The Political Consequences

Posted by BooMan | Mar 21, 2010 | 17 |

I seem to be on a LBJ-kick, but considering the circumstances it’s understandable, right? In any case, consider the following, from Newt Gingrich:

Former Republican House speaker Newt Gingrich said Obama and the Democrats will regret their decision to push for comprehensive reform. Calling the bill “the most radical social experiment . . . in modern times,” Gingrich said: “They will have destroyed their party much as Lyndon Johnson shattered the Democratic Party for 40 years” with the enactment of civil rights legislation in the 1960s.

Passing the Civil Rights legislation did in fact shatter the Democratic Party, lead to a realignment of the parties, and help usher in the Reagan Revolution. The biggest price we paid for ending Jim Crow was the loss of a liberal consensus on economic matters in this country. It used to be that the southern racists in our country were generally in favor of the New Deal. That meant that we were safe from any kind of radical Randian experimentation with massive deregulation or extreme changes in progressive taxation. The middle class was protected. But, once the south abandoned the Democratic Party and linked up with country-club Republicans, all bets were off. We lost a great deal when we sacrificed the Democratic Party on the altar of Civil Rights. And, yet, would any of us, knowing the costs in advance, not make the same choices now?

It’s not even a close call.

Moreover, while there are some 35 or more Democratic members of the House who are going ‘no’ on health care today, they aren’t going to switch parties over it (albeit one Democrat from Alabama has already done exactly that). Almost all the members voting against health care reform are doing it because they are scared about their reelection prospects, but there is no comparison to the well-meaning, enlightened southern Democrats who felt compelled to vote against Civil Rights legislation. That era’s politicians faced certain defeat, while today their fate is uncertain.

It’s possible that the Republicans will pick up dozens of seats in the midterms, including a bunch from Democrats who voted for health care reform. But we won’t see former Democrats winning those elections. It won’t be a true realignment because the two parties will still believe the same things. And there is no reason to believe that the Democrats won’t come right back and win seats in 2012, using the same arguments that won them seats in 2006 and 2008.

In other words, there isn’t any relationship between 1964 and 2010. Newt Gingrich has been sniffing glue again. Democrats should do the right thing and not worry about the long-term political implications. Most people, including the Republicans, believe the Democrats will benefit greatly in the long-term.

About The Author

BooMan

Martin Longman a contributing editor at the Washington Monthly. He is also the founder of Booman Tribune and Progress Pond. He has a degree in philosophy from Western Michigan University.

17 Comments

BooMan on March 21, 2010 at 12:57 pm

A reminder:

Senate Floor Debate: Leadership Strategy
When the House-passed bill reached the Senate floor in March 1964, three groups of senators formed: pro-civil rights Democrats, southern Democrats opposed to the bill, and Republicans. Senator Hubert H. Humphrey led the Democrats who supported the bill and worked actively for its passage. As Senate majority whip, Humphrey enjoyed the support of Mike Mansfield, Senate majority leader. Together they were determined to pass the legislation and even arranged grueling twelve-hour daily sessions to wear down the opposition. Humphrey’s task was to line up supporters to defend the bill in debate, to persuade reluctant members of his party to vote for passage, to encourage publicity, and to count votes. The Senator from Minnesota labored hard for passage and sought cooperation from many sources, including the Republicans.

Senator Richard Russell, Democrat from Georgia, led the so-called opposition forces. The group was also known as the “southern bloc.” It was composed of eighteen southern Democrats and one Republican, John Tower of Texas. Although a hopeless minority, the group exerted much influence because Senate rules virtually guaranteed unlimited debate unless it was ended by cloture. The “southern bloc” relied on the filibuster to postpone the legislation as long as possible, hoping that support for civil rights legislation throughout the country would falter. The Democratic leadership and Humphrey could not control the southern wing of the party.

Russell’s forces disliked civil rights legislation for several reasons. Many feared that their southern constituents would vote them out of office if, as senators, they voted for equal rights for African Americans. The “southern bloc” held up consideration of the bill from March into June hoping that presidential candidate George Wallace, a segregationist from Alabama, would do well in the early presidential primaries. If Wallace seemed popular, Russell would argue that the nation as a whole did not support federal civil rights legislation and that the Senate should not pass an unwanted bill. Southern senators could not compromise. Only by forcing cloture could they demonstrate to their constituents that they had fought to the end against hopeless odds.

From Filibuster to Cloture
The filibuster forces knew that they faced a long and tiring battle. Their opponents had anticipated and planned for the filibuster. In fact, Humphrey personally opened full-fledged debate on the civil rights bill on March 30 with a three hour, eleven-minute speech from a 68 page speech of his own in defense of H. R. 7152. Both Humphrey and Thomas Kuchel (R-CA), Senate Minority Whip gathered enough senators together so that at any time a quorum call came up, the pro-civil rights forces could answer it. Northerners also combated the “southern bloc” by answering southerners’ criticisms of the bill on the floor rather than simply letting the filibusterers speak indefinitely without response. To respond to the organized opposition, southerners formed a platoon system composed of three six- member filibuster teams. When one team had the floor for the filibuster, the other two would rest and then prepare to take turns speaking on the floor.

The Republican Party was not so badly split as the Democrats by the civil rights issue. Only one Republican senator participated in the filibuster against the bill. In fact, since 1933, Republicans had a more positive record on civil rights than the Democrats. In the twenty-six major civil rights votes since 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 % of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 % of the votes.

The Republican pro-civil rights forces were blessed with gifted leadership. Although Senate minority whip Thomas Kuchel initially managed the party’s forces, it increasingly became clear to Democrats, Republicans, the press, civil rights groups, and the White House that Everett McKinley Dirksen was the key man in the entire civil rights legislative effort.

After criticizing H. R. 7152 in March, Dirksen began to work more closely in late spring with Humphrey and the civil rights forces to fashion a strategy that would secure passage of the bill. Dirksen organized Republican support for the bill by designating a floor captain for each of the bill’s seven sections. He and the bipartisan leaders believed that five or six “swing” votes held the key to cloture and the end of debate. Almost all of these uncommitted senators were conservative Republicans from rural states without racial difficulties. Their constituents opposed the legislation because it involved expanded federal powers. The problem facing the leadership was how to enlist the support of these uncommitted senators.

By working with Dirksen to swing key votes and by marshaling public opinion and constituent support for the civil rights measure, Senate leaders moved forward with the legislation.

Read the rest.
- on March 21, 2010 at 5:09 pm
  
  On the CR bill, Dems going to work on Ev Dirksen actually started with Pres Kennedy, who enjoyed a slightly better personal relationship with the Repub Leader, especially in terms of mutual respect and trust, than did his successor Johnson. JFK knew Ev was the key.
  
  Then the savvy Maj Leader Mansfield quietly asserted himself by agreeing to allow all work on amending the bill to occur not as was customary, in the office of the ML or the floor leader, but in the office of Dirksen. This move made ED an integral part of the process all along, and made it less likely he would end up with the obstructionists.
  
  Finally, the behind the scenes work by the bill’s floor manager, Sen Hubert Humphrey, in buttering up Dirksen and reminding him of his importance to history with this bill, over a period of months. No one could flatter as relentlessly and with as many angles as Hubert, and in this case he found someone who was willing to listen.
- The Voice In The Wilderness on March 21, 2010 at 6:26 pm
  
  Everett Dirksen, always a gentlemen, and even though conservative, genuinely on the side of the little guy.
  
  One of the great Illinois politicians like Adlai Stevenson and Paul Simon. How low my State has fallen now.
  - DaveW on March 21, 2010 at 7:09 pm
    
    I wouldn’t call Dirksen a great pol myself — he just looks good compared to the general run of goppers. What with Obama, Durbin, Schakowski, and more, I can’t say it’s fallen all that low, either. We’ve always had crooks in high places, pretty much in balance with the good guys.
    - The Voice In The Wilderness on March 22, 2010 at 10:41 pm
      
      Blagojevich, Quinn, Stroger, Madigan, Emanuel, Lipinski
      
      in random order
CrapIsKing on March 21, 2010 at 1:03 pm

It’s not only the Democrats who have lost in the realignment that grew out of the Civil Rights era. With the Southern strategy and the Reagan revolution – which as you imply are, in a sense, the same thing – truly moderate and liberal Republicans have left that party in droves. When Nixon embraced racism en cachette, a few left. Reagan drove a few more out. When Bush Daddy embraced Pat Robertson, he drove college-educated women out of the party. Ross Perot, for all of the slamming he took, convinced a lot of us that, while we may not be actual Democrats, we weren’t comfortable being Republicans anymore. Bill Clinton’s moderation may have made a lot of core Democrats unhappy, but it made a lot wandering former Republicans feel comfortable as kind of Democrats. And Bush Baby turned everyone at the national level who isn’t crazy against what the Republican Party has become. Outside the South, there are still a lot of old-fashioned Republican men – pro-civil rights and pro-business at the same time – who can’t give it up. This is where we need to turn our efforts now, and complete the process of making everyone realize that the Republicans are now exactly what the Democrats accused them of being in 1860 – an isolated, regional party which cannot speak for the entire nation. Don’t give up. The darkest hour is just before dawn.
phastphil40 on March 21, 2010 at 1:03 pm

“Almost all the members voting against health care reform are doing it because they are scared about their reelection prospects”

The Republicans are going to attack them regardless of how they vote on HCR. Last election they tricked the voters. Like the voters didn’t realized they were Democrats.

“The people don’t want a phony Democrat. If it’s a choice between a genuine Republican, and a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time; that is, they will take a Republican before they will a phony Democrat, and I don’t want any phony Democratic candidates in this campaign.” — President Harry Truman
- zak822 on March 22, 2010 at 12:08 pm
  
  Phastphil, spot on! The ones who are afraid to lose the next election have forgotten that being elected to public office should not be considered either a career path or a lifetime sinecure. We expect Congress to do the tough work, that’s why we pay them $160,000 a year.
  
  We put them in office to do the best they can for us. Any of them that put campaign contributions ahead of the public good should be voted out of office. Vote for people who vote for you.
ericy on March 21, 2010 at 1:06 pm

I am thinking that this will re-energize the Democrats to a degree – there will be a sense that they can accomplish something. It is far from perfect, of course, but some type of health care reform has been attempted by many Presidents.

It will also give a boost to Obama. The Republicans bet everything on defeating this and making Obama look impotent and unable to accomplish anything. The passage of this bill essentially means that the Republicans lost their bet.
Moses2317 on March 21, 2010 at 1:42 pm

We’re in the final stretch here and need to keep the heat on the undecideds on health care reform. Below are their D.C., district, and fax #s. I have left off some district numbers that we know the mailboxes are full on.

If you cannot get through on the phone, use this free internet fax service – http://faxzero.com/

Paul Kanjorski – Pennsylvania (Wilkes-Barre, Scranton, Mount Pocono) – 202-225-6511
District # – 570-496-1011 – they were answering this morning
Fax # – 202-225-0764

John Tanner – Tennessee (Union City, Jackson, Millington) – 202-225-4714
District # – (731) 885-7070
Fax # – (202) 225-1765

Earl Pomeroy – North Dakota (Bismarck, Fargo) – (202) 225-2611
Fax # – (202) 226-0893

Kathy Dahlkemper – Pennsylvania (Erie) – (202) 225-5406
Fax # – (202) 225-3103

Lincoln Davis – Tennessee (Columbia, Jamestown, Rockwood) – 202.225.6831
District #s – 931.879.2361
Fax # – 202.226.5172

Mike Michaud – Maine (Bangor, Lewiston, Presque Isle, Waterville) – 202-225-6306
District # – 207-942-6935 – 207-782-3704 – 207-764-1036 – 207-873-5713
Fax # – 202-225-2943

Steve Driehaus – Ohio (Cincinnati) – (202) 225-2216
District # – (513) 684-2723
Fax # – (202) 225-3012

Stephen Lynch – Massachusetts (Brockton, Boston) – 202-225-8273
District # – 617-428-2000 – 508-586-5555
Fax # – 202-225-3984

Rick Boucher – Virginia (Abingdon, Pulaski, Big Stone Gap) – 202-225-3861
District # – 276-628-1145 – 540-980-4310 – 276-523-5450
Fax # – 202-225-0442

Loretta Sanchez – California (Garden Grove) – (202) 225-2965
District # – (714) 621-0102
Fax # – (202) 225-5859

Dan Lipinski – Illinois (LaGrange, Oak Lawn, Chicago’s southwest side) – (202) 225 – 5701
District #s – (312) 886 – 0481 – (708) 352 – 0524 – (708) 424 – 0853
Fax # – (202) 225 – 1012

Joe Donnelly – Indiana (South Bend, LaPorte, Michigan City, Kokomo) – (202) 225-3915
District #s – 574.288.2780 – 574-753-2671 – 219.326.6808 ext. 2414 – 219.873.1408 ext. 354
Fax # – (202) 225-6798

Marion Berry – Arkansas (Jonesboro, Cabot, Mountain Home) – (202) 225-4076
District # – (870) 972-4600 – (501) 843-3043 – (870) 425-3510
Fax # – (202) 225-5602

Jerry Costello – Illinois (Carbondale, Belleville, E. St. Louis, Granite City, Chester) – (202) 225-5661
District #s – (618) 233-8026 – (618) 529-3791 – (618) 826-3043 – (618) 397-8833 – (618) 451-7065 – (618) 937-6402
Fax # – (202) 225-0285

Nick Rahall – West Virginia (Beckley, Bluefield, Huntington, Logan) – (202) 225-3452
District #s – (304) 252-5000 – (304) 325-6222 – (304) 522-6425 – (304) 752-4934

Alan Mollohan – West Virginia (Morgantown, Wheeling, Clarksburg, Parkersburg) – (202) 225-4172
District #s – (304) 623-4422 – (304) 292-3019 – (304) 428-0493 – (304) 232-5390
Fax #s – (202) 225-7564
- The Voice In The Wilderness on March 21, 2010 at 6:28 pm
  
  And there is Lipinski, shilling for the child molesters again.
shergald on March 21, 2010 at 1:47 pm

The EU, the English speaking countries, and Japan, and for all I know every other country except the US and Mexico have been “experimenting” with socialized medicine since the 1930s (Sweden) and after. What more evidence does one need? It works.

But it’s not good Reaganomics, hence Gingrich’s acrimony.
DaveW on March 21, 2010 at 1:48 pm

There is no bloc for the Dems to lose this time like they did after the Civil Rights Act. They can lose the likes of Lieberman and Lincoln, but that has as much chance of strengthening the party as shattering it. Dems will continue to make long-term gains in the Mountain West, Great Plains, and maybe some border states. The GOP will continue to shrink into the Confederate Party. They know this, which explains their frantic attempts to replay the Civil War.

Gingrich’s “warning” is interesting in his explicit rejection of the Civil Rights Act and associated legislation. His comfort in doing so shows how isolated his party has become from the American mainstream. It also shows how being a fairly smart guy doesn’t keep one from being a complete and flaming asshole.
- Quentin on March 21, 2010 at 2:27 pm
  
  What filth the man spews, an im/explicit rejection of LBJ’s Civil Rights legislation. What does the African American leader of the repugnant party think of this, not to mention Ms Rice wherever she may be hanging out?
- wvng on March 21, 2010 at 5:18 pm
  
  Gingrich is the purest example of a bullshitter I have ever seen. Of course you all know this seminal work on the subject: http://press.princeton.edu/titles/7929.html
wvng on March 21, 2010 at 4:35 pm

Why does anyone listen to these clowns? Gingrich left in disgrace, not victory. And today Kristol was on Fox saying the bill would be repealed. I want someone to sk Kristol how many 100,000s of people have died, and how many millions have been financially ruined, since he wrote the seminal “repubs must obstruct any Dem health care reform” policy memo in 1993. Until someone is willing to be rude to this evil man, I don’t want to see him (or Newtie) on my teevee again.

But I also want a pony.
budr on March 22, 2010 at 10:15 am

Op-Ed Columnist – Fear Strikes Out – NYTimes.com

I’d argue that Mr. Gingrich is wrong about that: proposals to guarantee health insurance are often controversial before they go into effect — Ronald Reagan famously argued that Medicare would mean the end of American freedom — but always popular once enacted.

But that’s not the point I want to make today. Instead, I want you to consider the contrast: on one side, the closing argument was an appeal to our better angels, urging politicians to do what is right, even if it hurts their careers; on the other side, callous cynicism. Think about what it means to condemn health reform by comparing it to the Civil Rights Act. Who in modern America would say that L.B.J. did the wrong thing by pushing for racial equality? (Actually, we know who: the people at the Tea Party protest who hurled racial epithets at Democratic members of Congress on the eve of the vote.)

The Political Consequences

About The Author

BooMan

17 Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Comments