Reply #1: Senator Fulbright

[Buck Laser]

I lived in Arkansas from 1963-1966, and I had an extended correspondence with Senator Fulbright regarding the Civil Rights Act. I was working as a Methodist campus minister, and I wrote Fulbright shortly after the Kennedy assassination to urge him to support the Civil Rights Act as a memorial to Kennedy. The first response I got was a pro forma letter stating his unalterable opposition to extending civil rights laws. I was persistent, and wrote him again, this time getting a staff-written letter going into a bit more detail as to why he wouldn't support new legislation. I wrote him again, urging his reconsideration: This time, I got a letter, possibly actually written by him, in which he said he felt an obligation to his constituents over a period of many years, because he'd pledged never to support civil rights laws. He said his own feelings might be different, but he felt obliged to keep his promises.

Now, after more than 40 years of thought about it, I think I respect his decision more than I did in 1964, when the correspondence ended. Anyone in politics MUST work for a diverse constituency. Sometimes, in order to continue the work he values most, he may have to compromise other equally important principles. The older I get, the less judgmental I become toward people who fail to hew rigidly to an ideological line.

Presidents Lincoln and Roosevelt did some pretty shoddy things in the name of winning their wars, yet most judge them today to be among the truly great presidents. I don't expect ANY president to walk on the water, nor do I condemn him when he compromises. Stupidity is another matter altogether.