted the slogan during his campaign: "Stand Up for Alabama."
Thirteen days after the centennial of the Emancipation Proclamation declaring "that all persons held as slaves" within the rebellious states "are, and henceforward shall be free," standing where Davis took the oath of office as President of the Confederacy, Wallace was on the brink of becoming the standard bearer for a politics that claimed to be supported by the Constitution, but in essence may be better defined as the pabulum of hate.
Wallace brought "tent revival" fervor to his inaugural address. The burden was not on Wallace to say something new, but to say what crowd wanted to hear in the way they wanted to hear it. He was not appealing to the better angels of the white citizens of Alabama; he instead was appealing the same primordial impulses of fear and hatred that got him elected. In this context, Wallace was the preacher charged with giving people hope based on maintaining their notion of the status quo, even if all that meant was clinging to the legalized superiority of the whiteness of their skin. His was an ambition that did not call people to reach higher, but rather it invited them to dig deeper into the abyss of evil. Though initially, it would appear that Wallace's congregation were the white people of Alabama, on January 14, 1963, he became the surrogate pastor for the entire southern region sympathetic to the cause of segregation.
Like any good charismatic preacher, Wallace began his address by deliberately using innocuous terms.
I shall fulfill my duty in working hard to bring industry into our state, not only by maintaining an honest, sober and free-enterprise climate of government in which industry can have confidence but in going out and getting it... so that our people can have industrial jobs in Alabama and provide a better life for their children. I shall not forget my duty to our senior citizens... so that their lives can be lived in dignity and enrichment of the golden years, nor to our sick, both mental and physical... and they will know we have not forsaken them. I want the farmer to feel confident that in this State government he has a partner who will work with him in raising his income and increasing his markets. And I want the laboring man to know he has a friend who is sincerely striving to better his field of endeavor. I want to assure every child that this State government is not afraid to invest in their future through education, so that they will not be handicapped on every threshold of their lives.
There was nothing in Wallace's initial remarks that warranted national coverage. The governors of California, Illinois, and New York, or any other state in the Union could have easily delivered the first 800 words of Wallace's address. But here is where any congruence with his 49 other colleagues would end. It did not take long for Wallace to give the people what they wanted. The next 4,100 words would set Wallace apart, giving those in attendance the red meat they were hoping for. Wallace was about to deliver the line that speechwriter Asa Carter, a former Klan member, had stated the night before is "gonna catch everybody."
Today I have stood, where once Jefferson Davis stood, and took an oath to my people. It is very appropriate then that from this Cradle of the Confederacy, this very Heart of the Great Anglo-Saxon Southland, that today we sound the drum for freedom as have our generations of forebears before us done, time and time again through history. Let us rise to the call of freedom-loving blood that is in us and send our answer to the tyranny that clanks its chains upon the South. In the name of the greatest people that have ever trod this earth, I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny... and I say... segregation now... segregation tomorrow... segregation forever.
By placing white southerners on the side of the oppressed, Wallace used the bulk of the speech, invoking God, the spirit of self-determination, and the memory of the Founding Fathers to deliver one of the most memorable speeches of 1963. With one phrase, Wallace had simultaneously revamped the rebel yell and resurrected Stonewall Jackson.]]>50 Years Ago Was a Time That Defined Our Nation's Futuretag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.24258802013-01-08T12:50:57-05:002013-03-10T05:12:01-04:00Byron Williamshttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/byron-williams/
January 1 of that year marked the 100th anniversary of the Emancipation Proclamation. The significance of the anniversary, and the work left undone, was not lost on the civil rights community. Martin Luther King Jr. urged President John F. Kennedy to issue a second Emancipation Proclamation.
But the president, who had won a close election in 1960, did not want to risk further alienating Southern voters, with re-election on the horizon in 1964.
Kennedy viewed civil rights to be a second-term issue. Protected by the 22nd Amendment, which limits a president to two terms, from Kennedy's perspective any substantive civil rights legislation after 1964 would carry little political price.
But this was 1963 and Kennedy's desires to remain within the safety of plausible neutrality would be short lived due to the unbridled political ambition of Alabama Gov. George Wallace.
On Jan. 14, 1963, Wallace would give the first of what would be a year of memorable oratory, when he stated at his inaugural address: "I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny... and I say... segregation now... segregation tomorrow... segregation forever."
Wallace used the bulk of his approximate 4,500-word address, invoking God, the spirit of self-determination, and the memory of the Founding Fathers, thereby making Alabama the unofficial citadel of segregation.
Later that evening, Kennedy gave his State of the Union address. While Wallace left no doubt with the segregationist faithful as to where he stood, Kennedy took a more measured approach. In his approximate 5,400-word address, which covered tax cuts, Social Security, mental health, West Berlin, Cuba and Vietnam, Kennedy dedicated a mere 65 words on the topic of race and the anniversary of the proclamation.
And the most precious and powerful right in the world, the right to vote in a free American election, must not be denied to any citizen on grounds of his race or color. I wish that all qualified Americans permitted to vote were willing to vote, but surely in this centennial year of emancipation all those who are willing to vote should always be permitted.
But Kennedy's lukewarm response could not temper the situation. On January 14, the roles of the three men pivotal to civil rights in 1963 were defined. King and Wallace would prod from the left and right, respectively, while Kennedy would use all of his political skill to remain in the amorphous middle.
January 1963 would lay the foundation for civil rights for the remainder of the year. Birmingham would be symbolized by police dogs and fire hoses, Wallace would make good on a campaign promise by physically attempting to block two black students from entering the University of Alabama, prompting Kennedy to give the greatest speech on civil rights since Abraham Lincoln, and Medgar Evers would be the movement's first high-profile martyr.
King would electrify the nation with his "dream," but three weeks later he would eulogize three of the four girls killed during the 16th Street Baptist Church bombing.
Beyond civil rights, 1963 was the year that cemented our current Cuban policy and shaped future events in Vietnam. It was a year that also saw a young president gunned down in Dallas.
The Kennedy assassination has managed to engulf the collective impact of 1963 -- a year that has remained hidden in plain sight for a half-century. But the troika of Kennedy, King and Wallace, beginning in January, would define civil rights in the year of hope and hostility.
Here is the trailer for 1963: The Year of Hope and Hostility.]]>