Skip to comments.IN DEFENSE OF TRENT LOTT: Seriously!
Posted on 12/11/2002 8:17:36 PM PST by winin2000
The crux of the onslaught against Trent Lott would seem to be, "How can you argue the U.S. would have been better off electing a segregationist?" Well, it only makes sense to examine that question in the context of both history and, more to the point, what his opponent had to offer.
It is easy to lose sight of just how far the pendulum has swung on what is deemed respectable opinion on matters of race. Not too many years ago, the political spectrum in toto was, by today's standards shockingly "racist." And elected officials, who are now idols of the left, were no exceptions. And I'm not simply talking about the abundant Southern Democrats who were segregationists; there's much more.
Woodrow Wilson, for example, was a dogmatic, practicing white supremacist, enforcing segregated office during his tenure as president of Princeton University and while in the White House. An often forgotten gem of his on the subject of immigration:
I stand for the national policy of exclusion. . . . We cannot make a homogeneous population of a people who do not blend with the Caucasian race. . . . Oriental coolieism will give us another race problem to solve and surely we have had our lesson.
I must have missed the news account of Rainbow/Push's protest march in front of Wilson's Presidential Library and think tank.
Too far back you say? Okay, fast forward a few years. Who could possibly have said something as repugnant as:
Californians have properly objected (to Japanese immigration) on the sound basic ground ... that the mingling of Asiatic blood with European or American blood produces, in nine cases out of ten, the most unfortunate results."
Nobody important. Only FDR.
Still not recent enough to the period in question? Okay, let's deal with the gentleman whom Senator, then Governor, Thurmond waged his rebellious campaign against in the first place. The man who is hailed as a visionary for his breaking down the color wall in the military. So happens Mr. Harry Truman wrote in private correspondence:
I am strongly of the opinion Negroes ought to be in Africa, yellow men in Asia and white men in Europe and America.
And for good measure, he wrote to his daughter that the White House kitchen staff was an "army of coons."
And lest you retort that these examples are not analagous, consider again the specific complaint against Lott. Although none of the Democrat vultures pecking at his carcass will make the straightforward accusation that he is a racist, they wax indignant about the propreity of having in high leadership someone who arguably thinks - who THINKS - America would have been better off under a President Thurmond. Some thoughts, however latent, are just too ugly to tolerate; whether they manifest themselves or not.
Now, that being the case, how can you seriously argue that these examples of rank, personal racism among liberal icons is irrelevant because they were sound on matters of policy. Truman's candid contempt for blacks is fine and dandy because, see, he got the ball rolling on integration. Yet Lott, whom no one can credibly accuse of attempting a recission of any of the substantive "civil rights" laws, is unfit to serve because he might have some deep-seated respect for the segregated society in which he was brought up.
Well, sorry folks, I ain't biting. The opportunism displayed on this forum these past few days is contemptible. From absolutist righties nursing impeachment grudges to self-righteous Yankees who see the Southern GOP base as some kind of albatross politically, most, if not all, calling for Lott's head have ulterior motives. I don't once recall seeing on Free Republic this kind of vitriol on the question of race and the Old South directed at Jesse Helms. And put your whitewash away, my friends; I love the man dearly, too. But the man who was elected to the Senate as commentator on a North Carolina newscast regularly attacking the civil rights revolution never formally repudiated his views on race. He simply stopped talking about it.
Why is Helms fit for Rushmore, yet Lott's sin is unforgivable?
Well, I for one will not let mortal fear of what kind of campaign ad will be run against us two years hence drive me to throw an innocent man to the wolves, giving craven idiots like Al Gore and professional anti-white demagogues like the Black Caucus yet another Republican scalp to hang on their wall.
I hope I've convinced a few folks to join me.
You couldn't have missed my point more completely if you tried. And I strongly suspect you felt yourself cornered, and were, in fact, trying.
Lott's supposed transgression was honoring the Strom Thurmond of 1948!!
Now, if "racism" is so dreadful, so corrosive, so unforgiveable sin, so much so that being a racist not only makes you unfit to serve today, but also makes it unconscionable to even praise politicians of the past who were clearly racist, why should Wilson, FDR, or Truman be anything but denounced and repudiated?
I have had it with bullshit sancimony on this subject. We lived, we learned, it's over! Try again, nimrod!
We're thinking on two entirely different planes my friend. You're still mired in pure PR and politics; and I normally bust the Buchananites' and other absolutists' chops pretty frequently on those grounds.
But most everyone's got a "no compromise" sore spot. Racial McCarthyism taken to these absurd and vicious extremes is mine.
I agree. And while we're at it, let's get someone in there with a backbone. Wasn't he a cheerleader in college?
How would that work? Would he have to give up his position as Senator, or could the position of SML simply be assigned to another Republican?
That's for sure!