Monday, January 14, 2008

Hillary and Race   [Victor Davis Hanson]

It may or may not be Hillary's intent to deprecate in stereotype fashion the role of black rhetoric in galvanizing change by pointing out that LBJ, not Martin Luther King Jr., is to be given the greater credit for enacting  civil-rights legislation. But it is a losing argument for her against Obama, and she makes things much worse every time she or Bill dredge it up for at least several reasons.

First LBJ, the legal reformer, would have never have become the born-again civil-rights advocate (cf. his earlier career as a supporter of the Texas status quo), without the pressure from the movement inspired by King. King's job was to move public opinion, LBJ's to reflect —and capitalize on — those new realities.

Two, it is always a bad idea to praise LBJ at the expense of MLK. Rightly or wrongly, most Americans look back in horror at the former, and fondly at the latter. She's riding the wrong horse, and doesn't seem to grasp that fact.

Third, Hillary's paradigm confirms the complaints of racial stereotyping — white pros like herself and LBJ do the "real" work of intricate legislative craftsmanship, while black "inspirational" leaders, such as Obama and MLK, with no aptitude for detail or complex law, give fiery speeches and protest about unfairness.

Fourth, it flies in the face of facts that Obama, the Harvard law graduate and senator from Illinois, can only inspire and not understand or promote law.

She and Bill obviously think that they've so cemented the issue of the Clintons as our first Black Presidents that their racial fides is above suspicion. It isn't; and the Obama the soul speaker vs. Hillary the brainy insider is a lose / lose / lose /lose proposition. I'm surprised that her handlers haven't muzzled altogether the Clintoni on this issue.

01/14 08:39 AMShare