Ted Kennedy Endorsed Obama to Preserve JFK' s Civil Rights "Legacy"? What Civil Rights "Legacy"?

Okay, let's be honest: A large part of Barack Obama's appeal has been that subtle, Kennedyesque persona. He's hip, young, good-looking, and, earnest, expressing the same hope and optimism that America fell in love with in the 1960s. Combine that with Obama's phenomenal traction among younger voters, the Harvard pedigree, a picture-perfect family and an aggressive, albeit revisionist, "anti"-war stance -- plus his new retro monochromatic wardrobe makeover, heavy on the grays and blacks, just like the good ole days of black and white television! -- it's obvious Barry has captured that Kennedy magic in a bottle.

Robert Kennedy, one could say.

The inevitable comparisons to that other Kennedy -- John F. Kennedy -- especially those made by yet another Kennedy -- Ted Kennedy -- have been, well, a quantum leap. First, you have to swallow the irony of the Obama fighting against the "past" -- the 1990s -- and political "dynasties" -- the Clintons -- by reaching further in the past to the 1960s and luxuriating in the aura of Camelot with an even longer and older dynasty. Then, there is the obvious problem: John F. Kennedy was a cold warrior, a hawk and an interventionist who escalated Dwight Eisenhower's Vietnam mini-series. Sure he inspired the youth and optimism, but if he ran today, as a Democrat, JFK would be hanging out with Sam Nunn or (shudder) Joe Lieberman.

The biggest quantum leap is the new report by WaPo's Mary Ann Akers, which broke overnight on the Huffington Post, that suggests Teddy endorsed Barry because, well, he didn't like Hillary Clinton's "praise of President Lyndon Baines Johnson for getting the 1964 Civil Rights Act accomplished. Jealously guarding the legacy of the Kennedy family dynasty, Senator Kennedy felt Clinton's LBJ comments were an implicit slight of his brother, President John F. Kennedy, who first proposed the landmark civil rights initiative in a famous televised civil rights address in June 1963."

Ah yes, the "progressive" wing of the Democratic Party, still stuck in the 1960s. It's almost as bad as last night's 1980s Reagan love fest by the frat boys on the other side.

There is always going to be some revisionism with historical figures -- Earl Ofari Hutchinson did a killer deconstruction on the recent rewriting of Martin Luther King Jr's legacy -- especially those who have died, so, let's dispense with the niceties: John F. Kennedy did propose the landmark civil rights bill and that is most of his "legacy." Actually, the record was mediocre. Just some of the highlights: Opposed the 1957 Civil Rights Acts. Used this as a wedge issue against Nixon! to help capture the "solid South" in the 1960 election. Did absolutely nothing for civil rights in his first year of office. Encouraged, told or instructed Robert Kennedy to sic Adam Clayton Powell on Martin Luther King, threatening to expose an imaginary sexual scandal with Bayard Rustin, MLK's black gay top lieutenant, to prevent a march in Los Angeles. Opposed the 1963 March on Washington. Refused to deploy troops to protect the Freedom Riders. Ignored the Albany, Georgia bus station riot. So many more lost opportunities to choose from....

In the early 1960s, obviously, JFK's attention was diverted to Cuba, Berlin, Vietnam, and, increasingly, Marilyn Monroe and other actresses. If Kennedy capitulated to the blacks, the Southern white Democrats would revolt. If he did nothing--which he mostly did--the violence would continue and world attention would focus on the inept White House. The Kennedys had a horrible relationship with Congress, so, there wasn't much the president could on his. On the other hand, by sitting on his hands, the violence quotient increased, which is why he was forced to "propose" the 1964 Civil Rights Bill. Oh yeah, this probably helped endear his family to black voters in Chicago and New York City. There was an election in 1964 ...

There were some accomplishments, usually, via his brother Bobby, who was the attorney general, and, if anything, a stronger template for an Obama comparison. Slowly began to enforce voting rights. The intervention with James Meredith at Ole Miss. And, finally, JFK and RFK were horrified by the violence in Birmingham and sent troops to force the desegregation of public facilities, including the University of Alabama. Ironically, just yesterday Obama campaigned at UA-Birmingham to a crowd of 11,000. Talk about coming full circle.

Obama is the game-changer of 2008 election the fresh new face that may make history as the first black presidential nominee of one of the major parties. The comparisons to JFK are obvious, but, if you wanted to compare him to a popular, anti-war Kennedy who captured the country's youthful spirit of the 1960s, you probably want to look to a different Kennedy. Not that any comparison is necessary.

Comments

[RTIII]

Hmmm... Thing is, John Edwards matches up with Bobby Kennedy pretty closely. RFK was shot dead during his campaigning for president, and his platform was all about the poor and working class. Clearly he was shot for this as it looked like he'd get the nomination.

Compare Obama. Hmmm... I don't see a whole lot to compare with. Edwards was the populist. Obama, in contrast, has very conservative fiscal policy and his health-care plan (while better than Clinton's) doesn't seem to understand the motives and actions of the poor (which I find very odd).

Anyway, the real similarity in this election cycle to one of the assassinated Kennedy boys was between Edwards and RFK.

[OkieMon]

JFK desegregated the university of alabama...

[BeyondKen]

On October 19, 1960 Martin Luther King Jr. was arrested for attending a non-violent sit-in. He was in Atlanta, Georgia. The next day most of the protesters were free to go. King was sentenced to four months of hard labor in a Southern jail. Mrs. King thought that her husband would be injured or killed. Senator Kennedy called Mrs. King and gave his support. Robert Kennedy secretly called the judge of this case and demanded King be released. The next day he was released. Daddy King (Martin"s father) publicly supported JFK. This influenced African-Americans to vote for him.

After JFK became president he used executive orders to get what he wanted accomplished. JFK appointed many African-Americans to high-level positions in his administration, created the Committee on Equal Employment Opportunities, and banned racial discrimination in federally funded housing. The Committee on Equal Employment Opportunities brought lawsuits against schools in the South that did not integrate.

Also critical was JFK's phone call to Martin Luther King, Jr., the civil rights leader, while King was in jail for civil disobedience. The symbolism of the phone call was crucial in helping improve JFK's image in the black community.

[Ginzaman]

The truth is the Kennedy civil rights legacy cam about only because they absolutely had to do it, and not before. JFK, RK, and Ted were all notorious dogs and the MSM knew it. But they didn't touch that.

LBJ was well-known for having affairs with various African-American women before the Civil Rights Act was passed. So it was I can have sex with you. But you're not good enough to be a complete human being?

The neocon version of this would be Strom Thurmond. A notorious racist/rapist who sexually abused an African-American girl who then had a kid from that. And to this day you have racist assholes like Trent Lott saying, goddamnit, if we had listened to Thurmond we wouldn't have all of this s**t going on today.

A big part of the problem is that the MSM then and now doesn't have the guts to call these morons on their crap. Why is that? Because we'll lose our sources. Because now we can be arrested for being "enemy combatants." Maybe if you'd done your job none of this would have happened?

[foreffectivegovernment]

The name of the game is "POWER". I see history repeating inself.

Barack Obama is to Teddy Kennedy and the Liberal Left as George W. Bush is to Dick Cheney and the Radical Right. Power to control the United States of America and to swing the pendulum from far right to far left is the goal.

John McCain and Hilary Clinton represent the Moderates and Independents of both parties. The Republicans have essentially chosen their Centrist candidate so lets choose ours and let them fight it out for our votes.

Don't be fooled again!

[bumpersticker]

>Actually, the record was mediocre.

All things are relative. By today's standards it may be measured as mediocre, but if you were living at the time when only whites could eat at Howard Johnsons, then it was not mediocre. Both JFK and RFK were killed for what they stood for, which was not pragmatism.

In the same sense, Christ's record on slavery is mediocre. If we are to posthumously judge people, then we should realize we cannot do that judging in the time they existed, so it is us that carry the bias based on the time we do that judging.

[TJS]

Comparisons to past (and safely dead) political figures are great sport and sometimes even revealing. If, as Rod McCullom suggests, JFK would be hanging out today with Sam Nunn or Joe Lieberman, I suspect that Richard Nixon would find more common ground over the war in Iraq with John Edwards and Joe Biden than with Bush and Cheney. Even Nixon would not have been stupid enough to start the Iraq War, and his foreign policy was downright progressive compared to the current administration. It is telling that none of the Republican candidates are seeking comparison to Nixon in the area of foreign policy, even though Tricky Dick had the most rational foreign policy of any recent Republican president. Nixon's legacy of detente with the Soviet Union, normalizing relations with China, and ending a war (he took too long, but at least he didn't start one) makes the current crop of Republican's look clueless and incompetent. Comparison to McCain, Romney (and even Hillary) makes Richard Nixon look like a foreign policy genius...and that's a truly scary legacy!

[Democrab]

I like that Kennedy jumped on the Obama band wagon. I'd heard JFK/Obama comparisons from friends and family.

His endorsement seemed more to me like a vendetta against Bill Clinton however, than a love of Obamaism.

In politics, as in physics, a force exerted in one direction is equalled by a force exerted in the opposite direction.

Sen. Kennedy can therefore prepare himself for a more detailed expose of his voting record and whatever failed ideas he's experienced in his public life, starting with Chappaquiddick and his and Bush's "No child left behind." And then it will carry over into Bobby's failures and JFKs girl friends and on and on.

I love endorsements, but when they come with vitriol, they wane in sincerity.

[OSUMercutio]

Once again, Clinton supporters "cherry-pick" the facts to support their point of view.

[Bluetiger]

Does anyone really remember the JFK election? When he was elected he wore a top hat in his inaugural. Why he didn't even like hats. He was trying to emulate FDR. So let me get this straight "Mr. O I'm Present" is trying to emulate someone trying to emulate FDR. Why not eliminate the middle man?

[DonRoberto]

Good points, but let's be fair. If we are going to take credit for Kennedy's civil rights legislation away from him because it only passed posthumously under LBJ, then you must also hand LBJ credit for the escalation in Vietnam. The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was in August 1964; the first American combat contingent didn't arrive there until 1965, almost 18 months after the JFK assassination.
Just keepin' it real!

[hrayovac]

He who wrote this column, McCullom, thinks nothing of the bravery that these men, the Kennedys and King had when standing against the rotting core of fifth columnists within the American government.

He displays an ignorance that is broad and seemingly based on pop history a la shallow Wikipedia entries.

The Kennedy family was and is, very proud. But now you have the depressingly arrogant so-called hero of the left Noam Chomsky who keeps harping that Kennedy's directive 263 was identical to the directive after his death, 273 which accelerated the war...contrary to the truth that Kennedy wanting us out of Viet Nam.."After all it is there war."

I hate revisionists. "This is my country", as Curtis Mayfield said. Our history belongs to the people who have lived it.

[Semper]

There are those who do and those who talk. This happens to be 2008, so you don't have to look into the rear view mirror. Obama may remind Kennedy of someone he knew in the past. But what ED did was move off the fence. He took a very bold position. But most people especially African Americans are taking a look see attitude. They don't want to offend the sensibilities of their white friends. They want to wait and be on the right side when it comes to the vote. And win of course. That explains why most African American men could not walk in the shoes of Martin Luther King. He was ready to give up his life for something he truly believed in "The equality for all in America". Its really shameful that the Black Caucus is holding back their support. Its shameful, that writers like you can't reason to see what is obvious to many. Yes, you can write but you need to be quicker and bolder in your thinking and courageous in positions that you take. Yes many Africans need someone to lead them out of the darkness to the promise land. Thats really sad. I use to think that they had more courage to lead themselves out of the promise land. But the effects of slavery is deep and I guess people just can't get up and feel free. And I won't spare you any comfort either. What have you done right lately to fight for all citizens standing in the world? Maybe if Obama is elected President your self image will improve and you may be a better person and come out from all that out from underneath all the shit you write about. You should writing about the hearts of men. All men. You write to change and influence peoples thinking. You should write to educate, and inspire. You should write with integrity. You won't change he world, but you will change one or two and you would have done your job. Stop taking the path of least resistance.

[truth101]

You entirely fail to grasp JFK'S greatest failure -- transforming the government into Galbraith's NEW INDUSTRIAL STATE. McNamara came from GM and looked upon the armed forces as a labor force which could be deployed to defend the likes of Saigon -- well known at the time to be the worlds greatest brothel. The best and the brightest survived the assassination in 1963 and have had a decisive role in the devastation of those same armed forces in the present conflict.
JFK is a sorrowful model to contrast the BIG O with...

[tbone99]

Thank you for some truthiness! this whole Camelot JFK thing is totally based on looks, youth and Jackie.If JFK had served a second term there might not have been any civil rights legislation.Don't forget J.Edgar Hoover was compiling a dossier on MLK- a president could have used it in any number of ways , if so inclined, to derail the movement..Fortunately LBJ , probably because of living in the South actually knew the facts of the ground and so collaborated with MLK,but received little credit for his courageous efforts.

Obama , a game changer or just a new flavor of the same old co-optation, used repeatedly in the past to sell out hard won efforts?