The Atlantic - Latest Comments in On George Wallace and bigotry

Re: On George Wallace and bigotry

Tim — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 18:38:39 -0000

George Wallace become a very different man after being shot. He saw the things that he had done were wrong and truly repented. He reached out to the black community in a way that few would be willing to do. He was a flawed man but it just shows God can change a person.

Re: On George Wallace and bigotry

MikeSchilling — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 22:11:10 -0000

Interesting question about Farrakhan. I personally believe that he has never had anything personal against Jews, but knew that Jew-bashing gave him street cred, and he's quite willing to say things he knows are untrue, e.g. that Jews were influential in the slave trade. So, yes, he's a black George Wallace.

Re: On George Wallace and bigotry

yazzel — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 16:11:37 -0000

Don't be so presumptuous. If anyone is owed an apology it would be me, but I ain't asking for one.

Posted by Jupiter | January 15, 2009 10:10 AM

Yes, you obviously do deserve an apology after insulting the commenters on this topic, as well as flaunting what seems to be a remarkable degree of arrogance. As for calling other people presumptuous, I take it you are unable to understand what an ad hominem attack is? Didn't you learn anything from reading what TNC wrote?

Re: On George Wallace and bigotry

live — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 15:16:25 -0000

Wallace actively used the coercive power of the state to further racial discrimination and the attitude that blacks are inferior. And he put personal skin in the game, standing in the door and all that. If that doesn't make him a bigot, I guess I don't understand the meaning of the word. Maybe that's the case, because the attempts above to distinguish prejudice from bigotry make no sense to me.

Re: On George Wallace and bigotry

Sporcupine — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 12:20:19 -0000

"Bigot" has always seemed to me about the way of hating a group that's deep enough that (a) it's not going to shift much based on experience and information and (b) it's not going to allow much calculation of rational self-interest.

I don't think Wallace did his wickedness that way. He shifted directions several times, as he calculated what would work for his own career. His way of being evil involved deciding he could just drive over people to get what he wanted. I don't know the rest of his story well enough to be sure, but my guess is that he did that to many different kinds of people when he thought it would work.

The difference doesn't matter if the question is about whether Wallace did some mighty evil. He certainly did.

The difference does matter if the question is about knowing your opposition well enough to win some battles.

Also, understanding what Wallace did on race is helpful to understanding what Rove and his ilk are doing on same-sex marriage. They'll use it as long as they get 50% plus 1 vote by using it. The day they get 50% minus 1 vote, they'll drop the issue. There are other conservatives who will fight as long as they breathe, but once the Wallace-type opportunists abandon ship, the main point will be settled.

Re: On George Wallace and bigotry

Sorn — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 12:13:15 -0000

George wallace is an interesting figure. He is one of those people that shows us that the labels that we apply to people don't always fit completely. I think Wallace much like the early pre-presidential Lyndon Johnson was a public racist privately well meaning.

The trouble with terms like bigot and racist is that they are one size fits all terms that seldom adequetly describe the actual phenomenon. I think that distinctions matter, and I also think that when TNC said that Wallace wasn't a bigot what he meant was that he wasn't an individual racist but a political racist.

Being a political racist he arguably (with no argument from me) was more harmfull because he had to appeal to those who were individually prejudiced to get elected. Such an understanding is not meant to let Wallace off the hook in any way. Rather by understanding that the lust for power was a bigger factor in Wallace's life than his feeling for justice, a deeper understanding of his character is achieved than by merely writing him off as a bigot.

PBS did an incredibly detailed and balanced Documentary on Wallace which may be found here:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/wallace/

Re: On George Wallace and bigotry

Pete Jones — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 11:58:11 -0000

It appears Mr. Coates has read Dan Carter's The Politics of Rage, as this post basically echoes Carter's thesis. This argument has now become standard as Carter's work is in the top 10 of best histories of the modern south to be published in recent memory. He paraphrases Carter wonderfully, and it's always nice to see that the work of great historians can make it into mainstream intellectual discussions.

Jeff Frederick adds to Carter's work in his recent Stand Up for Alabama. Frederick arguing that not only did Wallace sell out African Americans' rights for poor, white votes, his policies deliberately favored business and white elites instead of the poor. Hardly the populist hero his rhetoric suggested.

Re: On George Wallace and bigotry

Rich in PA — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 11:49:33 -0000

I understand the distinction, but anyone who would use racial animus as a tool for political advancement is some kind of bigot--a non-bigot would have to decline the opportunity, much as a non-murderer would decline the opportunity to become governor of Alabama by killing his opponent. You can't be an instrumental bigot unless you have some sympathy to bigotry.

Re: On George Wallace and bigotry

Jupiter — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 11:05:59 -0000

@Deborah

Okay... I'm not trying to redefine bigotry. I was trying to illustrate a bigot's actions. And, I hate to keep using comparisons. I swear this is the last one.

So, is Farrakhan a bigot? I consider him one. But, he's said in numerous interviews and statements to the mainstream press (most famously on CBS's 60 Minutes) that he has never hated whites or Jews. He hates what he perceives as the wrongs they've committed against various people of color and what in his mind they continue to do, which he repeatedly tried to point out, but he sees them as a part of humanity. Farrakhan used the same type of firebrand rhetoric that Wallace used to ignite audiences back in the 1990s to gain power in the Black community and a voice on the national stage. He's never laid a finger on a single white person or Jew. He's only used his freedom of speech to rally his people for the great good of that community. His strategy was to play the victim and point out the oppressor(s). He too change his tone after a near death experience (prostate cancer) and is clearly not the same Farrakhan of the 80s and 90s. But is he, was he a bigot?

Re: On George Wallace and bigotry

Bruce — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 10:57:26 -0000

Fair enough, but it's seem that you want to have your Big Mac and eat it too...

Re: On George Wallace and bigotry

Tessa — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 10:56:50 -0000

"Similarly I don't get what definition of "bigot" Tessa is using--choosing the wrong fork in the road, cowardice over bravery, etc is very broad. He chose to use bigotry for his political convenience, damn the consequences (e.g. lynchings, oppression, etc); as DC Fem points out, there are many ways in which a man who wants power can use beliefs he does not himself hold."

Okay then let me be more specific. Let's say you don't know Wallace at all, never heard of him before, and he's running for office in your state. You see several disgusting, race-baiting commercials "paid-for by the Wallace campaign." You turn to other person on the couch with you, and you say, "what a bigot." Would you be wrong? And wouldn't you laugh if someone said, "no, he's not a bigot, he's just a race-baiter."

I'm just being real here. In my world, Wallace is a bigot.

Re: On George Wallace and bigotry

roac — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 10:47:50 -0000

Earl Long (Huey's younger brother) did everything he could to promote the interests of black people as governor of Louisiana, while pretending to be a racist to stay in power. The public hospitals in New Orleans were of course segregated into "white" and "colored" wards, but all the nurses were white. The leaders of the black community came to Long and said, Can't you get us the jobs in the "colored" wards?

Long said, Yes I can, but you may not like the way I go about it. What he did was start a public campaign about how demeaning it was to white women to have to handle those nasty black bodies. It worked . . .

(The story, I think, is from A.J. Liebling's book about Long, but I saw it online somewhere.)

Re: On George Wallace and bigotry

Jupiter — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 10:33:32 -0000

@ Bruce:

I usually lurk and rarely comment. Most of the time I agree with Coates. I wanted a public conversation with Coates because I wanted to share my thoughts on this subject with Atlantic readers. What I did not want to do is get in a debate with everyone who reads the blog. And I realize that goes against the premise of blogging and the notion Web 2.0 audience participation.

Re: On George Wallace and bigotry

Deborah — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 10:31:39 -0000

Jupiter, you have yet to provide a source beyond yourself for "a person who uses his power to oppress people" as a workable definition for "bigot." They really are different concepts. There are plenty of bigots who don't have the power to oppress people.

Similarly I don't get what definition of "bigot" Tessa is using--choosing the wrong fork in the road, cowardice over bravery, etc is very broad. He chose to use bigotry for his political convenience, damn the consequences (e.g. lynchings, oppression, etc); as DC Fem points out, there are many ways in which a man who wants power can use beliefs he does not himself hold. And while I usually find "hypocrite" a weak charge, as it often seems to mean doing/saying the right thing while harboring secret prejudice, what we're discussing--using the worst of human nature for short-term personal gain, while knowing what you're ginning up is harmful and untrue--really does raise "hypocrisy" to the level of a major sin.

The definitions matter because you can make the most beautifully reasoned argument for why we are all one, show scientifically that the justifications do not hold up at all--and for the leader who never bought those arguments, you have wasted your breath. You need a way to convince him that it's not in his short-term interest--as McCain seemed to get at the end when he wrestled that microphone back, realizing that his reputation would go down with Palin and her ralliers without closing the vote gap.

Re: On George Wallace and bigotry

roac — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 10:17:40 -0000

Further to this: Everybody is entitled to their own opinion about whether the Wallace-bigot is morally worse than the Theodore Bilbo-bigot, or vice versa, or whether they're equally evil. But distinguishing between the two may be of practical value, insofar as the Wallace-bigot may be persuaded to take actions that benefit minorities, if you show him that it is in his own interest to do so.

Re: On George Wallace and bigotry

Tessa — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 10:15:40 -0000

"He was an opportunist and a race-baiter. But "bigot" doesn't really apply to Wallace."

Actually I think bigot applies, very neatly. Men aren't born bigots, they become bigots. There is a moment, a fork-in-the-road, when someone chooses cowaradice over bravery, bigotry over righteousness. Wallace could have chosen many paths, but he chose bigotry.

If Wallace doesn't qualify as a bigot, then I'm deaf, dumb and blind.

Re: On George Wallace and bigotry

Bruce — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 10:14:13 -0000

why would u want a public conversation if you're not willing to engage the "public"?

Re: On George Wallace and bigotry

DC Fem — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 10:12:53 -0000

And this is also why Congressman John Lewis' comparison of John McCain to George Wallace was also correct. Mr. Lewis could have worded what he said more precisely, but people like you who are familiar with George Wallace's record probably knew what he meant the moment he said it.

George Wallace was once endorsed by the NAACP because as a racial moderate, he was definitely the lesser of two evils running for office. He had a long record of being a racial moderate before he started the fire breathing segregationists schtick to win votes.

John McCain is most certainly not a bigot. But he sat back and allowed his running mate to hold KKK rallies instead of campaign events. Both men are hypocrites and political opportunists, but bigot is a label that doesn't apply.

Re: On George Wallace and bigotry

Jupiter — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 10:11:54 -0000

Ta-Nehisi wrote:

Can't make the argument on the merits, so you go from strawman to ad hominem. I asked for proof, and you offered none. You simply proceeded to argue with what you wish I'd said, not what I actually wrote.

I have not quoted you as saying anything.

Wallace was in a position of power and used that power to oppress people. He was a bigot, an opportunistic bigot, no matter how moderate his race views were early in his life nor how he "changed" after an assassins bullet left him paralyzed and how many blacks he appointed in his post CRM era political career.

Ta-Nehisi wrote:

Moreover, if you really "know the audience" and didn't want to engage, don't comment. There's a giant "e-mail Ta-Nehis"i sign to the right. I answer virtually all e-mail. I'd gladly answer one from a fellow Bison.

But don't make a weak claim, fail to substantiate it, and then blame the people in the conversation. Like I said, If you object to the audience, don't engage. Otherwise,you're just a guy railing against McDonald's, having, mere minutes ago, downed a Big Mac.

Read my comments directed at yazzell. I never said that I object to the audience. Further, I did not want a private conversation. My intent was a public conversation with you.

Re: On George Wallace and bigotry

Jupiter — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 10:10:25 -0000

Yazzel wrote: What exactly do you mean, you "know the audience here"? It's a reasonably diverse and even fractious bunch, and pretending that you are too good to make a case to us is pretty arrogant. Either explain honestly just what you mean by your remarks about people here, or apologize and back off.

Don't be so presumptuous. If anyone is owed an apology it would be me, but I ain't asking for one. That's weak sauce. As a fellow Atlantic reader, I represent the very diversity for which you speak. And as a reader, I know that we can be a very opinionated bunch, myself included. That is what I meant.

Re: On George Wallace and bigotry

roac — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 10:06:18 -0000

Posner may have said this, but the formulation that comes to my mind is by Judge Kozinski (of porn-website fame), in Garza v. County of Los Angeles, 918 F.2d 763 (9th Cir. 1990)

The lay reader might wonder if there can be intentional discrimination without an invidious motive. Indeed there can. A simple example may help illustrate the point. Assume you are an anglo homeowner who lives in an all-white neighborhood. Suppose, also, that you harbor no ill feelings toward minorities. Suppose further, however, that some of your neighbors persuade you that having an integrated neighborhood would lower property values and that you stand to lose a lot of money on your home. On the basis of that belief, you join a pact not to sell your house to minorities. Have you engaged in intentional racial and ethnic discrimination? Of course you have. Your personal feelings toward minorities don't matter; what matters is that you intentionally took actions calculated to keep them out of your neighborhood.

(Whether this makes the hypothetical homeowner a bigot is a pointless question from a lawyer’s point of view, since “bigot” is not a word with legal significance ("term of art").)

Re: On George Wallace and bigotry

Deborah — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 10:02:53 -0000

Dee, genuine question and we may need to attract a lawyer, but isn't what you're describing discrimination, not bigotry? With discrimination on the basis of race or religion being illegal, and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation legal. But bigotry--your beliefs about the people you are or not discriminating against--is not illegal.

In the election there was much discussion of playing various cards (most recently the race card for Burgess, but maybe the Tennessee legislature flap involved some cards, too?), and some politicians are quite happy to play a card they believe will work in their favor (race, gender, racism, anti-Arab sentiment, etc) without believing the card is justified. "This is baseless, but it will get me that extra few points I really need." Perhaps the best non-white/black example would be anti-Arab sentiment, a pol who knows damn well that most Detroit area Arab Americans are native born descendents of Lebanese Christians, but doesn't think he can win City Council by saying so. So they become dangerous illegal terrorist muslim sympathizers, he gets Palin-esque rallies going, and wins office. He's spreading bigotry. By your final definition--acting in a way that enhances bigotry--he's a bigot. But by the one a lot of us are using--his beliefs about other people--he's a particularly ruthless opportunist. If he thought ginning up homosexual hatred was polling better than Arab hatred, he'd go for that in a heartbeat--he doesn't care who gets lynched if he gets 50.1% of the vote.

I agree with Morzer, "Big Mac in mouth" is a keeper.

Re: On George Wallace and bigotry

dee — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 09:15:52 -0000

I agree that distinctions are useful and that words can be imprecise; I just disagree that the solution is to exclude Wallace from the definition of bigot.

Housing discrimination may provide a useful example. Say a building owner refuses to rent to blacks and argues that he's refusing to do so because other tenants don't like living around blacks, not because he's a bigot. Despite the owner's motives, the law recogizes the owner's actions as bigotry. Some people disagree with that result. Judge Richard Posner (not a liberal) wrote a lengthy opinion explaining why the owner is still engaging in bigotry. I'll concede that distinctions can be made and that it's useful to talk about those distinctions. Bigotry may come in different forms, as Posner explained. But I don't think you deal with the complexity of this issue by removing the owner's actions from the definition of bigotry. Similarly, Wallace engaged in bigotry - it's complex and worthy of discussion, but it's still bigotry.

Re: On George Wallace and bigotry

morzer — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 09:14:37 -0000

TNC, have you just created a new idiom? Not "foot in mouth" but "Big Mac in mouth"?

Re: On George Wallace and bigotry

anonymous — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 08:46:31 -0000

One thing that always bugs me about the way we use words like "racism" is how it's like being pregnant or black: no such thing as a little bit, and it denies diversity.

Wallace is simply too hypocritical to be a good example for nuance -- so for contrast, try Lincoln or Teddy Roosevelt.

No less than Frederick Douglass said that of all the powerful people he met, Lincoln was the only one who treated him like an equal -- a huge compliment to give in those days when race wasn't exactly a nuanced discussion. Yet Lincoln said hundreds of times that he didn't consider blacks to be the equals of whites.

Or TR, whose book "The Winning of the West" is widely (and I think, unfairly) considered by many modern scholars to be the epitome of a racist apology for imperialism, if only because he constantly refers to the "races" of European stock Americans chasing the "race" of first peoples at a constantly moving frontier.

Yet one of his first acts as President was to invite Booker T. Washington to dinner at the White House -- a mark of genuine intellectual as well as political respect, and a major scandal at the time.

The point is, Wallace was capable of something a bigot is not supposed to be capable of -- in his personal life, he was known to treat black people he knew as individuals with the respect they'd earned. That might be a flaw in the word, or at least in what we use "bigot" to mean, which is why TNC is onto something when he points out that Wallace exploited racism and bigotry: he was an evil opportunist. But I don't think it is legit to assume he was ignorant -- he knew exactly what he was doing, which undercuts the idea that he is properly summed up as either bigoted or prejudiced. He was worse.

Lincoln, well -- stand beside him to measure his size.

TR is a broader subj., so I won't go into it except to point out that, like racism and racist, "race" is one of those words that we use as if it is precise when it's not.

Jesse Jackson, Sr., famously said that it troubles him that he's relieved to turn around and see that someone following him walking on the street at night is not a young black guy wearing his pants below his hips with a do-rag on his head. But if the word has any meaning, that's not about "race", exactly -- it's about "young", and "guy", and the clues from clothes and manner.

But words are like any edged tool -- they can be dulled by use.