Specious Liberal Arguments

Civil Rights Then and Now

By J. Wesley ⋅ May 1, 2008 ⋅  Email This Post ⋅  Print This Post ⋅ Post a comment

There is a world of difference between the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and that of today. In a nutshell, the 1950s movement had two things lacking in its modern incarnation — moral authority and success. And I would argue that the former was essential to the latter.

The 1950s Civil Rights leadership stood firmly within the founding principles of the United States. Men like Martin Luther King, Jr. shamed America at its unwillingness to live up to its own ideals. Civil rights activists of the time worked for justice — equal justice based on the essential dignity and value of ALL people. It was the very universality of their claims which made them so compelling. The Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s was a multi-racial affair, with white and black activists working and suffering together for a greater cause.

As everyone knows, of course, the movement took an ugly turn in the 60s and 70s. Integrationism and equal rights were abandoned by many activists in favor of special rights and black nationalism. In place of racial unity, Civil Rights rhetoric spoke the language of separatism. Many groups began to exclude white activists. Jewish-Americans, many of whom had sacrificed greatly for Civil Rights over the years, began to be treated as enemies. Instead of Justice, the focus turned to Power.

The trajectory of the Civil Rights Movement from the late 1960s until today has been steadily downward in terms of both political success and its influence in the broader culture. Now a fully-invested wing of the Democratic Party, the Civil Rights establishment is catered to by Dems during elections and then ignored the rest of the time. The old-guard organizations are in decline and no replacements are in sight. In the rest of society, Civil Rights leaders have never been less respected. Its most prominent leaders — Farrakhan, Sharpton and Jackson — are cartoonish figures, objects of mirth for most Americans.

This little historical excursus was launched by today’s Mary Mitchell column in the Chocago Sun-Times. In the column, Mitchell excoriates Obama for denouncing Jeremiah Wright. As she says:

“There is no institution in the black community more respected than the black church. And the notion that white pundits can dictate what constitutes unacceptable speech in the black church is repulsive to most black people.”

Oh really? Does anyone care to bet that Mitchell believes the reverse is true — that black Americans have no say in what is “acceptable” in white churches or institutions? I’m sure she’d be completely mum if a white church with 8,500 members was defaming black people in downtown Chicago. Or not.

Mitchell is yet another example of the glaring double standard in today’s racial politics. The Civil Rights leadership demands that we accept two standards on a host of issues: racist language, job opportunities, “hate crimes”, intra-group discourse, racial “humor”, college admissions and many others. There’s a special word for people who apply a standard to others they aren’t willing to live up to themselves — hypocrites.

If the Civil Rights movement hopes to regain its former influence, it should start by recovering its moral authority.

Linkage: Michelle Malkin on Rev. Jeremiah Wright