…even though it was once used to delay and defeat civil rights legislation:
“For decades, the NAACP was vehemently against filibusters because they were employed to oppose and counter civil rights legislation. But the NAACP has now switched position,” notes Project 21 member Michael King. “NAACP head Julian Bond has aggressively made verbal attacks on the Bush Administration. Though Bond and the NAACP leadership vociferously deny charges of partisanship, Bond’s actions and the silence of the membership implies that partisanship is the order of the day. By virtue of its actions, the NAACP has forfeited any opportunity to provide a reasonable voice to this discussion.”[...]
Between the 1930s and 1960s, the NAACP was outspoken against filibusters. For example, anti-lynching legislation was never enacted despite three popular bills because of filibusters. The NAACP’s fair employment proposal suffered a similar fate. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was unsuccessfully filibustered.
“While the NAACP has filled its coffers and built a reputation fighting the presentation of the Confederate Battle Flag, they are now celebrating a tactic used by former Confederates and segregationists to impede the fight for civil rights,” said Project 21 member Kevin Martin. “The black community should be alarmed that the NAACP now supports the same filibuster that kept lynchings legal.” (Source)
The irony is almost painful. But hey, times change, people change. It would be interesting to know why and at what point the NAACP switched positions on the filibuster.
On a side note, Basic Readings in U.S. Democracy is a good resource.
