Friday Kennedy Blogging

Like Scott Lemieux, I'm glad that Teddy Kennedy decided to endorse Barack Obama, but find this disturbing if true:

Sources say Kennedy was privately furious at Clinton for her praise of President Lyndon Baines Johnson for getting the 1964 Civil Rights Act accomplished. Jealously guarding the legacy of the Kennedy family dynasty, Senator Kennedy felt Clinton's LBJ comments were an implicit slight of his brother, President John F. Kennedy, who first proposed the landmark civil rights initiative in a famous televised civil rights address in June 1963.

I suppose if I were a Kennedy I, too, would feel that helping to preserve the Myth of JFK was important. But the myth is just that -- a myth. Kennedy, like his immediate predecessor in the White House, was a diffident advocate of civil rights who obtained only meager results. Lyndon Johnson, by contrast, proposed and signed into law several hugely important pieces of legislation that forever changed the landscape of the United States.

I'd also say, though, that this report strikes me as odd on a psychological level. I would think that of all the people in the world to realize that Ted Kennedy has been a far more effective and important advocate of progressive causes than JFK ever was, that Ted himself would be high on that list. Would he admit publicly that his brother's deification is largely undeserved? Of course no. But who isn't privately painfully aware of his family members' shortcomings?

Comments

"I'd also say, though, that this report strikes me as odd on a psychological level."

You're talking about a guy who endorsed John Kerry in 2004 because Kerry had spent a couple of years literally walking Teddy's dog in a bid to ingratiate himself...

Posted by Petey | February 1, 2008 3:03 PM

Unnamed "sources", no direct quotes...

So why are you taking this seriously at all? In terms of credibility, this ranks somewhere around "the crazy dude down the street told me."

Posted by gustav | February 1, 2008 3:03 PM

It is not a myth. Ted Kennedy was absolutely right to be mad at HRC for saying what she did. It was JFK who introduced the Civil Rights legislation and he would have gotten it passed if he hadn't been killed. LBJ was just an opportunist who took credit for passing the landmark piece of legislation. The real credit goes to MLK and the civil rights grassroots for passing the law, not LBJ. LBJ was a bystander who was caught up in that period of hope and change of civil rights. Any other president could have done what LBJ did.

It would be dishonest to credit any white male for the civil rights movement (which is what Hillary Clinton tried to do), but if we had to credit one man it would be JFK and definitely not LBJ. The only thing LBJ deserved credit for was the Vietnam War.

Posted by TLM | February 1, 2008 3:04 PM

But who isn't privately painfully aware of his family members' shortcomings?

Which, in public and often to themselves, only makes them that much more desperate and fierce in defense of said family member(s).

(See, Bush, George H.W. and Barbara Pierce)

Posted by Jim | February 1, 2008 3:05 PM

You gravely underestimate the important and sanctity of political mythology. One should never forget that politics is not just about policy -- a point Democrats have too often overlooked (and even denigrated) in the past.

But Obama understands the importance of myth (not to mention symbol and language) and that's much of the reason why he's doing well. It's also one of the reasons he may ultimately prove to be a much more effective policy maker than Hillary Clinton could ever be.

Posted by Callimaco | February 1, 2008 3:08 PM

Er, you may need to brush up on your history (and stop drinking the Clinton kool-aid). The civil rights bill was introduced in Congress by JFK. It is true that Johnson brought it to fruition, but there is that minor snag that JFK was assassinated. There is almost no historian who disputes the pivotal role played by JFK in the civil rights movement. It is reality, not a myth.

Posted by 2cynicalbyhalf | February 1, 2008 3:09 PM

I have a hard time accepting anonymous sourcing from a D.C. gossip blog that reads a lot like Page Six.

Even if it's true, however, the statement Kennedy was supposedly reacting to is, at a minimum, fairly insensitive in tone: "Some people compare one of the other candidates to John F. Kennedy. But he was assassinated. And Lyndon Baines Johnson was the one who actually [signed the civil rights bill into law]."

It just strikes me as a somewhat heavy handed...dismissal of JFK's legacy. I can see Teddy being upset about the tone without necessarily disputing the substance.

Posted by owenz | February 1, 2008 3:09 PM

On the subject of whether MLK or LBJ (or JFK) deserves the credit for the passage and implementation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, I've been surprised I haven't seen more coverage of MLK's posthumously published thoughts on just this issue. MLK's personal interest should of course not be discounted, and he may have been bitter at LBJ over Vietnam, but MLK made the case that the Movement, and not the President, deserved most of the credit.

Posted by Warren Terra | February 1, 2008 3:09 PM

LBJ passed the first civil rights bill- which opened the door for all that followed- back in 1957.

Posted by David | February 1, 2008 3:10 PM

"It was JFK who introduced the Civil Rights legislation and he would have gotten it passed if he hadn't been killed. "

The second half of that sentence is almost definitely untrue, at least during JFK's first term.

Posted by Petey | February 1, 2008 3:11 PM

He was pissed about Clinton's lies about Obama's position on the war. If anything put him over the top, it was that. Like Kennedy said, being against the war in 2002 was a lonely, lonely position to have.

Posted by evie | February 1, 2008 3:14 PM

It's hard to believe what "sources said" here. This sounds like sheer rumor-mongering to me, probably from pro-Hillary forces looking to devalue the Kennedy endorsement.

I think there's a simple empirical test of plausibility here. It's been 43 years since the law in question was signed. Plenty of opportunities for all sorts of people, prominent and not, to praise Lyndon Johnson publicly for having done so. No doubt it's happened countless times on the Senate floor or in committee meetings in Ted's very presence. Does Ted have a history of gnashing his teeth over this? Has he chastised people in the past for overlooking JFK's role?

Posted by Egypt Steve | February 1, 2008 3:15 PM

There is almost no historian who disputes the pivotal role played by JFK in the civil rights movement.

There is definitely no historian who disputes the pivotal role played by that master of the legislative process, Lyndon Baines Johnson.

The whole thing is a bit bizarre, however. Why can't it be possible that a number of different people played pivotal roles in the civil rights cause?

Also, praising LBJ is hardly the same thing as dissing JFK.

Posted by Jasper | February 1, 2008 3:27 PM

I will also say this: Matt's selective captioning is somewhat misleading here. Sure, Kennedy may have felt Clinton's LBJ comment was an "implicit slight," but the author also cites the comment made by the Clinton supporter ("Some people compare one of the other candidates to John F. Kennedy. But he was assassinated. And Lyndon Baines Johnson was the one who actually [signed the civil rights bill into law].") This comment explicitly minimizes JFK's role and - more importantly - uses JFK's assassination to score a cheap applause line before introducing Hillary.

Again, I understand Matt's reflex to battle the JFK Myth. But the comment Teddy was reacting to wasn't a factual claim about LBJ's record. Rather, it was an attempt to turn the fact that people associate Obama with JFK - for reasons completely unrelated to the Civil Rights Bill - into a negative.

(The author also says Kennedy was upset about the racially-charged rhetoric used by Bill Clinton on the campaign trail.)

Posted by owenz | February 1, 2008 3:27 PM

i agree with callimaco, and more importantly, i think the kennedy myth has been essential to teddy's ability to push for progressive causes over the last 30 years, and that the preservation of that myth is important to both him and his abiliy to push those causes, as well as continuing a broader progressive mythology of which his brother and family are an essential part.

Posted by Max B. | February 1, 2008 3:31 PM

you know who else is irrational? the memphis grizzlies. they got robbed for gasol.

Posted by dth | February 1, 2008 3:35 PM

This is the aspect of political 'dynasties' that is worrisome; as noted above the present administration is filled with officials who have some kind of axe to grind relating to past presidents (ie-Bush 41 and Nixon/Ford). Not to mention the Oedipal implications of much of the Bush policies.

I was pretty interested in politics even in '63 and my memory seems to be of a very cautious JFK who was not at all certain of winning in '64. I think I am corret in saying (prob'ly should look this up!!) that the Time magazine that was on newstands on Nov 22d '63 contained a poll showing Goldwater leading Kennedy in a head-to-head race. We forget how important the 'solid south' was to Dems back in those days and it's seems doubtful that JFK would have risked his chance for a 2d term. The 'Black Vote' wasn't a Dem block back then; Nixon took 30 or 40% in '60.

Interesting remembering how different the landscape was in those days when dinosaurs roamed and conservatives had a conscience!!!

Posted by JohnMcC | February 1, 2008 3:37 PM

I think you're spending way too much time at DC cocktail parties.

Posted by MikeKC | February 1, 2008 3:38 PM

It's pretty far fetched to see any slight of JFK in all this but who knows what Teddy thinks

. The civil rights legislation was a political impossibility. Johnson was a monster in most every sense but he did the impossible. Kennedy didn't stand a .00001% chance of passing those types of bills. Johnson did it despite the fact he knew it would cause a political realignment that hurt his party. The whole thing was improbable.

The one thing in Johnson's favor was the liberal media. The television networks and all the mainline media sources were absolutely behind the civil rights movement. That is why to this day the 'liberal media' tag sticks. In todays media if a politician suggests that the civil rights laws should be enforced they are treated like lepers by the media. Their form of penance I guess.

Without the NY media with their cameras down south the 'movement' could have been contained politically, in my opinion.

Posted by rapier | February 1, 2008 3:43 PM

"you know who else is irrational? the memphis grizzlies. they got robbed for gasol."

Jesus motherfucking Christ.

That's crazy. The Grizz are pinching their pennies.

Posted by Petey | February 1, 2008 3:47 PM

I also think this suggests a level of pettiness with Kennedy that belies his four decades in office. Don't you think by this point he's heard and seen every "offensive" thing there is possible about his brother? This speculation is silly and, again, undeserved given Kennedy's record.

Posted by evie | February 1, 2008 3:52 PM

Obviously Johnson deserves a lot of credit for getting the Civil Rights Act passed, but a) Matt really needs to study up before talking out of his ass; proposed by LBJ, indeed; and b) I think disputing the counterfactual is ultimately impossible. Johnson's parliamentary skills obviously played a big role, but I don't know that one can definitively say that something similar might not have happened anyway - the congressional leaders were also committed to civil rights, and Mike Mansfield, et al, were also skilled parliamentarians.

At any rate, the main thing is that Matt should actually go over the details, rather than disgorging half-remembered summaries of remarks by others, before he talks out of his ass.

Posted by John | February 1, 2008 4:01 PM

"Kennedy, like his immediate predecessor in the White House, was a diffident advocate of civil rights who obtained only meager results."

ike was a very reluctant warrior for civil rights. he spent a lot of his career in the south, and was sensitive to southern sensibilities.

JFK called mlk while he was in the Birmingham jail, and came out strongly in favor of civil rights in 1960. Believe me, racists hated his guts.

What jfk couldn't do was get stuff passed in Congress. It took his death, and lbj's shrewd moves to capitalize on it to get those bills through.

LBJ's role in all of this is undersung, but you can't compare jfk to ike. JFK helped pave the way.

Posted by jim | February 1, 2008 4:07 PM

1. Stop blogging. Get a real job.
2. The Clinton comment was an elevation of herself and LBJ with respect to JFK but also MLK.
3. So much of what LBJ did was because of circumstances. He had this huge sympathy because Kennedy was dead, because on civil rights as a Southerner he had more folsky street-cred and could do more than Kennedy as a Northerner, because Goldwater managed to get himself nominated and ensure a huge majority for LBJ allowing him to do more stuff in his full-term. The importance of being a legislative master is exaggerated in this LBJ history.
4. Hillary would be a good enough president.

Posted by Moral Panicker | February 1, 2008 4:10 PM

What people remember about JFK is the speeches. You can find lots of them on youtube. He brought the country to the place where civil rights legislation was possible. It was his martyrdom as much as LBJ's arm twisting that got it passed.

JFK (and MLK) moved the country. LBJ moved Congress. The country had to move first.

Posted by lgm | February 1, 2008 4:34 PM

"Kennedy, like his immediate predecessor in the White House, was a diffident advocate of civil rights who obtained only meager results."

You're right. Kennedy's immediate predecessor achieved VERY meager civil rights results.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eisenhower#Civil_Rights

I mean, passing the first two Civil Rights Acts, appointing the Chief Justice who shepherded the most significant civil rights decision in this nation's history, and nationalizing a southern state's guard to enforce a desegregation decision? Meager results indeed.

Posted by Joe | February 1, 2008 4:35 PM

The sourcing on this makes it completely meaningless.

Posted by dbt | February 1, 2008 4:48 PM

Whether or not JFK would have gotten the CIvil RIghts Act of 1964 passed in 1964 is an entirely unanswerable question. That LBJ did is an unassailable historical fact.
Further, HRC will not be a President with a similar sort of legislative power and influence as LBJ. After all, a Senate Majority Leader who becomes President is very rare, if not unprecedented.
And further, Barack Obama is not anywhere near the leader of a popular movement as MLK. He is after all, an elected official, with no organization and no history as a movement leader. He is African American and he is an inspiring speaker and there the resemblance between Obama and King is in the eyes of liberal whites with a romantic temperament.

In fact, both Clinton and Obama have precisely the same theory of change -- building a bi-partisan coalition around some progressive legislation. How they intend to peel off GOP moderates, when those moderates face both GOP challenges from the Right and a resurgent Democratic Party eager to expand its majorities is unexplained.

Edwards seemed to understand that a popular movement was necessary to change the political terrain and seemed to understand that you cannot build a fighting popular movement when the candidate/President uses to moderate, middle of the road, non-confrontational rhetoric all the time.

THey are all cheap knock-offs of LBJ and there are no Martin Luther Kings or Malcolm X creating a popular movement.

Posted by tom in Ma | February 1, 2008 4:54 PM

lgm has it right.

Folks who didn't live during that time have no appreciation for the bottom up movement of social upheaval taking place at the time.

JFK inspired, RFK followed with more of the mechanics growing into the inspiring, LBJ was always a congressional wheeler dealer that, I believe, truly wanted civil rights but was about as inspiring as mud. MLK inspired ground action, the rest fell into place through the various legislative levers being pulled by the various players of the day.

None of it could have happened as it did if any of the players hadn't contributed their part in the action.

Clinton's comments reflect nothing except her strong belief in the top down method of moving things.

Obama is the exact opposite. Hence, Obama inspires.

Read your history. Learn from it. Doris Goodwin Kearns is a great place to start, especially in relation to LBJ.

Posted by G Davis | February 1, 2008 5:24 PM

First, JFK could not "introduce" legislation. He was president, not a member of congress and could no more introduce legislation than vote on a bill.

Second, the first civil rights legislation to pass after reconstruction was passed in 1957 because of LBJ's unparalleled mastery of senate rules and personalities (there was a book that focused on this quite recently called... "master of the senate"). he was able to get racist southern democrats to accept (although not support) that a bill had to pass. This was critical as folks like richard russell had been filibustering these bills for decades. The '57 bill was the camel under the tent and they later hated him for it. (And eisenhower should get some credit for signing the bill, but it really wasn't his battle - it was LBJ's.) Prior to this civil rights legislation routinely passed the House only to die in the Senate.

JFK may have given speeches about civil rights, but he had no chance of getting it done. LBJ took the historic moment given to him and used it to make the country a better place - something other presidents (GWB) have not done. But don't forget - he'd already fought much of the battle seven years earlier.

Posted by Columbia | February 1, 2008 5:35 PM

First, JFK could not "introduce" legislation. He was president, not a member of congress and could no more introduce legislation than vote on a bill.

Second, the first civil rights legislation to pass after reconstruction was passed in 1957 because of LBJ's unparalleled mastery of senate rules and personalities (there was a book that focused on this quite recently called... "master of the senate"). he was able to get racist southern democrats to accept (although not support) that a bill had to pass. This was critical as folks like richard russell had been filibustering these bills for decades. The '57 bill was the camel under the tent and they later hated him for it. (And eisenhower should get some credit for signing the bill, but it really wasn't his battle - it was LBJ's.) Prior to this civil rights legislation routinely passed the House only to die in the Senate.

JFK may have given speeches about civil rights, but he had no chance of getting it done. LBJ took the historic moment given to him and used it to make the country a better place - something other presidents (GWB) have not done. But don't forget - he'd already fought much of the battle seven years earlier.

Posted by Columbia | February 1, 2008 5:37 PM

Eh. MLK says they both sucked.

Posted by Jay | February 1, 2008 5:49 PM

Has anybody asked what Mary Jo Kopechne thinks of any of this?

Posted by Thomas | February 1, 2008 7:07 PM

Let's also not forget that John Kennedy tapped Martin Luther King's phones and did so little on civil rights that Martin Luther King had to organize one of the most famous protests in American history to force him to act.

(Also, the Civil Rights Act proposed by Kennedy was weaker than the one LBJ eventually got passed. And Kennedy never proposed voting rights laws or a war on poverty or Medicare or any of the other portions of the Great Society. Instead, he cut taxes on the rich.)

John Kennedy was scared to death of losing the South. LBJ was willing to take the risk. John Kennedy wasn't the worst thing imaginable on civil rights, but he certainly wasn't willing to take any political risks to help blacks. Truman, Eisenhower, and ESPECIALLY Johnson did.

Posted by Dilan Esper | February 1, 2008 7:19 PM

Doris Kearns Goodwin? Really? She was a White House Fellow in '67 so she doesn't have any first hand knowledge of either the Civil Rights Act or the Voting Rights Act. She isn't much of a historian either.

Posted by skeptic | February 1, 2008 10:51 PM

"he certainly wasn't willing to take any political risks to help blacks. Truman, Eisenhower, and ESPECIALLY Johnson did."

Nothing? really. Both Kennedy and Eisenhower took steps to enforce desegregation rulings. And let's not forget that Eisenhower tried to dissuade Earl Warren from ruling against segregation in Brown v. Board. So, not a lot of saints here. But Johnson really deserves credit for his long-term commitment and his lack of comparable reluctance to Eisenhower and Kennedy.

Posted by Dan Nexon | February 2, 2008 12:28 PM

"Ted Kennedy has been a far more effective and important advocate of progressive causes than JFK "

Good point. Teddy may have been the least of the Kennedys, and he had a very rocky start, but he's been a dogged advocate for many years, while JFK and RFK were tragically cut off.

The actual accomplishments of JFK and RFK, as opposed to the myth, are nothing special. JFK had no clout in Congress in part because he spent very little time there - he was always running for the next higher office. He had some bold visions, but there is no reason to think he could have forced Congress to do his bidding on important issues.

Posted by skeptonomist | February 2, 2008 2:29 PM

I think you are right. And Hillary was, too, she just said it poorly and with poltical advantage in mind, all a no-no in dealing with a martyr/hero.

We don't know if JFK would have been more of a liberal/progressive as time went on. Certainly there was evidence that RFK was changing in that direction when he was assassinated. But the JFK administration was not liberal/progressive, that's because everything then was framed around the Cold War and people forget that communism/socialism was the enemy then to much of society. Check out, for just one example, his approval of dropping the top tax rates.

Though I am sure there was genuine concern behind it, support for civil rights in the JFK administration was aided by the Soviets propagandizing about the state of life for Afro-Americans at the time.

The JFK administration was very realpolitick in both foreign and domestic policy. Little Teddy was the only one who could become an out and proud liberal because of all that had gone before him.

Let's put it this way: who thinks father Joe Kennedy was a liberal? The Kennedy kids were not raised to be Dorothy Day liberals, they were raised to get power. After JFK was assassinated, they had gained much power at a great price, time to move on from the realpolitick, without instructions from Dad. RFK could support Cesar Chavez without being labeled a commie, in the FDR tradition of supporting labor. Teddy could become a real liberal.

Posted by artappraiser | February 2, 2008 3:37 PM