Johnson Did Help Give Life to King's Dream

Senator Hillary Clinton has been taking a beating for a comment she recently made regarding Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and the role President Lyndon Johnson played in bringing about the legislative change sought by the civil rights movement. She noted that King's dream began to come into focus when President Lyndon Johnson supported and signed into law important civil rights legislation. Some African Americans, sadly disconnected from the historical record, took the comment as a slight to King's legacy. Conservatives did what they usually do, stoking the fire by suggesting that Clinton simply dissed the Black icon and should be punished by African American voters. (Disclosure: Neither Clinton nor Senator Barack Obama is my preferred presidential candidate). Clinton is factually right and, after seeing the video of the comment, I am convinced that she met no disrespect to King's legacy.

My interest in King is more than academic. I'm blessed to be a nephew of Rev. Walter Fauntroy, one of Dr. King's chief lieutenants. He has long told me of his work during this period and how the man (King) and the movement coalesced and unified the country, which became outraged by what they saw on the evening news night after night. He also told me something that I tell my students: ideas and movements mean nothing if they don't change public policy. Mass movements and demonstrations are designed to prick the conscience of the country on a given issue. At that point the legislative process takes over. That process must go through the president. A supportive president can accelerate change. An obstinate president (see Bush, G.W. - Iraq) can thwart a movement, even though it might have a majority of support in Congress.

My uncle has told me a thousand times about how important Lyndon Johnson was to making the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the Fair Housing Act of 1968 a reality. He sacrificed his own favor with southern conservatives to do the right thing. I see a particular irony that some southern Black elected officials, some of whom owe their seats in Congress to the changes effectuated by the Voting Rights Act, now criticizing Clinton for remembering her civil rights history. Noting Johnson's role is not disrespectful to King's legacy. It's simply a historical fact. And Clinton's memory seems to be on target.

It's my hope that the media and racially sensitive people of all stripes will take a deep breath and relax a bit. Presidential candidates, talking all the time every single day while on the campaign trail, will say things that can easily be taken out of context. Responsible observers have to encourage the public to pay closer attention to the issues rather than perceived slights that don't really exist. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to question whether Hillary Clinton is best suited to win the Democratic presidential nomination and the White House. Her comment on President Johnson and the civil rights movement should not be among them.

Michael K. Fauntroy is an assistant professor of public policy at George Mason University and author of Republicans and the Black Vote. A registered Independent, he blogs at MichaelFauntroy.com.

Follow Michael Fauntroy on Twitter: www.twitter.com/MikeFauntroy

Comments

[Democrab]

I loved Johnson. He put 94 percent of his party platform into law.

No other president has done that.

That's the job of a president.

I've seen two great presidencies in my time,
Johnson's and Clinton's.

The rest don't even come close.

[duboisist]

It's heartbreaking that on the eve of his birthday people are using the memory of Dr. King to separate the very people he gave his life trying to bring together.

I'm sure he never imagined his words would be so pertinent in a situation like this, but the man was a preacher.
READ this sermon BY DR. KING -- http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/publications/sermons/680204.000_Drum_Major_Instinct.html
and STOP USING whatever you imagine he might have thought AS A WEAPON.

[nlightenup]

Thanks for holding the matter up where both sunlight and fresh air can reach it.

I wish right-wing media and MSM were the only ones to blame for sensationalizing remarks out of context, but I see it happening here on HuffPost too--especially in its headlines.

It's really not hard to write a descriptive, non-sensational headline that will still get people to read the story. It's cheap, at best, to do otherwise.

[LeeFromVA]

I don't for a minute think Hillary is a racist. On the other hand, I do believe she will say or do ANYTHING to win. Obama has never attacked her personally, but she holds nothing back on the mud she slings his way. She should be ashamed at the way she is running her campaign.

[fourex]

LBJ was actually forced into the civil rights movement. Hillary's story is the fairytale.

[JPorrata]

A point on Bill Clinton on the campaign trail -

Bill Clinton has a history of being liar - and is willing to tell any kind of lie if it benefits him politically. Now, this isn't a desputable fact. Bill Clinton repeatedly lied about his adultery on a national stage from 1992-1998. I didn't read anything in Bill's book that makes me believe that he grew from the Lewinski/J­ones/Flowe­rs episodes. He sounded like a man who got therapy in order to feel better about himself, not to grow as a person.

So, when he campaigns, I am automatically skeptical of what he says. Because I know that deep down inside, this is a man who has chosen power over truth - deception over intergrity. So, having him be the campaigns attack dog envokes in me serious feelings of mistrust and resenment. Knowing what we know about him, I can't see anyone but HRC supporters accepting this kind of behavior from him. He was already skating on way too thin of ice.

Fortunately for Senator Clinton, she isn't her husband. But his role on the campaign trail gives me great pause about what his role in her White House would be. Whether it be First Husband or POTUS, I don't want another unrepentant liar in the White House. I turned 18 in 1991 and have yet to experience an honest person as POTUS. I really have to say that if Bill does not do something to convince me that he has grown as a man since 1998, then I can't in good conscience vote to give him the national limelight again.

[Impeachthechimp]

It was just another slimy attack on Hillary. Rarely do these attacks ever contain substance.

[BlackandProud]

There is a history of subtle "racism" with the Clintons.

There is a reason that White House Press Secretary Dee Dee Myers referred to Bill Clinton's cabinet as 'The All White Boys Club".

The Clintons have always believed that the black vote is crucial, but the way they've gotten the votes (by promising "hand-outs") has always made me feel like they look at blacks as second-rate citizens.

I think Hillary looks at blacks the same way, helpless and needy, rather than people qualified to hold the nations highest positions.

[efranklin]

Seen through the lens of the Clinton War Machine, the subtle undertones of the remark are troublesome. It is the insidiousness of the Clintons that bristles voters. It is never blatant with them. Whether it's an accidental "misstep" from one of their operatives or directly from them, it is always divisive and dishonest. They embody everything Washington is at its worst. The only way for there to be any real change is to elect someone that doesn't come with years of grudges and antagonism attached.

[kathcalla]

The more "Crude Approach" (see Thomas Edsall article today) that Hillary Clinton clumsily launched on Meet The Press yesterday is Doomed to Failure and Will Back Fire Badly...It Already Has. And Obama's: Winning Gaining Surging and Very Well Constructed Campaign Strategy and Momentum Will Continue On and Bolster Obama and All the Way to a White House Obama Victory.

Personal Hits and Triangulating and Fear Mongering Campaign Attacks Sometimes Work:
But Scientific Research and History Reveals Not Always!

There seemingly veiled hostility to an Obama Presidency and tringulating not so subtle comments, digs and innuendo...
Are very transparent, phony balony and disingenuous: and the majority of American's don't like like any of that and reject it entirely. Just you wait and see...
Kathy Callahan

[provoice]

In my opinion, the only people who saw anything "racist" in what Ms. Clinton said are the people who earn their livings from "finding" racism around every corner.

If she had said "Martin Luther King Jr. was ONE of the greatest men who ever lived." they would have called her comment racist because it didn't say THE greatest."

In this day and age when a state that is over 90% white can chose a black man over a field of mostly white presidential candidates, and the viewers of "Survivor" can award $100,000 to a black grave digger as THE most popular player of the season, I find it hard to believe that the old "racist" stereotypes hold much sway in the country anymore.

[BlakeforRichardson]

"At a later stop, (Hillary Clinton) said that her remark had not captured what she had sought to portray." (The New York Times)



I don’t get it. Hillary Clinton herself said that her remarks had not captured what she had sought to portray.

Well if she admits that her remarks had not captured what she had sought to portray, why is she upset that other people interpreted the wording of the statement the way she said it, and not the way “she had sought to portray” it?

She admits she did not word it right, and then criticizes others for being upset with the way she worded it.

Seems to me the reaction of many has been one of reasonable concern, not distortion or Bush/Rove tactics similar to those used by the Clintons on Obama in New Hampshire.

[Crazyshirley2100]

Just trying to bring some data to the table.
In God we trust, all else needs data.

[Zhonni]

That was not how she said it. She was slighting Obama for "thinking" he is MLK-not that he does- then added, AFTERALL, it took a President to pass civil rights laws.

While she is right about that, she said it in a way to slight MLK-without realizing it.

Ofcourse MLK could not pass the laws, he was not in power. He inspired people to push their government with demostrations including both people of different backgrounds.

That's my understanding of how it was said. Obama certainly did not start anything so I don't understand why people are saying he did. It was the Clintons that started all this stupid race stuff.

I have had enough and ready to move on!

[avergejoe]

Johnson had no choice.

The country was riding a surge in activism started by the Kennedy's and continued by RFK. They were responsible for the great social legislation he merely signed - he would have been run out of office otherwise.

Left to his own, Johnson would have done nothing, he would rather spend the money killing more young men in Vietnam; or abandoning them when the USS Liberty was attacked by isreal and he called back the ships going to rescue them; then he rewards isreal by arming them for the six-day war.

He was a traitor.