John Lewis Invokes George Wallace, All Hell Breaks Loose: A Look at 1968, Including Roger Ailes

October 11, 2008 | Permalink

It’s been a rough campaign cycle for civil rights icon John Lewis. First, he endorsed Hillary Clinton early on, only to find the black community to get solidly behind Barack Obama, putting him between a rock and a hard place. Eventually, he shifted over to Obama. Then Republican candidate John McCain said Lewis was one of the most wise people he’s ever met, putting Lewis in an awkward position given his support for Obama.

John Lewis today issued a statement to Politico’s Arena regarding the campaign of McCain, comparing it to that of George Wallace. This is the full statement of Lewis:

  As one who was a victim of violence and hate during the height of the Civil Rights Movement, I am deeply disturbed by the negative tone of the McCain-Palin campaign.  What I am seeing reminds me too much of another destructive period in American history.  Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin are sowing the seeds of hatred and division, and there is no need for this hostility in our political discourse.

            During another period, in the not too distant past, there was a governor of the state of Alabama named George Wallace who also became a presidential candidate. George Wallace never threw a bomb.  He never fired a gun, but he created the climate and the conditions that encouraged vicious attacks against innocent Americans who were simply trying to exercise their constitutional rights.  Because of this atmosphere of hate, four little girls were killed on Sunday morning when a church was bombed in Birmingham, Alabama.

            As public figures with the power to influence and persuade, Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin are playing with fire, and if they are not careful, that fire will consume us all.  They are playing a very dangerous game that disregards the value of the political process and cheapens our entire democracy.  We can do better.  The American people deserve better.

Clearly, this would have gone over somewhat better had McCain not talked down the hatred yesterday. Anyone could talk about the political ramifications. I want to take a lot at the merit of what Lewis is suggesting. On the whole, I think he has somewhat of a point (and have said so), but that invoking Wallace is way over the top.

It’s instructive to look at the tactics of the George Wallace campaign in 1968. They’re really stunning, even in retrospect. The following are taken from Jeremy Mayer’s article in The Historian, 1/1/02 edition, titled: “Nixon rides the backlash to victory: racial politics in the 1958 campaign” [Lexis]:

Regarding Bobby Kennedy:

The Wallace forces publicized Kennedy’s role in the FBI’s campaign to wiretap King’s phone conversations. They even released a clumsy radio ad on black stations; “I used to be for Robert Kennedy, but then I learned about how he bugged my brother Martin Luther King’s phone.”

Wallace also called those who marched in Selma, Alabama “the scum of the earth.”

And of course, every rock thrown, every building set ablaze, every riot, and every street crime, played right into the political plans of Wallace. Wallace’s standing in the polls had not diminished, as most had predicted. Instead, Wallace’s support rose following Kennedy’s assassination, and then again following the Chicago debacle, to over 20 percent. When Wallace spoke in Illinois after theriots, signs were handed out by his campaign that read “Wallace, Daley, and the police.” (21) Wallace also used urban riots to reinterpret his role in the fight against civil rights, by comparing the disorder caused by the marchers for freedom in Selma, Alabama to the rioters and street criminals of 1968, labeling both the “scum of the earth.” Much of the Wallace rhetoric on crime and disorder was nothingmore than racist code words. Nonetheless, he did attempt to refine his image as a racist. Wallace tried to hide behind states’ rights, saying that he only advocated segregation as best for Alabama. He also attacked the hypocrisy of those in Congress who advocated integration, and sent their own children to private schools outside of D.C. Wallace was masterful at appearing to be a simple Jacksonian figure, homespun and honest. He also cleverly exploited the rhetoric of black radicals: “Some militants have charged every white person in the countrywith discrimination…. Even President Johnson has been called a racist.” If every white was a racist, the distinction between a Johnson and a Wallace could be obfuscated.

In terms of inciting his crowds, Wallace could hold back because of his prior reputation:

Wallace’s followers were much less subtle in their appeals to race, which allowed Wallace to whip up fervor among his hard core racist supporters without hurting his national image. Wallace surrogates attacked “race-mixing” and made blunt appeals to the white race to support Wallace. A televised speech in Arkansas raised the dreaded possibility of integrated hospital rooms for dying loved ones. Wallace himself avoided the language of white supremacy, but the brutal rhetoric of divisive violence appeared in Wallace’s speeches with regularity. “We don’t have riots in Alabama…. They start a riot down there, first one of ‘em to pick up a brick gets a bullet in the brain, that’s all. And then you walk over to the next one and say, ‘All right, pick up a brick. We just want to see you pick up one of them bricks, now!’” Wallace’s odious record on civil rights clearly helped him woo backlash votes in the North. The beatings and vicious repression of peaceful demonstrators by Alabama’s police had shocked most of the nation during Wallace’s tenure as governor, but some northern whites hadseen it as appealing. As early as 1965, an anti-black crowd in Chicago had gleefully sung of their desire to be Alabama state troopers sothey “could shoot the n*****s legally.” Wallace’s reputation asa racist hurt him with any number of voters, but it was so solidly fixed that the “new” Wallace did not need to be explicitly racist to get the votes of the northern backlash against black progress and urban upheaval.

The Nixon campaign was not much better. And yes, that’s the current head of Fox News at the end:

Nixon’s use of law and order by contrast was technically brilliant. His running mate, Agnew, was dispatched around the country to out-Wallace Wallace. “You’ve seen one slum, you’ve seen them all” was Agnew’s laconic dismissal of the need to campaign in ghettos. Nixon also relied on television, crafting an ad campaign which offered soothing hope that Nixon would end the riots and disorder. The most memorable Nixon ad featured a middle-aged white woman walking alone down a darkurban street, while the announcer recited bleak statistics on the frequency of violent crime. This ad, like others with a law and order theme, was targeted at areas that had suffered riots. Nixon privately praised one of his law and order ads, because “this hits it right on the nose … it’s all about law and order and the damn Negro-Puerto-Rican groups out there.”

Nixon adviser Roger Ailes expressed his desire to have a “good, mean, Wallaceite cab driver” in a staged appearance with Nixon. “Wouldn’t that be great? Some guy to sit there and say ‘Awright mac, what about these n*****s?’”

A week of rabid crowds does not make McCain into a modern George Wallace. McCain’s ads did not intend to use already built up anger over Obama, but rather to make Obama’s connections an issue to a greater number than was the case previously. It was done very, very inartfully, of course. But throwing out a comparison like this is not helpful, and only gives McCain some sort of moral high ground.

To be clear, I think Lewis is right regarding the tenor of McCain’s crowds, and if he had stayed away from Wallace, this would likely have been nothing to see here. But the point of this post is to indicate that no matter what you think about McCain’s campaign this past week (and I don’t think much), that invoking Wallace is over the top.

Nate Silver has some good thoughts on the matter.