Pass the Olives

People are the source of all governmental power. —Barbara Jordan. 1976

Barbara Jordan vs Hillary Clinton

Clips have been playing for the last few days of Hillary Clinton’s speech at the 2022 National Democratic Convention. Over and over. It’s nice to see her back out there again, but she has to do something with her voice. The harder she tries, the more it sounds witch-like. It’s not pleasant. I wonder where it comes from? It doesn’t match the power and depth of the woman.

There are incredible voice coaches within miles of Clinton’s home and office who teach how to use your breath and where to place your voice in your throat. Or your nose. Barbra Streisand swears by her nose as the key to her sonorous tone. There isn’t much Hillary can do with her nose but the model that would match her resume would be the thunderous bellowing of Barbara Jordan. When she spoke, people listened. Barbara Jordan became the Voice of God.

Daughter of a Baptist Minister and Award-Winning Debator and Orator

Barbara Jordan, Voice of God in a Judicial Committee Hearing As the daughter of a Baptist minister, Barbara Jordan was already recognized in high school for her skill with language and her ability to build an argument. At Texas Southern University she won championship debates in national competitions against students from Yale, Brown, and Harvard. In 1966, she became the first African American to be elected to the Texas Senate after Reconstruction. In 1972 she was the first African American woman from the South to be elected to Congress.

With Lyndon Johnson’s support, Barbara Jordan was appointed as a freshman to be the most junior representative to serve on the prized House Judiciary Committee. Someone had good timing because just as Bill Clinton managed to get his picture taken with John F. Kennedy at the White House when Clinton was in high school, the appointment to the Judicial Committee meant Jordan was front and center for the Watergate Hearings and voted for the impeachment of Richard Nixon.

Historic Speeches

Barbara Jordan at the Judiciary Committee Hearings on Watergate and the Impeachment of Richard Nixon The Judiciary Committee Hearings were televised in evening broadcasts that set records for the size of the viewing audience. It gave her the opportunity to deliver a speech now considered to be a landmark in which she said, “I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction of the Constitution.”

Barbara Jordan was standing tall even when she was sitting down. Following the Vietnam War, it was a hard time with explosive headlines, feminist demonstrations, civil rights riots, and all the other upheavals of the 1970s. People were willing to listen.

On the second day of the hearings just before 9:00, prime time with a record-breaking television audience, she delivered what is now considered one of the great examples of “American political oratory.” It was more than a speech or opening remarks. It was grand oratory, formal and eloquent.

When Barbara Jordan said “This is not negotiable,” you believed it. Being from the South, she managed to make the word at least six syllables: “Ne-go-ti-a-b-le.”

Transcripts of Historic Speeches

The following transcript of her oration was created by a transcript service, Rev, where you can also see a video of her presentation. The times given in parentheses are links to the Rev website and correspond to bookmarks in the recording.

Following the Judiciary Committee Hearing presentation is another remarkable and historic speech by Barbara Jordan when she became the first African American woman to deliver the Keynote Speech at a national political convention: the 1976 Democratic Party National Convention.

Barbara Jordan, House Judiciary Committee Hearings regarding the impeachment of President Richard Nixon.

A notable feature of this speech is that Jordan chose to explain the history of the Constitution so the listeners would understand why this offense was constitutionally illegal.

Chairman: (00:04)
I recognize the gentlelady from Texas, Miss Jordan, for the purpose of general debate, not to exceed a period of 15 minutes.

Barbara Jordan: (00:15)
Thank you Mr. Chairman.

Chairman: (00:16)

Miss Jordan.

Miss Jordan: (00:17)
Mr. Chairman, I join my colleague, Mr. Wrangell, in thanking you for giving the junior members of this committee the glorious opportunity of sharing the pain of this inquiry. Mr. Chairman, you are a strong man and it has not been easy but we have tried as best we can to give you as much assistance as possible.

(00:41)

Earlier today, we heard the beginning of the preamble to the Constitution of [the] United States. “We the people.” It’s a very eloquent beginning. But when that document was completed on the 17th of September in 1787, I was not included in that “We the people.” I’ve felt somehow, for many years, that George Washington and Alexander Hamilton just left me out by mistake. But through the process of amendment, interpretation, and court decision, I have finally been included in “We the people.”(01:20)

Today, I am an inquisitor, and hyperbole would not be fictional and would not overstate the solemnness that I feel right now. My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total, and I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction of the Constitution. Who can so properly be the inquisitors for the nation as the representatives of the nation themselves? The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men. And that’s what we’re talking about. In other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. It is wrong, I suggest, it is a misreading of the Constitution for any member here to assert that for a member to vote for an article of impeachment means that that member must be convinced that the President should be removed from office.(02:32)
The constitution doesn’t say that. The powers relating to impeachment are an essential check in the hands of the body, the Legislature, against and upon the encroachments of the Executive. The division between the two branches of the Legislature, the House and the Senate, assigning to the one the right to accuse and to the other the right to judge. The framers of this Constitution we very astute. They did not make the accusers and the judges the same person.(03:08)
We know the nature of impeachment. We’ve been talking about it a while now. It is chiefly designed for the President and his high ministers to somehow be called into account. It is designed to bridle the Executive if he engages in excesses. It is designed as a method of national inquest into the conduct of public men. The framers confided in the Congress the power if need be to remove the President in order to strike a delicate balance between a president swollen with power and grown tyrannical, and preservation of the independence of the Executive.(03:55)
The nature of impeachment, a narrowly channeled exception to the separation of powers maxim. The federal convention of 1787 said that. It limited impeachment to high crimes and misdemeanors and discounted and opposed the term maladministration. “It is to be used only for great misdemeanors,” so it was said in the North Carolina Ratification Convention, and in the Virginia Ratification Convention, “We do not trust our Liberty to a particular branch. We need one branch to check the other.”(04:36)
“No one need be afraid,” the Northwest Carolina Ratification Convention, “No one needs to be afraid that officers who commit oppression will pass with immunity.” “Prosecution of impeachments will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community,” said Hamilton in the Federalist papers number 65, “We divided the part is more or less friendly or inimical to the accused. I do not mean political parties in that sense.” The drawing of political lines goes to the motivation behind the impeachment, but impeachment must proceed within the confines of the Constitutional term high crime and misdemeanors.(05:27)
Of the impeachment process, it was Woodrow Wilson who said that “Nothing short of the grossest offenses against the plain law of the land will suffice to give them speed and effectiveness. Indignation so great as to overgrow party interest may secure a conviction, but nothing else can.” Common sense would be revolted if we engaged upon this process for petty reasons.

(06:01)
Congress has a lot to do, appropriations, tax reform, health insurance, campaign finance reform, housing, environmental protection, energy sufficiency, mass transportation. Pettiness can not be allowed to stand in the face of such overwhelming problems. So today we’re not being petty. We’re trying to be big because the task we have before us is a big one. This morning, in a discussion of the evidence, we are told that the evidence which purports to support the allegations of misuse of the CIA by the President is thin. We’re told that that evidence is insufficient.

(06:51)
What that recital of the evidence this morning did not include is what the President did know on June the 23rd, 1972. The President did know that it was Republican money, that it was money from the Committee for the Reelection of the President, which was found in the possession of one of the burglars arrested on June the 17th. What the President did know, on the 23rd of June, was the prior activities of E. Howard Hunt, which included his participation in the break-in of Daniel Ellsberg’s psychiatrist’s, which included Howard Hunt’s participation in the [inaudible 00:07:37] ITT affair, which included Howard Hunt’s fabrication of cables designed to discredit the Kennedy administration.

(07:45)
We were further cautioned today that perhaps these proceedings ought to be delayed because certainly there would be new evidence forthcoming from the President of the United States. There has not even been an obfuscated indication that this committee would receive any additional materials from the President. The committee’s subpoena is outstanding. And if the President wants to supply that material, the committee sits here.

(08:14)
The fact is that yesterday, the American people waited with great anxiety for eight hours, not knowing whether their President would obey an order of the Supreme Court of the United States. At this point, I would like to juxtapose a few of the impeachment criteria with some of the actions the President has engaged in. Impeachment criteria, James Madison, from the Virginia ratification convention. “If the president be connected in any suspicious manner with any person, and there be grounds to believe that he will shelter him, he may be impeached.” We have heard time and time again, that the evidence reflects the payment to defendants, money, the President had knowledge that these funds were being paid and these were funds collected for the 1972 Presidential campaign.

(09:24)
We know that the president met with Mr. Henry Peterson 27 times to discuss matters related to Watergate. And immediately thereafter met with the very persons who were implicated in the information Mr. Peterson was receiving. The words are, “If the president is connected in any suspicious manner with any person, and there be grounds to believe that he will shelter that person, he may be impeached.” Just a story.

(09:55)
Impeachment is intended for occasional and extraordinary cases, where a superior power acting for the whole people it’s put into operation to protect their rights and rescue their liberties from violations. We know about the Houston plan. We know about the break-in of the psychiatrist’s office. We know that there was absolute, complete direction on September 3rd, when the president indicated that a surreptitious entry had been made in Dr. Fielding’s office, after having met with Mr. Ehrlichman and Mr. Young. Protect their rights, rescue their liberties from violation.

(10:47)
The Carolina Ratification Convention impeachment criteria, “Those are impeachable who behave amiss or betray their public trust.” Beginning shortly after the Watergate break-in and continuing to the present time, the President has engaged in a series of public statements and actions designed to thwart the lawful investigation by government prosecutors. Moreover, the President has made public announcements and assertions bearing the Watergate case, which the evidence will show he knew to be false. These assertions, false assertions, “Impeachable, those who misbehave, those who behave amiss, or betray the public trust.”

(11:40)
James Madison, again, at the Constitutional Convention, “A President is impeachable if he attempts to subvert the Constitution.” The constitution charges the President with the task of taking care that the laws be faithfully executed. And yet the president has counseled his age to commit perjury, willfully disregard the secrecy of grand jury proceedings, concealed surreptitious entry, attempt to compromise a federal judge, while publicly displaying his cooperation with the processes of criminal justice. “A President is impeachable if your attempts to subvert the constitution.”

(12:22)
If the impeachment provision in the Constitution of the United States will not reach the offenses charged here, then perhaps that 18th century Constitution should be abandoned to a 20th century paper shredder. Has the president committed offenses and planned and directed and acquiesced in a course of conduct, which the Constitution will not tolerate? That’s the question. We know that, we know the question. We should now forthwith proceed to answer the question.

Barbara Jordan’s Keynote Speech to the National Democratic Party Convention, 1976

Barbara Jordan delivering the Keynote Address at the Democratic Party National Convention in 1976.

(00:01)
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for a very warm reception.

(00:11)
It was 144 years ago that members of the Democratic Party first met in convention to select a presidential candidate. Since that time, Democrats have continued to convene once every four years and draft a party platform and nominate a presidential candidate. And our meeting this week is a continuation of that tradition, but there is something different about tonight. There is something special about tonight. What is different? What is special? I, Barbara Jordan, am a keynote speaker.

(01:25)
A lot of years passed since 1832. And during that time, it would have been most unusual for any national political party to ask a Barbara Jordan to deliver a keynote address. But tonight, here I am. And I feel that notwithstanding the past, that my presence here is one additional bit of evidence that the American Dream need not forever be deferred.

(02:11)
Now, that I have this grand distinction, what in the world am I supposed to say? I could easily spend this time praising the accomplishments of this party and attacking the Republicans, but I don’t choose to do that. I could list the many problems which Americans have. I could list the problems which cause people to feel cynical, angry, frustrated. Problems which include, lack of integrity in government, the feeling that the individual no longer counts, the reality of material and spiritual poverty, the feeling that the grand American experiment is failing or has failed.

(03:02)
I could recite these problems and then I could sit down and offer no solutions, but I don’t choose to do that either. The citizens of America expect more, deserve and they want more than a recital of problems. We are a people in a quandary about the present. We are a people in search of our future. We are a people in search of a national community. We are a people trying not only to solve the problems of the present, unemployment, inflation, but we are attempting on a larger scale to fulfill the promise of America. We are attempting to fulfill our national purpose, to create and sustain a society in which all of us are equal.

(04:13)
Throughout our history, when people have looked for new ways to solve their problems and to uphold the principles of this nation, many times they have turned to political parties. They have often turned to the Democratic Party. What is it? What is it about the Democratic Party that makes it the instrument the people use when they search for ways to shape their future?

(04:51)
Well, I believe the answer to that question lies in our concept of governing. Our concept of governing is derived from our view of people. It is a concept deeply rooted in a set of beliefs firmly etched in the national conscience of all of us.

(05:14)
Now, what are these beliefs? First, we believe in equality for all and privileges for none. This is a belief that each American, regardless of background, has equal standing in the public forum, all of us. Because we believe this idea so firmly, we are an inclusive rather than an exclusive party. Let everybody come.

(06:04)
I think it no accident that most of those immigrating to America in the 19th century identified with the Democratic Party. We are a heterogeneous party made up of Americans of diverse backgrounds. We believe that the people are the source of all governmental power, that the authority of the people is to be extended, not restricted. This can be accomplished only by providing each citizen with every opportunity to participate in the management of the government. They must have that.

(07:05)
We believe that the government, which represents the authority of all the people, not just one interest group, but all the people, has an obligation to actively underscore, actively seek to remove those obstacles, which would block individual achievement. Obstacles emanating from race, sex, economic condition. The government must remove them, seek to remove them.

Barbara Jordan: (07:46)
We are a party of innovation. We do not reject our traditions, but we are willing to adapt to changing circumstances when change we must. We are willing to suffer the discomfort of change in order to achieve a better future. We have a positive vision of the future founded on the belief that the gap between the promise and reality of America can one day be finally closed. We believe that.

(08:36)
This, my friends, is the bedrock of our concept of governing. This is a part of the reason why Americans have turned to the Democratic Party. These are the foundations upon which a national community can be built. Let all understand that these guiding principles cannot be discarded for short-term political gains. They represent what this country is all about. They are indigenous to the American idea. And these are principles which are not negotiable.

(09:21)
In other times, I could stand here and give this kind of exposition on the beliefs of the Democratic Party and that would be enough. But today, that is not enough. People want more. That is not sufficient reason for the majority of the people of this country to decide to vote Democratic. We have made mistakes. We realize that. We admit our mistakes. In our haste to do all things for all people, we did not foresee the full consequences of our actions.

(10:11)
And when the people raised their voices, we didn’t hear. But, our deafness was only a temporary condition and not an irreversible condition. Even as I stand here and admit that we have made mistakes, I still believe that as the people of America sit in judgment on each party, they will recognize that our mistakes were mistakes of the heart. They’ll recognize that. Now, we must look to the future. Let us heed the voice of the people and recognize their common sense. If we do not, we not only blaspheme our political heritage, we ignore the common ties that bind all Americans.

(11:17)
Many fear the future. Many are distrustful of their leaders and believe that their voices are never heard. Many seek only to satisfy their private work, wants, to satisfy their private interests. But this is the great danger America faces, that we will cease to be one nation and become instead a collection of interest groups, city against suburb, region against region, individual against individual. Each seeking to satisfy private wants. If that happens, who then will speak for America? Who then will speak for the common good? This is the question which must be answered.

(12:13)
In 1976, are we to be one people bound together by common spirit, sharing in a common endeavor, or will we become a divided nation? For all of its uncertainty, we cannot flee the future. We must not become the new puritans and reject our society. We must address and master the future, together. It can be done if we restore the belief that we share a sense of national community, that we share a common national endeavor, it can be done. There is no executive order. There is no law that can require the American people to form a national community. This we must do as individuals. And if we do it as individuals, there is no president of the United States who can veto that decision.

(13:43)
As a first step, we must restore our belief in ourselves. We are a generous people, so why can’t we be generous with each other? We need to take to heart the words spoken by Thomas Jefferson, “Let us restore to social intercourse that harmony and that affection without which liberty, and even life, are but dreary things.”

(14:23)
A nation is formed by the willingness of each of us to share in the responsibility for upholding the common good. A government is invigorated when each one of us is willing to participate in shaping the future of this nation. In this election year, we must define the common good and begin again to shape a common future. Let each person do his or her part. If one citizen is unwilling to participate, all of us are going to suffer. For the American idea, though it is shared by all of us, is realized in each one of us.

(15:27)
And now, what are those of us who are elected public officials supposed to do? We call ourselves public servants. But I’ll tell you this, we as public servants must set an example for the rest of the nation. It is hypocritical for the public official to admonish and exhort the people to uphold the common good if we are derelict in upholding the common good.

(16:15)
More is required. More is required of public officials than slogans and handshakes and press releases. More is required. We must hold ourselves strictly accountable. We must provide the people with a vision of the future. If we promise as public officials, we must deliver. If we as public officials propose, we must produce. If we say to the American people, it is time for you to be sacrificial, sacrifice, if the public official says that, we must be the first to give. We must be. And again, if we make mistakes, we must be willing to admit them. We have to do that.

(17:30)
What we have to do is strike a balance between the idea that government should do everything and the idea, the belief, that government ought to do nothing. Strike a balance. Let there be no illusions about the difficulty of forming this kind of a national community. It’s tough, difficult, not easy, but a spirit of harmony will survive in America only if each of us remembers that we share a common destiny. If each of us remembers when self-interest and bitterness seem to prevail, that we share a common destiny.

(18:28)
I have confidence that we can form this kind of national community. I have confidence that the Democratic Party can lead the way. I have that confidence. We cannot improve on the system of government handed down to us by the founders of the Republic. There is no way to improve upon that. But what we can do is defined new ways to implement that system and realize our destiny.

(19:10)
Now, I began this speech by commenting to you on the uniqueness of a Barbara Jordan making a keynote address. Well, I am going to close my speech by quoting a Republican president. And I ask you that as you listen to these words of Abraham Lincoln relate them to the concept of a national community in which every last one of us participates. “As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master.” This expresses my idea of democracy. Whatever differs from this, to the extent of the difference, is no democracy. Thank you.

Categories: Pass the Olives: Opinions, Reviews & Recommendations

Tags: 1970s, Watergate, Richard Nixon, Barbara Jordan, Hillary Clinton, Lyndon Johnson, Judiciary Committee, transcripts, Barbra Streisand