Lott is too much [Sowell]

TownHall.com ^ | 12/12/02 | Thomas Sowell

[kattracks]

Anybody can put his foot in his mouth but making it a habit is too much, especially when you are in a position where your ill-considered words can become a permanent albatross around the necks of other people whom you are leading.

That is the situation now, in the wake of Senator Trent Lott's latest gaffe, his widely publicized statement that we would have been better off if Senator Strom Thurmond had been elected president in 1948. Senator Thurmond ran on a platform of continued racial segregation.

Does Senator Lott have any idea what racial segregation meant to black Americans -- and, indeed, to many white Americans, whose support was essential to passing the landmark civil rights legislation of the 1960s that did away with Jim Crow in the South?

Let me recall a personal experience from that era. Although I lived in New York, during the Korean war I was a young Marine who was stationed in the South. On a long bus ride down to North Carolina, the bus stopped very briefly in Winston-Salem so that the passengers could go to the restrooms. And in those days there were separate "white" and "colored" restrooms.

The bus stopped next to the white restrooms and I had no idea where the restrooms for blacks might be located -- or whether I could find it in time to get back to the bus before it left. So I went to the men's room for whites, leaving it to others to decide what they wanted to do about it.

I figured that if I were going to die fighting for democracy, I might as well do it in Winston-Salem and save myself a long trip across the Pacific. It so happened that nobody said or did anything. But I should not have had to face such a choice while wearing the uniform of my country and traveling in the South only because I was ordered to.

This was just one of thousands of such galling experiences -- many others were far worse -- that blacks went through all the time during the era of racial segregation that Senator Thurmond was fighting to preserve as a candidate for the Dixiecrats in 1948.

If Senator Lott spoke without thinking about all this, that might be one thing. But he made the same asinine statements back in 1980 and apparently learned nothing from the adverse reactions it provoked then.

More important, such statements are going to live on as long as Trent Lott is leader of the Senate Republicans. Whatever the issue and whatever the election, Senator Lott's statements are going to be a recurring distraction from the serious concerns his party, the Senate, and the country will be confronting.

The changing demographics of the country mean that Republicans over the years will have to make inroads into the minority votes that now go automatically to the Democrats. Remarks like Senator Lott's will be a permanent albatross around the necks of Republican candidates trying to win the votes of blacks or of others who want no part of a racist past that was overcome at great cost.

The position of black Republicans will be undermined especially, if not made untenable. And any blacks considering becoming Republican candidates, or even Republican voters, will have to have some long second thoughts.

As someone who is not a member of any political party, I will not be directly affected. But any American who wants to see the two-party system working will be affected when one party's self-inflicted wounds make its long-run viability questionable in the face of changing demographics.

Back in 1998, Representative Bob Livingston was scheduled to become Speaker of the House, just as Senator Lott is now scheduled to become Majority Leader in the Senate. But when a personal embarrassment in his life became public, Congressman Livingston announced his resignation, in order to spare his party.

While Bob Livingston resigned from Congress, though he had violated no Congressional rule, all that Senator Lott would need to do to spare his party would be to step aside from the role of Majority Leader in the Senate. Will he do it? Time will tell.

A tin ear and a loose tongue are a bad combination for any publicly visible leader, and Senator Lott has shown both on other occasions and on other issues besides race.

©2002 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

Contact Thomas Sowell | Read his biography

[ApesForEvolution]

Limpa-Lott gave the left another wedge and opened up the most sensitive issue of the last half century. The ads that will run, fair or noat, thanks to Duncehead, will set conservatism back if he is the Senate Leader. Lott as Leader is a 100% liability now. It was only a matter of time.

[Britton J Wingfield]

I figured that if I were going to die fighting for democracy, I might as well do it in Winston-Salem and save myself a long trip across the Pacific.

Well said!

[Right_in_Virginia]

"LOOK: this is NOT a question of political power."

With all respect, of course it is.

If we don't have more Republicans in the Senate, then Daschle---and not the President---sets the agenda.

It's ALWAYS about political power.

[BraveMan]

The fallout continues. We're all racists by association . . .

              www.jsonline.com               Return to regular view

Original URL: http://www.jsonline.com/news/metro/dec02/102641.asp

Harris would have been dismayed

Last Updated: Dec. 11, 2002

Eugene Kane E-MAIL  | ARCHIVE

I can't help but wonder what Webster Harris Jr. would have made of Trent Lott.

Harris, who died suddenly last week at the age of 67, was one of Milwaukee's most prominent black Republicans.

As chairman of the Milwaukee County Election Commission, he oversaw much of the turbulent dealings connected to the Milwaukee County recall movement earlier this year.

For those who knew him well, Harris was also known as a staunch Republican activist who encouraged other blacks to take advantage of opportunities for advancement inside the GOP.

It wasn't an easy sell.

Finding an authentic black Republican in some black communities is only a bit more rare than encountering a black Eskimo.

Basically, most blacks vote Democratic, the party they feel speaks most directly to their needs.

When the leading Republican in the Senate makes an unfortunate "slip of the tongue" in support of racial segregation, can you blame them?

Speaking at a 100th birthday celebration for retiring Sen. Strom Thurmond, Lott said these now-infamous words:

"I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it.

"And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either."

Thurmond, of course, ran for president in 1948 as a Dixiecrat on a platform calling for the continuation of segregation in the South.

Apparently, in 2002, Senate Majority Leader Lott harbors a fond nostalgia for the days of Jim Crow.

Harris, although faithful to his party, would have been disheartened by this latest blemish on the GOP's image with blacks.

I used to tease Harris about his party loyalties whenever we ran into each other, most often at Mr. Perkins Family Restaurant, a soul-food place on the north side.

My favorite taunt was to quote the father of retiring congressman J.C. Watts, a black conservative from Oklahoma.

When asked about his son's political leanings, the senior Watts reportedly answered:

"Black folks voting for the Republican Party is like a bunch of chickens voting for Col. Sanders!"

The line always made Harris laugh.

But he never wavered in his main belief; black folks needed to support the Republican Party for several reasons, not the least of which was preventing Democrats from taking the black vote for granted.

For almost 20 years, I used Harris as a source for stories concerning the continuing struggle of the GOP to recruit more blacks to the ranks.

That proved to be harder than one would think, considering that polls reveal many African-Americans actually support conservative issues like school prayer, welfare reform and the death penalty in their private lives.

Those similarities beg the question: Why don't more blacks vote Republican?

Which brings us back to Republicans like Trent Lott.

Black voters may share some ideals, but they're not going to share a party with people they feel don't really accept them as human beings.

Typically, Lott tried to explain away his comments as "a poor choice of words conveyed to some the impression that I embraced the discarded policies of the past." He forgot to mention he was quoted as saying almost exactly the same thing about Thurmond almost 22 years ago!

Add to that Lott's appearance before a white supremacy group called the Council of Conservative Citizens in 1999, and it's hard to accept the Mississippi congressman's words as just a slip of the tongue. More like some inner truth escaping while he wasn't paying attention.

Webster Harris was a black Republican who loved black people. Even blacks who disagreed with his politics respected him, because they knew where he was coming from.

He might have voted for the occasional Col. Sanders, but only as a way to keep blacks from putting all their eggs in the same basket.

A version of this story appeared in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel on Dec. 12, 2002.

Eugene Kane Archive

Harris would have been dismayed (12/11/02)
A phrase whose time has come and gone (12/9/02)
More lessons to learn on affirmative action (12/7/02)
A more cooperative government, if you please (12/4/02)
Have you thanked an in-law lately? (12/2/02)
Racist groups don't merit attention (11/20/02)
Leaders need to wake up, heed calls (11/18/02)
Moore film on guns gets split reviews: impressive, dishonest (11/16/02)
If there's war, let's all fight it, vet says (11/13/02)
Snipers shake, but don't topple stance (11/11/02)
More ...

Contacting Eugene Kane

Call Eugene Kane at 223-5521 or e-mail: ekane@journalsentinel.com

[Right_in_Virginia]

"See, your premise is wrong. They are coming out against Lott because it is the right thing to do."

Huh? So this is why the DemocRATs won't let go of this? They're holding onto this out of a sense of moral righteousness?

Please, in politics all things are political. ESPECIALLY among DemocRATs.

As far as the conservatives who have come out against Lott...well, I do think they believe it is the right thing to do.---But, let's not forget that Pat Buchanan acted purely on his sense of what was the "right thing to do" in 1992...and he ended up helping to introduce the Clintonian virus to the American soul.

We're neck deep in polictics and that means we must...THINK!

[Leto]

Lott said the country would have been 'better off' if a Candidate who ran with the rationale of maintaining segration, as his core issue was elected. He is either a bigot or a moron. Based on his past activity, I regard Lott as a morom.

Defending Lott's comments is mana from heaven for Carvile, Begala, McAuliff and thir ilk. He should not seek the Majority Leader position for the good of his party and the country.

[thegreatbeast]

I will go to my grave wondering where and how Lott came out saying he wanted blacks back in chains and separated from the white women. Words mean things but blanket statements mean little but just enough, apparently, for the camel to get its nose under the tent. Please explain to me, I beg you all, how I too can divine the unspoken meaning of what people DON'T say!
Usually we don't prosecute people for thought or word, but here we have a prosecution for an unspoken thought. This scares me far more than what the "civil libertarians" worry about coming from Ashcroft & Rumsfeld!

[Dataman]

If he was not, then what is the big fuss? The best you can say is that he's got a tin ear and a stupid mouth, and for that reason should resign leadership and can stay in the Senate. (This probably is my position.)

Right again, Dan. I have been wondering how this thing could be such a big deal as well. Though I'd shed no tears if Lott stepped down, I stand, no- I sit in utter amazement at the hypocrisy shown by his critics.

It is also beyond comprehension how a man's words mean what his critics say they mean, not actually what he says they mean. That is, of course, a phenomenon that only exists from Left to Right and never the reverse. Completely incomprehensible!

If the government schools had not abandoned the task of education 40 years ago, we might have witnessed a little more intellectual analysis of the situation. As it is, all you need are a couple of functioning glands to be a pundit.

[panther33]

I'm tired of this crap about Lott. Too many people are twisting his words around and making him out to be a racist white boy.

Bullsh-t. Everybody knows what he was referring to with Thurmond's 1948 campaign, and it wasn't segregation. While I realize that he has to at least soothe some people, if I were him I wouldn't have even apologized for my remarks. I would have explained them instead. If that isn't good enough, then I wouldn't want your vote anyway.

Lott should remain Senate Majority Leader!

[HardStarboard]

You nailed it mykdsmom....the delimma is huge. Tough to have been against most of Lott's weakkneed leadership over the past...what? 8 years or so....and now to morn his demise.

A leader he isn't - a vote for the Pubbies he is. Can he be both and survive?