Imagine if our civil rights champions had the same disdain for pragmatism as some BS supporters have

[Empowerer]

Separate but Equal would still be the law of the land.

[99Forever]

1. Are you saying that "our civil rights champions" were surrender monkeys?

I must disagree. They were told the same line of crap that Camp Weathervane is selling now.

They didn't buy it or let it stop them.

I stand with them. What's your excuse?

[Empowerer]

12. It's really a shame that people like you who are so quick to "stand with" the civil rights movement

obviously know little about it, but simply have some misty-eyed, revisionist view of it.

The civil rights movement was all about pragmatism and incrementalism - without which it could never have succeeded.

Have you ever heard of Charles Hamilton Houston?

[99Forever]

14. I stood with the civil rights movement when it was happening, lady.

I highly suggest you slow your roll.

[Empowerer]

16. I ask again

Are you familiar with Charles Hamilton Houston?

[DefenseLawyer]

36. Houston was a great man.

But his legacy is as a litigator, not a politician. As you obviously know, he work with the NAACP to successfully to attack Jim Crow in the courts. That was great work. But it doesn't change the fact that politically the Civil Rights Act was not passed by the pragmatists in the government. The pragmatists argued against it but LBJ rammed it through. Politically it was swift and bold.

[Empowerer]

74. You really don't get it, do you?

The civil rights movement was not merely a "political" movement. It was a very intricately-woven movement in which the lawyers worked hand-in-hand with the political strategists to effect change. None of the political successes you keep touting would have been possible without the legal victories that CHH and Thurgood Marshall and the NAACP lawyers won over a period of 30 years.

The Civil Rights Act was the ultimate pragmatic piece of legislation and LBJ did not "ram it through" all by himself. It was bold for its time, but it was not nearly as bold as the civil rights movement wanted - but they compromised in order to get something rather than nothing - and it was anything but swift.

You have been watching too many movies - please go read some history.

[99Forever]

79. You read about it.

Some of us were there. We don't need to somebody with their own bias to " 'splain" it to us. We SAW it first hand, with our own "lyin' eyes."

[Empowerer]

84. If you were really there, you weren't paying any attention - anyone who was really there AND paying

attention would know better than to say the things you're saying.

[99Forever]

88. That's the dumbest thing I read all day.

And I've seen some real duh today.

[1StrongBlackMan]

151. Careful ... you could be seen as calling into question ...

the claim of folks that were there; but, seem to not know a damned thing that happened.

This I suspect is kind of like talking to the fan in the stands about the big game ... they may have been there; but, they have no real insight into the game strategy or the pain of the players.

[Empowerer]

181. :-)

[DefenseLawyer]

95. Changing the healthcare system isn't a "movement"

It requires changing very specific federal and state laws. That is, by definition, political. The only possible analogy to that in the civil rights movement was the passage of the Civil Rights Act, which was also a very specific change to federal legislation. Your ludicrous suggestion that being unwilling to call for single payer healthcare is the equivalent of the civil rights movement is nothing if not brash (and sanctimonious, as an added bonus). Yes the movement is long and incremental but when it came time to change federal law, it was politically bold and shocked the status quo. I'm done now. Good luck with your candidate.

[Arazi]

102. It's flamebait

OP has no desire to really engage, only provoke.

I like to kick it to expose that

[libdem4life]

105. I read these for entertainment. Of no value...just like keeping up. No ignores for me.

[FrenchieCat]

129. I disagree.....

as it is those responding who are doing the provoking....

I'm still reading through the thread but haven't found a factual constructive contribution from you
as of yet. I'll keep reading, because perhaps it is there somewhere.

[Arazi]

132. You've glossed over her responses to 99 Forever then

Defense Lawyer, 99th Monkey?

They actually tried to discuss and got flamed as sanctimonious, ignorant, not a real lawyer...

After a while her schtick becomes obvious.

[FrenchieCat]

146. There is no flames that I see from the OP.....

read the thread again....Please.

[Arazi]

149. I have and firmly stand by my point eom

[1StrongBlackMan]

157. Counselor. You are arguing facts not in evidence, and well beyond the present case ...

the OP has not indicated single-payer; but rather, the general anti-pragmatic approach of Bernie supporters on EVERY issue.

But even so, how does what you have written that argues against what the OP has put forth? She, specifically, has indicated that litigation, i.e., specific and incremental action, IS the pragmatism that Bernie supporters distain?

[DefenseLawyer]

161. Except guns, right?

oh and reparations. He's been too pragmatic on those. That being said, most of the civil rights movement has been fought outside the walls of government. I'm not at all sure how you can analogize the many facets of a movement, (litigation, protests, civil disobedience, etc) to the governing philosophy of a presidential candidate. They just aren't remotely the same thing. Pragmatism in politics has its place, but sometimes you need to champion bold change. Sometimes we actually get it.

[1StrongBlackMan]

139. I was going to jump in there; but, there is no need ...

The civil rights movement was not merely a "political" movement. It was a very intricately-woven movement in which the lawyers worked hand-in-hand with the political strategists to effect change.

The Civil Rights Act (that LBJ forced through) was the ultimate result of pragmatism ... on the side of the establishment; that could have only been accomplished through the series of (pragmatic) legal victories.

[Number23]

143. You deserve an A for effort though I have no idea why you bother trying.

The civil rights movement was not merely a "political" movement. It was a very intricately-woven movement in which the lawyers worked hand-in-hand with the political strategists to effect change.

Very nicely said.

[1StrongBlackMan]

158. Yes it was ...

but lost on the "Strike out while swinging for the fences; rather than, accept the walk" crowd.

[Ken Burch]

214. The only civil rights victory that ever mattered

was the passage of the 1964 bill.

Nothing passed prior to that was of any importance. No minor gains ever mattered when it came to ending Jim Crow.

[Empowerer]

217. You can't possibly be serious . . .

I'm going to assume that you're joking and forgot to add the smiley

[JackRiddler]

2. Imagine if you reduced and mangled history to a false talking point.

Malcolm and Martin, closer than we ever thought
http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/05/19/Malcolmx.king/

The civil rights movement prevailed until 1965 because tens of thousands of people were willing to violate unjust laws and put their bodies on the line against extremist violence, even as many liberals were urging them to be more pragmatic! "Pragmatism" doesn't get to steal that.

As I have walked among the desperate, rejected, and angry young men, I have told them that Molotov cocktails and rifles would not solve their problems. I have tried to offer them my deepest compassion while maintaining my conviction that social change comes most meaningfully through nonviolent action. But they asked, and rightly so, “What about Vietnam?” They asked if our own nation wasn’t using massive doses of violence to solve its problems, to bring about the changes it wanted. Their questions hit home, and I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today: my own government. For the sake of those boys, for the sake of this government, for the sake of the hundreds of thousands trembling under our violence, I cannot be silent.

http://kingencyclopedia.stanford.edu/encyclopedia/documentsentry/doc_beyond_vietnam/

[beam me up scottie]

3. I'd rather discuss candidates, speaking of equal rights yours adamantly opposed them:

That's just one of the reasons I don't support her but it's the biggest.

[dsc]

25. so did yours and he is on tape too

[beam me up scottie]

28. He's on tape saying marriage is a "sacred" bond between a man and a woman?

He said Vermont wasn't ready yet but he never opposed marriage equality for moral and religious reasons.

There's a difference between not wholeheartedly supporting something and opposing it enough to make impassioned speeches against it.

[dsc]

33. No he simply says no to marriage equality because it is too divisive

and you got civil unions 6 years ago and it was divisive so no marriage for you. No is still no. BTW it is precisely and exactly the opposite tack from his current position on health care which is to start over again despite the very divisive fight we had over it just six years ago. So apparently he only thinks marriage equality is divisive.

[beam me up scottie]

35. So he never actually opposed marriage equality, thanks.

Bernie voted against DOMA while Hillary went out of her way to lobby for it. And she continued her crusade against marriage equality until 2013.

[dsc]

41. Yes he did

He said no he doesn't favor marriage equality that is what the words no I don't favor marriage equality mean. I know you like to just post spam over and over again so I am sure you will post his letter from 1973 or whenever but the fact is he opposed it and while doing so took the exact, same, precise position of both his GOP opponent and the evil, vile, hateful Hillary Clinton. He was every bit as opposed to it as she was.

[beam me up scottie]

44. He said Vermont wasn't ready for it "yet".

That's not opposing marriage equality, that's saying that the state wasn't ready.

He never said lgbt people shouldn't be allowed to get married. That was Hillary.

In fact he wanted laws having to do with homosexuality repealed back in 1972, so why would he want to prevent lgbt people from getting married?

Neither of them was a champion for marriage equality but one actively opposed it and the other didn't.

[dsc]

50. He opposed it period

you can spin like a top until the cows come home and give birth to aliens but he opposed it just like she did and with reasoning that both he and you now say is ridiculous when applied to health care.

[beam me up scottie]

54. Their positions weren't comparable. Period.

She lobbied to prevent marriage equality because she believed it was morally wrong for lgbt people to get married.

When you can find evidence that he did the same get back to me.

[dsc]

57. where is your evidence she lobbied?

if you mean opposed in public they both did that? If you mean something else then you need to provide a citation.

[beam me up scottie]

59. I already posted the video once but if you insist:

Then there were her 2000 comments:

* Clinton said in January 2000 that marriage does not include gay unions: "Marriage has got historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time and I think a marriage is as a marriage has always been, between a man and a woman." She said she would have voted for the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, but again said she supported partnership benefits for same-sex couples. Gay groups expressed disappointment in her position.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2013/03/18/how-hillary-clinton-evolved-on-gay-marriage/

Find me an article or a video where Bernie said anything like that.

[dsc]

63. so they both did the same thing

he opposed it, on video, just like she did. He said, to all the citizens of VT, I oppose marriage equality, it is too divisive, we gave them civil unions 6 years ago, they should be happy with that.

[beam me up scottie]

64. No he didn't, when did he say marriage was "sacred" and only between a man and a woman?

He never defended so called "traditional" marriage like Hillary did.

I oppose marriage equality, it is too divisive, we gave them civil unions 6 years ago, they should be happy with that.

Please, now you're just making it up as you go along.

[dsc]

117. No that is the essence of what he said

[beam me up scottie]

122. No, it isn't. I don't put words in Hillary's mouth because I don't have to.

She said those things, they're on record.

If you have to put words in someone's mouth to try to prove your claim you've lost.

[zappaman]

97. The only difference is

One is Hillary Clinton, who is evil and basically Lucifer personified.
While the other is Bernie Sanders, who is on the fast track to sainthood.

Hope that helps.

[beam me up scottie]

108. That's only helpful if someone called for straw.

[Empowerer]

183. ... and reparations...

[Robbins]

4. If MLK would listen to those like you

he would never have pressured LBJ to support the 1965 Voting Rights act.

[Empowerer]

17. The problem with comments like this is that it reveals a cramped and narrow understanding of the

civil rights movement.

Contrary to such simple, revisionist stories such as Selma (a great movie, but historically inaccurate), Dr. King had very little to do with the passage of the Voting Rights Act. That legislation was a long time in coming, wasn't done overnight and took a great deal of effort and, yes compromise, mostly by people who are rarely depicted in movies.

Look up Clarence Mitchell, for example.

[frylock]

5. More bizarro world bullshit.

Google "I have a dream."

[JackRiddler]

6. Google "The greatest purveyor of violence in the world today."

[frylock]

9. MLK was Very Sensible..

they aren't even fooling themselves with this crap.

[99th_Monkey]

11. and try googling "Poor People's March on Washington DC"

[Empowerer]

22. Your problem is that you think the civil rights movement consisted of marches

The March on Washington was important, but it was only one small part of the movement.

Again, I ask if you are familiar with Charles Hamilton Houston? He was probably one of the most revolutionary minds and activists of the 20th century and in the entire Civil Rights movement and I suspect you have no idea who he even was. But without him - and his incrementalist approach, known as Houstonian Jurisprudence, there probably would have BEEN no civil rights movement, at least not anything resembling what actually occurred. There would have been no Brown v. Board of Education, no Montgomery Bus Boycott (at least not a successful one), no March on Washington, no Civil Rights Act of 1964, no Voting Rights Act of 1965, etc.

I am sick and tired of listening to people who, while perhaps well-intentioned and good of heart, mischaracterize and co-opt the civil rights movement as if it was confined to a group of people linking arms with Martin Luther King, Jr., singing "We Shall Overcome," and then marching to Washington to tell LBJ to sign the Voting Rights Act. That kind of bullshit revisionism - along with the patronizing sneering and spitting on the concept of thoughtful pragmatism that undergirded the entire, long and painful movement - does a deep disservice and insult to the people who strategized, fought and died to change this country.

I suggest that you all learn something about this movement - and not just go around saying, "Bernie marched with Dr. King" and reposting pictures of a march - before you continue your lectures about something you obviously know very little about.

And, FYI, I don't NEED to google anything about this. I was born and raised in the Movement, I was raised by, learned at the feet of and have worked with the men and women who made the movement what it is, and I continue to fight every day alongside many of these people - who are as disgusted as I am with how some of you distort and co-opt their work and commitment.

So, stop with your sanctimonious and ignorant lectures about things you don't know much about and go learn something.

[99th_Monkey]

60. I appreciate your bringing up Charles Hamilton Houston, who apparently laid much legal groundwork

that MLK Jr. was later able to build upon, as you point out so elequently. However, when reading
about him, I don't see him championing "incrementalism" or any reasonable synonym for that. Rather
what I see is an outstanding human being who devoted his entire life to undoing Jim Crow and fighting
the good fight at every opportunity, to improve the conditions of AAs everywhere, not unlike MLK Jr.

What I don't appreciate is being attacked, for merely posting pictures of the Poor People's March
on Washington, and being called "sanctimonious and ignorant" for no apparent reason.

I appreciate it when people offer me new information, especially about decent & inspirational people
who have made a huge contribution to causes dear to my heart, such as civil rights for PoC. What I
don't appreciate is when the "offering" is laced with toxic insinuations and insults.

[Empowerer]

77. You don't see incrementalism in a 20-year effort to gradually dismantle the Separate but Equal

doctrine?

Please go read what I posted again. Houston's work was founded on incrementalism.

And perhaps I should not have called you sanctimonious and ignorant, but I am deeply frustrated watching people who know very little about the civil rights movement not only co-opting it for their own political ends but lecturing those of us who do know about it and have experienced it first hand and immersed ourselves in this work as if they are experts and we are clueless. I don't appreciate being told what the movement was REALLY about by people who know less than I have forgotten about this topic - and who are just flat out wrong. I DO find that sanctimonious and ignorant. But I should should have expressed myself differently and I apologize if you were offended by my comment.

But that said, please learn more about this topic - it is not only very important to know, but it is very interesting and inspiring.

I highly recommend Taylor Branch's series of books on the Civil Rights Movement: Parting the Waters, Pillars of Fire and At Canaan's Edge - they will give you an excellent view of this complex movement. It didn't start with the Montgomery Bus Boycott, culminate with the March on Washington and end with Dr. King's assassination. And you will learn that, while he was an important and revered figure in the Movement, Dr. King was only one of many critical players - and was not, in fact, the driving force behind much of the movement.

[99th_Monkey]

173. I can only imagine that fighting racial injustice from 1929 - 1950 would require 'incrementalism'

in order to not get promptly taken-out to the nearest tree to be lynched by a KKK mob. Those years are
not exactly noted for being prime-time for making sweeping advances in desegregation, or civil rights for
African Americans.

I'm certainly not claiming to 'know more than you do' about the evolution of the civil rights movement,
and apologize for anything I may have inadvertently said to give you that impression. I remember that
book, Parting the Waters by Taylor Branch, many years ago actually, I think my ex-wife has my
copy. Perhaps I'll pick up a copy and re-read it in light of our conversation.

Thank you for your respectful response. i look forward to continuing our exchange as the primaries unfold.

[Empowerer]

174. You're right but it wasn't just to avoid personal danger - there was a bigger strategy there

Houston and Marshall knew that "separate but equal" was too deeply ingrained into the societal structure for them to be able to attack it head on. They had to slowly and deliberately build up a case in the course, which they did through a series of cases.

As you probably know, the doctrine of "separate but equal" provided that segregation by race was not a violation of the Equal Protection provision of the 14th Amendment provided the separate facilities were equal. Houston knew that the very act of segregation was designed to demean black people - to impose a badge of inferiority on them. But they knew that that point of view would never be accepted at that time.

So, instead of trying to dismantle segregation outright, they brought cases designed to enforce the law as it stood, knowing that it could never be truly be enforced since segregated facilities could never be truly equal. And they did that very strategically. They started by suing a law school for providing unequal facilities for a black law student. The case dragged on as the state kept "trying" to make the facilities equal. Finally, the Supreme Court ruled that, no matter what the school was doing, they could not provide a completely equal education to the black plaintiff because separating him from white students undermined the value of his education. They ordered the white law school desegregated.

Houston and Marshall focused on law school for a reason - they knew that the Justices had all attended law school and, therefore, understood all of the nuances of a law school education and that it was, as the court stated, "more than bricks and mortar."

They continued this strategy over the years, trying to force colleges, universities and school districts to equalize their facilities, knowing that they could never make the institutions completely equal as long as they were separated by race. This eventually culminated in Brown v. Board of Education when the Supreme Court, citing the precedents that the NAACP lawyers had painstakingly developed over the previous two decades, ruled UNANIMOUSLY that school segregation was unconstitutional.

We come then to the question presented: Does segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities and other "tangible" factors may be equal, deprive the children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities? We believe that it does . . .

In Sweatt v. Painter, supra, in finding that a segregated law school for Negroes could not provide them equal educational opportunities, this Court relied in large part on "those qualities which are incapable of objective measurement but which make for greatness in a law school." In McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, supra, the Court, in requiring that a Negro admitted to a white graduate school be treated like all other students, again resorted to intangible considerations: '. . . his ability to study, to engage in discussions and exchange views with other students, and, in general, to learn his profession.' Such considerations apply with added force to children in grade and high schools. To separate them from others of similar age and qualifications solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone. The effect of this separation on their educational opportunities was well stated by a finding in the Kansas case by a court which nevertheless felt compelled to rule against the Negro plaintiffs: Segregation of white and colored children in public schools has a detrimental effect upon the colored children. The impact is greater when it has the sanction of the law, for the policy of separating the races is usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the negro group. A sense of inferiority affects the motivation of a child to learn. Segregation with the sanction of law, therefore, has a tendency to [retard] the educational and mental development of negro children and to deprive them of some of the benefits they would receive in a racial[ly] integrated school system. Whatever may have been the extent of psychological knowledge at the time of Plessy v. Ferguson, this finding is amply supported by modern authority. Any language in Plessy v. Ferguson contrary to this finding is rejected.

We conclude that, in the field of public education, the doctrine of "separate but equal" has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.

Such a unanimous, forceful, unequivocal rejection of Plessy could never have been obtained had the NAACP lawyers not taken their time. If they had run full bore after Plessy in the 1930s, they would have been shut down, Plessy would have been upheld and strengthened and they may never had had another chance to overturn it.

I urge you to read more about this - the "Road to Brown" is one of the most inspiring and informative sagas of our American history - I actually get chills and sometimes get choked up whenever I read the opinion because it reminds me that, as Dr. King said, "the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice."

It saddens me that more people don't know about this part of our history. But I really appreciate your interest and willingness to delve into it more. I think it will make you very proud.

[99th_Monkey]

208. Thank you for your thoughtful & moving reply.

Last edited Mon Feb 1, 2016, 08:06 PM - Edit history (2)

I feel both honored & humbled that you took the time to share such heart-felt observations,
I appreciate your passion and your grasp of the subject matter, invoking the truism of MKK Jr's
words, "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice".

I've re-read your last post several times, and still keep finding things I'd missed before, a gift that
keeps on giving, as they say. So thank you again.

A little re my racism-tinged roots: I'm an old white hippy who was raised in mostly rural Oregon by
parents who were decidedly Democrats, but they never-the-less had sadly subscribed to the racism
inherent in the Zeitgeist of those times, during the 1940's and 50's. One the surface they were always
kind and respectful when engaging with African Americans, Asians and other PoC; yet there were
sometimes unflattering innuendos or things said after the fact, behind their back, as it were, things
that I sounded ugly or embarrassing to me; and I sometimes was jarred by off-color racist jokes or slurs.

It saddens me to remember all that, but the good news is it seems -- intentionally or not -- you're
inspiring me to self-reflect more on how the racist influences in my upbringing (along with my white
"privilege&quot shaped my teen/young-adult consciousness initially.

Of course, as an adult I have never considered myself a racist, and it's always considered "cool" to
NOT be racist in my social & professional circles. As an adult I've had a number of intervening
experiences in adulthood that have helped heal my racism to some extent, including marching in 60s
civil rights actions, I lived and owned a house in the Albina area of Portland, which at the time was a
thriving 95% African American community, with many resident-owned store-front cafes and businesses,
and we came to know our neighbors.

I also worked for Rob't Kennedy's campaign in both OR and CA primaries. The deciding factor in
choosing to support Kennedy instead of Eugene McCarthy was that I saw Bobby on the tv news, riding
through the streets of Watts in a sedan with it's top down, and there were Watts residents, packing the
streets, pouring out of doors, there was so much power in that connection -- hopeful & joyful tears -- that
it pushed me into the Kennedy campaign, and I've never regretting that decision.

Six years before the '68 primaries, I inadvertently stumbled into the middle of the Watts Riot; had been
hitchhiking w/girl friend, picked up by 3-4 Latinos, who soon started pulling out guns and talking about
"shooting n***ers" and we were horrified, and ask to be let out of the car. So they pulled over and we
got out, on an elevated freeway/expressway w/ no sidewalks. We didn't know for sure where we were,
but we could hear occasional gunfire and smell the smoke of burning buildings; we knew something big
was up.

Eventually a motor cycle cop pulls up and we're excited to find out what was going on, and perhaps he
could call a cab to come pick us up. He was cold, all business, including giving us citations for the crime
of being "Pedestrians on a Freeway". He told us there was a riot going on, then said he couldn't call a cab
because cabs "were NOT providing rides in or out of the riot area at this time". So he called a police service
van to come take us out of the area. When the van came, the driver was black. I loved the irony, which
got even richer when we promptly had a flat tire; so the driver and and I were in the middle of the Watts
riot changing a tire on our way of escaping to relative safety.. we still were kind of in shell shock from the
whole experience. Anyway, this ^ experience heavily influenced my decision to work for Bobby.

Sorry I got a little carried away & didn't really mean to bore you with my whole life story. In closing, I'm
admittedly still a work in progress re dealing with my latent racism; which is difficult to hear my self say,
but I know is true to some extent. Be well, and take good care. ~99thMonkey

[Empowerer]

211. This post has touched me beyond words

I will answer when I have the time to respond appropriately with a post that your thoughtful and kind words deserve. But in the meantime, thank you. You have made my day.

[SMC22307]

153. The Pragmatists have had half a century... how much more fucking time do they need?

Christ, those pics are over 50 years old.

"JOBS FOR ALL NOW!" "A DECENT PAY." DU's Sensible Centrists must be affluent, with no clue as to what it's like to struggle at minimum wage.

[FrenchieCat]

142. I have a dream....

that someday.....

But few - just 5 percent - think all of the goals of Martin Luther King and the 1960s civil rights movement have been achieved. Thirty-eight percent think most of these goals have been met, but 52 percent (including 63 percent of blacks) think only some of the goals of the civil rights movement have been achieved.

Moreover, most Americans say discrimination against blacks exists today, and blacks are far more likely than whites to think it is pervasive. Forty-one percent of blacks say there is a lot of discrimination against African-Americans today, compared to just 14 percent of whites who say that.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/50-years-after-civil-rights-act-americans-see-progress-on-race/

[frylock]

150. Someday... next week? Next year? Next century?

[FrenchieCat]

155. 50 years after the Civil Rights Movember, we still have racial discrimination in this country,

and even though, we now have a Black President....
who clearly understands discrimination.....
we always knew that it didn't mean he would hand us over what we wanted....
and we just can call it a day.

Just because you want to elect someone who believes in Single Payer,
you probably still won't get what you want until you have done the hard work,
and I don't mean marching for a couple of months...

and in fact, thinking that you can elect the unelectable
and simply march behind him and get the government you think we should have,
please note that you may simply end up with 100% GOP control
not just of the Houses in Congress, and the White House,
but eventually, the Supreme Court,
and set the back the timing as to when you will get any of what you are currently demanding,
by years, if not decades.

That's the point.

[Skidmore]

169. Hear! Hear!

So much the point.

[sheshe2]

175. Boom. nt

[Empowerer]

184. Damn, Frenchie! You're good!

[Hoyt]

7. I'm glad to see heroes like John Lewis, Maxine Waters, etc., supporting Clinton.

[oasis]

21. They know you can't get what you want by wishful thinking.

It takes a lot of work over an extended period of time.

[Hoyt]

23. Exactly. I like Sanders' dreams, but they are just that in today's environment. I'm for progress

toward those dreams.

[Vinca]

8. Our civil rights champions were like the "no we can't" crowd? I don't think so.

And, by the way, Bernie was one of those civil rights champions.

[AtomicKitten]

65. Pragmatism as a goal is for cowards. Champions push the envelope of change.

[Empowerer]

82. Your calling great civil rights leaders "cowards" is despicable

Your view that pragmatism is a cowardly act and that cannot "pushing the envelope of change" shows just how uninformed you are.

Please go learn about this subject before you post any more about it.

[AtomicKitten]

85. Could you wash your hands before putting words in my mouth? Thanks.

[FrenchieCat]

131. Pragmatism is not a goal....

it is an approach. Just sayin'!

[AtomicKitten]

138. Not when she approaches issues with "NO WE CAN'T"

(Hey FC. Nice to see you again. )

... this after excoriating Candidate Obama with "Since when do Democrats attack one another on universal health care - undermining core Democratic principles."

[FrenchieCat]

152. The Civil Rights Movement was due to years and years of hard work....

and small and larger victories throughout the years,
with many unsung heroes, some who lost their lives,
coupled with slow progress that culminated in the 1964 Civil Rights Act....
and we both know that is a fact.

Regardless of what you think of Hillary,
and what I think of Sanders,

that facts still remains and "the going the distance" is the frame that the movement personified.....

The movement was characterized by major campaigns of civil resistance. Between 1955 and 1968, acts of nonviolent protest and civil disobedience produced crisis situations and productive dialogues between activists and government authorities. Federal, state, and local governments, businesses, and communities often had to respond immediately to these situations that highlighted the inequities faced by African Americans. Forms of protest and/or civil disobedience included boycotts such as the successful Montgomery Bus Boycott (1955–56) in Alabama; "sit-ins" such as the influential Greensboro sit-ins (1960) in North Carolina; marches, such as the Selma to Montgomery marches (1965) in Alabama; and a wide range of other nonviolent activities.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_(1954%E2%80%9368)

[AtomicKitten]

156. The disdain BS supporters expressed was with specific reference to healthcare

... and that's what I was specifically addressing. Generally speaking, there is nothing wrong with tempering idealism with pragmatism, but that's with the understanding that the effort continues towards the ideal.

My point was that Hillary has been bought by the healthcare industry to the tune of $13 million and she now says the ideal - single-payer - is "never, ever going to come to pass."

[Empowerer]

134. Bernie Sanders supported civil rights movement and did

some laudable things, but he was not in the same category with the people I'm talking about.

[DefenseLawyer]

10. The Civil Rights Act

Was a bold stroke. There was nothing incremental about it. Yes it took a long time to get there, but to suggest that it was some piecemeal series of small steps is factually wrong.

[JackRiddler]

13. It's not just factually untrue.

It's shockingly and morally wrong, a Big Lie, in this case on behalf of a very small cause.

[Arazi]

18. It's flamebait imo, designed to rile and provoke with misinformation

Ugly



Kennedy called for the Civil Rights Act on 6/11/63

Johnson signed it 7/2/64

A bold and very fast move indeed

[Empowerer]

52. Are you serious? You think the Civil Rights Act was first proposed by JFK?

PLEASE go read something before you post anything else about this.

[Arazi]

67. Whoosh

[FrenchieCat]

125. Incorrect, and when a simple statement of fact becomes flamebait....

because what one says is accurate, that's a sad state of affair.

It is the responses that are the flamebait, not so much the OP's point, which is an accurate point....
Why what you have just stated is make believe history taught to White America. Cause everything in America,
must have been quick and easy!

[Arazi]

128. Upthread she slammed anyone who tried to discuss

99th Monkey, Defense Lawyer etc.

They tried in good faith and got called ignorant, sanctimonious, and more. That's not discussing Frenchie Cat, it's flamebait designed to provoke.

[dsc]

29. that ignores a whole lot of incremental steps along the way

there was an entire legal strategy that was very incremental. They started with graduate schools and then colleges before Brown v Board. Even the civil rights bill didn't address voting nor marriage equality for interracial couples for example. Alot of that early history is forgotten but it still happened.

[JRLeft]

39. A lot of lawsuits at that.

[Empowerer]

38. The entire civil rights movement was based on a "piecemeal series of small steps"

You really should learn more about this before trying to lecture me any further about this. You are completely out of your league here. Trust me.

Here's something you can start with:

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/jimcrow/stories_people_houst.html
Charles Hamilton Houston was the chief attorney for the National Association of Colored People (NAACP). Houston was primarily responsible for developing the legal strategy that eventually led the United States Supreme Court to declare segregation in American schools unconstitutional.Among his students were Thurgood Marshall, Oliver Hill, and Spottswood Robinson, all of whom would play major roles in overturning segregation in the courts. From 1935 to 1939, Houston served as special counsel for the NAACP and became the architect of the legal challenge to Jim Crow. He felt that the weakest link in the chain of segregation was education, since black and white schools were unquestionably unequal in every Southern state. In Gaines v. Canada (1939), Houston argued before the U.S. Supreme Court that it was unconstitutional for Missouri to exclude blacks from the state's university law school when, under the "separate but equal" provision, no comparable facility for blacks existed within the state. The Court agreed.

In methodical fashion, Houston applied his belief that if the NAACP could build up enough smaller victories in the courts, there would be enough precedents established for the Court to eventually declare all forms of segregation in education unconstitutional. Houston's efforts came to fruition only after his death in 1950, with the historic decision in Brown v. Board of Topeka Education (1954) decision. Segregation was prohibited in public schools, and soon it would be declared unconstitutional in all its forms.

http://americanhistory.si.edu/brown/history/3-organized/higher-education.html

One of the most influential figures in African American life between the two world wars was Charles Hamilton Houston. A scholar and lawyer, he dedicated his life to freeing his people from the bonds of racism ...

A long-range strategic plan grew out of extensive research about the most effective means of destroying segregation. This plan involved mobilizing civil rights plaintiffs and lawyers in local African American communities. Over time, the NAACP’s Legal Defense Fund won a series of groundbreaking cases that chipped away at the edifice of segregated university education. These victories served as the legal foundation for a head-on attack on state-imposed segregation.

http://americanhistory.si.edu/brown/history/3-organized/power-of-precedent.html

The strategy of civil rights lawyers was to get the Supreme Court to make a series of judgments in support of racial integration. These judgments became legal precedents and the foundation for dismantling segregation in public schools.

The legal precedents:

1938 Missouri ex. rel. Gaines v. Canada
1948 Sipuel v. Oklahoma State Regents
1950 McLaurin v. Oklahoma
1950 Sweatt v. Painter

[DefenseLawyer]

45. Your cutting and pasting skills are laudable

However, you are substituting the NAACP legal strategy, which was quite obviously incremental, with changes to federal law legislatively, which was not particularly incremental. Yes it took a long time to get to 1964, but when the time came a bold and sweeping law was passed. One that many said at the time was too bold and couldn't be done. I understand you are trying to make a point to support Hillary Clinton, but you picked a really poor example.

[Arazi]

61. I believe the Civil Rights movement itself moved incredibly fast

It was a revolutionary movement designed to overturn centuries of discrimination.

I think 40 - 50 years for this kind of progress is revolutionary. History teaches us the Civil Rights Movement was a revolution in approach and success.

I take the long view on incrementalism - the removal of religion from politics was incremental - it took centuries.

The rights of the common man took centuries - that's incrementalism.

The demise of the aristocracy - centuries of incrementalism.

Movements that overturn centuries of historical thought (like Civil Rights, women's rights, marriage equality) in a matter of years or decades?

Revolution.

Sanders is the start of a movement to remove corruption from politics and reduce income inequality. I'll be thrilled if we accomplish it in 40 - 50 years but it'll never happen if we don't start. Furthermore, if we take HRC's incremental approach to climate change instead of creating a climate change "revolution" all of this will be moot anyway.

[Empowerer]

68. Again - you are showing your woeful ignorance about this

The NAACP legal strategy formed the VERY FOUNDATION of the legislative strategy and victories.

Ever heard of Clarence Mitchell? He was the NAACP's top lobbyist aka the "Lion in the Lobby" and "101st Senator" who was largely responsible for the passage of all of the major civil rights legislation of the 1950s. It wasn't Martin Luther King that did it - he actually had very little to do with it - it was Clarence Mitchell, Roy Wilkins, the NAACP lawyers and many others who made this happen.

Are you actually a lawyer? The fact that you would actually position your fingers to type such a completely erroneous comment about the civil rights movement and the legislative history makes me wonder. Did you not learn in Con Law I that the 1964 Civil Rights Act was not the first Civil Rights Act? There were previous Civil Rights Acts passed through the years, including the Civil Rights Act of 1957, signed into law by President Eisenhower. Among other things, the 1957 law contained protections for voting rights (which were later improved upon by the 1965 Voting Rights Act), created the U.S. Civil Rights Commission and provided federal jurisdiction for prosecuting violations of individual civil rights. The law didn't go as far as the civil rights leadership and some Democratic senators wanted it to go but they agreed to it, even after it was watered down by Southern senators, because they knew some progress was better than none and they were not going to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. So they compromised, got the best bill they could and then went to work to get an even better bill, which they finally got seven years later.

[DefenseLawyer]

86. I think you are just purposely missing the point

But I understand that your goal is to defend Hillary Clinton's dismissal of single payer healthcare as a goal. And that's okay. I am certainly not suggesting that the civil rights movement happened overnight or that there was no "pragmatism" in the movement. Nor am I suggesting that the work of Marshall and others in the courts didn't play an important role in the movement (although it was not in any sense coordinated politically with congressional leadership or the White House as it happened) That being said, if you are going to compare changing the healthcare system legislatively to changing civil rights law legislatively, you have picked possibly the worst example since the New Deal that you could pick. The legislation was not "let's do a little where we can", "let's find political consensus". The Civil Rights Act was a MAJOR dramatic shift in federal law. It was not passed by the people who said "this will never, ever pass!" I do understand that you're trying to rationalize Secretary Clinton's current political position on single payer healthcare, but likening it to the civil rights movement was a bit of a stretch. Good try though.

[Empowerer]

94. First of all, you have no idea what my "goal" is in this thread

And given the astounding ignorance you've shown about civil rights and constitutional law, I'm not surprised that you would also completely misread much of what I have written - none of which has a whit to do with changing to a single payer healthcare system.

[Empowerer]

51. This Civil Rights Act was a compromise.

Yes, it was a bold stroke for the time, but it was nothing if not incremental. In fact, it is STILL being updated and improved because it has never been close to accomplishing what is needed to effect real equality in this country.

[mythology]

71. Actually it was incremental

It's only not incremental if you assume the Civil Rights Act could have happened without all of those incremental steps. Because all of those marches, legal victories, sit ins and voting registration drives made the Civil Rights Act possible.

The actual law was sudden, but it came at the end of an incredibly long fight that didn't take years, it took decades, arguably centuries.

[FrenchieCat]

126. Agreed!

Anyone saying otherwise are doing it for the convenience of their own "revolution".....

[FrenchieCat]

135. If you are an Attorney, you do know....

that the Civil Rights act may have been a bold stroke,
but the Civil Rights movement's accomplishment were a long time in coming.....

I was born by the river in a little tent
Oh and just like the river I've been running ev'r since
It's been a long time, a long time coming
But I know a change gonna come, oh yes it will
It's been too hard living, but I'm afraid to die
'Cause I don't know what's up there, beyond the sky
It's been a long, a long time coming
But I know a change gonna come, oh yes it will
I go to the movie and I go downtown
Somebody keep tellin' me don't hang around
It's been a long, a long time coming
But I know a change gonna come, oh yes it will
Then I go to my brother
And I say brother help me please
But he winds up knockin' me
Back down on my knees, oh
There have been times that I thought I couldn't last for long
But now I think I'm able to carry on
It's been a long, a long time coming
But I know a change is gonna come, oh yes it will

[DefenseLawyer]

147. Obviously no one said it wasn't

However, if one is trying to draw an analogy to Hillary Clinton's current critique of what's possible in federal healthcare law ( as I assume it was since it was posted in GDP) it's a rather curious analogy. Yes the civil rights movement is taking a long time ( and it continues today) but the Civil Rights Act itself, the actual change to federal law was anything but incremental and pragmatic.

[FrenchieCat]

159. What I hear when listening to Hillary Clinton is

Last edited Sun Jan 31, 2016, 07:33 PM - Edit history (2)

That we should build on what has already been done,
and work on it from there....

We have just fought (some of us) to even try and keep what we finally got for the past 5 years....

I don't want to tear it apart....and I certainly don't want it repealed!

I want to build on it!

I see the flaws in it, but its been an awesome start, IMO.

I don't consider the analogy curious....
especially since we will have Republican Majorities in a gerrymandered congress,
most likely something till next census (2020 -which thank goodness is a Presidential election year)!

Some of us believe Sanders to be unelectable,
and don't want to give up the progress already made
simply to elect one man....not when the alternative if he loses,
would be 100% GOP rule, and the erasure of our First Black President's work!

I think that you certainly can see it another way,
but that doesn't make what Hillary supporters see as being wrong.

[DefenseLawyer]

162. Fair enough

Although to me, the idea that Sanders would "destroy" the ACA, go back to nothing and start over in pursuit of single payer is not a realistic critique. Nonetheless most Clinton supporters seem to share your view, so perhaps I'm wrong to dismiss it. I guess we'll see soon enough which approach carries the day.

[Arazi]

148. If you read Defense Lawyers post that's exactly what he said

and got flamed by Empowerer as ignorant.

The Civil Rights Act was enacted very quickly and was a bold piece of legislation, the Civil Rights Movement had many layers and steps.

Making that point got me flamed too. Empowerer doesn't seem to want to dialogue.

I've said it before and I'll say it here again, I actually think the several decades long civil rights work was revolutionary. I take the long view and don't see it as incremental at all - it was lightening fast in changing our society comparatively speaking.

[Motown_Johnny]

15. Disagreeing with Hillary does not equal distain

for pragmatism.

We simply disagree on what is possible.

[Armstead]

19. The current pragmatic centrist message to them would be...

"Look, we Democrats really support equal civil rights as a goal, but it's just too hard right now. You have to be patient. Maybe in 100 years."

"The American People are too Conservative and will not accept that all races should have equal rights to vote and participate in society on an equal footing. To think you can overcome the GOP and public opinion like that is just a pony and a unicorn."

[demmiblue]

31. Hmmm... sounds like a certain portion of DU circa 2008 regarding LGBT rights. n/t

[QC]

42. Yep. We all just wanted ponies, and besides,

he's only going to sing one song and it's just a two-minute prayer.

Funny how the people shrieking those things at us are now the ones who profess to be wounded to the very core of their being that someone would criticize the Human Rights Campaign.

[hobbit709]

20. You think Rosa Parks was pragmatic that day on the bus?

[demmiblue]

26. Or Alice Paul?

[Empowerer]

47. Funny you mentioned that. Yes, she was.

The Montgomery Bus Boycott was part of a larger strategy that was carefully crafted by the local NAACP. It was not organic.

Rosa Parks was the Secretary of the local NAACP chapter, which was looking for an opportunity to attack the city's bus segregation laws. She was not the first person arrested for violating the city's segregation laws. Several people had been arrested prior, but for various strategic and, yes, pragmatic reasons, the NAACP decided not to make test cases out of their arrests. Another woman was arrested shortly before Mrs. Parks, but the NAACP opted not to build anything on her arrest because she was an unwed mother and would not have been seen as a sympathetic victim. Mrs. Parks was ideal because she had an impeccable reputation. So when she was arrested, it was decided to make her arrest the test case.

And, were you aware that the only reason the bus boycott prevailed was because of the precedent set in Brown v. Board of Education - which was the result of the decades-long, incremental jurisprudence crafted by Charles Hamilton Houston and Thurgood Marshall, who knew that it would be impossible to launch a wholesale frontal attack on separate but equal in the 1930s, so they instead mounted a gradual challenge that eventually grew into Brown.

And were you also aware that even the victory of the bus boycott was an incremental one. The city agreed - and the boycotters, led by Dr. King accepted - to desegregate the buses only to limited extend. The buses actually remained partially segregated, with blacks filling up the seats from the back to the front and whites filling the seats up from the front to the back. Only when the black section was full could blacks begin taking seats in the front, if there were any available - and vice versa. This was clearly an incremental change, not a full victory, but the boycotters saw this as a great victory, even though it did not result in complete desegregation immediately.

[JustAnotherGen]

164. Thank you for setting it straight n/t

[JRLeft]

24. Allowing Wall Street to control the Agenda is not pragmatic, it's submission. Fuck that shit!

[Vattel]

27. chuckle

[EdwardBernays]

30. Gimme a break

Pragmatism is why race relations are still as bad as they are.

And if its pragmatism that makes you hire lobbyists and fundraise from lobbyists then fuck pragmatism.

These half measures and voting out of fear has ruined so much of what is truly good about America.

[radical noodle]

229. Pragmatism is not the culprit

You can pass laws, march, and win court cases, but there's a long process to the changing of hearts and minds. Racism is alive and well, and it has nothing to do with laws and everything to do with human failings. It will only be through decades or centuries that racism will be totally dead. Racism is ingrained in some families and areas... passed down from generation to generation. it's going to be a long process to weed it out. That's not what we want but it's a fact nonetheless.

[cherokeeprogressive]

32. No. It wouldn't.

Jesus f'ing Christ.

[Tom Rinaldo]

34. Imagine if in 1850 some fomer Abolitionist said

"Slavery is Never Ever going to be done away with, but here's what we can do to improve working conditions on plantations".

[beam me up scottie]

37. Thread win.

[dsc]

43. Lincoln's position was that slavery should be contained but not abolished

and he wound up being the one who ended it once and for all.

[Tom Rinaldo]

46. Kind of illustrates the reason for never saying never n/t

[KingCharlemagne]

177. +Infinity! - nt

[Ron Green]

40. Disdain for pragmatism?

No, it's just a disdain for lying.

As one who grew up in the "separate but equal" South in the 1950s and 60s, I grew up full of genteel lies that maintained the status quo, similar to today's lies from Hillary Clinton and her sponsors about why our world is as it is and why we can't really change it.

Until those lies were actively challenged and rejected in some non-pragmatic ways, young white boys like me couldn't snap to why and how our world view was bullshit.

Bernie Sanders, his campaign and yes, his somewhat over-the-top supporters are performing the necessary non-pragmatic task of calling out the hypocrisy and lies of Hillary Clinton and her keepers of the status quo.

If you don't like the method, come up with a better way of solving the problem.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

48. I'm an adult. As such, I don't play Opposite Day.

I don't play I Know You Are But What Am I. And I don't play selling the village to Republicans so that they can destroy it in order to save it.

Take the Rove tactics to a group gullible enough to swallow them.

[JRLeft]

49. Let Wall Street win so Hillary can be president.

Hillary is about as corrupt of a candidate we've had running for president in democratic primary in a long time.

[JustinL]

53. from Martin Luther King's "Letter From Birmingham Jail":

We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct action campaign that was "well timed" in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word "Wait!" It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This "Wait" has almost always meant "Never." We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that "justice too long delayed is justice denied."

We have waited for more than 340 years for our constitutional and God given rights. The nations of Asia and Africa are moving with jetlike speed toward gaining political independence, but we still creep at horse and buggy pace toward gaining a cup of coffee at a lunch counter. Perhaps it is easy for those who have never felt the stinging darts of segregation to say, "Wait." But when you have seen vicious mobs lynch your mothers and fathers at will and drown your sisters and brothers at whim; when you have seen hate filled policemen curse, kick and even kill your black brothers and sisters; when you see the vast majority of your twenty million Negro brothers smothering in an airtight cage of poverty in the midst of an affluent society; when you suddenly find your tongue twisted and your speech stammering as you seek to explain to your six year old daughter why she can't go to the public amusement park that has just been advertised on television, and see tears welling up in her eyes when she is told that Funtown is closed to colored children, and see ominous clouds of inferiority beginning to form in her little mental sky, and see her beginning to distort her personality by developing an unconscious bitterness toward white people; when you have to concoct an answer for a five year old son who is asking: "Daddy, why do white people treat colored people so mean?"; when you take a cross county drive and find it necessary to sleep night after night in the uncomfortable corners of your automobile because no motel will accept you; when you are humiliated day in and day out by nagging signs reading "white" and "colored"; when your first name becomes "nigger," your middle name becomes "boy" (however old you are) and your last name becomes "John," and your wife and mother are never given the respected title "Mrs."; when you are harried by day and haunted by night by the fact that you are a Negro, living constantly at tiptoe stance, never quite knowing what to expect next, and are plagued with inner fears and outer resentments; when you are forever fighting a degenerating sense of "nobodiness"--then you will understand why we find it difficult to wait. There comes a time when the cup of endurance runs over, and men are no longer willing to be plunged into the abyss of despair. I hope, sirs, you can understand our legitimate and unavoidable impatience

https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html

[malletgirl02]

83. Martin Luther King Jr.

Great post, and to add to your point at the time Martin Luther King Jr was considered very radical. The FBI even had a file on him.

[retrowire]

98. I've never read that before and damn it

I am so happy to have found it today. Thank you for posting this.

[hedgehog]

166. Thank-you! How many are aware that JFK wanted to concentrate on the Cold War,

and had to be forced to put Civil Rights on the front burner?

"Although John F. Kennedy reached out to the jailed Martin Luther King Jr. during the 1960 presidential campaign, civil rights were not a major concern for the Kennedy administration. Rather, Cold War politics were front and center. Staunchly anti-communist, John F. Kennedy used his inaugural address to speak about spreading freedom throughout the world — a goal contradicted by the large number of black Americans still lacking basic freedoms and civil rights.

The Freedom Rides did not come at a convenient time for the administration. The president was still smarting from the failed April 17 Bay of Pigs invasion, in which a group of U.S.—sponsored Cuban exiles had attempted to land by boat and overthrow Castro's regime, and he was preoccupied with preparing for his upcoming Vienna summit with Soviet Premier Nikita Krushchev on June 3, 1961. In the interim came headlines and televised images of a burning bus in Anniston, AL and savage beatings in Birmingham, AL.

"For the Kennedy brothers, domestic affairs were an afterthought, and the Civil Rights Movement was an afterthought beyond an afterthought," said activist and NAACP leader Julian Bond in his interview for Freedom Riders. "Now all of a sudden the whole world was watching.""

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/freedomriders/issues/the-cold-war

[AgingAmerican]

55. Right wing deals aren't 'pragmatism'

It's stupidity.

Republicans do not compromise, so compromising with them is just plain foolishness.

[Stargleamer]

56. What was it that MLK said about waiting for justice?

Oh wait, He said "Why We Can't Wait" and wrote an essay on it.

Obamacare is inadequate, people need more so they won't suffer.

[Empowerer]

69. I'm not talking about what MLK SAID (in cherry-picked quotes). I'm talking about what he DID

[RobertEarl]

75. If he were here today

He'd be supporting Bernie and not the two-faced H.

[Empowerer]

87. Oh, Good Lord - please spare us the "If Dr. King were here, he'd . . ."

Unless you were a personal confidant of Dr. King are in regular consultation with anyone who was, your comment is the very essence of self-entitled arrogance.

Please take that crap somewhere else.

[RobertEarl]

92. I grew up studying King

So you can take your personal attacks somewhere else.

King, were he here today, would be supporting Bernie, he damn sure would have little to do with H because she is not sincere, she is a warmonger and she's a 1% er.

Go ahead, just try to tell us King would support H. I dare ya.

[Empowerer]

96. The last time I engaged in a conversation with anyone who said "I dare ya," I was about 7 years old

And even then, I was too mature to take the bait.

[retrowire]

99. Excellent harumph post! yaaaay lol nt

[RobertEarl]

100. Because you can't do it

You are smart enough to realize you are on the wrong side of this debate so you make up that you feel like a 7 year old.

Seen it before from those who think King would be in favor of another 1%er for president.

[JustinL]

109. but what he SAID was a defense of what he DID

"Letter From Birmingham Jail" was a reply to white moderates who critiqued his actions in Birmingham.

[Gregorian]

62. You mean Rosa Parks should have stayed at the back of the bus.

There's no half way with some things. It's quantum or nothing. That's what many Dems don't get.

[JI7]

130. Rosa parks had a long history in the movement before that moment

[Hekate]

66. "All or nothing, right effing now!" Wow, as a slogan of societal change it really sounds....

...a bit counterproductive, doesn't it? Right up there with the inclusive cry of "Up against the wall, motherf***kers!"

The long hard slog toward progress doesn't appeal to those who want to ride in on unicorns.

Real progressives -- that is, those who actually made progress -- always had a steel core of pragmatism inside their idealism.

[JRLeft]

70. We should enjoy the shit sandwich Hillary intends to feed us?

[Hekate]

73. We should enjoy the scatology directed at a hardworking lifelong Democrat and her supporters?

And no, following her father's conservatism in high school does not count. In college, she grew up.

[JRLeft]

113. She's bought and paid for by Wall Street I cannot celebrate corruption.

Hillary is brilliant from an intelligence standpoint, not many can match her intelligence; which is why she knows what she's doing is wrong. She knows what benefits America, but she won't disappoint her bundlers to do what's best for the state.

[Hekate]

115. You go on believing that if it makes you happy

[JRLeft]

118. You believe none of that money will have an impact on her decision making?

LMFAO!

I've read plenty of your posts, so I know you're brilliant, very bright.

You love your candidate I respect that.

We'll agree to disagree.

Good luck to you, but, not your candidate!

[Hekate]

136. Here's what I believe about money in US politics: once Citizens United was passed we were screwed...

It means money has gone from being the mother's milk of politics (a very old saying) to being its very life's blood, and we simply cannot escape that at the present time. It is what it is and candidates who want to win have to figure out how to use it.

What it's going to take to overturn it is a series of lower court cases and decisions (note that Congress has left many benches vacant because ... Obama) that work their way up successively until they reach the Supreme Court again. How many years will this take? Gods only know, but that is the system.

At which point, the members of the SCOTUS become absolutely critical. The next president will have the opportunity to replace not one but several Justices, and the tone of the Court will outlast the President's term of office for a generation. Those will be the people who can overturn Citizens United, which I really want to see happen.

You're right, I like Hillary as a candidate. I always have. I was truly torn in 2008, but that's another story. By now I think she's grown, as well.

And -- I want a candidate who can win the general election.

So yeah, we can agree to disagree. I'm more than fine with that.

Thank you for you kind words. Back atcha.

[JRLeft]

141. Respect!

[JustinL]

104. or "Freedom Now"

I suppose the slogan should have been "Freedom Eventually".

[Empowerer]

107. "We Shall Overcome Someday"

Slogans are one thing - strategy and action are another

Slogans usually - although not always - call for the ultimate to happen immediately. But successful activists know that the real work will take much longer and the victories will be much more incremental.

[DefenseLawyer]

154. Following your analogy, where are we in the "health care movement"?

What is the "pragmatic" path to universal healthcare? When do you see that happening?

[MrMickeysMom]

72. What is the goal of civil rights champions, but to bring in new leadership?

Once those leaders rise to the occasion, the next step is to introduce everything that the people have wanted and worked and DIED for all these many decades...

THIS is called progressive LEADERSHIP... It is NOT called disdain for pragmatism.

Get you head out of the sand and REALIZE what your ancestors all those years fought hard for, and what some of our bravest leadership DIED for!

To stand here and call this disdain for pragmatism is an exercise in making excuses for just another puppet of the oligarchy we've all been fighting against.

Just think of that line of reasoning.... in another 40 years, we'll be able to cut starvation wages, crumbling infrastructure, green house gases and have renewable energy "just around the corner"... too late.

[Arazi]

78. Yup, we can't afford pragmatic incrementalism for climate change

Bernie Sanders' message of urgency is resonating especially with those of us deeply concerned with climate change.

We can't afford to wait any longer. It's going to take a massive revolution in thinking to turn this ship around - fast! Now!

[malletgirl02]

76. Civil Rights Act

Actually the Civil Rights act of 1964 was a very bold move by LBJ, he said when he signed it she said the the Democrats was going to lose the South. This actually happened. The Democratic party split and this caused a historical realignment. The Dixicrats went to the Republicans and The Democratic Party lost the South. LBJ still signed the bill even though he knew this would happened. If that is not bold I don't know what is.

[Empowerer]

90. Yes, it was a bold move by LBJ - but it was the result of DECADES of slow, gradual work by many

people who understood the need for pragmatism and reaped the rewards of it.

LBJ didn't just wake up on November 23, 1963 and say, "Hey, I think I'll sign a Civil Rights Act!" This was in the works for decades and while he deserves a lot of credit for it, the real credit goes to those who strategized and fought and marched and filed lawsuits and got themselves arrested, and walked the halls of Congress, etc.

This was the very essence of incremental progress - and still is. That's what he Civil Rights Act is STILL amended periodically . . .

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

80. "I don't have a dream," said MLK, never.

[Empowerer]

91. Dr. King wasn't the civil rights movement, either.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

81. Dr. King was a dreamer and a doer.../nt

[lovemydog]

189. Yes, to both.

[loyalsister]

89. Imagine if civil rights champions rejected idealism in favor of pragmatism

Hillary is not talking about pragmatic incremental progress toward an ideal goal of single payer. She rejected the possibility alltogether.
Rather than saying "Sen. Sanders and I share a goal to improve healthcare, but we have different ideas about how to get there." Instead she trashes an idea that provides hope for progress that will benefit people who are falling out of or have never made it into the middle class.

Civil rights champions embraced pragmatism but not at the expense of idealism.

[BillZBubb]

93. What a pile of BS.

The civil rights pioneers NEVER said "We will never defeat segregation!" The steadfastly kept defeating segregation as a goal and used whatever tactics would get them there.

That's quite different from Hillary's "pragmatism".

[Empowerer]

171. No, they didn't say that. But they also didn't say, "We will defeat segregation NOW"

Or even, "next year." Or even "in this decade."

They were realistic about what they were up against and figured out how to dismantle it over time, not beat their heads against wall demanding that it be done immediately.

[Ferd Berfel]

101. Huh? You mean that getting your skull crushed by Police and red-necks

, getting fire hosed, arrested and jailed, getting hung, etc etc was PRAGMATIC?

No, it was revolutionary.

[Empowerer]

103. Actually it was very pragmatic

The non-violent protests were part of a much larger, carefully strategized effort that included long-term legal battles and legislative action. It wasn't just a bunch of people marching into the streets to get their asses kicked for a cause.

[libdem4life]

106. Five recs and over a hundred responses. I'd guess this is what the poster had in mind.

[beam me up scottie]

111. Maybe they actually learned a few things, have faith. :)

[libdem4life]

114. I couldn't get past the first argument. Ugh. That's when I looked.

[Empowerer]

112. Since I don't post to get pats on the back but to foster discussion

I think that's a pretty good ration

[libdem4life]

116. Well that certainly clears things up. BTW...you provide little but argument.

But, hey, if that's how you roll. Carry on.

Peace.

[Arazi]

120. Yup just denigrates anyone who tries to discuss

I like to kick her threads though so more people see it

[libdem4life]

121. That's what I'm learning to do...at some point it enters the Ridiculous Zone of Who Gives a Sht

[SMC22307]

110. I'm enjoying your steady stream of OP fails.

Keep up the good work.

[FrenchieCat]

124. Snark does not a conversation make.

Sorry for you.

[SMC22307]

145. Thanks for your concern. (n/t)

[FrenchieCat]

119. I don't argue that we should certainly demand what we want...whether it be Single payer...

Or whatever else it is...As long as folks understand that the Civil Rights Movement didn't happen because a President led on the issue, and that elections is NOT what made it all possible. If folks get that, then that's great!

1954-1968 is 12 years, not an election cycle. Of course, 1954 is the beginning, but even that letigation (Brown vs. Board of Education) itself took years in the making....

and even after 1968, it wasn't all done and over with, exemplified by the Watts Riots, or even today, with the police shootings and other unfortunate racist institutional deeds in the 21st century!


The Civil Rights Movement did culminate into large mass protests, but it was also comprised of much citizen litigation, careful planning, smaller pinpointed protest, organized action, and bodily harm to many of the protestors.



Key events
Brown v. Board of Education, 1954
Rosa Parks and the Montgomery Bus Boycott, 1955–1956
Desegregating Little Rock Central High School, 1957
The method of Nonviolence and Nonviolence Training
Robert F. Williams and the debate on nonviolence, 1959–1964
Sit-ins, 1958–1960
Freedom Rides, 1961
Voter registration organizing
Integration of Mississippi universities, 1956–65
Albany Movement, 1961–62
Birmingham Campaign, 1963
"Rising tide of discontent" and Kennedy's Response, 1963
March on Washington, 1963
Malcolm X joins the movement, 1964–1965
St. Augustine, Florida, 1963–64
Mississippi Freedom Summer, 1964
Civil Rights Act of 1964
Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party, 1964
King awarded Nobel Peace Prize
Boycott of New Orleans by American Football League players, January 1965
Selma Voting Rights Movement and the Voting Rights Act, 1965
Fair housing movements, 1966–1968
Memphis, King assassination and the Poor People's March 1968
Civil Rights Act of 1968
Other issues
Competing ideas
Avoiding the "Communist" label

It was a long slog....for sure!

I also will remind many that at the close of the Civil War,
there was reconstruction, and then the White Citizenry took back
everything that the civil war had promised, less the physical chains.

i.e., Good intentions end up many times backfiring for an entire generation.....

I'm bringing this up because I don't believe that getting behind an un-electable political candidate,
as instead, it may end up giving the GOP 100% rule, and the Supreme Court,
would probably take us back an entire generation.....in Health Care and other important issues....
and may end up taking much longer than it took the Civil Rights movement to eventually get some of what it demanded.

And the Civil Rights Movement isn't over, as it persists in Job, housing, educational, and all other types of racism that are still going strong. That's why we had a Black Power movement in the Late 60s (eradicated ASAP), and a Black Lives Matter movement going on today.

[jfern]

123. Bernie is way more pragmatic than you think

He got more amendments passed than anyone else during the 1995-2006 Republican controlled House.

[1StrongBlackMan]

127. Before reading any of the comments, I must say, as a student of history ...

particularly, of the Civil Rights Movement, "I must agree."

While every movement has had those demanding change "right fucking now" with a strong distain for pragmatism, as they saw it as "selling out" ... history demonstrates that with respect to social change, pragmatism, i.e., doing what is POSSIBLE, while pressing for more, is the winning strategy.

The calculus is simple ... (long-term) social change (movements) requires the education, and buy in, of those that the change threatens. And, that is accomplished, best, by small, incremental, victories, that show the majority population that is quietly comfortable in the status quo, there is nothing to fear in the change.

There is a wise reasoning in the Mothers and Fathers of the Movement telling the movement's youth, "One step at a time." Fortunately, my generation listened.

[Armstead]

133. If that had been the Democratic strategy all these years, a lot of us could accept it

But saying "we're going to do this, which is the exact opposite of what you want and you're just being a purist if you don't like it" is not my definition of incremental change.

[1StrongBlackMan]

194. Perhaps an example or two of Democrats ...

saying "we're going to do this, which is the exact opposite of what you want

Would be helpful.

[Armstead]

196. Okay for starters

NAFTA, TPP, MFN China, WTO "free trade" agreements, etc......Financial deregulation, Media Deregulation and otehr industry deregulations, Lack of concern about Anti-Trust and Economic Consolidation....Welfare Deform, Privatization, Foxes placed in the Henhouse (cabinet appointments), Floating COLA changes and otehr GOP deficit hawkdom, .....for starters.

I'd add the worst aspects of the ACA, and shutting out of social insurance...but they were muddy in the campaigns, so I'll leave it off the list though it was a big disappointment to many.

If you are referring to Civil Rights specifically , I wouldn't say they were as clear-cut different, but the issues above have real life impacts on people....And the the Clinton emphasis on "tough on crime" and otehr things were not exactly in line with the goals of civil rights.

[1StrongBlackMan]

198. Okay ...

I think we have a "We" problem.

NAFTA, TPP, MFN China, WTP agreements, etc

A majority of Democrats poll(ed) in favor of these trade deals.

Financial deregulation,

Dodd-Frank

Media Deregulation and otehr industry deregulations

I am not aware of Democrats saying they were pursuing industry deregulation.

Welfare Deform

30 years ago ... Anything more recent?

Suffice it to say, the rest was opposed by a small segment of the Democratic Party ... and many of those now so vocally objecting, were, proudly, not Democrats (or, used the label as a secondary, if not, tertiary political self descriptor).

[Armstead]

200. ...Dokey

NAFTA, TPP, MFN China, WTP agreements, etc

That is a very arguable point.There is more opposition than you indicate.... The centrists are happy with agreements that boost the bottom line, regardless of the social and economic consequences. Others who buy the propasganda and sales pitch at face value are sort of "okay, sounds fine." ..... But there is a large segment of the Democratic base (and otehrs) who have seen factories closed and moved out of the US to sweatshops, lost their jobs or seen them downsized, watched their communities hollowed out, as a result etc. are opposed to it. And, not to sound snooty, but those who have been following and studying both the process and the impacts over the years are not happy, to say the least.....

Financial deregulation

Enh, weak tea compared to the extent of restoration of regulation and enforcement that is needed. Simply stated, we really do need to disperse the power and wealth of the biggest banks and investment houses. Bigger is worse past a certain point, and we reached that point years ago. And we need to place more restraints on the temptation to misbehave.

Media Deregulation and otehr industry... I am not aware of Democrats saying they were pursuing industry deregulation.

A lot of it under the tavble...Maybe "see no evil" in campaigning and governing is not saying one thing and doing another.. .But it is WRONG! to have looked the otehr way for so many years to allow huge monopolistic corporate empires to take over so much of the economy and life of the country. The silence of the Democratic leadership on the consolidation of corporate power has been a major sin of omission for many people over the years. It is at the root of many other problems and issues...... And it is contrary to the basic compact of liberalism/progressivism

Welfare Deform. 30 years ago ... Anything more recent?

30 years ago, but it hasn't been corrected or adjusted to a more enlightened position since then. And one of the candidates has dirty hands on it, despite her current professions of caring about women and the children.

Suffice it to say, the rest was opposed by a small segment of the Democratic Party ... and many of those now so vocally objecting, were, proudly, not Democrats (or, used the label as a secondary, if not, tertiary political self descriptor).

That is a failure of leadership. Politics is about education and crystalling and supporting awareness as much as anything....."See no evil" is not what I always thought the basic purpose of liberal and progressive politics was supposed to be about....And I am not just referring to that in a "purist" sense. Moderation is okay -- but so many things (mentioned in the post and not mentioned in specific and general terms) have been contrary to the package people think they are buying as the alternative to GOP conservatism.

[1StrongBlackMan]

201. So Democrats HAVEN'T been doing what you indicated? At least from the perspective of most Democrats

rather than, the perspective of a narrow segment of the Democratic Party (as many now claim to be).

Like I said ... We have a "We" problem.

[Armstead]

203. It's not necessarily a narrow segment

There has been frustration among a growing number of people percolating for years. It's why the number of independents have increased while the parties have shrunk, why so many people have given up to apathy and cynicism...or bought into the GOP CONservative con game.

And why Bernie -- and before him Obama -- generated so much enthusiasm, as a rejection of the status quo. Even Bill Clinton pretended to be a progressive populist as a candidate,.

And as I said above, "see no evil" is not a governing strategy that works in the long tun when problems continue to get worse.

Bernie has identified problems that everyone knows in their gut. He has articulated an underlying frustration that is necessary for constructive action.

You may disagree. But I personally would rather see us admit to the disease, rather than continue to allow seen and hidden inequities and systemic corruption to fuel underlying apathy and cynicism and the crushing of aspirations for a better government.

[RobertEarl]

137. One step at a time is true

The idea of "No we can't" as a rallying cry is just defeatism.

In today's politics, we are not in a one step at a time, we are in a win big or go home.

One one hand we have a candidate who is saying we can do this because we must so that we have a future we can believe in, and on the other have a candidate who is professing that it's too hard to do the right thing.

If you do decide to reply, please stick to the subject and eschew personal attacks, okay?

[1StrongBlackMan]

197. I read where people have latched onto the "No we can't" narrative; when ...

what was actually said is, "No we can't do it that way." And, after witnessing 7 years of resistance to, and 60+ votes to repeal, the ACA, that seems an accurate assessment of the political environment.

In today's politics, we are not in a one step at a time, we are in a win big or go home.

I completely disagree ... I would far rather "go small" and advance than "go big" AND go home ... which is, in this and in most cases, the likely result ... except on the internet.

One one hand we have a candidate who is saying we can do this because we must so that we have a future we can believe in, and on the other have a candidate who is professing that it's too hard to do the right thing.

Again ... You are being very selective in applying the "do the right thing" standard.

If you do decide to reply, please stick to the subject and eschew personal attacks, okay?

That is a curious thing to write.

[hedgehog]

168. "doing what is POSSIBLE, while pressing for more, is the winning strategy"

But if you've already forfeited before the game begins,you aren't following that winning strategy.

[TheSarcastinator]

140. LOLWUT?

Your statement is ahistorical nonsense: the civil rights movement succeeded not because the participants were "pragmatists" (and I love that you really mean this in terms of single-payer coverage - it just isn't "pragmatic&quot but rather because they were bull-headed idealists who sang "we shall not be moved" while getting their heads beaten bloody by truncheons, their bodies soaked by high-powered streams from water hoses, their bodies mauled by dogs trained to be vicious killers, all at the hands of a deeply entrenched racist establishment. These brave men, women and children absolutely refused to "pragmatically" accept that their dreams would come to full fruition; they instead believed that with bold well-planned action and love and forgiveness for all (the most non-pragmatic stance EVER -- turning the other cheek in the face of oppression and brutality!) it is possible to completely transform our nation. And guess what? They were absolutely right.

I'm not sure where you came up the motivation for this OP or the others I have seen from you; they all display a remarkable paucity of thoughtful content.

[Empowerer]

170. It's not surprising that the only aspects of the civil rights movement of which you seem to be aware

are those that were most frequently shown on old news film of the time. But the movement was much more than the marches in the streets that were shown on television. The movement was built on and driven by very complex, brilliant visionary, brave and, yes, pragmatic long-term strategy that wasn't necessarily televised but was integral and indispensable to the successes that the movement saw during that time.

I really wish that those who are so adamant about telling us about what happened during the civil rights movement would actually take the time to learn more about what really did happen and not rely on the superficial, revisionist schoolbook whitewash that is all-too-often repeated here and elsewhere.


Joseph Rauh, Clarence Mitchell, and Roy Wilkins conferring about lobbying strategy on August 7, 1963.
http://www.clarencemitchellpapers.com/AboutUs.htm

[Gothmog]

144. I agree with your analysis

[DonCoquixote]

160. there were also those who said

That trying to change the system was not pragmatic. They even shot both MLK and Malcolm X to show that people were willing to kill anyone that dared step out of line. It is one thing to say things take time and need to be worked out in courts, but that only work IF consistent, constant pressure is placed on those who are comfortable with power. No, I am not talking revolutions or displays or other stuff some BS supporters ask for, but the clear message that no, those in power, you cannot have things the way you used to. Every pragmatist, from FDR to MLK, can offer practical steps, but they also made it clear that no, their opponents were not going to be able to sweet talk or threaten to get back the "good old days", even if they did manage to assassinate a few people.

but then again, MLK says this better than I ever could: in Letter from a Birmingham Jail
" I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.”"

[1StrongBlackMan]

163. Another wellpresented argument, that in no way conflicts the OP ...

Pragmatism more about recognizing, and taking, victories when and where they are won, and/but not sacrificing wins, for the bigger play.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

165. MLK's dream of civil is still being worked on. Yes, progress is incremental.

The 1964 Civil Rights Act was just a step. It recognized the existence of political will on a national level that discrimination was wrong and harmful, but obviously we still have a long way to go. MLK specifically said that he didn't expect to live to see the dream come true. He knew that the end of racial discrimination wouldn't happen all at once, but that it would take many years. But - and here's my point - he had a dream. In stark contrast the incremental changes urged by the current "pragmatists" of the Democratic Party's "sensible middle" are their dreams.

Bernie Sanders and his supporters recognize that as president he would not be able to just wave his light saber and instantly give us single payer health care or bank re-regulation or free college. He knows that and we know it. It will take years of grass-roots work and persuasion, just like the civil rights movement. But there has to be a goal, a dream, an aspiration - not just a little tweaking at the margins - filling in nail holes and covering the weaknesses with a little spackle. Civil rights, the labor movement, same-gender marriage and many other political victories started with dreams. We want to change the fundamental way this country is run so the 99%, not just the Wall Street 1%, benefit. Hillary says no, we can't do that; Bernie says yes, we can.

[Empowerer]

167. Interesting that many of the same folk who wrongly insist that our civil rights heroes never took

a pragmatic approach in the fight for civil rights are the first to tell black folk to just sit tight and wait for our concerns to be addressed...

"Yes, I know you're worried about the wealth gap between blacks and whites. Vote for Bernie and after he goes after the banks, that will get fixed, too."

"So you say that a white man with just a high school diploma has a better chance of getting the same job as a black man with a college degree? Wow. That's messed up. But when Bernie takes down the billionaires and oligarchs, that will get fixed, too. Come on over here and help us get Bernie elected!"

"You want reparations? Oooh. That's a hard one. Can't do that. And stop talking about it - it's too divisive! Come on over here with us and Feel the Bern!"

But unlike some of the successful incremental approaches in the civil rights movement, this is not even pragmatism, which is a strategy for getting to a particular goal. It's something altogether different, but, unfortunately, the people who embrace this don't even realize it.

[Warren Stupidity]

172. Um- Clinton has declared that single payer will never happen.

So within your stupid horseshit analogy, she is perhaps a Nation of Islam separatist promoting segregation or Booker T Washington arguing for accepting the current situation.

[KingCharlemagne]

182. +Infinity! - nt

[mcar]

176. Thank you for this OP

You have provided so much good, thoughtful information. I've learned quite a bit from you today.

[Empowerer]

179. I'm glad.

Thank you for saying that.

[KingCharlemagne]

178. "Disdain for pragmatism" - Strawman much??? Bernie Sanders supporters dont

disdain pragmatism; we're just not corporate whores or war pigs.

[VulgarPoet]

199. Unfortunately

those two invectives are exactly what the Dems want to turn the party into, if they're the "Twoo" democrats.

[Jamaal510]

180. Most progressives

want a more just and egalitarian society, but not all of them are willing to put in the work that it takes to move towards it. Solving income inequality, gender inequality, racism, etc. doesn't happen overnight or by just electing a president.

[lovemydog]

188. +1

[DemocraticWing]

185. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a bold, contreversial break with the half measures of 1957 and 1960

Supporting such a piece of legislation takes more than pragmatism. Pragmatism is what Bernie Sanders showed when he helped pass the Affordable Care Act as a step towards single-payer healthcare.

Abandoning the fight because one step forward was made a few years ago is a negative and disappointing way to be a progressive. Clinton supporters should realize that opposing further change at all, as Hillary Clinton has decided to do on healthcare, is simply not progressive.

[lovemydog]

186. Your point is well-taken. I think pragmatism and idealism

are both valuable toward progress. Keep our eyes toward the stars and our feet on the ground. Advancing civil rights requires both to keep moving forward. I think we need dreamers to focus on a better world and pragmatists to work on it. In order to build a more perfect union.

This is a fascinating thread. Some see idealism and pragmatism as diametrically opposed. I see them walking hand in hand.

[Warren DeMontague]

187. Pragmatism got us 100 years of status quo racism from the Civil War to Civil Rights.

[Empowerer]

190. A shame you weren't around to advise them how to do it right . . .

[Warren DeMontague]

191. That's right.

You really think we needed to wait 100 years to go from Reconstruction to Jim Crow to The Civil Rights Act?

I don't. Sorry.

And it was impatience that finally got it done. There was never a shortage of people saying "not yet" or "too fast".

And no, Im not saying the people who fought for civil rights "did it wrong", because that would be patently absurd. but we -the collective, american we- damn sure could have expected more -better- from our society.

And that is what Bernie Sanders's campaign is all about.

[Empowerer]

193. You think that blacks were "patient" all that time?

and when we suddenly got "impatient," things suddenly started happening?

Please go back and read some history before you post anymore about this.

[Warren DeMontague]

206. Yeah, but this thread isn't really so much about civil rights, is it? More about Hillary Clinton.

usually when someone goes "you mean---" or "you think---" followed by something the other person didn't say, that tells you something right there.

I mean exactly what I said, there. It's pretty clear, and if it bugs you, I can't help you with that.

[mmonk]

192. It wouldn't have taken so long . You know,

like 2/3 rds of a vote and such.

[whatchamacallit]

195. I don't buy you

Not at all.

[merrily]

202. Hillary is not the pragmatic choice in this primary.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

204. Fucking Orwellian Bullshit.

When you write an OP as poorly as you did, you really shouldn't spend your entire thread browbeating and insulting people. Learn what the hell you're talking about before lecturing me about how corporate America saved us all. I don't do intellectual dishonesty.

[tularetom]

205. I liked you better when you were posting authentic frontier gibberish from that reparations guy

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

207. They're only "pragmatists" when it comes to racial justice. They're pragmatists when it comes to

the issue of reparations.

When they wanted gay marriage, they demanded it NOW regardless of Obama's inability to deliver.
When they wanted a single payer health care system, they demanded it NOW regardless of Obama's inability to deliver.

But their brand of "pragmatism" seems to rear its head when it comes down to issues of race and racial justice. We can't have that NOW!

Either they are intellectually inconsistent or dishonest. I take the latter.

[Cali_Democrat]

209. How did I miss this thread from yesterday? Great point!

K&R!

[kenfrequed]

210. Imagine if they didn't march at all

Imagine if they weren't activists, didn't support candidates that were racially progressive and instead just supported the more moderate party.

"First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;" who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season."



MLK Birminghamn jail April 1963

[Empowerer]

220. Why would anyone imagine that?

The movement was full of activists. Some strategized, some litigated, some wrote letters, some prayed, some made phone calls, some cooked . . . and some marched. But marching was not the sum total of activism in the movement.

The problem with much of this discussion is that many of you have absolutely no idea what activism really is and are completely clueless about the civil right movement beyond the newsreels of people linking arms, singing "We Shall Overcome," getting mowed down with firehoses and, of course, Martin Luther King on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. Your limited and idealized view of the movement is probably not your fault - our educational system is horrible at teaching anything about civil rights beyond Dr. King's "I Have a Dream" speech.

It's sad, really. Especially since some of the same people who have been so shortchanged in their education have been told somewhere along the way that they are experts fully entitled to lecture those of us who have lived and breathed this.

Sad, but a little amusing, too . . .

[wildeyed]

212. Many seem to misunderstand the difference

between activists and politicians. Politicians do the pragmatic, incremental crap they have to do to get elected. They sometimes say things they don't believe in. They build coalitions with people they don't always agree with when they need to beat a bill out of committee. They do these things because math. Democracy is a BITCH when it comes to the counting the votes part..... And it is all part of playing the game.

Activist exist to make politicians do the right thing. They try to crack the door open with some sort of political action, like Rosa Parks did, like #BLM is doing, and then force the politicians to do the right thing, by shining the light of justice on the rotten bits and creating the political will for change. Then the incremental, political part gets done, mostly behind the scenes.

Anyone who has the patience can read this transcript of LBJ and MLK strategizing about the War on Poverty and Voting Rights Act.

LBJ makes a case for hitting the poverty bills first, then do Voting Right to get the votes they need to hold the line on that.

They talk about messaging and how LBJ thinks he can make an end run around local racist politicians on voting rights without appearing to be interfering too much by using Federal postal workers instead of locally elected judges to do the actual registration.

And then this beautiful bit. THIS is the basis of the the new Democratic party. This is the part where they throw the racist Dixiecrats under the bus to build a new party, the fusion party of black and moderate white voters that can pass REAL progressive legislation:

King: And it’s very interesting, Mr. President, to notice that the only states that you didn’t carry in the South—five southern states—have less than 40 percent of the Negroes registered to vote. Very interesting to notice that and I think professors at the University of Texas, in a recent article, brought this out very clearly, so it demonstrates that it’s so important to get Negroes registered in large numbers in the South, and it would be this coalition of the Negro vote and the moderate white vote that will really make the New South.

President Johnson: That’s exactly right. I think it’s very important that we not say that we’re doing this and we’re not doing [this] just because it’s Negroes or whites, but we take the position that every person born in this country, when they reach a certain age, that he have a right to vote, just like he has a right to fight [chuckles], and that we just extend it whether it’s a Negro, or whether it’s a Mexican, or who it is.

This part about where LBJ brags about getting Civil Rights Act busted out of committee after three years is fun and emblematic of what a good, bare knuckle pol can do when they get their mind set:

President Johnson: But they’re there, and they’re ready for them to go to work, and we’re not just going to talk. If they’ll vote, I’m ready. We’ve got our recommendations, and we talked the first three years of our administration. We promised, and we held it up, and people were getting to be pretty disillusioned, I think, when I finally beat the Rules Committee and got Civil Rights out.9
King: Yeah. Yeah, I know.
President Johnson: I think that you might have . . . you might have had a lot more revolution in this country than you could handle if we had had that Civil Rights stay in that Rules Committee under Judge [Howard] Smith.

But contrast that to the public MLK. He was a brilliant, charismatic and highly principled individual, but conversations like this one CLEARLY illustrate that he knew how to play the game. He wanted revolution but had the patience and the discipline to play the game. He is strategizing here WITH a politician on how the pol will work the numbers and committees in DC and he will work the representatives in the field and do the messaging to get what they both want.

I dunno, it is clear to me that they both understand their part in the drama.

[Empowerer]

221. This is great and interesting information - thanks!

And this is just one of numerous conversations that LBJ had with civil rights strategists. In fact, MLK was far less involved in the passage of the 1964 and 1965 Acts than many others, such as Clarence Mitchell, the NAACP's top lobbyist, who was so instrumental in getting these bills through Congress.

Unfortunately, many people think the civil rights movement consisted of a few marches that forced politicians to cower and pass civil rights bills. But as I've said numerous times, this legislation was the result of painstaking effort, strategy, patience, and cooperation between many different elements of the movement, including the lawyers, lobbyists and strategists.

This is great stuff - thanks!

[wildeyed]

224. The Selma Bus Boycott

was already in motion when a 26 year old MLK with a freshly minted PhD showed up in town. He isn't even mentioned until halfway through the wiki entry.

How can anyone say that the progress on even that one bit was not incremental?

And you seem to know so much about the legal aspects, which must be fascinating to trace. I have read a bagillion biographies of the main historical figures, so maybe I will look more at the legal minds behind the movement next.

You know who is fascinating? Bayard Rustin. People should talk more about him. A man before his time in all ways. There was an interesting documentary streaming on Netflix about him a while back....

[Empowerer]

225. Yes - Bayard Rustin was an absolutely amazing man

He was probably the most brilliant strategist of the 20th century, largely responsible for the March on Washington and other seminal events in the movement.

Unfortunately, rampant homophobia led the civil rights leadership to keep him more in the background than he should have been. But interestingly, to their credit, many of them did not judge him personally. They just knew that a more prominent role would leave the movement open to attack. But he was highly respected and loved by many within the movement.

I adored him - but like Houston, many people have no idea who he even was.

[wildeyed]

228. Yes, his sexual orientation and wasn't he also a

communist? Or had been once? King stepped away from him for political reasons (oh wait! he compromised to achieve another goal?????) but if I recall, really couldn't do without his brilliant mind, and after a while, brought him back into the circle.

[Ken Burch]

213. There were no major civil rights victories that ever required

accepting massive compromises.

The 1964 Civil Rights Act(the first civil rights measure that actually mattered)contained no serious givebacks at all.

[Empowerer]

215. Every civil rights victory was the result of compromise

"Massive" is in the eye of the beholder.

[Ken Burch]

216. Nothing prior to the 1964 act was ever a victory for civil rights.

Freedom can't be won in increments.

[Empowerer]

218. I guess you're not joking

Wow.

[Ken Burch]

219. I'm serious.

Nothing that left segregation legal ever contained a victory for the anti-racist side.

I suppose you're going to try to tell us that we should see the 1957 "Civil Rights Act", the act that did nothing at all to stop white violence against blacks, that did nothing to prevent the killings of the Freedom Riders, the blowing up of those little girls in Birmingham, or what happened to Chaney, Schwerner and Goodman, as some sort of a victory.

Or the MFDP getting offered a trivial two seats in the Mississippi delegation at Atlantic City, because LBJ didn't want to piss off the white southerners that were already certain to vote GOP for the rest of eternity no matter what by then.

Yeah, right...that sort of "compromise" is worth having.

The only civil rights victory that mattered was the end of Jim Crow, in '64.

Brown V. Board, for example, turned out to be meaningless. As Thurgood Marshall's secretary, when she heard the lawyers gloating about that ruling(I'm paraphrasing, but her words were close to this)said...get a dictionary, look up "deliberate".

To say that anything that happened before '64 was a victory is to dishonor the memory of everybody who ever died in the freedom struggle.

[Empowerer]

222. Whatever ...

[Ken Burch]

223. And it's bullshit that you're implying that Bernie ever dissed the freedom movement.

You don't have to defend half-a-loaf to be for civil rights.

BTW, you haven't been able so far to show that any slight gain, any watered-down compromise ever negotiated by a congressional committee, ever made any meaningful difference in the freedom struggle.

[aikoaiko]

226. Didn't Thurgood Marshall have to be convinced to pursue what became Brown versus Board of Ed?

He thought it was too big a challenge. It was the idealists who convinced him to do it.

[Empowerer]

227. No - that's not true. I'm not sure where you're getting your information, but that's wrong

Brown was the culmination of a 20 year legal strategy that was conceived and implemented by Marshall and his mentor, Charles Houston. He did not have to be convinced at all - it was his idea from the beginning.