Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Monday, July 14, 2008
Paul Greenberg :: Townhall.com Columnist
The Problem of Evil
by Paul Greenberg
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will Sarah Palin make a run at the GOP Nomination in 2012?


LITTLE ROCK - It proved an education not just for his students but for me when Adam Green, associate professor of history at the University of Chicago, brought his class to town for an on-site study of the Little Rock Crisis of 1957.

Central High School in Little Rock, Ark., was the focus of more than a political and constitutional crisis in 1957. It was also a test of conscience. How we see it now still is. And who better to serve as a guide to all the forces that collided here than the son of Ernest Green, one of the original Little Rock Nine who integrated the school?

The students began their colloquium early on a Friday morning here at the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, where they met to hear from five local reporters who had covered the Crisis first-hand.

As one of the students told me as the two-hour seminar was breaking up and the group was headed for Central High, now an official historic site, hearing from those on the scene in '57 was so different from reading about the crisis in the history books. For me, too, I assured her. There's always something new to learn about the old, especially from eyewitnesses.

Each person sees with different eyes, and brings a different set of sensibilities to events. And so does each generation. Which may be why history so often says more about the time in which it was written than the time it purports to describe.

It takes a rare sensibility to transport oneself into the past, and see it as those who lived it did. Giambattista Vico, the early 18th-century philosopher/historiographer, called that rare talent fantasia, or overwhelming, all-absorbing imagination. For it's not easy to avoid the presentness that reduces history to an exercise in current cultural or ideological fashion. Our own time can be a prison, shutting us out of the others.

The most revealing comment of the morning's discussion came from Ernie Dumas, who'd joined the old Arkansas Gazette as a political reporter shortly after 1957. He recalled a conversation with Orval Faubus after the old boy had been elected to his third term as governor in 1958, largely as a result of the popularity he'd reaped from his defiant stand against the federal government the year before.

It seems the triumphant Faubus had taken him aside - along with Roy Reed, a Gazette reporter who years later would write a detailed biography of Faubus - to explain what a really fine, progressive governor he'd been. He'd been the most liberal governor in the South, Orval Faubus told them. Despite the bad press that he and Arkansas were getting (and would continue to get) because of his defense of racial segregation.

To document his claim, this undisputed champion of Arkansas politics (at least till Bill Clinton came along) ran through the litany of social and economic programs he'd supported. Just as he would regularly do every two years and gubernatorial election thereafter. That's when Roy Reed asked him the question that History would then and forever ask: "But what about '57?"

Orval Faubus explained that he was no racist. No serious observer of Arkansas politics ever thought he was; he was much too intelligent for that. No, he was something worse: an opportunist who exploited the racism of others in order to retain political power. He'd done what he'd done, he explained that day, to keep worse types at bay. Continued...

1 2
| Full Article & Comments | Next >
Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
reply to Higene
It's no big deal to recognize that we've "demonized" various enemies of this country in the past. That's what people do. Everybody. Every country that has ever waged war 'constructs' (as we academics put it) some awful image of the other side. I don't get too upset about this, and suggest that you not get too upset either. Consider how TH conservative readers demonize liberals, and liberals like me will repay them in kind. It's the way of the world.

reply to jim
Come on, now! A conservative who agrees with the liberal concept that the Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is? The horror, the horror. Many conservatives argued, when the Court decided Brown v. Board of Education, that (1) the Court had no authority in the area of education because the Constitution does not give the federal government any authority in this area; and (2) that the decision was both morally and politically incorrect. There are conservatives--some of them post on TH--who routinely say this today.

Maybe you're one of the those conservatives who has imbibed liberal PC koolaid on the subject of civil rights. My contention is that, properly interpreted, in the manner of conservative originalism, the Constitution does not in fact provide any of the protections or benefits blacks have received from civil rights laws and a host of court decisions.

As a liberal, I am content with the position that the civil rights laws and court decisions that have benefitted blacks are at the very least extra-constitutional, if not plain unconstitutional on their collective face. these rulings and laws are morally right and should have been made, but that doesn't make them constitutional.

I'm asking people to hink outside the box: there are lots of things that are morally right that cannot be found in the Constitution. The infamous Dred Scott decision got the Constitutional issue right, but it was morally abhorrent.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.