banner2e top

The Urgency of Now Must be Taken Seriously

March 12, 2013

"The State of Equality and Justice in America" is a 20-part series of columns written by an all-star list of contributors to commemorate the 50th Anniversary of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.

The contributors include: U. S. Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) LCCRUL 50th Anniversary Grand Marshal; Ms. Barbara Arnwine, President and Executive Director, Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law (LCCRUL); Mr. Charles Ogletree, Professor, Harvard University Law School/Director, Charles Hamilton Houston Institute for Race and Justice; the Rev. Jesse L. Jackson Sr., President/CEO, Rainbow/PUSH Coalition; the Rev. Joseph Lowery, Co-founder, Southern Christian Leadership Conference; U. S. Rep. Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y.); and 14 additional thought leaders and national advocates for equal justice.

Here's the ninth op-ed of the series:

vivian

The State of Equality and Justice in America:
The Urgency of Now Must be Taken Seriously  

By Rev. Dr. C.T. Vivian

We must take the urgency of now very seriously. Not just because of the pending 50th Anniversary of the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, but because the future of America's people; especially those who have been long oppressed, depends on right now.

Since the beginning of this country, the one thing that has never been fully decided is who will truly determine this nation's future? Will it be America's truly wealthy - the 1 percent who can decide every political and economic move in the richest and mightiest country in the world? And who, with the economic 1 percent of Europe and Asia, could take over every major decision in this global world? Would it be them or would it be "We the people"?

It is clear by studying recent events; coupled with patterns of history, that the democratic principle of "We the people" is constantly endangered by plutocratic mindsets, those who are often controlled by greed and quests for power. Plutocracy, according to Webster, is one, "Government by wealthy people"; two, "A society governed by wealthy people"; or three, "A ruling class whose power is based on their wealth."

I caution that America could succumb to this social mindset - if we do not continue to stand guard using our democratic powers of "We the people" to the fullest. Take the last presidential election, for instance. Mitt Romney, in his derogatory comment about the so-called "47 percent" of people who he claimed "are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims" and who "pay no income tax" - appeared to dismiss nearly half of American voters. He even said, "... and so my job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

These derogatory comments appeared to signal a move to exclude people of a certain social status. Moreover, it appeared as a move to keep the concept of "We the people" alive while denying it in practice. What would have or could have happened had he prevailed?

It is important to note that throughout history, struggles for equality and justice in America have continued to move from victory to setback and from setback to victory. In fact, about every 30 to 35 years, there's a new movement in this country. The civil rights movement was the last one. The one before that was the labor movement. Somewhere between 35 and 40 years, there's always a new people's movement. This time, it's the continuation of the civil rights movement, which includes the movement on behalf of the poor.

At the blessed age of 88, I recall the degradation of segregation and Jim Crow. I struggled for justice through the freedom rides and alongside Dr. King. I marched on Washington on August 28, 1963 and I was there to ultimately rejoice at the signing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 andthe Voting Rights Act of 1965. And then we suddenly found ourselves mourning upon the assassination of my dear friend and brother, Dr. King, in 1968. He was only in Memphis for the cause of the sanitation workers, the poor, the struggling, and the oppressed who were suffering unequal wages and working conditions.

Fast forward, to see America elect and then re-elect its first Black president nearly 50 years later is reason to rejoice. And yet even President Obama's inaugural speech called for honest labor wages that "liberate families from the brink of hardship."

This is a clear reason that we must continue to march to the polls as well as to take up our banners and plead our causes. We must win our battles in the basic old-fashioned way that it has historically worked - with non-violent direct action protests, coupled with the vote. In doing so, our movement will continue to grow.

A newsman once asked Dr. King, "How many members do you have?" When Martin answered, the newsman retorted, "Well that doesn't represent much of Black America". But then Dr. King said something that is so very relevant in the 21st century. He said, "We don't operate through membership. We operate knowing that if we're right, people will follow us."

The state of equality and justice in America is a continued struggle for the poor despite all of the strides America has made. The urgency of now is to maintain the power and sanctity of the vote, which has become the greatest power held by the poor. As Dr. King said, if we do what is right, others will follow us. This is the power of "We the people".

The Rev. C.T. Vivian is national president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. He was also a close friend, lieutenant and advisor to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.This article - the ninth of a 20-part series - is written in commemoration of the 50th Anniversary of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. The Lawyers' Committee is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization, formed in 1963 at the request of President John F. Kennedy to enlist the private bar's leadership and resources in combating racial discrimination and the resulting inequality of opportunity - work that continues to be vital today. For more information, please visit www.lawyerscommittee.org.

NAACP-LDF Leader Calls for Civil Rights Focus on ‘New Economy’

By Hazel Trice Edney

ifill

(TriceEdneyWire.com) – America’s continuous struggle with economic woes that have disparately impacted African-Americans and other people of color must signal to the civil rights community a need to not only expand its focus – but change its strategy.

This according to Sherrilyn Ifill, the new director-counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, who received rousing applause during a welcoming reception late last month.

“And so we have to figure out how we’re going to deal with this issue of the new economy. Where do we fall in that? Where do the people that we represent fall in the new credit realm, in the new mortgage lending realm? How are we going to deal with the loss of African-American wealth by the foreclosure crisis that has really decimated the Black middle class?” Ifill grilled an audience of hundreds of lawyers, civil rights activists and leaders of non-profits. “So, we’ve got to step out and begin to take on those issues for our future and that’s my desire as I take up this position at the Legal Defense Fund.”

Ifill started at the New York office of the LDF in 1988 as a voting rights lawyer before leaving to teach at the University of Maryland School of Law five years later. After more than 20 years of teaching, legal consulting and continuing to litigate, the veteran lawyer has returned to her first love.

As her civil rights colleagues listened intently during the Downtown D.C. reception, she reminded them of the “Educational Fund” part of the LDF, which too often gets lost in the name. That is one part that strategically must now become a priority, she said.

“Part of our charge is to engage in a conversation with the American public about what’s really happening to African-Americans. We love that they’re able to see a president and his wife get off Marine One with their kids. Without question, that’s a tremendous success, due in some part to LDF. But there is another America - another African-America,” she stressed. “And our job is to make sure that the picture of that African-America stays at the forefront of the vision of people in this country. And we only do that by committing to show them that African-America and that Latino America and that Asian America and that elderly America and that poor America and all of the people who are living under the margin and behind the veil of American success and prosperity.”

Reaction to her 20-minute talk ranged from energetic applause to hearty chuckles. Perhaps the most humorous line was her use of the Super Bowl to make her point about the need for a greater offense.

“I’m from Baltimore, home of the Super Bowl champions and we’re known for our defense … I had to get that in,” she said to laughter from the audience. “But the lessons of the Ravens is that although we’re known for a great defense we did recognize that we had to lift our offense…We recognized that we had to have a quarter back who could throw, that we had to have people who could block, that we needed a runner that we needed what we call depth on our offense…And I’ve come back to the Legal Defense Fund in pursuit of depth on our offense.”

Though she encouraged her colleagues to “defend the wins” that have been made, such as the then pending arguments in the Shelby vs. Holder voting rights case, she stressed that there must now come a shift in the strategy.

“I’m not interested in just defending what we have already been able to establish. I’m really interested in our pushing ourselves forward to try and realize an America that does not yet exist,” she said, continuing the football analogy. “It’s the perfect time for me because I feel so powerfully and so passionately about the issue of voting rights; because I believe that we really have to be on the offense on this issue…We have to continue to advance the ball.”

The wins have been many, she pointed out. As the seventh in a line of NAACP-LDF director-counsels, she praised the work of her predecessors. In the audience were former director-counsels Ted Shaw and Elaine Jones. Ifill succeeds John Payton who died suddenly last year. Preceding them were founder Thurgood Marshall in 1940, Jack Greenberg and Julius Chambers consecutively.

“They created this world in which we have statutes that theoretically protect us from employment discrimination and protect us in the voting realm and protect us from educational segregation and so forth. And we have to defend those winds and the Supreme Court now has put us in the position where we are pretty regularly defending them. Even after they’ve been upheld, we’re back defending them again. But we cannot allow ourselves to only play a defense game,” she said.

She named a string of economics-related issues plaguing Black America that must be studied and must be documented in order to educate America. Those issues include the school to prison pipeline, the impact of the “new economy” on people of color, the housing crisis and safe quality education.

Though she described herself as energetic, she stressed the need for the civil rights community to pull together as a united front because no one person can do it alone.

“The job is enormous, the work is huge and I am mortal,” she said. “It only happens when we are linked together and when we’re working in partnership. All of the gains of the civil rights legal community have been rendered by us standing close together, communicating with each other, determining what we want and going for it with tenacity. And that’s why I’m happy to see so many of you here tonight because it’s an expression of your commitment to continue doing that.”

The State of Equality and Justice in America: The Pendulum Swings between Joy and Despair

By Laura W. Murphy

lauramurphy

Laura Murphy

rosaparksstatue_newinside

President Obama, House Majority Leader John Boehner, other congressional leaders and onlookers rejoice at the unveiling of the statue of Rosa Parks in the rotunda of the U. S. Capitol. PHOTO: Roy Lewis

supremecourtvotingrightsprotests_newinside

A crowd gathers in front of the U. S. Supreme Court as arguments for the "Preclearance Clause" of the Voting Rights Act continued. PHOTO: Roy Lewis

(TriceEdneyWire.com) - Let’s just take one day, February 27, 2013, as a snapshot of the state of equality and justice in America.

For me, that day started off tense.  The Supreme Court was set to hear oral arguments in the case of Shelby County v. Holder—a constitutional challenge to one of the most effective provisions of any civil rights law in American history: Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.

Section 5 requires nine states and assorted jurisdictions in seven others to secure Justice Department approval before changing their voting laws.  The civil rights community collectively saw it as an ominous sign that the Supreme Court even agreed to revisit the constitutionality of Section 5.  The Voting Rights Act of 1965, almost a century after passage of the 15th Amendment—finally brought full voting rights and a more representative government to the South.  I refuse to be pessimistic because the facts are on our side and the congressional hearing record justifying Section 5 was meticulous. It only takes 4 Justices to agree to hear a case, but I believe that five justices will uphold the law.

During arguments, the lawyers ably defended Section 5, but they were confronted with clear hostility from conservative justices.  Justice Scalia stunned everyone by openly showing contempt for the 2006 reauthorization of the VRA by Congress.  “Who wouldn’t,” he asked caustically, “vote for something called the ‘Voting Rights Act’?”  He then piled on even more, calling Section 5 a “racial entitlement.”  As someone tweeted: Wasn't voting a white-only racial entitlement prior to the Voting Rights Act?

Contrast these very real challenges with a joyous and historic event that started an hour after the Shelby oral argument right across the street.  Inside the United States Capitol (an edifice built with slave labor), in a ceremony filled with all of the pomp and circumstance afforded to presidents and war heroes, Congress unveiled a life size statue of Rosa Parks.  Parks ignited the Montgomery bus desegregation boycott by being arrested for refusing to give her seat to a white passenger.  Her statue sits among of a cluster of white men encircling the round hall, and falls within the gaze of the statue of Jefferson Davis, the president of the Confederacy during the Civil War.

At the ceremony were family members of Parks, a military Color Guard, and the United States Army Chorus, which gave a stirring rendition of the Negro National Anthem “Lift Every Voice and Sing.” Republican and Democratic Congressional leaders all addressed the large crowd with unusual poignancy.  And three history-making black men spoke as well:  Rev. Barry Black, the first black chaplain of the United States Senate; Rep. James Clyburn, the first African American elected to Congress from South Carolina since Reconstruction (as a result of the Voting Rights Act Extension of 1982); and the first black president, Barack Hussein Obama.

My heart swelled and tears came to my eyes.  I felt lifted by how far we have come as a people of African descent in the United States.  I was elated that Ms. Parks would be afforded such an honor and granted such universal respect.  And I noticed all the black, Asian-American and Latino members of Congress, whose numbers had tripled, as a result of the VRA, in the three decades since I first stepped foot on Capitol Hill.

As I left the ceremony, beaming, I had a message on my BlackBerry that immediately swung the pendulum back to tense.  The Institute of Assets and Social Policy released a study titled “The Roots of the Racial Wealth Gap: Explaining the Black-White Economic Divide,” which tells a terrible story.  As detailed in the report, the wealth gap between white and African American families has tripled in the last 25 years, driven by dramatic disparities in years of home ownership, unemployment, post-secondary education, generational wealth transfer and financial support among families and friends.

But, after returning home, I am able to read the New York Times, and I get a dose of good news: an article reporting sharply declining rates of imprisonment for African Americans, a trend we hope to see continue in the years to come. One reason for optimism is the Fair Sentencing Act, a bill that I worked on with my colleagues in the criminal justice reform and civil rights movements, which was signed into law by President Obama in 2010 and championed by Attorney General Eric Holder, the first African American to hold that post.” Though a superb development, it’s tempered by the fact that one out of every 13 African-Americans is disfranchised because of a criminal conviction and black male incarceration rates are more than six times the national average for white men.

So, that was February 27th for me.  Just one day shows that from hour-to-hour the pendulum can swing from joy to despair and despair to joy.  That’s the state of equality and justice in America today:  conflicted, fickle, and a source of both hope and great concern in virtually equal measure.

Laura Murphy is director, Washington Legislative Office, American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). This article – the eighth of a 20-part series - is written in commemoration of the 50th Anniversary of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. The Lawyers' Committee is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization, formed in 1963 at the request of President John F. Kennedy to enlist the private bar's leadership and resources in combating racial discrimination and the resulting inequality of opportunity - work that continues to be vital today. For more information, please visit www.lawyerscommittee.org.

Hate Groups Remain at Record High for Modern Day Racism

hategroups2012

Special to the Trice Edney News Wire from the Southern Poverty Law Center

(TriceEdneyWire.com) - Capping four years of explosive growth sparked by the election of America’s first Black president and anger over the economy, the number of conspiracy-minded antigovernment “Patriot” groups reached an all-time high of 1,360 in 2012, while the number of hard-core hate groups remained above 1,000. As President Obama enters his second term with an agenda of gun control and immigration reform, the rage on the right is likely to intensify.

The furious reaction to the Obama administration’s gun control proposals is reminiscent of the anger that greeted the passage of the 1993 Brady Bill and the 1994 ban on assault weapons supported by another relatively liberal Democrat — Bill Clinton. The passage of those bills, along with what was seen by the right as the federal government’s violent suppression of political dissidents at Waco, Texas, and Ruby Ridge, Idaho, in the early 1990s, led to the first wave of the Patriot movement that burst into public consciousness with the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. The number of Patriot groups in that era peaked in 1996 at 858, more than 500 groups fewer than the number active in 2012.

For many, the election of America’s first Black president symbolizes the country’s changing demographics, with the loss of its White majority predicted by 2043. In 2011, for the first time, non-White births outnumbered the births of White children. But the backlash to that trend predates Obama’s presidency by many years. Between 2000 and 2010, the number of hate groups rose from 602 to more than 1,000, where the count remains today. Now that comprehensive immigration reform is poised to legitimize and potentially accelerate the country’s demographic change, the backlash to that change may accelerate as well.

While the number of hate groups remained essentially unchanged last year — going from 1,018 in 2011 to 1,007 in 2012 — the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) count of 1,360 Patriot groups in 2012 was up about 7 percent from the 1,274 active in 2011. And that was only the latest growth spurt in the Patriot movement, which generally believes that the federal government is conspiring to take Americans’ guns and destroy their liberties as it paves the way for a global “one-world government.” From a mere 149 organizations in 2008, the number of Patriot groups shot up to 512 in 2009, jumped again to 824 in 2010, and then skyrocketed to 1,274 in 2011 before hitting their all-time high last year.

Now, in the wake of the mass murder of 26 children and adults at a Connecticut school and the Obama-led gun control efforts that followed, it seems likely that that growth will pick up speed once again.

The Hysteria Mounts
Even before the Dec. 14 shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School, gun and ammunition sales shot up in the wake of the re-election of the country’s first black president, the result of shrill conspiracy theories about Obama’s secret plans to confiscate Americans’ guns. When the killings actually did spark gun control efforts that clearly had not been in the Obama administration’s plans, the reaction on the political right was so harsh that it seemed to border on hysteria.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) proposed a law that would nullify any executive gun control actions by Obama, accusing the president of having a “king complex.” U.S. Rep. Trey Radel (R-Fla.) said the president could be impeached for those actions. State lawmakers in Arizona, Mississippi, South Carolina and Tennessee proposed laws that sought to prevent federal gun control from applying to their states.

Richard Mack, a former Arizona sheriff who sued the Clinton administration over the Brady Bill’s imposition of background checks on gun buyers, claimed that of 200 sheriffs he’d met with, most “have said they would lay down their lives first rather than allow any more federal control.” Matt Barber of the anti-gay Liberty Counsel said he feared that the nation, which he described as already on the brink of civil unrest, was headed for “a second civil war.” “Freedom ends. Tyranny begins,” tweeted Fox News Radio host Todd Starnes. “Get ready,” TeaParty.org said. “Right now government gun grabbing plans are being covertly organized.”

“MARTIAL LAW IN THE UNITED STATES IS NOW A VERY REAL POSSIBILITY!” added the ConservativeDaily.com’s Tony Adkins, responding to Obama’s use of executive orders to further gun control with a doomsday prediction that could have come straight from the Patriot movement. “SUSPENSION OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION IS A VERY REAL POSSIBILITY!” The Conservative Monster, a similar website, concluded that the president was conspiring with a variety of foreign enemies “to force Socialism on the American people.”

Even further to the right, the reaction was more intense yet. Chuck Baldwin, a Montana-based Patriot leader long associated with the Constitution Party, made the unusual claim that Christ had ordered his disciples to carry “their own personal arms” and vowed to refuse to register or surrender his firearms. The Oath Keepers, a conspiracy-oriented Patriot group of current and former military and law enforcement officials, issued a threat — “MESSAGE TO THE OATH BREAKERS AND TRAITORS: We will never disarm” — and added that gun control plans were “unconstitutional filth.” Judicial Watch founder Larry Klayman called the proposals “a declaration of war against the American people” and demanded “liberation” from the “evil clutches” of proponents.

The one sector of the radical right that shrank dramatically last year was the “nativist extremist” groups that go beyond advocating for immigration reduction and confront or physically harass suspected unauthorized immigrants. From a 2010 high of 319 groups, they fell over the following two years by about 90 percent, to 38 groups. The collapse was due to criminal scandals, internecine sniping within the movement, and the co-opting of their issue by state legislatures.

Progress and Backlashes
Even before serious talk of gun control began in Washington, the far right was already in something of a meltdown in the immediate aftermath of Obama’s re-election, which came to many who got their campaign news from right-wing sources as a jarring shock. Hundreds of thousands of Americans signed petitions seeking the secession of each of the 50 states. Right-wing outfits like TeaParty.org said a “Communist coup” was under way. The anti-gay Family Research Council charged Obama with “dismantling” the country.

Polling after the election showed how broad antipathy toward President Obama remained in a deeply polarized America. A Public Policy Poll survey found that 49 percent of all Republicans believed that ACORN — a community organizing group that went belly up in 2010 after attacks from the far right — had stolen the election from Mitt Romney. A quarter of GOP members in the same poll favored secession. A January 2013 poll from Fairleigh Dickinson University’s PublicMind project found that 36 percent of all Americans still don’t believe Obama is a citizen, despite the 2011 release of the president’s “long-form” birth certificate.

As they did in 2008 and 2009, groups on the radical right clearly benefited from that antipathy. “Since Obama’s first term, our numbers have doubled and now we’re headed to a second term, it’s going to triple,” one Virginia Klansman told WTVR-TV in Richmond. Daniel Miller, president of the secessionist Texas National Movement, said that his membership shot up 400 percent after Obama’s re-election. White News Now, a website run by white supremacist Jamie Kelso, said that it had had “an incredible year” in the run-up to the vote, reaching more people than ever.

To the surprise of many prognosticators, anti-black racism in America — not just that limited to the far right — actually rose over the four years of Obama’s first term, according to a 2012 Associated Press poll. The poll found 51 percent of Americans expressed explicitly anti-black attitudes, compared to 48 percent in 2008, while 56 percent showed implicitly anti-black attitudes, up from 49 percent four years earlier. Another AP poll, in 2011, found that 52 percent of non-Latino whites expressed explicitly anti-Latino attitudes, a figure that rose to 59 percent when measured by an implicit attitudes test.

“We have this false idea that there is uniformity in progress and that things change in one big step. That is not the way history has worked,” Jelani Cobb, a history professor and director of the Institute for African-American Studies at the University of Connecticut, told the Huffington Post with regard to the AP poll findings. “When we’ve seen progress, we’ve also seen backlash.”

Some broad social progress that did occur last year — the rapidly increasing acceptance of LGBT people and same-sex marriage — fueled just such a backlash among anti-gay religious groups that saw themselves beginning to lose the issue. (A December USA Today poll found that 53 percent of Americans now support same-sex marriage, up dramatically from 1996, when 27 percent supported such unions.)

The American Family Association issued predictions for the future that included the claims that conservative Christians will be treated like African Americans before the civil rights movement, that the state will take charge of children at birth, and that cities with names like St. Petersburg will be forced to change their names. Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality said the 2012 election of openly gay Tammy Baldwin to a Senate seat representing Wisconsin signaled that America is “falling apart.” The volume of these kinds of comments seemed higher than ever before.

Conspiracies and Terror
Another factor driving the expansion of the radical right over the last decade or so has been the mainstreaming of formerly marginal conspiracy theories. The latest and most dramatic example of that may be the completely baseless claim that Agenda 21 — a United Nations sustainability plan that was signed by President George H.W. Bush but has no mandatory provisions whatsoever — is part of a plan to impose socialism on America and strip away private property rights.

That claim has been pushed heavily by, among others, the John Birch Society, a conspiracist Patriot organization that was exiled from the conservative movement a half century ago after claiming President Dwight D. Eisenhower was a Communist agent.

"Last year, the Republican National Committee passed a plank opposing Agenda 21 and describing it as a “destructive and insidious scheme” to impose “socialist/communist redistribution of wealth.” The state of Alabama passed a law barring any policies traceable to Agenda 21 without “due process.”

The radical right last year produced more than its fair share of political violence. Most dramatically, a neo-Nazi gunman stormed into a Sikh temple in Wisconsin, murdering six people before killing himself. In Georgia, meanwhile, officials arrested 10 people, most of them active-duty military, who were allegedly part of a plot to take over the Army’s Fort Stewart, among many other things. The group is accused of murdering two former members suspected of talking.

Then, this January, an Alabama high school student was arrested for allegedly plotting to attack his black and gay classmates and bomb his school. Former friends of the student said he and a group of up to 11 other students regularly shouted “White power” and gave stiff-arm Nazi salutes in the halls of their Seale, Ala., school but were ignored by school officials and security officers.

These were only the latest incidents of just over 100 domestic radical-right plots, conspiracies and racist rampages that the SPLC has counted since the Oklahoma City bombing left 168 men, women and children dead in 1995.

Now, it seems likely that the radical right’s growth will continue. In 2012, before Obama’s re-election and the Newtown, Conn., massacre, the rate of Patriot growth had slackened somewhat, although it remained significant. Anger over the idea of four more years under a black, Democratic president — and, even more explosively, the same kinds of gun control efforts that fueled the militia movement of the 1990s — seems already to be fomenting another Patriot spurt.

Even before the election last year, self-described Patriots sounded ready for action. “Our Federal Government is just a tool of International Socialism now, operating under UN Agendas not our American agenda,” the United States Patriots Union wrote last year in a letter “sent to ALL conservative state legislators, all states.” “This means that freedom and liberty must be defended by the states under their Constitutional Balance of Power, or we are headed to Civil War wherein the people will have no choice but to take matters into their own hands.”

Mark Potok is senior fellow at the Southern Poverty Law Center.

"When He Was a Republican..."

 By Dr. E. Faye Williams

williams2

(TriceEdneyWire.com)For the first time in U.S. history, the Senate confirmation of a Presidential nominee for Secretary of Defense was filibustered—and at a time we most needed a Secretary in place!  When asked to explain the rationale for the Republican filibuster of the confirmation of Senator Chuck Hagel, Senator John McCain justified the delay by saying, “When he (Chuck Hagel) was a Republican”, he criticized President George W. Bush; he criticized the “surge” of U.S. military forces in Iraq, and he offended many of his fellow Republicans with his opposition to party-line policies.

Other Republicans suggested their opposition to the Hagel nomination was based upon his questionable support of Israel and his less than hard line position against Iran.  Hagel’s critics have, by their own weak critiques, demonstrated the true lack of substance to their objections.

If assessed candidly, what becomes clear about Republican behavior is that, while there were several issues of personal retaliation and revenge in play, the filibuster was another in a long series of procedural challenges designed to retard the progress of President Obama’s agenda.

Remarkably, I’ve heard several reporters suggest it understandable that John McCain responded the way he did.  After all, in 2008 Hagel endorsed then Senator Barack Obama for President.  Moreover, it is not unexpected for an individual to harbor resentment toward someone who defeated him so convincingly on the national stage.  Although such resentment is considered a typical human response to defeat, it is unseemly for a veteran of the political game the length and stature of McCain to allow such resentments to shape and, ultimately color, his political legacy.

As for Senator Lindsey Graham, can we believe that his only concern with creating a delay in the confirmation process was the possibility that additional information would surface to disqualify Hagel?  Was Graham’s real interest in discovery of the facts of Benghazi or in how much his accusations of malfeasance might muddy the waters of public opinion?

How should we judge the role of Ted Cruz, Texas Tea Party Senator, in painting a picture of Hagel as an Iranian collaborator in the delay? What level of credence can we place in the character and judgment of an individual who would impugn, with accusations based merely upon innuendo, the integrity of a public servant with the preeminent background of a Chuck Hagel?

The larger question is how we will frame this spectacle of a confirmation process.  At its core, the Hagel confirmation was more than a question about Hagel’s fitness to serve.  It was a question of whether the prerogatives of our President would again be subverted by a cadre of malcontents whose personal interests would have been placed above the interests of our nation.

The warped resentment of the first white presidential candidate soundly defeated by an African American, the insecurity of a Senator who faces the potential of a primary election challenge for not being conservative enough, the misguided efforts of a Texas Senator who views his role as the destruction of established government, the sublimated arrogance of perceived superiority or the manifestation of actual racism all seem focused on defeating the President’s goals.

The will of the American people put the President in office.  Our majority vote affirmed our trust in his judgment and our belief that he should be able to select his own cabinet.  We cannot be misled by the media or the excuses given by any of those more intent on obstructionism than on national interest.  Through the application of our political will – whether vote, visit, call, letter or email – those who’d obstruct in opposition to the common good must learn that a price will be paid.  Wouldn’t you prefer our officials acting like Americans rather than Republicans or Democrats? Comment Now

Follow Comments Following CommentsUnfollow Comments

(Dr. E. Faye Williams is Chair of the National Congress of Black Women, 
www.nationalcongressbw.org202/678-6788)

X