The memorials for Byrd are proliferating. My favorite—and in my estimate—the only one worth reading, comes from Andrew Sullivan, who simply notes:
Speak no ill of the dead? Well, let me simply say that the racist, populist, larcenous bigot of a Senator – a man who robbed the American tax-payer to pave his state with baubles and bribes – is not going to be much mourned in these parts.
Nicely stated!
While Mr. Sullivan is both succinct and accurate, the “Conscience of the Senate” is nonetheless being mourned, one suspects, because of his opposition to the Bush administration.
Witness the DailyKos:
With a career that spanned more than half a century, there is much to be said about Byrd’s actions and accomplishments—both good and bad—but what many most appreciate about him was his fierce opposition to the war in Iraq
Yes…I recall some “bad” in there somewhere. What might it have been?
As one might expect, other memorials begin with Byrd’s youthful indiscretions (ah yes, when he rose to be a recruiter in the WV KKK…an “Exalted Cyclops”) but then quickly make the case for redemption.
Paul Begala at the Daily Beast not only dismisses the early indiscretions but finds an opportunity to take a shot at Reagan:
Yes, there was the one-year flirtation with the Ku Klux Klan in the 1940’s—a stain that marked him for life—and his opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Critics on the right properly excoriate him for those historic mistakes. But they ignore Ronald Reagan’s youthful support of one-world government and the Gipper’s strong opposition to the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act and the Fair Housing Act, too.
Just checking, but I don’t remember the Gipper as framing his opposition with terms like “race mongrels” and referring (post-youthful indiscretion) to African Americans as being “a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.”
In the end, I fear I should have ended with the quote from Andrew Sullivan. What more can be said?
To his credit, Sen. Byrd was a proponent of civic education and the author of the law mandating teaching about the Constitution on “Constitution Day.” Known for carrying a copy of the Constitution in his pocket, he could use his stature to remind members of Congress about their duty to uphold the Constitution. Unfortunately he did so only when that would advance his agenda. He seemed to somehow forget that the Constitution gave Congress only enumerated powers, not unlimited power as it seems to wield today. May he rest in peace and may his successors do a better job of upholding the Constitution that he so loved.
Well, one thing that can be said is that Andrew Sullivan is in a hell of a strange position to be denouncing anyone for racism earlier in their life, given his support of Charles Murray.
Another thing that can be said is that Byrd’s opposition to the Iraq war was one of the few times in recent history that the unconstitutionality of presidential wars has been vigorously asserted by a politician.
Interesting comments, Bill (I hope you stick around).
I don’t accept the contention that Murray is a racist (unlike most critics and reviewers, I have actually read Murray’s work). But let us assume for the sake of argument that Murray is a racist (or, at the very least, could carry racist connotations). If this is the case, is support for Murray’s policy arguments the moral equivalent of serving as a recruiter for the KKK?
Is assuming, as Murray does, that all individuals (regardless of race) are rational actors the equivalent of arguing that one race is composed of (to quote the conscience of the Senate) “throwback[s] to the blackest specimen from the wilds?”
This seems to be a bit of a stretch.
Did I appreciate Byrd’s denunciations of Bush’s doctrine of preemption? Absolutely. Do I think that these denunciations tip the scales to allow us to forget about Byrd’s overt racism and unprincipled pork barreling? Absolutely not.
If Murray is a racist, then yes, supporting his arguments is morally equivalent to recruiting for the Klan. A lot of the distinctions that people seem to be making are based on the idea that uncouth racism is somehow more racist than racism that expresses itself in a polished style, and I don’t think American history bears that out. Richard Russell wasn’t a Klansman, and he seldom even addressed the question of racial inferiority in public, but he did much more damage to the civil rights movement than Robert Byrd ever did.
All individuals are rational actors? Wow, I must have been associating with a different species all my life!