Imagine trying to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964 using the legislative techniques of 2009

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is an impressive piece of legislation, but it would never pass today, certainly not in anything like the form in which it currently exists. Note: The actual Civil Rights Act of 1964 (which can be found here) is only 56 pages long (double spaced in 12 point Times Roman font). It contains clearly written provisions throughout its ten titles. For example, see the following language from Title II, SEC. 201.:

(a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

But what would it have been like if present-day legislative techniques had been used by those attempting to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Most significantly, using modern strategies means that the proponents would be much more interested in passing legislation that sounded like it prevented discrimination, than passing legislation that actually prevented discrimination. Here are some specific differences. If the 2009 legislative techniques were being used back in 1964:

-The Civil Rights Act would have been thousands of pages long, so long that most legislators would not be well-versed regarding its terms.

-Key deliberations and debate regarding the Civil Rights Act would have been conducted entirely in secret.

-The Civil Rights Act would've been filled with terms that the citizens themselves would not understand the effect of the bill. If asked about the bill, most American citizens would say something like, "I think it has something to do with discrimination but I'm not quite sure what the new law allows or prohibits.

Continue ReadingImagine trying to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964 using the legislative techniques of 2009

Afghanistan = Vietnam

On Friday's show, Bill Moyers drew upon President Lyndon Johnson's taped phone calls and commentary regarding the Vietnam war, before drawing the following conclusions:

Now in a different world, at a different time, and with a different president, we face the prospect of enlarging a different war. But once again we're fighting in remote provinces against an enemy who can bleed us slowly and wait us out, because he will still be there when we are gone.

Once again, we are caught between warring factions in a country where other foreign powers fail before us. Once again, every setback brings a call for more troops, although no one can say how long they will be there or what it means to win. Once again, the government we are trying to help is hopelessly corrupt and incompetent.

And once again, a President pushing for critical change at home is being pressured to stop dithering, be tough, show he's got the guts, by sending young people seven thousand miles from home to fight and die, while their own country is coming apart.

And once again, the loudest case for enlarging the war is being made by those who will not have to fight it, who will be safely in their beds while the war grinds on. And once again, a small circle of advisers debates the course of action, but one man will make the decision.

The conversations secretly taped by Lyndon Johnson are riveting. They demonstrate that Johnson consistently saw escalation to be a terrible option, yet he ordered it. The entire episode of Bill Moyers Journal can be viewed here.

Continue ReadingAfghanistan = Vietnam