CQ TODAY ONLINE NEWS
Sept. 17, 2009 – 4:38 p.m.
Wrong Side of History
By Tracie Powell, CQ Guest Columnist
The all-white crowd gathered round, seething with anger about change, which they felt was being shoved down their throats.
Some pumped demoralizing signs into the air, others shouted down anybody they didn’t feel were on their side. It didn’t take long for the name-calling and insults to commence.
“Somebody started yelling. Lynch her! Lynch her! I tried to see a friendly face somewhere in the crowd — someone who maybe could help. I looked into the face of an old woman and it seemed a kind face, but when I looked at her again, she spat on me.”
These are the words of Elizabeth Eckford. She is not talking about town hall protesters or tea baggers. Eckford, one of nine black students to integrate Central High School in Little Rock, Ark., was recalling how hundreds of white protesters — with backing from powerful politicians — tried to block her and eight other children from entering a public school in 1957.
They became known as the Little Rock Nine.
Protesters faced by the nine youths repeatedly warned that if blacks were allowed into “their schools” (much like the “their country” sentiment currently being echoed) it would harm their children.
It is ironic that thousands of angry, mostly white protesters converged on Washington last weekend at the same time I happened to be reading Cooper v. Aaron, a 1958 Supreme Court case stemming from the Little Rock Nine. The case is about Arkansas Democratic Gov. Orval Faubus and his refusal to obey federal orders to integrate the state’s schools. His defiance caused Republican President Dwight Eisenhower to send in federal troops to force Faubus to follow the law.
Chaos erupted. Vitriol and rowdy demonstrations spread not only throughout Arkansas, but across the country.
The nation was so polarized that it was nearly impossible for most people to foresee what many now take for granted: Integration would benefit the whole country, not just a particular demographic group.
We also now know that those screaming protesters were on the wrong side of history.
Some may ask what the Little Rock Nine story has to do with the current health care debate, especially when the apparent villain in the case was a Democrat and the hero, a Republican.
Here’s a clue: This column is not really about race. It’s about the way history repeats itself, and about our place in it.
Faubus’ opposition to allow black children to integrate Arkansas schools was politically motivated: He risked losing political support if he sanctioned integration, even though it was the right thing to do. Just like Republicans now risk losing political support if they show agreement with President Obama’s health care ideas — or any of his ideas, for that matter.
But back to Faubus.
Despite his fears, and perhaps due to some of his racist actions and rhetoric, Faubus won re-election. He was still governor when Democrat John F. Kennedy succeeded Eisenhower in the White House. He was still governor in 1964 when Democratic President Lyndon B. Johnson signed historic civil rights legislation; he also was there to watch many of his fellow Democrats flee to the Republican Party because of it.
Faubus, however, remained a Democrat. And I should note that at some point he came to realize that he was standing on the wrong side of history.
Over time, Faubus went beyond just softening his stance on race; he eventually broke with the White Citizens’ Council and eventually decided to stand on the side of righteousness.
Though just a couple of years earlier Eisenhower had sent troops into Arkansas to usher in change that helped define a generation, his party is most remembered for standing in opposition to the vote of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Faubus, on the other hand, is best remembered for endorsing the Rev. Jesse Jackson — an African American — in the 1984 Democratic presidential primary.
Life, they say, is full of ironies.
Perhaps it is this sense of history that led former President Jimmy Carter to say this week that racism is an issue Obama is facing in getting bills passed through Congress. It is probably this same sense of history that led Rep. John D. Dingell , D-Mich., to remark earlier this summer that angry opponents to health care overhaul, who took over town hall meetings, reminded him of the KKK.
Both Dingell and Carter were around during the time lynching, which the Little Rock Nine faced head-on, was common practice.
More to the point, all of this makes me wonder just how history will judge those who now stand in opposition to the signature issue of our time: Meaningful changes in health care that will benefit all Americans.
From where I sit, they seem to be standing on the wrong side of history. Again.
Tracie Powell is a former American Political Science Association congressional fellow and writes regularly on politics and policy.
Comments
Ms. Powell - I've read garbage in my day and this may rise to the top of the heap. Congratulations Ms. Powell is writing the most despicable column I've read on the health care debate.
You are an idiot! Why should conservatives help Obama nationalize healthcare? It's anathema to everything they stand for. Do you think that if Obama was instead named Smith and a Blue-Blood who could trace his ancestors back to the Mayflower, that, all of the sudden, the GOP would be jumping at the chance to help him take over 1/6 of the nations economy? Are you that blinded by skin color? Who are the real racists here? It is you on the left who have injected this strawman into the debate. Hank Johnson talking about white sheets. Jimmy Carter talking out of his ass again. Maureen Dowd, what can you say about that wretch, except that she needs a man, fast. Actually, I hope you fools on the left keep this nonsense up, all it does is piss good people off. That's a sure-fire way to get them in the voting booth.
I picked up sometime earlier this the following insight: Conservatives were on the wrong side of the civil war, the wrong side of the civil rights, and now are on the wrong side of health reform. What seems to go unnoticed (and as you article implies) is that health reform -- ostracized as "socialism" -- has followed the same arc as antipoverty and "Great Society" programs. What helped the neocons after 1964 was the successful racialization of anti-poverty programs and government in general. A nation of white men, fearful and angry that their power would be taken away from them, eagerly drank the Kool-Aid offered by the likes of Reagan and his fictitious millionaire "welfare queens." At the same time, modern-day eugenicists such as Charles Murray offered pseudoscientifc rationales to do away with programs that "didn't work." Blacks were intellectually inferior and doomed to be stuck in the underbelly of society and nothing could be done about that. The violent reaction against healthcare reform has its roots in that same type of thinking. Look at some of the rhetoric and its easy to see in the "I'm not your ATM machine" signs at the most recent protest, for example. Again, it's the racialization of a public policy, the scapegoating of the working poor and people of color who are labeled, not as niggers, but as socialists. the irony is that most of the people doing the bidding of the status quo are most often those as negatively affected by a broken and immoral healthcare system.
I am old enough (barely) to remember the crowds opposing integration as it was then known. It made me scared and somehow ashamed. When I see the people who are converging on Washington today and who spent the summer rudely shouting down reason at town hall meetings, I am reminded of those crowds that made me fearful so many years ago. There is an ugliness there that confounds me. But still there is hope because, as you say, they stand on the wrong side of history.
Ms. Tracie: Could you be in the bag any more obviously for the President? FYI, the percentage of GOP Senators voting to end the Democrat fillibuster of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and for its final passage, were higher than the Dems. Many Republicans had grave Constituitional doubts about the Public Accomodations section of the Act because of the overly broad definition of "interstate commerce" and taking away the freedom of "Mom and Pop" LOCAL businesses to choose their customers. If all the race baiters (ex. Jesse Jackson, Sr., Al Sharpton, Rep Hank Johnson, D-GA, and Maxine Waters, et.al.) would allow racial healing, assimilation, and normal day to day interactions amongst the people, the U.S. would be a far better place. You should know better than to peddle this drivel.
This younfg lady's word have the clarity of truth comprehended across generations. I needed to hear this - especially from someone who has not received hatred as her heritage, but the love so many of my fellow Christians seem to have lost in the midst of their irrational fear of a future larger than themselves. God bless.
The funny thing about this article likening the vitriol in the 50's to the vitriol today is looking at the vitriol in this comments section. I would think if healthcare reform in any form were a bad thing to do, simple reasoned arguments would suffice rather than calling reporters "idiots" or their work "garbage." It seems that anyone on the wrong side of history watching the tide go the other way is always going to go down kicking and screaming. Because their counter arguments are never strong enough, they need to bring the level to personal attacks and boorish behavior. Meanwhile, I just want accessible and affordable healthcare that costs the least for our tax payers and our businesses. However it's done. So long as it gets done. Is that so wrong?
Ms. Powell, You are mistaken to think that healthcare reform is a Democratic issue. Senators and congressmen from both parties see the need for healthcare reform. Most Republicans and some Democrats disagree with his approach to reform. Also, according to recent Gallup and Rasmussen surveys, most of Americans do not approve of the President's proposals. Wanting intelligent, well conceived healthcare reform does not put you on " the wrong side of history."
LBJ knew that signing civil rights would lose the Dems the conservatives they had had up to that point to the Republicans. Indeed it was the moment when liberals went to Dems and conservatives switched to Rep. Regardless of party name conservatives have been on the wrong side of everything since the beginning of history--otherwise, per conservatives, we would have never left the conservative traditional housing known as the cave. Again, in 20 years, everyone will realize that progressive has its roots in the word progress, and they have once again been on the wrong side of history.
[[[prettybrowneyez said Faubus' opposition to allow black children to integrate Arkansas schools was politically motivated: He risked losing political support if he sanctioned integration, even though it was the right thing to do. Just like Republicans now risk losing political support if they show agreement with President Obama's health care ideas -- or any of his ideas, for that matter.]]] And this is the major tragedy of it all. People get elected and then become more concerned with the 'squeaky wheel' who gets media attention, rather than the majority of level headed folks who would rather not grab a pitchfork to head for the barn burning.
Let me start out by saying I am not for segregation, because I am not. What is interesting here though is that the protesters were probably right, just for the wrong reasons. There is no question that public schools have gone straight down hill since desegregation took place. It wasn't because of mixing blacks and whites though. The problem was it took control of the schools away from the towns that ran them. The problem was desegregation. The correct answer was not busing. The correct answer would have been to send children to the nearest school. In most cases, black kids had to walk past a white school to get to a black one. The intrusion by the Federal Government started the destruction of local public support for local schools, and started us down the road to larger school districts, with bloated administration staff, and rules set down by central planning offices of the Department of Education. And our kids get a High School Diploma with no usable job skills, and a limited, if any, ability to read. If the whites hadn't been such butt heads to start with none of this would have happened. But an answer to an obvious wrong is not necessarily the best answer. You are correct, those protesters then are spouting much the same thing as the protesters today who might also not be wrong in their fears. The problem is they complicate the decision of coming up with a right answer, because they will never accept it. So they end up with a worse answer for everybody.
This is what many rep. fail to recognize, here is where the beginning of the turn of the Parties. Sure, you can claim race has nothing to do with it but the truth is in the images, stories and messages many town hall, 9/12 rally protesters made reference too.
I think you hit the nail on the head . I also think those yelling "socialism " should educate themselves , or start paying for the services they recieve now they get for free that are according to them socialist . No more free rides ! call the cops PAY need the fire dept ? let's check you bank acct ! PAY ! kids in school ? PAY ! like jesus ? well pay at the door no more free rides down with socialism ! I demand to pay and be exploited !!! I don't need safety either , get the federal goverment out of my work place ! if my boss wants to pay a dollar an hour that's what i'll take ! if he wants me to work 7 days a week 16 hours a day and juggle chain saws on saturday by god i'll do it ! Seriously I think republicans are ignorant parrots who would walk right off a cliff if we let them ..I'm often tempted these days .
Ms. Powell's column rightly parallels these two sad periods in our American history. The polarization and heated emotions we are experiencing today are almost as great as those of the fifties. I see friendships deteriorating under the strain of this divisive issue. What issue are we talking about here? Federal spending? Socialized medicine? Bush had huge federal spending. Clinton tried to push health care reform through. Neither Clinton or Bush experienced "Tea Parties." Why the revolt? Why now? Race can be the only answer. Some Americans cannot and will not entrust their future, their money or their health to an African-American president.
POST A COMMENT
Oops! The following errors must be addressed: