Bill Clinton Could Have Said Less

Eulogies, of course, aren’t the forum to tell the whole truth about the dearly departed.  Only an insensitive dolt would tell mourners in church that, “Larry was a boring man who at times would tell long, dull stories that interested absolutely no one.  In fact, if you could bottle Larry, you’d have a cure for insomnia.  He also told dumb jokes that nobody laughed at.  Truth be told, nobody really liked Larry all that much.” Instead, we say nice things when remembering someone who just died.  And this is a good way to operate.  The truth can be painful, and who needs more pain at a funeral.  And more important, tap dancing around ugly facts increases the odds that someone is going to say something nice about you when your time is up.

Which is precisely what Bill Clinton may have had in mind when he eulogized Senator Robert Byrd, who died the other day at 92.  Clinton had to acknowledge the obvious, that Byrd, in his youth, was a member of the Ku Klux Klan.  But Clinton said it was a “fleeting association,” and that he spent the rest of his life making up for it.

Well, not really.

Let’s start at the beginning:  Why was Robert Byrd in the Klan in the first place, no matter how young and foolish he was?  Politics, that’s why, former President Clinton told us.

“He once had a fleeting association with the Ku Klux Klan, what does that mean? I’ll tell you what it means.  He was a country boy from the hills and hollers of West Virginia, he was trying to get elected.” Clinton said. “And maybe he did something he shouldn’t have done, and he spent the rest of his life making it up. And that’s what a good person does. There are no perfect people. There are certainly no perfect politicians.”

No, there are no perfect politicians; something Bill Clinton knows a little something about.

And what is so troubling about this statement of realpolitic is that it doesn’t take plain old decency into account.  Let’s say a politician thinks he needs to bash Latinos or gays or blacks today to get elected.  Would Bill Clinton (or anyone else) be so cavalier as to say, “Hey, cut him some slack, he was just trying to get elected.”

Byrd was supposed to be a leader, not a follower.  He might have used his charisma to change a few minds.  But he didn’t.  If Byrd knew that racism, even way back in the 40s and 50s, was wrong, then his cynicism was despicable.  He did what he had to do — no matter who got hurt — just to win. But joining the KKK isn’t the same as joining the Rotary Club, where a pol might pick up a few votes.  So I suspect Byrd joined the Klan because he shared their warped view of things.  I think Robert Byrd really was a racist just like the other bigots who wore white robes and pointy hats.

In 1944 he wrote a letter to Mississippi Senator Theodore Bilbo, in which Byrd said:  “I shall never fight in the armed forces with a Negro by my side. … Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.”

This was pretty nasty stuff even for 1944.

As for Byrd’s “fleeting” relationship with the Klan, he may have been in the KKK for just a year, but he was a Klan sympathizer for several more.  As I wrote in 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America (Byrd, by the way, was number 48):  “As a younger man, not only was he a member in good standing of the Ku Klux Klan, but he was such a good member that he got promoted to ‘Kleagle.’  And in that capacity, Robert Byrd was in charge of recruiting other bigots into the organization.”

And Bill Clinton’s observation that Robert Byrd spent the rest of his life making up for his past may be the stuff of eulogies, but history tells a different story.  In 1964, Byrd tried to kill the Civil Rights Act.  He filibustered on the Senate floor for 14 hours.  “Men are not created equal today,” he said, “and they were not created equal in 1776, when the Declaration of Independence was written. Men and races of men differ in appearance, ways, physical power, mental capacity, creativity and vision.”

A year later he opposed the Voting Rights Act and most of President Johnson’s anti-poverty programs.  “We can take the people out of the slums,” he said, “but we cannot take the slums out of the people.”  How nice!

Later in life, Byrd was indeed a vocal supporter of the law that made Martin Luther King’s birthday a national holiday – proving either that even racists can undergo a genuine change of heart, or perhaps that Robert Byrd, like George Wallace in Alabama, simply saw the writing on the wall — and understood that black people didn’t ride in the back of the bus anymore and could actually vote.  Maybe it was nothing more than another political calculation; Byrd realizing that what worked in days gone by, wouldn’t work anymore.

But no, I do not think Bill Clinton should have used Robert Byrd’s funeral as an opportunity to go through a laundry list of the senator’s old sins.  That would have been wrong. But I don’t think Clinton had to smack the truth around the way he did, either.  Our moms used to tell us that if we couldn’t say something nice about someone, don’t say anything at all.  Maybe Bill Clinton, ever the statesman, could have compromised, and just said less.

33 Responses to Bill Clinton Could Have Said Less
  1. Cam
    December 8, 2010 | 11:32 pm

    Given that Bill Clinton is a classic post modernist how do you expect him to to attempt to tell the “Truth”? Like his philosophical counterparts he does not belief that there is an Objective Truth albeit beyond the grasp of human reason. He believes that Truth is merely the prevailing subjective personal perception. Billy Clinton was just attempting to do his part to “create the truth” about the deceased Senator. The mere fact that his propositions had no correspondence to the empirical facts is, in his mind, irrelevant. If he could persuade the majority to accept his particular spin, thereafter that would be “the Truth”. If anyone chose to dispute his particular spin at a later date he could point to the fact that there is “an overwhelming concensus” among people that his version is “the truth.” Isn’t that the identical tactic taken by the global warming alarmists?

  2. Terry Walbert
    July 9, 2010 | 12:22 pm

    For a long time I have thought of the Democrats the party of moral degenerates. Bill Clinton’s and Robert Byrd only confirm that. Despite their problems, can you image the Republicans doing such a thing? I can’t.

  3. Jeff
    July 7, 2010 | 7:52 pm

    Lost in the discussion is the point that democrats remain the party of racism, whether Byrd’s change of view was genuine or political.

    Who believes minorities can’t succeed on their own merits?
    Which side’s voters didn’t vote for McCain because he was white?
    On which side and of what ethnicity are the only, I repeat the ONLY, citizens who still overwhelmingly approve of BO’s performance?
    On which side were the Black Panthers who made racist statements at the poll in Philadelphia?
    Who dismissed the already-won case against them?
    Who ruled against white firefighters in Connecticut after they duly earned their promotions, and spoke repeatedly of a Latina’s superiority over a white man?
    Who nominated her to the U.S. Supreme Court?
    Who said white people will not be subject to civil rights laws and judgments?
    Who attended the church of a raving bigot, and on which side of the aisle is said bigot?
    Who automatically assigned blame to the white cop in Massachusetts before knowing any of the facts?

    I’d go on, but documenting all examples of democrats’ bigotry would take time and technology I don’t have.

  4. Anthony
    July 7, 2010 | 2:06 pm

    So when you cross the great divide: folks sporting condom caps, swigging their favorite libation and singing “He’s a jolly good A-hole!” is doltish. Meanwhile academy award winning, phony, mournful B.S. is O.K. No thanks. Concerning , Bill Clinton’s, rhetoric: In the words of young folks, much smarter then I shall ever dare to be. Whatever man!

  5. [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Christine. Christine said: Bill Clinton Could Have Said Less | Bernard Goldberg: http://bit.ly/aByQQc via @addthis [...]

  6. Dan in Phx
    July 6, 2010 | 6:45 pm

    Well put, Bernie.
    This quote struck me:

    “And maybe he did something he shouldn’t have done, and he spent the rest of his life making it up. And that’s what a good person does. There are no perfect people. There are certainly no perfect politicians.”

    When I first read that Bill Clinton quote I thought wow… he said “MAYBE” joining the KKK was something Byrd shouldn’t have done?! I was surprised. Sure, the “just did it to get elected” is cynical and telling, but even in hindsight of all these decades, it’s still a maybe?

    How many good people avoid politics because the moral price is too high?
    Which statements and actions from a pol aren’t just to get elected?
    It seems as though campaigning and governing used to be two different things. Now, governing is really campaigning between elections.

    Imagine if just for one issue, the politics of party gave way to the priority of principles.
    Imagine if every speech from a pol on just that one issue wasn’t also campaigning for the next election.

    Would that be so much to ask?
    Just one issue where each “side” didn’t have to demonize the “other side” to try to get the upper hand in the next election hoping to gain or maintain the majority. Maybe the best ideas could rise to the top, when party politics didn’t act as a kind of honesty suppressant.

    It seems impossible, as long as the inequities of majority remain the primary driver of politics.
    Besides, the contrast would be so striking it would almost require split personality disorder. ;-)

    So I guess it’s the inequities of majority rule that must be eliminated first!

    Dan
    “Live with Passion”

  7. EddieD_Boston
    July 6, 2010 | 3:06 pm

    Democrats couldn’t have found a better person to stand in a house of the worship and fling the bull with a staight face.

  8. T
    July 6, 2010 | 9:56 am

    To carry this to the next level, see Jeffrey Lord’s article over at American Spectator:

    http://spectator.org/archives/2010/07/06/christian-adams-blows-whistle

  9. Kenneth Taylor
    July 5, 2010 | 8:09 pm

    Blood curdling stuff (A view from across the pond). Not so much the history, but the fact that Clinton had to bring the subject up. Moms’ advice was soundly based on their wisdom, they knew that one can send a killer blow wrapped up in a compliment.

  10. G. Scott
    July 5, 2010 | 4:53 pm

    Clinton was, as always, self-serving. It was just another opportunity to talk about himself. The politician who made a mistake? Bill. The guy spending his life making up for it (or at the least, for getting caught)? Bill. The guy who really is a “good person”? Bill. It’s always about Bill and his “rehabilitation”.

    As for Byrd? “You can dye the cloth but you can’t change the weave”. By about 1940 he’s in the KKK. In ’44 he would rather see “Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again” than serve next to a man of color. By ’64 he’s opposing the Civil Rights Bill. That’s a pretty long “fleeting association”.

    We don’t have “the best and the brightest” serving us on Capital Hill. Too often it’s the pliable and buyable.

  11. Kathie Ampela
    July 5, 2010 | 4:42 pm

    This makes a great case for term limits. Why was Byrd still in the Senate after 50 years? You think he knew where the bodies were buried?

  12. stmichrick
    July 5, 2010 | 4:35 pm

    True to form, Democrats like to have it both ways.
    Clinton learned the two-step at the feet of William Fulbright.

  13. Ellie Velinska
    July 5, 2010 | 12:14 pm

    Thanks for watching the funeral – so we don’t have to! This is a major gaff if Bill Clinton decided that getting elected is enough excuse to join KKK.

    That explains why Obama is doing hate-speech and race baiting with the Arizona Law.

    Remember – now we can’t go for an ice-cream without being arrested according to the President.

  14. Ed DeCosmo
    July 5, 2010 | 12:12 pm

    If you think maybe Bill Clinton is on to something, you’ll agree that it’s time history reevaluate President Dick Nixon. After all, he didn’t break into the Watergate Hotel. He only denied after-the-fact knowledge because of politics. He just wanted to stay president.

  15. Berg
    July 4, 2010 | 3:54 pm

    They used to say that patriotism is the escape of the bigot. Now it’s the other way around – liberalism is the escape of the bigots.
    Why they get away with it is beyond me.

    • Wil Burns
      July 4, 2010 | 4:46 pm

      One of the great stories and examples of Robert Byrd is the story of his transformation on race…It was real as well and he is respected in the African American Community today. I am still waiting for the name of one republican who has a better voting record on civil rights. Got one?

      • Bruce A.
        July 5, 2010 | 7:14 am

        Abe Lincoln comes to mind.

      • Stephen Shields
        July 5, 2010 | 10:55 am

        I’ve got over 100. Over 80% of Republicans in the House and Senate combined, and in their respective legislative bodies, voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The same can’t be said of the Democrats. Take a history class!

      • T
        July 6, 2010 | 10:00 am

        And, first and foremost, it was the Republican party in the 19th century which was opposed to slavery (remember Lincoln, Republican, Emancupatiuon Proclamation), while the Democrat party was pro-slavery. Remember, it was Bull Connor, a Democrat, who turned the fire hoses on civil rights marchers, it was George Wallace, a Democrat who stood in the doorway to prohibit balck students, etc. See Jeffrey Lord’s artical at American Spectator for other examples (http://spectator.org/archives/2010/07/06/christian-adams-blows-whistle).

        • David
          July 6, 2010 | 2:51 pm

          I would not use Lincoln as an example. I was listening to Lincoln speeches and at one point thought the tape had changed as it sounded like David Duke. Fact is that all of our politicians are trash, we don’t have a tendency to elect really honest folks. Also, the Emancipation had nothing to do with freeing slaves in the US, only in the Confederacy. The US remained a slave nation throughout the War of Northern Aggression (so much for the war being to free the slaves).

          As to the CRA, is that really a good piece of legislation. The Federal government telling the states how to conduct voting, which it is not supposed to do ,and telling private business how to operate. Both are wrong, no matter what the reason.

        • Wil Burns
          July 6, 2010 | 3:46 pm

          Yep and those southern ‘democrats’ turned into todays republicans!

          • T
            July 6, 2010 | 4:04 pm

            So exactly when did Bull Connor and George Wallace change their party registration? Easy to say, Will Burns, because it fits the narrative you choose to believe. You conveniently ignore the historic fact that teh democratic party of the 19th century was pro-slavery—end of story.

      • EddieD_Boston
        July 6, 2010 | 3:05 pm

        Gawd you’re a moron. Democrats fought the Civil Rights Act. All you need to know are the simple facts but you always seem to miss them.

        • Wil Burns
          July 6, 2010 | 3:44 pm

          Eddie, They were conservatives, not liberals. And, remember those ‘democrats’ turn republican shortly after!

          • Stephen Shields
            July 6, 2010 | 5:40 pm

            You can’t rewrite history. You’ve been caught in another one of your fabricated stories, Wil. Just admit you’re wrong, and go away!

          • Jason D
            July 6, 2010 | 8:52 pm

            The Northern Republicans, who remained Republicans after the Civil War, supported slaves rights and future freedom for slaves, and those same Republicans were far more supportive of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

          • EddieD_Boston
            July 7, 2010 | 10:26 am

            They were Democrats!!!!

        • Wil Burns
          July 7, 2010 | 4:56 pm

          CONSERVATIVE democrats Eddie, CONSERVATIVE democrats! That’s a fact.

  16. Dusty Rhodes
    July 4, 2010 | 2:41 pm

    I was waiting for someone to point this out. I figured no one in the “mainstream” media would do it.

  17. Paul Borden
    July 4, 2010 | 2:32 pm

    Bernie, you mention George Wallace, and that is who came to mind when I first heard of Clinton’s comment. If you look at a timeline for the two, you’ll see that they pretty much overlap, adopting a racist approach to get elected. I agree with you that both probably “simply saw the writing on the wall” when they rejected their racist ways later. My second thought was that it shouldn’t come as a surprise that of all people it would be Clinton who would excuse Byrd’s KKK membership as political expediency because that is the way he himself (Clinton) operated. Buz nails it.

  18. Ron Kean
    July 4, 2010 | 2:12 pm

    At least Byrd was an honest man and spoke his beliefs…I guess.

    Many on the left think that all blacks are alike and a Clarence Thomas is bad because he thinks differently than all the imaginary others. He hated the possibility that some might think he benefited from affirmative action because he was too dumb to make it himself.

    Same with hispanics. Many think they’re all kind folk that just want to give a better opportunity to their children. And we’re called racist when we point out that 30% of criminals in prisons in the southwest are illegal hispanics, and a large group are bringing a violent drug culture north.

    Whitewash as Clinton did, Byrd represented a group, vile as they were, honestly like representatives do and he appeared to have little shame about it as long as he could.

  19. Leona Salazar
    July 4, 2010 | 12:25 pm

    Bill Clinton should take my husband’s advice: “You don’t have to say everything you think.”

  20. Buz Chertok
    July 4, 2010 | 10:16 am

    Clinton would make excuses for Hitler if he was a democrat just as he would find fault with Mother Theresa if see was a republican.

Leave a Reply