A diary last night by Zwoof and a recommended diary this morning by Muzikal203 both correctly mention that John McCain is playing fast and loose with history, when it comes to his voting record concerning the Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday. I was somewhat involved in social and political matters here in Arizona in the 80s and 90s, and I participated in the state’s effort to establish an MLK Day, so I'd like to offer my own view of this slice of Arizona history - providing some context for McCain’s recent misstatements, waffles, historical distortions, and other "straight talk." My memory might be a little rusty, but I don't think it's half as bad as our Senator's. If anyone else can fill in the gaps, please do so. (My McCain quotes below are taken from the videos in the two diaries just mentioned.)
A federal holiday honoring Dr. King was established in 1983, and many states had created their own version as well – the first being Illinois in 1973. In most states, the holiday was established by gubernatorial fiat or it was passed by the legislature. I could be wrong, but I don’t believe any state MLK holiday was created by voters, until my state did it in 1992. Anyway, Arizona had a long history trying to establish a King Day, a point that runs counter to Senator McCain's recollection (more below). Senator Clovis Campbell introduced the first legislation in 1972, but it died in committee. Similar efforts to legislatively establish a state holiday occurred in 1975, 1976, 1981, 1982, 1984, 1985, and 1986, and all failed. With Democratic Governor Bruce Babbitt strongly advocating for the bill in 1986, it appeared that effort might succeed, but it lost by a single vote.
Babbitt was about to leave office, and so on his way out the door he acted. On May 18, 1986, the governor issued an executive order establishing an MLK Day for Arizona. You can imagine this did not sit well with many in the far right wing of Arizona’s powerful Republican party, who had blocked a holiday year after year. Importantly, the state’s attorney general, Republican Bob Corbin, ruled within a few months of Babbitt's order that the governor did not have constitutional authority to declare a paid holiday, a ruling that would become a tool for the anti-King forces.
Later that year a bizarre three-way gubernatorial election between a moderate Republican, a lunatic Republican, and a Democrat resulted in the moderate and Democrat splitting the sane vote. To our astonishment, the nut-job, Evan Mecham, a Mormon car dealer and perennial candidate for governor, was elected with about 34 percent of the vote. Many of you probably know he served about a year and a half, being the only U.S. governor to be impeached, recalled, and indicted simultaneously, and happily he was removed from office in 1988. (This election fiasco led, by the way, to the state adopting a 50+1 policy, which requires a governor to receive at least 50 percent of the vote, plus 1.)
Governor Mecham’s very first act, on January 12, 1987, was to issue an executive order rescinding the MLK holiday established by Bruce Babbitt. Mecham used the attorney general’s ruling as his excuse, arguing that only the legislature could establish paid holidays, but the fact is, the man was a bigot. His slips of the tongue where he referred to blacks as “pickaninnies” and "the colored people" received national attention – and chuckles from many in the state’s conservative base. Sadly, at the time Mecham overturned the holiday there wasn’t a huge outcry from the citizens of Arizona - one reason being that blacks make up only 2 or 3 percent of our population. There were certainly voices who spoke out, but beyond the usual human rights and social justice groups, I don't recall a groundswell of opposition among the general public.
Immediately, however, Arizona began to experience a backlash – an economic backlash. I was on the planning committee of a national educational association that had scheduled its annual conference for Phoenix in the early 90s. Because of Mecham’s decision we moved the meeting to another state, and we were not alone. Phoenix, Scottsdale, and the entire Valley of the Sun, not to mention Tucson, are popular convention cities, and organizations across the country began to cancel their meetings. The NFL, which had scheduled the 1993 Super Bowl for Tempe, threatened to move it elsewhere. Even tourists were staying away. On top of that, businesses that were looking for a place to locate their headquarters shied away from Arizona, because Mecham’s outrageous behavior and his decision to rescind MLK Day made the state look like a bunch of racist goofballs.
Soon the business community grew concerned, and when business speaks in Arizona, people listen – including elected officials. By this time Mecham had been booted from office, and because the state does not have a deputy governor, Secretary of State Rose Mofford, a Democrat, became the top executive, serving from 1988 until 1991. Governor Mofford, Democratic leaders in the legislature, and moderates from the other side of the aisle who were coming to their senses (with arm twisting by the corporate community) passed an MLK Day in 1989. Unfortunately, because their version swapped the paid holiday with Columbus Day, some leaders in Arizona’s Italian-American community objected and forced the question to a public vote, where the holiday was turned down.
By now the state’s image and economy were suffering: first the governor looks like a bigot and now the voters had rejected a King Day. It became a huge black-eye for the state. However, Arizonans have a traditional (and misguided) sense of cowboy “rugged individualism,” and you couldn’t threaten them with losing the Super Bowl or national censure. When the NFL talked about relocating their game, or when "liberal" organizations like La Raza said they’d move their convention elsewhere, a common response was, “Screw you, take your business someplace else, outsiders aren't going to tell us how to vote!”
A group of the state’s movers and shakers, along with many organizations and concerned citizens, formed a committee called “Victory Together” to address the problem. We held public meetings, got free press from the state’s largest newspapers, encouraged corporations to donate to the cause, and eventually got the holiday put before voters again. But rather than go full-bore with media and threats of losing business or football games, the committee's hired guns - very talented pollsters and PR professionals - developed a low-profile, grassroots GOTV effort that focused on Arizona’s traditional multicultural values. And it worked. To the shock of many political experts, voters passed Proposition 300 by a 61-39 margin in 1992. Governor Mofford, who had lent her voice to the initiative, was out of office by the election, to be followed by Fife Symington, a Republican developer-turned-politician, who himself would be indicted and serve jail time (yes, it was a wonderful ride for a few years!). But businessman that he was, Symington understood the economic impact of Mecham’s stupid decision, and lent his name to the effort. As did, by then, John McCain.
I don't recall if McCain had a position as a Congressman in the 80s when Arizona introduced bill after bill to establish a holiday honoring Dr. King (he was in the U.S. House from 1982 until 1986, when he became a Senator). Nor is there any indication of his position on Governor Babbitt's 1986 executive order. But it's not too difficult to imagine which side of the issue he was on at the time, since as a new Representative in 1983 he voted "no" for the federal holiday honoring Dr. King. (The measure sailed through the House 338-90 and the Senate 78-22. I guess he was already establishing his maverick image.) And then later in 1987 he publicly supported Mecham's decision to overturn Babbitt's order. In other words, his first two responses on the MLK matter are to reject a federal holiday in 1983 and to side with a bigoted fool at the state level in 1987.
This is a view he now says he “regrets," but he explains it away by asking us to believe: 1) prior to about 1990 he was not really aware of King's contribution and 2) the holiday "had not been an issue in Arizona." On the first point all one can say is, Eh? You're a member of Congress and you don't know about King? And to the second point, well, Senator, the many attempts to pass a holiday in Arizona, as early as 1972, suggest otherwise - that it had been "an issue." Your first excuse just makes you look stupid, and the second suggests you were out of touch with the state you supposedly represent.
Unfortunately I don’t have my files from 20 years ago – the meeting minutes, brochures, newspaper clippings, etc. – but I wish I did, because I don’t recall John McCain "working hard," as he says in the video, to fight for the holiday. It's true that by 1990 the Senator lent his name to the effort, and I believe he cajoled President Reagan into writing a letter to Arizonans as the 1992 vote neared. Fine. But when he states, “I was embarrassed that my home state of Arizona was one of the last” [to establish a King holiday], well, little pieces of breakfast come up in my mouth, since he defended the man who caused that “embarrassment.” If it were not for Mecham, Babbitt's executive order would have stood and Arizona would not have been “one of the last” states without a King holiday.
We see the real McCain when he's pressed on his MLK flip-flop between 1987 and 1990, when he says his conscience “evolved.” Bull. We know what evolved. His ego evolved. His wallet evolved - open. The fact is, the powerful business community in Arizona, including newspapers like The Arizona Republic, which could make or break political careers, recognized the disastrous economic consequences of Mecham’s actions, and knew something had to be done, and so they joined with civil rights organizations, social justice groups, cultural agencies, and the universities to make it happen. And if there is an elected official who dances to the tune of business leaders, lobbyists, and power brokers, that man is John McCain. That’s what spurred his “evolution,” and that is what continues to shape his policy today – money and the votes it buys, power and the ego it satisfies. Conscience, not so much.