Don Feder Gets Trenchant On The Lott Affair

Don Feder Com ^ | 12/22/02 | Don Feder

[goldstategop]

TRENCHANT (I HOPE) COMMENTS ON THE LOTT AFFAIR By Don Feder December 22, 2002

At the outset, please note the following:

1) I am no fan of Trent Lott. As Senate Majority Leader, Lott was an unprincipled pragmatist. So much so, that when he first became majority leader, DC conservatives produced buttons proclaiming: “Lott For Sale, Will Build to Specifications.” At the height of the current manufactured crisis, the Mississippi invertebrate went of Black Entertainment Television to plead that he now supports affirmative action (racial quotas) “across board.” That declaration was more profoundly racist than anything the Senator said at Strom Thurmond’s birthday party. In many ways, Lott does indeed represent everything that’s wrong with the Republican Party – lack of purpose, lack of courage, at times, even lack of consciousness – though not in the way his critics charged.

2) Segregation was evil. To tell a man that he can’t use a public restroom or that he has to sit in the back of a bus, -- to bar his admission to a public school or university -- on the basis of skin color is loathsome.

3) Had I voted in the 1948 election, it would not have been for Thurmond – or Thomas Dewey, for that matter. I would have supported Harry Truman, one of the few Democratic presidents I admire (along with Andrew Jackson). If not for Give ‘Em Hell Harry, we might have lost the Cold War at the outset. Truman also integrated the armed forces, another courageous move.

Enough disclosure. Lott’s resignation highlights a profound double-standard regarding racism. I doubt Lott’s opponents really believe his dumb remark reflects ingrained, or even visceral, racism, or a desire to return to the era of Jim Crow. But America now has a racial sensitivity Gestapo that pulls out its truncheons at the slightest sign of hostility – real or imagined -- toward people of color.

Of course, the reverse is not the case. Black grudge-bearers are free to condemn whites as a race, to say virtually anything about them, however vile and unjust, and to support policies (quotas, reparations) that are manifestly racist – designed to punish people for an accident of birth. And Democrats are free to race-bait to their hearts’ content, a tactic almost as reprehensible as racism itself.

You think Trent Lott’s awful?

You know what Lott didn’t do? He didn’t refer to New York City as Hymie-Town and complain that Jews are always “whining about the Holocaust.” He didn’t call Judaism a gutter religion. He didn’t spark a race riot in Crown Heights that led to the death of a young man or organize the picket of a white-owned business that resulted in the deaths of five (all minorities). He didn’t write a poem about Jews blowing up the World Trade Center.

He didn’t try to justify the thugs who burned down a large part of South Central LA in 1992 by calling their crimes “a spontaneous reaction to a lot of injustice and a lot of alienation and frustration.” Oh, and he didn’t suggest that George Bush had foreknowledge of Sept 11, but did nothing to prevent it so his business friends could profit from a war on terrorism.

In case you’re curious, those laurels go to Jesse Jackson, Louis Farakhan, Al Sharpton, New Jersey Poet Laureate Amiri Baraka (the artist formerly known as LeRoi Jones), Congress-creature Maxine Waters and soon-to-be-former Congress-cretin Cynthia McKinney. But don’t hold your breath waiting for any of them to be taken to the woodshed.

An unspoken assumption of our culture is that it’s racist (or insensitive, at the very least) to criticize a black person. Thus if I observe that Jackson is an opportunistic jerk – a person of limited intelligence and low morals – in the establishment’s eyes, my views must be shaped by racial animosity. (The more unscrupulous black leaders invariably exploit this assumption.) Thus it would seem that prominent blacks suffering from foot-in-mouth disease are to be the exception to Martin Luther King’s dictum that Americans should be judged by “the content of their character, not the color of their skin.”

Democrats passionately embrace the accountability double standard. Republicans meekly acquiesce.

When it was disclosed last year that the Reverend Jackson had fathered a child out-of-wedlock and used his influence to engage in corporate shakedowns, President Bush called the race hustler par excellence to commiserate. In the 2000 election, Hillary Rodham Clinton and Al Gore each made a pilgrimage to Sharpton’s Harlem headquarters to kiss his ring.

Black-on-white crimes are roughly ten times as prevalent as white-on-black offenses. How many of the former are hate crimes is anyone’s guess. Surely the anti-white racism that pervades our culture (the idea that whites as a race are responsible for black suffering) -- encouraged by the liberal elite and black race-baiters – plays a part in these crimes.

The Democratic Party, the media and groups like the NAACP are avid proponents of racial quotas in education and hiring. Cut through the rhetoric and murky reasoning in defense of these vile programs and it’s clear that they penalize or reward solely on the basis of race. What’s worse – to praise a form of racism long dead (if in fact that’s what Lott did), or to support a virulent strain of racism that’s alive and kicking?

For admissions to the University of Michigan, whose affirmative action program will soon be before the Supreme Court, race (minority status) counts for more than a perfect SAT score combined with an excellent essay. To tell a man or woman that they won’t get in to an elite school – even though they’re bright, studious and creative – because they also happen to be white (or Asian) is a species of racism every bit as ugly as get-to-the-back-of-the-bus or whites-only restrooms.

Although still just a sick notion (whereas affirmative action is a sick reality), reparations is racism writ large. It seeks to hold today’s (largely white) taxpayers responsible for the racial sins of the past. It’s a giant rip-off scheme, favored primarily by the least responsible black leaders – who believe they’ll be the ones to divvy the loot – and the loopier white liberals (which, come to think of it, might be a redundancy).

Race-baiting is almost as bad as racism. At this the Democrats excel. It is for them mother’s milk.

You may recall that during the 1998 election, the Missouri Democratic party ran ads which said, in effect, if Republicans win, more black churches will go up in flames. (Newsflash: “Newt Gingrich was seen fleeing the scene of a burning black church, a can of kerosene in hand.”)

Former felon-in-chief, William Jefferson Clinton (who actually believes he was born a poor black child) used the Lott fiasco to pontificate that Republicans are the second coming of the White Citizens Councils.

In the last election, Republican gains in the South were due to racist appeals to white voters, Clinton opined. “How do they think they got a majority in the South, anyway? I think what they (Republicans) are really upset about is that he (Lott) made public their strategy.”

This from a leader of the party that has it’s own unspoken strategy – to do whatever it takes to monopolize the black vote, including terrifying black voters with lurid visions of Republicans seeking to disenfranchise them, reestablish segregated lunch counters, and send them back to the plantations in chains. Simultaneously, Democrats strenuously oppose those measures that have the best chance of ameliorating the condition of urban blacks – including education vouchers.

Soon-to-be Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle and House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi have intimated that it’s now up to congressional Republicans to prove that they aren’t a bunch of cross-burners by supporting affirmative action, a general expansion of welfare programs and DC statehood -- in other words, to embrace racism to prove that they aren’t racists.

And so, as we rejoice in the political demise of the villainous Lott, we can all congratulate ourselves on this historic victory over racism. Meanwhile the most prevalent racism in America – camouflaged as compassion, justice or sensitivity -- is either tolerated or celebrated. Ah, well.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

But one group forcibly took it from another, and denied their access to it. Looks to me like its unjust enrichment at the expense of blacks.

[moonhawk]

Lott is the spineless one. Just look at his performance during impeachment, his power sharing with Daschle after the 2000 election, and his BET appearance.

Answer two questions:

1: What has he ever done good for the party?

2: What evidence do you have that he's NOT a racist?

[rdb3]

Yes, I often wondered how anyone could sign on and defend vigorously the BOR during those times..

It flies directly in the face of our Constitution and we weren't truly honoring our Constitution (hell, we weren't even accepting it's words at face value) until these practices were brought to an end.

I couldn't be proud of our document under such circumstances. I don't know how anyone could.

You've stated here what I've said numerous times much to the dismay of many who say that we are losing our freedoms. My question to them was simply, "When was the United States truly a free nation?" Keep in mind that these will quickly point to the era before 1913. To that, all I can do is laugh, then ask "Free for who?"

This is why I'm totally elated that goldstategop said what he did in his second point in his commentary on Feder's article. It was truly a breath of fresh air. Lastly, to me at least, it was like pointing out the obvious.

Birth of Tha SYNDICATE, the philosophical heir to William Lloyd Garrison.
101 things that the Mozilla browser can do that Internet Explorer cannot.

[rdb3]

And you'll never get an argument from me on that point. Socialism is slavery for both the slavemaster and the actual slave.

Birth of Tha SYNDICATE, the philosophical heir to William Lloyd Garrison.
101 things that the Mozilla browser can do that Internet Explorer cannot.

[rightwing2]

I have always thought HST was the most overrated of presidents. But it has been the Republicans who have helped to strengthen his reputation over the years. Goldwater cited HST as his favorite president even as HST was denouncing Goldwater and speaking out for LBJ and HHH. Reagan often quoted HST. I am unable to recall any Democrats extolling Dewey, though former Senator Paul Simon admitted that he voted for Dewey over HST. And when a Republican legislative leader extols Thurmond on his 100th birthday, all hell breaks loose. Remember, HST scolded Vice President Alben W. Barkley for waving at Thurmond as the 1949 inaugural parade passed the SC governor, standing with the spectators. HST called Thurmond an "SOB."

Indeed, just like with FDR, it is Republican leaders who can be heard seeing the praises of Communist appeasers FDR and Truman. FDR and Truman not only brought us Communist China, Communist North Korea, Communist Vietnam, and Communist Eastern Europe and a superpower Soviet Union, but brought us quite a bit of socialist programs at home whether it was FDR's New Deal or Truman's Fair Deal. Why? Probably just pandering to the socialist Communist appeaser vote which they must think remains strong in America today. Truman scolded Thurmond as an SOB? Well, that goes far to increase Thurmond's reputation in my opinion.

[Republic of Texas]

And that failed. Doing it in reverse will fail as well. It always fails. It always has. No matter how "just" you think it is, it will still fail every time it's tried. Humans have abused each other throughout history, and reversing the roles, while appealing to one's sense of fair play, never works. It just turns another group of people into dependent, resentful people. You can reverse the roles as many times as you like, history provides not one example of where that philosophy works.

[eddie willers]

a true conservative takes responsibility for his actions and recognizes when his living forebears were wrong

I took a black co-worker to lunch.
I paid.
I'm absolved.

[TLBSHOW]

So why is he allowed as a republican senator if he is racist? Maybe we should dump him then, is that what your spewing?

[1rudeboy]

Some tough guy. How many Eastern Europeans did he "repatriate" to the Bolsheviks?

[Republic of Texas]

Read post #53. It helps to follow the whole discussion before you chime in.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

I guess we need to just shut down the civil courts, then. No need to right those disputes over contracts, fraud or negligence.

[Republic of Texas]

What does that have to do with transferring wealth from one group to another?

[Jhoffa_]

You're right..

I also think it's why Black Culture as a whole doesn't put much stock in Conservatives or in the Constitution.

They see it as the document that didn't protect them, so why go to the mat for it?

We need to now though, now everyone is equal and further, we are all in the same boat. Nobody is going to drown alone here. That Constitution and the Spirit of Freedom behind it is the only thing that separates us from the third world hell holes we all cringe at on the nightly news.

Imho, we need to move on and concern ourselves with preserving it.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Read my lips - I can identify, with 100% accuracy, those people who were excluded from political and economic life in the South prior to 1964 and are still alive today. I can identify, with 100% accuracy, those governments which enforced segregationist, discriminatory statutes, and can identify, with 100% accuracy, those corporations which were authorized to do business in the South during that period of time, and which supported segregation and Jim Crow.

Wanna see how many interactions we can find between the group of claimants, the governments involved, and the businesses?

Betcha there are quite a few actual, valid claims.

[ImpBill]

Doug Feder, as is his wont, hit the ball outta da park with this article. I find it interesting so far reading the debate is still about Lott and how he either deserved to be dumped or was shafted by his own and mixed in are debates about Harry Truman.

One of the sentences that leapt off the page to me follows:
"In many ways, Lott does indeed represent everything that’s wrong with the Republican Party – lack of purpose, lack of courage, at times, even lack of consciousness ... ",

It is interesting whenever the policies of the GOP are raised for discussion on FR these days, those who are critical of GOP politics are ... in keeping with the Holiday spirit of love and tolerance ... chastised as being DU plants, libertarian loonies, Buchaneers, etc.

While I find the reason for dumping Lott repugnant and two faced, I for one am glad he is gone.

The GOP has an opportunity here to return to an agenda that places fidelity to and enforcement our Constitution through principled leadership. But I would bet they will continue playing the game of pragmatic middle of the road, moderation, rather than "lead".

[Jhoffa_]

But I would bet they will continue playing the game of pragmatic middle of the road, moderation, rather than "lead"

If past experience is any indication, that's a very safe bet.

[moonhawk]

I'm not spewing anything...I've been trying since day one to get Lott supporters to tell me what he's done for the party.

So far, no takers.

Including you.

[TLBSHOW]

It isn't Lott about Lott. Why is it most people get it and you don't.

[Theodore R.]

"I'm just saying that he (Thurmond) would have pursued a far better foreign policy than the disasterous Democrat President Truman." I have a sneaking suspicion that this is exactly what Trent Lott had in mind at that fateful Dec. 5, 2002, birthday party. But Trent got so sidetracked, with people questioning his commitment to "civil rights," that he never clarified what he meant. Instead, Trent went on a foolish, thoughtless "defense" that destroyed his effectiveness. And 87 percent in MS did vote for Thurmond in 1948. MS did not warm to HST then, but now, people there probably "admire" HST for all the wrong reasons.

Thurmond's birthday party will go down in history as important perhaps as the 1830 Jefferson Day birthday dinner in which President Jackson (the smarter politician) and Vice President Calhoun (the more able thinker) began to part ways, but all within the Democrat party. Calhoun later served as secretary of state in the nominally Whig administration of former Democrat John Tyler.

[ImpBill]

Unfortunately we think alike. Not much solace for our troubling times.

I like what you said. One question, however?

You stated, "I also think it's why Black Culture as a whole doesn't put much stock in Conservatives or in the Constitution. They see it as the document that didn't protect them, so why go to the mat for it?"

How many Americans, of all color have a clue what is in the Constitution? How many of the folks in Watts, or Cabrini Green, or Harlem for that matter have a clue about what the Constitution is or what is written therein, much less be willing to support it?

Unfortunately Americans of all stripes and colors today want others, mostly in the form of "government" to take care of their every need rather than the other way around.

Returning to Constitutionally conservative principles, I fear is never going to happen in the Republic. I wish I felt differently, but we have crossed the Rubicon, imho.

Merry Christmas!