I don't think it moves the difficult discussion of race in this country forward, nor realistically examines our long, embarrassing history on the topic, to conveniently engage in back-patting and blame others for all our problems. The Democratic Party isn't perfect, and even the post-Civil Rights era has not been free of difficult, and divisive subjects for the left (one word: busing; another couple of words: affirmative action).

There's no doubt we have made remarkable strides, as a party, and as a nation, on changing the dynamics of race and racial politics. But suggesting it's all good, or even good enough is absurd. The reliance of Democrats on black unanimity in elections - beyond what it says about the failures of the GOP to deal with their own embarrassing racial issues - does not necessarily speak well of the left, which has been, in many ways, cavalier about issues the black community would rather discuss (inner city education, violence, and community development come to mind), and often deaf to dissent from black voices. We are not perfect, and we don't improve the discussion on race when we claim to be. And as with many things beyond healthcare, Ez, if you're serious about this, then be serious - there's a hard, and complex discussion to be had here. If not, though, don't oversimplify. That's not really helping anyone.

Both parties prioritize their agenda and I believe that, at least, the left wing of the Democratic party place race issues as #1....above foreign affiars, above the economy, and above national defense. There will always be discussion on where these priorities should be, but this I have observed.

weboy, there is no oversimpification in ezra's piece: not every discussion of race and politics needs to be an essay length investigation of the complexities of race in america.

sometimes a story is simple enough, and in this case, it is: the republican party used to be the party of lincoln and became the party of helms; the democrats used to be the party of george wallace and became the party of barack obama. this happened in a specific time - the '60s and '70s - and as a result of specific efforts (including the heroic ones of the mississippi freedom democratic party), and was endorsed by a specific democratic president - lyndon johnson - despite his knowing how much harm it would do to democrats in his native south.

PS. the real reason i posted was to mention the importance of lyndon johnson to this process....

Weboy

I agree with Howard. Although Democrats are imperfect, one can not compare the Democrats trying, but not doing as well as they could with the GOP actively supporting racists like Helm or the Southern Strategy. That's not patting oneself on the back. That's context.

Whenever you talk about the Republican Party and race, there's this peculiar conservative response that goes something like, "Robert Byrd was in the KKK!"

That's the wacko-right-wing response. There's also the thoughtful, mainstream response: "The Republican Party is the party of Abraham Lincoln." Which is also pretty peculiar. A lot has changed -- in the country and in the Republican party -- since those days.

Nixon's southern strategy may be to blame, before Nixon republicans may have been less racists than democrats.

IMO in order to end the race issue we need to kill the republican party and split the democratic party, perhaps in the basis of economic liberalism.

The bundling of racism with economic Liberalism is not good, although there is some overlap e.g. it is a liberal economic idea that a person or organization should be allowed to discriminate on any basis they want as long they are not violent or fraudulent. This may be the reason that racists found refuge in the Republican Party. They may have looked at both parties and said the republican’s liberalism may be enough to keep them from persecuting us for our private racism and so we will throw in with them. The problem is that now the racists have effected the party’s positions and the party has lost the black voter who would other wise be very much for more economically liberal positions.

A party need not bear its virtues forever. Remember, the GOP was the party of Lincoln and T.R.

No longer.

It's also worth noting that Byrd's involvement with the KKK came before his political career really began, and that Byrd has thoroughly apologized for his involvement and repudiated the organization and its ideas.

Whereas Helms, Thurmond and the rest BUILT their careers on racism and never apologized or repudiated any of it.

Republicans can't understand the difference, or pretend they can't.

akaison, Howard... I think the point here is that this game of comparison is part of the problem - "we're better on race than YOU are" becomes an easy way to not discuss the fact that... this country has a lot of terrible, race-based or race-driven problems that we don't solve because someone else is to blame for them.

Look, I've had the arguments Ezra describes with conservatives and I've made the points - history changes, the white southerners moved to the GOP, all of it. But that doesn't change the symbolism: Robert Byrd is the longest serving Senator of all time, never mind the longest serving Democrat... and he's a former member of the Ku Klux Klan - and not some accidental, "gee I went to a meeting and oops, it was the Klan" kind of way.

And he's ours. And that matters, no matter how we then add the "well, we're btter on so much more." We are. And then, we still have Robert Byrd. Still. And if the best response we have amounts to a grander version of "so's your [white] mother" then no, we're not doing much better. I don't need to know that the Democrats are, on some cosmic scorecard, "better" on race (I'll even give you "much better" for the sake of debate). Knowing that isn't helping get black kids out of poverty, or better educated, or keeping black men out of jail. Comparisons, blame assigning... these seem like diversions, honestly, when discussing this nations problems when it comes to race. The question is solving them, moving forward, changing things. I think some Democrats can do that, want to do that. I also think some Republicans do as well. And pointing at them and saying "Jesse Helms" seems about as productive as "Robert Byrd." Whatb we need is a new discussion, and new common ground.

Unless, you know, we plan to do something about Robert Byrd.... do we?

weboy,

Your comment was well reasoned. It's hard for the Democrats to point fingers at others when they tolerate Byrd...no matter how sincere his apologies may be.
The question is would these same people give a conservative who apologized for his actions the same latitude? Hardly

weboy, I appreciate your honest, sincere attempt at finding common ground and reasonableness regarding this issue.

However, at the end of the day, I'm sure that Robert Byrd gets a large percentage of the African American vote, so I will tend to trust their judgment on the matter rather than trying to pretend that Robert Byrd is in any way comparable to the modern virulent anti-gay racist that was Jesse Helms. At some point, you can make a moral judgment and say "one is better than the other," and this is one of those times.

And when Robert Byrd dies, no one will call him the "soul of the Democratic party" or "a fine exemplar of liberalism."

Byrd and Helms are not comparable. The apt comparison is Kennedy and Helms. Both represented the base of their respective parties.

Um, Tyro... West Virginia is one of the whitest (and poorest) states in the Union. Remember the part about how Hillary Clinton beat Obama by 40+ points in WVa because they were all white people who wouldn't vote for a black person...? Um, that would be Robert Byrd's voting base.

weboy, nevertheless, there are African Americans who live in WV and presumably vote for overwhelmingly for Sen. Byrd. Were African Americans voting for Jesse Helms by large margins?

As I said, I defer to the judgment of African American voters on the matter of whether their interests are being served by Sen. Byrd vs. Sen. Helms.

Except Byrd recanted his behavior Weboy, but the GOP has never said they were wrong about any of it. In South Africa, they had a truth and reconcilation movement that worked primarily because people had to tell the truth, and not deny their part in it. What's keeping those black kids you talk about in poverty is part and parcel is that history of denial. I will be the first to admit this isn't necessarily Democratic versus Republican (as i've seen affirmative action posts in which so-called liberals will deny there is a substantive difference in economic outcomes based on race rather than just class in this country), BUT, I also realize from where the primary forces for this are occuring. I don't take Ezra's post to mean, I guess, what you think it means. Its addressing not the entire subject, but a narrow specific point. I agree that you seem to wanted a dissertation when this was just a short comment.

Tyro... there's not a lot of need to drag this out... But, seriously: Sen. Byrd has been largely unopposed for at least the last 3 of his election cycles. The GOP worked harder to get the other seat and the Governor's mansion because Byrd's majorities - which have little to do with WV's small black population - are enormous. Helms, by contrast, ran as a Republican and was twice opposed by a black Democrat... who still lost. Does Byrd win an overwhelming majority of WV's black voters? Does he care? Does anyone? Is Helms your proof that Byrd's better for black people? Seriously? Or that his Klan past isn't a problem... not because it means he's racist but because... you know, it's The Klan??? I'm not saying we're terrible people as Democrats; I'm just saying... when we talk about Byrd we act as if what he was is somehow less troubling than others with similar histories. Sorry, but for me, that's not good enough.

Tyro- I think your point is interesting, but irrelevant to some degree. The test isn't whether this or that person has AA support but whether they have shown the ability to grow and change with history. I think someone else said this- the problem with Jesse Helms and the conservatives isn't that they were once racists, it is that they value consistency over doing what's morally right. Helms is to be lauded for consistency although that consistency was about being a bigot. As Colbert joked about Bush and the Iraqi war (to paraphrase)- "Our president is a man of remarkable consistency. He will make a decision on Monday, and stick when it to Wednesday, no matter what happened on Tues. " That's the flaw in being conservative.

Weboy:

I am having a hard time understanding your objections to Ezra's relatively mild and uncontroversial post. What exactly should the Democrats do about Robert Byrd? Drum him out of the party because he joined the Klan decades ago? Are you saying that Democrats have no moral standing to point out how appalling is the contemporary Republican record on race simply because Byrd is a member of the party?

Byrd long ago repudiated and apologized for his youthful association with the Klan. Helms never distanced himself from race baiting rhetoric, as even George Wallace and Strom Thurmond came to do. To me, and I believe to many other observers, this is a major and consequential difference between Byrd and Helms. I would be extremely surprised to learn that this distinction is not obvious to anyone not committed to Helms' views.

it is that they value consistency over doing what's morally right.

I disagree. I think that helms believed that what he was doing was morally right: he believed that his gay-baiting, racism, and hostility towards Martin Luther King, Jr. were the morally right things to do and felt that it was a wonderful path to power. Helms was, ultimately a true believer.

George Wallace, on the other hand, was an everyday southern populist who simply looked around to find the best ways to stay in power. When it was defending segregation, he did that. When it was trying to get African Americans to vote for him, he did that, too. Even if he was a racist, he wasn't going to drive is career off a cliff over it.

Byrd's an interesting case because while his position does not depend on the support of African Americans, his legislative record and rhetoric serve their interests, in a way that Helms was hostile to them, and the votes he gets from African Americans reflect that.

Thrasy, this has been suggested in several ways by several comments - the "if Byrd repudiates his past isn't that enough" logic. Well, I guess being in the Klan is bad... unless you're really really sorry about it? Is that the standard? I'd just like to be clear so you know, we can classify properly over who's really sorry, and who's just sort of sorry. Or whatever.

Or, in a word, no, "repudiating" your Klan past still leaves you with... your Klan past.

Thrasymachus, to answer your question about weboy's point, I think you have to understand what weboy is trying to get at: for every travesty and sin committed by Republicans, it is important to point out that some Democratic transgression is exactly the same and exactly equal in consequence to whatever sin was committed by the GOP. weboy always wants us to remember that there is no moral difference between Democratic and Republican policies and politicians, ever.

Who's better for African Americans? Byrd or Helms? African Americans seem to prefer Byrd, and I haven't heard the sort of race baiting and modern condemnation of MLK, Jr. (not to mention anti-gay crusading) from Byrd that we did from Helms.

Akaison,

What was morally right about housing projects and the way welfare was designed to trap generations?

Et All,

As a western conservative what the hell are you all talking about helms being the soul of anything? My beliefs didn’t come from him, except hearing his name and knowing he was a politician I don’t know anything about him nor care to. What some politician down south did decades ago has no effect on my ideology or beliefs. For the lot of you to sit around and think your some how superior, despite your record, on race then me because some dead old guy did or didn’t say sorry shows how hypocritical and full of BS you all are. Democrat Party has done nothing for AA community. Unless you consider the modern slavery your welfare system sucked them into a benefit you’re a bunch of windbags. Show some actual results then claim how great you are. You fools already claimed your prize and gave your acceptance speech without doing anything.

What I really want to know is how anyone black living in the inner city with a worthless liberal education can tolerate to listen to Liberals bask in the glory of all they have done for your community. Communities don’t live on promises and intentions and I don’t see where liberals have delivered anything but that.

Helms is the best type of politician there is, a dead one. He has nothing to do with the beliefs of the majority of conservatives, we would be just as conservative and believe the same things if Helms had never lived.

And finally you continually use the word race conclusively of all races. You have claimed to do much for AA community but you are hardly racist. Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton, and countless other major figures are unabashedly racist against whites and Jews. Your party has done nothing to distance yourself from their views.

Everyone knows that Byrd has a Klan past. What follows from this? Should he be expelled from the Democratic party? Is his Klan past enough to prevent other Democrats from denouncing Helms and his race baiting allies?

We can play this game with a large number of people who were Nazis or Communists at some time in the past but subsequently repudiated those views and acted to promote democratic and/or spiritual values. Virtually every German of a certain age - Pope Benedict XVI, for instance - belonged to one or another Nazi organization between 1933 and 1945. Does this mean that these individuals should be excluded from democratic politics, or that any organizations to which they belong have no standing to criticize authoritarianism?

I think not.

you are talking to the wrong person. I am a black guy who by every stretch of the imagination is a guy who represents the liberal approach at its best. i grew up extremely poor, and but for a lot of what you are trying to crap on, I would still be there. and let's be clear, it's not like you would replace with anything better. you would replace it with something worse.

I found it interesting and disturbing that Pat Buchanan called Helms the second most important conservative of the last half of the 20th century.
More important than Barry Goldwater, Milton Friedman and William F. Buckley?
To the extent Buchanan is right, it is worrisome.

Blacks were voting overwhelmingly for Democrats well before the change in the south. Since the Democratic party was dominate in the south blacks either voted for Democrats or did not vote at all.

Also, it is hard to argue that Nixon played a racist strategy while he and his administration supported quotas, set asides, and affirmative action.

What happen in the late 1970's is that middle class white began to reject AA in all of its forms including forced busing but the Democratic party kept on supporting it. Bakke was in 1979 and the Democratic Party supported the unconstitutional race and ethnic based quotas. It was one of the reasons that Reagan received a large portion of the white vote.

and now we got the totally revamped version of history where there was no southern strategy of blacks, guns and defense. as i said- the issue is weboy denial- super provides you with exhibit a.

Nate,

As a southern liberal I can assure that Jesse Helms and his supporters have everything to do with the electoral success of the Republican party in recent decades. Perhaps western conservative Republicans have kept their hands clean of racism (or not), but they sure have entered into an alliance with racists. Also, nice casual assertions of African American welfare dependency. I seem to remember that Clinton reformed welfare, or did you forget?

Actually, headache brings up a good point. One of the most frustrating things is to listen to non-Southern Republicans talk about how Helms is not them and doesn't represent the party. I've lived in New York and California and I hear this pretty consistently "but that's not us."

First, that's b.s. because you sure as hell were willing to accept the political power that an alliance with these racists allowed. The only reason why the GOP is falling out of favor is that in the last decade and half that ugly underbelly became clear masters of the party both in terms of where the power is located and who governs the agenda. It's all well and good to say that you aren't responsible for it, but the fact is the Southern Conservatives set your agenda, not you.

Second, it's just a little bit of convenient plausible deniability on your part. It's not like the rest of the country hasn't experienced any racism. That is what white entitlement is alla bout. It may not be readily clear to you because it's not been frame as such. Afterall, when you are talking about your freedoms as Americans- are you thinking of your freedoms or those of black and brown Americans too? I don' expect you to give me an honest answer, but at least be honest with yourself.

weboy, i've been busy, but i just had a moment to check back and i can't believe that you are offering a serious commentary?

there are two completely separate matters here that you are, in some strange fashion, trying to deal with as one.

one is the highly complex history of race in america (and within that, the subhistory of the KKK, its origins, its development, its final spasms, a subhistory that recognizes that, not unlike many terrorist organizations, the KKK had a somewhat removed political wing at the time byrd was a member).

the other is a very specific set of historical facts: as a result of mounting pressure from one of the original grassroots movements in modern american history, the civil rights movement and its multiple strategies throughout the first half of the twentieth century to achieve equality, the democratic party made the historic (and unprecedented) decision to cleave off a long-time voting element of its coalition in order to pass the Civil Rights, Voting Rights, and Fair Housing Acts during the 1965-68 period, a decision met by the republican party's willingness to engage in a deliberate "southern strategy" to provide a home for unrepentant racists in order to win elections.

Robert Byrd being a member of the KKK in his youth is nothing - flat out, absolute nothing - in comparison with that historic political realignment.

that such a realignment has its own complexities and tensions and that such a macro-change doesn't excuse micro-misbehavior can be readily acknowledged without losing sight of the central reality.

He [Helms] has nothing to do with the beliefs of the majority of conservatives...

Why were all those conservatives eulogizing Helms, if he had nothing to do with their beliefs? They enjoyed his vocal stylings on 'Dixie?

....we would be just as conservative and believe the same things if Helms had never lived.

I do appreciate your forthright admission that movement conservatism is systematically grounded in race-baiting, and that the death of Helms changes nothing in that regard.

e.g. it is a liberal economic idea that a person or organization should be allowed to discriminate on any basis they want as long they are not violent or fraudulent. This may be the reason that racists found refuge in the Republican Party. They may have looked at both parties and said the republican’s liberalism may be enough to keep them from persecuting us for our private racism and so we will throw in with them.

Furthermore, those ex-Democrats did not then dispassionately evaluate the two major parties and choose the one most agreeable on economic terms; rather, they were specifically and deliberately courted by Nixon's Republican Party and its Southern Strategy.

the sad truth is that the GOP hacks who post here need to believe they aren't what they are. It's not enough they discriminate and want the system to reinforce their views, but they want to make us help them feel better about their discrimination. A bunch of whiny cowards unable to be men of enough to deal with what they are. If you are going to be racists assholes just accept the concequences of what the means rather than trying to convince everyone else that in fact a duck isn't a duck, and cigar isn't a cigar.

akaison,

Based upon Supreme Court decisions ranging from Bakke, Gratz, Grutter, and Andarand Constructors, Inc, it is the Democratic Party that has supported discrimination for the last 30 years. Twenty Five years after Brown V Board, it was the Democrats who were in front of the Supreme Court arguing that Universities should be allowed separate and unequal admission standards based upon race.

It is amazing that the Democratic party has reached the point that opposition to racial discriminations is defined as racism.

superdestroyer, i know you think you're cute and all with your "separate and unequal" line, but, of course, like all the little propaganda robots, you don't have the slightest idea what you are talking about.

i'll give you just one tiny little clue because you're not worth the effort: studies regularly show that package the same resume under different names and it makes a difference in how it is received.

El V:

The question is would these same people give a conservative who apologized for his actions the same latitude? Hardly

Of course it could be argued that while Dean was and is conservative, he was never an *authoritarian* conservative, or a racist, and doesn't have much to repent for anyway. Maybe someone has a better example.

But I think liberals believe in redemption - if and only if it is genuine. The crucial point though is that redemption comes from within. No cheap grace, and formulaic apologies don't cut the mustard. You have to actually do some good to make up for your past harm.

Tyro:

I disagree. I think that helms believed that what he was doing was morally right: he believed that his gay-baiting, racism, and hostility towards Martin Luther King, Jr. were the morally right things to do and felt that it was a wonderful path to power. Helms was, ultimately a true believer.

If so, I agree. Lots of very nasty people believe that they're good and right. Self-confidence is good up to a point, but when it becomes total blindness to your own faults, then you become a monster in relatively short order.

Slaver owners thought they were doing what was morally right based on the Bible.

I've been away, and who knows who's still following this (though I bet a few still are)... but really, I'm used to being misinterpreted, or assumed to be taking a point of view I haven't. Akaison does a yeoman's job in this regard, imputing things I don't say and then drawing conclusions from them. I never said the Republicans and Democrats have "the same" race problem, or that all things (such as Byrd and Helms) are equal. What I said, and what I will maintain, is this comaative stance that's meant to make Democrats look better/feel good in comparison to the GOP is not useful, at least to me. We split hairs and set up convenient equations and tend to take the view most favorable to us. Tbnis, I'd point out, is really what Republicans are doing with the "et Byrd" commentary and the "party of Lincoln" storyline. It's their best foot, and they go with it. It's a weak one... but that's them.

I'm more worried about us, and I'm more owrried about the notion that Dems have no work to do, no improvements to mae, no changes yet to endure. I ask about Byrd not because he's "just like Helms" or the equivalent example... but because there's a point to asking, really, when does a Klan past become irrelevant? Doez Byrd's role as a Klan leader and recruiter mean nothing? Is it really just fine because he's "repudiated" it? I'm not asking to agree with some Republican line... I'm asking because, frankly, a Klan past - really any Klan past - troubles me. I think we could, and can, and should, do better than Byrd. As Democrats. Because we are the ones who are supposedly better on race. Who draw the lines and make the distinctions, and repudiate things like Helms and Thurmond and Wallace and an ugly racial past. I reiterate: as much as I agree with a "we're better than them" logic, it's beside the point of the problem we have with race in this country. I don't agree with some Republicna line about equivalency... but I also won't be some cheerleader about how great we are as opposed to others. We're okay we could - and should - be better. We all should. Crowing isn't getting that done.

As usual, Ezra Klein is a moron:

The 80-year-old senator is generally indulged, seen as a colorful character at best or a harmless joke at worst. When he gets in the news, it is often because of some outrageous remark. In 1993 Hollings explained why African "potentates" went to international conferences: "Rather than eating each other, they'd just come up and get a good square meal in Geneva."

Senator Fritz Holling was a Democrat for his entire career. For instance, in 1960, when he signed legislation to raise the Confederate Flag over the South Carolina capital, he was a Democrat.

In 1981, Hollings had to apologize to fellow Democrat Howard Metzenbaum after Hollings referred to him as the "senator from B'nai Brith" on the floor. Metzenbaum, who was Jewish, raised a point of personal privilege and Hollings's remarks were stricken from the record. In 1981, Hollings was a Democrat.

Hollings penned a controversial editorial in the May 6, 2004 Charleston Post and Courier, where he argued that Bush invaded Iraq possibly because "spreading democracy in the Mideast to secure Israel would take the Jewish vote from the Democrats."

In fact, Hollings is still a goddamned Democrat.

Ezra Klein should either (a) read a book or (b) eat shit and die, but preferably both.

uhm i find it amusing your obsession over me weboy. it's kind of flatterying in a creepy way.

as for the topic at hand- you are the one inputting with all this telling us what we mean when we bring up dems versus gop on this issue after well tell what we mean. here's the deal- if we tell you we mean y, it's a little interesting to read you say no, you mean x. how many times do we have to say y before you stop going off into your weirdness about x?

howard

Why should the way individuals react to names on resume give the government the right to bus children across town becasue of their race. Last Year, Louisville and Seattle had to be reminded by the Supreme Court that separate and unequal was still unconstitutional.

Are you saying that the Democratic Party support separate and unequal or are you saying that the Democratic Party believes that it does not have to follow the constittuion if the discirmination benefits blacks?

anonymous, what a foolish comment.

there are two kinds of discrimination: de facto and de jure. yes, de jure discrimination has been eliminated, but de facto discrimination continues to exist.

given the positive trendlines among younger people regarding racial equality in america, the day will undoubtedly come when no forms of affirmative action will be necessary to help overcome the enormous counterweight of decades of de jure segregation following on decades of slavery, but that time is not here yet, as the resume examples show.

let us, for example, talk about college, since it is one of the favorite examples of the know nothings such as yourself.

you have, i trust, heard of "legacy" admissions? the way that offspring of graduates get into high quality schools without, in fact, achieving that on "merit?"

you know that schools look for geographic balance?

economic balance?

skill-set balance?

in other words, you understand that college admission isn't simply a case of rank-ordering people by SATs and admitting the top "x?"

the idea that all across america, every day decisions about college admissions, hiring, buying and selling, permitting, etc., etc., etc. without reference to any factor but pure merit is deranged. affirmative action throws one more consideration into the scales, a consideration rooted in social equity and - in the words of the constitution - "form(ing) a more perfect Union, establish(ing) Justice, insur(ing) domestic tranquility... (and) promoting the general welfare."

playing little games with the phrase "separate and equal" and its variations is not grappling with the aftermath of slavery and decades of de jure segregation.

". . . there's a point to asking, really, when does a Klan past become irrelevant?"--weboy

It was relevant in the late '50s and '60s when the person in question (Byrd) voted against every piece of civil rights legislation proposed.

It is now irrelevant.