Replies

I would say that the record shows that Sen. Lott is not comfortable in a racially integrated society. However, there are a lot of different issues tangled up in this deceptively simple situation - perhaps enumerating them can help untangle it.

#1: The race issue

A) Sen. Lott is not a racist in the sense that he wants to do bad things to black people. Even though he shows nostalgia for the segregation era, there is nothing in the record showing hostility towards other races - merely a desire to not associate with them. There is a broad middle ground between being a cross burner and a forced-busing racial quota bean counter, and the Senator is somewhere in that middle ground. I suspect that his fond feelings for that era are due to its relative simplicity rather than hatred.

B) Sen. Lott has a clear understanding that as a matter of public policy, segregation is a dead issue. No matter what he tells his therapist, nobody need fear that he would attempt to push such a policy - his political instincts for self-promotion are far more dominant and would veto any urge to do so.

C) Sen. Lott is extremely insensitive to the fact that an era he looks upon fondly was very unpleasant to the folks who got the short end of the stick. The fact that it didn't occur to him how badly his statements would come off, even in the context of flattering an old man at his 100th birthday party, shows a profound lack of political sense coming from a politician.

#2: The reactions

A) Democrats are raising hell over this because they are demagogues and hypocrites. They care nothing for racial equality, their motivations are: 1) to make the political opposition look as bad as possible; and 2) to convince their racial interest group factions that they are their saviors. This faction may also be hoping for a longshot realignment of the Senate into Democrat hands.

B) Conservatives who are raising hell over this are doing so out of sincere dedication to the principle of equality under the law for all citizens and to the ideal of a color-blind society.

C) Democrats who are silent now are hoping to keep Lott safe, since they have reliably been able to manipulate him, and since the truth of his statements, if the GOP does nothing, will be a very formidable weapon in 2004.

D) GOP party members who are supporting Lott are doing so for two reasons which mirror the first group of Democrats: 1) to deny the opposition a political victory; and 2) to support their man while he is under fire. Of these, only the second has any merit, which makes this camp marginally better, from a moral point of view, than either Democrat faction. This camp is also disproportionately worried about the longshot of a Senate realignment, having been traumatized by the Jeffords incident not long ago.

Issue #3: Leadership

A) Senator Lott has a long history of giving in to the opposition on important issues. The epitome of this is the impeachment debacle as so eloquently described by David Schippers. Judged on adherence to conservative principles, Lott is the worst conservative leader in generations. He has given conservatives no reason to go out on a limb to back him up, as he has never gone out on a limb to back up ANY conservative principle. It is quite likely that his is among the 700 FBI files that Clintons acquired, making the potential for blackmail by the opposition alarmingly high. Combined with his behavior in accommodating them on crucial issues, it is reasonable to posit a hypothesis that he has in fact been blackmailed on at least two occasions (impeachment and the 'power sharing' agreement) already.

B) Although his social voting record is solidly conservative, his fiscal record is extremely statist. He is the reigning king of pork-barrel legislation. While by this measure he might be considered a very effective leader, any thinking conservative is aware that this politics of selfishness is the greatest reason for the steady increase of government interference in all areas of American life. In the long term this behavior helps to achieve socialist policy goals, not conservative ones.

C) He's got serious foot-in-mouth syndrome. This of course brings us full circle to the incident that got us into this discussion in the first place. This wasn't the first nor the last time. He often demonstrates by his statements that he is a leader more appropriate to the 1960s than the 21st century. As leadership positions are few, it is vital that we put people in those positions with a thorough understanding of the here-and-now.

D) If he put as much effort into really leading as he is doing in trying to save his own bacon, we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place. But he hasn't done so... and he's had many more chances than he should have gotten.

Well said Thought. If this was isolated, Lott would not be in any trouble. The problem is his subtle backstabbing of Conservatives and their issues. Even in the Impeachment, although he maneuvered to make the case impossible to present, he voted for both articles. That way he could go back to his constituents and claim he stood up for justice.

There are 3 scenarios for Lott now.

He stays majority leader. The President's speech the other day gave Lott a way out and described what Lott said at Thurmond's birthday gathering to a tee. To any thinking person, the comments were patently offensive and actually untrue especially if you were a black Mississippian. Lott is weakened as Majority leader, but in a way he becomes merely a figurehead with the Republican Committee Chairmen and the President of the Senate - "Big Time" Cheney pulling the strings. Before Jeffords flipped, Republican Senators were complaining that their arms were sore because Cheney was twisting them so much. If one thinks the tax cuts passed due to Lott's efforts, one really needs to take a look at Cheney's promotion of the administration policy. Lott was really just window dressing and hopefully will be the same in the upcoming Senate Senate sessions. Cheney can take the limelight from Lott by being the face of the Republicans in the Senate. not Lott.
He steps down as leader and stays in the Senate. At this point, I would say give the Committee Chairmanship of the new leader to Lott. Put him on Appropriations so he can shovel pork to Mississippi. We could have Trent Lott everything in Mississippi. This would be good as he would no longer have his rug draped head in front of the cameras as GOP leader.
He Resigns from the Senate. There apparently is rumor that he actually threatened this. Take a look at this Thread in terms of the Mississippi statutes provisions for filling an US Senator's unexpired term - http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/806411/posts. The Democrat Governor can appoint an interim and probably would appoint a Democrat. The problem for the Democrats is that the new interim Senator has to stand for election in short order. My reading of the statutes again indicates that this special election would occur in 90 days if Lott resigns before the Senate going back in session. Musgrove could hold the election November 2003 if Lott waits until the Senate reconvenes to resign. Either way if Lott resigns we're looking at a Democrat Senator who has been appointed holding his seat at most 10 months - maybe even only 3 - attempting to stand for election. My recollection is that interim appointed Senators generally don't fare all that great. Chafee & Miller are recent successes. Can anybody remember the names of the Senators that replaced Gore and Bentsen in '93 when they took their jobs in the Clinton administration? Hutchinson (Kay) and Fred Thompson took those interims out. Anybody remember Seymour in California. He took Pete Wilson's job when he became Governor. He's the reason we now have ChiFi Feinstein.
If Lott actually threatened this, then the GOP Senators could say put up or shut up. The GOP still has the majority - although tenuously. Would Chafee actually leave the fold if he knew there could be a new GOP Senator in a matter of months? Lott could go back down to Mississippi & sell toupees or join the cheerleading squad for Ole Miss again. Again if he threatened this, he demonstrates this is all about him.

Which do I advocate? I would stress #2. I would hope the GOP would not actually allow themselves to be blackmailed by Lott. Even in #1, I think the White House is the winner as Lott will have to tread carefully with the President as he really saved his bacon.