Don Feder Gets Trenchant On The Lott Affair

1) I am no fan of Trent Lott. As Senate Majority Leader, Lott was an unprincipled pragmatist. So much so, that when he first became majority leader, DC conservatives produced buttons proclaiming: “Lott For Sale, Will Build to Specifications.” At the height of the current manufactured crisis, the Mississippi invertebrate went of Black Entertainment Television to plead that he now supports affirmative action (racial quotas) “across board.” That declaration was more profoundly racist than anything the Senator said at Strom Thurmond’s birthday party. In many ways, Lott does indeed represent everything that’s wrong with the Republican Party – lack of purpose, lack of courage, at times, even lack of consciousness – though not in the way his critics charged.

2) Segregation was evil. To tell a man that he can’t use a public restroom or that he has to sit in the back of a bus, -- to bar his admission to a public school or university -- on the basis of skin color is loathsome.

3) Had I voted in the 1948 election, it would not have been for Thurmond – or Thomas Dewey, for that matter. I would have supported Harry Truman, one of the few Democratic presidents I admire (along with Andrew Jackson). If not for Give ‘Em Hell Harry, we might have lost the Cold War at the outset. Truman also integrated the armed forces, another courageous move.

Enough disclosure. Lott’s resignation highlights a profound double-standard regarding racism. I doubt Lott’s opponents really believe his dumb remark reflects ingrained, or even visceral, racism, or a desire to return to the era of Jim Crow. But America now has a racial sensitivity Gestapo that pulls out its truncheons at the slightest sign of hostility – real or imagined -- toward people of color.

Of course, the reverse is not the case. Black grudge-bearers are free to condemn whites as a race, to say virtually anything about them, however vile and unjust, and to support policies (quotas, reparations) that are manifestly racist – designed to punish people for an accident of birth. And Democrats are free to race-bait to their hearts’ content, a tactic almost as reprehensible as racism itself.

You know what Lott didn’t do? He didn’t refer to New York City as Hymie-Town and complain that Jews are always “whining about the Holocaust.” He didn’t call Judaism a gutter religion. He didn’t spark a race riot in Crown Heights that led to the death of a young man or organize the picket of a white-owned business that resulted in the deaths of five (all minorities). He didn’t write a poem about Jews blowing up the World Trade Center.

He didn’t try to justify the thugs who burned down a large part of South Central LA in 1992 by calling their crimes “a spontaneous reaction to a lot of injustice and a lot of alienation and frustration.” Oh, and he didn’t suggest that George Bush had foreknowledge of Sept 11, but did nothing to prevent it so his business friends could profit from a war on terrorism.

In case you’re curious, those laurels go to Jesse Jackson, Louis Farakhan, Al Sharpton, New Jersey Poet Laureate Amiri Baraka (the artist formerly known as LeRoi Jones), Congress-creature Maxine Waters and soon-to-be-former Congress-cretin Cynthia McKinney. But don’t hold your breath waiting for any of them to be taken to the woodshed.

An unspoken assumption of our culture is that it’s racist (or insensitive, at the very least) to criticize a black person. Thus if I observe that Jackson is an opportunistic jerk – a person of limited intelligence and low morals – in the establishment’s eyes, my views must be shaped by racial animosity. (The more unscrupulous black leaders invariably exploit this assumption.) Thus it would seem that prominent blacks suffering from foot-in-mouth disease are to be the exception to Martin Luther King’s dictum that Americans should be judged by “the content of their character, not the color of their skin.”

Democrats passionately embrace the accountability double standard. Republicans meekly acquiesce.

When it was disclosed last year that the Reverend Jackson had fathered a child out-of-wedlock and used his influence to engage in corporate shakedowns, President Bush called the race hustler par excellence to commiserate. In the 2000 election, Hillary Rodham Clinton and Al Gore each made a pilgrimage to Sharpton’s Harlem headquarters to kiss his ring.

Black-on-white crimes are roughly ten times as prevalent as white-on-black offenses. How many of the former are hate crimes is anyone’s guess. Surely the anti-white racism that pervades our culture (the idea that whites as a race are responsible for black suffering) -- encouraged by the liberal elite and black race-baiters – plays a part in these crimes.

The Democratic Party, the media and groups like the NAACP are avid proponents of racial quotas in education and hiring. Cut through the rhetoric and murky reasoning in defense of these vile programs and it’s clear that they penalize or reward solely on the basis of race. What’s worse – to praise a form of racism long dead (if in fact that’s what Lott did), or to support a virulent strain of racism that’s alive and kicking?

For admissions to the University of Michigan, whose affirmative action program will soon be before the Supreme Court, race (minority status) counts for more than a perfect SAT score combined with an excellent essay. To tell a man or woman that they won’t get in to an elite school – even though they’re bright, studious and creative – because they also happen to be white (or Asian) is a species of racism every bit as ugly as get-to-the-back-of-the-bus or whites-only restrooms.

Although still just a sick notion (whereas affirmative action is a sick reality), reparations is racism writ large. It seeks to hold today’s (largely white) taxpayers responsible for the racial sins of the past. It’s a giant rip-off scheme, favored primarily by the least responsible black leaders – who believe they’ll be the ones to divvy the loot – and the loopier white liberals (which, come to think of it, might be a redundancy).

Race-baiting is almost as bad as racism. At this the Democrats excel. It is for them mother’s milk.

You may recall that during the 1998 election, the Missouri Democratic party ran ads which said, in effect, if Republicans win, more black churches will go up in flames. (Newsflash: “Newt Gingrich was seen fleeing the scene of a burning black church, a can of kerosene in hand.”)

Former felon-in-chief, William Jefferson Clinton (who actually believes he was born a poor black child) used the Lott fiasco to pontificate that Republicans are the second coming of the White Citizens Councils.

In the last election, Republican gains in the South were due to racist appeals to white voters, Clinton opined. “How do they think they got a majority in the South, anyway? I think what they (Republicans) are really upset about is that he (Lott) made public their strategy.”

This from a leader of the party that has it’s own unspoken strategy – to do whatever it takes to monopolize the black vote, including terrifying black voters with lurid visions of Republicans seeking to disenfranchise them, reestablish segregated lunch counters, and send them back to the plantations in chains. Simultaneously, Democrats strenuously oppose those measures that have the best chance of ameliorating the condition of urban blacks – including education vouchers.

Soon-to-be Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle and House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi have intimated that it’s now up to congressional Republicans to prove that they aren’t a bunch of cross-burners by supporting affirmative action, a general expansion of welfare programs and DC statehood -- in other words, to embrace racism to prove that they aren’t racists.

And so, as we rejoice in the political demise of the villainous Lott, we can all congratulate ourselves on this historic victory over racism. Meanwhile the most prevalent racism in America – camouflaged as compassion, justice or sensitivity -- is either tolerated or celebrated. Ah, well.

***2) Segregation was evil. To tell a man that he can’t use a public restroom or that he has to sit in the back of a bus, -- to bar his admission to a public school or university -- on the basis of skin color is loathsome.***

How true. I apologize in advance for my rambling below. This article, and the fact that it's Christmas, caused me to reminisce and ponder.

*It burns my butt whenever any group/party of individuals/politicians purposely setout to divide Americans along racial lines. Always has.

Grew up 5 miles SW of downtown Birmingham, late '50s/early '60s. Lived with my grandparents in an Alabama Power Co. house. Six families lived in this small, white, company community. Loved to play baseball, football, basketball. But with only two playmates my age, it was hard to get up a decent game.

Never heard, nor saw any racism exhibited by my grandparents. Was taught that I was as good as anyone, but never better. So Lawrence, Wade and I began playing with some of our black neighbors' kids - had lots of fun, too. With enough players, we had some real games.

Was furious when told that I could no longer play with my new playmates. Some old white farts, probably KKK, had complained to my grandfather's employer, APCO. Poppy didn't like it one bit either, but the powers that be, stopped our games. I remember it like it was yesterday.

Since that day, much progress has been made in the South and the rest of America. Hard-earned and slow, but moving in the right direction. I see it in the attitudes of my younger cousins and their children. I see it in the workplace. I see it here on FreeRepublic.

How are we so different? We all laugh and cry. We all aspire for a better life for ourselves and our children. We all are born into this world. We all will leave this world one day. We all are Americans.

IMHO, the Democrats of the Old South were guilty of trying to stop the progress and equality of an entire race of people. It was an abomination to God and America's history, like slavery before it. Today, it's almost 2003. The Clintonian Democrats are once again trying to divide Americans, split us apart, for political and financial gain. They must not succeed. United, we must fight back.

JESUS told us to love thy neighbor as thyself. HE did not mention color or race.

Merry Christmas America!*

I'd be hesitant about quoting McCarthy, and I'm from Wisconsin. How do you know that a president other than Truman would have even sent troops to Korea when the North invaded in 1950? Trumans supported MacArthur's policy through the Inchon invasion. MacArthur thought that the Chinese would not invade. He was wrong. Few people wanted American troops in China.

Truman also was responsible for the Truman Doctrine in post-war Europe which kept a number of states from going communist. Republicans automatically criticize anything Dems do despite the facts. Ike took over in the middle of the war. Nothing stopped Eisenhower from invading China or dropping atomic bombs. I get the feeling that if it were Ike who did what Truman did, many conservatives would be lauding his achievements instead of condemning them. Why not condemn Ike like Robert Welch did? To blame Truman because communism spread is bad reasoning. Might as well blame all presidents in the twentieth century. Truman's accomplishments in standing up to communism are seconded by a host of other experts liberal and conservative.

I basically agree with all of your remarks regarding Lott and the days of segregation. But as a Northerner I feel the whole country should be somewhat ashamed of those days. There was de jure segregation in the South, and there was de facto segregation up North. There was and still is plenty of racists in whatever part of the country. ( I might add racists of all colors). It does no good to ignore shameful conditions in the American past. To acknowledge them does not make one a liberal apologist today. But I think many Southerners feel that they are singled out and unjustly condemned as being the only group who had racists when it was a national problem.

As I recall, it was the HST State Department that deliberately withheld supplies that Congress had voted for the Nationalist Chinese. This action, akin to treason under the later Iran-Contra rules, sealed the fate of the anti-communists in China. The State Department claimed that Chiang was "corrupt." Also many uninformed Americans and forgetful politicians (like Goldwater and Reagan) seemed to overlook the scandals that plagued the HST administration. And HST was the originator of the "no-win war." We are still paying the price for his poor Korean strategy. Even this week, North Korea is threatening to blow up the world. No, a reasonable reading of history refutes the greatness of HST. That is why I have never been "wild about Harry."

Your historical analysis is exactly correct. In 1947, the Nationalists under Christian leader Chiang Kai Shek were in complete control of mainland China outside of Soviet occupied Manchuria which was being used as a base for the Soviets to arm and train Mao's Red Army for the next stage of the war. Then the Red Army invaded China once again and the US Congress voted to provide the Nationalist freedom fighters with $1 billion in direct military assistance. Truman refused to provide this aid for 11 months while the Free Chinese Armies were immobilized by pro-Communist General George C. Marshall's order to withhold all military and logistical assistance including fuel and ammunition. In fact, Marshall even ordered a lot of the weapons sent by Congress including tanks, artillery and aircraft dumped into the sea.

As a result of Truman's and Marshall's treachery, Chiang's Christian led armies were routed by the godless Maoist hordes and mainland China was plunged into what has been 53 years of darkness which has exacted the toll of more than 60 million innocent Chinese murdered by the Butchers of Beijing who the US government under Bush Jr. continues to financially and diplomatically support in power. Finally, as you stated had Truman not fired MacArthur and refused to allow him to win the war in Korea and forestall ChiCom military intervention, over 30,000 American lives would have been spared and Korea would be united, democratic and free today. More importantly we would not be faced with incessant threats of nuclear war from a nuclear ICBM armed Communist North Korea today. As I stated, contrary to the whitewashed revisionist history books, Truman was an unmitigated disaster for US foreign policy and resistance to Communist agression worldwide.

Not to mention his abject failure to capitalize on the opportunity to spank the Communists 1951 - 1953 by crossing the Yalu River and continuing right on to Beijing! Then was the time to assert ourselves, before the PRC had nukes. Since we missed that opportunity, naturally, not if, but when we go to war with the PRC, the US and West will suffer, at a minimum, tens of millions dead, and possibly, worst case, if the PRC are part of an anti-Western Axis, over 1 billion dead! Truman was the idiot I blame for what we will likely face in my lifetime!

Most people fail to remember how very weak the Communist Chinese were militarily in 1950. You may recall that the main PLA weapon of the time was human wave tactics, because the only conceivable military advantage over the US they had was in terms of manpower. They remained much inferior in terms of weaponry. It was then that MacArthur talked of removing the US Seventh Fleet blockade in the Taiwan Straits and allow Chiang's Nationalist Army to reinvade southern China to pin them down and prevent their effective intervention in northern Korea.

A two pronged invasion of China with the US landing in the north and the one million strong Nationalist Army landing in the south would have succeeded in liberating China from Mao and his butchers, but that is not necessarily what MacArthur was advocating. He just wanted to bomb the Chinese staging bases, railheads and bridges on the other side of the Yalu, which had he been allowed to do, the Chinese would have been unable to intervene in force to prevent the total collapse of their North Korean allies. I don't believe the West will suffer a billion dead, but I do believe that war between the US and a much strengthened nuclear PRC is inevitable and that millions of Americans may well pay the ultimate price for Truman's and Marshall's betrayal of over 600 million of our Free Chinese allies to the Communists.

"Truman was an unmitigated disaster for US foreign policy and resistance to Communist agression worldwide."

Yet so many today, thinking of the A-bombs in 1945, hail HST as "strong," "decisive," and "successful." Even the Republicans have fallen into this trap. One never hears Democrats hailing the accomplishment of certain Republicans (other than occasional references to Lincoln). But the Republicans just keep on and on about FDR (Reagan, Gingrich, Ford, Dole) and HST (Goldwater,McCain, etc.) and of course JFK. (Notice how the Bushes just guffaw over the Kennedys.) And Nixon could never stop hailing the failures of Woodrow Wilson.

Probably the next generation will buy into the "Carter is Great" philosophy being peddled by the Nobel Prize Committee. Already Republicans have meekly jumped on the "Carter: Great Ex-President" mantra. And I don't think GA is even a good ex-president either, once he gets past nailing a few boards on houses for the needy. It was under Carter, am I not right, that more countries fell to communism than other any president since FDR?

pro-Communist General George C. Marshall's

I have not read about the Virginian Marshall being "pro-Communist," other than the attack the late Joseph McCarthy made about him in 1952. Recall, that was the year Eisenhower declined to reprimand McCarthy for his tirade against Marshall. Thereafter within two years, Eisenhower, as much as anyone, was responsible for the undoing of McCarthy's influence in exposing communist sympathizers. Marshall as secretary of state must have been a believer in his department's own communist appeasement policies.

It was under Carter, am I not right, that more countries fell to communism than other any president since FDR?

Actually, I think Truman beats Carter (and FDR) easy. Under Truman, all of the nations of Eastern Europe fell to Communism as did mainland China and North Korea which like Eastern Germany, Manchuria and northern Japan was awarded to the Soviets by FDR/Truman. Angola, Mozambique and South Vietnam fell to Communism under President Ford. Carter lost Nicaragua, Ethiopia, Afghanistan plus Iran to the ayatollahs. By any measure either in number of countries or in their combined population, Truman lost more to the Communists than any other US President.

Also South Yemen fell under Carter. Isn't it called something else now? Isn't it amazing how many people today extol HST despite the dismal facts of his sorry administration? And in that category are many, many Republicans!!!!

Amazing indeed. You are correct--South Yemen fell under Carter and North Yemen fell under Bush Sr. in 1990 when the South Yemenese took over the whole. They remain aligned with North Korea and the terrorist world to this day as demonstrated by the latest North Korean shipment of missiles to Yemen which was allowed by the US to reach its destination. Another cave by the Administration toward North Korea and the Yemenese.

This is my own conclusion, not quoting anyone. If it happens to coincide with things said or written by McCarthy then so be it. The fact remains, the time to have made a massive strike against the Communists in both Europe and Asia was prior to 1955. Yes, we were war weary, but no excuse. The failure of grand strategy and lack of a long term view point on the part of the West at the close of WW-II were utterly shameful. We demonstrated profound ignorance of key geopolitical concepts. Apparently, many in the West still have not learned them. The way we will likely learn them will be most unfortunate. We did not win the Cold War, the other side simply took a break. Soon, we will know this in an unambiguous manner.

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.