Joe Biden’s White Privilege

The Democratic frontrunner is nostalgic for a world his opponents could never be a part of.

Joe Biden

Michael Brochstein/ZUMA

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

On Tuesday night, former Vice President Joe Biden told a room full of wealthy New York donors about the good old days. When he first arrived in the Senate in the 1970s, Biden recalled, he joined a Democratic caucus that included staunch segregationists, such as Herman Talmadge of Georgia and James Eastland of Mississippi.

“He never called me boy, he always called me son,” Biden said of Eastland, before describing Talmadge as “one of the meanest guys I ever knew.”

“At least there was some civility,” he continued. “We got things done. We didnā€™t agree on much of anything. We got things done. We got it finished. But today, you look at the other side and youā€™re the enemy. Not the opposition, the enemy. We don’t talk to each other anymore.ā€

Biden has offered variations on this lesson many times. He eulogized segregationist Strom Thurmond at the South Carolina senatorā€™s 2003 funeral. He wrote of his courtship of Eastland and fellow Mississippian John Stennis in his 2007 memoir, Promises to Keep. At a 2017 Alabama rally in support of now-Sen. Doug Jones, Biden described his past relationship with “seven or eight old-fashioned Democratic segregationists”ā€”including Eastlandā€”as evidence of a collegiality that was now sorely missed. “Youā€™d get up and youā€™d argue like the devil with them,” he said. “Then youā€™d go down and have lunch or dinner together. The political system worked. We were divided on issues, but the political system worked.”

In the past, when Biden has gotten in trouble for statements he has made, they have tended to be categorized as ā€œgaffes.ā€ But when it comes to the segregationists of his early years, Biden has repeated himself so often that there should be little ambiguity about whether he is, in fact, saying what he means. His words come from the very soul of his political identity. He believes that finding common ground with the Eastlands of the world, even when you disagree on Serious Things, is what politics is all about.

His rivals are starting to notice. New York City mayor Bill de Blasio, a longshot Democratic presidential candidate, landed one of the first punches against Biden. Eastland, de Blasio wrote in a Tweet on Wednesday, ā€œthought my multiracial family should be illegal”:

New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker followed up with a statement demanding Biden apologize:

There’s a dispute about whether Eastland ever actually said the words quoted in de Blasio’s tweet, but Eastland’s career was the embodiment of a white supremacy enforced through violence. He intimated that civil rights workers murdered in Philadelphia, Mississippi, were faking their deaths for publicity; argued that Brown v. Board of Educationā€”the landmark Supreme Court case outlawing school segregationā€”was a monstrosity; and said that interracial marriage would diminish the “purity” of the “Caucasian bloodstream” that made America great.

That Biden was able to work with Eastland speaks, perhaps, to a certain aptitude at legislative negotiations on his part. But mostly it’s a product of what “we” meant in the context of the United States Senate in 1973. Eastland called him ā€œsonā€ and not ā€œboyā€ because Biden was white, and for that same reason, they were able to put aside their differences and work together to fight, well, the desegregation of public schools via mandatory busing. As Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) said Wednesday, working civilly with Eastland was a privilege reserved for white men. 

On Wednesday, Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.), the House majority whip and the highest-ranking African American member of Congress, came to Biden’s defense:

Clyburn, a few days ahead of his marquee Fish Fry in Columbia, which Biden will attend, was being generous to the former vice president. Because what Biden was saying wasn’t just that he could work with the likes of Eastland in spite it all. He was saying that in some curious way, politics worked better back thenā€”at a time when segregationists controlled committees and a total of zero senators were women. He was expressing a nostalgia for a world many of his fellow candidates could never be a part of. They’re not likely to let him forget it.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate