Given
the reactions to the now notorious statements by Sen. Lott, we may be
led
to believe that he donned his bed linen and proposed a weenie roast
over
a flaming set of crossed timbers. Lets review what actually happened:
The
occasion was the retiring
Sen. Strom Thurmond’s 100th birthday party on Dec. 5. In the process of
offering an unrehearsed tribute, Senator Lott said the following: “I
want
to say this about my state [Missouri]: When Strom Thurmond ran for
president
[in 1948], we voted for him. We are proud of it.” The audience laughed
and applauded. Lott then continued, “If the rest of the country
followed
our lead we wouldn't have had all these problems.” This latter
statement
was reportedly greeted with silence and a smattering of gasps.
What
‘problems’ were these?
Lott has not said, nor has he been asked. Perhaps he was speculating
that
if the Korean War had occurred at all under Thurmond, we might not be
living
today with a North Korea in possession of nuclear weapons and a
militarily
ascendant and increasingly hostile People’s Republic of China. If a
major
objective of World War II was to prevent half of Europe falling under
the
domination of a brutal dictatorship, it was abandoned by Truman when he
ceded what was to become the Warsaw Pact to Stalin.
Given
the coverage and commentary,
we are to be left with no doubt that it was the segregationist elements
of Thurmond’s Dixiecrat platform that Lott mourned.
Lott’s
record of ill-considered
comments does not require review here. He is not exactly gifted at
making
unprepared statements. However, the assumptions behind his off-the-cuff
praise for the centenarian Senator from South Carolina say more about
the
commentators than they do about Lott himself.
A
revealing spectacle is
the portrayal of Lott’s remarks as being far more egregious in
comparison
to the Rev. Jesse Jackson’s 1984 reference to Jews as ‘Hymies’ and New
York City as ‘Hymietown.’ This blatant racial slur was expected to be
have
been kept confidential given that all those present, including
Washington
Post reporter Milton Coleman, were black.
The
‘Hymietown’ remarks
were indeed published, however. The Right Reverend [in contrast to
Lott]
at first denied making the statements and even attributed their source
to a Jewish conspiracy. His compatriot Louis Farrakhan quickly piled
on,
threatening the racially traitorous reporter on-air and added a warning
to American Jews: “If you harm this brother [Jackson, who was present]
it [sic] will be the last one
you harm.” Jackson eventually found himself forced to apologize, but
has
never repudiated Farrakhan’s threats.
Why
were Lott’s remarks
worse? NAACP Washington Bureau Director Hilary Shelton provides an
answer:
“Jesse Jackson is a private citizen who works for an organization,
Trent
Lott is four people removed from the president. He is the gatekeeper
for
legislation going through the Senate.” Note: Jackson was at the time
campaigning
to be President of the United States.
While
Lott’s comments were
subject to interpretation, Jackson’s racial views were undeniably
clear.
Nonetheless, Lott’s political career is moribund. In contrast, Jackson
continued to enjoy prestige and influence for many years until the
accumulation
of his financial and personal indiscretions became too burdensome for
even
his most ardent apologists. The reason for this apparent double
standard
is illustrated by the practical application ‘hate crime’ law. To
qualify
as such, it is not enough that a criminal act be racially motivated.
The
race of perpetrator and victim determines who will be so accused.
Is
there any promise of
political gain for the Left? NAACP Chairman Julian Bond gives us a hint
in his reaction to the Senate Republican leadership’s decision to oust
Lott as Majority Leader: “Now they've got a chance to reverse four
decades
of dependence on racist elements in their base. They can do this by
embracing
the generally accepted remedies for racial discrimination by replacing
the rhetoric of outreach with reality.”
What
might those ‘remedies’
be? Would they involve having the law treat people differently on
account
of race for purposes of social engineering [quotas, goals, timetables,
etc.]? The true objective of all of this posturing and outrage is
thusly
revealed. Lott’s error of omission was seized upon as an opportunity to
extract political concessions from a Republican Party that has
repeatedly
demonstrated lack of resolve.
Lott
has contributed to
this. Bowing to pressure from the Democrats and an accommodating media,
he abandoned the Contract with America and tacitly accepted Republican
blame for the ’95 government shutdown under Clinton’s veto. By limiting
the evidence and number of witnesses, he and other milquetoasts in the
Senate leadership ensured that Clinton’s impeachment trial in ’99 was
over
before it started. None of this secured him any mercy. Appeasing evil
offers
no refuge for the meek.
A la Cotton
Mather, the mere accusation of racism is it’s own proof. People have
been
severely sanctioned for using the word ‘niggardly’ in the presence of
the
wrong ill-educated Leftist. Now a prominent elected official has been
stripped
of a leadership position for making a statement that ‘some have
interpreted’
as being supportive of segregation. When Republican leaders acquiesced
to Leftist demands for a blood sacrifice to the altar of PC, we all
lost
yet another measure of freedom.
