History of Civil Rights Acts

[kokonut]

Civil Rights laws and the social programs have all happened because of Democratic push.

- SOURCE.

That's factually false. Historically and legislatively false regarding Civil Rights laws! And note that she said in the plural "Civil Rights laws." Here's a little history lesson for her. Republicans have championed Civil Rights and supported freedom and liberties for minorities for over a 140 years.

First, it was the Republicans who brought forth a series of Civil Rights Acts to the forefront beginning in 1866. And then you have the 1870, 1871, 1875, 1957, 1960 and 1964 Civil Rights Acts. A century worth of hate by Democrats who pretty much didn't want to do anything with black people and sought ways to lessen any liberties given to blacks by Republicans in Congress during the late 19th century and part of the early 20th century. This is true during a period of time when you had Democrat controlled Congress in much of the 20th century who sought ways to strike down or restrict previous Civil Rights Acts by passing laws and such that restricted the freedom and liberties of black Americans by reversing what Republicans in Congress have tried to do right beginning in 1866. It was only during the 1960s that Democrats began to do the right thing and to uphold the civil rights for minorities.

It was the Republicans in Congress and even Republican presidents have tried to do the right thing in the 19th and 20th century but only to see that Democrats have reversed their efforts to limits any freedom given to blacks and minorities.

Party In Power - Congress and Presidency - A Visual Guide To The Balance of Power In Congress, 1945-2008
File:Control of the U.S. Senate.PNG - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And then you then have more Democrats joining with Republicans and help contribute to the 1964 and 1968 Civil Rights Acts. Before any of this was possible Congress had to abolish slavery first by passing the 13th Amendment on April 8, 1865. 100% of the Republicans in Congress voted for the Amendment while 63% of the Democrats were against it in the Senate vote. This Amendment set the stage for future Civil Rights Acts and other Amendments.
13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Primary Documents of American History (Virtual Programs & Services, Library of Congress)

1866 - the first Civil Rights Act passed by all Republicans while most of the Democrats voted against it the Senate bill #61.
TO PASS S. 61. -- GovTrack.us
Slavery and the Making of America . The Slave Experience: Legal Rights & Gov't | PBS

The Senate passed the 14th Amendment on June 8, 1866, by a vote of 33 to 11 (33 Republicans voted yes, while 3 Republicans and 8 Democrats voted no).
14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Primary Documents of American History (Virtual Programs & Services, Library of Congress)
TO PASS H. J. RES. 127. (P. 3042-2) -- GovTrack.us

Then in 1869 in a Republican-controlled 40th Congress voted for the 15th Amendment giving blacks the right to vote. Nearly all Republicans in Congress voted in favor, though a few abstained, saying it did not go far enough. Nearly all Democrats in Congress voted against the 15th Amendment.

The House of Representatives passed the 15th Amendment on February 25, 1869, by a vote of 144 to 44, and the Senate passed the 15th Amendment on February 26, 1869, by a vote of 39 to 13. On March 30, 1870, Secretary of State Hamilton Fish issued a proclamation certifying the ratification of the 15th Amendment by the states.
15th Amendment to the Constitution: Primary Documents of American History (Virtual Programs & Services, Library of Congress)

1870, 1871, and 1875 Civil Rights Act - All passed mostly by Republicans in Congress. Special note on the 1871 Civil Rights Act:

1871- Republicans Outlawed the Ku Klux Klan. In 1871, the Republican-controlled 42nd Congress passed a Civil Rights Act aimed at the Ku Klux Klan. Guilty of murdering hundreds of African-Americans, this terrorist organization had also eradicated the Republican Party throughout most of the South. The law empowered the Republican administration of Ulysses Grant to protect the civil rights of the former slaves in federal court, bypassing the Democrat-controlled state courts.

The 1871 Civil Rights Act, along with the GOP’s 1870 Civil Rights Act, effectively banned the Klan and enabled Republican officials to arrest hundreds of Klansmen. Though the U.S. Supreme Court would eventually strike down most of the 1871 Civil Rights Act, the Ku Klux Klan was crushed. The KKK did not rise again until the Democratic administration of President Woodrow Wilson.

Black History « It is time to wake up America !

1957 Civil Rights Act was passed where all of the Republicans voted for it while a substantial number of Democrats were against it in the Senate chamber.
HR. 6127. CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1957. PASSED. -- GovTrack.us

1960 Civil Rights Act - 83% of the Republicans in the Senate voted for it while 64% of the Democrats voted for the HR #8601 bill. And this was a Democratically controlled Congress (65 Democrats vs 35 Republicans).
HR. 8601. PASSAGE OF AMENDED BILL. -- GovTrack.us

1964 Civil Rights Act - 81% of the Senate Republicans voted for the bill while 64% of the Democrats voted for the bill. This was a Democratically controlled Congress as well with 64 Democrats vs 32 at the time of the vote (4 Senate seats were vacant).
HR. 7152. CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964. MANSFIELD MOTION THAT THE SENATE TAKE UP THE BILL. -- GovTrack.us

Simply put, the Democratic Party was the party of slavery, secession, and segregation and is now the party of socialism. Remember "Obama money" in 2008 and 2009?

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI&feature=related"]Obama Is Going To Pay For My Gas And Mortgage!!! - YouTube[/ame]
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIkksi344cM"]Free Obama Money - YouTube[/ame] - skip to 0:29 to read the audio transcript.

All within the theme of keeping blacks and other minorities under Democrats' control rather than give them their freedom and liberty they deserve in their own pursuit to happiness. Sorry, but history has always been on the Republican side for more than 140 years on supporting blacks/African-Americans and other minorities when it comes to Civil Rights laws.

So, the next time when someone makes the claim that only a small handful of Republicans helped with the scores of Civil Rights laws that helped blacks and the many minorities their freedom and liberty then be sure to bookmark this thread so you can give people a little history lesson.

Just as well use this thread to point out people who continue to make claims that Republicans in general are racist while conveniently ignoring the Democrats' overtly racist past ever since the 1830s up to the 1960s, and how they continue to use social programs of today to gain control of people's own freedom. Granted, there were racist overtones and even attitudes on both sides of the party but the history of the Democrat party was notoriously rife with racist attitudes. So racist they were they even let a former KKK member and leader, Senator Byrd, who even filibustered against the 1964 Civil Rights Act, to continue to hold his seat well into his senile years until his death.

Let this thread be dedicated to help bring awareness the factual history regarding civil rights. This is about giving people the power of freedom, their liberties, and the power of greater independence. It is so much better than to be dependent on the government for everything and be under their shackles.

 

[Foxrac]

Did you born in 1800's and early 1900's? If not then I don't point why are you debate about between Democratic Party and Republican Party.

After civil war, southern states supported Democratic Party until reconstruction and they made Democratic Party looks racist in some degree. Majority of Democratic Party and Republican Party supported civil rights - look at statistic that txgolfer posted: http://www.alldeaf.com/2056069-post32.html

Many southern states switched from Democratic Party to Republican Party during between 1980's and 1990's, it is possible to make Republican Party looks inequality rather than being racist. Today, both of Republican Party and Democratic Party are not same as past anymore, both of them are separated of left and right.

Robert Byrd is southern democrat and it was uncommon for southern democrats to be racist. It isn't existed anymore, or at least, there are very few to left. Democratic Party platform doesn't support anti-civil rights nor is racist, I think same goes with Republican Party platform, unless some politicians go against platform willing.

There were majority republicans in between late 1800's until 1930's, usually ON and OFF, also again in 1950's and after 1994, usually ON and OFF as well. Why they don't push civil rights during majority in the congress during those time? Civil rights are not existed until 1964 when Democratic Party were control in both of the house and the senate.

Your remark with Democratic Party make me to want to be negative on Republican Party, especially disrespect and bash on GOP. Don't blame on Democratic Party for being anti-civil rights and they are some infested with southern democrats who were anti-civil rights. I disagree with you about civil rights to be in Republican Party's hands and there are majority of Democratic Party supported civil rights.

I think you need to be more educated about Democratic Party and it is disgusting that you confirmed Democratic Party to be socialism. You just want make Democratic Party looks bad. :roll:

Most minorities, especially blacks are usually favor Democratic Party since post-reconstruction, however it was earlier as Great Depression in some cases.

 

[Reba]

Wirelessly posted (BB Curve 9300)

I agree that references to the other poster should be edited out. Let the rest of the post stand on its own.

 

[naisho]

I've removed portions of the post to what I felt is respectable to keep this thread open for discussion, which I thought is the real issue kokonut may be trying to address.

Carry on, thanks.

 

[kokonut]

I've removed portions of the post to what I felt is respectable to keep this thread open for discussion, which I thought is the real issue kokonut may be trying to address.

Carry on, thanks.

Thanks. And, yes, the real issue concerns the history of Civil Rights Acts and the laws that were supported and passed by the Republican and Democrat parties but also to show that the Republican party played a big part of most Civil Rights Acts and were champions to most of them. The contention is to put to rest that there were not a small handful of Republicans who supported civil rights laws since history has shown that to be patently false. Voting records in Congress easily show that.

 

[saywhatkid]

So, we could spin this to say that Democrats learned something in the 1960's, and that they are applying it to the current immigration issues?

 

[kokonut]

So, we could spin this to say that Democrats learned something in the 1960's, and that they are applying it to the current immigration issues?

Both are.

 

[Foxrac]

Thanks. And, yes, the real issue concerns the history of Civil Rights Acts and the laws that were supported and passed by the Republican and Democrat parties but also to show that the Republican party played a big part of most Civil Rights Acts and were champions to most of them. The contention is to put to rest that there were not a small handful of Republicans who supported civil rights laws since history has shown that to be patently false. Voting records in Congress easily show that.

You labeled Democratic Party as socialism, slavery, secession and segregation - huge mistake...

 

[Jiro]

this wouldn't have made possible if it weren't for both parties but I find it comical that Republican Party is still playing same old glory song like Reagan this, Reagan that to convince people that they're still same party as in the past.

Let's face it... Republican Party today is still same as Democratic Party. Both parties are a bunch of crooks and hypocrites.

 

[Jiro]

History: Democrats & Republicans On Civil Rights & Equality | Oliver Willis

There is an awful lot of misinformation and untruth out there about the legacy of the two major political parties and the civil rights movement. Conservatives often like to use slight of hand, insisting that because the early Republican party was stronger in support of civil rights, this means that conservatives have the moral high ground. This is totally untrue.

Republicans – Moderate and Liberal Republicans supported civil rights. The Republicans who supported civil rights in America were not conservatives of the same ilk as George W. Bush, Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. They were liberals and moderates, people like former Rhode Island senator Lincoln Chaffee and former governor Nelson Rockefeller.

Conservative Democrats opposed civil rights. The Democrats opposed to the civil rights movement weren’t Democrats with the center-left ideology of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. They were, in fact, conservatives – especially from the south – with far more in common with Limbaugh, Beck, etc. than any modern mainstream Democrat. When people say that someone like notorious segregationist Bull Connor was a Democrat, they are technically right on the party label, but when it comes to ideology Connor and the rest of those opposed to racial integration were conservatives.

Conservatives opposed civil rights. At the time of the civil rights movement, outside of the parties, conservatives were opposed to the civil rights movement. Barry Goldwater, a conservative whose brand of politics would soon take over the Republicans in the guise of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, opposed civil rights law. He claimed that he viewed it as a states rights issue, and actually favored equal rights, but the practical effect of his stance would be to allow segregation – in the south “states rights” meant “Jim Crow.” The conservative intellectual movement – William F. Buckley’s National Review, for instance, opposed what they viewed as law-breaking protests by Dr. Martin Luther King.

Democrats moved left on civil rights, in favor. Over time the Democrats moved to the left on civil rights, meaning they moved with other liberals in favor of them. Southern, conservative Democrats opposed civil rights and the laws were passed by liberal/moderate Republicans and liberal/moderate Democrats. The Civil Rights Act was signed into law by Lyndon Johnson, a Democrat.

Conservative Democrats left the party in opposition to civil rights and became Republicans. After the Civil Rights law was signed into law, conservative Democrats left the party. Strom Thurmond, who ran as a segregationist in 1948, became a Republican, as did Jesse Helms (who went on to filibuster against making Martin Luther King Jr. day a federal holiday).

Republicans used racial resentment for elections, while Democrats became more racially inclusive. As the Republican party became more ideologically conservative in the post-Goldwater era, they increasingly used racially divisive politics for electoral gain. The GOP employed what is now known as “the southern stategy” (acknowledged by GOP party chairmen Ken Mehlman and Michael Steele in the last decade) to demonize blacks and other minorities while also riling up the white, male conservative base that forms the party now. Examples include the Willie Horton ad used by Bush Sr. allies vs Michael Dukakis, the “hands” ad used by Jesse Helms, and the nonstop racebaiting versus President Obama from conservative outlets like Fox News and talk radio.

At the same time, the Democratic party became more and more racially inclusive. After civil rights passed, and the GOP became more conservative and increased racial demagoguery, black and other minority voters became Democrats. Every black member of the House of Representatives is a Democrat, and every black senator since 1979 has been a Democrat. The first black president, is of course, Barack Obama – a Democrat.

The parties have changed but the ideology hasn’t. The attempt to co-opt liberal support of civil rights has been a consistent campaign of the right, despite their predecessor’s opposition to the concept. The attempt to say that liberal Republicans of the past are the same as conservative Republicans of today, is just a terrible lie. Conservatives often try to say people like Martin Luther King Jr. would be conservatives. This is entirely untrue. In the last years of his life, Dr. King ran what he called “The Poor People’s Campaign,” and his beliefs would largely be to the left of where the modern Democratic party is, let alone the Republicans.

The Democrats moved away from the conservative position against racial inclusion, while the right moved the other way and has only recently somewhat acknowledged the moral folly of its past. Conservatives opposed civil rights, while liberals favored them. Both ideologies have inhabited majorities in both parties, but the ideological support or opposition to civil rights and equality has largely remained the same.

 

[Jiro]

I don't know if this is true or not but it appears to be noteworthy

Law School Story: Republicans Say No To Civil Rights

Apparently the Republican Presidential candidates do not believe that they need or want the African-American vote. Following in the footsteps of Dubya for the first six years of his White House occupation, Guiliani, Brownback, Huckabee, Hunter, McCain, Romney, Ron Paul, and Tommy Thompson choose to not to appear at the NAACP convention. The "presidential" candidates declined to show up for the NAACP-sponsored debate. Tancredo was the only candidate to make an appearance. Wonder how that felt?

This is an embarrassment for the entire world to see. The Republicans are not interested in civil rights, minorities, or anyone else for that matter. CNN, MSNBC, and Faux Noise have yet to report this - guess Paris Hilton is more important.

Wow. And nine percent of African-Americans will still vote for a Republican in November 2008.

Do your duty and spread the word about this travesty to America and how the Republicans really feel about civil rights.

 

[Foxrac]

this wouldn't have made possible if it weren't for both parties but I find it comical that Republican Party is still playing same old glory song like Reagan this, Reagan that to convince people that they're still same party as in the past.

Let's face it... Republican Party today is still same as Democratic Party. Both parties are a bunch of crooks and hypocrites.

Yup, I like your critical point about both of parties.

History: Democrats & Republicans On Civil Rights & Equality | Oliver Willis

I found this article is very interesting and thanks for sharing.

I don't know why Grayma liked OP because I thought Grayma likes to be based on fact, especially your post.

 

[Jiro]

Republicans banish ‘civil rights’ and ‘civil liberties’ from House subcommittee | The Raw Story

Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) blasted Republicans for planning to change the name of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties to the “Constitution Subcommittee.”

“Once again, the new Republican majority has shown that it isn’t quite as committed to the Constitution as its recent lofty rhetoric would indicate,” Rep. Nadler, who has served as the Chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties since 2007, said.

“It has yet again shown its contempt for key portions of the document – the areas of civil rights and civil liberties – by banishing those words from the title of the Constitution Subcommittee.”

The Subcommittee on the Constitution is one of five subcommittees of the US House Committee on the Judiciary. The subcommittee has jurisdiction over constitutional amendments, constitutional rights, federal civil rights, ethics in government, and related matters.

“Republicans have made a great deal of noise in recent days about standing up for the Constitution,” Rep. Nadler continued. “But, in less than 48 hours, they have already revealed their true intentions. In addition to reading selectively from the Constitution on the House floor in a much-exalted ceremony on Thursday, Republicans also blatantly violated the Constitution by allowing two of their Members to vote without having been sworn-in, and introduced unconstitutional legislation aimed at bypassing the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause.”

Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX) and Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick (R-PA) cast votes as members of the 112th Congress before being officially sworn-in, a violation of the United States Constitution.

Under the Constitution, which was read on the House floor by Rep. Fitzpatrick and other Republicans last week, members of Congress must be sworn-in before conducting official business.

It was estimated that reciting the Constitution on the House floor cost taxpayers nearly $1.1 million.

Both Republican congressmen failed to attend the swearing-in at the House chamber Wednesday because they were at the Capitol Visitors Center.

Congressman Steve King (R-IA) also introduced a bill to the US House last week that would restrict birth right citizenship to children of US citizens, children of permanent residents and children of non-citizens in active-duty military service.

Ever since its ratification in 1868, the 14th Amendment of the Constitution has been interpreted as guaranteeing birth right citizenship to everyone born in the US, with the exception of children of foreign diplomats.

“How ironic it is that this unconstitutional bill, designed to subvert the 14th Amendment citizenship clause, would be introduced at the same time that members of Congress are on the House floor reciting the text of the Constitution and affirming their commitment to defend and uphold it,” Laura W. Murphy, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office, said.

“With the Subcommittee name change, they are again telling Americans that only some parts of the Constitution matter,” Rep. Nadler added. “Fundamental rights and liberties appear to have been dropped from the Constitution by far-right ideologues.”

 

[Foxrac]

I don't know if this is true or not but it appears to be noteworthy

Law School Story: Republicans Say No To Civil Rights

Exactly, It seems like kokonut doesn't realize about Republican Party has been changed from few decades ago.

 

[Jiro]

Exactly, It seems like kokonut doesn't realize about Republican Party has been changed from few decades ago.

This statement would be more accurate -

Civil Rights laws and the social programs have all happened because of Liberal & Moderate (both parties) push.

OP is clearly confused and since OP stated that he is a conservative and likes and agrees with Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck.... well I guess that says something about OP's character.

 

[Foxrac]

This statement would be more accurate -



OP is clearly confused and since OP stated that he is a conservative and likes and agrees with Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck.... well I guess that says something about OP's character.

Yup, it will clear up if include moderate and liberal who pushed for civil rights.

 

[kokonut]

Addendum:

Civil Rights Act of 1968 where 68% of Democrats voted for the H.R. 2516 bill while 90% of Republicans voted for the same bill in the Senate.
Y=71 N=20 TO PASS H.R. 2516, A BILL TO PROHIBIT DISCRIMINATION IN SALE OR RENTAL OF HOUSING, AND TO PROHIBIT RACIALLY MOTIVATED INTERFERENCE WITH A PERSON EXERCISING HIS CIVIL RIGHTS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. -- GovTrack.us

House of Representatives with 86% of the votes being Republicans and 71% of the votes being Democrats.
TO PASS H.R. 2516, A BILL TO ESTABLISH PENALTIES FOR INTERFERENCE WITH CIVIL RIGHTS. INTERFERENCE WITH A PERSON ENGAGED IN ONE OF THE 8 ACTIVITIES PROTECTED UNDER THIS BILL MUST BE RACIALLY MOTIVATED TO INCUR THE BILL'S PENALTIES. -- GovTrack.us


Civil Rights Act of 1991 where 96% of Democrats voted for the S 1745 bill while 88% of the Republicans voted for the same bill in the Senate.
S. 1745 (102nd): Civil Rights Act of ... (On Passage of the Bill) -- GovTrack.us

95%of Democrats in the Senate voted for the bill while 77% of Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1991 bill.
S. 1745 (102nd): Civil Rights Act of ... (On Passage of the Bill) -- GovTrack.us


So, indeed, Republicans by far played an historic role in much of the Civil Rights Acts that were passed in Congress since 1866. And not just a "handful."

 

[Foxrac]

Addendum:

Civil Rights Act of 1968 where 68% of Democrats voted for the H.R. 2516 bill while 90% of Republicans voted for the same bill in the Senate.
Y=71 N=20 TO PASS H.R. 2516, A BILL TO PROHIBIT DISCRIMINATION IN SALE OR RENTAL OF HOUSING, AND TO PROHIBIT RACIALLY MOTIVATED INTERFERENCE WITH A PERSON EXERCISING HIS CIVIL RIGHTS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. -- GovTrack.us

House of Representatives with 86% of the votes being Republicans and 71% of the votes being Democrats.
TO PASS H.R. 2516, A BILL TO ESTABLISH PENALTIES FOR INTERFERENCE WITH CIVIL RIGHTS. INTERFERENCE WITH A PERSON ENGAGED IN ONE OF THE 8 ACTIVITIES PROTECTED UNDER THIS BILL MUST BE RACIALLY MOTIVATED TO INCUR THE BILL'S PENALTIES. -- GovTrack.us


Civil Rights Act of 1991 where 96% of Democrats voted for the S 1745 bill while 88% of the Republicans voted for the same bill in the Senate.
S. 1745 (102nd): Civil Rights Act of ... (On Passage of the Bill) -- GovTrack.us

95%of Democrats in the Senate voted for the bill while 77% of Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1991 bill.
S. 1745 (102nd): Civil Rights Act of ... (On Passage of the Bill) -- GovTrack.us


So, indeed, Republicans by far played an historic role in much of the Civil Rights Acts that were passed in Congress since 1866. And not just a "handful."

Incorrect, both of moderate and liberal Democratic Party and Republican Party are far played an historic role of Civil Rights Act.

You need get over about my mistake to call handful, I just misunderstood about definition of "handful".

I feel that your thread is used to provoking against me due to misunderstood definition.

 

[Jiro]

Addendum:

Civil Rights Act of 1968 where 68% of Democrats voted for the H.R. 2516 bill while 90% of Republicans voted for the same bill in the Senate.
Y=71 N=20 TO PASS H.R. 2516, A BILL TO PROHIBIT DISCRIMINATION IN SALE OR RENTAL OF HOUSING, AND TO PROHIBIT RACIALLY MOTIVATED INTERFERENCE WITH A PERSON EXERCISING HIS CIVIL RIGHTS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. -- GovTrack.us

House of Representatives with 86% of the votes being Republicans and 71% of the votes being Democrats.
TO PASS H.R. 2516, A BILL TO ESTABLISH PENALTIES FOR INTERFERENCE WITH CIVIL RIGHTS. INTERFERENCE WITH A PERSON ENGAGED IN ONE OF THE 8 ACTIVITIES PROTECTED UNDER THIS BILL MUST BE RACIALLY MOTIVATED TO INCUR THE BILL'S PENALTIES. -- GovTrack.us


Civil Rights Act of 1991 where 96% of Democrats voted for the S 1745 bill while 88% of the Republicans voted for the same bill in the Senate.
S. 1745 (102nd): Civil Rights Act of ... (On Passage of the Bill) -- GovTrack.us

95%of Democrats in the Senate voted for the bill while 77% of Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1991 bill.
S. 1745 (102nd): Civil Rights Act of ... (On Passage of the Bill) -- GovTrack.us


So, indeed, Republicans by far played an historic role in much of the Civil Rights Acts that were passed in Congress since 1866. And not just a "handful."

for proving my point

 

[Jiro]

What LBJ could teach Washington today – Global Public Square - CNN.com Blogs

Historian Robert Caro has spent almost 40 years studying and writing about President Lyndon B. Johnson. The result of that toil, in addition to two Pulitzer prizes, is about 3,388 pages so far on Johnson's life.

The fourth volume, "Passage of Power," has just published.

In the web exclusive video above, Caro talks about why Johnson could get things done in Washington and gives an example of what he calls Johnson's legislative genius in action.

On Sunday's GPS show interview, Caro said Johnson could offer today's politicians - and president - lessons on wielding power. Below is an excerpt of that interview. (Watch the entire interview on Sunday's GPS episode on iTunes)

ZAKARIA: Contrast the style of Lyndon Johnson with this enormous legislative accomplishment [the Civil Rights Act], with the style of Barack Obama, as you have seen him.

CARO: Well, I know I'm supposed to say that there's this great contrast and Obama hasn't done enough, but I feel Obama was faced with some real problems that we hardly remember anymore: the extent of the financial crisis. I happen to think he has made great strides.

You know, people find a lot wrong with health care legislation, Fareed, as do I, the bill that's passed. But I keep remembering something that Lyndon Johnson said. Once we pass it, we can always go back and amend it. And I feel it was an accomplishment to get a health care bill.

ZAKARIA: But what about the issue that people raise about just the style of it - which is, he delegated too much of the stimulus or even health care to Congress. Do you think he should have been more active? Or, the alternative view is, look, the Republicans are very strong. The important thing is to get something done. Would Johnson have taken a more activist role?

CARO: You can answer that definitely. Johnson would have been on the phone every minute with the leaders of Congress. I mean, to watch him work on peopl ... Everybody says Johnson was always talking. Not so. You listen to him on with - when he wants somebody - when he wants something from somebody - he will let the senator talk and he will let the senator talk, and all you hear from Johnson sometimes is uh-huh, uh-huh. Until he hears what he wants to hear. What's the lever he can push with this guy? What does he want? And then Johnson starts speaking.

You know, in this book Kennedy has a tax cut bill. It's snarled in the finance committee. Someone calls him at, like, 12:00 exactly and say they've just broken for lunch, and we're three votes short. We're not going to get the bill through. Johnson says who are they? And the guy names the three senators. Johnson says to his secretary, get them on the phone for me one after the other.

One is Abe Ribicoff. He says you know, Abe, I put you on whatever committee he put you on. He says I want you to help me.

Ribicoff says, well, I have already persuaded my constituents. I'll lose face. Lyndon Johnson says to him, you save my face today, I'll save your face tomorrow. And Ribicoff knows that Johnson is a bad man to cross, but a good man to have on your side.

One of the other senators wants something, has to do with a mineral bill. Johnson says he will give it to him.

In 14 minutes if I have that right, the exact time is in my book, he has turned these three senators around. So if you want to know a contrast in style, Lyndon Johnson was a contrast with everyone else. He was the greatest legislator certainly since Roosevelt and perhaps even including Roosevelt. He was a legislative genius.

It seems impossible to pass a voting rights act in 1965. He does it vote by vote. And it's almost - you know, if you care about - my books are really about political power. If you care about political power, you say there never was a man with a talent - a talent that is beyond a talent - a gift that's beyond a gift. There never was anyone who could do this like Johnson.

interesting