The Rest of the Story

Now all you sucker. D.J.’s
Who think you’re fly
There’s got to be a reason
And we know the reason why
--Word Up, Cameo
_________

The above militantly cited pre-Korn, in honor of Ms. Ehrenreich.

I cannot understand how the press and the people get so hung up on minutiae when events of great moment hang like a damoclean sword centimeters above our heads. Talk about living in a spin zone.

The latest tempest in a teapot swirls around Hillary's impudence to suggest that a white man, Lyndon Baines Johnson at that, was instrumental in passing Civil Rights legislation. Everyone has had their say, but I will address Barbara Ehrenreich's post at HuffPo. She should know better, yet has hopped on the p.c. soapbox like everyone else.

She even manages to wangle in Bo Derek's cornrows, dating herself a tad. Following her logic, a black student who excels at Harvard Law School is appropriating the white paradigm of corporate success, and therefore, an oreo. This is really not cool and hip analysis.

She has told half of the truth: that any great societal shift can only occur following mass protest from the people. The change starts with you. Truth.

Then this:

". . .Clinton's LBJ remark reveals something more worrisome than racial tone-deafness - a theory of social change that's as elitist as it is inaccurate. Black civil rights weren't won by suited men (or women) sitting at desks."

Huh? Ehrenreich's statement, like the rest of the blather out there, is sophistry. This is not an either-or proposition.

Mass movements alone do not shift policy. That change does not come without the backing of the courts and/or the legislators. How was Hillary lying by stating a fact?

Civil Rights was not a spontaneous movement. Great organization was required to marshal the boots on the ground. Ehrenreich mentions a few of the black foot soldiers; she mentions none of the whites. This movement would not have been successful in changing the status quo had not members from many divergent strata joined in unison.

The civil rights workers in the 50's and 60's knew it was a multi-pronged war in which the press must be harnessed to garner sympathy. It was not a good day for the movement if the attack dogs or the fire hydrants were not turned on.

In addition to the pressure of the protests, the assassination of John F. Kennedy was instrumental in allowing for the speedy passage of a large number of initiatives which had languished in committee prior to his death.

In homage to Kennedy, these were railroaded through following his death. One need only look at JFK's voting record to see this. Change would have come, but at a much more gradual pace. His assassination was not essential, but catalytic.

Going back further, JFK might not even have been elected had it not been for the one-woman campaigning of former First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt, a great friend of the black community, on his behalf.

After securing Kennedy's promise prior to the elections that he would advocate for equal housing rights, Roosevelt executed a coast-to-coast lecture circuit of black churches, sans Secret Service protection. A dicey undertaking at best, and one performed out of sheer moral convection.

"'Change' is this year's Democratic battle cry, but if you don't know how it happens, you're not likely to make it happen yourself. A case in point is Clinton's 1993 "health reform" plan. She didn't do any "listening tour" for that, no televised town meetings with heart-rending grassroots testimonies. Instead, she gathered up a cadre of wonks for months of closed-door meetings. . ."

Ehrenreich goes on the criticize Hillary's herculean efforts to change health care during Bill Clinton's administration. But she was not president then, so criticizing her lack of success is moot. That Hillary attempted to contribute to a change is laudatory, for having 49 million citizens without health care is a great disgrace for such a mighty country, and I see no commensurate efforts on behalf of the Bush's.

Are we so afraid -- so politically correct out of some latent residual hypocrisy and bigotry -- that we can't speak frankly and fully about these things? To disallow the acknowledgment of the instrumental presence of whites and politicians in writing and enacting the legislation of the civil rights movement is to feign historical blindness.

To call Hillary's acknowledgment of the fact of the necessity of coalition "most unfortunate" is disingenuous.

To what avail? This is another moment where we need solidarity to resuscitate the U.S. Unfortunately, the ego spectacle that is our electioneering process threatens to fragment and distract us from the real ills that presently afflict us.

Perhaps the flap just reaffirms the fragmentation that is our society.