But Bill Clinton makes the argument (I’m paraphrasing) that Robert Byrd probably WASN’T a racist, and that he joined the KKK purely because it was a good political move for a country politician once upon a time (and besides, even if he WAS a racist, he did a lot of good later, and tried to make up for it).
For the sake of argument, let’s say that Robert Byrd WASN’T really a racist- that he joined the Klan and supported segregation solely for political expediency.
Many sources say that George Wallace was the same way- that he started as a populist and racial moderate, got hammered by a true bigot in an election, and learned that, in Alabama politics, you can’t afford to get “out-niggered.” So, he spent years pretending to be a bigot.
As a practical matter, I can understand that… but really, is it any better to be a make-believe bigot than a real one? If Bull Connor, Strom Thurmond, or Jesse Helms or Lester Maddox was only “giving the voters what they want,” is he any less contemptible?
Should we give ANY politician a pass for evil things he stood for, if deep in his heart, he didn’t really believe in them?
No – especially when you’re a politician (or radio host, or newspaper editor, or any other position that has a disproportionate influence on other people’s opinions), whatever tender sensibilities you might carry in your heart of hearts are irrelevant to anyone but God and your best friends. To the people affected by your policies and public statements, it’s exactly equivalent in its awfulness, and that’s what matters to me, not any abstract moral navel-gazing.
:dubious: I think you have it exactly backwards, as demonstrated in the OP. The opinions of the general public shape the opinions of politicians (and the others you mentioned).
Can one grow up around and be inculcated with racism and then as an adult come to a realization that racism is wrong? Does the fact that they once were racist make their lack of racism in later years and efforts to right the very wrongs they once supported less honorable?
It seems to me Byrd truly and deeply regretted his association with the KKK. It appears he tried to do what he could to atone for that and his early segregationist politics.
How do we know he didn’t truly believe in them? Do you give any KKK member a pass if deep in heart he doesn’t truly believe in what they stand for? No. You don’t give someone a pass for what they stood for then, you give them a pass if they learned the error of their ways.
As for the OP, it kinda depends. If they pol actually took actions to reverse discrimination, then maybe he gets a bit of a pass. But my guess is that it’s generally more about power and doing whatever you have to in order to get it. In that case, I might think even less of the fake racist since he betrayed his basic values to get elected.
I mean that if you’re Robert Byrd, and you’re running for the House of Representatives in 1952 West Virginia, you keep your mouth shut about being Mr. Integrationist, even if you really support integration. You don’t get elected by saying to your would be constituents, “You guys are all a bunch of racists and if I get elected, I’ll do my best to fight that.”
But there’s a big difference between keeping your mouth shut and joining the Klan. Plus, I don’t think it’s realistic to be a pol in WV in the 1950s and not talk about race. It was a very big issue at the time.
I’m not saying, be a pol in WV and don’t talk about race. I’m saying, if you’re a pol in the 1950s, and you talk about race, make sure you’re on the right side of the issue. If you want to be elected in 1950s West Virginia, you better be a segregationist.
Logically, if anything it’s worse than being a “real” racist because not only are you having the same effects as such a racist, but you are a self indulgent liar on top of that.
In my view it doesn’t matter what you “think”, it matters what you do. A hard-core racist who never acts on it is better than a pandering non-racist who explicitly or implicitly supports racist policies or organizations.
Why would you assume that he was faking his racism then? It seems more likely that he was a racist who faked not being one when it became politically unfashionable to promote racism.
I do think it’s possible for racists to change. Just like it’s possible for socialists to become capitalists and capitalists to become socialists. We’re not talking about innate personality here, like being gay or straight. We’re talking about learned behavior, passed down through culture and parents and such. So of course a person can change.
That said, I think if you’re an exalted Cyclops in the Klan in your late 20’s, and if you’re written letters describing non-whites as ‘race mongrels’ long into your adulthood, and then suddenly when your career aspirations collide with your racism you discover tolerance for all, it’s more likely that it’s the tolerance that’s an act.
Regardless of all that, I’m amazed at the flips and twists that are going on to excuse Byrd’s past. I don’t for a second believe that such courtesy would be extended to a Republican with a similar past.
I can’t read anyone’s mind- I can’t possibly know whether Robert Byrd was
A genuine racist who later sincerely repented, and tried to make amends to black Americans. (IF that was the case, I’ll leave it to black Americans to decide whether he should be forgiven.)
A guy who KNEW Jim Crow was wrong, but figured, “Hey, this is the South, and I can’t get elected unless I tell the rednecks what they want to hear”
A genuine racist who saw the handwriting on the wall, and pretended to have become a progressive.
Something else I haven’t thought of.
I’M not the one stating that Byrd was #2- Bill Clinton did that. Whether Clinton is right, I can’t say. I strongly suspect that Clinton’s beloved mentor, J. William Fulbright, WAS a perfect example of #2. That is, Fulbright was a liberal on every issue EXCEPT race. I’m guessing (and Clinton would probably SWEAR) that Fulbright wasn’t really a racist, but told himself “The only way I can help implement my progressive agenda is to get elected, and I can’t do that if I don’t bait niggers with the best of them.”
What I’m asking is, SUPPOSE Clinton is right- IF he is right, if Byrd wasn’t a true bigot but pandered to bigots because he needed their votes, well, is that BETTER than being a true racist?
Well, it certainly would be extended by Republicans, but probably not by most Democrats. Which is pretty much the mirror image of what we see with Robert Byrd, isn’t it?
What does “pandered to bigots” mean? There’s pandering, as in paying lip service, and there’s pandering, as in supporting legislation. If it’s the latter, then I don’t see the difference between a “real” bigot and a fake one.
I agree with **DanBlather **on this-- it matters not one whit what a person thinks, it matters what he does.
I don’t know much about Byrd, but in general I’d say “no” for much the same reason as Der Trihs. A politician who acts racist but doesn’t really believe in it is going to do just as much damage as a politician who actually is racist and acts in accordance with those beliefs. The former is, additionally, a hypocrite who’s promoting a view that he knows is wrong.
Now, if one were pretending to be a racist as some sort of cover for secret anti-racism work that could not be carried out openly then that might be justified. If someone in the 19th century who was running a safe house on the Underground Railroad pretended to be a racist to throw off the suspicion of their neighbors then I’d say that’s far more admirable than being an actual racist. But going along with racism just because it’s easier or more popular is quite a different story.