While George W. Bush had a history of moderate, racially progressive politicians, Al Gore had a southern senator for a father who voted against the CRA. What if he voted against the voting rights act and/or signed the southern manifesto? How would that impact Al Gore and his politics, if at all?
Al Gore Sr. signs Southern Manifesto
- Thread starter Linsanity
- Start date
pnyckqx
Banned
Offhand, i'd have to say that it eliminates the burden of Al Gore Jr. having his father live vicariously through his efforts for the White House. Less pressure from Daddy's ghost.
This might make Gore Jr. a more acceptable candidate to the American People. He's not seen as 'waffling' so much.
It might keep his marriage together too.
This is an odd sentence, Linsanity.
Let me parse your words; "While George W. Bush had a history of moderate, racially progressive politicians [sic]..." Did he? Perhaps he did have such a record whilst governor of Texas, but by the time he left the White House he had a fairly mixed reputation when it came to, say, his Justice Department's Civil Rights Division appointments (his appointees tasked with voter access springs to mind). But that's unimportant, because let's look at the the remainder of the sentence the above clause is meant to qualify; "...Al Gore had a southern senator for a father who voted against the CRA."
What does the dead Al Gore, Sr., have to do with the policies of the living Al Gore, Jr., when compared to the also living George W. Bush?
Surely a better comparision would be to say that George Herbert Walker Bush ran for US senate in 1964 on a platform of opposing Civil Rights legislation, which is of a kind with what Senator Gore was practising on Capitol Hill at the time.
Though how you attribute to the respective sons these identically themed political acts is all up to you.
I'm no expert on Gore Senior, but I note that his votes in 1964, against both cloture as well as the bill itself, were the result of him being in a tight reelection fight back home against a Goldwater Republican.
Of course those two votes don't endear him to history. He was wrong. Interestingly, a quick google shows that said votes have oftentimes been misrepresented by US conservative activists (usually circa 2000) to make the argument that, (a.) presidential candidate VP Algore had something to be ashamed of, as compared to Dubya (very debatable, see my reference to Bush Senior's own '64 campaign promise), and (b.) the Civil Rights Act must HAVE BEEN DONE BY REPUBLICANS!!111!!!!
Well, let's see: Dem senators, 46 yea for the Act, to 21 nay; GOPer's 27 for, 6 against. Let's call it a bust for both parties, 'cos I don't like the nitpicking craziness of arguing over percentages within party caucus rooms. Not when it's done in order to obscure the fact it was mostly Northern Democrats and LBJ who were the legislative CR vanguard in the very first place.
Anyway, back on topic. For Gore to have voted against Voting Rights laws the bill would've had to have come to the floor in 1964, when he was under pressure from the Right electorally. I don't think that's likely, as LBJ wanted his own mandate first before he took up the renewed fight for Voting Rights enforcement laws.
The Southern Manifesto? That was a fifties thing, and it's something that a border state-ish politician like Gore was not bound to, either way. In fact neither he nor the other Tennessee senator, Estes Kefauver, signed it. The Dem House delegation from their state were split on the issue. My understanding is that Democrats from the volunteer state who opposed the Manifesto did so because they wanted to show they were aligned with anti-machine politics.
Could he have signed it? Yes, he could have. But I think you first need to give him the pro-massive resistance tendencies of that era's Robert Byrd (and Byrd was from a state where open support for the strategy of white supremacy conferred little if any electoral advantage in local politics; that's not necessarily the case with Al Gore Senior. He may have benefitted from it.)
However, Al Gore Sr wasn't that kind of man at that time. He wasn't a saint on the issue, but he sure wasn't as extreme as Byrd chose to be.
I was actually referring in general to Al Gore Jr. having a more racially conservative father, and whether the Bush campaign and Rove would attempt to exploit that. It was my understanding that Prescott Bush was a moderate on race and HW voted for the civil rights act of 1968 despite Representing a Houstonian district. The Southern Manifesto, CRA, and VRA all tie in simply because they were based on race. Thank you for your response, however.
You obviously know the difference between the Civil Rights act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. I think I can take it for granted you should also understand that Bush's vote as a congressman for the Fair or Open Housing Act of 1968 doesn't alter the fact that he campaigned against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Al Gore, Sr., also voted for the 1968 bill, after having opposed the 1964 one like Bush did.
Your basic assumption that George Bush's father was more racially progressive than Al Gore's father doesn't stand up if it's based on the identical stances they both took on these two pieces of legislation.* If you have additional biographical info to confirm your beliefs about the two old men, then please share it.
Now, to your even larger assumption, that whatever the legacies of these fathers are, they should also be applied to the two sons...
Let me put it this way; just ignore the 2000 era Rightwing talking points, okay?
*I can't find what position GHW Bush took on the Voting Rights Act of 1965. He was a private citizen then, but he was also a party official in a state party whose leading office holder, US Senator John Tower, didn't vote for the final bill in congress (why?).
Gore voted for the VRA.
Should have mentioned in my previous post that I didn't know Bush campaigned in 1964 against the CRA. Most of my assumption was simply based on the fact that Bush went against his conservative district to take a more progressive position.
As for the actual opponents, I was referencing what impact if any, the aforementioned scenario would have on Gores politics or his political career.
As for the last comment, my father and mother both are union leaders. The right wing education I receive is close to none.
Fair enough.
You mean the Al Gore born in 1948? Jr.?
That guy is actually fairly capable of being a remorseful liberal; but he's also the ex-senator who accepted campaign donations from Big Tobacco for most of his career on the hill, who became pro-choice when it came time to look towards running for president, who voted for the Kuwait war when most of his caucus colleagues were opposed.
In short; young Gore might be quietly anguished if his father had somehow had a career as a real Dixiecrat, instead of as a flip flopper on the issue (Al Snr actually voted for senate leader Johnson's 1957 civil rights bill before he opposed President Johnson's more comprehensive one in 1964.)
But he would also do whatever it takes for himself to succeed as a post-segregation politician. He'd go cap in hand to the NAACP to tell them he wasn't his father's son on the issue, and I assume they'd accept him, seeing as we're talking about American politics after the Southern Strategy here.
As for your original framing of this question, i.e. how would Rove and Dubya use this to their advantage, well I think we already have the answer to this... Just look at the huge amount of Rightwing Gore/Bush commentary on the 'net that tries to hold young Gore responsible for his dad's '64 vote without once mentioning that HW Bush was fighting for the same thing at the time. That stuff from campaign 2000 is the blogosphere before blogs became popular.
So, what we'd have is reality being more in tune with a certain kind of partisan claim RE the cynical, twofaced Gores versus the Bushes from the Party of Lincoln. But only a little bit more in tune.