Friday, July 12, 2013
Thoughts on Strom Thurmond's America
Finally got some time to start on Strom Thurmond's America and my first impression is that it will not sit well with me. Having a hard time understanding why Crespino is introducing the subject the way that he is. Of course he was a racist hypocrite but I am trying to carry his luggage? People who view Strom Thurmond's conservative white south as simply racist are missing the fact that it was also anti communist, anti labor, pro conservative Christian, anti liberal church, anti judicial activism and pro hyper-military. From my point of view all he did was make Thurmond's south sound even more backwards from today's perspective than if they had simply been a bunch of racists. I am now worried that reading this book will be like sitting through a few hours of Fox News, which I understand some people would enjoy, but not me. I have spent many summer days sailing on Lake Strom Thurmond on the Georgia, South Carolina boarder in the past, on the Georgia side they do not recognize the name and instead call it Clark's Hill lake.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Yates, I empathize with your feelings & thoughts about Thurmond and the book. I grew up in S.C. so the historical perspective is giving me an informed understanding of Thurmond and attitudes of people I grew up with and certainly my parents' generation. It seems that there's not much else to say except what Crespino says: Thurmond runs from failure to failure. While it is painful to read about Thurmond's and in that day many South Carolinians' (as well as Southerners') commitment to white supremacy and the host of moral and social ills that follow from that commitment, I think one value of Crespino is his careful work of giving the factual details of the failed sides' actions and thinking. While he inserts from time to time his own comments about Thurmond's racism and actions based on fear of loss of political and social power, he is careful I think to allow Thurmond and the racists to speak for themselves in their steady slide into ignominy.
ReplyDelete(Later)... thought more about my last sentence in my previous reply post.... I'm reading currently on p. 187 and by checking the index, Crespino doesn't have an entry for neo-conservatism. However, rather than a 'slide into ignominy,' Thurmond and the southern conservatives undoubtedly were formative in the neo-conservative movement which arose in the 1970s and became instrumental in the election of Reagan and dominant in American politics, certainly to the 2nd Bush administration. It will be interesting to see if one can make a connection in Crespino from the politics of white supremacy to the neo-con movement. From a political perspective, the result of Thurmond and white supremacists would hardly be ignominious... at least from their perspective and that of American politics at least to the election of Obama.
ReplyDeleteThe mistake of this book is focusing on Thurmond on his own. Sure he looks like a labor-friendly liberal with compassion for blacks in the beginning of his career, but that is only to the stark contrast of his own rhetoric. If the author used other sources of civil rights leaders criticizing him for his use of the word "nigger" it would be a much different book. Thurmond was an extremist even to southerners of the time.
ReplyDeleteCrespino is trying to distinguish Thurmond's political career into two separate tracks - the gradual evolution towards economic conservatism and his hard line on race.
ReplyDeleteI think this is a mistake. These issues are intricately linked.
I think that Crespino is attempting to tell a different story than just that of Thurmond. I think he is trying to tell a larger story that traces the development of modern conservatism in the United States. However, he is trying to do it in a different way. He is using Thurmond as a string that ties his his narrative together. Therefore, I think to focus entirely on Thurmond and his racist politics and beliefs is to miss one of Crespino's primary goals with his text. Thoughts?
ReplyDeleteI agree with you Mark, but he does come across as sympathetic to Thurmond who is ultimately the lead figure in Crespino's narrative. I feel less angry about it Yates though, I see Crespino as trying to produce a complicated, complex story of Thumond's evolution that doesn't just indict him as a racist bigot...
ReplyDeleteI agree with you Mark. I think that for Crespino, Thurmond, plays the role of representing how modern conservative politics grew into being in America. He clearly influenced politics and American conservatism greatly and he is an interesting character so I can see why Crespino took an interest in looking into Thurmond. However, much like Yates, I am disturbed by his hypocritical behavior. I'll never understand how "Christian conservatism" could be born out of racism and the hatred of others.
ReplyDelete