Republicans, Racism, Filibuster and a Response
May 28th, 2005 by cadmus
UPDATED. [He's given me permission to quote in it's entirety.] This is a response to a friend’s post on LiveJournal. He has it friends only so I won’t quote entirely until he gives me permission. But here’s a enough to give context for my response:
I’m more than marginally pissed at the state of the union today. Turn on the news, you’ll see a few things that are eerily intertwined. 1. bush speaks to naval academy grads, tells them it’s their job to defeat the “T” word. 2. air force academy being investigated- ex-chaplain speaks out agaisnt aggressive evangelistic policies 3. republicans threatening to rewrite constitution to get their way
I’m a christian, if you use a loose definition of the term. When an EVANGELICAL CHRISTIAN MINISTER speaks out because of pressure other people are putting on nonbelievers, maybe it really is time to take a closer look. I’m also registered republican. There’s a new uprising of centrists, led by John McCain (my pick for prez ‘08) that could lead to a new party. The Democrats don’t even resemble a party any more- just a loose collection of nonrepublicans. Bullshit. The republicans are organized, focused, and that’s why they’re winning. You can’t bloody well just vote for “the opposition” and expect to get anywhere. We need an identity. I’d sure love for a new party to form that can uniformly oppose the GOP and actually back it up with anything… anything at all. On the last thing: the gop LOVED the filibuster when Strom went for 24 hours in ‘63 to protest the civil rights act… you know, the one that guaranteed civil rights to nonwhites? Yeah, that one. ‘Nuff said on that topic.
It’s popular for some to believe that Republicans are racist. This ignores the fact that President Bush’s cabinet has more minorities, women and members of varying races, than any administration from the 20th century. Nonwhites, as you put it, is an interesting view point. I wonder if you asked a black, hispanic, oriental or member of any other race that you have as a friend how they would react to being referred to as nonwhite. As if they gain their identity from whites.
Could that be considered racist?
Now to your recollection of history. No it wasn’t the GOP, it was the Democrats, Southern Democrats or Dixiecrats to be precise. There was more than one Civil Rights vote in the Congress. Only one Republican filibustered in 1964.
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.
CongressLink – Major Features of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Strom Thurmond was a Democrat when he was opposing Civil Rights. It was 1957 when he filibustered for 24 hours 18 minutes, not ‘63. He switched to Republican in 1964.
FOXNews.com – Politics – Thurmond Holds Senate Record for Filibustering
Strom Thurmond: Definition and Much More From Answers.com
There has been some misinformation about the filibuster. The U.S. Constitution does not guarantee the filibuster as a right. It doesn’t even touch on the topic. The Constitution only uses the word debate once. But it does touch on the “rules” of how each house governs itself. Each house determines it’s own rules and add to or take away at any time. The House of Representatives has a “rule” that limits debate. The Senate does not and that’s where the filibuster came from.
