Juan Williams
Author of Eyes on the Prize: America's Civil Rights Years, 1954-1965
About the Author
Juan Williams is a political analyst for Fox News, a regular panelist on Fox News Sunday, and a columnist for poxNews.com and for The Hill. He hosted NPR's Talk of the Nation and has anchored Fox News Channel's weekend daytime news coverage. He is the author of the bestsellers Enough and Eyes on show more the Prize. show less
Image credit: Pete Wright
Works by Juan Williams
Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America and What We Can Do About It (2006) 182 copies, 5 reviews
My Soul Looks Back in Wonder: Voices of the Civil Rights Experience (AARP) (2004) 154 copies, 1 review
We the People: The Modern-Day Figures Who Have Reshaped and Affirmed the Founding Fathers' Vision of America (2016) 100 copies, 28 reviews
New Prize for These Eyes: The Rise of America's Second Civil Rights Movement (2025) 39 copies, 3 reviews
Associated Works
Tagged
Common Knowledge
- Birthdate
- 1954-04
- Gender
- male
- Education
- Haverford College (B.A.|Philosophy)
- Occupations
- reporter (Washington Post)
correspondent (senior, National Public Radio)
writer
author - Organizations
- The Washington Post
National Public Radio
Fox News
Haverford College Board of Managers
Aspen Institute Communications and Society Program
New York Civil Rights Coalition Board of Directors - Awards and honors
- Political commentary award, American Association of University Women
Best National Book, Time Magazine
Outstanding Memorial Book, Myers Center for the Study of Human Rights in the United States
Emmy Award (1989)
Columnist of the Year, Washingtonian (1982)
Education Writers of America (1979) (show all 9)
Front Page Award, Washington-Baltimore Newspaper Guild (1979)
Honorary Doctorate from Haverford College
Honorary Doctorate from State University of New York - Short biography
- Juan Antonio Williams (born April 10, 1954) is a Panamanian-born American journalist and liberal political analyst for Fox News Channel. In May of 2021, he quit his job as one of the co-hosts on the Fox program, "The Five," citing his experience with Covid-19. He will continue as a news analyst.
He writes for several newspapers, including The Washington Post, The New York Times, and The Wall Street Journal and has been published in magazines such as The Atlantic Monthly and Time. Williams has worked as an editorial writer, an op-ed columnist, a White House correspondent, and a national correspondent. He is a registered Democrat. [Wikipedia, mostly] - Nationality
- USA
- Birthplace
- Colón, Panama
- Places of residence
- Colón, Panama
Pleasantville, New Jersey, USA
Brooklyn, New York, USA
Washington, D.C., USA - Associated Place (for map)
- USA
Members
Reviews
We the People: The Modern-Day Figures Who Have Reshaped and Affirmed the Founding Fathers' Vision of America by Juan Williams
Juan Williams has written a comprehensive review, update, and redefinition of the term “founding fathers.” A look at the 19 chapter headings in the table of contents presents a list of interesting familiar and not-so-familiar names to present day readers. How do these relate to the founding fathers? Williams will tell you in a fast reading, approximately 400 page book. I recommend budgeting time so you can read it in one session. Each chapter pulls the reader into the next account and I show more would have been annoyed if I had to stop for routine daily tasks. I read this on a Saturday and it took about six hours; it took longer than usual because I stopped to highlight things I found particularly interesting.
Just as family names span generations, think Roosevelt, Williams substitutes “founding fathers” for a family name. Many students in the USA think of Washington, Adams, Jefferson, the signers of the Declaration of Independence and the participants at the Constitutional Convention as the founding fathers; case closed. Williams suggests that later historical figures such as JFK, Martin Luther King, Eleanor and Franklin Roosevelt, through their interpretations and implementation of original founding father principles deserve to be in the extended founding father family.
The original founding fathers did not spend their lives only in pontification of great political and philosophical principles. They had jobs; Franklin was a printer; Jefferson was an inventor and farmer. Supporting this, Williams details the contributions of Charlton Heston, Rachel Carson, Betty Friedan, and Billy Graham, to name a few. These individuals were not primarily political; their non-political occupations affected political developments. The reader will also find accounts of Reagan, Kissinger, Goldwater, and key political figures who bent and twisted original principles to present day realities.
This is truly the age of the life-long learner, but for too many learning stops at a certain point, like at the point where all our attentions are focused on earning a living. The 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s are familiar ground to me, at least in memory. Since we lived it, we know it, and don’t always pay a lot of attention. Kissinger, sure, I know all about him. In fact, once he left government service in the Reagan years, he dropped out of sight, at least for me. Williams provides an update to the question “Where are they now?” Influential people don’t always lose their influence just because they are out of the public eye. Williams makes this point repeatedly.
I liked the way that Williams makes a point, focuses on it, and resists the temptation to make mean spirited, unnecessary, sensationalist asides. In his chapter on Billy Graham, he mentions other influential religious figures, such a Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and Jim Bakker. Only one paragraph is devoted to Jim Bakker and the reason for his success. Nothing else needed to be said, and it was not said.
Here are some of the things I found particularly interesting in the reading.
Williams explored the evolution of the “broken windows” theory of policing in chapter 4. Here, and elsewhere, in his chapter on Heston and gun control, Williams examines the necessary compromises a society must make between absolute security and absolute freedom.
In chapter six, Williams compares economic theories of Keynes and Friedman, describes their impacts on such present day realities as the minimum wage issue and entitlement programs, and includes these economic theory giants in the Founding Father family.
This is a carefully written, well referenced book. Occasionally I found myself in disagreement with an assertion. When I reread the section, I saw that statements were carefully phrased to include several variables. I only found myself in disagreement with him on one point.
In chapter 5, on the military, Williams writes that military reserves had not been called on to go to Vietnam. As a policy matter, units were not mobilized and deployed as a result of actions from the White House; that is correct. However, there were National Guard units that served. Some of them volunteered. Company D (Long Range Patrol) 151st Infantry Regiment, Indiana National Guard served in Vietnam.
I would be very happy to attend a university level class where this book serves as a text in a survey course on US history. show less
Just as family names span generations, think Roosevelt, Williams substitutes “founding fathers” for a family name. Many students in the USA think of Washington, Adams, Jefferson, the signers of the Declaration of Independence and the participants at the Constitutional Convention as the founding fathers; case closed. Williams suggests that later historical figures such as JFK, Martin Luther King, Eleanor and Franklin Roosevelt, through their interpretations and implementation of original founding father principles deserve to be in the extended founding father family.
The original founding fathers did not spend their lives only in pontification of great political and philosophical principles. They had jobs; Franklin was a printer; Jefferson was an inventor and farmer. Supporting this, Williams details the contributions of Charlton Heston, Rachel Carson, Betty Friedan, and Billy Graham, to name a few. These individuals were not primarily political; their non-political occupations affected political developments. The reader will also find accounts of Reagan, Kissinger, Goldwater, and key political figures who bent and twisted original principles to present day realities.
This is truly the age of the life-long learner, but for too many learning stops at a certain point, like at the point where all our attentions are focused on earning a living. The 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s are familiar ground to me, at least in memory. Since we lived it, we know it, and don’t always pay a lot of attention. Kissinger, sure, I know all about him. In fact, once he left government service in the Reagan years, he dropped out of sight, at least for me. Williams provides an update to the question “Where are they now?” Influential people don’t always lose their influence just because they are out of the public eye. Williams makes this point repeatedly.
I liked the way that Williams makes a point, focuses on it, and resists the temptation to make mean spirited, unnecessary, sensationalist asides. In his chapter on Billy Graham, he mentions other influential religious figures, such a Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and Jim Bakker. Only one paragraph is devoted to Jim Bakker and the reason for his success. Nothing else needed to be said, and it was not said.
Here are some of the things I found particularly interesting in the reading.
Williams explored the evolution of the “broken windows” theory of policing in chapter 4. Here, and elsewhere, in his chapter on Heston and gun control, Williams examines the necessary compromises a society must make between absolute security and absolute freedom.
In chapter six, Williams compares economic theories of Keynes and Friedman, describes their impacts on such present day realities as the minimum wage issue and entitlement programs, and includes these economic theory giants in the Founding Father family.
This is a carefully written, well referenced book. Occasionally I found myself in disagreement with an assertion. When I reread the section, I saw that statements were carefully phrased to include several variables. I only found myself in disagreement with him on one point.
In chapter 5, on the military, Williams writes that military reserves had not been called on to go to Vietnam. As a policy matter, units were not mobilized and deployed as a result of actions from the White House; that is correct. However, there were National Guard units that served. Some of them volunteered. Company D (Long Range Patrol) 151st Infantry Regiment, Indiana National Guard served in Vietnam.
I would be very happy to attend a university level class where this book serves as a text in a survey course on US history. show less
This review was written for LibraryThing Early Reviewers.We the People: The Modern-Day Figures Who Have Reshaped and Affirmed the Founding Fathers' Vision of America by Juan Williams
We the People, written by Juan Williams, is an insightful and detailed look at those individuals, primarily in 20th century America, whose work has reshaped America.
The book is very well written and documented, covering a wide range of topics from foreign policy to civil rights, to economic issues and medical care. In each topic, Williams provided a comprehensive history of the issue, including how it applied in colonial America, the person or people he believes were key in spearheading show more changes to law on those issues, and supporting evidence for his candidates.
I really enjoyed reading We the People. Reading it has allowed me to connect dots that I had previously held separate from each other. It has also helped me better understand how America's political parties have polarized so drastically, though I'm unsure if that's an outcome Williams had intended.
Five stars! show less
The book is very well written and documented, covering a wide range of topics from foreign policy to civil rights, to economic issues and medical care. In each topic, Williams provided a comprehensive history of the issue, including how it applied in colonial America, the person or people he believes were key in spearheading show more changes to law on those issues, and supporting evidence for his candidates.
I really enjoyed reading We the People. Reading it has allowed me to connect dots that I had previously held separate from each other. It has also helped me better understand how America's political parties have polarized so drastically, though I'm unsure if that's an outcome Williams had intended.
Five stars! show less
This review was written for LibraryThing Early Reviewers.
Eyes on the Prize utilizes the tactic of revisionist history -- that is, telling historical events from perspectives not often considered. For instance, the master narrative or textbook version of the Civil Rights movement is generally focused on Martin Luther King and how he empowered a repressed people.
Eyes on the Prize approaches the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s with a different perspective. It starts by introducing the social elements and people between the Civil Rights Acts of show more 1866 and 1964, and explains how the second Civil Rights movement gained momentum and spread.
I was particularly struck by the story of Kenneth Clark and how his Dolls Study was used as evidence in the Briggs v. Clarendon County case. I think this instance is a great example of the combination of legal strategy and action with the intent to change public opinion. It is clear they were aware of the charged nature of this decision from the quote on page 20,
I think this choice must have had more impact in the legal and public spheres than is focused on in this book, as it is now relatively common for a court of law to seek the expert opinion of a mental health worker. Psychologists and others who work with the mentally ill are often tainted with a sort of stigma-by-association, yet in a high-stakes trial, they chose to highlight not only a psychological study, but a study done by a black psychologist. It is clear why: Not only is the study itself sound, the ramifications are unsettling on an instinctual level. To prove the effect of discrimination on innocent young minds is an extremely effective way of inciting both sympathy and desire to act in the viewer -- it draws on the innate human desire to protect our children from harm.
In many ways, both the legal strategy and the public action danced around this concept. Charles Houston drew on it when he focused his initial efforts of educational desegregation oat the higher education levels, knowing that it would be less threatening to whites if it started in adult institutions rather than with children. He drew on this human instinct, too, whether consciously or not, when he filmed the contrasting situations of white and black children in their segregated learning environments. I suspect it is easier for a moderate white to be unconcerned about the plight of black children if they are not aware of the reality of that plight.
Clearly, hard-core racist segregationists didn't particularly care if black children were in school, in the gutter, or dead. But it wasn't the hard-core segregationists they needed to sway; it was the moderates and public opinion in general. I think Martin Luther King's advocacy of nonviolent, passive resistance also appealed, in a sense, to the parent's desire for their children's safety. The nonviolent movement showed through both word and actions that blacks were not the threat segregationists were trying to paint them as. Indeed, as the movement progressed, the juxtaposition of dignified non-violent resistance of the blacks and their white allies to the lashing anger and rage of the of segregationists highlighted who the real danger to society was.
This is further alluded to on page 113, in an interview with a white student at Central High in Little Rock, Arkansas:
I wouldn't go so far as to argue that the entire civil rights movement was predicated on the human urge to protect the children, but I do think that a sensitivity and awareness of this shared instinct permeates the movement. It present in the cases they choose to argue and the order they chose to pursue them in. It was a consideration in the way blacks and their white allies presented themselves to the public.
In the arena of national attention, they often focused on the violence done to black children. In the arena of legal cases, they chose defendants who were either children or adults who were not considered a threat to those who needed to be protected. They also chose to focus on litigation that either did not affect children and was therefore not perceived as a threat to white children, or that focused on the harm done to black children, which incited sympathy in moderate whites. On top of these choices was the conscious decision to employ children in many marches and boycotts, which both made for moving publicity and allowed their parents more freedom of movement behind the scenes. Whether these choices were conscious or subconscious, they positively impacted both the participants in and the observers of the freedom movement on a very instinctive level.
The impact of this was even evidenced by segregationists, who in the immediate wake of the Emmet Till murder were, "outraged at what happened,"(43) and promised justice would be done. As it turned out, justice was not done -- but I do think it's telling that in the immediate aftermath of the murder, the reported reaction of, "all 'decent' people," was outrage and horror. The Southerners did not initially respond with a meh, or (worse), glee: They reacted with the disgust any right-thinking person should feel upon learning of such an incident. As the media attention grew and swelled, the white community drew back on itself and became defensive and angry, but their first reaction to the murder of a child was one of horror.
Today, many social activist groups say, "Think of the children," when they try to defend or argue some stance or other. I suspect the segregationists said this phrase, too, or some 1950's equivalent of it. It is interesting that a successful social movement is the one that does think of the children, and that considers the impact of their movement on all children, rather than just their children. show less
Eyes on the Prize approaches the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s with a different perspective. It starts by introducing the social elements and people between the Civil Rights Acts of show more 1866 and 1964, and explains how the second Civil Rights movement gained momentum and spread.
I was particularly struck by the story of Kenneth Clark and how his Dolls Study was used as evidence in the Briggs v. Clarendon County case. I think this instance is a great example of the combination of legal strategy and action with the intent to change public opinion. It is clear they were aware of the charged nature of this decision from the quote on page 20,
"It was highly unorthodox evidence to present in a courtroom, but the situation called for unusual legal ammunition."
I think this choice must have had more impact in the legal and public spheres than is focused on in this book, as it is now relatively common for a court of law to seek the expert opinion of a mental health worker. Psychologists and others who work with the mentally ill are often tainted with a sort of stigma-by-association, yet in a high-stakes trial, they chose to highlight not only a psychological study, but a study done by a black psychologist. It is clear why: Not only is the study itself sound, the ramifications are unsettling on an instinctual level. To prove the effect of discrimination on innocent young minds is an extremely effective way of inciting both sympathy and desire to act in the viewer -- it draws on the innate human desire to protect our children from harm.
In many ways, both the legal strategy and the public action danced around this concept. Charles Houston drew on it when he focused his initial efforts of educational desegregation oat the higher education levels, knowing that it would be less threatening to whites if it started in adult institutions rather than with children. He drew on this human instinct, too, whether consciously or not, when he filmed the contrasting situations of white and black children in their segregated learning environments. I suspect it is easier for a moderate white to be unconcerned about the plight of black children if they are not aware of the reality of that plight.
Clearly, hard-core racist segregationists didn't particularly care if black children were in school, in the gutter, or dead. But it wasn't the hard-core segregationists they needed to sway; it was the moderates and public opinion in general. I think Martin Luther King's advocacy of nonviolent, passive resistance also appealed, in a sense, to the parent's desire for their children's safety. The nonviolent movement showed through both word and actions that blacks were not the threat segregationists were trying to paint them as. Indeed, as the movement progressed, the juxtaposition of dignified non-violent resistance of the blacks and their white allies to the lashing anger and rage of the of segregationists highlighted who the real danger to society was.
This is further alluded to on page 113, in an interview with a white student at Central High in Little Rock, Arkansas:
"Other Whites, however, lost sympathy for the governor. 'I began to change,' remembers Craig Rains, a white senior at Central during the 1957-1958 school year, 'from being . . . a moderate, who, if I had my way, would have said, 'Let's don't integrate, because it's the state's right to decide.' I changed to someone who felt a real sense of compassion for those students, and felt like they deserved something that I had, and I also developed a real dislike for the people that were out there causing problems." (pg 113)
I wouldn't go so far as to argue that the entire civil rights movement was predicated on the human urge to protect the children, but I do think that a sensitivity and awareness of this shared instinct permeates the movement. It present in the cases they choose to argue and the order they chose to pursue them in. It was a consideration in the way blacks and their white allies presented themselves to the public.
In the arena of national attention, they often focused on the violence done to black children. In the arena of legal cases, they chose defendants who were either children or adults who were not considered a threat to those who needed to be protected. They also chose to focus on litigation that either did not affect children and was therefore not perceived as a threat to white children, or that focused on the harm done to black children, which incited sympathy in moderate whites. On top of these choices was the conscious decision to employ children in many marches and boycotts, which both made for moving publicity and allowed their parents more freedom of movement behind the scenes. Whether these choices were conscious or subconscious, they positively impacted both the participants in and the observers of the freedom movement on a very instinctive level.
The impact of this was even evidenced by segregationists, who in the immediate wake of the Emmet Till murder were, "outraged at what happened,"(43) and promised justice would be done. As it turned out, justice was not done -- but I do think it's telling that in the immediate aftermath of the murder, the reported reaction of, "all 'decent' people," was outrage and horror. The Southerners did not initially respond with a meh, or (worse), glee: They reacted with the disgust any right-thinking person should feel upon learning of such an incident. As the media attention grew and swelled, the white community drew back on itself and became defensive and angry, but their first reaction to the murder of a child was one of horror.
Today, many social activist groups say, "Think of the children," when they try to defend or argue some stance or other. I suspect the segregationists said this phrase, too, or some 1950's equivalent of it. It is interesting that a successful social movement is the one that does think of the children, and that considers the impact of their movement on all children, rather than just their children. show less
Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America--and What by Juan Williams
Let me start by saying that I am not African-American, so this feels like an "outsider looking in" discussion. I do live in Birmingham, AL though, where talks of race, economics, education and history are brought to the forefront of discussion, news, etc. every day.
With that disclaimer out of the way...
I thought Juan Williams did a fantastic job of shining a light on the social ills of the past 50+ years.
I thought his arguments were well constructed and clear. And I found it very hard to show more counter his logical approach. His presentation was so logical and "non-involved" that he could have been arguing about anything. But I understand that his "emotional disconnect" is what some people have a problem with.
But an "emotional argument" is one of the things that Williams seems to be writing against. Williams thinks that blacks (as he referred to them in the book) are so angry and tired and historically downtrodden that they can't lift their heads to look at the world pragmatically enough to maneuver upwards. Williams called them "blinded". He never said it was their fault they were initially blinded. But he did say that it's their fault they keep themselves blinded.
Williams wrote this book, on the heels of Bill Cosby's speech given at a benefit dinner in Washington D.C honoring 50 years of Brown v. B.O.E. Needless to say, Williams agreed 100% with The Cos and uses that speech as a rough outline and (often times) the only emotional elements in his arguments.
Williams also went on to talk about contemporary black culture. Primarily concerning himself with rap music for encouraging young folks to persue a life of self-indulgent self-hurting lifestyle.
Williams also took issue with black culture's "leadership". We've all seen them on TV, invoking the names of this slain civil rights leader or that beating victim from 50 years ago, or even Jesus. Williams says that this leadership has gotten so good at emotional connecting and stirring the populace with these tales of victims, that they have ingrained a sense of "we're always gonna be a victim" into the culture.
Williams says this fact holds black people back more than anything.
His points of comparing today's leaders to yesterdays tips when he cites many cases where today's civil rights leaders fight for lesser jail time for crack dealers that are black, solely because they are black. Whereas, yesterday's leaders fought to be treated as equals to everyone else, even in the case of jail terms and sentencing.
Many people have taken exception to Williams arguments and fortunately Williams takes the time to counter some the reports we've read in news accounts and points out errors in their logic and arguments.
If you are looking for a fiery emotional plea for the plight of blacks, this isn't it. This is simply a cold logical look at the status of our world and where do we go from here. Williams is operating under the idea that black people have been kept down for so long and have felt hopeless for so long that their anger and emotional outrage keep them blind to the possibilities of rescuing themselves. It's a bitter pill that may or may not need swallowing, but it's a pill that's well worth reading. I learned a lot about people and places that I had heard of, but never knew about (to my delight, the whole "40 acres and a mule" thing is clearly explained). So it's also a good primer for those of us who aren't true civil-rights academics.
A highly recommended read for anyone interested in the current civil rights movement and the future of our country. show less
With that disclaimer out of the way...
I thought Juan Williams did a fantastic job of shining a light on the social ills of the past 50+ years.
I thought his arguments were well constructed and clear. And I found it very hard to show more counter his logical approach. His presentation was so logical and "non-involved" that he could have been arguing about anything. But I understand that his "emotional disconnect" is what some people have a problem with.
But an "emotional argument" is one of the things that Williams seems to be writing against. Williams thinks that blacks (as he referred to them in the book) are so angry and tired and historically downtrodden that they can't lift their heads to look at the world pragmatically enough to maneuver upwards. Williams called them "blinded". He never said it was their fault they were initially blinded. But he did say that it's their fault they keep themselves blinded.
Williams wrote this book, on the heels of Bill Cosby's speech given at a benefit dinner in Washington D.C honoring 50 years of Brown v. B.O.E. Needless to say, Williams agreed 100% with The Cos and uses that speech as a rough outline and (often times) the only emotional elements in his arguments.
Williams also went on to talk about contemporary black culture. Primarily concerning himself with rap music for encouraging young folks to persue a life of self-indulgent self-hurting lifestyle.
Williams also took issue with black culture's "leadership". We've all seen them on TV, invoking the names of this slain civil rights leader or that beating victim from 50 years ago, or even Jesus. Williams says that this leadership has gotten so good at emotional connecting and stirring the populace with these tales of victims, that they have ingrained a sense of "we're always gonna be a victim" into the culture.
Williams says this fact holds black people back more than anything.
His points of comparing today's leaders to yesterdays tips when he cites many cases where today's civil rights leaders fight for lesser jail time for crack dealers that are black, solely because they are black. Whereas, yesterday's leaders fought to be treated as equals to everyone else, even in the case of jail terms and sentencing.
Many people have taken exception to Williams arguments and fortunately Williams takes the time to counter some the reports we've read in news accounts and points out errors in their logic and arguments.
If you are looking for a fiery emotional plea for the plight of blacks, this isn't it. This is simply a cold logical look at the status of our world and where do we go from here. Williams is operating under the idea that black people have been kept down for so long and have felt hopeless for so long that their anger and emotional outrage keep them blind to the possibilities of rescuing themselves. It's a bitter pill that may or may not need swallowing, but it's a pill that's well worth reading. I learned a lot about people and places that I had heard of, but never knew about (to my delight, the whole "40 acres and a mule" thing is clearly explained). So it's also a good primer for those of us who aren't true civil-rights academics.
A highly recommended read for anyone interested in the current civil rights movement and the future of our country. show less
Lists
Awards
You May Also Like
Associated Authors
Statistics
- Works
- 14
- Also by
- 1
- Members
- 1,805
- Popularity
- #14,259
- Rating
- 3.9
- Reviews
- 42
- ISBNs
- 44
- Favorited
- 1
