Posted on 12/21/2002 4:00:13 PM PST by Michael2001
The difficulty in which Sen. Trent Lott finds himself is not really about him. It is about the ability of racial minorities to censure the thoughts and words – including throwaway lines such as Lott used in his birthday tribute to Sen. Strom Thurmond – of white people even to the point of destroying their careers.
If a U.S. senator and Senate majority leader can be controlled in this way, then all of us are subject to censorship and removal as well, including Sen. Don Nickles and others who see an opportunity to take Lott's powerful position as majority leader. Democrats, who are enjoying the post-election windfall of Republican self-destruction, will also be subject to removal anytime their words can be construed to give offense to a "preferred minority."
The Bush White House, too, will find that far more white votes will be lost from this imbroglio than black votes gained, not because whites are segregationists, but because whites understand that what is really transpiring is censorship of their thoughts and words, and they will despise President Bush and the Republican Party for cowardice and opportunism.
White people are watching with trepidation the dissolution of their First Amendment rights to free speech and the onset of thought control. There is the recent case of Janice Barton in Michigan, who said in private conversation to her mother that "I wish these spics would learn to speak English." Her words were overheard by an off-duty Hispanic deputy sheriff, who followed her to her car and took down her license number.
Janice Barton was arrested and spent time in jail for a hate crime.
Another recent case comes from Idaho, where a white woman was physically assaulted by a black male. The woman's screams brought her white husband to the scene. He was naturally upset, and, in the heat of the moment, he called the black man a "nigger."
The black man was not arrested for assault, but the white man was arrested for a hate crime.
There have been two cases – a government employee in Washington, D.C., and a schoolteacher – where white people used the word "niggardly" and found themselves fired or in hot water simply because uneducated blacks mistook the fine old word for a racial slur.
These were "warm-up" cases involving ordinary people without powerful positions or a base of public support. Lott, however, has a strong base in his home state, and he is well enough regarded by other U.S. senators to be Senate majority leader. If he can be knocked off because blacks choose to be offended by their interpretation of an offhand remark, an enormous power to censure and rebuke will have been placed in racial hands.
This power will be used not only to curb hateful speech, but also to censor uncomfortable truths. The result will be to establish deference by the majority to the minority, just as under an aristocratic system. Neither the Fourth Estate nor academia will escape these strictures.
The Supreme Court will be intimidated, as well. The Court has before it a case on the constitutionality of racial quotas – that is, unequal treatment of people on the basis of race. Racial quotas are used by university administrators to admit "preferred minorities" who cannot meet the standards demanded of white applicants. It has become commonplace for better qualified whites to be turned away to create spaces for blacks.
The same quota phenomenon characterizes employment, promotion and access to training programs. Government contracts often go to the high bidder if the high bidder is a "preferred minority."
"Preferred minority" has become an official government term. Nothing could be clearer than that the U.S. Constitution allows for no such person or persons. Yet, for 37 years, we have watched the creation of a class of preferred people, a new aristocracy. And now they are going to be given the power to shut the rest of us up.
If President Bush, the Republican Party and the gaggle of white pundits deliver this enormous power to Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, how in the world can the Supreme Court take away existing preferences for blacks in university admissions?
The legal inequality of the races has been established by 37 years of federal government policy. Blacks have more than met the requirements of squatters' rights to their privileges.
If Lott is removed for "giving offense," the Court cannot possibly come out for equality in law without being denounced as "racist and segregationist."
Indeed, the Court knows that if it rules against racial quotas, the vast majority of university presidents and media pundits will damn the Court for "resegregating higher education."
A variety of white opportunists see in Lott's departure opportunities to gain their own ends. Some see a chance to move up in leadership position. Libertarians don't like Lott's Big Government spending. Neo-conservatives see an opportunity to replace him with someone more friendly to their military-police state. All of these shortsighted interests will work to push Lott into resigning.
A remaining question is: If the power brokers should come to their senses and understand what is really at stake, is Lott now too compromised with promises of more racial set-asides and "compassionate spending" to serve the common good?
The likely answer is yes. Still, do we want to have our tongues cut out in order to be rid of him?
Had Lott merely offered a toast to a long-time colleague, and all-round "helluva guy", all would have been well. But he specifically paid tribute to Thurmond's segregationalist campaign. Hell, if he was gonna pat himself and his state on the back for voting Dixiecrat, he may as well as used the 'n' word (and I don't mean 'niggardly') as well!.
Trent spoke freely, and so did we.
Trent Lott committed a grievous judgmental error. He displayed unbelievably bad judgment and a classic "tin ear" when responding to his critics. How many different ways do you say "stupid?"
Any conservative commentator who continues to try and defend that behavior should retire (and that includes Pat Buccannan).
This is NOT a black vs. white race issue.
The Rove/Bush Administration suppresses internal GOP dissension on a variety of a variety of issues, including the right-to-life, 2nd Amendment, trade and immigration.
Dewey's VP candidate was the odious and evil Earl Warren. If he'd said that, we Conservatives would have skewered him on the way in, and as he backtracked on what he'd said, the Democrats in thrall to Jesse Jackson would have lambasted him for that as well.
The guy could not win no matter what he said about the 1948 campaign!
Here it is after the guy has resigned and you are in here telling us that free speech reigned, blah, blah, blah, when it did not.
Remember, please, this is NOT 1948 and we were all there and we saw and heard the whole thing.
Here, let me give a suggestion to everyone here - the only people who gained in this whole business were Henry Wallace and his running dog lackies!
But there is something to the article..however I think his conclusion is wrong. All this phony offense taken is making whites mad at the professional complainers (i.e. democrats).
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.