Bloomberg’s Margaret Carlson went to the movies last week and wrote a peculiar column about the experience. She went to see “Lee Daniels’ The Butler” (which hereinafter we’ll abbreviate “The Butler”), a historical drama that follows its central character, Cecil Gaines (Forrest Whitaker) through his career as a White House servant, which begins in 1957 and lasts a third of a century.
It is in large part a film about the struggles and successes of the civil-rights movement, and Carlson found it searing in a way that history books and old news clips are not: “Seeing on film how brutally blacks were treated–as second-, if not third-class citizens–is to feel the humiliation and pain.”
Associated Press
A scene from “Lee Daniels’ The Butler”
We should note that this is not a documentary or even a biopic (although it was inspired by an actual long-serving White House butler, Eugene Allen) but a fictional work, sort of a left-liberal “Forrest Gump.” Historians of the Reagan presidency told the Hollywood Reporter earlier this month that the script is mendacious in its portrayal of the 40th president as racially insensitive. That said, we know of no reason to think that the scenes of Jim Crow brutality Carlson found so moving are anything other than true-to-life.
Carlson, however, deploys the film in a dazzlingly illogical argument. “I wish Chief Justice John Roberts and four of his Supreme Court colleagues would see [‘The Butler’], too,” she writes. “Maybe it will help them understand how wrong they got it when they recently decided that we are so far past Jim Crow that we can dispense with a central provision of the 1965 Voting Rights Act.”
Her argument is an appeal to emotion in the service of a question-begging non sequitur. If the justices “see for themselves how virulent the oppression was 50 years ago,” she avers, they would understand “why we still need rules to redress it.”
Even the appeal to emotion is misplaced in the case of one of the justices. Half a century ago Clarence Thomas was a black teenager in Georgia. He doesn’t need Hollywood actors to show him the oppressiveness of Jim Crow, and he certainly doesn’t need a person of pallor like Carlson to lecture him about it.
At any rate, nobody disputes that Jim Crow was brutal or that the Voting Rights Act, including the section the Supreme Court struck down, was necessary and justified in 1965. It does not follow, however, that it is either necessary or constitutional today. Here is the entirety of Carlson’s argument that it is:
In 2013 alone, more than 80 measures to restrict voting rights–less blatantly racist than literacy tests but almost as pernicious–were introduced in 31 states. They are put forth as remedies, only no problem exists: The incidence of actual voter fraud hovers near zero. Kansas, where new rules are particularly harsh, has had more documented cases of UFO sightings than of voter fraud.
Carlson’s conclusion, then, rests on all of the following highly dubious premises: that she accurately characterizes the purpose of the measures to which she refers as being “to restrict voting rights,” that those measures are “almost as pernicious” as impossible-to-pass literacy tests that were administered only to blacks, that voter fraud is either nonexistent or so rare as to be a trivial concern, and that space aliens have flown over Kansas.
Furthermore, she makes plain that she lacks even a rudimentary understanding of the Voting Rights Act and the court’s decision in
Shelby County v. Holder
. The ruling has no effect on Section 2 of the act, which allows courts to enjoin voting rules that can be shown to be discriminatory. It had the effect of rendering inoperative Section 5, which forbade certain states and local jurisdictions from changing their voting rules, whether discriminatory or not, without federal approval.
But Section 5 is still good law. The court struck down Section 4, which set the parameters for determining which jurisdictions were covered by Section 5. The problem was that Section 4 relied on outdated criteria: past practices and voter-registration and -turnout data that had not been updated in more than four decades.
The clearest indication of Carlson’s ignorance in the matter is her citation of Kansas as an example. The Sunflower State was not a covered jurisdiction under Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act and therefore is unaffected by the ruling in Shelby County. If, as Carlson claims, Kansas is Ground Zero in an effort to disfranchise blacks–an enormous “if,” to be sure–that is further evidence that Section 4 was obsolete, not that it wasn’t.
But when you think it through, Carlson’s whole appeal to emotion actually cuts against her argument. No doubt the Jim Crow scenes in “The Butler” are shocking. But in 2013, that is the shock of the unfamiliar. If blacks were still oppressed in the South, you wouldn’t need to go to the theater to see it. You could watch it in high-definition in your living room, on the evening or cable news.
The Carlson piece got us to thinking about why race plays such a central role in the worldview of today’s liberal left, and why those on the left seem to suffer from a compulsion to exaggerate wildly the continuing prevalence of racism. In the first two columns in this series, we argued that it serves a political purpose, sustaining black loyalty to the Democratic Party, and a psychological purpose, allowing white liberals to assert their moral supremacy over other whites. (Since we wrote the latter column, it has also occurred to us that the idea of “white privilege” seems to be a guilty pleasure for some whites.)
Carlson’s argument suggests a third purpose, an ideological one.
It has now been 49 years since Congress passed the Civil Rights Act and 48 since the Voting Rights Act. If racism really remained as prevalent as liberals claim, one could argue that would represent a failure of liberal governance. Contrariwise, if indeed racism has largely abated, as this columnist asserts, that would seem to be a vindication for liberal governance.
But actually the liberal position is not inconsistent. Carlson does not deny the efficacy of the Voting Rights Act; rather, unfamiliar with its actual workings, she takes it as an article of faith that without it, even in 2013, blacks would be forbidden from voting.
Our view, meanwhile, is that while major civil-rights legislation was a necessary condition in achieving racial equality, it was not sufficient. Normally such an assertion would be speculative, but in this case history proves it true. In the aftermath of the Civil War, Congress enacted sweeping civil-rights laws. But they were a dead letter by the end of the 19th century because the political will to enforce them and the judicial will to uphold them were both lacking.
In 1883, the Supreme Court struck down the Civil Rights Act of 1875, which prohibited discrimination in public accommodations. More than 80 years would pass before the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The executive and judicial branches both acted ahead of Congress–most notably in President Truman’s 1948 order desegregating the military, the Supreme Court’s 1954 decision in Brown v. Board of Education, and President Eisenhower’s efforts to enforce school desegregation. Huge cultural changes also took place in the first two-thirds of the 20th century, not least the Great Migration of blacks from the South to the Northeast, Midwest and West.
There’s no doubt that the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act were successful. Their effects were quick and dramatic, exemplified by the reversal within a decade of black migration patterns, which we noted yesterday.
But those on the left, by denying or downplaying the enormous cultural changes that were already well under way by the 1960s, overstate the relative importance of the 1960s civil-rights legislation. The premise is wrong, but the logic is sound: If the enactment of federal laws alone was enough to end Jim Crow, then without those laws, Jim Crow would return.
Thus the exaggeration of racism helps sustain an illusion of the federal government’s efficacy. Margaret Carlson’s dire warnings about the return of Jim Crow to Kansas are consistent with the kind of magical thinking that leads liberals to claim–to believe–that all Americans will have affordable health care five weeks from today, since it is, after all, the law of the land.
“Obama Interview Fails to Boost CNN’s ‘New Day’ Ratings”–headline, Yahoo! TV, Aug. 26
Emily Litella, Is That You?
- “In Syria, U.S. Inaction Is Better Than Intervention”–headline, Eugene Robinson column, Washington Post, April 30
- “Questioning Syrian Intervention”–headline, Robinson column, Post, May 7
- “Giving Arms to Syrian Rebels Is a Bad Idea”–headline, Robinson column, Post, June 18
- “The U.S. Must Act Against Assad”–headline, Robinson column, Post, Aug. 27
Out on a Limb
- “Al Sharpton Profiting Off of Civil Rights”–headline, Washington Free Beacon, Aug. 26
- “Obama: My Speech Won’t Be as ‘Good’ as MLK’s”–headline, USA Today website, Aug. 27
“Who’s to Blame for Miley Cyrus and the VMAs? Congress!”–headline, HotAir.com, Aug. 27
A Stopped Clock Is Right Twice a Day
“Syria Accuses Kerry of Lying, Disregarding UN”–headline, Associated Press, Aug. 27
Life Imitates the Movies
Kim Jong Il: “Hans, Hans, Hans! We’ve been frew this a dozen times. I don’t have any weapons of mass destwuction, OK Hans?” Hans Blix: “Then let me look around, so I can ease the U.N.’s collective mind. I’m sorry, but the U.N. must be firm with you. Let me in, or else.” Kim: “Or else what?” Blix: “Or else we will be very angry with you–and we will write you a letter, telling you how angry we are.”–from “Team America: World Police,” 2004- “Hans Blix told the Global Viewpoint Network that the United States and its allies should wait for U.N. inspectors to finish their analysis of allegations that chemical weapons were used in Syria before taking any action.”–TheHill.com, Aug. 27, 2013
Life Imitates ‘South Park’
- “After the TV show Queer Eye for the Straight Guy begins showing, metrosexuality becomes a major fad among both the men and the boys, and they all begin to act effeminate. At the school bus stop, instead of their usual winter clothing, Stan, Cartman, and Kenny wear unmasculine clothing. Kyle, who does not want to conform, is beaten up by a metrosexual gang at school. Mr. Garrison and Mr. Slave, the town’s gay couple, are opposed to the fad since they feel that the gay culture should be unique to gays. The women of the town are initially in favor of their husbands’ improved hygiene and willingness to communicate, but soon tire of the men becoming increasingly self-absorbed.”–Wikipedia.org summary of “South Park Is Gay!,” aired Oct. 22, 2003
- “Booker OK With Speculation That He’s Gay: ‘So What Does It Matter if I Am?’ “–TalkingPointsMemo.com, Aug. 27, 2013
Would He Settle for Mitt Oven Romney?
“Patrick Leahy Calls for Eric Holder Pot Hearing”–headline, Politico.com, Aug. 26
Next Target: Amalgamated Buggy Whip Co.
“EEOC Lawsuit Challenges Sexual Harassment at Davis Typewriter Company”–headline, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission press release, Aug. 27
“FDNY Rescues Man Trapped Chest-Deep in 8-Foot Hole”–headline, NBCNews.com, Aug. 27
Question and Answer–I
- “50 Years After the March on Washington, What Would MLK March For Today?”–headline Washington Post, Aug. 25
- “The Benefits of Old Age”–headline, PhillyBurbs.com, Aug. 23
Question and Answer–II
- “Why Didn’t Canada Have a Financial Crisis?”–headline, TheGlitteringEye.com, Jan. 28, 2011
- “The Economic Crisis Makes Infidelity Too Expensive”–headline, TheDailyBeast.com, Aug. 26, 2013
- “Canadian Adultery Website Launches in China”–headline, QMI agency, Aug. 26
“Bubonic Plague Outbreak Feared in Central Asia”–headline, Guardian website (London), Aug. 27
“Editorial: Ford Gets a Lesson in Chicago Muscle”–headline, Chicago Tribune, Aug. 27
“What Joseph Bottum Wants”–headline, New York Times website, Aug. 26
“Army Pvt. Chelsea Manning, who was previously known as Bradley Manning, decided to announce that she [sic] wanted to live as a woman the day after sentencing because a military prison said publicly it would not provide hormone treatment, her attorney said Monday,” Politico reports:
Attorney David Coombs told The Associated Press that Manning had known for a long time she would make such a statement, but “she wanted, essentially, for the media surrounding the trial to dissipate.”
Manning did not want people to think the statement was insincere.
“People might think it was an effort to get further attention,” said Coombs, who lives in Providence, R.I.
Whatever you do, don’t mistake Manning for a drama queen. Another Politico report notes that beginning today, “The New York Times and The Associated Press will refer to Bradley Manning as Chelsea Manning, ‘formerly know as Pfc. Bradley Manning,’ honoring the former soldier’s request to be addressed as a female. Thereafter Manning will be referred to as ‘she.’ “
This makes no sense. Manning is genetically male. He does not even have ersatz female anatomy via “sex change” surgery. His lawyer tells Politico that Manning will pay out of his own pocket–or should that be pocketbook?–for hormone therapy, which “typically involves high doses of estrogen to promote breast development and other female characteristics.” It is offensive to reduce womanhood to a matter of hormones and breasts.
Furthermore, Manning hasn’t legally changed his name and is in no sense “living as a woman.” He is going to prison at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., a male-only facility. As Politico adds:
Coombs said Manning knows there is the potential for confusion with the name change, and said Manning expects to be referred to as Bradley when it has to do with events prior to sentencing, the appeal of the court-martial and the request for a presidential pardon. Prison mail must be addressed to Bradley Manning.
“There’s a realization that most people know her as Bradley,” Coombs said. “Chelsea is a realist and understands.”
Yeah, he’s a regular John Mearsheimer.
Follow @jamestaranto on Twitter.
Join Fans of Best of the Web Today on Facebook.
Subscribe to the Best of the Web Today email with one click.
Click here to view or search the Best of the Web Today archives.
(Carol Muller helps compile Best of the Web Today. Thanks to Eric Jensen, Hillel Markowitz, Chris Cunningham, Michele Schiesser, Michael Brennan, Bruce Goldman, Aaron Spetner, Miguel Rakiewicz, Jeryl Bier, Irene DeBlasio, Scott Hill, Chris Papouras, T.K. Smyth, Wes Van Fleet and Bill King. If you have a tip, write us at opinionjournal@wsj.com, and please include the URL.)