So, Earl Butz thought only black men wanted this?
Posted on 12/14/2002 10:38:23 PM PST by Tall_Texan
"Do you know what the black man wants?", asked Secretary of Agriculture Earl Butz to former White House Counsel John Dean while the two were flying on a plane trip together back in the early 1970s.
Butz' answer to his own question, an alleged joke, is probably still too distasteful to print - even on Free Republic - so I'll give you the paraphrased answer that was printed in most of the media over a quarter-century ago.
If you'd prefer the actual answer, it was "loose shoes, tight p---y and a warm place to s--t". The papers sanitized it to read "loose shoes, good sex and a warm place to defecate."
It was said in a private conversation. It was not said in a public forum. It was said by a man from Indiana, apparently free from the influence of the segregationist South, still just a few years beyond the civil rights turmoil of the mid-sixties.
But that didn't matter. Word of this private "joke" was published by Dean and it created a national uproar. A Nixon appointee, it was then-President Gerald Ford who decided he could not abide having Butz continue in his cabinet and forced his resignation.
Before stepping down, Butz had issued public apologies and tried to hold onto his job. He felt betrayed by Dean for revealing to the public something he had said in private.
Was Butz a racist? Probably not. There's no outstanding evidence to say that he or his policies even once sought to deny blacks due process or equal rights under the law. But he did tell a joke about a minority group that many found offensive. What it did do was reinforce a perception, already prominent among blacks, that Republicans were not sensitive to their plight and even made fun of them when they felt safe to do so.
President Ford, himself something of a tin ear when it came to political nuance, understood that whether Butz was a racist or not wasn't really the issue. The issue was that Butz had become a political liability and a source for criticism and derision. Ford knew he had to do what was politically astute and sack his Secretary of Agriculture, even though his on-the-job performance was never in question. Butz' character, and with it the image of the Republican Party, was the issue and Ford, facing a tough election campaign, needed the issue to be dead and buried.
Fast forward to 2002 and the sad tale of Sen. Trent Lott. By now, nobody on FR needs to be informed as to what he said. They can decide for themselves if his comments were meant as a)a joke b)a sweeping tribute to a colleague rather than as an endorsement of his 1948 Dixiecrat campaign or c)a less-than-subtle nod towards segregation and the exclusion of blacks from the mainstream of society.
I'm inclined to believe it was b). But that really isn't the issue any more that Earl Butz' comments can be dismissed as a private off-color joke. In politics, perception is often more powerful than fact. Lott is the Republican Leader of the Senate. His face and voice are on television frequently representing all (or most) Republicans in the U.S. Senate. After President Bush and Vice President Cheney, one can argue that he is the third most prominent Republican in Washington. If you are a Republican, what Trent Lott says reflects on you.
And while his comments may have been twisted and distorted by liberals to represent something it probably wasn't intended to be, the controversy his words created and the reflection it leaves on the entire party is one that stains us all. If the perception is that Lott was making a veiled endorsement of segregation, this perception will be extended to all Republicans as long as he is their representative and leader.
The main difference between Lott and Butz is that Butz had just one boss to decide his fate. Lott has many or none, depending on how you look at it. There is nobody with direct power (short of a recall by Mississippians) that can remove him either from his leadership post or from his elected seat in the Senate.
Most seem to think there are only three options for Lott - resign his seat altogether, resign only from his post as Majority Leader or withstand all the criticism and simply stay in his present capacity. The first choice ends Lott's political career, just as it did Butz'. The second neuters him in a way he would probably find unacceptable. The third is, in my mind, committing hari kari against his own political party.
But there's a fourth option.
For the good of the party and to be fair to his fellow Republican senators, he should allow his leadership position to be voted over again with all 51 Republicans able to say who should represent them. If they choose to still be represented by Lott, at least we will know the senators stand behind Lott's comments at Strom Thurmond's 100th Birthday. And we can look forward to a Democrat Congress in 2005, if not sooner.
If Lott refuses, I hope a Republican senator moves to censure him before the Democrats get in line to do so.
Lott must be persuaded, at the very least, to have a re-vote for Majority Leader. Then let the Republican Senators decide. My guess is that most will come to their senses and choose another Majority Leader.
Lott can then choose if he wants to resign his Senate seat or continue out his term and seek to rebuild the trust and consensus that has eroded since his statements were aired.
It takes an honorable person with respect for his party and his office to allow his name to be judged anew among his peers. Who needs a leader that the others aren't willing to follow? Will Trent Lott be such an honorable person? Only time can provide that answer.
My recollection is that Pat Boone was the fellow passenger.
So, Earl Butz thought only black men wanted this?
I think he should call another election and I think he should be man enough to accept the outcome. But then, Lott has never been known to be a man of honor, merely a man who wants power.
I think you have something. The health of the party is more important than Lott remaining as SML.
America's Fifth Column ... watch Steve Emerson/PBS documentary JIHAD! In America
New Link: Download 8 Mb zip file here (60 minute video)
Well, getting only one out of three from the GOP has me a little miffed, also.
If it simply means pointing out the differences between cultural groups then almost everyone is a racist. Look at all the comments going on about Arabs since 9-11. A lot of that is blatantly racist but it's not framed as such.
So I personally go less by a person's words as by their actions. Do they lash out in violence against a particular racial or ethnic group? Do they refuse equal access or opportunities to certain racial or ethnic groups or support those who do? Those are the ones I personally consider racists.
I've always felt Archie Bunker wasn't a racist as much as he was ignorant. He was a reflection of the society he grew up in and believed all the stereotyping he'd been told about various ethnic and racial groups. And yet he tolerated folks from other races in his home and at his workplace. He just never understood that the stereotyping wasn't true. In fact, I think he'd have fit right in with today's Democrats in that he viewed everyone by their group identities and not by their individual qualities.
It's very difficult to assess either Lott or Butz from such a distance, not knowing how they are in private conversations. But I don't think either is a racist although some things in Lott's background make me wonder if he once was.
Might well have been. But this story has achieved borderline "urban legend" status over the years, so we might never know for sure.
For example, the version I heard had Rolling Stone breaking the story, because their man Ben Fong-Torres was on the plane.
Goes without saying that Rolling Stone does not "sanitize" much of anything.
Bull. In those days, Indiana - once outside the urban areas of the state, was percieved (rightly or wrongly) by most as being as prejudiced as depest, darkest Mississippi. And Butz's comments were pointed to as indicative of that mindset.
It was continually pointed out that the home of the KKK was in Plainfield. Ironically, today, Plainfield (in particular, metro Indianapolis in general) is a huge hotbed of Muslim activism in the midwest, with a population penetration second only to Dearborn, MI & the Detroit metropolitan area.
In any event, Butz's comments were used to help reenforce the perception that all Republicans are racist, and Lott's comments will be used the same way today. It's going to be difficult at best for me to overcome this, but I will - in time.
Whether right or wrong, personally, I don't expect Lott to survive the week, in that regard.
I'm glad to hear Don Nickles say today he wants a re-vote. The story said he needs four other senators to ask for the same and a vote can be held. Let's not leave it up to Lott to save his own neck. Either the rest of the party has to get behind him and save him (a poor choice in my view) or they need to convince him to step down.
Oh, yeah. It'll be mighty difficult to discuss this rationally with swing voters.
On the other hand, I think the problem will be just as difficult once the "professional poverty pimps" get wound up after Lott is drummed out of the leader's chair. They'll settle for nothing short of Lott's complete ouster.
This is going to be VERY difficult at best. A large measure of how this falls will be predicated on the reaction to Lott's contrition speech on the talking head shows today and tomorrow.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.