Reid and Lott

As you all most certainly know, an embarrassing quote from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., surfaced over the weekend. Reid apparently stated during the 2008 election that then-Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., would be an electable African-American candidate because he was lighter-skinned, and because he had the ability not to speak in a “Negro dialect.”

The quote was cringeworthy, and full of what Josh Marshall once described as “racial grandpaism,” the sort of archaic, muddled statement made by a guy who is generally well-meaning, but also generally possessed by some racist baggage left over from their upbringing.

Was the quote racist? Well, yes. But racism is not a capital offense; I have said racist things and so have you. One can’t grow up in America and not be suffused with some of the racist legacy our culture carries. The best any of us can do is recognize this and strive to overcome it, and apologize and learn when we fail to live up to our responsibility to overcome it.

More to the point, Reid’s statement, while clumsy and racist, was not malicious. He wasn’t saying that Obama shouldn’t be president because he was a charlatan, or that it was reasonable and proper that darker-skinned African-Americans should be less electable. A more artful phrasing of what he was trying to say might have gone something like this: Because of the legacy of racism in this country, a candidate like Barack Obama, who is biracial and who is able to speak to audiences in a manner that is less connected with stereotypically African-American speech patterns, will be more electable than a candidate like, say, Al Sharpton, who is darker-skinned and whose speaking style is more stereotypically African-American.

That doesn’t mean that this is right; it’s a value-neutral statement of fact. And what’s more, it’s true. Just as it’s true to say that being white makes one more “electable,” historically, than not being white, or that men are more likely to be elected president than women. It’s not right. It’s not fair. It’s something we should work to change. But it’s true, and saying so doesn’t make one a racist or sexist. Saying so makes one observant.

Which brings us to former Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss.

As you may recall, Trent Lott used to be Senate Majority Leader until, in 2002, he was forced out in a scandal involving a statement he made that included racist language. The then-Majority Leader’s statement that got him in trouble came in a tribute to retiring Sen. Strom Thurmond, KKK-S.C. Lott said of Thurmond:

I want to say this about my state. When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn’t have had all these problems over all these years either.

Strom Thurmond ran for president in 1948, at a time when he was a Democrat of the traditional Southern variety — i.e., a flaming racist douchebag who nevertheless had an illegitimate biracial daughter conceived, quite probably, in rape.

Southern Democrats were furious at efforts by President Truman to ameliorate the damage caused by the apartheid system of segregation. The breaking point came at the 1948 Democratic National Convention, at which a young Minneapolis mayor by the name of Hubert Humphrey urged the party to “get out of the shadow of states’ rights and walk forthrightly into the bright sunshine of human rights.” The speech prompted a walkout of Southern Democrats, who left to form their own party, the Dixiecrats. The Dixiecrats nominated Thurmond, at the time the Governor of South Carolina, as their standard-bearer.

The party’s platform was simple: States’ Rights. Anti-Miscegenation. Pro-Segregation. Pro-Lynching. They were a party whose raison d’être was the full-throated defense of Jim Crow. Perhaps their platform was summed up best by Thurmond, who during the campaign said, “I wanna tell you, ladies and gentlemen, that there’s not enough troops in the army to force the Southern people to break down segregation and admit the nigra [sic] race into our theaters, into our swimming pools, into our homes, and into our churches.”

Again, when he said those words, he had a 23-year-old African-American daughter.

Flash-forward back to today. Many on the right, apparently wowed by their ability to connect that both Trent Lott and Harry Reid were or are Senate Majority Leaders, and that both were accused of racism, are now calling on Reid to step down as Majority Leader, because the situation is totally the same. Sen. John Kyl, R-Ariz., said flatly, “If he [Lott] should resign, then Harry Reid should.”

This is, in a word, bonkers.

Again, what Reid said was inartful and cringe-inducing and yes, racist. But it was not malicious. A different phrasing could save it from racism, and the core idea — that America in 2010 will treat candidates of varying racial backgrounds in different ways — is absolutely true.

Compare to what Lott said. Lott said that if America had followed Mississippi’s lead in 1948 and voted for the Dixiecrats, that America today would have avoided a lot of problems.

And yet the Dixiecrats stood for the worst sorts of barbarism committed in this country. They were the spiritual heirs to the slaveholders, the men and women who were absolutely and completely committed to keeping a boot of the throats of all non-white Americans. They expressly supported lynching, for God’s sake.

There is no way to save that quote, no way to phrase it that does not make it offensive and malicious. Lott was saying, flatly, that if only we’d maintained a system of segregation and racial apartheid in the South, that America today would be better off.

To compare the two situations is ludicrous.

As Ta-Nehisi Coates puts it:

Claiming that Harry Reid’s comments are the same, is like claiming that referring to Jews as “Hebrews” is the same as endorsing Nazism. Whereas a reputable portion of black people still use the term Negro without a hint of irony, no black person thinks the guy yelling “Segregation Forever!” would have cured us of “all these problems.”

Leaving aside political cynicism, this entire affair proves that the GOP is not simply still infected with the vestiges of white supremacy and racism, but is neither aware of the infection, nor understands the disease. Listening to Liz Cheney explain why Harry Reid’s comments were racist, was like listening to me give lessons on the finer points of the comma splice. This a party, rightly or wrongly, regarded by significant portions of the country as a haven for racists. They aren’t simply having a hard time re-branding, they don’t actually understand how and why they got the tag.

Exactly right. Harry Reid said something stupid while arguing that a specific African-American man could get himself elected to the presidency. Trent Lott endorsed the worst part of America’s racial legacy, and held it up as our nation’s salvation. That Republicans can take these two situations and not see a difference between them says far more about the Republican Party than about Harry Reid.

This entry posted in Conservative zaniness, right-wingers, etc., Elections and politics, Race, racism and related issues, The Obama Administration. Bookmark the permalink. 

23 Responses to Reid and Lott

  1. 1
    Robert says:

    I’m inclined to agree, Jeff. What Lott said was objectionable, because it revealed a genuinely racist agenda behind a facade of nice language. Whereas Reid just spoke impolitically of something that isn’t objectionable.

    (Well, the FACT he was describing was objectionable. You know what I mean.)

  2. 2
    JutGory says:

    This issue has come up a lot in the last few days. Your points are interesting. I do not like Reid, but I don’t think what he said was that bad. At the same time, I do not think what Lott said was that bad either. Both were stupid or ill-chosen, but neither outrages me that much. However, the contexts are important.

    What Reid said was offensive on its face and was about Obama; what Lott said was NOT offensive on its face and was about Thurmond.

    Reid’s comment was explicitly about race; Lott’s was not.

    In order to be offended about what Lott said, you would have to infer a great deal about what was intended. He simply said something “nice” about somebody; to be offended by that, you have to interpret what was meant by it. When you add that the fact that he was talking about Thurmond on his 100th Birthday (54 years AFTER his failed presidential run), context suggests that Lott was not talking about race. Race has to be inferred in order to get angry. I think this falls into the category “if it is not about you, don’t make it about you.”
    -Jut

  3. 3
    Kevin Moore says:

    Nicely said, Jeff.

  4. 4
    Robert says:

    Yes, JutGory, you have to make an inference on Lott. Similarly, if I say “you know, if only Hitler had won the war, we wouldn’t have all these problems”, I haven’t come right out and said “the world would be better off without the Jews in it.”

    But you would certainly be justified in reaching the conclusion that I thought that, wouldn’t you?

    There’s no way to say “nice things” about a segregationist party leader, to express a wish that they had won, without it being pretty obvious that you endorse the message.

  5. 5
    Manju says:

    I agree; there’s no comparison. It would be like comparing obstructing HCR to obstructing the abolition of slavery and Jim Crow, as well as women’s right to vote.

    What sort of idiot does that?

  6. 6
    RonF says:

    Well put, Jeff.

  7. 7
    RonF says:

    Why is a comment that was widely reported in 2008 coming up as a current controversy now? Do you think that it’s because the GOP smells blood in the water regarding his re-election campaign? If so, isn’t this a little early for that to have the desired impact? Or is it to hurt his effectiveness with regards to the health care bills?

  8. 8
    Robert says:

    Ron, a book just came out from a couple of political reporters basically doing a gossip dump on everything that happened in the 2008 national elections. This story was part of the book; that’s why it’s in the news.

    Republicans actually probably would rather NOT see this become a huge career-ending scandal for Reid, because as things stand right now Reid is going to get his ass kicked in the 2010 election cycle and we’ll pick up his seat. If he’s forced to quit before the election, then the Dems will have a chance to put in a new candidate and possibly save the seat. So there are some Republicans scoring cheap rhetorical points, but you won’t see any kind of major push.

  9. 10
    Manju says:

    Dodd Says He Regrets ‘Poor Choice Of Words’

    Wow. I never even heard of Dodd’s comments. Now that’s a pretty close analogy to Lott’s.

  10. 11
    formerlyLarry says:

    Thats because of the double standard in the media. As opposed to the media shit storm surrounding Lotts comments, it was barely mentioned if at all on cable news. The implication of Dodds comments got the benefit of the doubt that Lott didnt get.

    Remember, media storm over macaca also. (special pleadings all around)

  11. Pingback: Trent Lott Strom Thurmond | AXI

  12. 12
    Elusis says:

    In order to be offended about what Lott said, you would have to infer a great deal about what was intended. He simply said something “nice” about somebody; to be offended by that, you have to interpret what was meant by it. When you add that the fact that he was talking about Thurmond on his 100th Birthday (54 years AFTER his failed presidential run), context suggests that Lott was not talking about race. Race has to be inferred in order to get angry. I think this falls into the category “if it is not about you, don’t make it about you.”

    Ah, the “You’re oversensitive/you enjoy being offended” derails. Nice work.

  13. 13
    JutGory says:

    Robert,
    Yes, I understand your comparison.

    However, Lott could have also meant that it is too bad that the Thurmond did not win. We would have not had Truman for a second term, we might have stayed out of Korea, the 22nd Amendment would have guaranteed that Thurmond would not have been president past the 1956 elections, we would likely not have gotten involved in Vietnam if we were out of Korea, and Thurmond would not have been around the Senate to filibuster the Civil Rights Act.

    If Thurmond had been elected, the Civil Rights fight in the 60’s would have been much less contentious.

    You have to agree that this is also consistent with what Lott said, right? Did he mean that? I doubt it. Did he mean what you think he means? I doubt it. And, you can’t tell by his words.

    -Jut

  14. 14
    Jeff Fecke says:

    To argue that Lott didn’t mean that segregation was a good thing, you also have to ignore his history of being pro-segregation. If Lott’s comment had appeared in a vacuum, he probably would have survived, but it didn’t.

  15. Manju:

    Wow. I never even heard of Dodd’s comments. Now that’s a pretty close analogy to Lott’s.

    Not exactly on all fours: Lott has a history with which racist remarks are consistant and I don’t know of Dodd having such a hstory; also, Dodd claims he forgot Byrd is in the KKK, while Lott was specifically referring to Thurmond being a Dixiecrat.

  16. 16
    JutGory says:

    Jeff,
    But, that is part of the point. The events you are talking about took place a LONG time ago. People act as if people’s views can’t change. Thurmond himself said he was wrong about the consequences of integration (I don’t have a cite, but there are words to that effect). The same is suggested about Lott in your link. Heck, few people seem to be aware that Byrd was in the KKK.

    Things change and people can change. Thurmond’s presidential bid was a big deal at the time and, given how few people actually make real bids for president, it seems like the sort of thing you might mention at someone’s 100th birthday. If I get invited to Nader’s, Jesse Jackson’s, or John Anderson’s 100th Birthday party, I might say something nice about that, even though I did not vote for any of them. You could even add Perot to that list. Lyndon LaRouche? Nah, I have to draw the line somewhere.

    However, hypothetically, had Lott said, “great job on that Filibuster too, Strom,” I would probably be with you. I just see the Filibuster to be different than the presidential bid.

    -Jut

  17. 17
    Tek says:

    It’s interesting that the comparison seems to read as if the two comments are at opposite ends of a racism spectrum. The way I see this as they are hand holding cousins of the same ancestry, which is racism. Not to mention the fact that people choose their words often enough to sound appropriate without actually changing any of the thoughts that go behind those words.
    That people of color are chosen for ‘acceptable’ traits is a long standing practice in white supremicist America. that he spoke it doesn’t suprise me. the apologist who are trying to smooth it over don’t even surprise me. That the conversation rarely gets beyond ‘Well he said it but it’s not as bad as what this other guy said’ diversion doesn’t surprise me.

  18. 18
    RonF says:

    This is the kind of thing that I reference when people want to call me a Republican. There’s no principles involved here. This is purely a political tactical move. I vote for Republicans more than I vote for Democrats, but that’s because I’m choosing what I view at the time to be a lesser evil. Resisting mightly quoting Groucho Marx about joining organizations, I’ll simply say that I’ll join a political party when they stand for principles I believe in regardless of transient political advantage that might be gained by violating them.

  19. 19
    Kat says:

    I’m disgusted by the defense of Reid’s comments. Lott made a stupid comment supporting a man with a horrifying racist history. Reid went ahead an expressed the very attitudes associated with that kind of horrifying racism. Somehow we should let this go because…?

    Leave the GOP’s crybaby antics aside for a moment. Ignore the Lott incident. Stop with the politics and look at the truly creepy quality lurking behind Reid’s words.

    Harry Reid said something stupid while arguing that a specific African-American man could get himself elected to the presidency.

    Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better. Reid really meant that a black man who could make himself non-threatening enough to white folks has a chance at being elected, and that that’s the level to which Obama should aspire. His ideas wouldn’t matter; only the presentation.

  20. 20
    Ampersand says:

    Kat, are you saying that to observe the racist reality, is itself racist? Because that seems to be what you’re saying, but maybe I’m missing something.

    If I say “it’s harder for a dark-skinned black man to get a job than a light-skinned black man” (which is true, studies have shown), I’m not saying that’s a good thing; I’m just reporting on the reality.

  21. 21
    Charles S says:

    My mom, who lives in NC, is feeling justifiably horrible lately because she has decided to support a mediocre white male candidate for the Democratic nomination for the NC senate over an excellent progressive black male candidate, because she thinks that a dark skinned, progressive, black man has no chance of getting elected to the Senate from North Carolina. While that may be a tactically correct choice from the point of view of getting a Dem elected to the Senate this year in NC, it is also an obviously racist action.

    In Reid’s case, the racist action is obscured because he made the calculation that Obama probably passed the current racist criteria for electing a President.

    If Reid had calculated that Obama couldn’t get elected because he was still too black, and had therefore supported Clinton for the nom, would this not be a racist action?

    But Reid’s selection criteria for deciding who was a supportable candidate for president were still racist, even though he decided that Obama was not too black to be supported. He had a criteria of “is this candidate too black to get elected?” That is a pretty clearly racist criteria.

    If you decide not to hire a black candidate for a job because he is too black, and you figure that he will preform poorly because he will get little support from his racist co-workers and your racist superiors, are you merely acknowledging the existing racist structure in which you operate, or are you perpetuating that structure? To me, it seems clear that you are doing both. When you finally do hire a black candidate, and comment that you think that they manage to avoid being too black, you are revealing that you have been using a racist criteria all along.

    On the other hand, the calculation of whether Obama was electable despite the racism of the electorate was a calculation that almost everyone who concerns themselves with electability was making, so it is hard to say that Reid is deserving of greater blame that anyone else, merely because he acknowledged that he was making that calculation.

  22. Nice post; this is probably the best articulation of the Reid/Lott comparison that I’ve read.

    Claiming that what Reid said is equivalent to what Lott said? That’s as outlandish as claiming that Obama’s presidency is equivalent to a Marxist-Fascist dictatorship! And not even an idiot would do that, would they?