History and Hollywood and Selma.

Martin Luther King with President LBJ after the civil rights act was signed.

Harry Longabaugh is a famous American criminal. Who is he? You would know him better as the Sundance Kid, the character played by Robert Redford in the epic western, “Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid.” When he was aged fifteen, Harry travelled from Pennsylvania to the West and settled in a town later called Sundance, Wyoming. Most people would tell you that Sundance and Butch were gunned down in a hail of bullets in a Bolivian mountain village by hundreds of militia-men. However, a visit to the Sundance Museum will provide a different story. The Sundance Kid, according to locals, lived to a good age. Hollywood, as the saying goes, was economical with the truth.

This is hardly the first time that Hollywood has changed history to suit its purposes. Often, such changes are inconsequential. In the final scene of “The Green Berets,” John Wayne is seen watching the sun go down on a Vietnam beach. One quick look at a map of Vietnam will tell you that all Vietnam beaches face east, so the movement of the earth around the sun would need to be reversed to establish the Hollywood version.

The most ridiculous piece of fiddling with fact came in the move, “Krakatoa, East of Java.” The film tells the story of one of the deadliest volcanic events in recorded history. I have not seen the movie so cannot comment on how it dealt with the history. However, there is a problem with the film’s title. I, and pretty well any eight year old who looks at a map of Java, will tell you that Krakatoa is west of Java. What could have possessed the director or the film’s producers to want to make nonsense of basic geography?

Why have I got the bit between my teeth on Hollywood’s historiographical unreliability? Last week, I saw the film, “Selma.” Martin Luther King was portrayed as a highly intelligent, articulate leader who had his weaknesses and faults but was prepared to give everything for the cause of black civil rights. So far, so good. Even if the film’s scenes of violence perpetrated against blacks by white authority and associate thugs were exaggerated, there is sufficient evidence of what happened to the Freedom Riders in Mississippi and the children of Birmingham Alabama, where Sheriff Bull Connor turned Alsatian (German Shepherd) dogs on them in the full glare of television cameras, to accept that treatment of blacks was worse than deplorable.

However, according to the film, MLK had to persuade, cajole and threaten President Lyndon Johnson to pass the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Omitting the issue that in America, Congress, not the President, makes the laws, the role played by LBJ in achieving civil rights for the black community, as portrayed in the film, is both wrong and deceitful. The black American community never had a better friend and supporter in the White House than LBJ. He championed the passing of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, a piece of legislation that LBJ’s predecessor neither supported wholeheartedly nor had the ability to move it through Congress.

“Selma” suggests that LBJ felt he had done enough for African Americans by having the Civil Rights Act passed. It is important to record that history shows a totally different set of facts. In 1964, LBJ knew that had he tried to include voting rights in the civil rights legislation, the Southern Democrats in Congress would defeat any bill. So, LBJ exercised patience, preferring to wait for re-election before tackling the issue of black voting rights. There is ample evidence to support the contention that MLK was not only well aware of this but supported LBJ’s view.

The passage of the Voting Rights Act was tortuous. Getting a bill through Congress can sometimes be as difficult as threading a camel through the eye of a needle. There are committees in both Houses which have power to block any legislation and stop it reaching a floor vote. LBJ played politics brilliantly to jump all the Congressional hurdles and deliver the Voting Rights Act within five months of his inauguration.

Had Selma’s producers told the truth of the part played by LBJ, would King’s role have been minimised? The film could have shown how, even in 1965, a black man could work with the chief executive for the benefit of a minority community. Instead, LBJ has been depicted as recalcitrant and prejudiced, and worse, as someone who failed to understand the plight of African Americans.

So many people who see “Selma” will not know the real historical truth. This is a disservice to students of history and the black American community as well as all who advocate equality and civil rights. It is a pity that the film’s director and producers lost a great opportunity to tell the far more powerful, truthful story. 

Who Would Want to Lead on Capitol Hill?

Some six weeks ago, the newly re-elected Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell promised that he and his colleagues would not shut down the federal government.  Well, we all know the relationship between politicians and promises. “Ending in tears,” comes to mind.

At the moment, the Congressional legislators are on a break. When they return next week, there will be only four days to approve next year’s funding of the Department of Homeland Security, the massive agency created by the George W Bush administration. There is a problem. The DHS budget is at risk, not because the Democrats in Congress object, nor because the executive branch might not approve it. The problem arises because GOP Senate conservatives want to roll back President Obama’s recent executive orders on immigration. They can do this by adding a rider to the funding bill, even though the rider may have no relationship to the content of the bill.

Republican conservatives are determined that DHS, which seeks to protect the security of all Americans within USA, will not be funded unless the legislation overrules President Obama’s recent executive orders on immigration. These executive orders temporarily prevent the deportation of millions of illegal immigrants. I emphasise that the effect of the orders is to defer the deportations of people, many of whom have lived, worked and paid taxes in America for many years

The House of Representatives has passed a DHS funding bill which includes provisions striking down the executive orders on immigration. However, Senate Democrats, some of whom opposed the executive orders, have blocked the House-passed legislation in the Senate, using repeated filibusters. So, McConnell is trapped within a legislative box that he had vowed to avoid. He knows that government shutdowns damage the US political party which causes them.

McConnell is on record that he is determined not to repeat the mistakes of previous years when the Republicans brought the federal government to a standstill.  On the day after he won re-election, McConnell said: “Let me make it clear: There will be no government shutdowns.” Yet, last week, McConnell acknowledged the Senate was stuck and he was in need of House Speaker John Boehner’s help. Sadly for McConnell, the Speaker was not in a charitable mood. Boehner said he had no interest in passing revised legislation through the House just to draw Democratic support in the Senate.

A shutdown of one agency would not cause the same disruption as the October 2013 shutdown of the federal government, which resulted in national parks closing, furloughs of hundreds of thousands of federal workers and a general sense of disgust with Washington dysfunction. If no deal is reached, the Department of Homeland Security would deem many workers essential, particularly those overseeing border security, airline safety, disaster responses and domestic terror assessments. Yet even those federal workers would have no assurance of being paid.

Public reaction would probably mirror ­the events of October 2013, when Republicans tried to force Mr. Obama to accept a funding plan that would have gutted his landmark health-care law. The ensuing shutdown badly damaged public support for Republicans, leaving them in a hole that took them almost a year to recover from.

McConnell is adamant about not repeating the mistake. “I don’t think a shutdown of the department whose purpose is to secure our homeland is a good idea for anybody,” Some McConnell advisers suggest that a brief lapse in funding for one federal agency would not break his no-shutdowns promise. Talk about stretching the truth! McConnell has made no recent public mention of the DHS showdown, sticking to his comments that Speaker Boehner will have to make the next move.

The DHS has been given a short-term extension of funds until Feb. 27, buying time for McConnell and Boehner to come up with an escape plan. None has yet appeared, nor from the sound of Boehner’s pronouncements will the House offer help. I had to smile when I read the comments of Senator John Cornyn, McConnell’s top lieutenant on the leadership team. “I have every confidence we will meet the deadline, one way or the other. Just how, I can’t tell you right this minute.”

Democrats said even a small-scale shutdown, so soon on McConnell’s watch, would hurt him politically. They believe it would set a precedent, with the far right wing pushing him around in the same manner that House conservatives have backed Boehner into corners he wanted to avoid.

There is time to avert a shutdown, but it almost certainly involves capitulation to the Democrats. One possibility is to remove the immigration sections from the House and Senate bills and pass a clean funding bill. However, such a move would probably prompt a huge backlash from conservative Republicans. Another option is to pass a short-term extension of DHS funding for a few more weeks or months though kicking the can down the road is no real solution. There is also the choice of letting DHS funding dry up and see what happens.

If nothing else, this episode shows how difficult it is for Congress to pass legislation, even when one political party is in control of both Houses of Congress.

The 2016 Republican Presidential Hopefuls.

I have no idea why people think I might have a better grasp than others on the Presidential election next year, yet what I am asked most often is “who will win?” I do my best to avoid the question because I truly have no idea. However, 22 months away from election night, the American press and media loves playing the guessing game.

So far, no one has declared a candidacy. Hillary Clinton has, apparently, cleared the desk for her run but she is wise enough to know it is far too early to put her hat into the ring. Jeb Bush, arguably the leading Republican candidate, is only “exploring possibilities.” He has not made any firm decision in public.

At the moment, there are no serious Democratic contenders to face Mrs Clinton. I doubt that this will last. However, some twenty men have indicated their willingness to examine a run for the Republican nomination. Most of the twenty, like former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, have a limited appeal and will fall by the wayside after the early primaries. However, there are some names who may well capture the imagination of the voting public and go a long way.

I have tried to put myself in the position of a Democratic Party grandee, one of those who works behind the scenes to get the desired result, i.e. facing a weak candidate. In such a position, I would not advocate the dirty political tricks of American politics at this stage. Far too early. Instead, I would seek to find some weakness to exploit through the media.

Take, for example, Rand Paul. Paul’s plan to get himself elected president relies on two long-shot bets coming true. Paul’s first wager is that his libertarian ideas will attract Republicans who oppose regulation and government control. Paul calls it “The leave-me-alone coalition.” The second bet is on Paul himself, a wager that he’s an unusually talented politician, persuasive enough to build a coalition out of groups that have never viewed themselves as allies.

This week, Paul’s ideas put him at the middle of a national controversy when he applied his trademark sceptical thinking to the question of childhood vaccines. “They should be largely voluntary,” Paul said, “as a matter of freedom.” He added that there was concern that children “wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines.” This is scare-mongering of the worst kind. Ten years ago in Britain, Dr Andrew Wakefield was a lone voice against the MMR jab. The media pushed the story and Wakefield was celebrated as a children’s champion, until his research was disclosed as totally bogus.

After Paul’s vaccine comments drew angry reactions, he accused the media of misconstruing his remarks. “I did not say vaccines caused mental disorders, just that they were temporally related,” Paul said in a statement. “I did not allege causation.” Really? I might add that Paul is a medical doctor. The Democrats now have a wedge issue to skewer Paul.

Scott Walker, the Wisconsin governor, is heading towards the top of the Republican list of candidates. He has staunch conservative credentials and is an evangelical Christian. He would be the first occupant of the White House since Harry Truman not to have a college degree. He flunked college. He could well enjoy popularity among moderate voters for his track record against trade unions. Angry at his plans to curb collective bargaining powers for public sector workers, in 2012 the unions forced a “recall”, a vote which Walker won, the only governor in US history to do so.

Walker will be in Britain this week as part of a trade delegation. I suspect the Democratic grandees will be watching very carefully in case Walker stumbles like Jersey governor Chris Christie, he of Bridgegate infamy. I believe he has little chance of success next year but it has not helped his cause that his recent trip here was described as a train wreck. Amongst other things, Christie refused to get into the vaccination debate. Enquiring about the ISL threat, a reporter was asked by Christie, “Is there something you don’t understand about no questions,” That’s not the way a candidate endears American voters.

Walker will have learned from Christie’s disaster but Walker may have an Achilles heel. His 2015-17 state budget includes a $300 million cut for the University of Wisconsin system over the next two years. That’s a 13 percent reduction in state aid from the latest budget cycle. Walker says his budget is a trade, a drop in state support for an increase in administrative autonomy. However, when speaking to his Republican base, he framed the proposal around retribution, going on talk radio in Milwaukee to tell the faculty about working more. Walker suggested they could teach another class each term, which sounds reasonable if you’ve never had to prepare a class.

Some Wisconsin Republican legislators have expressed concern at the magnitude of the cuts, asking whether they imperil the University’s mission and pointing to the likelihood of major tuition increases in 2017. The official legislative language released Wednesday eliminates a link between the university and the state. Till now, the link has been central to the university’s identity. I foresee the Democratic Party leadership saying publicly, “If Walker can do this to Wisconsin, what might he do nationally?”

The run for the presidency of the United States is a marathon. The story of the 2016 election will run and run.