Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Selective Moral Outrage - Looking beyond Trent Lott’s gaffe.
National Review Online ^ | 12/10/02 | Mark R. Levin

Posted on 12/10/2002 11:04:21 AM PST by wcdukenfield

On Tuesday, October 22, 2002, Bill Clinton traveled to Fayetteville, Arkansas to honor the life of the late Arkansas senator, J. William Fulbright by dedicating a seven-foot-tall bronze statute of the man.

According to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, "The $100,000 sculpture is the final [expenditure] of an $850,000 fundraising campaign for a project to honor Fulbright. The $750,000 fountain was dedicated October 24, 1998."

Among other things, Clinton said, "If [Fulbright] were here today, I'm sure he would caution us not to be too utopian in our expectations, but rather utopian in our values and vision."

And back on May 5, 1993, in what the Washington Post characterized as a "... moving 88th birthday ceremony for former senator William Fulbright, President Clinton last night bestowed the Presidential Medal of Freedom on the man he described as a visionary humanitarian, a steadfast supporter of the values of education, and 'my mentor.'" Clinton added, "It doesn't take long to live a life. He made the best of his, and helped us to have a better chance to make the best of ours.…The American political system produced this remarkable man, and my state did, and I'm real proud of it."

Of course, the man Clinton was praising, who he called his "mentor," who supposedly embraced utopian values and made the world a better place for everyone, was also a rabid segregationist.

In 1956, Fulbright was one of 19 senators who issued a statement entitled the "Southern Manifesto." This document condemned the 1954 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education. Its signers stated, among other things, that "We commend the motives of those States which have declared the intention to resist forced integration by any lawful means." They stated further, "We pledge ourselves to use all lawful means to bring about reversal of this decision which is contrary to the Constitution and to prevent the use of force in its implementation."

Of course, in 1957, the first serious challenge to Brown occurred in Fulbright's backyard. Fulbright's Democrat colleague, Arkansas Governor Orville Faubus (another early Clinton backer) ordered the National Guard to surround Central High School in Little Rock to prevent nine black students from attending the school. President Dwight Eisenhower dispatched the 101st Airborne Division to protect these teenagers and enforce the Supreme Court's decision.

Fulbright later voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act. He voted against the 1965 Voting Rights Act. And he did so because he believed in separating the races — in schools and other public places. He was a segregationist, heart and soul.

Now, given the turmoil surrounding Trent Lott's foolish statement last week about Strom Thurmond's 1948 presidential campaign, you'd think there would have been at least some outcry when Bill Clinton lionized Fulbright a mere six weeks ago, or when he awarded him the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1993. But there was nothing in the Washington Post admonishing Clinton, which today published a scathing editorial against Lott. There was no criticism in the New York Times, which today is running a vicious column by Paul Krugman implying that Lott is an overt racist.

And while I'm on the subject, I don't remember some of the conservatives now voicing outrage at Lott holding Clinton to the same standard either in 1993 or October of this year.

But I'm not making excuses for Trent Lott. He should have apologized for his insensitive comments, and he did. Nor am I making excuses for Strom Thurmond's past. I'm questioning the hypocrisy of selective moral outrage by the Left.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Government; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; Unclassified
KEYWORDS: clinton; fulbright; levin; lott; racism; thurmond

1 posted on 12/10/2002 11:04:21 AM PST by wcdukenfield
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: wcdukenfield
Yup. But the "gosh, the Dems do it too" stuff is just the mirror-image of Larry Flynt "defending" Clinton by coming out with other folks' skeletons...
2 posted on 12/10/2002 11:05:52 AM PST by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wcdukenfield
If lot had said that Thurmond was a great man and his mentor, not problem. The problem is that he wished for a revised history that would have strengthened segregation. That's different.
3 posted on 12/10/2002 11:12:06 AM PST by BillCompton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wcdukenfield
hypocrisy is fundamental to liberalism
4 posted on 12/10/2002 11:12:17 AM PST by Texas_Jarhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
Yup. But the "gosh, the Dems do it too" stuff is just the mirror-image of Larry Flynt "defending" Clinton by coming out with other folks' skeletons...

Actually, I thought the author was making a completely different point. Clinton excused his behavior by accusing the right (often falsely) of acting the same way. The author is not excusing Lott's conduct and is quite explicit about that.

Rather the author is pointing out the hypocricy by the left and it's media organs. They go hysterical about Lott and ignore the N word by Byrd and ignore Fullbright's history when Clinton gives him an award.

The point was that the left's PC hysteria is not motivated by any real concern for PC. Rather, it is a weapon to be used selectively to silence opponents and to gain political power.

That said, Lott spoke inappropriately and we should not be hypocrits. When one of ours misbehaves, we usually take him to task, eg Richard Nixon and now Trent Lott.

5 posted on 12/10/2002 11:12:35 AM PST by ModelBreaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
Gaffe's azz.
6 posted on 12/10/2002 11:12:45 AM PST by kinghorse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ModelBreaker
Fair 'nough.

Too many Freepers are willing to say "well, it's from the left, yada yada yada."

The best we can hope for is that this was just a moment's idiocy, one of many.

7 posted on 12/10/2002 11:15:22 AM PST by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Texas_Jarhead
hypocrisy is fundamental to liberalism

Good use of words. Maybe that'll be the title of Anne Coulter's next book: Liberal Fundamentalism

8 posted on 12/10/2002 11:18:28 AM PST by unspun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
Unfortuantely, all these skeletons in our history are there to find for anyone looking. I thing the point is not "where we were" but "how far we have come," and in such a short time.

There is the issue of "Will this argument work?" But there is also the issue of truth. Lott didn't mean it the way Jesse Jackson and others are choosing to take and exploit it. I think that's the point in exposing Clinton. Not to get anyone off the hook or say "they do it too." Rather, the point is to say "Clinton was not endorsing segregation and neither was Lott."

Do you see what I am trying to say? I hope. (I can be articulation challenged sometimes, lol.)

9 posted on 12/10/2002 11:24:43 AM PST by RAT Patrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: RAT Patrol
You are presuming a level playing field that does not exist.

Lott has got to go.
10 posted on 12/10/2002 11:28:21 AM PST by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: kinghorse
I don't defend what Lott said, because it was DUMB, he should have known better than to say things like that. He knows about the GOP hating race baiters in the media and Congress and how they're just waiting to bash the GOP over the head with anything

What makes me want to vomit, however, are these high and mighty hypocrite RATS like Al Gore(whose father voted against the Civil Rights Act and whose family forced their black maid to sit in a hot car while they dined in "Whites Only" restaurants). The recent "enshrinement" of a man like segregationist Fulbright as recently as six weeks ago (without a peep from the NYT and WP leftists) is equally vomit-inducing.

The left wing GOP-bashing hate machine is full gear today, but you didn't hear a thing when Cruz Bustamente used the N-word or when the KKK recruiter had his "slips of the tongue."

Let all those hypocrite @ssholes foam at the mouth over this. Lott apologized. Even if he does resign, I guarantee you the race-baiters WILL NOT let the matter go. They won't be happy until Lott blows his brains out, or forks over all his worldly possessions for "Reparations" to Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.

Frankly, I wanted Lott out as majority leader for a while (for being a spineless), but then who will fill his shoes? It better be someone who's an improvement!!!

BTW, the reason that Little Tommy D@sshole actually excused Lott's comments is because he wants that spineless, ineffective wooss as majority leader.

11 posted on 12/10/2002 11:34:40 AM PST by RooRoobird14
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: wcdukenfield
There is a big difference between honoring a segregationist and honoring his segregationist behavior, and Trent Lott illustrated this by doing the latter when he should have done the former.

Going on about how Thurmond's Dixiecrat segregationist presidential campaign should have succeeded was both unnecessary and assinine, unless, of course, Lott was sincere in wishing for the success of racial segregation, which is what primarily defined the difference between the "Dixiecrats" and the Democrats. In referring to that campaign specifically, Lott was, in no uncertain terms, waxing nostalgic about an openly segregationist endeavor.

I expect better from a man in his position of national trust, and I don't apologize for doing so.

Lott apologized, but I think he deserves every lash the press and his colleagues deal out to him.

12 posted on 12/10/2002 11:37:20 AM PST by Imal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
You are probably right, though it is terribly unfair and unjust.
13 posted on 12/10/2002 11:38:15 AM PST by RAT Patrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
Lott also needs to go because he is a coward. Daschle knows how to rule with an iron fist. The next Republican Senate leader needs to follow in his footsteps.
14 posted on 12/10/2002 11:41:13 AM PST by GulliverSwift
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: wcdukenfield
That should be Orval Faubus, not Orville.

According to William Doyle in An American Insurrection: The Battle of Oxford, Mississippi, 1962 Faubus had promised Eisenhower that the Arkansas National Guard would protect the black students who were trying to attend Central High School, but then double-crossed Ike.

15 posted on 12/10/2002 11:50:20 AM PST by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BillCompton
The problem is that he wished for a revised history that would have strengthened segregation.

Please, tell me, where forced integration has prospered Americans in general and blacks in particular?

It anything, it has lead to urban blight and suburban expansion, i.e., natural segregation.

16 posted on 12/10/2002 11:51:28 AM PST by A2J
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: A2J
The comment in reply No. 5 got it exactly right. I don't see this article as even a defense of Lott, but rather a discussion of the hypocracy and political demagoguery of the Left.

They've tolerated far worse comments and far worse intentions from Democrats for the last 50 years. They know that Lott is not a segragationist. They know he's not a racist. This is the usual race-baiting.

In short, the media claims moral outrage, but is very selective about - just like the article says.
17 posted on 12/10/2002 12:08:40 PM PST by wcdukenfield
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: wcdukenfield
Clinton said, "If [Fulbright] were here today, I'm sure he would caution us not to be too utopian in our expectations, but rather utopian in our values and vision."

since when are liberals utopian in their values???? sounds to me like Fulbright was a conservative
18 posted on 12/10/2002 12:15:08 PM PST by housethatruthbuilt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Imal
Not that I am for it, but why all the talk against segregation? I don't know how many responses I read were that of black Americans but it appears to me that black Americans want nothing to do with America anyway. They identify themselves with Africa even though they have been in this country as long as any of the whites. They manufacture clothes with names like "FUBU", an acronym for "For Us By Us." Black Americans are doing just fine segregating themselves. There are black universities, black fraternities and sororities, black beauty pageants and blacks television stations. So is all of this banter about Lott's gaffe just PC posturing or what?
19 posted on 12/10/2002 12:18:52 PM PST by KamMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: wcdukenfield
Where, can we, as white folk, demand an apology and resignation of Maxine Waters, for her outrageous call on the black community, to "quit burning your own neighborhoods, go to the white man's neighborhoods..."
This was stated on Los Angeles television, that carried throughout the state, following the Rodney King verdict, and subsequent riots. I wonder if Reginal Denny has a case against her for inciting violence???
20 posted on 12/10/2002 12:32:31 PM PST by Terridan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KamMan
Good Point, Brother. All the reigning Libs have the same mentality - its all about them. There is no "us". Being in power (Control, more accurately) is what's important to them - and has NOTHING to do with what is good for our Nation. The Libs work to compartmentalize everyone, to label every group and segregate them. They hurt, not help. "Party of the People" my eyeball! We gotta Take it Back!
21 posted on 12/10/2002 1:11:12 PM PST by TakeitBack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: wcdukenfield
Mark Levin!

One of a rare breed: An American Lawyer of the pre-sixties variety, whose Character and Moral Integrity were formed in the days when the pursuit of a career at Law led to Nobility.
22 posted on 12/10/2002 1:22:48 PM PST by Brian Allen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brian Allen
The point is we can't be perceived as the lily white party of Southern Purity.
23 posted on 12/10/2002 2:40:35 PM PST by goldstategop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: wcdukenfield
As far as I'm concerned, Lott was RIGHT! Anyone who thinks
the country if better of for integration has his head up
his ass. Crap like this is why I no longer take NR.
24 posted on 12/10/2002 2:46:35 PM PST by RWCon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wcdukenfield
Lott should be replaced, the sooner the better.
25 posted on 12/10/2002 2:47:16 PM PST by MissAmericanPie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ModelBreaker
"When one of ours misbehaves, we usually take him to task, eg Richard Nixon and now Trent Lott."

You have chosen a strange analogy, Mr ModelBreaker - the actions of Nixon that led to his resignation and the comments made by Lott relative to Strom Thurmond's presidential run in 1948 are not analogous. Senator Lott apologized for his inappropriate remarks. We should let it drop there.

If you want to draw an analogy to Nixon, you need go no further than Ex-42 - but then listing all of Bill Clinton's illegalities, lies, traitorous acts and inappropriate behaviour so as to compare with Richard Nixon's one lie/coverup, in balance makes Richard Nixon's "offense" look like a rather mild misdemeanor. Bill Clinton is still reverenced by those on the Left.
26 posted on 12/10/2002 3:03:52 PM PST by GGpaX4DumpedTea
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: GGpaX4DumpedTea
Don't waste your time, the unholy marriage of the race-baiters and anti-Lott conservatives has already been consumated. They both smell blood and won't be satisfied until they they turn Trent Lott's stupid comments into cause for hangin' him high.
27 posted on 12/10/2002 3:10:10 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
I wonder when it's going to sink into the heads of the anti-Lott conservatives that they're putting at risk the Republican majority in the Senate. I wonder if they really want Tom Daschle to run the Senate for two more years.
28 posted on 12/10/2002 3:14:30 PM PST by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: wcdukenfield
I dislike Lott as much as the next RINO-hater. He should resign. But not over this.
29 posted on 12/10/2002 3:17:48 PM PST by LibWhacker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aristeides
Not any time soon. I'm starting to think they may get their wish and Ronnie Musgrove can appoint a nice southern democrat so that Lincoln Chafee won't feel lonely when they arrive at the DNC for training.
30 posted on 12/10/2002 3:22:17 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: wcdukenfield
It is very difficult to find anything conservative in this posting. I have been busy with my practice, and have not seen what Senator Lott said at the party for Strom Thurmond. But from the comments on this thread, it appears that he lamented the fact that Thurmond only carried four States in his 1948 run for President. From a Conservative standpoint, that is in fact lamentable. Thurmond was the only Conservative running in 1948. Both Truman and Dewey were basically Liberals.

While Harry Truman had many admirable traits, his pushing of Federal intervention in Southern affairs, which triggered the split in his party, that brought about the Thurmond candidacy in 1948, was simply wrong--simply contrary to the whole spirit of the Founding Fathers, who respected the very considerable cultural differences in the different States. That respect is what Federalism was all about. Thurmond understood the point, and rallied Southern Conservatives against something that was wrong--demonstrably wrong--interference with local society. Those who happen to agree with the social values that Truman was promoting, seem to be missing the whole point.

As for Fulbright? He was rather a "Liberal." That he did seek to defend Arkansas' racial traditions, however, is not to his discredit. Rather, it is to Clinton's discredit, that he did not.

Having said all of that, however, I do not think that you will find that either Senator and former Governor Thurmond, or his close associates, ever said anything mean spirited about any member of any race. His stands were based upon principle, never the sort of racial antagonism, that Bill Clinton tried to foment, while pretending to be doing just the opposite.

While on the subject, one can only wonder at what is happening to National Review. Buckley was not particularly close to the former Southern leadership. But he was very closely associated with Barry Goldwater, who most certainly was closely associated with that leadership. The present Republican base is because of Thurmond's joining the Republican party, and bringing with him a lot of former Democratic Conservatives, when Goldwater won the nomination in 1964. This article makes one wonder if Buckley has turned his back on Buckley! (His former publisher, Bill Rusher, even wrote a very lucid book on the subject of the realignment that would thereafter make the Reagan election possible, in the 1970s.)

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

31 posted on 12/10/2002 3:30:26 PM PST by Ohioan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
<< The point is we can't be perceived as the lily white party of Southern Purity. >>

No.

The point is that we cannot allow ourselves to be represented by a man who opens us to such perceptions.

The point is that whether the man who let the criminal KKKli'toons walk free and who, more recently, tried to slide the President's Homeland Security Legislation into next year is just a bloody idiot -- or is a traitor to our cause and to our party -- or both of these -- Lott has to go!
32 posted on 12/10/2002 3:33:07 PM PST by Brian Allen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: wcdukenfield
bump
33 posted on 12/10/2002 3:33:15 PM PST by LiteKeeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wcdukenfield
Ya know, this just supports my theory... if in doubt ALWAYS vote Republican because we can count on the media to do their job... when it's a Republican. It seems the liberal media goes to republican events looking for something to be offended and outraged about. Unfortunately, they construed Lott's comment to be an endorsement of racism. I'm more ashamed of the "Black Leaders" who are blowing this way out of porportion. Clinton's endorsement of Fulbright was not seen as an endorsement of his earlier segragationist policies, because the media was not LOOKING for a reason to be offended by Clinton or portray him as a racist. Vote Republican. Keep Lott where he is and note the media bias.
34 posted on 12/10/2002 3:35:54 PM PST by Sweet Hour of Prayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BillCompton
The problem is that he wished for a revised history that would have strengthened segregation.

Nonsense. The context of the speech indicates indisputably that Lott was making light-hearted praise of Thurmond's long career of fighting big government. Thurmond was a segregationist in 1948, but Thurmond has also been a staunch conservative opponent of big government for entire gubernatorial and senate career. It would have been wrong for Lott to say that Thurmond was good for supporting segregation in 1948. But Lott did not do that. When considered in its context, Lott praised Thurmond for fighting big government, and no true conservative should have any problem with that.

35 posted on 12/10/2002 5:09:27 PM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
The irony is that the Anti-Lott conservatives' DRAMATICS, have made them into Libs! (on this subject)

Just think, now they can show they have "feelings", and they are "morally superior", and don't forget their claim of being ashamed to be in a "lily white" party.

If the party is "lily white", it is because most Black Americans don't want to be Republicans, right now in their history they still want big government, affirmative action, and are caught up in group think, not individualism.

They will become more conservative when they mature as a people, and feel comfortable without government protection.
And when the old racists and old civil rights leaders die.

Also when city leaders decide to give their populations a decent education, and let them out of the inner city schools.

Common sense should tell all Anti-Lott conservatives that Lott did not SUDDENLY DECIDE TO TELL THE WORLD THAT HE WANTS TO GO BACK TO SEGREGATION.

The GOP was called racist before Lott's gaffe, and it will continue to be called racist whether he steps aside or not.

If he does not get elected to the leadership again. Fine. It is the Senate's decision.





36 posted on 12/10/2002 5:31:41 PM PST by roses of sharon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson