The double Standard for Senator Robert Bryd

Started by Time-Immemorial1 pages

The double Standard for Senator Robert Bryd

The passing of Sen. Robert Byrd is an occasion for reflection, not just on his life but on how one particularly unsavory aspect of that life was treated whenever the subject was raised.

Recall that, at various points in his career, Byrd’s partisan colleagues elected him to the positions of senate majority whip, senate majority leader, senate minority leader, and senate president pro tempore, which placed him third in the line of presidential succession behind the vice president and speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives. He was not, by any stretch of the imagination, a marginal or fringe figure nor were the positions of authority he occupied merely the result of seniority.

It is therefore curious, in a town where Republican indiscretions have no practical shelf life, that Byrd’s partisan allies and the Washington press corps repeatedly refused to delve into his activities as a long ago member of the Ku Klux Klan other than to acknowledge it as a “youthful indiscretion” and move on.

In its obituary, the Washington Post went into surprising detail as to just what those activities consisted of and how they might have shaped his career and early record as a legislator. For example:

As a young man, Mr. Byrd was an ‘exalted cyclops’ of the Ku Klux Klan. Although he apologized numerous times for what he considered a youthful indiscretion, his early votes in Congress--notably a filibuster against the 1964 Civil Rights Act--reflected racially separatist views.

The point here is not that Byrd ended his life as a closeted racist--I never met the man--but that, because he was a Democrat, the people who make judgments about what is and what is not newsworthy chose to give him a pass, failing to subject him to a thorough discussion of his past each time he said or did something that might have alluded to it. This was obviously the case after he used the phrase “white *******” in a television interview on the subject of race relations in the United States during the Bush presidency--at just about the same time Mississippi Republican Trent Lott was being driven from the Senate leadership in a never-ending barrage of criticism following an unfortunate but provocative comment he made at a birthday party for Sen. Strom Thurmond, the one-time Dixiecrat candidate for president of the United States. One can only imagine what the consequences would have been for Byrd’s career had he been a Republican with a similar record.

In life Byrd was a fiercely partisan figure, one who gave as good as he got and who never shied away from the prospect of tying the Senate in knots to preserve a principle he held dear, but one with a past as equally worthy, by contemporary liberal standards, of exposition. In death he has been lionized as a giant, the last of his kind and as a man who truly loved the institution in which he served longer than any other American--but which must be balanced against the more unsavory aspect of his life.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2010/06/30/byrds-kkk-history-shows-partisan-double-standard

I don't know about anything else, but unless he just happened to accidentally stumble into a Klan meeting one time in his life and never attended another one...it is hard to swallow the "it was a youthful indiscretion" excuse. I don't even know what an "exalted Cyclops" is, but it sounds like a title you can't just walk in off the street and earn.

Personally I feel people who belonged to hate groups should be forbidden from holding any type of political office. They can't do the best job possible if they feel a certain race is inferior to others.

So your issue isn't that he was a Klan member, racist **** or even that he was a Democrat but rather the media wasn't interested because he was a Democrat?

Odd stance.

Probably because any Democrat sympathetic media wouldn't want to damage him and that the other side, namely Fox News, don't actually condemn the racism so never ran an in depth story on him either.


It is therefore curious, in a town where Republican indiscretions have no practical shelf life, that Byrd’s partisan allies and the Washington press corps repeatedly refused to delve into his activities as a long ago member of the Ku Klux Klan other than to acknowledge it as a “youthful indiscretion” and move on.

It is generally true that, regardless of party, if you were something but split from it and actively stand against it, you get forgiveness.

It's not like he merely quit, he quit and significantly changed his stance and followed through on that.

It's not that he's getting a 'free ride' and Republicans who get accused don't, it's that he had to spend a significant amount of effort proving his change of heart- and anyone who does the same should get similar consideration, and those who don't, shouldn't.

"I know now I was wrong. Intolerance had no place in America. I apologized a thousand times ... and I don't mind apologizing over and over again. I can't erase what happened." -Robert Byrd

Everyone knows he was a racist- early Byrd was, without a doubt, horrible- but at the same time, it's past tense and demonstrated to be so. He went from opposing the voting rights act in '65 to voting for it in '68, and he continued to change during his life and tenure. I mean, heck, the guy was a huge Obama supporter and the NAACP rated his voting record as 100% in line with their positions by '03, that's a pretty big sign his views on race has changed.

Surtur

Personally I feel people who belonged to hate groups should be forbidden from holding any type of political office. They can't do the best job possible if they feel a certain race is inferior to others.

I can definitely see where you're coming from there and I don't think we're far off in stance, but I do think there's room for forgiveness if a person has demonstrated their change with action, and done so for a significant period.

If someone just doesn't talk about something and wants to brush it under the table, but doesn't actually repudiate or work against what they once did (i.e. they don't want to be held accountable but don't seem to have actually changed their mind), then heck yea, toss 'em out on their ear.

But if a former follower of a bad stance switches to outright anti-that stance and speaks against them, and talks about it as a huge mistake even time it's brought up and backs that word with action, then I

I mean, Ted Cruz used to fight for Fidel Castro- literally, he joined Fidel Castro's guerrilla groups as a teen, but we don't hold that against him currently. He obviously, totally is not a pro-Castro Communist, and hasn't been for most of his life, and if someone calls Ted Cruz a communist or names it as a reason not to support him, I will laugh.

---

It's not a double standard to be against something now but not hold it against someone when they *used* to hold an opinion but now clearly don't. It's just accepting that people can change.

My problem also comes from the fact he categorized it as a "youthful indiscretion". When I hear that phrase it usually conjures up images of someone who did some kind of crazy one time thing when they were young.

Originally posted by Surtur
My problem also comes from the fact he categorized it as a "youthful indiscretion". When I hear that phrase it usually conjures up images of someone who did some kind of crazy one time thing when they were young.

Yeaaaa, that's not the phrase I'd use either. And if it was *just* that, well, that's not remotely sufficient.

He also did call it his greatest mistake, though, and did a complete 180 on it.