American civil rights

[Luke Pemberton]

Just got back from Selma, and it gave me a tinier glimpse into the US Civil Rights movement of the 1960s.

While watching the film, I wondered whether the Vietnam war accelerated Civil Rights in the US. The reason I ask is that King took a line of argument to President Johnson, namely that he would send Americans to fight in Vietnam but would not send the Army to the south to protect its own citizens. I certainly recall that Malcom X took this line to agitate and mobilise. It had me thinking about where America was at the time with its political consciousness. What would be the contemporary analysis of America during the LBJ Presidency and the civil rights movement. Was it really a wagon that was started by JFK (?) which LBJ could not stop, or were there other factors that drove forward change rapidly under LBJ?

[Echnaton]

While I am far from knowledgeable about the situation, my understanding is the movie portrays LBJ as far less supportive of King than he really was.  Done this way for dramatic intent. 

LBJ was supportive of civil rights from early in his career.  Not always publicly though because of the times and his need to get elected.  Being able to raise the dead for election day was a big help in that regard though.

Texas no doubt had its share of abuses and racism was a legal institution.  But the situation was no where nearly as bad as in the Deep South where racism was a deeply embedded personal and class fight.  Like most such fights, it was as much over securing access to scarce jobs among the poor as anything else.  Northern institutionalized racism was largely over jobs too. 

As far as using the Army, that is a standard line of political rhetoric that can be used for any situation.  If we can do .... then why can't we do.......  The use of the Army directly would have been, and still is, a violation of the law. The President can under strict circumstances invoke the National Guard, as happened in the North and South on some occasions to protect civil rights.  However it took an expansion of powers just to do that.

My recollections from reading about the period in school, which are no doubt colored by being taught in Texas schools, is that for JFK, civil rights was a political position, for LBJ is it was a personal commitment.  It has some appeal though when comparing the formative experiences of the son of and East Coast elite family to a farmers son, born in a small house near dusty Stonewall, TX.   However it seemed that it took both of them to bring acceptance of the civil rights movement to the federal government and the nation.

How does the movie treat J Edgar Hoover?

[Luke Pemberton]

How does the movie treat J Edgar Hoover?

He appears a couple of times in the film. I have a limited knowledge of Hoover, but I would say he is portrayed as I would have expected, a man who is not soft on 'undesirable' elements. At one point he describes King as a deviant. He provides one of the sub-plots in the film, viz. a man who can 'fix a situation' by digging up dirt. He mobilises the FBI to bring King down, beginning with an attack on his marriage.

[Luke Pemberton]

Being able to raise the dead for election day was a big help in that regard though.

Please explain more, I think I understand the tone of this statement?

[Echnaton]

Being able to raise the dead for election day was a big help in that regard though.

Please explain more, I think I understand the tone of this statement?

LBJ narrowly won his seat in the the House of Reps. by getting "late" votes on recounts in several South and West Texas counties.  IIRC in some precincts, there were more votes cast that there were actual living voters.  It seems the dead's love for LBJ caused them to rise from the grave?

Purging voter roles is controversial because it tends to disenfranchise the living too.  So the dead tend to stay on the roles for some time.  They also provide a vote slush fund for corrupt officials.

See this 1990 book review from the NY Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/1990/02/11/us/how-johnson-won-election-he-d-lost.html

It discusses the primary election that selected the Democratic candidate, because Texas was at that time nearly a one party state.  The liberal and conservative factions were wings within one party. This dates back to the Northern and Republican imposed Reconstruction after the Civil War.  The general election was a formality almost everywhere.  Johnson's civil rights stance ultimately won on the issue but also started a major split among the Democrats.

[Echnaton]

How does the movie treat J Edgar Hoover?

He appears a couple of times in the film. I have a limited knowledge of Hoover, but I would say he is portrayed as I would have expected, a man who is not soft on 'undesirable' elements. At one point he describes King as a deviant. He provides one of the sub-plots in the film, viz. a man who can 'fix a situation' by digging up dirt. He mobilises the FBI to bring King down, beginning with an attack on his marriage.

That is pretty much my understanding of the actual events.  King was a passionate  man who lived out his passions in many ways.  His infidelity was nothing particularity unusual.  But provided an opening to his political enemies to hold him to some idealized middle America standard that would have required him to be an idealized saint.  A standard that was easily overlooked in leaders with whom middle America could personally identify.  Just look at JFK. 

[Luke Pemberton]

That is pretty much my understanding of the actual events.  King was a passionate  man who lived out his passions in many ways.  His infidelity was nothing particularity unusual.  But provided an opening to his political enemies to hold him to some idealized middle America standard that would have required him to be an idealized saint.  A standard that was easily overlooked in leaders with whom middle America could personally identify.  Just look at JFK.

The film portrays him as a very principled individual, a man who believed in non-violent protest. The infidelity side was touched upon, but the plot mainly stayed with the theme of Selma and the interplay between King, LBJ and Wallace.

The friction between King and Malcom X was all but briefly presented where King's wife Coretta met with X, but this play was more about divisions that the FBI and Wallace could exploit.

The film is generally worth viewing. It certainly gave me a new insight into LBJ.

[Echnaton]

The film portrays him as a very principled individual, a man who believed in non-violent protest.

That would be the salient point of King that differentiated him from most others, IMO, and the reason to make a film.  Just from what I've read about Slema, I would be circumspect about the details in the portrayal of LBJ, who is used for dramatic intent to personify the broader "system" and highlight King's strengths, rather than for personal historical accuracy. 

[gillianren]

I really wanted to see Selma, but it was out of theatres before I was gearing up for my annual Oscarpalooza film watching, the one time of year I go to the movies a lot and without Graham.  Actually, almost everything was out of the theatres this year, so I don't have much to go on.

On the other hand, I have studied a lot about the Civil Rights Movement.  JFK wasn't particularly interested; it was Bobby who pushed for him to call Coretta Scott King when MLK was in jail, because Bobby cared more and was able to make an argument about how it would play.  When LBJ became President, he used a lot of "we must pass this for our fallen leader!" to get Civil Rights legislation passed, but it was mostly a line.  Some years before, all Southern congressmen but three signed a document against integration and equal rights for blacks.  Those three were Al Gore, Sr., Estes Kefauver, and Lyndon Johnson.

When he signed the Voting Rights Act, he said, "This will lose us [the Democratic Party] the South for a generation."  But he did it anyway.

[Luke Pemberton]

I really wanted to see Selma, but it was out of theatres before I was gearing up for my annual Oscarpalooza film watching, the one time of year I go to the movies a lot and without Graham.  Actually, almost everything was out of the theatres this year, so I don't have much to go on.

If you get the chance to see Selma then it is worth a watch. Maybe not for someone as versed in these matters as you as it still had the dramitisation factor overlaid, but as a British citizen it made for an interesting watch. I much preferred Lincoln, I felt that was less Hollywood than Selma.

JFK wasn't particularly interested; it was Bobby who pushed for him to call Coretta Scott King when MLK was in jail, because Bobby cared more and was able to make an argument about how it would play.

I was always under the impression that it was JFK's personal crusade.

When he signed the Voting Rights Act, he said, "This will lose us [the Democratic Party] the South for a generation."  But he did it anyway.

I was actually quite surprised looking at the 1977 election where the Democrats won the college vote across the south during Carter's election to office. Now, someone can help me here.

I understand how the electoral college vote works in terms of deciding the President, but does it mean that if every state votes Democrat based on the college vote, not a single Republican is returned to the House of Representatives or Senate? I was looking at Regan's first election, and he swept the board in the college vote.

[Bob B.]

I understand how the electoral college vote works in terms of deciding the President, but does it mean that if every state votes Democrat based on the college vote, not a single Republican is returned to the House of Representatives or Senate? I was looking at Regan's first election, and he swept the board in the college vote.

The Electoral College is used for the selection of the president and vice-president only.  Members of the Senate and House and are voted on separately; the Senate to six-year terms and the House to two-year terms.  There are two Senators per state elected on a state-wide vote.  For the House, each state is divided into congressional districts, and each district elects its own representative.  Senate elections are staggered, with roughly 1/3 of the Senate up for election every two years.  The entire House is up for vote every two years.  It is not uncommon for a State to vote for one party in the general state-wide election but vote for the other party in some of the local congressional races.

[Luke Pemberton]

The Electoral College is used for the selection of the president and vice-president only.  Members of the Senate and House and are voted on separately; the Senate to six-year terms and the House to two-year terms.  There are two Senators per state elected on a state-wide vote.  For the House, each state is divided into congressional districts, and each district elects its own representative.  Senate elections are staggered, with roughly 1/3 of the Senate up for election every two years.  The entire House is up for vote every two years.  It is not uncommon for a State to vote for one party in the general state-wide election but vote for the other party in some of the local congressional races.

That makes sense to me when we hear that a President had lost control of the Senate. So could you be in the position where you have a Democrat in the Whitehouse and the Senate and House are controlled by Republicans?

The way I understand it is that the Senate is a bit like our Lords and the House if a bit like our Commons, except that the Prime Minister's party tends to control the commons while he is in office, unless of course he has small majority or parliament is hung.

[Bob B.]

So could you be in the position where you have a Democrat in the Whitehouse and the Senate and House are controlled by Republicans?

Absolutely.  That is what we have right now.  It is actually rare that all three branches are controlled by the same party.  At the end of President Bush's administration, Republicans had the White House and the Democrats had both houses of congress.  When Obama was elected in 2008, that gave the Democrats control of everything, which is how they managed to push through Obamacare.  During the 2010 mid-term elections*, the Republicans gain control of the House of Representatives (largely as a means to check the Democrats and keep them from having total control of the agenda in Washington) .  In 2012, Obama was re-elected while the Democrats retained the majority in the Senate and the Republicans the majority in the House.  In the 2014 mid-term elections, the Representatives took over control of the Senate, giving them majorities in both houses of congress.

* Mid-term is the name given to elections that occur in non-presidential election years.

[Luke Pemberton]

When Obama was elected in 2008, that gave the Democrats control of everything, which is how they managed to push through Obamacare.

That's what I thought, and why I asked. The staggered elections of Senate and 2 year elections to the House really turns over the politics in Washington? So when the President does not control the House or Senate how does he ratify bills?

When Blair got elected here in 1997 and 2001 he had some imposing majorities he pushed through his policies very quickly. With Labour being out of power for 18 years and various back channel deals to soften the left of the party the shape of our country changed very quickly as legislation was pushed through.

[Bob B.]

That's what I thought, and why I asked. The staggered elections of Senate and 2 year elections to the House really turns over the politics in Washington? So when the President does not control the House or Senate how does he ratify bills?

A bill is introduced in congress and must be approved by both houses of congress before it go to the President.  The President then must sign it for it to become law.  (If the President vetoes the bill, it can still become law with a 2/3 vote from each house of congress.)  Obviously when control is split between parties, more compromise is necessary to get anything done.

Right now the two sides are so fundamentally opposed on almost every major issue that there is little compromise.  Congress currently has historically low approval ratings, and Obama's approval is poor as well.  When the Democrats controlled everything, they largely shut the Republicans out of the process (such as pushing through Obamacare with little consideration for Republican ideas, and without obtaining a single Republican vote).  Thus, when the Republicans gained back the House, they tried to put the brakes on the Democrats' agenda.  When the Republicans in the House passed their own bills, they went to the Senate and got swallowed up by a black hole named Harry Reid (the Democrats' majority leader in the Senate).  Reid wouldn't even allow the bills to be debated in the Senate, much less be voted upon.  Last November the voters gave the Republicans control of the Senate and a larger majority in the House.  The Republicans aren't exactly popular, but the voters obviously became disgusted with how things were working in Washington, particularly the disfunction in the Senate, and felt a change was needed.

I have no idea how things are going to work out under Republican control of congress.  Having control of both houses should allow them to get some bills passed.  Whether or not Obama signs them is an entirely different question.  Obama seems to me to be an ideologue that doesn't know how to compromise.  And the Republicans don't have the majorities needed to override a veto.  I don't have much hope that we're going to see a lot of progress made over the next two years.