The GOP is the party of civil rights . . . don’t forget that

| June 9 2012
Christopher Cook

The subject of the Democrats’ largely vile history on civil rights, and the Republicans’ largely noble one, is a subject about which I have written many times over the past seven years. It all began back in 2005, at the Liberty Film Festival in Los Angeles, when I saw the film Emancipation, revelation, revolution. My eyes were opened to facts I simply had never heard. I was infuriated by the fact that I had been misled for so long about American civil rights history; I began to research more, and to write a lot about it. I also worked with and got to know activists in Los Angeles for whom this subject is very important, such as the indefatigable Ted Hayes.

I haven’t written on the subject as much recently. New events and priorities—looming economic disasters near the top of the list—have come up over the last few years. But it is something that still matters to me.

A short time ago, I flagged an article for future reading, but—again, with so many different events occurring—I didn’t get to read it until today. But I still wanted to call it to your attention. It covers a history and reality that—if you were not aware of it previously—you definitely want to commit to memory. Truth is truth, and it mustn’t be lost.

The Party of Civil Rights

This magazine has long specialized in debunking pernicious political myths, and Jonah Goldberg has now provided an illuminating catalogue of tyrannical clichés, but worse than the myth and the cliché is the outright lie, the utter fabrication with malice aforethought, and my nominee for the worst of them is the popular but indefensible belief that the two major U.S. political parties somehow “switched places” vis-à-vis protecting the rights of black Americans, a development believed to be roughly concurrent with the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the rise of Richard Nixon. That Republicans have let Democrats get away with this mountebankery is a symptom of their political fecklessness, and in letting them get away with it the GOP has allowed itself to be cut off rhetorically from a pantheon of Republican political heroes, from Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass to Susan B. Anthony, who represent an expression of conservative ideals as true and relevant today as it was in the 19th century. Perhaps even worse, the Democrats have been allowed to rhetorically bury their Bull Connors, their longstanding affiliation with the Ku Klux Klan, and their pitiless opposition to practically every major piece of civil-rights legislation for a century. Republicans may not be able to make significant inroads among black voters in the coming elections, but they would do well to demolish this myth nonetheless.

Even if the Republicans’ rise in the South had happened suddenly in the 1960s (it didn’t) and even if there were no competing explanation (there is), racism — or, more precisely, white southern resentment over the political successes of the civil-rights movement — would be an implausible explanation for the dissolution of the Democratic bloc in the old Confederacy and the emergence of a Republican stronghold there. That is because those southerners who defected from the Democratic party in the 1960s and thereafter did so to join a Republican party that was far more enlightened on racial issues than were the Democrats of the era, and had been for a century. There is no radical break in the Republicans’ civil-rights history: From abolition to Reconstruction to the anti-lynching laws, from the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the Civil Rights Act of 1875 to the Civil Rights Acts of 1957, 1960, and 1964, there exists a line that is by no means perfectly straight or unwavering but that nonetheless connects the politics of Lincoln with those of Dwight D. Eisenhower. And from slavery and secession to remorseless opposition to everything from Reconstruction to the anti-lynching laws, the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, the Civil Rights Act of 1875, and the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1960, there exists a similarly identifiable line connecting John Calhoun and Lyndon Baines Johnson. Supporting civil-rights reform was not a radical turnaround for congressional Republicans in 1964, but it was a radical turnaround for Johnson and the Democrats.

The depth of Johnson’s prior opposition to civil-rights reform must be digested in some detail to be properly appreciated. In the House, he did not represent a particularly segregationist constituency (it “made up for being less intensely segregationist than the rest of the South by being more intensely anti-Communist,” as the New York Times put it), but Johnson was practically antebellum in his views. Never mind civil rights or voting rights: In Congress, Johnson had consistently and repeatedly voted against legislation to protect black Americans from lynching. As a leader in the Senate, Johnson . . .

Do yourself a favor and READ THE WHOLE THING to the very end. You won’t be disappointed.

0 comments

Trackbacks

  1. […] an earlier post, we discussed the subject of American civil rights history and linked to a fantastic monograph by […]