December 13, 2002

Lott-eriorata Ken Masugi of the

Lott-eriorata

Ken Masugi of the Claremont Institute has this interesting perspective on the Trent Lott affair:

The Founders' purpose in establishing the United States Senate was to elevate the characters of its members so that, following deliberation, it could act on behalf of the whole nation. This is the real, constitutional issue in the furor concerning would-be Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott. At a celebration for his centenarian colleague Strom Thurmond, he stupidly praised his segregationist Dixiecrat party presidential run in 1948. Besides being hectored by the expected liberal chorus, many conservatives, some of whom have regarded Lott as a timid leader for conservative principles, have berated him. His demotion to the backbenches would not only shore up conservative policies but affirm constitutional principles as well.

For yet another perspective on Lott, see Richard Bennett here and here. Thinking about it, I agree that the pile-on on Lott has got a bit out of hand (though I daresay it seems as though I say it as shouldn't.) Richard says:
Lott, as stupid as he was, at least didn't sound hateful; you can't say that about the holier-than-thou folks who are still piling on him.

He has a point. Joshua Micah Marshall appears to have gone slightly off the deep end on this. If I "owned" a story like that, I guess I probably wouldn't want it to end either. Richard is absolutely right that this entire situation would not have come into existence had Lott phrased his tribute in a more delicate, "civil" manner, which lends much of the outrage a surreal air. However, he didn't phrase it that way, and he was unable credibly to account for the lapse in the aftermath, which is, really, the damning part. Whether it was a lapse of etiquette, true nostalgia for segregation, or a little of both, he's a liability for all concerned any way you slice it. And try as I might, I still can't manage to get my mind around how clueless he was on the politics of this situation. It doesn't make one bit of sense. I also agree with Richard on something else: Bill Frist is the man for the job.

On the subject of liabilities, Democratic Party boosters imagine that this whole situation is an unequivocal plus for the Democrats, and some have even gone so far as to say, half-seriously, that they'd prefer that Lott stay on as a permanent punching bag. They're kidding themselves. The TV talking heads on the "Democratic side" haven't exactly covered themselves with glory on this, and I believe it may set a precedent for future race issues-based character assassination-- no matter how warranted in this case-- that will come back haunt them. Steve Sailer makes this point about "every Republican with a blogger account":

Let me try to make this clear to everybody on the right: You aren't winning any Anti-Racist Brownie Points for leading this witch burning. You are just making it easier for them to come after you the next time you slip up in some utterly frivolous social occasion.

An interesting point that works both ways. I fear the groundwork has now been laid for a long string of politically correct smear campaigns on the Lott model. Even though I think those who call for Lott's resignation are right to do so, that's not a prospect I relish.

As for Trent, I doubt he's going to stay on. And pace Sailer, the most likely immediate outcome is a net gain in prestige and credibility for the Republicans on a difficult issue: all Bush has to do is keep talking this way, all the Republicans have to do is select a new leader, and they easily claim the high ground in this sorry affair. They lose their least appealing, most damaging national leader and get credit for doing the right thing at the same time. If he remains, everybody loses. So off he goes.

Posted by Dr. Frank at December 13, 2002 12:56 PM | TrackBack