(Guest Post by Matthew Ladner)
Shakespeare’s Henry V is a great play because, among many other reasons, it is deeply revealing about the national ideals of the British. Henry, pressed onto the throne at a young age after a checkered youth, rises the occasion when the odds are deeply against him. Shakespeare’s Henry is at once brave, inspiring, fierce, merciful, eloquent, God-fearing and even multi-ethnic (Shakespeare emphasized Henry’s Welsh lineage for contemporaneous political reasons).
Now of course the real Henry V didn’t begin to live up to these noble ideals. In fact, he ordered a group of French prisoners executed during the Battle of Agincourt. When his knights refused to murder, he had to order his archers to do the butchery.
Why let the truth get in the way of a good story? Shakespeare’s plays tell us about the aspirational ideals of the British- how they wanted to see themselves.
Democrats, before and after the creation of the New Deal coalition, have long seen themselves as champions of the little guy. The reality, of course, is that as a broad tent party, the Democrats have not always lived up to this ideal. Over the years some rather unsavory factions have drifted into and out of the Democratic coalition. The Democratic Party I know however-from books-deserves some credit for real moral courage. Sometimes.
In 1910, a group of Progressive Republicans teamed with Democrats to strip the Speaker of the House of power, including the power to appoint committee chairmen. Chairmen came to be appointed by seniority, which not only decentralized power in the House, but enormously empowered Democrats from the old Confederacy. The Republican Party was the party of Lincoln, you see. After southern racists saw to it that former Slaves couldn’t vote, Republicans were no threat to win an election in the south.
The Old Bulls, as the committee chairmen came to be known, ruled their fiefdoms with an iron fist. They decided which bills would get hearings, and which would die. They said jump, and the rest of the committee said “how high?” Disproportionately, the Old Bulls were southern segregationists.
So just for example, any change in American tax policy had to begin in the House Ways and Means committee, and there was the Right Honorable Bubba Klan serving in his 5th term as chairman. If you guessed that the Right Honorable Darrell T. Klux was biding his time waiting to replace Bubba when he finally went to pick cotton in Hell’s sharecropping plantation, give yourself a gold-star.
Think that might give Bubba and Darrell a little leverage in keeping African Americans down? You bet. The Old Bulls ran the House for a mere 60 years and change.
This however is not the Democratic Party of today. The Democratic Party of today was forged in opposition to these bigots, fought them, and finally defeated them at great cost through the prolonged application of blood, sweat, tears and moral courage.
In the Shakespearean telling, liberal Democrats grew to hate the oppression of Southern Democrats. The United States Supreme Court began chipping away at Jim Crow in the 1940s. Harry Truman integrated the military unilaterally. Martin Luther King’s voice sent the English language into battle, and his courage and conviction galvanized the conscience of the nation. Finally, when John F. Kennedy was struck down by an assassin’s bullet, Lyndon Baines Johnson, himself a southerner, defeated the Old Bulls by building the greatest tribute possible to the fallen President by passing the key elements of his previously stalled agenda-including (amazingly) the Civil Rights Act. Finally, in the wake of Watergate, progressives overthrew the Old Bulls by eliminating seniority.
Much is true about this story. Of course, like Henry V, much has been air-brushed out- like a series of Democratic Presidents including Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt who failed to do so much as to raise a finger to aid disenfranchised African Americans. The Old Bulls were powerful, you see, and to get along you had to go along with some things, even if they were shameful. You can learn to live with that, in return for power.
I’ve argued previously that today’s alliance between progressives and education reactionaries will not and cannot last, because the ideals of progressives are so completely at odds with today’s status-quo. It could however last a good long while- the call of cynicism is strong. It whispers in your ear that you have to accept certain things in order to do good things.
This much is certain- the cynics are going to have a hard time convincing anyone they are doing the right thing by throwing 1,700 DC kids under the bus simply to keep their reactionaries happy. When it comes to reauthorizing the DC program, which Democratic Party will show up- a group living up to their ideals or to their short term interests?
Why do I think there is still a chance for DC Opportunity Scholarships? Because of people like Diane Feinstein. Read her quote again:
“Why should the poor child not have the same access as the wealthy child does? That is all he is asking for. He is saying let’s try it for 5 years, and then let’s compare progress and let’s see if this model can work for these District youngsters…I have gotten a lot of flak because I am supporting it. And guess what. I do not care. I have finally reached the stage in my career, I do not care. I am going to do what I sincerely believe is right.”
These are not the words of a cynic, or a stary-eyed naif, but rather someone who knows that she has a limited time in this world, and wants to do what is right. In the end, I believe many Democrats will find moral courage to match that of Feinstein, but it is going to be a hell of fight to get there.
Jay P. Greene's Blog 
[…] deciding whether to fund D.C. vouchers, congressional Democrats must decide between helping the poor or helping the teachers’ unions, writes Matthew Ladner on Jay P. Greene’s […]
I am amazed to learn Diane Feinstein said those words. She is such a strong union supporter. But if she can actually walk the talk, maybe we do have a chance for real educational change before the next century.
[…] over, and it hasn’t turned out to be quite as easy as the unions expected. Too many Democrats have awakened — sometimes at the prompting of their disadvantaged constituents — to the […]
[…] victories for school choice in places like Indiana, Arizona, and Georgia. (Or by reading their blogs.) But the ongoing battle over the D.C. voucher program provides the most dramatic demonstration […]
Your contention that FDR failed to “raise a finger to aid disenfranchised African Americans” is false. Most importantly, he signed the Executive Order 8802 to create the Fair Employment Practices Committee in 1941 which, probably, was the single biggest move in support of African-Americans between Reconstruction and the Civil Rights Act. The Public Works Administration had hiring quotas for African-Americans which was much opposed by opponents. Harold Ickes was the main force behind that, but FDR supported his Interior Secretary. The Resettlement Administration run by Rexford Tugwell (assistant secretary of Agriculture) aided African Americans. Half a century later (in Alabama, I think, for the fuller story see the book Atlantic Crossings by Rodgers) African-Americans in the area still called their homes, “Roosevelt Houses.” Those are three I can think of off the top of my head and I suspect there are lots of others. Look, as you said FDR could not do a lot of things because of “the Old Bulls” or fear of “the Old Bulls.” And the Social Security Act of 1935 was originally written to exclude occupations predominantly made up of African American laborers. But it is a pernicious fiction to make the claim that FDR did absolutely nothing. Interestingly, I am having trouble coming up with anything that TR, Taft, Wilson, Harding, Coolidge, or Hoover did before FDR for African-Americans and all but Wilson were not wedded to the southern Democrats (this is off the top of my head, admittedly). But we need to give FDR some credit here for breaking a long period of presidents who truly did nothing or, at least, close to nothing for African-Americans. FDR could have done lots, lots more. And he also did lots, lots more compared to his predecessors even if in our own eyes it was glaringly little.
Ah, I just look at it again. The operative word was ‘disenfranchised.’ The examples I listed above were aid to African Americans. He helped them but not with getting voting rights. I think that is what you meant. I interpreted what you meant originally as aid for those African Americans who could not vote in far broader context, as in all aid. So I misread your statement. I wanted to delete the comments, but did not see how to so am writing this follow-up post. On the other hand the broader point about “Old Bulls” is still relevant. FDR did help at least on the margins African-Americans despite the Old Bulls. Again, my apologies for, I think, mangling what you meant by your statement.
No problem Jeremy- and I agree that a series of Republican Presidents also have a shameful record of silence when it comes to the voting rights of Blacks. I noted FDR in particular because he was probably the most powerful President since Lincoln, but this was simply a fight he decided not to take on.