Not just Smith - Republicans AOK with segregationists now

I always thought that the 2002 purge of Trent Lott from his Majority Leader position had a strangeness to it. I was fond of telling a joke at the time that Lott was condemned for praising Strom Thurmond, but Thurmond was not condemned for BEING Strom Thurmond. There was this sense that the demotion somehow proved that we as a nation were understanding our past troubles with race, and we're moving on in a spirit of unity and tolerance, no longer condoning that kind of bigotry.

Five years later, the story has completlely changed.

Today Gordon Smith defended Lott's notorious comments, flip-flopping from his earlier condemnation back in 2002. Everyone's having a field day with that. But Orrin Hatch said essentially the same thing.



So did Arlen Specter.



These are some of the old lions of the Senate, claiming that Lott's comments were blown out of proportion, that the media sharks circled and attacked, that it was a travesty to do such a thing to such a good man.

Now, there are a lot of Villagers in Washington out there providing elegies for Trent Lott. But these three Senators are taking direct aim at one of his lowest moments, when he let his bigoted slip show and blurted out that the country would have been a lot better off with an open racist in the White House. Part of this is just the Senate protecting one of its own. But this wouldn't have been possible in 2002. And I think it's an example of the retrenchment of the Republican Party. As recently as 2002 it would have been radioactive to associate oneself with the remarks of a racist. By 2007 it's perfectly fine.

So, to sum up, Republicans are perfectly fine with segregationists. Maybe they could dig up some of these posters for next year:


The Republican Party has made a more open appeal to a Southern, "social conservative" base in recent years, one that dovetails very nicely with a culture of bigotry. Though these defenders come from around the country, they understand that their base is marginalized and regionalized. And so they prefer to sweep the genuine disgust with Lott's remarks under the rug, to appeal to this base.

In other news, water is wet

So Strom Thurmond's people owned Al Sharpton's people. It's certainly an interesting coincidence, but people are shocked by this why? A family of plantation owners in South Carolina had slaves that were freed and moved north. Welcome to the Department of No Surprise at All. And is anyone shocked that Strom Thurmond's ancestors would have slaves? The man was an avowed segeregationist, it's not like he was a civil rights leader in his lifetime. It reminds me of that whole Thomas Jefferson/Sally Hemings brouhaha, remember that a few years ago, when the descendents wanted to run DNA tests on Thomas Jefferson? And everyone was so shocked that our Founding Fathers could exhibit such behavior. “Oh my God, they had sex with slaves!” How about the fact that they had slaves? Isn’t that enough of a black mark? They sold humans like chattel, how’s that for an imperfection?