Top Leaderboard, Site wide
July 30, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Help us grow by sharing
and liking Truthdig:
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Newsletter

sign up to get updates








Truthdig Bazaar
Caspian Rain

Caspian Rain

By Gina B. Nahai
$25.00

more items

 
Report

RFK and the Civil Rights Movement

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Mar 19, 2010
RFK
Wikimedia Commons / Library of Congress

Then-Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy speaks to a crowd outside the Justice Department in Washington, D.C., in 1963.

In this interview with Truthdig’s Associate Editor Kasia Anderson, “RFK: The Journey to Justice” playwrights Murray Horwitz and Jonathan Estrin talk about Robert F. Kennedy’s evolution from political animal to true believer in his transformative relationship with the civil rights revolution.

Note: Transcript added below.

Subscribe to Truthdig Podcasts

Subscribe directly:
iTunes

If you don't have iTunes,
copy this address:


Visit the Podcast Archives


Kasia Anderson: I’m Kasia Anderson, Truthdig’s Associate Editor, and joining me for this podcast are playwrights Murray Horwitz and Jonathan Estrin, whose latest joint writing venture, “RFK: The Journey To Justice,” is running this weekend in an L.A. Theater Works production at the Skirball Cultural Center in Los Angeles.

Clearly, Horwitz and Estrin had their work cut out for them in writing a play that counts not just Bobby Kennedy and John F. Kennedy among its central characters, but also contemporaries from the civil rights movement like Martin Luther King Jr. and Diane Nash.
But as Horwitz explains, he and Estrin managed to keep the scope of the project within reasonable bounds by focusing exclusively on Robert Kennedy and the civil rights movement:

Advertisement

Square, Site wide
Murray Horwitz: This play, it’s important to specify, is about Robert Kennedy and the civil rights movement, and as we wrote it, we had to exercise great discipline in just making sure we didn’t digress. If it wasn’t in that story, it didn’t belong in the play.

Anderson: At the beginning of “RFK: The Journey to Justice,” we see a Bobby Kennedy whose commitment to the civil rights cause, such as it is, seems rather calculated – more like a political animal’s concern for poll numbers than a true believer’s passion. So how do the playwrights account for the metamorphosis they chart over the course of the play?                                                                             

Horwitz: What was a little bit elusive is how Robert Kennedy changed, you know, what was it that made him change. And the more people we talked to, the more reading we did ... it was possible for us as playwrights to infer, surmise and to write it down and to talk to people and confirm that that was the case and it seems to make sense.

My first answer to your question is—you know, how would I summarize the changes—is come see the damn play, man! That’s what the play is about. So I don’t want to give it away in some ways, but it’s clear that. ... You’re exactly right, Kasia. They started out as political animals, as politicians: “How do I manage this issue so that I can get the most black vote without” ... (‘cause it’s going to be a real close election and it was. It was one of the closest in history. It might’ve been the closest in history up to that point except for 1876; I’m not sure.) “How do I get the maximum number of black votes without alienating the south, which I need to win?” The white south, which is almost redundant, because blacks weren’t allowed to vote by and large in the south. And then, once he becomes Attorney General, something he was somewhat reluctant to do, he says, “Okay, now I am the nation’s top law enforcement officer, I am going to manage, you know, I’m going to be a good lawyer.”

And then a couple of things happened which are dramatized in the play. And there was real drama there with real conflict there were real, you know, places where people died for this stuff. And that, I think, convinced him even before it convinced his brother the president, that this was not necessarily an issue that could be managed. This was a social revolution. This was a ... not only did it pursue fundamental change, but after his brother’s death, I think he comes to a realization that it needs to be fundamental change. it requires fundamental change. And so, if you now, there is no quick glib answer to your question, happily, because that’s why we wrote the play. But several things conspired ... but the arc… I shouldn’t say “conspired” it’s such a loaded word ... combined I should say ... but the kind of pathway is from politician to lawyer/official to, really, activist. And he said—and there is a line in the play, you may remember, and he really said this in an oral history in 1964: “I can’t say I stayed awake nights worrying about civil rights before 1960.”

Anderson: Jonathan Estrin says that he was drawn to RFK project at a time when Barack Obama’s bid for the presidency was starting to look like a real possibility.

Jonathan Estrin: I think that for me the interest in the subject matter was the degree to which it seemed to me to parallel some things about the Obama presidency. Well, there are two things that interested me: one, the parallel as Bobby became more defined. Because what he ended up representing was a very interesting blend of pragmatic and idealistic at the same time. What was interesting was his journey from being a much more pragmatic and not very idealistic guy in the beginning where he didn’t really particularly care very much about civil rights or know anything about it—it was a low priority and was not on his radar screen—and eventually, over the course of these eight years, became, you know, sort of pushed and prodded and inspired and transformed into the guy who picked up ... the banner after Martin Luther King’s death and was really leading the parade. But the Obama analogy for me was really ... is that same interesting thing where people project onto a candidate all of the things that they want to see. In the way that, you know, many people mythologize the Kennedys as being more liberal than they actually were. And so I think this is the same thing—everybody wanted to see him as being just idealistic ... but he was also an enormously pragmatic guy and not prone to be ... to lead a charge up a hill based on sort of a self-righteous position. He was interested in how you actually get things done.

Anderson: According to Estrin, “RFK: The Journey to Justice” isn’t just another Bobby Kennedy hagiography:

Estrin: What we decided we wanted to do early on was to defy everybody’s expectations about a play about the Kennedys. Well, maybe not everybody’s, but most people approach the ... expect to see something that is. ... Most of the things that have been written about them, quite frankly, if they’re not trashing jobs by people who have a political axe to grind, tend to be kind of hagiographies. They tend to be glorious deifications of them. Like the books that were written contemporarily at the time, you know, “The Making of a President”, which was … a great PR job. It wasn’t really a tremendously accurate history, but it sure looked good.

So we decided I figure, if you’re going to come to see a play about the Kennedys, you’re going to say, “Oh, they were great guys. They were idealistic, they were wonderful—and what a tragedy.” And so, what we said was well, you know, these guys were really hard-nosed politicians. They were brought up by their old man to be really tough politicians and they were in the beginning. And so, what we did is we decided to come up with an opening scene that would right away say… confound everybody’s expectations and so, you know, it’s really. ... It’s griping about the fact that they are trying to get the Negro vote and that this guy, this Negro star that they’re after, he wouldn’t have his picture taken with Jack! And it’s just about, “How the hell are we going to get the vote if this guy won’t play ball with us?” And it’s sort of an attempt to define where they are and at the same time say, oop, this isn’t gonna be just a you know, a sort of bedtime story about them. They’re wonderful because they evolved.

The other thing that’s interesting to me about it—I think that it’s an empowering story, because it’s a story of the fact that you really can ... that individuals are really capable of transformation. They’re capable of great growth in terms of their conscience, their understanding of humanity, their sense of a ... an imperative to be of service and take action and a willingness to be changed. Because, you know, our take on this is that Bobby was dragged kicking and screaming into this initially. You know, he thought that Martin Luther King was a big pain in the ass! This guy was just making trouble for him. Every time he did something, Bobby had to go deal with it, and it was a distraction from what he wanted to do. He was being forced to react to things, and initially it wasn’t ... just not the game he liked to play—he liked to call the plays.

And so, you know, there’s ... this initial clashing between the two men that’s really interesting. ... Oh, that’s another thing that we discovered in the research which was great, which was that when they. ... It was actually Harry Belafonte that pointed them towards Martin Luther King as a way to ... as a political solution to their problem initially during the campaign, and that was great fun to discover. I thought, where did that came from? And there it was.

Anderson: Horwitz says that, as his legacy suggests, Bobby Kennedy was able to look beyond polling demographics and fully throw his heart into the civil rights cause.

Horwitz: Even if we hadn’t talked to anybody, we would’ve correctly deduced from the empirical evidence and from the record ... pointed to the fact that he was the real deal. He was the real thing, and in fact more than one source and more than one person used the phrase true believer. It proved that ... he proved that idealism and political skill and savvy could coexist. It is hard to. ... I think there, quite frankly, there are a number of people on the political right for whom that’s true. I don’t see a lot of people nowadays who are ... but then politics was different. As I say, it has now devolved into marketing rather than politics. There’s a big difference between the two. But you really don’t see, even on the right, you don’t see a large number of people who embrace idealism, who use politics as a way of moving their idealism forward and putting it into practice. Certainly I think the Obama campaign promised that. It remains to be seen whether they’ll be able to deliver on that promise. But, I think in that sense—I don’t know about legacy, but certainly as an example, Robert Kennedy proved that it was possible.

Anderson: Thanks for listening – again, I’m Kasia Anderson, Truthdig’s Associate Editor, and you can find out more about “RFK: The Journey to Justice” at www.skirball.org.

 


New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, March 26, 2010 at 9:54 pm Link to this comment

Anarcissie

Sarcasm offers a dual benefit. It provides a reasoned argument and it allows the means for less direct insult. Actually my post was satire. Satire also offers a dual benefit. It provides a reasoned argument and it ridicules that which is in need of being ridiculed.

(I aplogize for being so direct.)

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, March 26, 2010 at 8:07 pm Link to this comment

Sarcasm is a dull instrument, and usually betrays an inability to present a reasoned argument.  I can’t be bothered with it.

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, March 26, 2010 at 10:29 am Link to this comment

Anarcissie

Thank you so much for setting me straight. I’ve checked the “Record” and you are absolutely correct about Bobby, he was a real scumbag. All of us, who were inspired by his pronouncements and public positions on the issues of his day, were fools who were duped by his treachery. He was an opportunist of the worst sort, and he ranks right up there with Hitler in that respect. If only we had listened to the warnings of his enemies. People like J. Edgar Hoover, Gov. George Wallace, and a long list of principled people of that sort tried to warn us of his evil, but we failed to listen. He was one of history’s greatest villains, and he was bound and determined to infect us all with his vile beliefs.


Bobby was “palling around” with some of history’s greatest villains: Martin Luther King, anti-apartheid insurrectionists, dirty filthy Hippy peaceniks, and whatnot. Like many people of his sort, he had many good role models in his youth; that he could have learned from, but he chose the wrong path.

Also, like many villains of his magnitude, he seemed to have demonic powers. For example he was able to foresee the Tet Offensive and its consequences nearly two years before it occurred, and this prognostication allowed him to deceive many hapless dupes. His list of evils are legion, and too many to mention. For example, he supported the world wide cabal of those who wished to end the death penalty, couching his support, with the contention that the death penalty was inhumane, and counter productive, but thanks to people like you, we now know what his real motives were.

Thankfully, his efforts were not successful in their entirety. His effort to bring about a worldwide communist take over, by opposing the Viet Nam War was not successful, and we were able to stem the tide of communism at very little cost. He did have some success in bringing communism to the United States, through the guise of civil rights, but fortunately we were able to turn back much of what he advocated, but we must be ever vigilant; the battle is never ending. Many believe the election of our current Fascist, commie, socialist, corporatist, Kenyan, alien, Muslim, president can be directly attributed to the work of Bobby Kennedy.

Again, thank you. Thanks to people like you, I’ve been able to learn that Mickey Mouse was a dirty little rat, Beaver Cleaver was a sadist, Donna Reed was a slut, Mahatma Gandhi was a war monger and on and on.

Again, thank you so much, and keep up the good work.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, March 25, 2010 at 7:23 pm Link to this comment

JDmysticDJ, March 25 at 2:17 pm:
‘So, if anti-war sentiment was so strong in 1968, why were neither the republican nor the democratic candidates that year running as anti-war candidates. Wasn’t that the year that the nation was outraged about anti-war demonstrations at the democratic convention in Chicago?

Where were you when these events took place, you don’t seem to have much knowledge of what the realities were. Eugene McCarthy was not chosen to be the democratic candidate in 1968. ...’

You don’t seem to know a lot about it yourself, actually.  The war was popular with mainstream types until 1968 because they believed “we” were winning, and in general people, or at least Americans, enjoy beating up weak countries militarily.  But then the Tet offensive occurred (February, 1968).  The offensive was a military failure but a stunning political victory, because the American authorities had been telling the people that the war would soon be over and the Communists defeated.  Even some of the most seasoned vipers of the Established Order began switching sides after that.  So anti-war began to look like the ticket to the Democratic Party nomination.  (See the Wikipedia pages on McCarthy and his campaign for a reasonably good treatment of that period.)  This created, I believe, a role for Robert Kennedy: on the one hand a top-level ruling-class insider and aristocrat, on the other a very smart guy politically with his eye on the main chance.  Had he not been assassinated he might have been able to wrest the nomination away from Humphrey, although in those days beating the machine was a long shot.  Could have he beaten Nixon?  Maybe.  He could play in a lot of keys.  As you probably know, he started his political career working for the other McCarthy, Tail-Gunner Joe, and as Attorney General signed orders requested by J. Edgar Hoover to tap Martin Luther King’s telephones—even while he was buddying up with King on those very telephones.

The hagiographies of the Kennedys annoy me because in order to write one you have to rewrite history.  We have enough lying, obfuscation, fantasy and mystification in politics already.

Whether I like the Kennedys (not much), or where I was during their careers (a lot of places), is of no consequence.  Everything I have said can be checked in the record.

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, March 25, 2010 at 11:17 am Link to this comment

Anarcissie

So, if anti-war sentiment was so strong in 1968, why were neither the republican nor the democratic candidates that year running as anti-war candidates. Wasn’t that the year that the nation was outraged about anti-war demonstrations at the democratic convention in Chicago?

Where were you when these events took place, you don’t seem to have much knowledge of what the realities were. Eugene McCarthy was not chosen to be the democratic candidate in 1968.

“There was, by the way, substantial support for a stronger war effort, especially early in the war.  For instance, in a poll conducted in February 1968, 25 per cent wanted to “gradually broaden and intensify our military operations”, and 28 per cent wanted to “start an all-out crash effort in the hope of winning the war quickly even at the risk of China or Russia entering the war”.  JUST 24 PER CENT WANTED TO “DISCONTINUE THE STRUGGLE AND BEGIN TO PULL OUT OF VIETNAM GRADUALLY IN THE NEAR FUTURE”, and 10 per cent wanted to “continue the war at the present level of military effort”.  So, much of the disatisfaction about the war came, early on, from the belief that not enough was being done to win it.”

In 1972 Richard Nixon destroyed Eugene McGovern the anti-war candidate, in the biggest presidential election landslide in history.
 
Do you not like Bobby, or do you have some other agenda?

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, March 23, 2010 at 8:00 pm Link to this comment

Taking a stance against the War in Vietnam was quite popular in 1968.  Many people assumed Robert Kennedy was an opportunist who became interested in being against the war when he noticed that a relative unknown, Senator Eugene McCarthy, was winning primaries as an anti-war candidate.

I can’t read the minds of the deceased, so I can’t say what he was thinking then or about Civil Rights, but he does seem to have had an acute sense of where the wave was and how to get just a bit ahead of it.

Report this

By doublestandards/glasshouses, March 23, 2010 at 11:14 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I think most people who lived during those times are aware of an inconvenient fact: Robert Kennedy approved of the wire tapping of Dr King during his tenure as AG 1961-64.  Ditto Malcom X.  The Kennedys were a mixed bag.  Both liberals and conservatives distort the record for political purposes.  Those were interesting times and the truth is at least as good as fiction.  We dont need hagiography.  I would say however that Robert Kennedy was head and shoulders above the hacks in Washington today.

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, March 22, 2010 at 3:45 pm Link to this comment

Pre 1960 I loved black music, many of my sports idols were black, I had seen the “Jackie Robinson Story,” I was aware of racism, but I was not aware of the civil rights movement per se. It’s a quantum leap to suggest that Bobby was not idealistic, because he didn’t give much thought to the civil rights movement before 1960.

I don’t consider the playwrights hagiographers, but I would be, if I were to write about Bobby. Taking a political stance against the Viet Nam war was not a popular one at the time, only a politician who was idealistic, and had strong moral principles, would have taken that stand.

Report this

By rollzone, March 20, 2010 at 5:47 pm Link to this comment

hello. i lived during their political careers. to extemporaneously put words in the mouth of dead people to further your own cause is easy. guessing what motivated Bobby, especially after the murder of his brother, is sad; when you try to use it for your own gain. correlating this to present worship agenda talks volumes of propaganda dollars. the money people waste on politics is amazing. ask Mr.Ross Perot.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, March 20, 2010 at 8:06 am Link to this comment

I’m afraid it does “sound like another hagiography of the Kennedys”, although one a little more subtle than the usual.  Perhaps I have developed an allergy due to all the sanctification.

Report this
 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.

Like Truthdig on Facebook