Thanks for sharing your essay. I appreciate the depth of your analysis and the passion behind your writing. You bring up some interesting historical parallels and offer a compelling critique of modern political discourse.
I did notice a few areas where your references could use some adjustment. For example, Senator Strom Thurmond’s 1957 filibuster was indeed the longest individual speech in Senate history, but it’s worth clarifying that the Civil Rights Act of 1957, while limited in scope, was not solely a product of Lyndon Johnson’s political maneuvering, dont forget that it also had the backing of President Eisenhower and was influenced by broader civil rights advocacy at the time. Additionally, your mention of Luigi Mangione is noted, hiwever I’d suggest looking at historical activists like John Brown or more recent figures like Angela Davis to illustrate radical leftist responses more accurately.
Another noteworthy reference that could strengthen your argument is Huey Long’s 1930s speeches. Long was a master of populist rhetoric and used marathon Senate speeches to push his agenda. his style has clear parallels with modern figures who captivate audiences with blunt, unscripted speech.
One other thing, I found the essay to be a bit long for my personal preference. While your ideas are compelling, a more concise version might make your argument even more impactful. Trimming some of the longer passages could sharpen your points and make them hit even harder.
Ricardo, while I appreciate your general compliment, I disagree with what you said about the 1957 Civil Rights Act. I have read several biographical accounts of Lyndon Johnson, including Caro's extensive and fiery discussion of his stormy political life, and these accounts are quite clear:
Civil Rights Activists advocated a much tougher bill. Johnson denuded the bill of all meaningful enforcement procedures; the end result was that it was simply a document advocating civil rights, but it did not meaningfully mandate any civil rights protections. Johnson wanted a weak bill for two political reasons: A) By passing a bill denominated a civil rights bill, he was able to reduce Northern Liberal opposition for a run for the Presidency and B) By making the bill toothless, he was able to pacify the white Southerners who constitued his base.
Hell, why did civil rights activists strenuously fight for the 1964 civil right act? Because they knew Johnson's 57 enactment was an abased, abject abortion of justice.
Other issues: Yes, I did not refer to Huey Long; he was, perhaps, a demogogue with almost Hitlerian overtones.
Perhaps I should have discussed Angela Davis. She had effectively seduced millions of American leftists and liberals. Some people used to say that the Rollling Stones' song "Angie" was about Angela Davis, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcZn2-bGXqQ (most people think it was about David Bowie's wife)
Hey David,
Thanks for sharing your essay. I appreciate the depth of your analysis and the passion behind your writing. You bring up some interesting historical parallels and offer a compelling critique of modern political discourse.
I did notice a few areas where your references could use some adjustment. For example, Senator Strom Thurmond’s 1957 filibuster was indeed the longest individual speech in Senate history, but it’s worth clarifying that the Civil Rights Act of 1957, while limited in scope, was not solely a product of Lyndon Johnson’s political maneuvering, dont forget that it also had the backing of President Eisenhower and was influenced by broader civil rights advocacy at the time. Additionally, your mention of Luigi Mangione is noted, hiwever I’d suggest looking at historical activists like John Brown or more recent figures like Angela Davis to illustrate radical leftist responses more accurately.
Another noteworthy reference that could strengthen your argument is Huey Long’s 1930s speeches. Long was a master of populist rhetoric and used marathon Senate speeches to push his agenda. his style has clear parallels with modern figures who captivate audiences with blunt, unscripted speech.
One other thing, I found the essay to be a bit long for my personal preference. While your ideas are compelling, a more concise version might make your argument even more impactful. Trimming some of the longer passages could sharpen your points and make them hit even harder.
Ricardo, while I appreciate your general compliment, I disagree with what you said about the 1957 Civil Rights Act. I have read several biographical accounts of Lyndon Johnson, including Caro's extensive and fiery discussion of his stormy political life, and these accounts are quite clear:
Civil Rights Activists advocated a much tougher bill. Johnson denuded the bill of all meaningful enforcement procedures; the end result was that it was simply a document advocating civil rights, but it did not meaningfully mandate any civil rights protections. Johnson wanted a weak bill for two political reasons: A) By passing a bill denominated a civil rights bill, he was able to reduce Northern Liberal opposition for a run for the Presidency and B) By making the bill toothless, he was able to pacify the white Southerners who constitued his base.
Hell, why did civil rights activists strenuously fight for the 1964 civil right act? Because they knew Johnson's 57 enactment was an abased, abject abortion of justice.
Other issues: Yes, I did not refer to Huey Long; he was, perhaps, a demogogue with almost Hitlerian overtones.
Perhaps I should have discussed Angela Davis. She had effectively seduced millions of American leftists and liberals. Some people used to say that the Rollling Stones' song "Angie" was about Angela Davis, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcZn2-bGXqQ (most people think it was about David Bowie's wife)