Being a homosexual in America in 1964 was not easy, and one of the more difficult places to be one was Washington, D.C. While the nation's capital has long since become the setting for some of the most important gay rights battles (and home to a vibrant gay scene), it was also the site of routine antigay witch hunts. At the time, gays were officially barred from working in government and their livelihood depended on the secreting of their sexuality. Indeed, the mere suspicion of homosexuality could get a person fired, and the consequences of losing one's job due to what was then known as a "morals charge" were long-lasting.
It's in this context that recent revelations about Bill Moyers are so disturbing. Before he became the self-righteous scold of the liberal television commentariat, Moyers served as a special assistant to Democratic president Lyndon Johnson. This was at the height of J. Edgar Hoover's reign over the Federal Bureau of Investigation, during which time the FBI director spied on a vast array of public and private citizens in order to gather information for potential blackmail.
According to documents obtained last week by The Washington Post through a Freedom of Information Act request, one of these individuals was former Johnson aide Jack Valenti, later head of the Motion Picture Association of America. Hoover, according to the Post, was "consumed" by the question of whether Valenti was gay, and deployed his agents to investigate the man's sex life.
They turned up nothing.
Valenti, however, was not the only White House official to be investigated by the FBI for suspected homosexuality. In late 1964, just weeks before the presidential election, senior White House adviser Walter Jenkins was arrested in a YMCA men's room for performing oral sex on another man. Under extreme mental duress, Jenkins checked into a hospital and resigned his position. Moyers wasted no time in trying to discover how much more potential trouble the Johnson administration might have with gays in its midst, and went out of his way to ask Hoover's FBI to investigate two other administration officials "suspected as having homosexual tendencies," according to the recently released documents.
In an e-mail response to an article written by Slate's Jack Shafer, Moyers complains about Hoover, but does not bother to address the matter of his ordering the FBI to snoop on his colleagues.
These revelations once again remind us that empathy for the dignity of gay people does not always fall along partisan political lines. Whereas Barry Goldwater, one of the crucial figures in the birth of the conservative movement, could have easily exploited the Jenkins scandal in the presidential campaign, he refused to discuss it. In his memoir Goldwater wrote, "It was a sad time for Jenkins and his family. Winning isn't everything. Some things, like loyalty to friends, or lasting principle, are more important."
Goldwater, today remembered by most liberals as a fire-breathing Neanderthal, later became an outspoken opponent of the ban on gays in the military.
Contrast Goldwater's behavior to that of Moyers, who abused his power in office to hunt down and expose the gays in his midst. (Here it should be noted that rooting out gays in government wasn't the only dirty task Moyers conducted while working in the Johnson White House. He also oversaw the FBI's wiretapping of Martin Luther King and successfully prevented the civil rights activist from challenging Mississippi's all-white delegation to the Democratic National Convention in 1964. "You know you have only to call on us when a similar situation arises," he encouraged the FBI agent in charge of the domestic espionage.)
To be sure, Moyers's behavior at the time took place within a social milieu far more repressive than today's. It wasn't until 1973, after all, that the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its list of disorders. Gays were banned from working in the federal civil service until 1975. And gays were barred from having security clearances, amazingly, until 1995. That Moyers engaged in Nixonian dirty tricks with the aim of embarrassing and ruining the careers of gay people, while despicable, was something that many officials in his position probably would have done, given the mores of the era.
But what makes Moyers's contemptible behavior relevant is that even to this day he has yet to acknowledge wrongdoing, never mind apologize. That Moyers has since become a supporter of gay rights is irrelevant. None of that erases the fact that he used his power as a senior White House official to pry into the private lives of his own colleagues.
Today, he has the gall to excoriate other public figures and lecture the rest of us on virtue. After leaving government, Moyers became a journalist and subsequently produced PBS documentaries excoriating Richard Nixon over Watergate and Ronald Reagan over Iran-Contra. In the early 1990s, his star was so high and his reputation so pristine that he publicly considered running for president. His sanctimony rivals that of the pope.
Given his own history of snooping into the private lives of American citizens with the intent to publicly humiliate them, Moyers's latter-day sermonizing on the evils of the Bush administration and conservatives in general rings more than a little hollow. And the fact that he has been getting rich off the public trough for decades - earning millions of dollars in production deals from his documentaries and television programs aired on Public Broadcasting - makes a full explanation of his activities in government service all the more necessary.
Moyers didn't just seek dirt on his own colleagues but his political enemies as well. In 1975, then-deputy attorney general Laurence Silberman was tasked with the job of reviewing a raft of secret files once belonging to J. Edgar Hoover. Amid "nasty bits of information on various political figures," Silberman found a letter drafted by Moyers requesting an FBI investigation of suspected gays on Goldwater's campaign staff. When the press reported on this document, Silberman received an angry phone call from Moyers, who alleged that the report was a CIA forgery. When Silberman offered to conduct an investigation so as to exonerate Moyers, the former presidential aide demurred. "I was very young," Moyers confessed to Silberman. "How will I explain this to my children?"
It's a good question. And one that we're still waiting for Bill Moyers to answer.
30 Comments for “Bill Moyers, Gay-Baiter”
posted by Bobby on
The fact that Moyers took the initiative to actually tell Hoover to investigate gays says a lot about him. Moyers owes the gay community an apology, if Haggard can apologize, so can Moyers.
posted by bls on
I find Bill Moyers tedious and tiresome, too – and yes, he should apologize – but once again: do you not see how bizarre it is that “Independent” Gay Forum spends most of its time bashing Democrats? This incident being almost 50 years ago?
I’m glad somebody’s exposed the old windbag at last – and believe me, I don’t doubt any of it; this is exactly what ideologues are all about – but really: find something “Independent” to talk about sometime, won’t you?
posted by Bob in DC on
It was a dark and ugly time for gays. But it is 45 years later. It is okay to let somethings fade into history. While he may not have apologized, he has atoned. And like much of the country, he has moved forward. Let’s not get mired in the past and beat up on our friends for their past moral failings. We have a lot more to do, and can use his help.
posted by Bobby on
“It is okay to let somethings fade into history.”
—What was the name of the white republican who sleep with a black woman and had an illegitimate son with her? Helms?
Yes, I guess when it’s a democrat that gets in trouble, we can just let those things fade into history. Sound like something Rachael Maddow might enjoy… historical revisionism. Perfect.
posted by BJ Murphy on
Moyers was sadly a product of his times. I’m sure he sees the error of his ways.
posted by Bobby on
“Moyers was sadly a product of his times. I’m sure he sees the error of his ways.”
—You don’t want an apology? An explanation? Where’s the outrage? Where’s the anger? Where’s the self-respect?
Moyers was not a product of his times, not every government official was obsesed with the pink scare, even Hoover wasn’t that interested. Who knows how many people Moyers ruined, and now we’re supposed to not even expect an apology?
I’m glad the O’reilly Factor covered the story, I’m glad Bernie Goldberg exposed what a hypocrite Moyers is. He should be fired from PBS, just like that reporter got fired a few days ago for an insensitive remark about a black man’s purple testicles or something like that.
posted by Pat on
What was the name of the white republican who sleep with a black woman and had an illegitimate son with her? Helms?
Bobby, I think it was Thurmond. The bad part was the woman was 15 when she became pregnant, while Thurmond was about 21.
As for Moyers, sure it happened a long time ago. But the statute of limitations doesn’t prevent someone from apologizing for being an absolute, bigoted @$$hole 45 years ago.
posted by Bobby on
Thanks Pat, my point was that Thurmond was demonized for his past while Moyers is getting a pass.
posted by tristram on
Gotta luv u guys at IGF. The hell with marriage equality, everybody has a plan to drink some brand of near-beer and pretend he’s high and happy. Then your great hope, Michael Steele, makes it clear where he wants his Grand Old Party to stand on civil unions, and not a peep here from anyone. But you’re all in a lather about what a now gay-friendly tv commentator did 40-some years ago working for a Democratic president who carried his beagles around by their ears. Why not get really relevant and call PETA while you’re at it?
posted by Bobby on
Tristram, you’re a great example of how liberals protect their own no matter what.
If 40 years from now Michael Steele comes to support gay rights, his statements against civil unions will come back to haunt him.
The issue here is hypocrisy, don’t tell me you support gays when 40 years ago you where persecuting them. I guess progressives are comfortable with hypocrites in their ranks.
posted by Carl on
“If 40 years from now Michael Steele comes to support gay rights, his statements against civil unions will come back to haunt him. ”
Steele had made comments about how inclusive he wanted the GOP to be, specifically including gays, and won his election because of support from moderate Republicans. Then he goes on TV and does not just oppose civil unions, but does so in a very strident, arrogant manner.
Given how much time this site spends criticizing those on the left who say one thing and do another for gay rights, I do wonder when we’re going to hear a peep about Steele.
posted by Bobby on
“Given how much time this site spends criticizing those on the left who say one thing and do another for gay rights, I do wonder when we’re going to hear a peep about Steele.”
—Perhaps you’re right, but since every other gay website only criticizes the right, IGF provides a much needed service.
posted by Clay on
Tristram and Carl are correct above.
This story is obvious. Walter Jenkins was a close LBJ aide, basically Chief of Staff. His arrest and resignation on the eve of the election were obviously a problem for the LBJ campaign. It seems self-evident that Moyers contacted the FBI as part of an effort to head off any other potential gay scandals. Pure, standard campaign politics, for better or for worse. This is a footnote, not a scandal. I don’t personally give a damn what Bill Moyers thought or thinks on this or any other subject. There are far more newsworthy issues this forum could be dealing with. We already have FOX News to manufacture scandals. I read IGF, with less and less satisfaction, for a non-partisan, substantive analysis and information. This site is getting steadily more propagandistic and polemical. Aim higher, boys, aim higher.
posted by Jorge on
I’m glad somebody’s exposed the old windbag at last – and believe me, I don’t doubt any of it; this is exactly what ideologues are all about – but really: find something “Independent” to talk about sometime, won’t you?
A gay story comes about with more than a few hints of politics about it, and you expect it to be ignored on a site titled the Independent Gay Forum. Get real.
I think this article provided some good context for the time in which this incident happened and, therefore, a foundation for giving Moyers with the benefit of the doubt. At the same time it didn’t excuse Moyers’ behavior.
At the very least I’d call that moderate.
posted by tristram on
Bobby –
You said – “If 40 years from now Michael Steele comes to support gay rights, his statements against civil unions will come back to haunt him. The issue here is hypocrisy, don’t tell me you support gays when 40 years ago you where persecuting them.” – I had the impression from a lot of your previous posts that you thought one of the reasons gays should behave more responsibly/conservatively was to change people’s attitudes toward us. Now changing only makes someone a “hypocrite.” If a person gets to the right place on an issue, I’m inclined to give him credit for changing (even if it takes a while). Given the time and place he comes from, Moyers has done a whole lot better on gay issues than Steele. And when I hear Steele at CPAC saying he’ll go into “every corner, community center and church” to get blacks to vote Republican, I know it’s not the economic issue he’s planning on using to do his persuading.
posted by Jorge on
If a person gets to the right place on an issue, I’m inclined to give him credit for changing (even if it takes a while). Given the time and place he comes from, Moyers has done a whole lot better on gay issues than Steele. And when I hear Steele at CPAC saying he’ll go into “every corner, community center and church” to get blacks to vote Republican, I know it’s not the economic issue he’s planning on using to do his persuading.
Hmm, I wonder if Bobby is going to say something like Barak Obama benefited from his race in the 2008 election?
I hardly think Steele can be the only Republican in the country to notice that the Republican party’s performance among blacks is just God-awful. Nor is he the only black Republican in the country with national name recognition. He just happens to be the second.
Since Steele (like most politicians) thinks he’s actually right, it’s not surprising if he’s going to try to use himself as a political weapon to draw blacks into the Republican party. There’s just no guarentee he’ll do any better than Alan Keyes.
The difference as I see it between Michael Steele and the accounts I’ve heard of Bill Moyers is that Steele has more humility. Supposedly Moyers is just a mean, nasty person who deserves whatever bad break he gets, and who’s going to earn even more bad breaks for not even acknowledging the contradictions inherant in his life. After all, he has a poor reputation for acknowledging life’s inherant contradictions which naturally lead people to support different political positions than he does.
posted by tristram on
Jorge – I guess it needs spelling out: The difference is that Moyers is a talking head who speaks to a minuscule audience on PBS, and Steele is the “new face of the Republican Party” and the willing tool it has appointed in order to attract voters of color by playing up their perceived Bible-based homophobia so they will base their votes on social rather than economic issues and so help the GOP regain the ascendancy it enjoyed at the federal level for most of the past 30 years.
posted by SStock on
My problem with Moyers lies not just in his 60s era homophobia, but his overall and extreme sanctimony. Here’s a guy whose public service and some of his current activity include most of the many things he condemns today. His shows and quests are dependably one sided and his funding comes from a host of special interest foundations that have axes to grind and include significantly one run by his son. I don’t believe in the fairness doctrine, but if it were reinstated surely PBS would have to counter Moyers with some conservative and moderate voices — they should do that even without the finance doctrine since all taxpayers chip in to enable him to sound off. In the meantime, the least he could do is offer a personal disclaimer on each show where he participated in the type of things he finds so evil today. He would demand no less of others.
posted by Infovoyeur on
“Justice, if she arrives, when she does and just-because. Not (often-enough) when she should arrive and because she should. And she remains–as long as she does, not necessarily as long as she should.”
That preachy little comment only means, I am sardonic about unawareness that we dance to the tunes of the puppetmaster of the Norms, Mores, Folkways. A generation ago the response to the Gay Thing was like silence; nervous laughter; or tell a fxg joke. Now, at my college, “Safe Space” signs sprout on offices friendly to gays/lesbians. Do these faculty think they are being brave, progressive, forward, etc.? Ah but they are just dancing to the tunes of their current reference-group. If this posting of signs is good, why didn’t it happen a generation ago? Hmmmm… Justice arrives if and when she does, not [as stated above]…
posted by Jorge on
Jorge – I guess it needs spelling out: The difference is that Moyers is a talking head who speaks to a minuscule audience on PBS, and Steele is the “new face of the Republican Party” and the willing tool it has appointed in order to attract voters of color by playing up their perceived Bible-based homophobia so they will base their votes on social rather than economic issues and so help the GOP regain the ascendancy it enjoyed at the federal level for most of the past 30 years.
No.
You are projecting your assumption that the only good reason to vote Republican is if you’re a bible-toting bigot onto the Republicans, as if they actually believed it themselves.
But the scenario you lay out begs the question of why not select Alan Keyes to do that, an actual Bible-toting homophobe. I’ve been paying attention to Steele for a while, and whatever method he plans to use to attract black voters to the Republican party, harping on social conservatism seems a stretch. As far as I know, the only statement he even made about gay marriage was in response to a question. I think it’s more likely he will attempt to sway blacks away from their economic ideology (not going to happen anytime soon). I have no idea what his actual platform is aside from Obama’s economic policies being disastrous.
posted by Bobby on
“I hardly think Steele can be the only Republican in the country to notice that the Republican party’s performance among blacks is just God-awful.”
—That’s because many blacks embrace a radical ideology where white people are evil, black people are good, and thus the white government must compensate black people in the form of slavery reparations, affirmative action, and black race based government apointees.
The republican party believes in equal opportunity, not equality of results. We don’t buy into that white guilt bullshit, it is one thing to free a slave it’s something else to pay for his college education.
Steel may not be perfect but at least he’s a Patriot. Compare him to Eric Holder, who recently refered to America as a nation of cowards.
So from a progressive point of view, I guess calling some basketball players “nappy-headed ho’s” is controversial but calling all Americans a nation of cowards is not.
If having principles means most ultra-liberal blacks don’t want to vote for us, so be it. We’re not gonna become democratic-lite to appeal to people that hate their country. We don’t need Americanphobes like Malcom X and his Nation of Islam.
posted by Jorge on
That’s because many blacks embrace a radical ideology where white people are evil, black people are good, and thus the white government must compensate black people in the form of slavery reparations, affirmative action, and black race based government apointees.
…
If having principles means most ultra-liberal blacks don’t want to vote for us, so be it.
That makes no sense. There are radicals among gays, and there are radicals among hispanics. Republicans do much better among both groups than among blacks. Radicalism cannot explain why 80+% of African Americans vote Democratic.
posted by tristram on
Jorge said: “But the scenario you lay out begs the question of why not select Alan Keyes to do that, an actual Bible-toting homophobe.” Maybe because the GOP was trying to claim they’re doing something new, while Keyes is widely regarded as a thrice-warmed-over bad joke? Or maybe just because there were six candidates for the post, and Keyes was not one of them?
“I’ve been paying attention to Steele for a while, and whatever method he plans to use to attract black voters to the Republican party, harping on social conservatism seems a stretch. As far as I know, the only statement he even made about gay marriage was in response to a question.” How long have you been listening to Steele since he started drawing his paycheck from the RNC? And did you hear or read his full response to the questions about civil unions? What was it that he said or didn’t say in his response that gives you any comfort that he’s not using us for bait? Okay, he didn’t say ‘Since you ask that, not only do I consider any conceivable legitimization of same-sex unions anathema, I support the Texas GOP platform position favoring repeal of ‘Lawrence’ so we can start tossing the buggers in jail again.’ But he sure did not say anything like, ‘That’s a complex issue that might best be handled at the state level.’ Or any of a half-dozen other plausible (but non-fundamentalist) conservative responses. It sounded to me like he jumped on that question to push an position he was primed to push.
Bobby said: “Steel may not be perfect but at least he’s a Patriot. Compare him to Eric Holder, who recently refered to America as a nation of cowards.”
Spelling problems aside, this deceptive truncation of what Holder said is possibly a new low even for Bobby.
posted by Jorge on
Maybe because the GOP was trying to claim they’re doing something new, while Keyes is widely regarded as a thrice-warmed-over bad joke? Or maybe just because there were six candidates for the post, and Keyes was not one of them?
Maybe? Maybe not. Use a moderate to persuade bigots to vote Republican because bigots aren’t credible? You’re trying to have it both ways. Much more sensible is to interpret Steele as an attempt to use a moderate to persuade moderates to vote Republican.
But he sure did not say anything like, ‘That’s a complex issue that might best be handled at the state level.’ Or any of a half-dozen other plausible (but non-fundamentalist) conservative responses. It sounded to me like he jumped on that question to push an position he was primed to push.
First of all Steele’s response is both conservative and non-fundamentalist. Nowhere does he cite religion as a motivation. He cites tradition, which is a conservative idea as much as federalism and enforcing moral/social standards are. These approaches all have their strengths and weaknesses.
Michael Steele is “primed” on just about every issue that crosses his path. (Sometimes a little too much, judging from that Rush Limbaugh story.) The fact that he will vote yea or nay when asked directly definitely narrows down some questions about him. But maybe he’s playing defense rather than offense on the gay marriage question. Maybe the tradeoff for playing defense and holding the GOP platform on gay marriage is an offensive to make inroads using ideas and issues that have nothing to do with gays.
posted by Bobby on
“That makes no sense. There are radicals among gays, and there are radicals among hispanics. Republicans do much better among both groups than among blacks. Radicalism cannot explain why 80+% of African Americans vote Democratic.”
—Radical gays and hispanics don’t vote republican. I don’t know what’s up with African-Americans, they seem to forget that the democratic party used to be the party of segregation, slavery and Jim Crow. They forget that it was Abraham Lincoln (who has NOTHING in common with Obama) that liberated their ancestors. I’m sure Martin Luther King, Jr. would have voted republican.
I think what the problem is that black leaders have brainwashed most blacks into believing this victim mentality, that without government help, affirmative action, slavery reparations or apologies, and Black History Month they can’t triumph in this country. The democratic party embodies that sentiment and so democrats get most of their votes.
“Spelling problems aside, this deceptive truncation of what Holder said is possibly a new low even for Bobby.”
—Tristam, instead of criticizing me, go ahead and defend Holder. Prove to me that he’s a patriot. Frankly, I don’t think it’s very patriotic to call America a “nation of cowards.” I don’t know what is it with liberal blacks that achieve positions of great power and then turn against the country that allows them to get there. What’s next? Obama calling America a nation of bigots?
The GOP has no use for America’s race fetish. Blacks who think for themselves without injecting race into every issue are welcomed in the party, race-based fanatics are not needed. The same goes for gays and other minorities.
posted by Clay on
More than a week since Michael Steele publicly and cavalierly dismissed any recognition of the rights of gay families, and still nothing on IGF while this 45-year old Moyers bullsh*t story goes on and on, now enveloping Eric Holder, radical Hispanics, and every other bloody pet bugaboo that can be dragged into it. This is ridiculous now.
posted by Jorge on
I think what the problem is that black leaders have brainwashed most blacks into believing this victim mentality, that without government help, affirmative action, slavery reparations or apologies, and Black History Month they can’t triumph in this country. The democratic party embodies that sentiment and so democrats get most of their votes.
Possibly. I think the Republican party is just exceptionaly clumsy in African American relations.
posted by Bobby on
“Possibly. I think the Republican party is just exceptionaly clumsy in African American relations.”
—Well, so is the NRA. If I was the NRA, I would be putting advertising in Ebony reminding blacks about the racist history of gun control, how even free former slaves were denied their second amendment rights before the civil war, and sometimes even after. Unfortunately, conservatives don’t play the minority game well, they make broad appeals. They talk about freedom for everyone, not just freedom for group A or group B.
Frankly, other than the entitlements, I don’t know what the democratic party has done for the blacks. You ever notice how white democrats are always concerned about there being too many blacks in prison? These people are insane, people in prison are usually guilty, they didn’t get arrested for chewing gum, they are threats to their communities, they belong in prison. Yet liberal activists would rather give them parole so they can return to the ghetto to rape, rob and kill. There is a reason some black people vote republican, those black people can obviously see that voting democratic puts their communities in danger.
posted by Jorge on
Unfortunately, conservatives don’t play the minority game well, they make broad appeals. They talk about freedom for everyone, not just freedom for group A or group B.
By definition that’s not a game conservatives play, and it’s also a game that white people are not allowed to play.
The problem Republicans (not conservatives) have is that they frequently make patronizing or insulting statements about African Americans in such a context that it is difficult not to conclude they really are racist. The second half of your post, of course, would only truly offend the radicals, but it would turn off the moderates as well.
The other problem is that they simply are not sensitive to the issues that matter most to or impact blacks and they do not spend any time addressing them. They have allowed themselves to be painted into the corner of acting, perhaps even believing, as if Democrats really are the only party that can put the interests and desires of blacks into action. Too often the implication that comes out is that everything blacks want, they’re wrong for wanting it.
What I believe Republicans need to do is, without racial fanfare, craft and advocate conservative policies that have a dispropotionate benefit to African Americans. Bush did this in Texas. It is mandatory for them to understand that there are inequalities in the current standing and condition of people of different races. If their explanation for this problem is a conservative explanation, then they need to advocate a conservative solution.
posted by Bobby on
“By definition that’s not a game conservatives play, and it’s also a game that white people are not allowed to play.”
—Not true. Conservatives are all about freedom, whether it’s guns, taxes, business regulation, less government interference (except in cases of preventing terrorism), homeschooling your kids, etc, conservatives love freedom.
“The problem Republicans (not conservatives) have is that they frequently make patronizing or insulting statements about African Americans in such a context that it is difficult not to conclude they really are racist.”
—That’s because to the radicals anyone who isn’t kissing their ass and talking about oppression is a racist.
“The other problem is that they simply are not sensitive to the issues that matter most to or impact blacks and they do not spend any time addressing them.”
—And what would that be? I would think blacks face the same problems everyone else faces, crime, high taxes, unemployment, outsourcing, traffic, etc. Blacks have civil rights, they can serve in the army, they can marry outside their race. The problem is we have race baiters who find problems where there are no problems. For example, some race nazis are complaining that the military has too many minorities. So if too many blacks decide to serve their country, that’s bad, according to them, we must bring back the draft and bring in more whites.
Us republicans simply don’t believe in social engineering. Freedom means the individual makes his own choices, the government has no business promoting one group over the other.
“Bush did this in Texas.”
—What did Bush do for blacks in Texas? I’m lost.
“It is mandatory for them to understand that there are inequalities in the current standing and condition of people of different races.”
—Even if that was true, so what? All kinds of people face discrimination. Want to join the Border Patrol? Make sure you’re under 40. Want to be a model? Make sure you’re super thin. Do you smoke cigarrettes? Make sure you work for a company that doesn’t force a healthy lifestyle on you. We discriminate on the basis of experience, personality, education, accent. Yes, there are accent-reduction classes for immigrants that want to succeed in corporate America.
And forget immigrants, US-born southeners who want to work in front of the cameras often have to lose their accents to fit in with whatever the yankee elite values.
Republicans believe in do it yourself, self-reliance. You face problems and deal with the. The democrats think they can pass laws to make the world fair, they think the government can make it all better.
I don’t know any succesful minorities that got to where they are today by getting government help. What separates someone like Colin Powell from a welfare-check collector is that Powell didn’t spend his life blaiming the white man for the real discrimination he faced.