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

[Crazyshirley2100]

I have not tried this before, but here is an example of what old LBJ did. I am a Texas woman. I do know that LBJ was so vibrant, dead people rose from the grave to vote for him. I know he was an SOB. But I also know sometimes, it takes an SOB to make people do the right thing.
http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/history/johnson/sanders4.mp3
Please listen to this. It is a very good example.

[Superfelo]

It needs to be said:
you and them could rant and rave as much as you want; though it is about time the elephant in the room was taken out of the hat.

It still does not change the fact that words have power; it still does not change

the fact that Hillary Clinton stated that

Barack Obama was raising false hopes, in his inspirational message; in the heels of that statement, Bill Clinton comes and makes his "fairy tale" statement. It seems to me, they are calling out, "fire", in a crowded theater.

Furthermore, for Hillary Clinton, who is against the politics of "personal destruction"

when it is about her, to sully the memory

of one of the greatest presidents this country ever had, Lyndon Johnson, and America's greatest Icon, in one breath, because of politics and her fear of losing, well that leaves a lot to be desired. And let's not be talk about what the president of BET said,

and he is trying to clean it up; but we know what he meant. If anyone did not use drugs, or come near them in the last 40 years, was either dead or stiff; well one does not negate the other, does it?

Hillary and Bill should stick to the issues

and let the votes fall where they may.

Yes we can!

Enough said.

[JacktheBlogger]

Well, Mr. Fauntroy, you are right on about Hillary's comments and Dr. King's legacy vis-a-vis LBJ's role in it. However, I wished you had not stopped there and also commented on Barack Obama's role in politicizing this incident.

After his loss in NH, Barack said that he grew up in Chicago politics and kind of hinted at how he was going to dial it up a notch against Hillary in the next round. It is apparent now that he was waiting to play the race card, after he saw how the gender card abandoned him in droves in NH.

Nonetheless, thank you for putting the record straight.

[Vixen0932]

Thank You Mr. Fauntroy

As a policy wonk myself and someone who has been interested in LBJ since forever (I realize that his policy passage had nothing to do for his feelings toward blacks but I know it cost him a lot of political capitol anyway). Im glad you cleared this up.

[StephenDedalus82]

Obama is one of two frontrunners, yet he is still getting the kid gloves treatment from the media. They run stories reacting to snippets of things the Clintons say as they campaign that are basically cut from Obama campaign press releases, and all of a sudden *she* is playing the race card. I swear Hillary and Bill can barely sneeze without the media reading something sinister into it. Obama is the one playing the race card. Obama is the one doing an out-of-desperation dirty campaign, and he's able to get away with it because the media has such schadenfreude for the Clintons.

[KSH]

Correction:
Obama finally gave a comment yesterday that her comments were "ill-advised" - and I agree!

[Chocolate2008]

Wow,

Looks like we went from 300 pounds to 300 words.

...and you KNOW what I'm talking about.

[independentrepublicrat]

Nommo posted:
Address to Congress: We Shall OvercomeMarch 15, 1965

Lyndon Baines Johnson, POTUS

"A century has passed -- more than 100 years -- since equality was promised, and yet the negro is not equal.
For negroes are not the only victims. How many white children have gone uneducated? How many white families have lived in stark poverty? How many white lives have been scarred by fear, because we wasted energy and our substance to maintain the barriers of hatred and terror?
The real hero of this struggle is the American negro. His actions and protests, his courage to risk safety, and even to risk his life, have awakened the conscience of this nation. His demonstrations have been designed to call attention to injustice, designed to provoke change; designed to stir reform.
He has been called upon to make good the promise of America. And who among us can say that we would have made the same progress were it not for his persistent bravery and his faith in American democracy?
For at the real heart of the battle for equality is a deep-seated belief in the democratic process. Equality depends, not on the force of arms or tear gas, but depends upon the force of moral right -- not on recourse to violence, but on respect for law and order."
LBJ

[TommyMcCarthy]

I cannot recall the last time I was as disappointed in a public figure as I am in Sen. Obama today.

The legacy of Dr. King doesn't just belong to those who were THERE and marched with him (as my family and of course Mr. Fauntroy's did.) It belongs to EVERY American, of EVERY race.... even ungrateful chidren with no understanding of or respect for the difficult and dangerous struggles mounted on their behalf by thier predecessors.

I believe Sen. Obama is aware of the history here...and I believe he is aware of the
ACCURACY of Sen. Clinton's remarks.

Here's a quote from Obama about this from today's Huffington Post (Sun.) He begins with a reference to Mrs. Clinton's appearence on "Meet the Press"......

"What we saw this morning is why the American people are tired of Washington politicians and the games they play. Sen. Clinton made an unfortunate remark....an ill-advised remark about King and Lyndon Johnson. I didn't make the statement. I haven't remarked on it, and I think she offended folks who felt that diminished King's role in bringing about the Civil Rights act. She's free to explain that......
......I have to say she started the campaign saying that she wanted to make history, and lately she has been spending alot of time rewriting it."

Rather than parse Obama's "non-remark" I will say only that I would expect this sort of thing from Mitt Rommney, or Rudy Guliani, or Newt Gingrich.....none of whom I would want to be President.

Until this week, I faced a difficult choice of who to support in the Democratic primary. Sen. Obama's cynical behavior has resolved this for me. He is not qualified to be president either.
Regards...­..........­..........­..........­.tm

[OtayPanky]

The ugly truth is that JFK tried to pass the Civil Rights act and got nowhere fast.

It was national angst, anguish and shame over his death that gave LBJ the capacity to steamroll this legislation - and the whole Great Society package - through congress.

Of course it takes a president to take the summit by enacting legislation - but it took MLK and countless others to make America take that long slow climb up the mountain.

This statement by the Clintons was their shameless attempt to diminish Barack, because he really does have a level of oratorical skill that invokes MLK in the mind of many listeners.

The Clintons subtext here is that Obama is all talk - but that they're the ones capable of action.

They would have been a lot smarter to have said that directly, and leave MLK and LBJ out of their message.

[gulopartisan]

Clinton's remark was disparaging of Obama and only thoughtlessly of King. Her point was silly. Of course someone had to do the legislation, but giving the legislator credit for the change is a bit like giving the British Empire credit for the independence of India. Gandhi's soul guiding reluctant British meat -- which is more important?

[littleblackcat]

From where I sit, it isn't Obama who is playing the race card. Anything and everything that is said in any way seems to be turned into something about race. My preference is Edwards-Kucinich in any combination but that isn't going to happen due to the manipulation by the media to squeeze average-looking candidates out of the running. This has become a popularity­-and-looks contest when what we need is INTELLIGENCE! My distrust of Hillary Clinton comes solely from her too-cozy relationships with the powers that be. We do not need, and cannot survive as a nation, with another 8 years of politics as usual. By the way, JFK was the force behind the civil rights legislation. He was the one who took the country to task for its complacency and failure to deal with the injustices endured by black people. We have many of the same gatherings today against the war in Iraq, but we are now under the thumb of news media conglomerates who put forth for the public's enlightenment ONLY what they want the public to know. When I was a young adult, the marches were all over the front pages of every newspaper, and these days a march of 10,000 strong does not even get a mention because the corporate-owned (big business, big buddies of bushit) news outlets do not want it flaunted that most of th nation is against the war and against shrub, period. JFK would probably have had an uphill battle to get things passed due to the same kind of obstructionism we see every day from bushit and the rest of the repukes. Nothing like holding onto the status quo!!! That way the Good Ol' Boys get to keep filling their own pockets at everyone else's expense.

[TommyMcCarthy]

Lets not forget the efforts of Mrs. "Lady Bird" Johnson on behalf of both voting rights acts as well..Mrs. Johnson was highly popular, particularly at the south. Did she avoid the struggle?...bake cookies and serve tea?

No, she risked everything, traveling across the south...stopping in towns large and small to exhort her fellow southerners to support her husband's efforts to pass the voting rights acts, fair housing, and equal accomidations for African Americans. She was picketed, heckled , booed, and recieved death threats.

In the end,.... thanks to the efforts of millions of Americans of all races, and the inspired leadership of President and Mrs. Johnson and thier close ally Dr. King,.... the historic legislation was signed into law.....not because it was politically expedient, but because it was THE RIGHT THING TO DO.

The flap over Sen. Clinton's remarks is a tempest in a teapot, fomented by ungrateful people who know no history...for shallow political ends.

The legacy and memory of Dr. King belongs to EVERY American..­.including Sen. Clinton, you, and me.... as Mr. Fauntroy correctly points out in his excellent post. Regards...­..........­..........­.......tm

[nomobull]

i give Johnson credit but do you think he could have done anythng especially with the southern members of congress if it had not been for the marches. boycotts and the speeches that inspired the people to fight for their rights of Martin.

[S1m0n]

But what's Bill doing spouting off about LBJ's courage in the first place? He had his chance while in office to do something similarly great, and he failed the test, utterly.

I'm talking about 'don't ask, don't tell' and the 'defence of marriage act" - these were Bill's moment to shine as a great defender of freedom.

He failed it. He betrayed the voters who'd elected him on the basis of promises he'd made to the gay community.

He's not fit to hold LBJ's (apparrantly prodigious) sweaty jockstrap, let alone his mantle as a stateman who transcended his party and his era to uphold a just cause.