Skip to comments.Three Stooges: Who's Worst--Kissinger, Lott, or Law?
Posted on 12/16/2002 2:47:24 PM PST by GeneD
These have been an almost incredible few days for those of us who despise the culture of celebrity and authority and who are sickened by the media habit of judging actions by reputations, rather than the other way around. A triple crown:
--Henry Kissinger prefers his client list to the solemn promise he made to the murder victims of Sept. 11. --Sen. Trent Lott in retrospect thinks that voters were dumb to vote Republican in 1948. --Cardinal Bernard Law asks a foreign potentate if it's OK to obey the laws of the United States.
One should waste little time on Kissinger. Of the four reasons why he should never have been appointed to any commission in the first place (his record of deceiving Congress; his falsified and self-serving memoirs; his status as a man wanted for questioning by several magistrates in many countries; his role as errand boy between corporations and dictatorships), the fourth objection was probably the slightest. But at least it caught the attention of the mainstream press. And at least it shows what kind of person he is.
Concerning Sen. Lott, I can't hope to improve on the admirable flurry of columns from hard-line conservatives calling for his departure. But I confess that I am amazed by the narrowness of their attack. Every one of them concentrates exclusively on the civil rights question. Of course black citizens ought to be outraged by any sick nostalgia for the years (and years and years) of Southern apartheid. Yet this is to make the point into one of "sensitivity." The Confederacy, under the leadership of Jefferson Davis, schemed to destroy the Union. It openly solicited the military support of foreign powers in order to do so. It attempted to assassinate a Republican president and may eventually have succeeded. It issued arrogant and disgusting orders for the execution of prisoners of war, without discrimination as to shade or color. It instated censorship, and it instated mandatory (if sectarian) religion. There isn't a "white" person in the country who should not spit upon its treasonous and hateful memory. There would be no such place as "America" if the bloody stars and bars had carried the day.
Thus, never mind that a vote for Strom Thurmond would have been a vote for a pro-segregation party that attacked the Republican as well as the Democratic tradition. More is at stake than the hurt feelings of Al Sharpton or the affected shock of President Bush. What about (say) a (say) female Republican senator from (say) Maine, whose state's regiment carried the day at Gettysburg and thus prevented the partition and demolition of the United States? Do we overlook the Confederate dream of making Washington, D.C., into a capital of slavery, on the ruins of a republic? How does Trent Lott face his own family, let alone his own party, with idle praise for sedition and terrorism on his lips? Can any Republican face any white voter on such a point?
Even in this short-list of cheap and incriminated individuals, Cardinal Bernard Law somehow manages to stand out. Of all the offenses that are most vile and unpardonable, the crime of child rape distinguishes itself without further elaboration. And this ugly prince of the church scuttles and shuttles to Rome to beg permission to make light of it. The documents plainly show him complicit with violations of which a decent person cannot even be suspected. And yet, for these many months, he has acted as if he were himself the persecuted victim. He has also brought bitter shame upon his congregation by seeming to act as if the advice of a foreign politicianthe barely sentient popewas more important than a moral law that anyone can understand without being taught it in catechism.
What do these three creeps have in common? All of them are soft on crime. All of them are whining as if they were being persecuted. All of them have displayed the deepest possible contempt for the ideas that supposedly animate the United States. And all of them imagine that they need only quit the stage at a time convenient to themselves. This last matter is extremely irritating. Henry Kissinger ought to have been visited by now by an American prosecutor, if only to be made to answer a few questions. Trent Lott should have been sacked by his own party, unless that party doesn't mind the association with secession and treason. And Cardinal Law should have been arraigned long ago for the suppression of evidence and for collusion in a crime that only barely has a name.
Look long and hard at these three pillars, these three patriots. For each of them, the act of voluntary resignation is the easier and the softer and the more cowardly and contemptible option, relieving society of the need to demand that they be gone. Bernard Law was, by a whisker, the first to realize this.
His Lushness hates everybody!
Tell that to a black Mississippian who tried to register to vote in 1948.
Any problems a black trying to vote had in 1948 were American problems, not Confederacy problems.
The Confederacy was long gone by then.
Refers to her as that "...corrupt, Albanian dwarf."
A Jew, a Protestant, and a Preist walk into a bar...
I agree with his views on Kissinger, disagree with him on Lott, and have no opinion on Law (haven't been following the story much) - but what's up with his anti-South tirade? Does he think Lincoln was a saint? What an idiot.
The author of this article is just trying to convey from some perspective just how bad what was allowed to happen is. I concur.
Of the 192 thousand people who voted in Mississippi, 168 thousand voted for Thurmond, 19 thousand for Truman, and 5 thousand for Dewey. Probably most of Dewey's supporters were black (very few blacks could vote in Mississippi, but some could). I don't know if Wallace was even on the ballot, but even if he was his support was miniscule. 84% of voting-age Mississippians didn't vote for anyone.
I've never heard of any credible evidence to suggest that the Confederate authorities had any involvement in the successful plot to kill Lincoln, or in any earlier unsuccessful plot. I'm not sure what Hitchens is referring to--perhaps the rumors that someone would try to kill Lincoln in Baltimore in 1861 (when the Confederacy was just being formed and did not control any territory within 300 miles of Washington, D.C.).
Sorry, but though I am a born and bred a Yankee, and have zero tolerance for racism, the Confederates were right. It only takes a single reading of the 10th Amendment, and then a close perusal of the rest of the Constitution while trying to figure out from which provisions therein the Federal government gets its license for each of the sponsored programs we have to realize that. Despite your hype, states' rights are the key to our regaining our nation, and above all else, was the overarching reason for the Confederacy.
According to the election data, Wallace/Taylor, the "Progressive" (a.k.a. openly socialist) candidates received 225 votes in Mississippi.
True, that's a miniscule amount, but some kooks apparently wanted them in every state. Thurmond received 2% of the vote nationwide, and 12% in the south (so most southerners did NOT support the segregationist ticket).
Contrary to what people seem to believe, the race in most southern states was clearly between Truman and Dewey (for instance, in Virgina, 47% voted for Truman, 41% for Dewey, and 10% for Thurmond) Nationwide, Thurmond's candidacy was pretty much viewed the way Harry Browne's was in 2000 (and Wallace was the Ralph Nader of 1948...lots of hype, few votes) Harry Truman Alben Barkley Democrat 19,384 10.09% 0 Thomas Dewey Earl Warren Republican 5,043 2.62% 0 Henry Wallace Glen Taylor Progressive 225 0.12% 0
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.