Thursday, February 3, 2011
George Wallace: The Fighter
Professor Aberbach raised the question in lecture today on who the real George Wallace was. He was a a fighter. His main goal was to win. He had tried to fight in the beginning of his political career for better streets and free books, but when the public didn't listen and he lost, he was underprivileged in terms of power. So he fought on the majority's side against integration and for segregation. Yes, he was a man who at the very beginning and end of his career helped the poor regardless of their race, but in that in between time he was fighting to get elected so he could have the opportunity to make changes. And in order to win, he had to fight on the side of the segregationists even though the real him only wanted improvements to help the state and the poor, and according to his daughter, "Power."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree that George Wallace was a fighter, literally and figuratively, but I also think it was more than that. He was a politician at heart and loved the game. It was mentioned in the documentary that Wallace was bored in the position of governor and his true passion was campaigning, which was most likely why he ran and re-ran unsuccessfully for multiple offices. I also agree that he played on his audience's fears, beliefs, and values in order to get the vote, switching from a semi-pro civil rights stance to a completely segregationist one. But in order to act and preach as extremely as Wallace did, he for a time was not just acting. I believe that the "real Wallace" probably didn't believe in what he preached, but he did get caught up in the game and, although cliche, lost himself for a time.
ReplyDeleteProfessor Aberbach's lecture and the reading remind me of the concepts brought up in the Schattschneider reading from last quarter. In "The Contagiousness of Conflict," Schattschneider says,
ReplyDelete"The moral of this is: If a fight starts, watch the crowd, because the crowd plays the decisive role."
I think this speaks almost directly to the position that George Wallace decided to take as a politician. In respect to Schattschnneider he truly was a fighter, and his moves played directly into the determinate force of the crowd.
Does it even matter who the real George Wallace was? Does it desensitize his actions at all? Should empathy and understanding the motive behind his actions alter his legacy? Wallace still did what he did, despite his previous beliefs. In his quest for power, he allowed himself to transform into a cruel and ultimately racist leader. He spewed hatred and discrimination prominently throughout his career, all for personal gain. Does it matter why he did it, or should his actions speak for themselves?
ReplyDelete