Posted on 12/10/2002 5:35:47 PM PST by xlib
Today on Rush a black air traffic controller was expressing his outrage over Trent Lotts comments at the birthday party. Rush made several comments, including the point that while racism surely persists, its much less common than it once was, that everybody has obstacles, some hurdles are greater than others etc. The caller was surprised to discover that RUSH LIMBAUGH IS NOT A RACIST!
This is the dilemma conservatives face: although many, if not most, conservative policy ideas would benefit the poor and minorities if implemented, conservatives are widely assumed to be indifferent or hostile to the poor and minorities.
There are some parallels between our dilemma and that of African Americans. During segregation, the trailblazers were exceptional people; Jackie Robinson was one of the best ever to play the game, the first black students at the University of Alabama were all honor students. But millions of ignorant rednecks just saw dumb, uppity niggers. These folks endured the abuse, and persevered, because they were conscious of something larger than themselves that they represented.
We too are subject to the false assumptions of ignorant people; these assumptions are often amplified in popular culture and the media, and it limits what we can accomplish. We have two choices: we can whine about liberal media bias, the double standard for liberals and conservatives caught in ethical lapses, etc etc, or we can heed the advice given to Condi Rice by her parents: youre going to have to work twice as hard, and hold yourself to a higher standard, than those who oppose you.
I was never prouder to be a republican during the impeachment than when Bob Livingston announced his resignation on the house floor. He had the guts to choose a higher standard, and the grace to accept his fate for falling short of it. The fact that Bill Clinton can debase the oval office and then try to portray a 21-year-old intern as a stalker, or that Jesse Jackson can yap about Hymietown, or that Robert Byrd can ramble on about white niggers, and survive politically, doesnt surprise me. They are democrats, and the ethical bar is set low. But republicans must choose a higher standard, and Trent Lotts comments make him unsuitable for the job he seeks to reclaim.
However, I despise him more than I do the Democrats. He didn't lead when he was given the responsibility to and because of that, he wasted the GOPs best opportunity in years to make meaningful reforms.
I will never defend him. This incident, both the initial comment and his subsequent mishandling of the negative reaction, could only happen to a stupid man. It is fitting because that is the kind of leader he was.
I think if we set that precedent then they will race bait us till the end of time.
I also think the very people who's wrath we are trying to avoid already hates us anyway, so it's too late.
If we'd gotten 12%, we could have avoided the Florida debacle. If we could consistently get 20%, by convincing enough blacks that (a) republicans aren't racists and (b) school choice, individual retirement accounts, medical savings accounts etc are an immediate and long-term GOOD THING for minorities and the poor, we'd be in control for the next 50 years, and, who knows, somewhere along the line a republican might actually get around to SHRINKING government instead of just growing it slower than the dems.
It is unfair that the media treats R's and D's differently, and that D's get a free pass on these issues, but life is not fair. Isn't that what we tell those who complain about their lot in life. We have to deal with the reality of the situation.
I don't want Lott to resign as Maj. Leader because Jackson and Sharpton want him to. I want him to do it because he is hurting the Republicans. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. If I happen to have the same opinion as they do right now, it isn't because I am being PC, it is because I am really angry at his stupidity. Is this the person who should be leading the Senate?
You really are funny and you have the honor of being my last post of the night. You are the one playing false word games. Answer this: Do you agree or not that the 1948 Dixiecrat platform had as its principal [menas "chief" or "foremost"] plank the upholding of Jim Crow laws through out the south [what were jim crow laws, I am sure you are asking now? They were laws thorughout the south that said that if you were "colored" you couldn''t do this or do that and you would go to this school and not that school where the non-colored folks went. Got it. Strom Thurmond was the Ross Perot of his day and his third party had a chief focus: resisting challenges to such Jim Crow laws--governnmentally enforced segregation of the races. Now, when a politician in 2002 goes all the way back to 1948 and says: gee, I am proud my state voted for the dixiecrats and ol strom and the country would have been better off going in Strom's direction -- the segregationist way, then that 2002 politician thus espouses his belief that segregation would have been preferable. If you do not get that, then there's nothing further I can do for you. "Your own words point out the frail twig of your argument...Trent Lott was a kid when Thurmond ran for president (1948). The only Thurmond Trent Lott ever knew was the one you admire. Trent Lott was praising Thurmond not the Dixiecrats. "
THIS IS THE BEST. MY OWN WORDS, eh. Yeah, some of us are required to actually read about things that happened before we were born. I guess your argument is that Trent Lott and maybe somebody else you know could never be accused of that, JACK. Later.
Yeah, that's a good way to welcome blacks into the GOP! "You put up with an ex-Klansman, so you should put up with a guy who said a segregationist should have been President!"
When you're a cipher, you can afford not to care what people think of you. People who can be de-elected have to care.
Besides, if Pat weren't a coward, he would run for local office instead of President. But he won't do that because he knows he will get thrashed.
Exactly what is your principle? That a racist shouldn't lead a party in the Senate? Fine! Lott's done as leader. But conservatives don't have any control over Byrd. Byrd will only go if the Demos demote him. Wouldn't it look worse for the Demos if they refuse to can their racist Senate leader?
Like I said: This is one of those moments when people have to decide what the heck it is they want -- to show that their standards are higher, or to feebly say, "If they can get away with it, we should be able to also."
As cited in Robert George's NRO column today, here is what was printed on the sample ballot for the Dixiecrats in Mississippi:
"A vote for Truman electors is a direct order to our Congressmen and Senators from Mississippi to vote for passage of Truman's so-called civil rights program in the next Congress. This means the vicious anti-poll tax, anti-lynching and anti-segregation proposals will become the law of the land and our way of life in the South will be gone forever."
If you can find me documentation that "states' rights" had any other content in the 1948 Dixiecrat Campaign besides the poll tax, lynching, and segregation, please provide it.
It might be worth taking a look at the civil rights plank in the '48 regular Democratic platform:
The Democratic Party is responsible for the great civil rights gains made in recent years in eliminating unfair and illegal discrimination based on race, creed or color.
The Democratic Party commits itself to continuing its efforts to eradicate all racial, religious and economic discrimination.
We again state our belief that racial and religious minorities must have the right to live, the right to work, the right to vote, the full and equal protection of the laws, on a basis of equality with all citizens as guaranteed by the Constitution.
We highly commend President Harry S. Truman for his courageous stand on the issue of civil rights.
We call upon the Congress to support our President in guaranteeing these basic and fundamental American Principles: (1) the right of full and equal political participation; (2) the right to equal opportunity of employment; (3) the right of security of person; (4) and the right of equal treatment in the service and defense of our nation.
These are all basically equal protection issues, not equal outcome issues. The issue of public accomodations is not even mentioned. As Clint Bolick has pointed out, from the 1860's to the beginning of the 1960's "equal opportunity of employment" as a civil rights goal meant overturning state regulations that artifically barred or hindered blacks from entering certain occupations; it did not mean racial quotas.
Besides, "state's rights" is not a conservative cause. Conservatives are concerned with the rights of human beings, not the rights of the state. "States' rights" is a phrase that has been abused for decades to mean the right of the state to take away individual freedom from people with the wrong skin color or parentage. That is what "states' rights" certainly meant in Strom's campaign in 1948. An enemy of human freedom is an enemy of human freedom, and that is what Strom was in '48. He outgrew it, and he should be commended for that, not for his earlier advocacy of tyranny.
The old Southern Democrats were the biggest statists around. From the point of view of liberty, a state-government statist is no better than a federal-government statist. Sometimes it is the proper function of the Federal government to restrain state-level statism in order to ensure American citizens the equal protection of the laws.
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.