For those disparaging LBJ 'signing that little piece of paper'

[Tactical Progressive]

It is well-recognized political history by everybody, as well as the expectations of the Democratic politicians who chose to do it at the time, that signing that little piece of paper cost this country most of forty years of very dominant right-wing rule.

Anybody who minimizes that should reconsider referring to themselves as a Democrat.

[DURHAM D]

1. Amen -

And I don't think it would pass today or at in point in the past 30 years.

[Captain_Nemo]

2. PLease explain to me. Are you saying that the Civil Rights Act is the cause of having

Reagan, Bush and Bush in the WH???

[uppityperson]

3. I've not been on to see what you are talking about. What little piece of paper?

???

[Captain_Nemo]

4. He's talking about the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that gave African Americans and women things

like equal pay for equal work....

[uppityperson]

5. That gave us 40 yrs of RW in WH and anyone disparaging this isn't a dem?

Now I'm really confused.

[Captain_Nemo]

7. Me too. The post is unclear and not factual. I'm moving on.

[Anouka]

11. So it would have been better for the Dixiecrats to remain Democrats?

Since the DEMOCRATS (in spite of JFK and RFK) were the ones leading the filibusters against Civil Rights, and talking all that mess about never having the two races mix.

LBJ did the right thing.

What else would you have had him do, though?

[uppityperson]

18. I was trying to figure out what OP meant.

Seemed to be saying that by signing Civil Rights act we got many yrs of RW in WH. Trying to figure out if that was it or how that conclusion was arrived at.

[FlyingSquirrel]

6. Does... not.... compute.... please rephrase

[suston96]

8. This seems a follow-up to accusations of Hillary dissing Martin Luther King by saying that........

....what Martin Luther King accomplished with his activism was validated by LBJ who pressed the Congress for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Is that correct?

[Tactical Progressive]

12. Yes, that's it

Only more than just 'validated'.

I read a number of posts diminishing everything but MLK as noteworthy about the Civil Rights Act.

"all LBJ had to do was sign a piece of paper"

That's just historically wrong, and demeaning to all Democrats.

Creating and passing the Civil Rights Act wasn't just some formality of a signature. It took a phenomenal amount of political courage, political skill, and political capital to pass the Civil Rights Act. The political capital was enormous; pretty much every bit that Democrats had, and then alot more.

Hillary's point is valid. The politics involved is monumentally important.

[featherman]

9. Historically, there can be little disagreement that the signing of

the Civil Rights Act in 1964 signalled the end of the "Roosevelt Coalition" that had effectively ruled the country with few exceptions (1952-1954, is one exception) since FDR's second term.

Maybe our younger members are less aware that the South used to be the "solid South"... solid for the DEMS. The long shift to it becoming the heartland of the Republican Party instead began from that moment, then sped along considerably by Nixon's Southern Strategy, and capped in 1994 by Newt Gingrich's "Contract with America" capture of the House overturning 50 years of Dem control.

It has taken a while for the DEMs to regain the majority once it had purged the party of the socially conservative "Southern Wing" and rebuilt a new geographical coalition that now consists of New England, the Mid Atlantic, Upper Midwest, and the Pacific Coast.

This has been a long transformative process that has turned the party into more of a center-left party than the unwieldy right-center-left
amalgamation that had been FDR's legacy.

(this whole topic is really more book-length than a brief blog post... there are several treatments)

[lastliberalintexas]

14. Reportedly, at the signing ceremony LBJ

acknowledged to those close to him that he had just delivered the South to the republicans for generations to come. Unfortunately, he was correct.

[Tactical Progressive]

17. fantastic summation featherman

Thanks much.

[uppityperson]

19. Thank you that makes sense of the OP. nt

[Anouka]

10. No one's disparaging.

The paper would not have been signed without the blood of Americans willing to fight for it, and believe it's signing was possible in the first place.

LBJ's action required King's action and dreaming.
JFK's action required King's action and dreaming.
RFK's passion and action came after King's action and dreaming.
LBJ's action took advantage of JFK's martyrdom.
King's own actions were birthed of his father and mother's dreams/actions, and the dreams/actions of those around him that it is possible, and the dreams of those who came before.

King came before RFK's commitment came before JFK came before LBJ.

The dream came before the action.

The action would not have existed without the dream behind it.

That does not disparage LBJ. It's just the way it is. LBJ risked a hell of a lot to sign that piece of paper. It just wasn't what MLK risked.

Saying LBJ was more important than MLK/JFK, and calling one's self LBJ to your opponent's MLK/JFK -- that's just stupid.

[lastliberalintexas]

13. I have to take exception to the JFK assertions

Kennedy did very little in the admittedly brief time he was president to secure the CRA. In the end, it took LBJ's support and arm twisting to get it passed in Congress.

What LBJ did in no way compares to King, Evers, Chaney, Goodman et al did. But JFK probably accomplished even less than Eisenhower on the civil rights front.

[suston96]

15. Kennedy got very little action from Congress, especially the deep south....

It took LBJ's noted jawboning - he was a mater at it - to move the southern Democrats to get the civil rights bills passed.

Fact is, Hillary was correct in her statement. All of MLKing's great work would have been for naught without the Congressional action. That was his intent and purpose. And it was only the beginning.

[Tactical Progressive]

16. You're the only one who has said 'LBJ was more important than MLK'

When you created a strawman as the summation of your argument, then knocked him down.
That doesn't really win the point, or even make an argument.

More importantly, you muddle dreams and action.

If Martin just dreamed, we'd have nothing.
If Martin just talked, we'd have nothing.

Martin dreamed and he talked.
Martin marched and he organized.
Martin politicked and he pushed.
Martin risked his life.

Those aren't dreams, those are actions.

Long before the Civil Rights Act was even written there were actions and there was courage.

Barack talks about hope. That's great. There are miles between that and fulfillment.
There is courage and action. And more courage and action. And politics and skill in governance.
Every single step is important.

Talking about hope? That's about the smallest single step there is.
Hillary pointed out that there is alot more than that involved.

LBJ hopes, actions, skills and sacrifice are very valid points,
dissed here by people who have no sense of our political history.

Hillary was right to point out what else is important beyond talk about hope.
And the Civil Rights Act is a good example of that concept.
I can't believe it is being challenged.
Let alone derided.