As I noted in Carnacki’s diary, I can’t stand Robert Byrd. And it drives me nuts that so many progressives, especially young ones, seem to idolise him. Yup, he was solidly against the Iraq war, for whatever that’s worth. So were Pat Buchanan and Robert Novak–are they progressive heroes too?
See below the fold for the skinny on this despicable man.
The following is excerpted from a 2002 WaPo column by Colbert I. King, who doesn’t pull punches on Democrats to be sure, but who is also no Republican. All emphases mine.
On the business about Byrd’s brief Klan membership, Mr. Jackson again quoted the story: “The fact is that he was a Kleagle, or organizer, for the Klan during World War II and wrote as late as 1946 to Dr. Samuel Green of Atlanta, Imperial Grand Wizard of the Klan, recommending a friend as a Kleagle and urging promotion of the Klan throughout the nation.”
Mr. Jackson said the story also reported that in 1946, Byrd wrote to Imperial Wizard Green: “The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia.”
[…]
Byrd knew what he was doing, said Mr. Jackson. In 1945, a year earlier, Byrd wrote to Mississippi’s virulent segregationist Sen. Theodore Bilbo that he would never serve in an integrated Army. “Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds,” Byrd wrote. Confronted with the letter in 1999, Byrd said he didn’t recall writing it, but he said, “I will not dispute the quote, though I consider it deplorable.”Mr. Jackson, ever the historian, said that in 1946, the same year Kleagle Robert Byrd was writing to his imperial wizard, six blacks were lynched in America, including two black couples at the Moore’s Ford Bridge near Monroe, Ga., and a young black man who was burned alive with a blowtorch by a Louisiana mob. And a black Army veteran also had his eyes gouged out with the butt of a billy club by South Carolina police.
The resurgence of lynchings and violence against blacks in the South got so bad in ’46 that President Truman was spurred to order a special federal investigation. That same year, Byrd was elected to the West Virginia legislature. Four years later, he went to Congress, where he’s been ever since.
Wikipedia also talks about the Klan membership and the letter to Bilbo, and then adds more to the already damning evidence:
In 1964 he opposed the Civil Rights Act by setting the Senate record for filibuster, stalling it for 14 straight hours. He was against U.S. President Harry S. Truman’s integration of the military. He opposed the nomination of Thurgood Marshall to the United States Supreme Court in 1967-he wrote to FBI director J. Edgar Hoover, asking if there was information about Marshall’s ties to Communists. Byrd led the segregationist members of the Senate in opposition to Marshall’s nomination.
[…]
In 1968, Senator Byrd said: “Martin Luther King fled the scene. He took to his heels and disappeared, leaving it to others to cope with the destructive forces he had helped to unleash. And I hope that well-meaning negro leaders and individuals in the negro community in Washington will now take a new look at this man who gets other people into trouble and then takes off like a scared rabbit.”
I don’t care if Sen. Byrd “has changed” (though I am extremely sceptical that he has fundamentally changed, deep down). I’m not saying he should be killed, or jailed; but what he has done is certainly enough to disqualify him from being an elected representative in good standing of the modern Democratic Party, much less a progressive hero! And the “dirt” is not all from decades ago. Just last year, he was one of only two Democratic senators (three, if you count Zell Miller, which I don’t) to vote for the anti-gay marriage amendment. Wake up, people–this guy is a bigtime loser!
And it’s not just ethics that should cause us to wash our hands of him. As long as he is in the party, the GOP cannot be exposed as the inheritor (after 1968) of the Southern white racist voting bloc, without guys like Sean Hannity being able to blunt the attack by pointing to Byrd. This makes him a political liability, even if you don’t share my enmity for him.
for some reason, SCOOP doesn’t like it if you use double quotes in a diary title. You can fix it with single quotes.
Good to see the Byrd debate heating up…
Thanks, I’ll do that.
So what’s your take on Byrd? Am I reading too much into your comment to say it sounds like maybe you think the plaudits have been laid on a little too thick as well?
Alan
Maverick Leftist
was correct and admirable.
His position on race was deplorable and indefensible.
And I share your doubts about the degree to which he has sincerely recanted.
He referred to ‘white niggers’ or something like that, only a few years ago. I don’t think he’ll ever ‘get it’ on issues of racism. But he has apologized and he has tried to make amends.
to my knowledge he has never done so in any kind of politically courageous way, but has only done what he has had to do in terms of damage control to avoid total political ruin.
Alan
Maverick Leftist
“I’m not saying he should be killed, or jailed …”
This is sick.
all the crap Byrd has said and done is not?!? And what was so bad about what I wrote–didn’t you catch the “not”?
Alan
Maverick Leftist
I don’t know an awful lot about Byrd… I’ve mostly only paid attention to him with the coverage of his speeches on the war and the constition and such. And he is pretty old, but still seems fairly sharp. But you are talking about his racist past, not the other stuff.
I don’t know his heart, and obviously have not studied how he has voted since the initial opposition to civil rights in the 60s, but I wouldn’t deny anyone the right to say (and prove with their actions) that they’ve changed.
I think you’ll find a good number of liberals/progressives, etc, who have racist pasts (even if not nearly as extreme as Byrd’s), either through the upbringing from their parents, or because of society and so forth. Many of those have changed, some through great effort, some through never having had absorbed the hate in the first place. I don’t think voting him out would prevent the Hannity’s and such from using him as an example. More likely they would just then start asking why it took Democrats so long to acknowledge a racist in their midst, or some such nonsense. Doing things with the idea of heading off right wing attacks is pretty much useless, as they don’t attack from any sort of principle, just from general vileness and desire to take advantage of situations.
As for his vote for anti-gay bigotry, that’s a different story.
Sure, I agree. But I’m worried more about how well such arguments resonate with the less informed, swing-voting public. Instead of their thinking “wow, that GOP sure is a racist bunch” it’s “ah well, sounds like both sides are guilty.” And for Hannity or Rush to say “wait, what about that guy who used to be a Democratic senator?” doesn’t have nearly the same rhetorical power.
In addition, there is the issue of the relationship between two groups key to the Democratic base, but rather distinct from one another: African Americans and white antiwar liberals. They share a common antipathy for Republicans, but beyond that there are already potential rifts on cultural issues like gay rights, abortion, religiosity vs. secularism, etc. Throw in the adulation many white antiwar liberals express for Byrd, and I have to wonder if it doesn’t at some point really drive a wedge between the two groups.
Bottom line for me is that the Southern wing of the Democratic party before 1968 (and to a lesser extent, between ’68 and ’94) was the direct descendant of the group that shut down Reconstruction after the Civil War and passed Jim Crow laws that put blacks into straits worse than slavery in some respects. Most of that group has since then been “lost” to the GOP, and I say good riddance! We need to quietly “lose” Byrd, and finish the process. Then, and only then, can we point to the modern GOP as the party of Southern white racists.
Not only will doing that feel good, I believe it is a powerful political weapon against them as it not only helps retain the massive advantage Democrats have among black voters, but peels off suburban moderates (who don’t want to be associated with racists) as well. And I think Rove knows this full well, which is why he takes such pains to make sure there are plenty of visible blacks in appointed positions and on stage at the GOP convention (though the actual GOP delegates and elected officials are overwhelmingly white).
Alan
Maverick Leftist
I dont think that pushing Byrd out at this time would resonate with anyone much, besides the right wing. Especially as he was one of the only strong anti war voices in the Senate and I think that counts for a lot with some people, black or white.
I see your other points, but I think it’s too late for all that, with this particular Senator. He’s 84, the longest serving Senator, at the moment, at the twilight of his life and all that stuff. If he decided not to run and graciously bowed out, allowing someone else to run instead, that would be different. But I don’t think attacking him from the left, and attempting to push him out now at the end of his career would be seen as anything but crass political pandering, not standing on principles or anything.
Black people are usually pretty pragmatic, when it comes to most Democratic politicians, especially ones in and from the South, so I’m not sure that there would be much political advantage there. The suburban moderates may be a different story, but I can’t say I see that either. Maybe 10 or so years ago, but not now that the guy is so old and the ‘father of the senate’ and all that. That sort of thing counts too.
I did look up him up on the issues2000 site, btw, and I certainly wouldn’t vote for him, but then I probably wouldn’t live in W VA either.
Thanks for leading me to the vote2000 site. I thought this was pretty interesting:
That can’t really be explained away by the “conservative electorate” bit, since it was the only rating where he was on the side opposite from that a moderate-to-liberal Democrat would get.
How about just quietly suggesting he retire, then? It seems to me more like Democrats are encouraging him to stay.
Did you read the column I excerpted and linked to at my diary? That’s the kind of “taking blacks for granted” attitude the writer was getting fed up with (which is more clear if you click the “no Republican” link).
Alan
Maverick Leftist
I went and read the columns (should have done so in the first place 😉 and I agree with them. Especially the ‘no republican’ link. I just don’t think Byrd would be the correct vehicle for Democratic politicians to show their bona fides and that they were doing more than taking black people for granted. Especially when you have the oldest member of the Senate, and presumably one of the most powerful, essentially owing one of the youngest members of the Senate – and the only black member – a political debt. Obama has lent his name and “star power” to helping get this man re-elected, and while I don’t actually know anything, I can imagine that there will be a trade-off somewhere. That’s sort of the type of thing I meant by being pragmatic.
The problem of politicians swooping in and out of black churches and neighborhoods, only at election time, and not supporting black candidates or dealing with real problems is something that I agree needs to be addressed (and who knows, maybe Dean will address it), but I think that issue is independent of the Byrd thing.
Unfortunately, I think Obama is being shortsighted here. He probably wants a chance to be part of the majority (well, he definitely wants that–but you know what I mean) and is putting that goal, in my view, ahead of ethical considerations.
Still, he–or any other black person–has the right to forgive Byrd. I–or any other white person–do not. JMO as they say…
Alan
Maverick Leftist
Oh, I think Obama is probably being pretty longsighted, actually. The guy has a lot of pressure on him from all sides… people who saw him at the convention, black people in general, white people, the entire country of Kenya, people waiting for him to fail, people waiting for him to excel, liberals, moderates, even some Republicans… to Be Somebody. In the Senate, I imagine the best way to go about that is to store up favors owed, and call them in when something you really want comes up. Nasty business, much of it, can’t imagine why anyone would want to be a politician, but anyway.
On Byrd and forgiveness… I think anyone has the right to forgive people who say they have changed, or even those who haven’t. Forgetting… well, that’s another matter.
really stacks high, when you build your own pedastal.
My, that’s a substantive response. Are you claiming Byrd never said or did any of this, or more just lashing out in frustration because you wish it weren’t so?
Alan
Maverick Leftist
neither, I’m just calling a spade, a spade. Pretty simple, isn’t it.
By the way, what’s your reward for this attack? Or is it just a “holier than thou” speach, to light up your bandwagon?
What’s in your closet?
If your wanting to make headlines, find something that really matters.
Nothing like Byrd’s, I assure you. I suppose I had the fortune of being raised by left wing parents, but I never have said anything racist, though some oversensitive people have accused me at times of being anti-Semitic because of my stance on Israel.
But I repeat: what is your actual basis for calling this “bullshit” other than the fact that you don’t like hearing it?
I’d say it “matters” quite a bit when a major figure in the Democratic Party, one who has been championed by so many progressives in the last couple years, has a history that makes Trent Lott look like Jesse Jackson! I suspect (hope) that many of those progressives are ignorant of the truth, just as you were. The fact that you don’t think it “matters” is at minimum racially insensitive.
Alan
Maverick Leftist
now, I’m a racist?
Simply amazing, how one totally lip service individual can spout such ill.
I’m sure we’ll never know for sure what’s in your closet, since it’s only your claim, and your not in the public eye, though I suspect you would like to aspire to that.
We sir, are through. I’ve seen your ideals, and heard your rhetoric, so hence forth, silence I believe would be of the best interest for us.
good day.
What could matter more than bigotry and being anti-gay?
Even if he was still in the KKK I’d applaude his anti-war stance and his other good work, as I do for Buchanan and others on the right who opposed the war and as I did with the pope who I also had disagreements with on other issues.
It’s pointless when you’re counting senate votes to say “I don’t want your vote because I don’t agree with you on everything.”
The guy represents a red state. He pulls in a ton of pork for one of the poorest regions in America. He’s a good senator for the people he represents and he’s also one of the few senators to take seriously the constitution.
I’m not sure why you are so worked up about racist positions he had 37 years ago and that he has since rejected publicly – even if you suspect he might still be racist in private.
He’s appreciated because he has guts and stands up for what he believes. Seems like a rare quality these days but then as you point out above he doesn’t come from “these days”.
I agree with everything you say except West Virginia is a blue state except for the presidential election. The governor, the majority of the state delegates, the majority of the state senators and four of the five Congressional representatives are Democrats. We can win this state back if we don’t give up on it.
I meant to respond to this as well, but forgot until you reminded me. Aside from all that you mentioned, they also voted for Clinton both times, and even voted for Dukakis in ’88!
Alan
Maverick Leftist
Seems to me we’re doing a pretty good job of not pulling together at the moment….
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/03/04/byrd.slur/ Ok, just so everyone can judge for themselves how Senator Byrd’s language sounds to them, while using the term ‘white nigger’ on national tv and his subsequent apology.
I report, you decide.
Unlike someone like Bush who glosses over and lies about his past.
David Brock has a hateful past too but he has recanted and apologized. Today, his work on Media Matters is invaluable.
Do you hate David Brock too?
Frankly, I’ve always been a little wary of Brock. I’m not sure I understand how someone can change that radically (and the same, btw, goes for Arianna Huffington, who memorably said that Newt Gingrich would be a great president, before having a latter-day conversion to the left).
I would be more convinced that Byrd has had a true change of heart had he not used that “white n****r” phrase just a couple years ago, and got rated as having a “poor record on civil rights” by the vote2000 site.
Alan
Maverick Leftist
Molly Ivins has a column on Senator Byrd. It seems she has forgiven him. Her opinion holds a lot of influence over me.
I’m unable to forgive Senators Spector and Biden for their treatment of Anita Hill because they have never recanted or apologized for this treatment, AFAIK. It sure makes a difference.
David Brock begged her forgiveness and tried to meet up with her but she did not respond.
I love Molly Ivins as well–I read her fantastic book (with Lou Dubose) Shrub during the 2000 campaign, and it is eerie how true it was when she wrote that if you want to know what a politician is going to do, look at his record. All the awful stuff he has done as president fits right into what he did as governor and before that.
But Ivins did not address the issue of Byrd’s racist past in that post. She, unfortunately, seems to be falling once again into the trap of “if he tears into Bush, he’s okay by me”. And I believe that’s not right especially in a sensitive issue like this one. That vote2000 site (I can’t remember if it was linked here or on the other Byrd diary) indicated that the one area where he had a poor voting record (from the Democratic POV) as of 2002 was in “civil rights”. Not a good sign of change on his part.
So, I still like Ivins but I think she’s blown this one.
Alan
Maverick Leftist
But her attitude implies that she has forgiven Senator Byrd, don’t you think?
There’s no doubt whatsoever that she is aware of his past.
I guess you hate Senator Ted Kennedy too?
There is such a thing as atonement. People make grevious mistakes, they ask forgiveness and atone for what they have done. It’s the way of humanity.
I’d say there’s at least a slight doubt, given how many people here angrily denounced the “allegations” that he was in the KKK as “unproven” when of course he has admitted it. I’ll grant you that Ivins is a well-informed woman; but just do a Google search: if you don’t read conservative sites or watch FOX News, there’s not much out there about it.
I assume you’re referring to Chappaquiddick? The truth about that episode was never really proven one way or another; and even if the worst is true, it doesn’t constitute a deliberate, mean-spirited act (which joining the KKK, filibustering civil rights legislation, then compiling a “poor civil rights record” and using the N-word as late as 2002 do constitute).
But decades and decades of collusion with the worst racists in our society is not a momentary “grievous mistake”. Even in his expression of regret for joining the KKK, he phrased it in terms of being a political liability.
Do you forgive Trent Lott? Do you think he was sincere in his apologies? I don’t, though he was certainly (by the end) more prostrated than Byrd ever has been.
So you are making a distinction between one grevious act and an on-going record.
Good point.
I still believe that Senator Byrd has made up for his past but that’s my opinion. There is always that reservation in my mind when I see him on TV but it isn’t strong enough to dismiss him entirely.
He hasn’t done anything to mitigate his “mistake.” In my opinion he was a bastard before he said it and he is still one.
Instead of replying to anyone’s particular comments right now I thought I would just state my own opinon of what I think of Senator Byrd or what I know of him so far.
With no pun intended almost nothing in this life is either black or white. Sen. Byrd’s voting record being so low on civil rights bothers me as does his anti-gay vote. His use as late as 2001 of the term ‘white nigger’ is especially disgusting. Even though I linked the article further upthread which has his reason and excuse I still find it troubling. He said it was from his childhood but if he has changed, I would have thought those types of terms would have been expunged from his thinking process long ago.
However I am glad that he standing up to bushco on the war in Iraq and the issues surrounding that and several others. I have even sent him several emails about that thanking him.
I do believe people can change and I’m not saying he hasn’t. Just that I accept his use in fighting against bushco on the war issue especially but do not give him a free pass on his voting record. Or his possible continued bad voting record on civil rights issues.
I don’t want to put words into SlackerInc’s mouth but it seems to me he just wants people to acknowledge that Sen. Bryd’s past isn’t so past as witness his voting record on civil rights. It’s not what you say that matters so much in politics as it is how you vote that should concern any voter.
Infidelpig’s story was very personal and eloquent and I have no reason to doubt that this is exactly how Sen. Byrd is to him. Just proves there are many sides to any story.
I’m not on anyone’s ‘side’ here; neither for nor against Sen. Byrd, I’m just trying to give my own opinion on a subject that seems a bit volatile here.