Hillary’s Real MLK Problem

At first I took it as another, yawn, white rip-off of black culture and creativity: the Rolling Stones appropriating the Bo Diddley beat, Bo Derek sporting corn rows, and now Hillary giving Lyndon Baines Johnson credit for the voting rights act of 1965. If you had to give this honor to a white guy, LBJ was an odd choice, since he’d spent the 1964 Democratic convention scheming to prevent the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party from taking any Dixiecrat seats. By Clinton’s standards, maybe Richard Nixon should be credited with the legalization of abortion in 1972.

But Clinton’s LBJ remark reveals something more worrisome than racial tone-deafness – a theory of social change that’s as elitist as it is inaccurate. Black civil rights weren’t won by suited men (or women) sitting at desks. They were won by a mass movement of millions who marched, sat in at lunch counters, endured jailings, and took bullets and beatings for the right to vote and move freely about. Some were students and pastors; many were dirt-poor farmers and urban workers. No one has ever attempted to list all their names.

There’s a problem too, of course, with the conventional abbreviation of the Civil Rights Movement into two names – Martin Luther King, Jr. and Rosa Parks. What about Fannie Lou Hamer, who led the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party’s delegation to the 19464 convention? What about Ella Baker, Fred Hampton, Stokely Carmichael and hundreds of other leaders? The Great Person theory of history may simplify textbook-writing, but leaves us with no clue as to how change actually happens.

Women’s rights, for example, weren’t brokered by Betty Friedan and Gloria Steinem over tea. As Steinem would be the first to acknowledge, the feminist movement of the 70s took root around kitchen tables and coffee tables, ignited by hundreds of thousands of now-anonymous women who were sick of being called “honey” at work and excluded from “men’s” jobs. Media stars like Friedan and Steinem did a brilliant job of proselytizing, but it took an army of unsung heroines to stage the protests, organize the conferences, hand out the fliers, and spread the word to their neighbors and co-workers.

“Change” is this year’s Democratic battle cry, but if you don’t know how it happens, you’re not likely to make it happen yourself. A case in point is Clinton’s 1993 “health reform” plan. She didn’t do any “listening tour” for that, no televised town meetings with heart-rending grassroots testimonies. Instead, she gathered up a cadre of wonks for months of closed-door meetings, some so secretive that the participants themselves were barred from bringing in pencils or pens. According to David Corn of The Nation, when Clinton was told that 70 percent of Americans polled favored a single-payer system at the time, she responded sarcastically with, “Now tell me something interesting.”

She could have gone about things differently, in a way that wouldn’t have left 47 million Americans uninsured today. She could have started by realizing that no real change would come about without a mobilization of the ordinary people who wanted it. Instead of sequestering herself with economists and business consultants, she might have met with representatives of nurses’ organizations, doctors’ groups, health workers’ unions, and patient advocates. Then she could have gone to the public and said: I’m working for a major change in the way we do things and it’s going to run into heavy resistance, so I’ll need your support in every possible way.

But she did it her way, and ended up with a 1300 page plan that no one, on either side of the aisle, liked or could even comprehend – proving that historical change isn’t made by the smartest girl in the room, even if she shares a bed with the president. Similarly, she ignored the anti-war movement of this decade and alienated untold numbers of Democratic voters, feminists included.

I’d like to think that Obama, with his community organizing experience and insistence on firing people up, gets it a little better. But whoever is elected president this year, there won’t be any real change in a progressive direction without a mass social movement to bring it about – either by holding the president accountable or by holding his or her feet to the fire. And a mass social movement doesn’t begin at the top. It begins right now, with you.

Comments

[osipov]

Clinton and hubby have been too "close" with the Bush family. It seems she's just a democrat that goes along with Bush. I'm hopeful Edwards comes out on top.

[Delia]

As President, Johnson actually had a tremendous effect on civil rights, one that generally goes unremembered in the delusional reverence for Kennedy; a candidate for President who is as much of a wonk as Hillary is would be expected to know and respect that.

[Anarcissie]

Senator Clinton is simply being more open and explicit about her ruling-class point of view than most big-time politicians. For them, the point is not to create progress or improvement but to manage what changes do occur so that they and theirs can stay in power. As you say, the energy that brings things about comes from below, and for the elites is mostly a nuisance.

I doubt if Obama and Edwards are all that different, and the other Democratic candidates have been eliminated by the media.

"... She could have gone about things differently.... " I don't know about that. A new system of medical care and funding would require a lot of energy from below. The reason many European countries have a Single Payer system is not because their lords and masters gave it to them but because unionists and socialists demanded it and struggled for it. In the United States, people won't even join unions, much less found socialist or cooperative institutions. They expect goodies to be handed to them by the elites they appear to worship -- still, after all these years of disappointment. So Clinton is merely telling us what is: a few arrangements will be made, those which least inconvenience the rich and powerful. Why is anyone surprised?

[barbsright]

Hillary is a 'dingbat'. She tries to justify herself as an agent for change by comparing herself to LBJ, but LBJ was elected with JFK because LBJ was for change and recognized the 'grassroots' basis of it. The very fact that she has to claim 'change' bona fides proves that she is not about change. If you have to say it, then you are not it! If I was a businessman I would hire her, but not for a CEO position. Unfortunatly for her the presidency is a CEO position.

[Peter]

i highly doubt Hillary believed what she said - she just got some bad advice and it came out of her mouth too quickly. Then, it was too much of a task to walk it back completely. It worked into her theme of 'action not rhetoric' - problem was, it just had a bigger-than-anticipated side effect. Stuff happens all the time - we're not hearing what they think, we're hearing what they want us to think they think.

but i agree with the mass social movement sentiments. where do we find one of those?

:)

this obama clip is pretty funny:
http://therealnews.com/web/index.php?thisdataswitch=0&thisid=795&thisview=item

"he's gonna change the way politics is delivered in America."

can I get some 2%, please?

[Larry In Lethbridge]

What a wonderful system you Yanks have where the candidate who raises and spends the most on TV advertising gets the nod or the win. And you wonder why your country is in deep shit . I do hope you all learned something by electing Shrub Bush though(twice).

Hillary after 2 or 3 severe strokes will be a more effective president than Dubya.I hope you know that.

[Finn_Danaan]

There is no such thing as change when a level of complacency exists as it does today amongst the American populace. It's going to take some seriously hard times for that kind of change to be brought about. It won't be happening in this election. I'm hoping for real change but at the same time scared to death of it because it will probably do me in, seeing as how I'm fairly near the bottom already, in the economic sense.

[Colin]

Yes, let's all wait till Americans rise up and demand a better life. Sure, that is going to happen. Americans are just so intellectual, aren't they? Everyone talks about politics all the time. Everyone knows who their senator, representative is...Ha, Ha. When a culture is in downfall, the systems look the same, people still vote or pretend to, or sleep in. Politicians pretend they care. We are living in an America which is a shadow of its former self. Go to Chicago and look at the "L" (subway) traks they were great 90 years ago, I bet they shined. Now, they are the same tracks rusted and rotting through. the subways go slow over bridges because they are afraid they will collapse. Everything is rusting, and eroding. hte dream of America is over.....They may have to turn off the t.v. or their I-pods in order to participate more fully in our so called democracy. I am not optimistic. Let's all wait and see. I agree with Finn nothing is going to happed, don't kid yourselves. Maybe a large scale depression will wake the fatties up a little bit. McDonalds will always be cheap enough to keep Americans well fed though, don't worry. Larry is right, we do deserve this, don't forget that. It's unfortunate that the Europeans will be pulled down with us to a great extent. Our economies are intertwined. England is just becoming Muslimized anyway. Sorry Larry, but you didn't have Bush, but what is happening to U.K.? Yuck! This downfall of America is really the downfall of the whole Western World, isn't it? The writing is on the wall. My grandmother used to watch through Chicago all night on her way to work, and there was no problem. How far would she get now. Demographically Chicago is very different. People don't have the same cultures, work ethic, values etc. For each member of the greatest Generation that passes away, who replaces them? The slacker with the I-Pod, watching porn and playing video games, or the gangster want to be with a gun? We are just going through the motions. Students sit in class, but don't really learn anything. Some people are convicted of crimes, while others aren't. We are just appearing to live in a Democracy, get it? Barbara knows this to be true, but I guess her reputation demands that she pretend to care. Dark days are coming...

Colin, writing from the wasteland.

[Judith Stadtman Tucker]

When Hillary Clinton's campaign pulled up stakes in New Hampshire, the only thing they left behind was serious rift in the local Democratic establishment and a pro-choice community that may fracture due to tensions caused by the Clinton campaign's strategic misrepresentation of Obama's record on reproductive rights. (If this is what "women's leadership" looks like, frankly I can live without it). On the other hand, ground-level operations of the Obama campaign in NH were designed to build grassroots capacity, and supporters around the state are already regrouping to keep the momentum going. Because of the Obama campaign, people who never organized anything more ambitious than a PTA bake sale are learning how to be political activists. In fact, the thing that finally persuaded me to support Obama was that his outreach and field operations were based on a community organizing model. The mainstream media has not picked up on this phenomenon, but I think it's a very positive development for the progressive movement.

-- JST, writing from Portsmouth, NH

[Larry In Lethbridge]

Wow, Colin you sound as if you are in agony with the current state of affairs. I think I do understand your angst though.
The slothful youth of today have been transfixed by technology.
Common decency has been abandoned and I'm not sure who or where it will return.

The evangelicals take a lot of heat for their stance on certain issues, but what is wrong with what they preach? Common decency and goodwill towards man. I think many punks today could use a good dose of this.

Oh and get rid of your handguns, Good American citizens. Why do yeah need them anyhow ? The right to bear arms argument? HAHAHA

[Deborah]

The problem is, only two people's feet are being held to the fire: Hillary for being a woman and Obama for being black.

They're unreasonably being asked to explain the unexplainable. How does being a woman or being black make you "different" from the other 43 White Presidents we've had.

I'd really like someone to start asking the white guys questions like this. Instead of "Is America Ready for a Black President" how about asking, "Do we really need another White Guy considering the past history of the others?"

[chris]

Obama is not going to win the Democratic nomination and Hillary is not going to win the election.

It all boils down to that. Meanwhile, Barb seems to think there's some huge social upheaval in the offing. But that's not happening either.

As usual, only a small percentage of Americans are in knots about various events and conditions of things. As usual, there's an even break between the two sides on any issue.

Meanwhile, with respect to the presidential race, Obama is running the Seinfeld campaign about nothing. And Hillary is running the John Cusack campaign, better known as Say Anything.

Obama will benefit temporarily from the flap over MLK. How it got started is a mystery. But it's now following the Don Imus handbook of racial contrition.

Bill, like Imus, had to ask Al Sharpton for forgiveness. Now Obama is linked to Sharpton, the kiss of death for his campaign. Well, almost. It will get worse if Louis Farrakhan's name comes into things.

[The Accountant]

As far as I am concerned, Ron Paul is the only real candidate in this election. But before hardcore democrats boo, remember, Dr. Paul is the only candidate who has said from the beginning of his campaign that he will end the war in Iraq and bring our soldiers home from Iraq right away. None of the democrats have said this, only Edwards about a week ago (a little too late?) The corporate-owned main stream media ignore him - or try to make him look like a "kook" - because he goes against the Bush/war agenda, yet he thrives in the independent, internet media. Dr. Paul has a long history of fighting for civil liberties. Every bit of mud slung his way falls straight to the ground. I love this guy (can you tell?)
Anyone who loves the work of Barbara Ehrenreich can fall in love with the message of Ron Paul. I met Barbara years ago and had her sign my book "Nickel and Dimed." She is brilliant... and so is Ron Paul. I would like Ms. Ehrenreich to do an article on Dr. Paul if possible as I respect her opinion.

[roger]

this is manufactured theatrics. as if senator clinton is the least bit interested in either johnson or king.

" Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. … It took a president to get it done. "

This is what hillary said on january 7. now it appears that the analogy is that hillary is lyndon johnson and that if americans want results then they need to vote for her. obama represents king in the analogy. obama will present the aspiration but president hillary will provide the result. political theatre and soundbites.

[John]

Ms. Ehrenreich:

Reading this post, I'm reminded of those immortal lyrics from Grand Funk Railroad:

"You're some kinda wonderful."

[chris]

It took only a day. The name of Louis Farrakhan has been linked with Obama.

Hence, a black man with a muslim name has been linked to the Black Muslims. This connection damages Obama far more than any other issue. He has not repudiated Farrakhan, and based on his evasions in relation to Farrakhan, Obama won't. He's cooked.

[Andrea]

Thank you, Barbara, for saying something that I have found irksome to the nth degree for a long time. So many young people say, "Oh sure, I know all about the Civil Rights Movement." Then I have to read the same tired rhetoric about Rosa Parks and "I Have a Dream". I gently suggest that they ought to look into the movement a little more deeply, and they return more detail on the Bus Boycott and the march on Washington. That movement for civil rights began decades before MLK and Rosa Parks, with, as you have said, masses of nameless people making efforts that added up to huge differences.

Now, MLK and Rosa Parks did more than their fair share. Leaders are important, as are symbols and rallying cries. The problem, however, is that we present Martin Luther King, Junior, the dreamer of happy dreams and the maker of rousing -- yet entirely peaceful -- speeches; we also present Rosa Parks, who quietly planted herself in a seat and refused to move. What kind of model of change is this? No one is angry, or desperate, or voicing anything stronger than a moral truth. This is not the reality of people who need change. Honestly, five bucks to anyone who can tell me more than one sentence of anything that Rosa Parks said on that day when she was arrested.

If this is the model of change we learn, en masse, as young people, and we learn to revile anyone who expresses thoughts that really do challenge the status quo, how can we expect anything more than more of the same? Then too, we need to learn more about why we don't need more of the same. We need to see more than eloquent men dreaming a dream of equality, or quiet women arrested for sitting. We need to learn about pain, and we need to learn enough respect for those who feel it to want to end the pain.

[Colin]

I agree with Chris. Hillary cannot win. There is also no popular uprising. Americans are simply too stupid, too distracted, and too well fed to rise up. Many are so big that it is hard for them to rise out of their chairs let alone run into the streets. Killer Capitalism is the winning way. Communism failed, remember Barbara. No one wants to share what they have, and besides everyone has a unrealistic opinion that they too will be rich one day. So why penalize the rich? Only a small minority of intelligent, well connected people will win under today's rules, but I guess that is how Americans want it. They want individualism, lets give it to them.

Colin

[Brian]

Hillary strikes me as a woman of average middle class, college educated intelligence even if she is a law school graduate. She seems somewhat introverted by nature but pushed onto the public stage for complicated personal reasons. I don't see any real call to duty or special gifts or a messianic message that some of the others have. She simply seems to be running for personal reasons that seem bred more on personal issues than any "vision". The truely scary thing about her is you keep seeing the old Bill Clinton cabinet and policy wonks very much involved as if they want to capture control of the government again. But we already had 8 years of a Clinton government and frankly little was accomplished in the final analysis except airing our junior high laundry on the world stage. Compare that with the Bush presidency which launched two wars we are told of, and a massive empowerment of corporate America over the public domain whether it be abnegating the FCC, SEC, EPA, Treasury, etc responsibilities to do the "people's" business. This completely negates the countervailing force model of advocating pro-public policies in a corporate dominating society model that we live in. I have no idea if Obama or Paul or Huckabee(minus Kucinuch, the radical contingent) or any of the others have any better realistic ideas or doable skills. So simple electing Hillary for being a woman, is foolishly sexist, and really just electing the flip side of the Clinton's and we have already done that. I think if Hillary were really her own person she would have grown into new relationships with a whole new group of advisors and wonks outside of Bill's cabinet. So is this Bill's way of recapturing his diminsihed presidency? I don't blame him after what the republicans did to him, but I don't think it will do us any particular good. But if using his wife as surrogate constitutes "change" its just one more application of the appalling American spin machine and only going to make us 4-8 years older without bringing us a fresh competent presidency that taps other people of talent in our country of 300 million than the same dozen and a half faces. A person shouldn't aspire to be president as simply another stint to add to their job resume and personal goal list. They should really do it for us, and show that they mean to. All I get is their state to state travels and voting contests, but absolutely nothing about what they really stand for or plan to do that is different, or even something they can state in a sentence or three. Its really not our job to put Hillary in power because its a closely held personal goal of hers and somehow will make her feel complete. I think that is what she is asking us to do though. The scariest thing about all of this, is we may be a very crazy country to give any president so much power over us and the world stage over a state to state beauty voting contest. In theory if the vested interests and big money wanted to they could pick out a sandwhich maker at a delicatessan and make them ruler of the world by simply winning a beauty contest against a panel of truely experienced candidates. The presidents we pick are essentially prime ministers of the world at this point in history.

[Susan Haley]

I pretty much agree with all the comments made here. What astounds me is if this is representative that the 'common folk' do see the handwriting on the wall, why do we continue to let the media do our thinking for us? Why do we continue to put up with the corruption? If the candidates are all peas in a pod out for their own self aggrandizement, and most are, why does the populace continue to play the games? Why don't we boycott the polls? It won't matter who wins anyway. Nothing will change. Why don't the few critical thinkers DO something? We complain about the apathetic who are led around by the nose by all the media pundits. We complain about the lazy iPod generation, the folks that only care about their own entitlements and to hell with who has to pay for it. We hate the graft and the corruption, the wars and the inequity. But, what do we do? Not much besides moan and complain and continue to play the games. We should all be engaging in nonviolent revolution. We should boycott the system and refuse to play the games. But we won't. We'll take what we can get for ourselves, vote for who we think will best provide it, and continue to moan and complain.
Yes, we are a dying empire. History does repeat itself, millennia after millennia.
I'm a white female and I'm ready to risk the INexperience of Obama, or really stick my neck out and vote for Ron Paul. Hillary is a well oiled cog in the machine.
But, I doubt it matters. We've come past the point of return.
Susan Haley, Author

[Sera]

Re: Railing on "the common folk", the "apathetics", the "fatties", the "youth", and so on...

You know, it could be seen as slightly elitist to treat with contempt those who most likely have simply not gotten the same education as you, were not encouraged to be as critical from as young an age, were conceived and raised in the more toxic conditions which are common in the more polluted neighborhoods and which do in fact cause signifigant brain damage, have been to jail and therefore aren't allowed to vote, don't speak English as well, and maybe are just trying to get by in a world that slowly shrinks their ability to feed and house themselves.

I certainly wish more of these people could be a part of this discussion.

As for the apathetic youngsters, we're here. We just often don't see the point in getting involved in the charade that is American electoral poltics. Just because we'd rather be actually working on that uprising than talking about a bunch of lying oligarchs with you doesn't mean we're taking it lying down, kay?

PS. What about Malcolm X?

[Colin]

Thank you Susan for a little reality check! It is too late! Let's drop the crap. How many people even read this website or understand what we are talking about? Maybe a hundred, that and another hundred of Barbara's friends do not a grassroots movement make. We are a pretend Democracy. Everyone should read "Dark Ages America" by Morris Berman, and get real. The end is coming, and no grass roots b.s. is going to change it. People are too busy watching t.v. and eating Big Macs to go out into the streets. The recession is coming - probably a global depression. We are past the time for helping the poor. If they didn't make it during the boom years, what chance do they have in the upcoming storm. This will not end in a nice way.

Colin writing from the wasteland

[Brian]

speaking of Malcom X, in his biography wasn't he originally in prison for armed robbery of a bank? I hardly would call this a revolutionary act for the people any more than the SLA was your friend. The tellars must have seen their lives passing before their eyes as they stood between the rich untouchable system and an amoral armed bank robber. How does this make him a man of the people? Further, you can be all the other races in this country and see we need change for the better. When you make it so ethnocentric as if one is righteous and the others aren't you turn off so many good people. Obviously the whole slavery area in the US, and frankly central and south America(look it up, its amazingly wide spread) was horrible, but I cannot respect a man who would put such fear into people just doing their clerical jobs supporting their families. That is a fundamental flaw in one's character, the meanness that caused that kind of intrusion. Compare that to a man that led the passengers of a sunken ship in world war 11 on rafts in the south pacific to safety for days on the open seas. They were Chinese and he was an American. Now that is a man of the people so if Malcom had done that I would see reason to respect what he said. But he didn't: he just grabbed a microphone and a cause and wore dark sunglasses. Big deal, Jim Jones did the very same thing, but his gig ended very very badly.

[Sera]

You really ought to read what the man wrote about his own past.

He made some mistakes, and then he grew up a little, got some education, and was able to explain coherently why what he did was wrong.

He was hardly the unintelligent sociopath with nothing useful to say that you seem to be implying he was.

[Tom]

i've been waiting for that "mass social movement" to happen for the past 7 years over Bush policy (hey, pick one!), but it has never materialized. Not over anything from Katrina to FEMA, not from Kyoto to the EPA, not from the lack of health care or the new bankruptcy laws, the daily news or the coming ecologic disaster we're fomenting. All of which indicates that everyone is asleep but going through the motions, no one believes anyone can do anything about anything by protesting (maybe it takes a "revolution" - but that ain't happenin' either), and/or no one in charge is paying any attention to the masses. Most people are too busy conducting their own lives - trying to make ends meet, getting "entertained", shopping, and all the other distractions - to do anything strenuous about politics and policies. Moreover, i believe that most Americans don't care about much of anything (including themselves if you look at what they eat and how they live). Whatever a superpower was supposed to be, it's no longer the case that America is one any longer. When your economy begins to meltdown, the currency becomes devalued to scrip, the debt burden becomes ridiculous, and you borrow your future at an ever-increasing rate while the financial sector continues to write off more billions in "bad debt", it's safe to say you're no longer super anything but broke.

[Hol]

Read Colin's post in these comments. He is prophetic, and he says truths, but truth is not allowed in our lovely diverse society now. And don't discount his thoughts because of his typing, fools.

[YRM]

Barbara has written passionately about the poor for years, yet at this crucial juncture in history has chosen to pick nits with the only supportive candidate who has a shot of winning the White House. Since that preposterous race against Alan Keyes for the Senate in 2004, Barack Obama has been Karl Rove's trojan horse in the Democratic Party. (Read the Time article or the one on my website.) Once the G.O.P. rolls out its Tony Rezko attack ads next fall, he's finished, and we'll get four more years of the same grinding poverty we would all like to end. Hillary is no Eleanor Roosevelt, but at least she shares Barbara's world view, and will no doubt not repeat the mistakes of the past if she becomes President. And speaking of mistakes, I think next November, the acclaimed writer of Nickeled and Dimed will regret that she didn't stand up on a soapbox and endorse the Wellesley graduate when she had the chance.

[Mark Schindler]

There were many who wanted civil rights for the colered. The ones who were able to change the laws best were Gandhi who did it for the majority, and King who did it for a minority. Then there was Douglass who pushed Lincoln and was for Womens suffrage. People died before Congress would act. Laws were changed not hearts.

Hillary's cry recalled the glass ceiling for women,
but skin color affects both men and women.

If she had had Bush's information she might have voted no but she never said that. Obama
listens and can be persuaded.

[kathy]

There is an aide for Bill Clinton that is withholding information about him flirting and approaching women still. She may be witholding it until she is nominated and then the republicans will win.

[kathy]

I meant when Hilary is nominated this aide will come out with the info.

[sohbet odaları]

Thanks a lot

[GBS]

Are there any MLK Holiday cartoons that come on every year like Charlee Brown or Grinch? I am trying to make one for FOX new holiday compitition. Out of over 500 entries only 2 are about MLK.
See my cartoon below ( 2mins )

http://www.aniboom.com/animation-video/392520/MLK-Extraterrestrial-Americans-Holiday-Special/