Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Casual Slander at TCM


Rafiki
 Share

Recommended Posts

Ben Mankiewicz said of Asa Earl Carter, author of Rebel Outlaw: Josey Wales, "He ran to the right of George Wallace, and that's hard to do."

Carter and Wallace competed in the Democrat primary for the Governorship of Alabama.  The **** and the politicians who opposed civil rights were Democrats.  Asa Carter, George Wallace, and Robert Byrd, Exalted Cyclops of the **** and longest serving Senator in US history, were all men of the left.  Racial demagoguery in the Carter-Wallace political contest was between left and farther left.  That is a fact, plain and simple.

So, you see, it was not at all hard to get to the right of George Wallace; all one had to do was not be a rabid racist.

It's like saying Douglas ran to the right of Lincoln.

It's like saying Malcom X was to the right of Martin Luther King.

It's like saying Hitler... oh you get the point.

To imply that Wallace's positions were positions of the right, and then say that Carter was even further right is pure slander.   

It's possible that Ben is merely ignorant of the facts.  I hope so, and I hope this helps. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rafiki said:

Ben Mankiewicz said of Asa Earl Carter, author of Rebel Outlaw: Josey Wales, "He ran to the right of George Wallace, and that's hard to do."

Carter and Wallace competed in the Democrat primary for the Governorship of Alabama.  The **** and the politicians who opposed civil rights were Democrats.  Asa Carter, George Wallace, and Robert Byrd, Exalted Cyclops of the **** and longest serving Senator in US history, were all men of the left.  Racial demagoguery in the Carter-Wallace political contest was between left and farther left.  That is a fact, plain and simple.

So, you see, it was not at all hard to get to the right of George Wallace; all one had to do was not be a rabid racist.

It's like saying Douglas ran to the right of Lincoln.

It's like saying Malcom X was to the right of Martin Luther King.

It's like saying Hitler... oh you get the point.

To imply that Wallace's positions were positions of the right, and then say that Carter was even further right is pure slander.   

It's possible that Ben is merely ignorant of the facts.  I hope so, and I hope this helps. 

While I absolutely agree with your main point here Rafiki, and which I believe to be that this was an unnecessary comment made by Mankiewicz during his wraparound for this movie, I'd also now like to say that I'm getting rather tired of hearing people press the idea and what always seems a "convenient" and selective choice in the representation of historical events when they bring up the thought that it was the Republican Party which opposed slavery and that it was the Democratic Party which supported it.

And the reason why I'm getting rather tired of hearing this being said is because it is THEN never mentioned by those who state this that these two political entities and their respective platforms have become nothing like what they were during the Civil War era and up through the early-to-mid-20th century. And have in fact, and in many cases, have had their respective platforms come to be in effect the reverse of each other's since this time.

Nope, ya see, this would be a case of "taking credit for something of which you had absolutely nothing to do with" sort of thing, if you see what I mean here, and I hope you can.

And now for one more thought here. While I'll admit that I didn't see Mankiewicz's wraparound and so am getting the impression just from your opening line that that was ALL that Mankiewicz said about this subject, I now have to conclude that it was you and NOT Mr. Mankiewicz who decided to ascribed to it the political parties you then mentioned in the  bulk of your posting, 

(...and btw, welcome to the boards here...here's hoping you'll decide to stick around for awhile, as you seem like a bright and articulate individual)

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for your thoughtful reply, but I don't accept your premise.  Wallace was on the left.  Carter positioned himself to the left of Wallace.  This is a plain and simple fact.  There is no debate about that.  Either Ben mispoke, or he knew what he was doing and decided to slander people who didn't earn it and don't deserve it.

Your premise is that left and right don't mean what they used to.  I disagree, but even if I did agree, what Ben did was still wrong.  It is obvious misattribution.  He is explicitly attributing the deeds of one group to the very group who clearly opposed them.  It is the epitome of unfairness.  There was a vigorous opposition to the right of Wallace because of his racial demogoguery by both Republicans AND Democrats.  Carter disagreed with these detractors to Wallace's right in both parties.  He clearly positioned himself to the left of Wallace.  

If Ben wants to give a political lecture, at least he could get his facts right.  To be factually correct he needed to say, "He ran to the left of George Wallace, and that's hard to do."

Or he could just leave the political slanders out of this excellent entertainment venue entirely.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Rafiki said:

If Ben wants to give a political lecture, at least he could get his facts right.  To be factually correct he needed to say, "He ran to the left of George Wallace, and that's hard to do."

Maybe Ben's like the majority of humans who confuse their rights from their lefts? Or, maybe he caught it, but, as we know, editing after the fact is non-existent? Maybe he's just st-oo-oo-pid at times? Many people just let it go, because Ben's standup career correction is faltering.

So many misstatements, mispronunciations have been caught here; they don't usually draw political upheaval.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, putting aside the idea that we ARE in agreement here that Mankiewicz's words were both unnecessary and betray his own political opinions and which is something best left out of TCM's wraparounds for the most part, I've now re-read the following words in your OP...

3 hours ago, Rafiki said:

Carter and Wallace competed in the Democrat primary for the Governorship of Alabama.  The **** and the politicians who opposed civil rights were Democrats.  Asa Carter, George Wallace, and Robert Byrd, Exalted Cyclops of the **** and longest serving Senator in US history, were all men of the left.  Racial demagoguery in the Carter-Wallace political contest was between left and farther left.  That is a fact, plain and simple.

...and have now also read these words of yours in your reply to me here:

1 hour ago, Rafiki said:

Wallace was on the left.  Carter positioned himself to the left of Wallace.

...sorry to say here, but I can not understand how you could suggest that ANYONE who subscribed to the idea of the Jim Crow culture and laws of the South during those times could be called "LEFT" at ALL???

And especially so considering that Asa Earl Carter is credited with CO-writing George Wallace's well-remembered line: "Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever!"

So then was/is your purpose for questioning Mankiewicz's comment in THIS regard (and not in the case of the inappropriate-ness of it)  just to say one of those good ol' southern boys had been placed on the wrong side of each other (politically-speaking) by Mankiewicz with his comment? And/or, that perhaps other than Carter's views on the subject of Segregation, his views on all other issues were more progressive than Wallace's, and thus Carter's political placement said by Mankiewicz of being "to the Right of" in relation to Wallace's was  misrepresented by Mank's comment?

(...'cause dude, that's what I'm gettin' here, anyway!...please enlighten me)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Rafiki said:

If Ben wants to give a political lecture, at least he could get his facts right.  To be factually correct he needed to say, "He ran to the left of George Wallace, and that's hard to do."

Or he could just leave the political slanders out of this excellent entertainment venue entirely.

Ben's comment, while completely bone-headed, doesn't quite reach the "lecture" bar. That's not to say TCM hasn't lectured, they have. Poorly. If 1970's politics cant get an honest shake, imagine how solid their Civil War and Reconstruction era commentary is.

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Long ago I came to the conclusion that as far as Mr. Mankiewicz is concerned,  he just doesn't know that he doesn't know what he's talking about much of the time.  Willful ignorance is the only explanation I can think of for comments that come out of nowhere and are historically inaccurate.   The pity is that he tosses them off as "clever" asides to which he seems to think his audience is nodding their heads in approval.  

Just run the movies.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dargo said:

.sorry to say here, but I can not understand how you could suggest that ANYONE who subscribed to the idea of the Jim Crow culture and laws of the South during those times could be called "LEFT" at ALL???

And especially so considering that Asa Earl Carter is credited with CO-writing George Wallace's well-remembered line: "Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever!"

The confusion here is the use of the terms left and right,  and equating them to the two major politically parties,  Dems and  Republican.

Many people will use the terms to mean one thing in one sentence and than another in the next:   E.g. "were all men of the left" - I assume means; they were members of the Democratic party.     While "it was not at all hard to get to the right of George Wallace"  -   I assume means: that someone was politically more conservative.      (but the OP then makes a partisan political judgement with "all one had to do was not be a rabid racist.",   implying that the "right of George Wallace" doesn't include any rabid racist (which of course just isn't true).

As for Ben's comments:  He ran to the right of George Wallace, and that's hard to do.    I assume Ben was saying that Carter ran his campaign on political positions that were more conservative (more to the right),  than that of Wallace.          I believe I understand the OP's POV that such a statement by Ben is slander against Republicans and conservatives.   I.e.  many on the "left"  (Dems)  were rabid racist,   so one doesn't need to be "to the right" (or a conservative or Republican),   to more of a rabid racist.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, JamesJazGuitar said:

The confusion here is the use of the terms left and right,  and equating them to the two major politically parties,  Dems and  Republican.

Many people will use the terms to mean one thing in one sentence and than another in the next:   E.g. "were all men of the left" - I assume means; they were members of the Democratic party.     While "it was not at all hard to get to the right of George Wallace"  -   I assume means: that someone was politically more conservative.      (but the OP then makes a partisan political judgement with "all one had to do was not be a rabid racist.",   implying that the "right of George Wallace" doesn't include any rabid racist (which of course just isn't true).

As for Ben's comments:  He ran to the right of George Wallace, and that's hard to do.    I assume Ben was saying that Carter ran his campaign on political positions that were more conservative (more to the right),  than that of Wallace.          I believe I understand the OP's POV that such a statement by Ben is slander against Republicans and conservatives.   I.e.  many on the "left"  (Dems)  were rabid racist,   so one doesn't need to be "to the right" (or a conservative or Republican),   to more of a rabid racist.

 

 

Exactly.  Many southern white Democrats up through the Civil Rights era, held what would be viewed today as conflicting political positions: racist opinions on civil rights, but favorable opinions  towards social health and welfare programs. 

These folks were really more non-Republicans than Democrats.  Given the two party system, you gotta choose one or the other.   Most southerners of that era would never choose the party of Lincoln.  Resentment over the war loss and subsequent Reconstruction took a long time to get over, and what got them over the hump was the civil rights movement, Brown v. Board of Education, the Voting Rights Act and other efforts to ensure Black citizens were on a level footing.

Asa Earl Carter was a segregationist, as was Wallace (until he professed not to be, later).  Under most people's definition, that is not a liberal or leftist position.  And it wouldn't have been considered liberal or leftist in the 1960s either.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, JamesJazGuitar said:

I believe I understand the OP's POV that such a statement by Ben is slander against Republicans and conservatives.   I.e.  many on the "left"  (Dems)  were rabid racist,   so one doesn't need to be "to the right" (or a conservative or Republican),   to more of a rabid racist.

 

To me it sounds like Ben's comment was offered up as a take on that old joke: "The guy was such an arch-conservative that he was right of Attila the Hun."

(...and yes, I got the idea that our new member Rafiki here had seemed to be attempting to assign the various political labeling to the two political parties he then mentioned)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, txfilmfan said:

Exactly.  Many southern white Democrats up through the Civil Rights era, held what would be viewed today as conflicting political positions: racist opinions on civil rights, but favorable opinions  towards social health and welfare programs. 

These folks were really more non-Republicans than Democrats.  Given the two party system, you gotta choose one or the other.   Most southerners of that era would never choose the party of Lincoln.  Resentment over the war loss and subsequent Reconstruction took a long time to get over, and what got them over the hump was the civil rights movement, Brown v. Board of Education, the Voting Rights Act and other efforts to ensure Black citizens were on a level footing.

Asa Earl Carter was a segregationist, as was Wallace (until he professed not to be, later).  Under most people's definition, that is not a liberal or leftist position.  And it wouldn't have been considered liberal or leftist in the 1960s either.

EXACTLY, Tex!

(...and all of which having been the point(s) I've attempted to make since the beginning here)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I  didn't  watch  The Outlaw Josey Wales last night. I saw it a while back and went with The Gauntlet  and Magnum Force instead.

A man's got to know his limitations. Carter used  to  work with Wallace but later thought ol' George was getting too liberal, so

Carter was  to  the  right of Wallace, at least on racial issues and  he was also  a much more virulent racist than Wallace. Neither

would be men  of  the left today or  likely back  then  either, though Wallace did have some fairly  liberal economic positions when

he ran for  president in 1968.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Vautrin said:

I saw it a while back and went with The Gauntlet

And one of THE most preposterous films ever made! I mean, c'mon now. A guy can only "suspend their level of disbelief" so far, ya know.

I remember seeing this flick upon its initial release(and yes, admittedly even watched the last part of it last night again...well, there was nothing else on TV that was any good last night at that time, anyway) and it TOTALLY goes off the rails when that armor-reenforced bus is riddled by thousands of cops with a million freakin' bullets during its drive through Phoenix and in hopes to kill Clint and Sondra. And YET, once they get to those courthouse steps and Clint opens the door of that bus and he and Sondea step out, they STOP shooting??? And let ALONE the fact that that bus's tires would have been flattened MILES before they even GOT to those steps. 

Nope, like I said, one of THE most preposterous movies ever made, AND I'm EVEN including all these modern little superhero flicks the kids all like today TOO here!

(...eeh, okay...maybe my bein' hard on this flick might be for another reason, and that being that perhaps I've never fully forgiven Sondra for that one scene in which the stringy-haired little blonde calls the airline I worked for at the time, Air West......"Air WORST"!!!)

LOL

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the original poster was not just trolling: only around 1994 (the Newt Gingrich era) did the Democratic/left and Republican/right associations become firmly fixed. Because Lincoln and the Reconstructionists were Republicans, the South was solidly Democratic, thus the expression the "solid South": solidly Democratic. FDR brought many black Americans into the Democratic party. From at least the 1930s through the 1960s, both parties had liberal and conservative wings. Most Southern white Democrats were segregationists, like Strom Thurmond of South Carolina, who in the 1940s received electoral votes for President as a "Dixiecrat." Nixon's "southern strategy" brought some Democrats into the Republican party, and the trend continued. By and large voters in the South did not change their opinions so much as they changed their party affiliation. Younger people may not know any of this history, and probably are not taught it in school.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ya know, the more I think about this, I think all this can REALLY all be boiled down to this one following old expression:

Two wrongs don't make a right, but three rights make a left."

(...anybody with me here???)

;)

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, King Rat said:

If the original poster was not just trolling: only around 1994 (the Newt Gingrich era) did the Democratic/left and Republican/right associations become firmly fixed. Because Lincoln and the Reconstructionists were Republicans, the South was solidly Democratic, thus the expression the "solid South": solidly Democratic. FDR brought many black Americans into the Democratic party. From at least the 1930s through the 1960s, both parties had liberal and conservative wings. Most Southern white Democrats were segregationists, like Strom Thurmond of South Carolina, who in the 1940s received electoral votes for President as a "Dixiecrat." Nixon's "southern strategy" brought some Democrats into the Republican party, and the trend continued. By and large voters in the South did not change their opinions so much as they changed their party affiliation. Younger people may not know any of this history, and probably are not taught it in school.

I assume the OP understood what you are saying here since they said:   

"To imply that Wallace's positions were positions of the right, and then say that Carter was even further right is pure slander".

Most of the political positions Wallace and Carter held were held by the majority of white southern politicians,  regardless of party.    

So it is Ben that really needs the above history lesson  (but I assume Ben knows the above and was just taking a jab at the CURRENT "right"),  which just isn't a cool or wise thing to do for a TCM host.

   

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, laffite said:

Where does Josey Wales stand with all of this, that's what I would like to know.

Well, anyway, at least it was only casual.

Josey Wales is still playing around  with a chair so he doesn't have the time to think about this matter.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, JamesJazGuitar said:

I assume the OP understood what you are saying here since they said:   

"To imply that Wallace's positions were positions of the right, and then say that Carter was even further right is pure slander".

Most of the political positions Wallace and Carter held were held by the majority of white southern politicians,  regardless of party.    

So it is Ben that really needs the above history lesson  (but I assume Ben knows the above and was just taking a jab at the CURRENT "right"),  which just isn't a cool or wise thing to do for a TCM host.

   

No, it's NOT "Ben who needs the history lesson" here in THIS case James (can't believe I'm now defending Ol' Nasally Voice here), and because AND as far as I can tell from the OP's very own words up there and IN the very first line of his OP,  that it was NOT Ben who THEN would go on and in some way attempt to connect his comment with the two political parties, but is instead has been AND from the very first of this thread's existence, the OP of this thread who did this, not BEN!

(...and once again, THIS being IF the OP of this thread hasn't somehow failed to tell us ALL of what Ol' Nasally Voice actually said...get IT?!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is nice to see that we can all discuss this without rancor.


I stand by my original position:  Ben casually slandered people who did nothing to deserve it.  Not then, and not now.  It is easy to do, because people just let this kind of thing go.
Ben's message was crystal clear:  George Wallace was a racist demagogue; therefore, he was on the political right.  Asa Carter felt that he was not enough of a racist demagogue; therefore he was to the right of George Wallace.


These are false statements now, and they would have been false statements then.  It is pure slander.

 

It is not a position of the political right to be a racist demagogue.  It was not a position of the political right to be a racist demagogue when George Wallace was a popular Democrat and MLK was an unpopular Republican.  As pointed out above, the Southern Democrats hated the right because of Lincoln - the first Republican.  The political right today still embraces Lincoln and MLK and everything they stood for.  They are not switch hitters.  The right is right where it always was from the beginning.  It is the left that keeps moving its target.  


Just because the political left today wants to see their opponents as racist demgogues does not make it true.  What is true, however, is that George Wallace was a man of the left in his time, and Asa Carter staked out a political position to the left of him... which was hard to do.

 

I get it.  You don't want Wallace, but neither do we.  He's yours, always was, always will be.  Own him.
 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Dargo said:

No, it's NOT "Ben who needs the history lesson" here in THIS case James (can't believe I'm now defending Ol' Nasally Voice here), and because AND as far as I can tell from the OP's very own words up there and IN the very first line of his OP,  that it was NOT Ben who THEN would go on and in some way attempt to connect his comment with the two political parties, but is instead has been AND from the very first of this thread's existence, the OP of this thread who did this, not BEN!

(...and once again, THIS being IF the OP of this thread hasn't somehow failed to tell us ALL of what Ol' Nasally Voice actually said...get IT?!)

Why didn't you ALSO highlight this part:  but I assume Ben knows the above. 

 In other words I was saying that Ben did NOT need a history lesson,   but just said something that sounded uninformed because the goal of his joke was to take a jab at the CURRENT "right"  (GOP,  or conservative political positions on race).       

Anyhow the OP has replied.     

  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, JamesJazGuitar said:

Why didn't you ALSO highlight this part:  but I assume Ben knows the above. 

Valid point. 

12 minutes ago, JamesJazGuitar said:

 In other words I was saying that Ben did NOT need a history lesson,   but just said something that sounded uninformed because the goal of his joke was to take a jab at the CURRENT "right"  (GOP,  or conservative political positions on race). 

Actually, I don't think his comment seemed "uninformed", but yes, I agree with you that it being (and as I think most of us here have agreed upon here) unnecessary to and for the performance of his job as a TCM host. And yes, could be considered a "jab" by those who might be inclined to see it as such, especially.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

© 2022 Turner Classic Movies Inc. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...