Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Both Nixon and JFK (and RFK) were enigmatic on civil rights. What you've done is cherry-picked from the actions of both to present Nixon in good light and Kennedy negatively on the issue. While both Kennedy and Nixon were pro-Civil Rights in the 1950s, it is true that Nixon was somewhat better on the issue than Kennedy. However, in the 1960 campaign Kennedy made a demonstrable break with his previous accommodation of Southern politics. He mostly ignored the South, gambling that he could carry it just on the strength of having LBJ on the ticket without having to worry about policy. When MLK was sentenced to jail in Georgia in the autumn of 1960 for peacefully protesting, it was Kennedy who publicly reached out to King's wife. And it was the intervention of both Kennedy brothers that helped secure King's release from his sentence of hard labor. Nixon refused to comment on King's situation. It also didn't help when Nixon's running mate claimed that a Nixon administration would include a black cabinet member, and then the campaign quickly repudiated that idea. These developments helped convince African-Americans to move away from the GOP ticket and toward Kennedy, and they voted for JFK by a margin of about 70-30. It is also not accurate to say that RFK just wanted the issue to go away. He felt that Johnson's presence on the ticket was unacceptable precisely because of civil rights, and he opposed it for that reason.
However, we must not conflate JFK with his brother. Frankly, JFK and Nixon seemed to possess about the same attitude on civil rights - one of trying to straddle the issue for the most political benefit. Though both appeared to genuinely feel that Jim Crow was morally wrong, neither was really politically committed to change beyond the tangible political benefits it might entail. But in the end, they were caught up on the tide of history, with a gradual shift of blacks as a Republican constituency to a Democratic one that preceded the entry of either into electoral politics in the late 1940s. And both men were simply more interested in foreign affairs than in domestic policy.
Finally, it should be noted that the passage of the Civil Rights Act itself in 1964 - rather than later - was a direct result of Kennedy's assassination and political martyrdom, and LBJ's subsequent understanding that he could reap tremendous political rewards from it. That more than anything was the key accelerant.
Bingo, 2X for the win. Nixon was way more of a "law and order" guy, who knows that he wouldn't have been on George Wallace's side, thinking that the Birmingham Jail was the proper place for those who practice civil disobedience.
Yea you're right. They were not standing in the school entrances blocking black students.
As for Eisenhower, EVERY President was expressing displeasure. Unless you are going to claim FDR, Truman, Ike, JFK, LBJ, and RMN actually knew any black people beyond a few servants. Eisenhower sent troops into the South. Wow, all you can do is credit him with doing his job? Is that not what he was supposed to do?
Sorry, but this Democrats are angelic and good while Republicans are evil and nefarious is sophomoric thinking exemplified.
Now, you're trying to change what I said. I initially was responding to posters who tried to claim that the GOP had done more civil rights than democrats had.
That is simply not true. That is what I was responding too.
I think what is really going on is that certain people who are conservative have a really difficult time with the notion that African Americans generally vote 90% or more for democrats. So, they are trying to construct a revisionist history. In this revisionist history, its not really Johnson and the democrats that secured passage of the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, and the Fair Housing Act. Somehow, its really the republican party that did all this and they just don't get credit for it. Well, that's nonsense and the historical record shows that it is.
I never said the republicans were evil and the democrats were all good. However, I will continue to insist that the democrats have done much for the cause of civil rights than the republicans have. That is what I believe explains the heavy percentage of African Americans who vote democrat in elections.
Now, you're trying to change what I said. I initially was responding to posters who tried to claim that the GOP had done more civil rights than democrats had.
That is simply not true. That is what I was responding too.
I think what is really going on is that certain people who are conservative have a really difficult time with the notion that African Americans generally vote 90% or more for democrats. So, they are trying to construct a revisionist history. In this revisionist history, its not really Johnson and the democrats that secured passage of the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, and the Fair Housing Act. Somehow, its really the republican party that did all this and they just don't get credit for it. Well, that's nonsense and the historical record shows that it is.
I never said the republicans were evil and the democrats were all good. However, I will continue to insist that the democrats have done much for the cause of civil rights than the republicans have. That is what I believe explains the heavy percentage of African Americans who vote democrat in elections.
Robert Byrd, Wallace, etc, the Dixiecrats were Democrats.
I wish JFK had more forcefully taken them on. I suspect had RFK been the POTUS in the early 60s instead, he would have been more forceful.
I do not think LBJ took them on simply playing on sympathy over the circumstances of how he gained power. I think he was also simply less prone to avoid using the power the "bully pulpit" has at its disposal. He was more of a "down and dirty" hard-nosed politician.
Now, you're trying to change what I said. I initially was responding to posters who tried to claim that the GOP had done more civil rights than democrats had.
That is simply not true. That is what I was responding too.
I think what is really going on is that certain people who are conservative have a really difficult time with the notion that African Americans generally vote 90% or more for democrats. So, they are trying to construct a revisionist history. In this revisionist history, its not really Johnson and the democrats that secured passage of the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, and the Fair Housing Act. Somehow, its really the republican party that did all this and they just don't get credit for it. Well, that's nonsense and the historical record shows that it is.
Right.
You can always tell when someone has just stepped out of an Alt-Right echo chamber.
Now, you're trying to change what I said. I initially was responding to posters who tried to claim that the GOP had done more civil rights than democrats had.
That is simply not true. That is what I was responding too.
I think what is really going on is that certain people who are conservative have a really difficult time with the notion that African Americans generally vote 90% or more for democrats. So, they are trying to construct a revisionist history. In this revisionist history, its not really Johnson and the democrats that secured passage of the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, and the Fair Housing Act. Somehow, its really the republican party that did all this and they just don't get credit for it. Well, that's nonsense and the historical record shows that it is.
I never said the republicans were evil and the democrats were all good. However, I will continue to insist that the democrats have done much for the cause of civil rights than the republicans have. That is what I believe explains the heavy percentage of African Americans who vote democrat in elections.
Well, black folks voting mostly Democratic is far from the first ethnic voting block in history. Of course they should vote for whom the feel is best (although certain individuals in DC and Baltimore make me wince ). The important thing is that they do indeed vote and vote often.
And it is understandable and not only for the reason you mentioned. Black voters tend to want action. Conservatism by nature does not like action. It preaches muddling through and proceeding cautiously.
Personally, I would prefer if they supported both parties. The best way to influence an organization is to fill it up with people like you, starting with you.
No. Read Robert Caro's excellent and in-depth biography of LBJ (please, Mr. Caro, please finish it!) and you will realize why LBJ was the only person who could have gotten the Civil Rights Act through Congress. He was southern, wielded incredible political power, was able to persuade/compel enough of Congress to support the Civil Rights Act. At that time, I don't think that anyone else could have done it.
No. Read Robert Caro's excellent and in-depth biography of LBJ (please, Mr. Caro, please finish it!) and you will realize why LBJ was the only person who could have gotten the Civil Rights Act through Congress. He was southern, wielded incredible political power, was able to persuade/compel enough of Congress to support the Civil Rights Act. At that time, I don't think that anyone else could have done it.
No. Read Robert Caro's excellent and in-depth biography of LBJ (please, Mr. Caro, please finish it!) and you will realize why LBJ was the only person who could have gotten the Civil Rights Act through Congress. He was southern, wielded incredible political power, was able to persuade/compel enough of Congress to support the Civil Rights Act. At that time, I don't think that anyone else could have done it.
This answers the topic best, LBJ had "special skills" he learned in senate, in his ability to pass legislation. This included physical intimidation and threats on various middle of the road congressmen and senators, to vote his way or he would kill any future legislation they wanted, and kill funding for any pet pork barrel projects they may have been working on for their home state. He was a bit like J Edgar Hoover in his ability, thru word of mouth, to find all the dirt, likes, dislikes, wish lists ect, for everyone in congress. I'm sure blackmail was also a tactic he may have used to get many votes from a congressman, even if they were against it and the majority of people in their home district were also against. If Johnson had dirt on someone, he used it. Sometimes he might use the carrot instead of the stick, and promise to help get something they wanted passed, in return for their vote. He knew how to work 'em.
Johnson was the most undemocratic politician we have ever had, from his "Landslide Lyndon" days with ballot box stuffing to win, to his money grab he did from pulling strings at the FCC to favor his radio and TV stations he purchased on the cheap, which made him a fortune, the Tonkin resolution which took war powers from congress and gave it to the president. He would tell the voters one thing to get elected, then do a 180 after he was elected and felt secure enough to try it his way. Carter did the same thing when running for governor of Georgia and this is not how democracy is supposed to work. When you flip flop on the voters, you cheat them, you cheat democracy and create long term distrust of the public for other elected officials whom may be very honest and trying to stand by the voters.
So no, I don't see Nixon being able to pass all the things Johnson passed. Voting rights, yes, desegregation of public facilities and schools, yes, but no bussing of kids to distant schools. Not so sure he would be real keen on the welfare bill Johnson passed, or the '65 immigration bill, or the '68 fair housing bill which ended up devaluing billions of dollars worth of property and promoted white flight. This fair housing bill also ended up cheating the first wave of blacks moving into white neighborhoods, whom paid top dollar for their new home, then had it diminish to almost nothing after the uncontrolled influx of lower income blacks was complete. The welfare reform was bad, in that it allowed, and encouraged women to not only have more children when they couldn't support the ones they had, but to also have these children out of wedlock. Serious long term damage was done to the black community from LBJ's welfare reform, and I might add, it didn't do white people any good either, as you get the same symptoms from it, more trash and more single parent households.
This answers the topic best, LBJ had "special skills" he learned in senate, in his ability to pass legislation. This included physical intimidation and threats on various middle of the road congressmen and senators, to vote his way or he would kill any future legislation they wanted, and kill funding for any pet pork barrel projects they may have been working on for their home state. He was a bit like J Edgar Hoover in his ability, thru word of mouth, to find all the dirt, likes, dislikes, wish lists ect, for everyone in congress. I'm sure blackmail was also a tactic he may have used to get many votes from a congressman, even if they were against it and the majority of people in their home district were also against. If Johnson had dirt on someone, he used it. Sometimes he might use the carrot instead of the stick, and promise to help get something they wanted passed, in return for their vote. He knew how to work 'em.
Johnson was the most undemocratic politician we have ever had, from his "Landslide Lyndon" days with ballot box stuffing to win, to his money grab he did from pulling strings at the FCC to favor his radio and TV stations he purchased on the cheap, which made him a fortune, the Tonkin resolution which took war powers from congress and gave it to the president. He would tell the voters one thing to get elected, then do a 180 after he was elected and felt secure enough to try it his way. Carter did the same thing when running for governor of Georgia and this is not how democracy is supposed to work. When you flip flop on the voters, you cheat them, you cheat democracy and create long term distrust of the public for other elected officials whom may be very honest and trying to stand by the voters.
So no, I don't see Nixon being able to pass all the things Johnson passed. Voting rights, yes, desegregation of public facilities and schools, yes, but no bussing of kids to distant schools. Not so sure he would be real keen on the welfare bill Johnson passed, or the '65 immigration bill, or the '68 fair housing bill which ended up devaluing billions of dollars worth of property and promoted white flight. This fair housing bill also ended up cheating the first wave of blacks moving into white neighborhoods, whom paid top dollar for their new home, then had it diminish to almost nothing after the uncontrolled influx of lower income blacks was complete. The welfare reform was bad, in that it allowed, and encouraged women to not only have more children when they couldn't support the ones they had, but to also have these children out of wedlock. Serious long term damage was done to the black community from LBJ's welfare reform, and I might add, it didn't do white people any good either, as you get the same symptoms from it, more trash and more single parent households.
I could say much about your raving and ranting in this post.
What I will say is that since you aren't black that you really don't have a clue about whether Johnson's War on Poverty helped black people or didn't. I will note that figures indicate about 40% of impoverished people were lifted out of poverty by those programs.
Oh and by the way....whatever Johnson did as President he never sat around with his closest associates and on tape told them all how they were going to raise and deliver payments of hush money all around the country to keep the seven Watergate burglars from "spilling the beans" about people in the White House who set up the burglary in the first place. Its called "obstruction of justice". Its a criminal offense under federal law.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
). The important thing is that they do indeed vote and vote often.
