I call to your attention this fine article by Michael Barone, who is struck “by how many of the constituencies supporting Democratic candidates oppose, rather than seek, change — how they are motivated not by ideas about how to change the future, but by something like nostalgia for the past.”
First, he gives liberals their due:
Once upon a time, liberals were the folks who wanted to change society. They thought existing institutions were unjust and that individuals needed protection against the workings of the market. They looked forward to a society that would be different.
To a considerable extent, 20th century liberals achieved many of their goals. Racial segregation was abolished. An economic safety net was constructed. Government issued regulations were set up to protect the environment. Few Americans want to undo these changes….
With regard to issue after issue — social security, civil rights, environmental protection, feminism, foreign policy — Barone makes a persuasive case that the Democrat have become the party of “the new status quo.”
I do, however, have one quibble. With regard to civil rights, after noting that liberals still regard the Republican Party as the party of Goldwater, who opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Barone says the following:
That was a big issue, then. And never mind that a higher proportion of Republicans than Democrats voted for the bill in Congress — Goldwater did oppose it. But the Civil Rights Act has long since become uncontroversial, racial discrimination disapproved and integration of schools, workplaces and public accommodations widely accepted. Yet 40 years later, the image of the Republican Party as unsympathetic to equal rights for blacks seems to persist. Black voters seem still focused on a moment in history 40 years ago.
I would submit that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would still be very controversial … if it were enforced.
Of course, since racial preferences, for example, fly in the face of its Title VI (among others), which required the cutting off of federal funds to institutions that favor one race over another, now it is the liberal Democrats rather than the allegedly racist Republicans who flout the CRA’s requirement of colorblind neutrality.
UPDATE
Michael Barone responded by email (quoted with permission):
Thanks for your comments. You’re absolutely right about the Civil Rights Act. I like to say that I was for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in 1964 and I’m for it today.
Michael Barone writes:
>>>That was a big issue, then. And never mind that a higher proportion of Republicans than Democrats voted for the bill in Congress — Goldwater did oppose it. But the Civil Rights Act has long since become uncontroversial, racial discrimination disapproved and integration of schools, workplaces and public accommodations widely accepted. Yet 40 years later, the image of the Republican Party as unsympathetic to equal rights for blacks seems to persist. Black voters seem still focused on a moment in history 40 years ago.”
I’ve mentioned this before on this blog and I’ll mention it again. Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and Chief Justice William Rhenquist all opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. They hold places of high reverance in TODAY’S Republican movement. Reagan is especially touted by pundit and politician alike as the standard of today’s conservative movement. Why on EARTH, would a conscious African American support a movement with that dubious an historical legacy?
–Cobra
It’s true. Reagan, Rehnquist, and Bush 41 DID oppose the Civil Rights Act in 1964. That was 40 years ago.
Democrats and others who support racial preferences oppose both the spirit and the letter of the ’64 C.R. Act NOW.
John writes:
>>>It’s true. Reagan, Rehnquist, and Bush 41 DID oppose the Civil Rights Act in 1964. That was 40 years ago.
Democrats and others who support racial preferences oppose both the spirit and the letter of the ’64 C.R. Act NOW.”
So we concur that Reagan, Rehnquist and Bush 41 (and other famous individuals) opposed the CRA of 1964. Given this FACT, how can you reconcile the SUPPORT given to these individuals by the vast majority of conservatives?
What can we construe by their alliegence to individuals who certainly weren’t advocates of the document we both believe was sorely needed in America? And why is it so unbelievable to many conservatives that minority voters would have long memories regarding these and other like minded individuals?
–Cobra
May I direct you to this article. Tell us again how the evil Republicans opposed the CRA of 1964 and the virtuous Democrats all pushed it through.
http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Civil_Rights_Filibuster_Ended.htm
And here:
http://www.nationalcenter.org/P21NVDavisGore599.html
“In a recent speech to the NAACP, Vice President Gore said his father lost his Senate seat because he supported civil rights legislation. Fellow black Americans, let me set history straight. Al Gore, Sr., together with the rest of the southern Democrats, voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
“Congressional Quarterly reported that, in the House of Representatives, 61% of Democrats (152 for, 96 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act as opposed to 80% of Republicans (138 for, 38 against). In the Senate, 69% of Democrats (46 for, 21 against) voted for the Act while 82% of Republicans did (27 for, 6 against). All southern Democrats voted against the Act.
In his remarks upon signing the Civil Rights Act, President Lyndon Johnson praised Republicans for their ‘overwhelming majority.’ He did not offer similar praise to his own Democratic Party. Moreover, Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen, an Illinois Republican, collaborated with the White House and the Senate leadership of both parties to draft acceptable compromise amendments to end the southern Democrats’ filibuster of the Act. It was Dirksen who often took to the Senate floor to declare, ‘This is an idea whose time has come. It will not be denied.’ Dirksen’s greatest triumph earned him the Leadership Conference of Civil Rights Award, presented by then-NAACP Chairman Roy Wilkins, for his remarkable civil rights leadership.”
Cobra, what say you about Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WVa, but you know that), who not only opposed the 1964 CRA but famously filibustered it for fourteen straight hours (this is back when a filibuster meant actually having to speak continuously, rather than simply shutting off debate), and went on to six years as Democratic Majority Leader and (IIRC) another six as Minority Leader? Why should blacks trust a party that gave such a man such power for so long?
(And, yes, I’m leaving out the most damning bit of his CV.)
Don’t confuse Cobra with the facts.
What does this have to do with my indictment of Reagan, Bush I, and Rhenquist? What defense are you offering for the white conservatives of ANY party affiliation who voted AGAINST the CRA, and are STILL AGAINST it today?
Show me a liberal, Affirmative Action supporting, pro-choice, pro-gay rights, labor supporting, populist, progressive Republican candidate for any position and I’ll consider voting for him or her.
–Cobra
Interestingly enough, the Democrats argued against the Civil Rights Act because it would ban state-mandated segregation, which restricted individual freedom. Republicans argued against it because it could be misused to allow government the power to restrict individual freedom.
The GOP opponents have been consistently proved correct.
Cobra,
What does this have to do with my indictment of Reagan, Bush I, and Rehnquist? What defense are you offering for the white conservatives of ANY party affiliation who voted AGAINST the CRA, and are STILL AGAINST it today?
Well, you wrote up top that
[Reagan, Bush I, and Rehnquist] hold places of high reverence in TODAY’S Republican movement. Reagan is especially touted by pundit and politician alike as the standard of today’s conservative movement. Why on EARTH, would a conscious African American support a movement with that dubious an historical legacy?
OK; I pointed to a Democrat who held about the most powerful position in the Party for more than a decade, long after 1964; who not only opposed the CRA but actually led the opposition to it. I asked, I think reasonably enough, why African Americans ought to support a party capable of putting such a man in such a high position, repeatedly. Do you really think my example is irrelevant to your point?
As to whether Bush I and Rehnquist are “STILL AGAINST” the 1964 CRA, have you any evidence of this at all? You have posted none. As for Reagan, I think he signed an extension of the Act in one of his terms.
Show me a liberal, Affirmative Action supporting, pro-choice, pro-gay rights, labor supporting, populist, progressive Republican candidate for any position and I’ll consider voting for him or her.
You do know that the actual text of the CRA prohibits affirmative action as you understand it, right? And that the legislative history makes it clear that the Senators enacting the bill understood explicitly that it forbade racial preferences, right?
Anyway, your litany of requests above is a good deal more conflicted than you know. For one thing, “progressive” and “populist” aren’t only not synonyms, but practically antonyms. “Progressives” want a great many things, but not always or even usually what the common people want, which is what “populists” argue for. Pat Buchanan, for example, can call himself a “populist” with some justification, because there really are a lot of people who do want what he says he will fight for. His agenda, alas, doesn’t include affirmative action, gay rights, abortion rights . . . possibly because the “people,” if you survey them all, are at best conflicted about all three. Whereas the soi-disant “progressives” aren’t conflicted at all.
If you went into an Oregon logging community, Cobra, do you think you would find the “progressive” and “populist” positions the same? Or might they differ, just a tiny bit?
Michelle writes:
>>>As to whether Bush I and Rehnquist are “STILL AGAINST” the 1964 CRA, have you any evidence of this at all? You have posted none. As for Reagan, I think he signed an extension of the Act in one of his terms.”
I have frequently posted evidence for my belief that Rehnquist is an unrepentent racist on this blog. Here is one source:
http://www.geocities.com/justice_watch/rehnquist_information.html
And more:
http://members.tripod.com/~american_almanac/rehnquis.htm
Read this passage from “The Broken Promise of Brown” by Julian Bond:
>>>What distinguished the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush was their attacks on virtually all components affecting segregation and discrimination in American education.
After passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the first President Bush, then a House member, told his fellow Texans, “The new Civil Rights Act was passed to protect 14 percent of the people. I’m worried about the other 86 percent.”
The percentage of black students at majority white schools in the South went from zero in 1954 to a peak of 43.5 percent in 1988, proving there is nothing wrong with Brown’s premise. It is Brown’s promise that has been broken
Cobra, so far as I can see, you don’t have any evidence at all that Bush I and Rehnquist oppose the CRA, or that Reagan did during his presidency. You cite Bond quoting Bush I “after the passage of the CRA” — presumably soon after, i.e., 40 years ago. You don’t say anything more about him or Reagan except (Bond again) that they “attack[ed] virtually all components affecting segregation and discrimination in American education.” But the 1964 Act wasn’t about education; Brown, a decade earlier, was about education. The CRA was about desegregating “places of public accommodation.”
Oh, never mind. Cobra, just find me a relatively recent statement by any influential Republican to the effect that the 1964 CRA should never have been signed into law. Just one.
I don’t think you quite got my point about populism vs. progressivism. There are cases in which the main opposition to the “progressive” cause is from the “little people” who are supposed to be the “populist’s” natural constituency. It is hard, for example, to be simultaneously “progressive” and “populist” about gay marriage, at least outside large cities. You see what I mean?