You know, looking at DU today, I'm reminded of LBJ...

He was a good Southern Democrat of his time, a racist asshole, and I'm sure whatever pastors were at his inauguration were pro-segregationists, but probably weren't well known for that, it was assumed.

But that's neither here nor there. What I find interesting about LBJ isn't what he did to help pass the Civil Rights Act, but HOW he did it. Did he wait for the majority of whites in this country to support the bill? Did he wait for even his own party to support the Bill? No he didn't, but the bill still passed, and instead of "reaching across the aisle" on the issue of civil rights through compromise, he instead threatened those who opposed it, tried to shame them, and even compromised on other issues just to make sure the bill passed. He did everything short of beating the crap out of people to make sure they voted his way. Everything he was legally able to do, he did, and he probably bent the law a few times as well.

Same thing when he called up the national guard to make sure the Supreme Court's orders on desegregation were enforced. Do I think he did this out of the goodness of his heart? Bot at first, no, I think he probably knew that a change in culture and attitude was taking place, not necessarily in his lifetime, but he knew segregation and discrimination didn't have a place in this country anymore, and I figure that he though now was the time to try to eliminate it, instead of trying to wait it out.

This man didn't attempt to compromise with the people protesting around the school in Little Rock who were calling schoolchildren "Nigger!". He didn't attempt to compromise with George Wallace, no, instead he spent damn near all his and his party's political capital to at least try to change this country. And to this day, the work he started still hasn't come to fruition, but people like him and MLK Jr. did get the ball rolling.

So what does all this have to do with what is happening on DU today. Well, simply this, if DU existed in the 1960s, it seems like a lot of you would be arguing that we should concentrate on changing the hearts and minds of those segregationists, but the question is, how much longer would that have taken, a decade, 20 years, 30, 50? Think about this, interracial marriage didn't gain majority support in this country until 1990, that's almost 30 years AFTER it was made legal nationwide through a Supreme Court decision.

Now the question today is this, what type of President will Barack Obama be? Will he be willing to spend all of his political capital to get rid of DOMA? How about DADT? How about to pass ENDA? Yes, gay people don't face ALL the same struggles as black people do either today or 40 years ago. And as some of you pointed out, gay people always have the option to pretend to be straight so they don't get fired from their jobs, kicked out of their apartments, and hell, they can even get married in that situation, but that also means you are asking them to hide who they are, tell them to never fall in love, or at least never to act on that love, and generally telling them to hide in a hell of their own making, all the while afraid they may be exposed, outed, and face the discrimination they have been hiding from.

What type of life are you asking GLBT people to live in? You aren't asking them to live at all, you are asking them to exist in limbo, denying themselves for your comfort. What an atrocious attitude to have.

How this relates to Warren is actually quite simple, its been argued that we need to reach out to people like him and his followers if we want to get anything done. Of course, if Barack Obama were anything like LBJ, he wouldn't have to reach out to these bigots at all. He would simply steamroll over them, and any who think like them instead. LBJ actually made the "big tent" smaller through his actions, yet will anyone here say he was wrong to do so?

What I would like to see from Barack Obama is him risking the 2012 election for both himself and the Democrats to pass equal rights for GLBT people nationwide. If he has to twist a few arms in Congress to make it happen, most from his own damned party, so be it. If he has to destroy all chances of winning the next election, so be it. It would be more than worth it.

and strategy. There's other issues, just as pressing if not more so, that are desperately needed to get passed. The 'bash their heads in' approach is one way, finesse and winning the other side's trust is another.

100? You are asking for patience when its completely unreasonable to do so. Its a completely ridiculous notion to win the other side trust BEFORE equal rights become the law of the land.

He knows how hard you worked, he has a fair and liberal heart. He's on your side. You won't get what you want if he isn't making smart moves politically. You want the public strongly on his side to combat the RW opposition. He's thinking big picture.

in an entire region of the country for a generation to make sure that big picture was passed. Would Obama be willing to do the same? Your confusing political expediency and self preservation for "big picture thinking". They are NOT the same.

medium size picture thinking? Whatever. He's using a smart, and politicaly smart strategy to get you what you want . . . and there are other issues that, let's face it, are more important than yours. This country is in a hell of a mess and Obama's got a lot to tackle not just gay rights. He can't just politically self destruct for gay rights . . . your needs don't supersede all others.

NO ISSUE, UNDERSTAND ME?! And its not like LBJ didn't face OTHER issues as well, were they more important than the Civil Rights Act?

ON EDIT: ONLY A BIGOT WOULD MAKE THAT ARGUMENT! :grr:

Healthcare is more important because people are dying because they don't have it. Povery . . . kids with no food is more important. Getting our people out of Iraq so more don't die is more important than gays being able to marry. But the point I'm making is it would be insanity to go whole hog like LBJ for one issue and weaken his political capital greatly for it.

Its more than just marriage rights, after all. Homeless GLBT teens are dying in the streets, or they commit suicide at rates far greater than their straight counterparts. Many Gays are fired from their jobs for being Gay, or kicked out of apartments, etc. Are their lives worth any less?

that are intensely important. Those many important issues need to get addressed and I'm damn glad we will have a smart Democrat in charge who's going to outsmart the selfish inept assholes who've left this country and the world a steaming mess.

And in a perfect world, only I could restore them.

How very fortunate for you this is neither a just nor a perfect world.

First off, you need to get a sense of perspective. Black people lived openly as black people for 400+ years on this continent. Gay people have lived openly as gay people for about 30-40. If you want to compare gay rights to race rights, then you need to realize that in the grand scheme of things gay right are moving at the speed of freakin' light. Black folks waited 100 years from the time slavery ended to the establishment of civil rights laws. Now if you're going to equate Obama talking to people he doesn't agree with, with 100 years of inequality, then you need to reexamine the benchmark you're using. Nobody doubts that there's a big difference between the way things should be and the way things are. But getting angry at the world over the fact that politics is the slow cutting of hard boards gains you, in the end, absolutely nothing.

sort the rest out afterwards.

had to face a war(of his own making I might add) and economic issues during his presidency.

:thumbsup:

People in the south said the colored people were content and that it was the northerners that were instigating.

you tell me if you want me to know.

The word "uppity" comes to mind. So do the fire hoses and the police attack dogs. Or police attack pigs, for that matter. :evilfrown:

And it's incredibly difficult to live a lie even if you can pass.

Those who do believe that they can hide.

The United States is a LIBERAL Country.

:dem:

-Laelth

to pass the legislation. In other words, the MAJORITY of American
people would stand behind him--even though he would lose the South
for Democratic Party for eons.

No matter which way you dice it--the MAJORITY of the American people
believe marriage is between a man and a woman. We cannot avoid this
fact. On issues of culture, Majority Rules.

It will probably take another generation to reach the demographics
needed to change this attitude.

Therefore it us unfair to expect Obama or any President to try to
pass a law before the people are ready.

LBJ would never have tried if he did not have the votes.

on the south, but are you forgetting the riots in Chicago and Boston over desegregation? The Majority of people in his own damned party opposed desegregation, that's a fact.

LBJ knew he was going to give away the South as a voting block when he signed the voting rights act and other legislation. He knew they would flee the Dem party, but he did it anyway.
He didn't have as nearly as much support in the country as you think.

LBJ was just mean enough and knew where bodies were buried so he could scare the Congress into passing those bills. People on the hill knew he would get them if they defied him. He makes Rahm look like a 1st grader.

LBJ was dirt poor when he was growing up. He was only able to go to a small college. His first job when he graduated was to teach in a small Texas town near the Mexican border. His kids were poor and their language skills were too. LBJ could have phoned it in. He didn't. He worked those kids and made them believe they were somebody. He refused to let them make excuses. He gave it all he had.

LBJ was a complex man. 50% of him did good things and 50% went over to the dark side. He can't be forgiven because of Vietnam, but he can't be forgotten because of civil rights.

but LOVE him for his dragging the US into the beginnings of the Civil Rights era.

LBJ was the true definition of a power broker... he knew how to play the game.... he was the best majority leader this country has ever seen... Obama does not compare.

I think his style is something that would be more time consuming than LBJ's. He knows how to play the game, but he's not as familiar with the players as LBJ, that and LBJ didn't have to deal with the perverted end result of Movement Conservatism, in his era their was more of a general consensus. Everett Dirksen used to rip LBJ on the Senate floor every day then go to the WH in the evening and have a drink and they would work on compromises. They actually could get along. Nowadays, the Right totally views Dems as the enemy. The ideological gulf is huge. And part of their basic strategy is to wage war on everything Dems stand for and demonize them. Back then it wasn't quite like that. It could get bad, don't get me wrong, but Movement Conservatism made things much more confrontational. Gringrich, DeLay etc etc are a much different breed and ushered in a much less civilized way of governance than the older GOP leaders.

And I would say Mike Mansfield was as good as LBJ ever was as Senate Majority Leader, but I am biased.

either. If that was Obama's style he'd never even gotten elected dogcatcher, just wouldn't work for him. None of this is a surprise, this is who he is, he's been like that ever since he first burst on the national scene over four years ago. We knew the type of president we were getting, he never hid it.

But I agree with you. I'd rather see him do what you say, it's just not the type of person we elected. He's tough in his own way, but he doesn't just go out and steamroll people in an abrasive manner. I think some of what he's doing is brilliant, I think he's putting some of these more middle of the road, status quo types into certain positions so that they can enact more progressive policies and it will look like a more "moderate" consensus, however when it comes to LBGT rights, we have a long long way to go in this country, and it just isn't Obama. I'm not sure if we can expect much on that front. The Right has so poisoned everything, for one thing, including the debate on these issues, they have a vocal crazy minority that hinders progress time and time again. I'm not sure exactly what it's going to take to get things moving here. Well I know what it would take, I just don't know how we get leaders to go out and do it and enact positive legislation and fight for LGBT rights.

on him and others, to force their hand. He didn't do it alone, after all.

That's a group now? I really hope they don't want to get married.

I really hate people sometimes. :grr:

Also, try not to take everything that flows from your keyboard as worthy of biblical exegesis. If you don't like snarky comments, The Internets is probably the wrong place for you.

Sorry I haven't gotten it back yet. :mad:

:hide:

Never underestimate the power of mocking and ridicule

Jewish people want to get married? What's the world coming to?

he may not be able to get the legislation passed. Keep it up!

then tearing him down is EXACTLY what I'm going to do!

That was in 1957.

rights violations though, and he did call down the national guard as well.

.... The GOP controlled the White House for 28 of them and Southern "centrist" Democrats controlled it for the other 12.



I'm not ready to concede the 2012 to 2052 elections to the "good ol' boys" again.



Progress takes time.

10 years ago, the American public was close to 80-20 against gay marriage. Now it's about 55-45.

We're getting there.


Changing the hearts and minds of hundreds of millions of Americans doesn't happen overnight. And if Obama makes the changes without ALSO changing the minds, they'll just be reversed when he gets slammed out of office in four years.

If you want LASTING changes, the only way is to change the hearts and minds of the public.

It took 40 years for MLK's dream to be realized..... did LBJ's forcibly attempting to accelerate it help or hinder?

discrimination was prohibited. Can't say the same for GLBT people though.

Letter from Birmingham Jail — April 16, 1963
While jailed for leading anti-segregation protests in Birmingham, King wrote this letter arguing that individuals have the moral duty to disobey unjust laws.

We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly I have never yet engaged in a direct action movement that was "well timed," according to the timetable of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word "Wait!" It rings in the ear of every Negro with a piercing familiarity. This "wait" has almost always meant "never." We must come to see with the distinguished jurist of yesterday that "justice too long delayed is justice denied."

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/mlkspeeches.html

If MLK and Rosa Parks along with others hadn't pushed, and if LBJ hadn't cracked as hard as he had, we might still be quibbling over rights that are now taken for granted.
There is never a comfortable time for everybody to sit around and have tea and decide about "rights."
It is a hard, messy business and not for the faint of heart.

We are more diverse now than ever, and the socially rightwing nutjobs have essentially peaked.

The "good old boys" don't have the same stranglehold on the electorate as they used to, and demographic trends favor Democrats for the foreseeable future.

First, LBJ did reach across the isle to the other side. The civil rights act would never have passed without liberal Republicans from the north and some racist conservative Democrats from the south.

Second, LBJ didn't just strong-arm everyone into voting for it. He made compromises. Some things were taken out of the original bill. He pandered to racist Southern Congressmen and told them that he didn't like those Northern do-gooders like Humphrey but that "we" had to pass this bill anyway. LBJ pandered to the racists and reached out to them far more than Obama has ever reached out to bigots.

If DU existed in the 60's we would gripe about the Civil Rights Act because of Democratic leaders who "sold out" by compromising on some portions of the bill, and a lot of people would complain that LBJ is still a racist hick no matter what he does on civil rights.

LBJ went on to help racist Southern Democrats get re-elected to Congress even though they said things far more offensive than anything ever uttered by Warren. He was a power political player who knew the difference between a symbolic act and real substantive change. He was willing to pander to the racist sentiments of Southern Congressmen in order to get them to vote for the bill.

Having Warren at the inauguration is dumb and offensive. If Obama wants to reach out to the guy he should do it in a less prominent way that doesn't give Warren more credibility. But I'm more interested in substantive change when Obama gets into office than in symbolic acts.

and yes, he did compromise on some stuff in the bill, but not much, there were areas he refused to budge on. But he really did strongarm a lot of people in his own party, most of the Democrats opposed the bill outright, after all. The biggest difference I think between LBJ and Obama is this, Obama actually wants these bigots to like him, LBJ, by that point, simply didn't care.

I still disagree with how you characterize it. LBJ had a way of strong arming someone and they still liked him afterward. He did care because he knew he would need that persons vote on another bill down the road. He didn't burn bridges with Southern racist Congressmen over one bill. He also gave some of them a lot of things for their vote. That's the kind of reaching out and compromise I suspect a lot of people here wouldn't like.

Especially when the House Committee tried to keep the bill bottled up there indefinitely. Johnson just became President then, and definitely using his "bullying" reputation to get it out of committee.

They KNEW it was all a joke. Surprise all around when it passed. LBJ didn't know it was a done dael.

civil rights issues is fascinating--I had no clue what his strategy was in achieving that.

Thank you for this thoughtful, well argued and informative way of thinking about this entire issue. You make a very good case for how those of us who wish to support the GLBT community should approach the opposition. I'm a bit less comfortable with the judgment of Obama at this point.

This is a keeper. Bookmarked, Kicked and Rec'd.

On Edit: Some posters are questioning the accuracy of the history of LBJ.

early in his life and had aafinity for the poor. He at one point didn't support civil rights because of the state he represented, but even as Senate Majority Leader in 1957 he supported the first civil rights bill to pass since the civil war. Becoming president he said liberated him.

Especially when talking to Southern Democrats.

in order to get the Civil Rights bill passed. Now relate that to the Warren controversy...

I'm talking in private, not public, obviously.

No, I don't think he used that term.

but he personally had an affinity for the poor, black and hispanic. As he got more power, even as Majority Leader he did try to help and then as president he was able to show his true colors and that is why he once said quoting MLK, Jr, "I'm free at last--God almighty I'm free at last" meaning he was free to be who he really was when it came to the issue of civil rights. I actually think that JFK, a blue blood who only dealt with blacks and minorities as servants had a harder time with minorities while LBJ worked with them in Texas and taught Mexican school kids. Even his worse critics have seen this in books written on him.

:kick:

Creating sympathy when you are at the top is extremely hard, if not impossible to do. Not to mention its completely unnecessary.

Wow. How fucking selfish are you? You want him to throw away all the good he can do to correct this one bad thing. Do you really think this should be the direction of his administration? Talk about "I've got mine fuck you" You're saying "I want mine and fuck everything else".

"What type of life are you asking GLBT people to live in? You aren't asking them to live at all, you are asking them to exist in limbo"

What?! We're asking you to overlook this one 2-minute symbolic thing and let the guy be president before you give up on him. He's going to be a good president. He is going to be better on GBLT issue than any other president in the history of this country. We are asking you to see the big picture here.

He didn't pander, but instead persuaded people to go along with his ideas?

I'm confused. That can't be right.


(:sarcasm:)