My Take on Trent Lott

Some folks might be wondering what I, a liberal Mississippian, make of this whole Trent Lott situation. In a nutshell:

* I don't believe Trent Lott is an active racist, and I don't understand how his comment could be interpreted as a general support of "segregationist candidates." What he actually said at Strom Thurmond's 100th birthday party was that the U.S. would probably be a better place if he had been elected president. Whether Lott was serious about that at all is debatable (he probably would have said the same thing to his grandfather).

* I do believe he's profoundly clueless on racial issues, as are most Republican politicians, especially here in the South. When Chip Pickering ran for the U.S. House a couple of months ago, I heard Bush call his father, judicial appointee Charles Pickering, a "good man" (with no attempt to answer allegations that his father was not exactly enlightened on race issues) at an $1,000-a-plate luncheon filled up with a sea of white faces. Pickering's opponent, conservative Democrat Ronnie Shows, campaigned for the "black vote." Because redistricting left the two incumbents with a region that was predominantly white, Republican, and rural, Pickering won by a landslide (with something like 74% of the vote), which effectively demonstrated a policy of "Ignore black voters; white rednecks outnumber them in my district anyway." Lott had a Democratic opponent in 2000 (unlike Cochran, who ran this year without Democratic opposition); all I remember about him was that he was African-American and a virtual unknown. As I recall, he pulled about 40% of the vote.

* If Lott has a brain in his head (and at this point I have my doubts), he will send all of his prepared statements to the paper shredder, order his assistants to give his more vocal critics a mic if they interrupt his press conferences, and start addressing his critics in a humble and direct way, but with no more backtracking about how "terrible" his statement was. It's clear to anyone who isn't a knee-jerk critic that Lott was just trying to fluff an 100-year-old man's ego, and not trying to make a serious political statement about a presidential race that took place when he was 9 years old. It's equally clear that he has a track record of not giving a damn about African-American voters. He should ignore the segregation McGuffin and instead focus on the real problem: his apathy on the issue of civil rights. Why are many Mississippians so eager to believe that he supports segregation? Because he hasn't done enough to convince them otherwise. If Lott wants to thrive on a national level, he will have to convince us all that these issues do matter to him.


Cheers,

 

Tom,

As a native Mississippian, but registered Republican, I agree with you. I believe Lott was as surprised as everyone else when his compliment was takenn as a reference to segregation. I honestly do not think he had segregation in mind when he spoke.

Think about it. A man of his stature would be insane to publicly endorse racist activity in times like these. I'd like to think Lott is smarter than that.

I believe this was one moment when a professional speaker needed a good speechwriter and editor.

Roscoe

 

Re: Re: My Take on Trent Lott

For the most part I agree with both you and Tom. The news is reporting it as if Lott said that segregationist candidate Thurmond...etc. Lott did not use the word segregationist and undoubtedly was attmepting to flatter Thurmond and be funny by saying the country would have been better off had he been elected. I do not believe Lott was intending to mean that segregation was good or unfortunately even considered the segregationist issue when he made his ill thought out comment. This is another case of why some folks just stay away from politics. The remarks are being misconstrued to serve Democrats stinging from the recent Republican victory and by Republicans who want Lott out so that they or friends can become the Majority Leader (one just came out calling for Lott to step down and has been a long time contender for the ML spot).

North

 

We experienced a similar, marvelous moment several months ago with John Street, the African-American mayor of Philadelphia, a city with a large minority representation among its voters. Street was addressing the National Baptist Convention (the largest black denomination in the U.S.) and, with the fervor of a preacher (being an active Seveneth Day Adventist), he boldly proclaimed, "The brothers are in charge [of the city]!"

Anyone with a sense of reason knows realiizes that Street was simply saying, "We've come a long way, baby!" But many white politicians went ballistic because of his obviously poor choice of words.

So, is Trent Lott inherently a racist? Probably. Is John Street inherently a racist? Probably. So what else is new?

The point: Politics is competitive. It's Democrats versus Republicans, us versus them. And it's easy for an idiot to put his foot in his mouth, regardless of color or ideology. One can only sit back and enjoy the entertainment that results from such gaffes.

 

Amen!

Remember when Ross Perot came under fire for saying "You people" while addressing a black audience? I used the expression just recently. And the moment I said it, I thought of ole Ross.

Funny. I never thought anything was wrong with "You people." I'm sure Ross didn't either.

Roscoe

 

Lott and Sharpton: twins. Check out the "hair".

 

I've found that I frequently agree with Tom but, unfortunately, not on this issue. I, for one, do not believe that you can be a member of the Senate in 2002, with all the inherent opportunities for communication with diverse cultures, with all the opportunities for education around a myriad of issues, and remain "profoundly clueless on racial issues" without being a racist. He may not spend his weekends wearing a white sheet and burning crosses but that doesn't mean he's not a racist. If I were to concede to his not being a racist, I'd still have to say that his remark shows him to be profoundly stupid and therefore not suitable to be the Senate Majority Leader. At this point he's an embarrassment and a liability to the Republican Party.

 

Jack, I'm not sure we disagree all that much. Note my use of the word "active"; I certainly think subconscious racism is a problem in politics (though one doesn't have to look as far south as Lott to see it in action; if nothing else, consider the fact that we've never had a non-white president, veep, or legislative leader). I'm also convinced that he will remain Senate Majority Leader, and that he will not do what it takes to establish himself credibly in that role on a national level. What I see happening is Lott basically leaving things as they are now (with perhaps a few more repetitions of his apology), conservative party loyalists defending him as he stands, and us Democrats having a new Newt Gingrich style scapegoat just in time for 2004. Lott isn't due for reelection until 2006, giving him plenty of time to clip off Bush's coattails over the next two years. What Lott needs to do is exactly what Daschle also needs to do (though Daschle's case is less urgent)--step down to an internal party post and let the public apologist be a moderate that independent voters can more easily identify with.


Cheers,

 

Re: Re: My Take on Trent Lott

I think he is a liability because the democrats are using it as a way to get back at the Reps after the recent elections and Reps are using it to jockey for the powerful position. I think you go too far in assuming that anyone who makes a statement with further implications than they have considered at the time is *stupid*. As certain talk show hosts have pointed out democrats including Clinton have recently made statements that could be misinterpreted the same way (support of Fulbright). I have no doubt that you have made statements that could be interpreted in a way other than you meant them.

Heck, we have Senator Byrd (former Klansman) in the Senate.

Trent Lott is not going to support segregation. He never even mentioned segregation in his 100th Birthday talk for Thurmond. I do not even think he meant to imply it. I think the only way you can think that is if you are trying to make political hay from it or are a scared Republican trying to distance yourself from him or jockey for position.

I think Lott is going to have a difficult time over this. As the Republicans are trying to reach minorites he may end up going as a sacrifice regardless of what he intended to say, etc.

As an aside, I think the Republicans have done more for minorities in terms of placing them in actual positions of power since GWB's victory than did the democrats who talked a good line but kept top jobs for the white males club. Rather than being patronizing it was recognizing truly competent people for the job. I do think Republicans should have done better by JC Watts from Oklahoma who would have been a good candidate for a job as he is bright, capable, and has been a solid Republican. Unfortunately, they passed him over and he is leaving office. I hope we have not heard the last of him.

Race relations in general are a tough issue and we in America are obsessed with them. Where I think the Republicans are succeeding is in not being patronizing but recognizing the reality that competent people come in all colors, creeds, etc. That we can celebrate diversity in Unity as Americans and that given an even break (level playing field) those who work hard will rise to the top no matter what their background.

North

 

Re: Re: Re: My Take on Trent Lott

North - You are, of course correct. I've made many statements that were open to interpretation as well as stupid statements, some of them on this forum. However, I do not employ a cadre of assistants and speechwriters whose sole responsibility is to help keep me out of this sort of trouble. I think he's probably a racist of some hue and I also think he'll survive this relatively intact. His stupidity lies in giving his enemies the ammunition they need...making a statement like that at a public gathering... someone with his political experience should have known better. Regardless of his intent, he's opened himself and the Republican Party up to criticism from the very people they're trying to court, minority voters. That's stupid. It doesn't matter that others have made similar mistakes. It's still stupid.
Jack

 

What is there to understand, Tom?

Lott is a Republican!

 

I find it ironic that Lott went on BET to show that he is not a segregationist.
BET Black Entertainment Television, now that is integration. Imagine if there was a WET White Entertainment Television, or Miss White America Pageant. What if we had all white colleges in this age, or if we had white awards shows?

The point I am trying to make here is that some people want it both ways. Such as, blacks cry foul if they are descriminated against or left out, as they should. However, they turn it around, and think that they should not criticized for doing the same. You can not watch a movie, or sit com that is majority black, and not see a white person being made fun of. Most of which is very funny, but if a black person is made fun of by a white actor then it turns into a big stink.

This is not only about race. The same goes for gender. Everyone is raising cane about the Masters. Women can play there now, but because they can't join they are protesting. Do we have any all women clubs? We have all women Gyms here in my town. We also have a all womens college. Try to have an all mens college like the Citidel.

Finally, Everyone is not always going to have things fair and equal, but for the most part I think things are very good in this country. Many who cry unfair are the very ones that do the same when they get the chance. We should all have thicker skin, and stop being so hypocritical. We should all be more accepting.

 

I agree with you. We should all be accepting. I also think that things are pretty good in this country.

HOWEVER, there is still an energy in this country of racism. I, as a black person, do not buy into all of this "quota/victim/unfair" crap, but I think that one of the things about America is that we get to choose many things. One of them is what channel we choose to watch. In a world where entertainment has been dominated by whites, it seems perfectly reasonable to start a network dedicated to black entertainment. As far as WET is concerned, I'm sure some people would become upset, but that is likely due to the history of rasicm in this country. Let me tell you what WET is. MTV, NBC, ABC, CBS, FOX, CNN, and many more.

Further, it is not valuable to admonish "WE" to have thicker skin unless "WE" are those who are in the groups you are talking about. Are you minority or female? If so, never mind. I not, I think you need to more fully understand what the hell is going on in this country. Really think about the things that you and your other white friends say whenever those people are not around.

Instead of concentrating on having a thicker skin, why don't WE concentrate on being civil, understanding, and accepting. Let Americans be Americans (even if it means they watch a different channel.

Concerning Senator Lott, I think he has uttered racial slurs in his youth. What white kid didn't in 1950s Mississippi (statistically speaking)? But guess what....He was elected. Guess what else....He gets to be Senator. Can he lead the party? It seems not, but he GETS TO BE SENATOR.

To all the black people on this forum: We will have better race relations when we detach from the evils of the past and take advantage of the opportunities in this country. No More Excuses. Just Do It.

To all the white people: we will have better race relations when you stop calling us (under your breath) "that one thing" when somone black cuts you off in traffic, or when you are looking for a little humor at parties.

Everybody lighten up.

 

If this had been an isolated incident, then I would agree that it was simply a misunderstanding. Lott, however, has voted against every piece of civil rights legislation that has come along since he entered the Senate. Yeah, I know, NOW he would vote for the national holiday for Martin Luther King (how convenient). And, he uttered the same comment 20 years ago and was criticised for it then.

And, if you look at the last two weeks, it hasn't been the Democrats that have been piling the sticks around his feet, it has been his own party.

Wes

 

While you are certainly entitled to your opinion, I just have to add this...

Why do you think that the majority of white people call you "that one thing" under our breath at every opportunity? I certainly do not, and I know few people who do. In fact, usually, we don't think of such terms or ideas, except in times like the present, when a public figure makes a boneheaded comment.

And I have to ask. How often do non-white people utter "some unflattering name" when a white person cuts you off in traffic, or when you are looking for a little humor at parties?

clint

 

apology

I apologize. My last post came across in a much harsher manner than I intended. I didn't mean to be so confrontational, but rather to just say that we should avoid stereotyping any group, whether they are white, black, or whatever.

clint

 

"Lighten up"?????

Um, don't look now, but the metaphor cops are coming.

 

The flaw in that argument is that bills that are called "civil rights legislation" are very often nothing more than racial quotas and other programs that reward people based on nothing more than race. It was wrong 100 years ago (against blacks), and it's wrong now (against whites). Any elected official with an ounce of common sense or fairness should vote against such proposed laws.

In any case, it will be amusing and entertaining to see what the lefties try to say about the new majority leader (Senator Frist). He's a Harvard-educated surgeon who still travels to Africa every year to perform heart-lung transplants for free. When was the last time John Kerry or Tom Daschle set foot in Africa????


Bruce

 

As neither a Republican nor a Democrat, I enjoy such flounderings.

So he didn't mention segregation. It is my understanding that the entire reason for Thurmond's run for president as a "Dixiecrat" was because he opposed the 1948 civil rights platform of the Democrats (read = integration). Saying his presidential run was a good thing is certainly tantamount to endorsing segregation.

Having said that, I think that Lott misspoke. Majorly misspoke.

Is he racist? Yeah, probably. But my take is that many of the southern politicians of a certain age, both Democrat and Republican, are much the same.

When first I visited the south, I was truly amazed at the language that some folks used to refer to other folks. Although I am quite sure that such language is used in the north, it was the first time that I had seen it out in the open and I'm from a place where there are many races.

Should Trent Lott be denied his post? Probably, but more for stupidity than anything else.


Tom Nixon

 

Trent Lott

What's interesting about this whole gaffe has been the inherent subjectivity that surrounds political ideology. Ask any mixed group, and most blacks will say that Lott's comments were intended to be racist, and whites will say otherwise. This is laughable, but underlines the reason why racism will never vanish in America.

Look at the media attention this gaffe received - Americans love controversy. News editors know this - and pump this drivel into the houses of America because it will cause ratings to soar. I blame the media for perpetuating the evil of racism - just as I blame those who hold any race as somehow inferior due to a difference in skin color.

I watched the Bob Jone's interview on Larry King Live the other evening with the anticipation that poor Bob would somehow be made a scapegoat due to Bob Jones University's history of race, shall we say, exclusion. Of course, he was. He was lauded for the university's recent decision to allow interracial dating. Again, media moguls know precisely how to stir the flames of controversy.

You want better race relations in America? Learn this: what's happened can not be changed. Become future oriented - work towards a better day for our children. Do not sit your children down and perpetuate racist ideology. "As for me and my house..." we have not - and will not. Learn objectivity - do not interpret events toward your own subjective leanings. Those that want Lott to be interpreted as a racist will somehow conveniently deem him as such. No appeal to reasoning will change them.

Lott's political career has suffered due to an admittedly stupid error. I contend, however, that this man is not a blatant racist. How is it that Spike Lee can say that Lott is definitely a racist and probably has a white sheet in his closet and no one reacts? Do we expect such racist remarks from him? Since he's so radical, does that make it OK? I realize the difference between Spike Lee and Trent Lott - but goodness - America gets inflamed over one comment and many others go unnoticed in the media.

Hoping for a blended future,
Steven King