The Right Thing

The Right Thing

“My brother need not be idealized, or enlarged in death beyond what he was in life; to be remembered simply as a good and decent man, who saw wrong and tried to right it, saw suffering and tried to heal it, saw war and tried to stop it,”

The eulogy for Robert F. Kennedy by Edward M. Kennedy

On March 7, 1965 the marchers approached the Edmund Pettus Bridge on the way into Selma, Alabama. The local population did not want them there. While it may have been legal it certainly was not allowed in the eyes of the populace. As the marchers began to cross the bridge they were set upon by police, citizens, dogs, water hoses and any other type of impediment the citizenry could come up with to deter their entrance into Selma. Current House Representative John Lewis was there. He was the President of the SNCC. The Student Non-violent Coordinating Committee. He was beaten so badly his survival was in question. The ignominious day became known as Bloody Sunday. After a successful march led by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and under federal protection the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1965 was guaranteed by the signature of President Lyndon B. Johnson.

Many efforts had been made to peacefully achieve the rights enumerated under the 14^th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and all had been rebuffed. Local ordinances, state law and any other impediment that could be considered were used to deny these rights by what has become known as the Jim Crow Laws.

These citizens felt they had exhausted all avenues open to them to achieve equality and felt obliged to push against the illegitimacy of the legal system that prevented them from enjoying the profound rights of citizenship. Their efforts were not politick or safe, were questionably legal and were sure to draw the ire of the local inhabitants of their communities but they persisted. And persisted and persisted and persisted until there could be no doubt of their legitimacy. But their legitimacy is still questioned by many of our countrymen and they have become more emboldened in recent times to express themselves publicly showing that sometimes doing the right thing doesn't bring peaceful and complete recognition of those rights. It certainly doesn't mean everyone will like it.

Those white residents of Selma and other places felt they had every legal right to refuse service to whomever they chose for whatever reason they chose. If you asked them why often they would point to the Bible and reference the curse of Ham, son of Noah. This is not news. Most of us of a certain age are acquainted with references to this story to justify discrimination against the black people. One would expect that as reasoning humans we would learn from our shame and not repeat those errors. But maybe many don't really see them as errors. Maybe many see them as just being politically correct or pandering to those who don't deserve it. After all, it wasn't us that did those things. Or was it?

On Monday night the Somerset City Council voted to deny what is described as a “fairness ordinance” that proposed the LGBTQ people be considered to be a group that should not be discriminated against. Some of the arguments dealt with a case recently decided by the Supreme Court and other cases in the pipeline to the Court and suggested that the City would want to avoid becoming entangled in court cases that could cost a lot of money. One council member said that his constituents were against it and he voted that way. For many it was enough that Scripture speaks against LBGTQ behavior no matter the United States Constitution. The Public was congratulated on being engaged and now we'll move on.

These are exactly the kind of things that were done in city councils everywhere that allowed the Jim Crow laws to be enforced. This still leaves some citizens of our country unable to not be fearful that they will be denied service at places that most citizens are welcomed. Some see it as a infringement of religious freedom but those proprietors prior to the Civil Rights Act saw their religious freedom being infringed upon. Who decides? It must be that one cannot, in the public sphere, apply his own religious freedom to another person. In the private sphere one can be as discriminatory as one wants.

So, what now? My Take on this is that some groundwork needs to be laid. This is a conservative area and this decision was not unforeseen. As much of a no-brainier as it was to some passage would have been unlikely. Perhaps recruit businesses to post in their windows or in a visible space a sign or sticker stating they support equality for all. Perhaps building support among businesses will be helpful because motivations are different. Community positions are hardened here. As long as this is a cause that depends on doing the right thing in the face of contrary opinions progress will be difficult. But gaining allies could turn some heads.

Redemption?

I believe in redemption. The recent revelation of a racist photograph on the yearbook page of the Governor of Virginia, Ralph Northam, presents a perplexing conundrum. In a confusing move the Governor confessed to his involvement before he denied it. That seems a bridge too far on the

surface. It was taken in 1984 when it should have been more than obvious that such a photo was, at the very least, in poor taste. These days we attach the label of racist to such photos.

Northam states he was in medical school at the time so he would likely have been in the neighborhood of 23 years old. I, for one, would hate to be held to account for my actions at that age but he has chosen to enter public service. I really don't know what to believe in this matter but it is unfathomable to me that a candidate for public office would not try to get out ahead of such a matter that is so easily discovered, in a yearbook of all things. Wouldn't any politician be aware that opposition research would go to the yearbook in search of information to use against him? As a matter of fact, I am certain that is why this has surfaced although that has no bearing on the matter. The question I have is why didn't it show up during his gubernatorial campaign?

As citizens of the United States and as members of the Democratic Party we are ideologically and honor bound to condemn such behavior but it is less imperative that we deny an apologetic Governor who now denies it is him the right to hold office.

So, where do we as Democrats come down? This is already being used to challenge Democratic candidates for President and, as usual, the candidates are more than willing to throw anyone under the bus that could cause them to be less appealing to any constituency and we, as supporters of Democrats, are faced with the same accusations that could cause damage to our efforts to persuade voters.

So, what are we to do? Firstly, as in the case of the boy with the MAGA hat the condemnations have been rapid. Perhaps we need to slow down. Northam should be given a reasonable length of time, and that should be brief, to come up with a satisfactory and believable denial of participation. It shouldn't be too hard to determine the identities of the people in those disguises. Secondly, Northam is going to have to come up with a reason that his admitted use of blackface in an impersonation of Michael Jackson (although it is hard to imagine why blackface would be required) is not the same thing.

Absent verifiable and believable refutations of culpability Mr. Northam should resign. We can't make him do so but as citizens and as Democrats we must be able to state, without need for clarification, our disgust and refusal to allow racism a place in our society.

I do, however, find it a bit too coincidental that this only shows up after Virginia's efforts to rewrite the state's abortion laws and I don't for a minute believe that the two are not linked. But that does not matter. If the Governor is guilty and is lying he should be toast.

Yes, redemption is possible but it may not include public office.