Yep.
Posted on 12/15/2002 6:32:09 AM PST by chiller
December 15, 2002
BY MARK STEYN SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST Advertisement
C'mon over, baby, a whole shakin' o' Lott goin' on. On the face of it, it seems incredible that a mere month after Bush's election triumph, the Beltway should be immersed in a discussion of where the 2002 Republican Party leadership stands on segregation. For this, we have Trent Lott to thank. The incoming Senate majority leader couldn't even wait till he'd come in to start screwing up. Insofar as he has any conservative defenders, the defense is this: Hey, relax, Trent isn't racist, just stupid.
You're telling me. If he were still majority leader in 2004, the NAACP would be running ads with video of Lott's remarks--we're proud of voting for Strom, and, if everybody else had followed our lead in 1948, ''we wouldn't have had all these problems''--followed by footage of black bodies hanging from trees, gallant Southern gentlemen standing around having a whale of a time, Billie Holiday's ''Strange Fruit'' on the soundtrack, etc: ''Trent Lott says, if we'd kept segregation and lynching, we wouldn't have all the uppity Negroes we have today.''
Now maybe that's not what he meant. He was speaking, after all, at some old coot's 100th birthday party. Most 100th birthday parties take place in nursing homes and, if you drop in, you generally find a lot of people standing around the old boy with inane grins, talking very loudly and very slowly and agreeing with everything he says. Maybe that's all Lott was doing, given the unique circumstances of a guy entering his second century as a sitting senator.
But there were cameras present; there was a microphone. Successful politicians are supposed to have a built-in blocking mechanism in such circumstances: The borderline racist gag about the Filipino poolboy rises in your gullet, is within sight of your tongue, but at the last nanosecond your political radar detector spots the C-SPAN crew and sends it back down deep into your bowels. Wild'n'crazy gonzo pols--like John McCain, who regaled a Washington fund-raiser with a Chelsea Clinton/Janet Reno gag dependent for its effect on implied lesbianism and transsexuality--lack these antennae, and that's why they're not ambassador to China.
If the Republicans are going to make a 51-49 Senate work for them, they'll need discipline. When the man who's supposed to enforce that discipline is so undisciplined himself, he needs to go.
Lott made a bad situation worse in his attempt at damage control. His immediate reaction was that he regretted giving the impression that he supported the ''discarded'' policies of the past--''discarded,'' as if racial segregation is like the gold standard or the 55 mph speed limit, one of those things that comes and goes in and out of fashion. He then said he'd meant that back in 1948 ol' Strom had a lot of other good policies: ''Defense was a big issue. We were coming out of the war'' This is the Mississippi version of ''Mussolini made the trains run on time.'' Even if he did, it doesn't make up for the central defining plank of the platform. And, in any case, don't tell me the Dixiecrats bailed because Harry Truman, the nuker of Japan, wasn't tough enough on defense.
Strom led the walkout from the '48 Democratic Convention because a presidential panel had proposed a federal anti-lynching law and the abolition of poll taxes designed to keep blacks from voting. That's it.
Even if he had the best policies ever on defense or NEA funding or federally mandated bicycling helmets, they're just a little sprig of garnish on the segregationist beef. And, as it happens, in those days Strom was a fairly conventional big-government Democrat. That, after all, is what a ''Dixiecrat'' is: a Southern racist Democrat. The GOP candidate that year was Thomas Dewey, a man who lives on only as a headline. If Trent Lott was eager to refight the 1948 election, that's the fellow he should have been talking up. If small government's the issue that wowed Mississippi, those guys should have voted for Dewey, and the headline would have come true. Instead, floundering through another stage of his apology tour the other night, the senator couldn't even remember the name of the Republican.
That's his gift to the Dems. For the best part of two centuries, the Democrats have been the party of race: In the 19th century, they were for slavery; in the 20th, for segregation; in the 21st, for the neo-segregation of ''affirmative action,'' ''hate crimes'' and all the other paraphernalia of the modish trickle-down apartheid determined to make racial categorization a permanent feature of the American landscape. In fairness to the Dems, this evolution represents a significant century-on-century improvement: There's no reason to believe that one day, come the 24th or 25th century, they won't have reached the position that American citizens should be treated as freeborn individuals, rather than as chorus members of their respective identity-group kicklines. That's what the Republican Party stands for: Condi Rice is an effective, black, female National Security Adviser but she holds that position not because of her blackness or her femaleness but her effectiveness; she's better than the white males who were up for the job.
It's pathetic that Jesse (''Hymietown'') Jackson should be huffing and puffing about Lott's outrageous behavior. It's ridiculous that RNC Chairman Marc Racicot has been bullied into a meeting with Al Sharpton: If Lott is unacceptable as Senate majority leader, the race-baiting Rev should be unacceptable anywhere. But that's why principled conservatives have a right to be furious with the senator.
When the NAACP do their ugly dragging ads about Republicans opposing ''hate crimes'' legislation, they're right to this extent: Most Republicans do oppose ''hate crimes'' legislation, and for very good reasons. And when Al Gore taunts George W. Bush about ''affirmative action,'' it's legitimate to this extent: Most Republicans regard racial quotas as an obnoxious and un-American concept. But, when Democrats start bashing the GOP as the party of segregation, that baggage is theirs.
For a century and a half, race is one issue the Republicans have been right on--or, at the very minimum, less wrong. We've grown used to the Democrats' strange black-is-white world, where Al Gore apparently genuinely believes his father was a civil rights crusader rather than a civil rights obstacle. Segregation is the Democrats' history, and for Trent Lott to give them an excuse to dump it on the GOP doorstep is all the reason Republicans needed to be done with him once and for all.
Strom led the walkout from the '48 Democratic Convention because a presidential panel had proposed a federal anti-lynching law and the abolition of poll taxes designed to keep blacks from voting. That's it.
Yep.
Which brings up an interesting side note: There aren't many more people with Thurmond's past left in the Senate. We have to remember that this happened at Thurmond's 100th birthday party. He also had the entire Senate give him a moment of appreciation, as well as some testimonials by other Senators. The last Senator that I can recall living this long and still being in the Senate was Claude Pepper.
Who are the next Senators of that era who will retire or have milestone events? How will their retirement affairs be tainted by how the Democrats treated Lott? People haven't been dwelling on this much, but the whole Lott affair is also turning all the Thurmond tributes into back-handed compliments. How can they say anything of praise to Thurmond now and have it taken with any sincerity? How do we know they weren't feigning sincerity towards Thurmond all along?
I say this because the next in line for this treatment will be: 1) Robert Byrd, 2) Jesse Helms, 3) Ernest Hollings. What will happen to them and anyone who pays tribute to them?
-PJ
Perhaps Steyn has made it permissible to say things like "this mealy-mouthed pea-brain must go"! He is a stereotypical southern pork barrel specialist and nothing more. It has been a point of amazement to me that he continues to be elected Senate leader.
I don't think Lott's a racist but that's not my point. The idea that Dem senators are vulnerable because they are racist is laughable. What on earth is beyond excusing for the Dem's? They will take Lott's seat and thumb their nose at us. If what Lott said about Thurmond was so bad how is it that Strom himself is still revered and sat in the Senate so long? Never mind, that's not the point either.
I simply predict that if Lott steps down as ML he will also give up his Senate seat. Perhaps not all at once but shortly thereafter. The pubs will lose the senate majority before the new senate is sworn in.
So the liberal press is going to help us raise the bar on Democrats?
The liberal press is, in a perverse way, our friend. They force us to work that much harder, and allow the Democrats to be that much lazier. Hard work and laziness generally beget very different rewards.
Over time, the war in Iraq, terrorism, and national and international affairs will overtake this story, and the Democrats will have lost an opportunity control the agenda for positive purposes.
-PJ
If Republicans hold on to the Vacant Lott, then every single damn thing we do will be successfully filibustered, and said filibustering will have just enough of a veneer of respectability that it won't be portrayed as cynical partisanship.
Lott has to go, simply because he's a Class A F***-Up.
Another Steyn classic.
If I had a nickel for every time a Lott defender prefaced his remarks with, "Yes, he's stupid, BUT..." in the last 72 hours, I could retire.
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.