Quick -- tell me what this Houston Chronicle editorial leaves out.

On the federal holiday that honors Martin Luther King Jr., the civil rights leader's legacy has become the subject of a presidential campaign controversy.

It shouldn't be.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, seeking to make the point that action speaks louder than words, dreams and visions, noted that passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act required the signature of President Lyndon Johnson as well as the leadership of King. Her analogy was not well-taken. King famously had a dream of a colorblind society, yet he also acted, organized, preached, mobilized and suffered the persecution of authorities in the segregated South.

As Joseph Califano Jr., an aide in President Johnson's White House, wrote in an article in Sunday's Outlook section, passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act outlawing discrimination in employment, education and public accommodation required a political partnership — King's stirring leadership and Johnson's mastery of Congress. King knew that the realization of his dreams needed presidential initiative. He asked Johnson for it, and Johnson complied, taking the risk that the South would move for generations into the Republican column.

The end to segregation followed the actions of thousands of lawyers, judges, freedom riders and civil rights workers, and more than a few martyrs.

One could argue, perhaps perversely, that the brutality of police officers in the South, captured by television cameras, hastened the end of segregation by searing the grotesque injustice and oppression on Americans' psyches.

When King was assassinated in 1968, Johnson called on Congress to pass the Fair Housing Act as a tribute King's life and work.

King's role is open to interpretation, but arguing whether he or Johnson was more instrumental in the battle for civil rights is a faulty dilemma. Both played their parts. Today's mock controversy over Clinton's remarks is silly, yet it serves to remind Americans that King's legacy survives and matters.

Did you catch it? You didn't? Really?

Nowhere does this editorial mention the contribution of the party that provided overwhelming support for the 1664 Civil Rights Act AND the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Nowhere is mentioned the party that sought a stronger civil rights bill in 1957, and had in fact been at the forefront of civil rights legislation for nearly a century -- including being repeatedly frustrated in its attempt to pass anti-lynching legislation.

And which party was that? The Republican Party, of course.

The Democrats opposed every civil rights law in American history before 1964. And as it was, the Republican party voted by an 80% majority in favor of the legislation, while Democrats could barely muster a 2/3 vote despite all the arm-twisting of a president of their own party seeking reelection.

Posted by: Greg at 06:52 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 463 words, total size 3 kb.