Why Are Jews Liberals?

[JMS]

Originally Posted by PeterMP

Also, I'm not over analyzing your post. You are implying EXACTLY what I stated. Since Ike was conservative, he was likely NOT to aggressively go after Civil Rights changes (again, not as compared to MLK and LBJ, but FDR, Truman, and Kennedy).

How can you claim Ike over Kennedy? Kennedy wrote and lobbied for the 1964 Civil Rights act which Johnson got passed only after Kennedy was killed. Kennedy gave a major national speach in 63 on civil rights when he introduced his bill. Kennedy also publically backed and associated himself with MLK...

Kennedy is as responsible as LBJ for the sucess of the civil rights movement of the 60's.

Originally Posted by PeterMP

That's not true. Eisenhower was conservative, but he had TWO things to motivate him:
1. He seems to have truely believed that all races were equal AND not treating them as such was a Constitutional violation.
2. That Civil Rights was a National Security issue.

Those were reasonably good motivators for his type of conservative at the time, PLUS what ever political gain he could get from taking blacks from the Democratic party.

Ultimately though taking whites from the democratic party turned out to be the policy the GOP went with.

I keep coming back to not a single national address, not a single Presidential innitiative, not a single item you can point too where Eisenhower used his credibility or clout to move the ball forward.. The civil rights bills passed under him were congressional efforts, where congress lead the charge. Even then they were watered down and Eisenhower could have weighed in and saved them, but he never did.

As you say, Ike might have believed in civil rights; but he wasn't in any rush to see it occur. He was perfectly a peace with letting the country come around on its own schedule.

Originally Posted by PeterMP

Yes, he acted when the Supreme Court said so, BUT his administration also supported Brown via an amicus brief to the Supreme Court.

Again Ike was forced to weigh in on Brown. The city in question was Topika Kansas, Ikes home state. Ike had to take a position on that case being from Abalene Kansas himself. Even so he didn't push it.

Originally Posted by PeterMP

He'd also already integrated military schools and federally controlled schools for their kids independent of the Supreme Court.

It wasn't his policy however, It was Trumans which Ike was just finishing up. That's not really a case of Ike showing leadership on the civil rights issue like FDR and Truman did.

Originally Posted by PeterMP

In your previous post, you said he signed the '57 Civil Rights Act. He didn't just sign the '57 act, his AG proposed it (actually, his AG proposed something much stronger that was than substantially water downed), and then again in '60. Crediting him w/ ONLY signing the '57 and '60 acts is ALMOST as bad as saying that LBJ signed the '64 act. While true, it completely diminishes his total involvment.

Ike didn't defend the 57 bill. Ike was very popular president and could have weighed in to stop it from being watered down. Likewise the 60 civil rights bill was a compromise bill. That's why Kennedy had to write another one in 1963.

Originally Posted by PeterMP

The revisionist history is happening because it is correct, and people are really looking at his court appointments and things like that:

http://www.jstor.org/pss/27550903

http://www.britannica.com/bps/additi...hts-Revolution

http://www.eisenhowermemorial.org/Civil-Rights.htm

The fact of the matter is that Eisenhower filled the courts w/ pro-Civil Right judges to the point that it is impossible to conclude it was an accident.

True enough, but that's evidence of Ike having liberal leanings, and not being a true conservative. It's not evidence Ike showed leadership on Civil Rights, or spent political capital on civil rights.

Originally Posted by PeterMP

Your comparision to McCarthyism is flawed because McCarthyism wasn't really much of a national security issue, AND it wasn't just a local issue, but ALSO a separation of powers issue. McCarthy was a Senator. The legislator had the means to control him. The Executive branch stepping in has separation of powers issues. (PLUS to a certain extant it was politically beneficial for him, until it went to far.)

Ike was gutless on McCarthyism. It's one of hte true black marks on the man and his Presidency. When McCarthy came after Ike's former Boss, General Marshall, Ike was silent. Ike knew he wasn't a communist sympathizer, but Ike wouldn't lift a finger to help his former boss. Likewise when Ike went after Truman himself, Ike was silent.

Originally Posted by PeterMP

As I've already stated, if you look at what Eisenhower DID and not what he SAID, it is impossible to conclude that he wasn't a strong supporter of Civil Rights in his day (again as compared to Truman, FDR, and Kennedy not LBJ and MLK).

He wasn't a strong supporter. He was a weak supporter. When push came to shove, he supported civil rights. He never got out in front on the issue, he never spent his own political capital on the issue.

Originally Posted by PeterMP

It isn't like the modern Republican or Conservative movement feels strongly connected to or involkes the name Eisenhower, and it isn't likely that they will any time soon, as near as I can tell.

Fact is modern Republicans are actively trying to rewrite history. Saying FDR didn't end the Depression with the new deal, rather WWII did. Saying Eisenhower was a conservative, which is wrong; he was a moderate populist. Even saying Truman and Kennedy were conservatives.

Originally Posted by PeterMP

Let's be realistic, once you get to LBJ, neither party has a strong interest in having Eisenhower remembered as a strong advocate of Civil Rights.

That doesn't make it true.

Originally Posted by PeterMP

**EDIT2***
You, being a lawyer, might find this of interest:
""Seperate but equal" is a contradiction in terms. Schools or other public facilities where persons are segregated by law, solely on the basis of race or color, cannot in any circumstances be regarded as equal."

http://web.archive.org/web/200608281...47-483/022.pdf

And yet Ike made no move to overturn separate but equal in his eight years in the presidency. That came in the 1960's after Ike left office. Which is par for the coarse with Ike on civil rights.

[PeterMP]

Originally Posted by JMS

How can you claim Ike over Kennedy? Kennedy wrote and lobbied for the 1964 Civil Rights act which Johnson got passed only after Kennedy was killed. Kennedy gave a major national speach in 63 on civil rights when he introduced his bill. Kennedy also publically backed and associated himself with MLK...

Kennedy is as responsible as LBJ for the sucess of the civil rights movement of the 60's.

Kennedy voted for an ammendment to water down the '57 Civil Rights Act, and then voted against that watered down bill. His Civil Rights Act in '64 was buried in the House of Representatives and southern democrats thought they had killed it when he died and LBJ took over.

Kennedy was trying to walk a fine line (as all Democrats had since FDR built a coaltion which included southern whites and african americans
(which says a lot about the political skills of FDR)).

Eisenhower meet with MLK and other black leaders in the White House.

Originally Posted by JMS

I keep coming back to not a single national address, not a single Presidential innitiative, not a single item you can point too where Eisenhower used his credibility or clout to move the ball forward.. The civil rights bills passed under him were congressional efforts, where congress lead the charge. Even then they were watered down and Eisenhower could have weighed in and saved them, but he never did.

None of this is true. A Civil Rights Act in 1957 came from the White House, which was then butchered by the Congress. The 1960 Civil Rights Act came from the White House.

http://www.eisenhower.archives.gov/r...sActfiles.html

Integrating the public schools in DC in MONTHS was a Presidential intiative. Sending troops to Little Rock was a Presidential intiative.

Integrating schools run by the federal government BEFORE Brown v. Board was a Presidential intiative.

Originally Posted by JMS

Again Ike was forced to weigh in on Brown. The city in question was Topika Kansas, Ikes home state. Ike had to take a position on that case being from Abalene Kansas himself. Even so he didn't push it.

It wasn't his policy however, It was Trumans which Ike was just finishing up. That's not really a case of Ike showing leadership on the civil rights issue like FDR and Truman did.

You do realize that Brown v. Board happened while Ike was President, that the quote I provided came from an amicus brief written by his administration in support of Brown.

The quote CLEARLY shows that Eisenhower supported the FUNDMENTAL idea that separate is inherently unequal.

The fact that he HAD to weigh in on it DOES NOT mean that he had to take the position he did.

Originally Posted by JMS

True enough, but that's evidence of Ike having liberal leanings, and not being a true conservative. It's not evidence Ike showed leadership on Civil Rights, or spent political capital on civil rights.

You have no idea what you are talking about. Getting judges appointed takes political capital.

"The Black and Frankfurter nominations in the late 1930s were moderately contentious and, after the path-breaking desegregation decision in Brown v. Board of Education,12 the segregationist chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, James Eastland, delayed the confirmation of Justice Harlan for several months in 1955 because of the (correct) assumption that, as a justice, Harlan would support civil rights."

Harlan was apponted by Eisenhower. The Southern Democrats knew what he was doing and did what they could to prevent it. They just didn't let these judges go through for fun. The fillibuster, the longest in history, of the 1960 Civil Rights Act didn't just end because.

Originally Posted by JMS

Ike didn't defend the 57 bill. Ike was very popular president and could have weighed in to stop it from being watered down. Likewise the 60 civil rights bill was a compromise bill. That's why Kennedy had to write another one in 1963.

Eisenhower did defend the '57 and '60 bill. He wasn't omniscient.

Originally Posted by JMS

Fact is modern Republicans are actively trying to rewrite history. Saying FDR didn't end the Depression with the new deal, rather WWII did. Saying Eisenhower was a conservative, which is wrong; he was a moderate populist. Even saying Truman and Kennedy were conservatives.



That doesn't make it true.

Your argument actually doesn't make sense in the context of the statement. If anything based on your argument suggest modern conservatives should be trying to say that Eisenhower was UNFRIENDLY to Civil Rights (i.e. separate by equal is NOT unconstitutional).

Predicto's statement is just the opposite. Predicto is stating that revisionist history is trying to make Eisenhower MORE friendly to civil rights than he really was.

Originally Posted by JMS

And yet Ike made no move to overturn separate but equal in his eight years in the presidency. That came in the 1960's after Ike left office. Which is par for the coarse with Ike on civil rights.

1. You do realize the Brown v. Board declared separate, but equal unconstitutional and that happened while Ike was President and was supported by an amicus brief by the executive branch that stated they (the executive branch) that seperate but equal was NOT correct, and that the DC schools, which Eisenhower had some direct control of where integrated in MONTHS after the Supreme Court decision, and he order the quick integration of them.

2. The argument isn't that Eisnehower was pefect on Civil Rights and immediately made the situation completely better. Nobody did. Not FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, JFK, or EVEN LBJ. They all DID something though to move the issue forward.

You want to claim that Eisenhower's contributions were less than others. That PROPOSING and getting passed TWO Civil Rights Acts (when before him NONE had been passed for like 80 years) wasn't a Presidential intiative.

You want to claim that sending troops into the south to make sure that schools were integrated wasn't a Presidential initiative.

You want to claim that overwhelmingly naming judges that would be sympathetic to the Civil Rights movement to positions in southern courts wasn't a a Presidential initiative.