Trent Lott’s Racism…Again
As reported by FOXNews.com, Trent Lott issued a statement regarding his racist commendation of Strom Thurmond’s segregationist politics:
A poor choice of words conveyed to some the impression that I embraced the discarded policies of the past. Nothing could be further from the truth, and I apologize to anyone who was offended by my statement.
That’s not an apology; it takes away with one hand what it pretends to give with the other. We should be clear about the real source of (political and moral) outrage for all decent, civil US citizens. Trent Lott is the majority leader of the US Senate, who toasted and feted Strom Thurmond at his birthday party, the same Strom Thurmond who ran for president in 1948 as a virulent segregationist and who’s pursued, rheumy-eyed and without apology or much dissembling, racist policies and politics his entire career. Did anyone who served with Thurmond in the Senate ever have the courage to shun him?
The real outrage, then, is that any US senator (or, for that matter, anyone else) would voluntarily associate themselves with Strom Thurmond, much less celebrate his birthday or his obscenely long tenure in the Senate. It simply will not do to act, toward some people, as if their politics, allegiances, and loyalties fall within acceptable bounds. Strom Thurmond — despite whatever “changes of heart” he claims (or, more accurately, I think, others claim on his behalf) he’s undergone — is just such a person. That any member of Congress, much less the Senate majority leader, would endorse Thurmond’s career, particularly its most noxious and evil aspects, in enthusiastic terms is deeply problematic — even for Trent Lott, who has obvious and only half-hidden neoconfederate views, who has commended the white supremacist Conservative Citizen’s Council, and so on.
Some may argue that if African American in South Carolinia (it’s clear that most white people there share Thurmond’s views about, for example, the civic harm of displaying Confederate symbols in public places) didn’t endorse Thurmond’s politics, he wouldn’t have been re-elected so many times. But African Americans are often blocked by the white majority, especially in South Carolina; to wit: the Confederate symbols issue, which is a deep dignitary harm to African Americans. It should not be surprising that African Americans could be blocked in trying to elect a right-thinking senator to replace Thurmond.
The other possibility is that, given Thurmond’s seniority in the Senate, African Americans support him — or refrain from opposing him strenuously — because, despite his policies and politics, he’s able to deliver pork (federal jobs) to an otherwise poor state. I know of no evidence to support this view; I’ve never heard African Americans make this kind of argument. I’m deeply suspicious of it.
As for Lott’s unapologetic apology, it focuses not on the real outrage, since to him celebrating Thurmond and white supremacy isn’t an outrageous act but a noble one, but on the ephemera — that some people misheard or misunderstood his meaning because of his “poor choice of words”. And yet his words were perfectly clear, as was his intended meaning which was that the US (that is, white people) would be better off if Thurmond’s segregationist (that is, white supremacist) politics had won out over the integrationist (that is, universal human rights-based) politics of the civil rights movements.
Does anyone believe — against considerable counter evidence — that’s not Trent Lott’s real opinion? This episode confirms Trent Lott as the most faithful inheritor of Strom Thurmond’s racist legacy. And it reconfirms that President Bush, who’s refused to publicly spurn Lott’s comments and who’s indirectly defended Lott, is eager to defend the racially unjust status quo. Al Gore got this one right — even if by sheer opportunism — when he said, very plainly, that Lott’s comments were racist and, thus, unacceptable. Jesse Jackson and the Congressional Black Caucus are also right to call for Lott’s resignation or demotion. That Republicans and Democrats defend Trent Lott’s racist claptrap is as shameful as it is unsurprising.
December 10th, 2002 at 5:23 pm
“Does anyone really believe that’s not Trent Lott’s actual opinion?”
Um, yeah, me- for one.
I have to preface this by saying I am no Lott fan, not hardly. Matter of fact, I am the bleeding heart liberal that is so unfashionable to be as of late. If a conservative Republican is running against a one-legged blind flea infested mangy yellow dog… I’m voting for the peg-legged mutt.
BUT, as LITTLE as I like Lott (I live in Carolina, I’m too busy being disheartened that Helms and Thurmond have been replaced by little minions of themselves than to fret about Lott)…
I think it’s a damn shame how people have twisted his words. I think Lott is a retard, I think his politics are twisted, I think his philosophies are devisive- but I don’t think he’s a racist, and if he is it’s not evidenced by these remarks in question. And I don’t think a few overly congratulatory remarks at a man’s 100th birthday party are worthy of all the attention they are garnering. His voting record is more dangerous than his eulogizing of Strom.
On a related note, as a black woman who has only lived in states that fought for the Confederacy, there is something about men like Strom I appreciate. I like knowing who I’m dealing with, I like people who are upfront with their prejudice and public with their ignorance. It’s the once-hooded bastards who have turned in their sheets for suits and who hide their racism behind smiling in your face that scare me way more than any Strom- or Lott- ever would.
What’s more, elected representatives are at the simplest level chosen to do just that- represent their constituencies. I don’t fault them for swaying with the political tide of the moment. Strom hasn’t endorsed a single policy that the few of my fellow citizens who pay attention weren’t at some point supporting- in secret if not in public.
I’m rambling- but to answer your question, yeah, there are those of us who think Lott’s remarks were stupid, but not that deep. It’s his own party that should be outraged- if anyone. The Democratic party is already portrayed in the right-winged press as crybabies looking to pick fights over semantics- and here we go again. It was a party, a roast, and lots of people made lots of laudatory embellished congratulatory remarks. So what. If you want controversy- you’ve made some where there was none.
December 11th, 2002 at 1:31 pm
I don’t think racism only “counts” if it’s “deep.” Does Lott hate African-Americans? Probably not. Does Lott support and perpetuate a status quo that is based on white privilege and institutionalized racialism? I think he does. Racism born of ignorance or stupidity isn’t dismissable, especially when an individual’s actions indicate that he has no intention of addressing and working against his own ignorance, as I believe Lott’s do.
December 11th, 2002 at 2:01 pm
Racism born of ignorance or stupidity isn’t dismissable, especially when an individual’s actions indicate that he has no intention of addressing and working against his own ignorance, as I believe Lott’s do.
Sarah,
I agree with the main points of your response to Elisabeth. However, there is one bit which I want to quibble with. I don’t think it’s justifiable to say that Lott’s remarks (and policies and politics, which are more important than his remarks) reflect a racism “born of ignorance or stupidity”.
Lott is not an ignorant person in the sense that he hasn’t had access to relevant facts and patterns of fact. Nor is he ignorant in the sense of being uneducated or unlearned. But there is a different kind of moral culpability which attaches to racism caused by true ignorance and racism caused by political and moral loyalties and consciously chosen strategies. I think we should work to keep these two separate.
Whether Lott hates individual African Americans is largely irrelevant. He has, however, vigorously pursued policies which reinforce the status quo and opposed policies which would change it, as you nicely point out. Even if he were so inclined, and I believe that he is not, offering an actual apology for his comments would run the risk of alienating his political base, which is very invested in making sure African Americans and other non-whites (as well as gays and lesbians, feminists, and other so-called “dangerous” Americans) are kept in inferior positions and are widely seen to be so kept. They want both the reality and the perception of oppression, and Trent Lott helps deliver it to them.
Thanks for the clear-headed post!
December 11th, 2002 at 5:58 pm
You: “don’t think racism only counts if it’s deep.” Well, neither do I- I don’t think; I’m not sure what you mean, actually. But I certainly didn’t say so…
I wasn’t “dismissing” Lott’s political actions, necessarily, but I am dismissing his comments.
What I was saying is that whoever posted originally asked (presumably rhetorically): “Does anyone believe — against considerable counter evidence — that’s not Trent Lott’s real opinion?” (Nice insertion of an annotated aside, after the fact; maintaining the integrity of your original remark would have been appreciated.)
And I was answering that yes, lots of us, even many of us who fundamentally oppose certain policies that men like Lott support, aren’t in the least offended or riled by his remarks, that just were not racist. Poor taste, though often coupled with racism, isn’t independently indicative of it.
I realize that free-thinking adults armed with all the facts will see this differently; I hope you do too. Lott represents and gives voice to a very palpable sentiment pervasive in my community. I’ve talked about this with lots of my associates in recent days, ones of both similar and differing political views… And even many those of us who oppose him politically, find those remarks incredibly benign. So once again… in answer to your question,
YES, LOTS OF US DO!
December 12th, 2002 at 4:12 am
I can’t believe people are making so much more of this than it really is. I was born and raised it Mississippi. I am a highly educated caucasion woman who is non racist. My husband’s best friend is a black man who is married to a white woman. What I don’t think people understand is the southern way. In the south, we say nice things about people to make them feel good. Congressman Lott simply said something nice to an old man. Strom stood for more than just racism, even in the day. We are able to separate that from the man. I don’t agree with what Strom believed back in the day either. I would have said something nice to him to make him smile on his birthday. People, we are so far beyond this in this day and age that it isn’t even funny. I can’t believe there are people still making an issue of things like this. The civil war is over. Quit dwelling on it. Even Strom has gone beyond it. We have more pressing needs in this country than to argue about these silly issues. This type of thing is why we are in such a mess as a country. We need to support each other and not stab each other in the back all of the time.
December 12th, 2002 at 11:26 am
I wasn’t “dismissing” Lott’s political actions, necessarily, but I am dismissing his comments.
This distinction is very tenuous; in political contexts, discourse is hard to distinguish from an action. Legislation is, after all, just a stylized, formal sort of comment or speech act, which creates certain obligations or restrictions when backed by the coercive force of social institutions.
Distinguishing between Lott’s comments and his acts doesn’t in any way, at least in my view, ameliorate the harm or the offense.
What I was saying is that whoever posted originally asked (presumably rhetorically): “Does anyone believe — against considerable counter evidence — that’s not Trent Lott’s real opinion?” (Nice insertion of an annotated aside, after the fact; maintaining the integrity of your original remark would have been appreciated.)
Two things: first, I posted originally, as should be clear from the “by Kendall Clark” byline underneath the title of the posting. Second, I don’t apologize for changing the piece as the story develops; I added the bit about ‘against counter evidence’ in light of the news reported on Tuesday that Lott said essentially the same thing about Thurmond in 1980 — which completely undercuts all these defenses of Lott’s comments as spontaneous, lighthearted, or unimportant.
And I was answering that yes, lots of us, even many of us who fundamentally oppose certain policies that men like Lott support, aren’t in the least offended or riled by his remarks, that just were not racist. Poor taste, though often coupled with racism, isn’t independently indicative of it.
But you’ve combined at least three things I’ve tried to keep separate and distinct: first, whether what Lott said is racist; second, whether what he said is harmful or offensive; third, whether what he said is expressive of his actual beliefs and opinions.
My rhetorical question was clearly about the third point; that is, in addition to being a racist, I was criticizing Lott for being a coward. That is, for not having the courage of his stable, long-term convictions and for seeming to abandon them in the face of political and social pressure. Given his history of such comments, of supporting bans on interracial dating, of attacking affirmative action and other social programs which benefit non-whites at every opportunity, of openly waxing nostalgic for the Confederacy — given this history, it’s hard to conclude that he misspoke. (I’ll say, too, that if I’m wrong about Lott and these are not his stable, long-term beliefs and opinions, then he’s an incompetent moron who should be removed by his party before he does more damage to them and to the rest of us.)
As to whether his comments are racist, I have no doubt, and that’s not the question I asked. (I think it’s clear that to express support for a racist system is to express the belief that, all things being equal, you prefer a world in which the racist system is maintained to one in which it is dismantled. It’s very difficult to see such a preference as anything but a racist one.)
Lastly, as for whether this particular racist statement is harmful or offensive, it depends in large part on which hearers of it you’re asking about. I think prima facie one should assume that racist statements from high officials may well be offensive to non-white citizens, that such statements constitute dignitary harms.
The soundness of that prima facie assumption isn’t upset, in my view, by the fact that some non-whites are not offended by some particular racist statement.
I realize that free-thinking adults armed with all the facts will see this differently; I hope you do too.
I should think that this web site is a sign that I support free and open conversation about these issues.
December 12th, 2002 at 11:34 am
What I don’t think people understand is the southern way. In the south, we say nice things about people to make them feel good.
Yeah, no one else in the US says nice things about people to make them feel good; that’s just so uniquely Southern!
How pathetic! Further, I fail to see how Lott was saying something nice to Strom Thurmond by saying that he was right about having done all he could do to save formal racial apartheid in the U.S.
How, precisely, is that a nice thing to say about Thurmond or about anyone else? The jarring bit that people aren’t focusing on is the supposed turning-away from his racist past that Thurmond achieved — I say “supposed” because I can find no apologies from Thurmond, no mea culpas, no proof whatever that this turning-away actually happened.
But Lott says that it did occur, of course; so if Lott really believes that, how is it a nice thing to say, in effect, “on your birthday, I want to point out that you’re actually wrong to turn away from your defense of American apartheid”.
This “it’s the Southern way” defense is absurd and incoherent.
We have more pressing needs in this country than to argue about these silly issues.
Now this is more like the Southern way: patronizing, paternalistic, and contemptuous dismissals of the feelings and opinions and viewpoints of people of color and anyone else who doesn’t pay lip service to the myth of the New South.
We need to support each other and not stab each other in the back all of the time.
Tell that to your Senator Lott!
December 12th, 2002 at 12:25 pm
I think that trying to ascertain what exactly was going through Lott’s head when he made these comments, and similar ones in the past, is not only impossible but also irrelevant. It doesn’t matter if he “misspoke” or if he was “being friendly” or if he was “caught up in the excitement.” An explicit endorsement of an historically segregationist politician’s once-held views is inexcusable. The words themselves, or the occasion, are not really the issue; they have simply served as catalysts for a broader, more public discussion of the current leadership of the Rebulican Party and its policies. Ideally, it wouldn’t take a birthday party speech to bring these serious issues of the deeply embedded racism in our government to light. But, if that’s what it takes, then I feel that an anti-racist must respond by condemning not only the words, but their speaker as well.
December 13th, 2002 at 2:28 am
of course he’s racist, he’s old white and from mississippi
December 13th, 2002 at 9:20 am
Please America, let’s call a spade a spade. This is not the first time that Senator Lott has spoken these racist words, he spit out almost the identical back in 1980. Also, he’s an honorary member of the CCC, a white supremast group in the south, I believe Miss. His record speaks for itself, his words speak for themselves. HE IS A RACIST and should not be a national leader of anything. Peace.
December 13th, 2002 at 10:36 am
In response to spider 2:
This has to be a troll, or an attempt at irony (wait! isn’t irony dead? satire will soon be, I suspect).
Please note that Lott’s words and actions are suffcient to condemn him.
If meant sincerely, I’ll just say that while that’s probably a fairly sound empirical generalization, it’s tactically insane. I mean, right now there’s enormous pressure to *not* acknowledge the plain racism of his *current words*, much less of his settled disposition!
Which is interesting, actually. If one makes the inference that an “old, white, conservative Mississippi guy” is likely racist (to some degree or other), you will hear *howls* of objection about prejudice, indeed of reverse racism. The benefit of the doubt is so strong that it supposed to override *overt speech* and total history.
This is very true of Strombo. Clearly he was one of the most noxious segregationists. Yet there’s an assumption that he’s “changed” in the last 50 years. He may have given up fighing the segregationist battle, but is this a virtue of him? He’s not, to my knowledge, *apologized* for his evil. That he got old and tired or was *just worn down* so he doesn’t actively pursue the causes of his youth, doesn’t mean he’s “evolved” in any morally praiseworthy manner.
Outliving one’s past evil seems insufficent for redemption. Repentance, atonement, and restitution are required.
Note that to the degree Strombo (or Lott) have been nasty players, they have that much more power to do good. Of course, Strom is prolly completely out of touch (and he’s been in the Senate…why?!?!?), but I would have been impressed if he’d repudiated Lott’s remarks. If anyone there had, in fact.
December 13th, 2002 at 3:24 pm
I believe what Trent Lott said is no big deal. I think it is more a commentary on what politically motivated news people find important. Trent Lott was seven years old when Strom Thurmond ran for president in 1948. Trent Lott might have had some idea of what he stood for in 1948 but don’t believe his comments were meant to imply he still wanted blacks and whites to be seperated. In the end all people must realize that as we age our viewpoints and politics can and do change. Please remember that when George Wallace died many blacks in Alabama cried for a man who thirty years before they wanted out of office. Robert Byrd was once in the KKK. All of these things are part of peoples past but it does not define them at this time.
December 13th, 2002 at 7:26 pm
Pamela,
While I agree with the substance of your comment, I’m a little taken aback by your opening line - “calling a spade a spade” is an idiom with a deeply racist history. Perhaps you were being ironic - perhaps not -either way, as Lott’s comments at Thurmond’s birthday party clearly illustrate, it is essential that words and their implications can have a powerful impact on one’s audience. I’m not talking about “hurting people’s feelings,” I’m talking about opening oneself up to allegations of racism. Be careful.
Moreover, Lott’s racism is not the central issue at stake here. The more important point, I think, is that the Republican Party engages in this kind of racial doublespeak ALL THE TIME in order to keep money coming in from contributors with racist views. Lott’s racism is no secret. His comments at the party didn’t reveal anything new about his character, but what they did reveal (or at least emphasize) was the hypocritical discourse that Republican politicians use, and have long used, when discussing race.
December 13th, 2002 at 8:24 pm
Well you wanted a real apology, and you got one from Lott today (somehow I doubt you and the others crying foul will be satisfied)- shame they had to interrupt regularly scheduled All Things Considered for us to hear it
If he’s sorry he should have apologized, but it’s really a shame that he was forced into retracting a benign remark that, when taken IN context, as you refuse to do- he shouldn’t be apologizing for at all.
I must admit it has disintegrated into pure comedy to watch you try and quibble over semantics to defend a point of yours, that well, a helluva lot of us just won’t buy. There are those of us who know Lott, know Thurmond, know all the issues and comments and history involved, and think a mountain is being made of a mole hill. (I tried to think of a good “racist” cliche like the spade/spade one, so you could guess at my irony, but none come to mind.)
I still contend that it is preferable to append, ammend, affix your entries if you must- doing these maintains journalistic integrity, but changing a remark you made and posted so publicly is disappointing. But that’s what we get to do when we have our own websites don’t we? Of course. But it kinda limits the ability of others to have discourse if you don’t leave posted what you wrote- as you wrote it.
To Kendall, based on the discussions I’ve read, you really have a gift for miring the whole conversation in semantics. I am truly impressed! Where were you when our high school Model UN team was short one member?! I don’t know what your eventual profession will be, but politics seems appropriate, since you are as skilled (this is a compliment) at warping remarks to fit your own agenda as are the political leaders you purport to criticize.
I took the time to read back through the archives of your site. From it I gathered a much clearer picture of where you stand on certain things, and I realize I agree with you on even more than I initially thought. But this is one issue on which you’re more than a bit off base, but hey- you can’t win ‘em all
Please keep writing- it makes for excellent and entertaining reading!
December 14th, 2002 at 4:34 pm
Let’s see, the Republicans have a black man fourth in line for the Presidency, and the Democrats have placed a former Kleagle of the Ku Klux Klan third in line–and the Republicans are the racists?
If the upper-level Republicans are in a meeting and a tragedy happens, such that the Republican President, Vice-President, and Speaker of the House are killed or disabled–the only elected federal official who has ever been a member (and not just a member, but an organizer) of the Ku Klux Klan, Democrat Robert C. Byrd, would become President.
Nine of ten black Americans are Democrat, more than 20% of that party. About 2.5% of the Republican party is black. And yet, when black conservatives (such as Clarence Thomas, Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, J.C. Watts, Alan Keyes) speak, their audience is the entire party. Indeed, in the 2000 GOP convention, the party was called “racist” because there were so many black speakers on the podium, as compared with the party membership.
Democrats use race only as a political tool. Sure there are plenty of smart black liberals (e.g. Al Sharpton, Kweisi Mfume, Melvin Watt, Tony Brown, Cornell West), but they are only trotted out to keep the black vote in line–they do not often speak to the entire Democratic Party.
Strom Thurmond ran on a states’ rights platform which, in 1948, included the right of states to the unjust doctrine of legally enforced segregation. This misguided position was the interpretation of the Supreme Court of the day. Today, this notion is nearly uniformly regarded (even by Thurmond) as wrong. It is a violation of the right of freedom of association as guaranteed in the first amendment.
But note that in 1948, separation of the races per se was not uniformly considered racist. Black intellectual Langston Hughes, born in the same year as Thurmond, advocated racial separation as a means of avoiding white oppression. I am not claiming that Thurmond’s motives were as pure as Hughes’s, simply that in 1948 it was not entirely clear that integration was a workable solution to racial issues.
The other thing that gets lost here is that rhetoric recognizing black power was far easier in the geographically segregated North. The white majority in Vermont has nothing to fear from giving equal political power to the 0.4% black minority. In Mississippi, justice for the 40% black minority meant a meaningful shift in their political destiny. I’m not saying that Vermont’s position was wrong, just that it was politically meaningless for them.
In today’s terms, consider the movement for reparations for slavery. If such reparations would not be costly, I think that they would have widespread support. It is easy to support racial justice when it doesn’t cost anything. When it costs, it is easy to find reasons such claims are “unfair”. One day, if such reparations are ever made, those who oppose them today will be seen as racist in the line of Thurmond’s 1948 campaign.
The racism of the South was in many ways fear of black power, rather than a heartfelt belief in black incompetence or inferiority. The fear that blacks would “take over”, as it was often put. Much of the so-called racial justice promoted by Democrats comes from confidence, born in the feeling that blacks are racially inferior, that steps towards racial justice (or rather the political tidbits that pass for racial justice) pose no risk to white rule. They see an America structured as the Democratic Party, in which blacks accept white favors, but know their place–despite their being a relatively large minority.
Black Democrats rarely stray from the straight party line. Colin Powell, after supporting both affirmative action and abortion rights, became Secretary of State. A black Democrat who opposed the party line on either of these issues, and spoke out, would be forced back into the fold. For example, despite the fact that opposition to abortion rights is prevalant among the black rank and file, black Democrats in the leadership are forced to toe the party line.
Thurmond, as a Democrat, filibustered the 1957 Civil Rights Act, a filibuster which was broken by the actions of Republican Senator Everett Dirksen (who also broke Democrat Byrd’s filibuster of the 1964 Civil Rights Act–this is the same Byrd who the Democrats have now placed third in line for the Presidency).
However, it is clear that Thurmond’s opposition to federal usurpation of power was stronger than his opposition to integration, as he switched to the Republican party in 1964 to endorse the candidacy of a committed desegregationist–Barry Goldwater. Goldwater had voted for the 1957 Civil Rights Act, against Thurmond’s filibuster. He voted for the 1960 Civil Rights Act. In private life he had desegregated his family’s department stores, as a city councilman he desegregated the Phoenix public schools, and as chief of the Arizona Air National Guard he desegregated that. Wherever Goldwater had the authority to desegregate, he did so.
Goldwater represented the conservative (i.e. libertarian) wing of the Republican Party, and a challenge to the more liberal wing represented by Eisenhower and Nixon. After the Nixon scandals, there was little political impediment to this libertarian element and this led to the rise of Reagan.
I am a white Southerner who has been Republican from the days when this led to my being called a “nigger-lover” by Democrats, as though this were a slur. The Democrats’ Byrd, as late as last year, was still using the n-word as a negative epithet (on Tony Snow’s program). My party has not retrenched from the principles of equal justice we sought all along.
In my state (Virginia), the so-called “massive resistance” to desegregation of public schools continued (led by another Democrat Byrd) until the voting rights act of 1965 led to the election in 1969 of our first Republican governor (Holton), who sent his own children to the desegregated public schools, appointed black state officials, and laid the first groundwork for an end to the Democrats’ racist regime. Even as late as 1969, his Democrat opposition was opposing him on the whispered grounds that blacks were going to vote for him.
The conservative/libertarian wing of the Republican party is frequently classified as racist, on the grounds that giving people the freedom to work for ends the government does not like permits racists to enjoy the same rights of association as, say, the NAACP. And it is certainly true that some racists have endorsed libertarianism as a means of resisting the power of government to impose on their freedom of association in the same way that these same racists once imposed on that right with respect to those who wanted interracial ties.
It is also true that Goldwater was one of only six Republican Senators to vote with Democrat Sen. Byrd (and the majority of Democrats in the Senate) against the 1964 Civil Rights Act claiming, “I don’t like segregation, but I don’t like the Constitution kicked around either.” His view was that the constitution guaranteed, rightly or wrongly, freedom of association by private entities, without regard to their political motivations.
But, given Goldwater’s history of desegregation, it was clear that Thurmond’s support of him was more a matter of supporting the constitutional guarantees than of supporting the particular ends of segregation. Thurmond later not only repudiated segregation but (surprisingly) said later that he never could understand how he got such a reputation as a segregationist.
In 1980, in support of Ronald Reagan, Thurmond made it clear that he hated the federal usurpation of power from the states when he said, “We want that federal government to keep their filthy hands off the rights of the states”. This statement led to Lott’s 1980 comment in support of Thurmond–where the context was explicitly one of federal power and not one of segregation.
So now, on the occasion of Thurmond’s 100th birthday, Lott is looking for something nice to say and he knows that Mississippi was one of four states to vote for him in 1948 (the majority of Southern votes went to Truman). So instead of saying “We voted for you but it was a big mistake”, he pulled out his line from the 1980 speech.
Unfortunately, on this occasion Lott did not speak at all about the politics of Thurmond’s campaign, this was merely a personal comment with (he thought) no political teeth, given Thurmond’s pending retirement. So without that context, the fear-mongering Democrats were free to interpret the comment in the worst possible light–hence the need for Lott to apologize.
The Senate is a body that is known for good relationships between people of opposing views. Lott could probably find kind words to say about Ted Kennedy as well–especially on the eve of his retirement from the Senate. I have seen Joe Biden come to the defense of Strom Thurmond’s character in superlative terms (against an attack made in a Senate hearing by representatives of NOW). The fact that the Senate is a body in which diverse people say kind things about each other does not make it a model for racism.
And the fact that Lott is in such trouble supports the position that America no longer wants to be racist (apart from the question of whether it is). Racism is a politically unpopular position, even in the South. Here in Virginia, for example, we were the first state in the nation to elect a black governor, and we are proud of that.
Republicans are sensitive to racial issues not because of the black vote (which seems to be suffering from a collective Stockholm syndrome in being solidly Democrat and is largely treated as a lost cause) but because people of all races and of all parties demand racial justice (although they disagree on what this means).
Given the political stigma of any hint of racism by a Republican (OK for Democrats, though), you don’t get to be Republican leader of the Senate on a secret agenda of racism. You do get there, in part, by playing the politics of being able to come up with something nice to say about anyone. Lott’s fumble did not reveal *any* desire for a return to enforced segregation in the South. Hardly anyone wants that, certainly not Lott.
By the way, if you want a good conservative speech which has the honesty of someone who is retiring from office, check out Dick Armey’s December 6 speech to the National Press Club.
December 15th, 2002 at 8:41 am
Once again I’m embarrassed to be an American (Clinton in the Oval Office and the 2000 election come to mind). I currently live in a foreign country (my husbands in the military). My job requires me to have many associates from this country and day after day I try to explain why we are the way we are. They look at us as divided, undisciplined and a country in chaos. From the outside looking in I kind of see what my associates do. In Lotts apology he said something like,and I’m not quoting,his speech wasn’t prepared, he was just going with it and speaking from the heart. Speaking from the heart, come on now he meant every word he said. Like I said divided and undisciplined but I wouldn’t want to live anywhere else in the world. So I’ll try to do my part for international relations and keep explaining!
December 16th, 2002 at 12:44 pm
I am an African American male and I am no Trent Lott fan either, however in all fairness, I don’t believe that his comment however stupid is was, was not meant in a negative fashion. It did have racist undertones, but I don’t think that he meant it in a negative way. As to the question if he is a racist or not, only he knows….
December 23rd, 2002 at 3:13 pm
Let Trent say what he wants to say. If you dont like it, do something relevant to counter. Whining is not relevant. Running for Senate might be more worth your time.
April 7th, 2004 at 1:40 pm
Will you now severely criticize Senator Dodd for his comments about Senator Byrd….or are you only looking for white “racists” on one side of the aisle??
September 9th, 2005 at 10:34 am
“White people invented racism not Black people. White people commit racism; Black people and others of color only react to it. White people only deal with the issue when it is expedient and convenient for them – especially when there is another election on the horizon and they need Black votes.”
As I said, and I reiterate, people of color did not start racism and they cannot stop it. Only White people can stop racism.
Don’t blame Helms, Lott, Bush or any other bigoted, overt or covert racist Whites elected to office. Blame the like minded people who put them there.
We live in a racist and sexist nation allegedly under God.
Why do White men have a monopoly on the White House? Sounds like its most of White America who can’t see past color and sex.
People of color have always SOUGHT OUT, supported, and elected White candidates. It is high time and long over due for Whites as a group to do the same. If not, separate and unequal will continue as we become even more polarized and divided as a nation.