Since the beginning of this blog I’ve made a big noise (if one usually lonely voice, like a tree falling in a forest that is populated elsewhere, can be said to make a noise) about the irony of liberals struggling for colorblind justice for well over a century only to abandon it in favor of race-based preferences as soon as it was achieved.
The mess Lott has made is a useful reminder that the Republicans as well have been a willing player in this game of racial musical chairs. Although the Republicans were for a long time the “Party of Lincoln,” and although a number of Republicans were essential to the shaping and passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the modern Republican Party has been significantly shaped by the migration to it of former Southern Democrats, and it would be foolish to deny that opposition to civil rights and often even outright racism did not fuel that migration to a significant degree. I know, one could oppose the various civil rights acts (especially the later ones) without being a racist, but I also know (and not just because I grew up in Alabama) that anyone who denies that an aversion to civil rights that went beyond pure constitutional theory was a central building block of the modern Republican Party in the region, and hence in the nation, is, well, just whistlin Dixie.
If Strom Thurmond hadn’t become a Republican, no doubt Trent Lott wouldn’t have either. And at the moment it’s a little hard to see those alter-outcomes as unfortunate. To change regions for a moment, the Puritans regarded what we moderns tend to call natural disasters (floods, pestilence, Indian attacks) as God’s punishment for a people of insufficient piety. Perhaps, if there is a just and hence angry God, Thurmond and Lott are Her punishment of the Republicans for waiting so long to embrace the principle of colorblindness. But, better late than never. Now they have embraced it, and the Democrats have abandoned it.
It would be tempting to dismiss all this as just, well, history, but the thing about history is that (so far) it’s never really over; it just keeps rolling along. And now, thanks a Lott, we may be on the verge of repeating another particularly unfortunate part of it. Liberals and the civil rights movement made their first systematic argument for “taking race into account” to promote race-based school assignments, which in turn led to busing in order to promote racial balance. It was, not to put too fine a point on it, Southern, racist recalcitrance that brought busing down upon the country. Whether it was “massive resistance” as in Virginia, more polite (and very clever) legal maneuvers in the Carolinas, or nasty “standing in the schoolhouse door in Alabama and riots at Ole Miss, Southern resistance to the reasonable implementation of Brown v. Board of Education all but forced the federal courts to force local school districts, and then other institutions, to “take race into account.”
Now, as the Supreme Court is about to confront the legitimacy of the offspring of busing, racial preferences, here come the good ol’ boys once again to make it possible for all opposition to what, unfortunately and incorrectly, has come to be called civil rights to be labeled racist. The Bush Administration, despite the presence of Ted Olson as Solicitor General, has so far showed little courage on this issue, and Lott may have just handed them the excuse to duck it or cave once again.
If Lott is kept as majority leader and the Administration, out of even a sliver of fear of being called racist, refuses to come out four square for colorblindness in the Michigan cases, we may well have Republicans in the Senate to thank for racialism being embedded in American law and life for another generation, if not longer.
In which case, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, et. al. will also be saying, Thanks a Lott.
UPDATE – For what may seem like the other side of the above coin (but I think isn’t, since I agree with it), see this Ipse Dixit post.
SEE ALSO For perceptive criticism of the press using the South in general, and Pascagoula specifically, as a whipping boy, see Robert Prather’s perceptive comments.
In Defense Of My Hometown
In Miss. Home, Reaction Mimics Racial Divide (washingtonpost.com) This had to happen. The condemnation, most of it appropriate, of Trent
“To change regions for a moment, the Puritans regarded what we moderns tend to call natural disasters (floods, pestilence, Indian attacks) as God’s punishment for a people of insufficient piety. Perhaps, if there is a just and hence angry God, Thurmond and Lott are Her punishment of the Republicans for waiting so long to embrace the principle of colorblindness.”
“Her” punishment? When did this blog go P.C.?
Brendan – I just wanted to see if anyone would notice. So, thanks for noticing! I have a very good friend whose writing is marred by his insistence on always using feminine pronouns, etc. (except, I suppose, in sentences like this one), and it absolutely drives me up the wall. By calling attention to the writer’s own superior virute, it reminds me of those obnoxious bumper stickers proclaiming “My child is an honor student at X school.” Here, I indulged in the sin on a bit of whimsy, or perhaps on the unconsious assumpton that, if the Deity vote is divided the way it is on earth, the God most likely to hurl wrath on the Repubs for their late advocacy of colorblindness was more likely to be female….
I want a sticker that says, “MY child doesn’t need this sticker to have self esteem” but, regrettably, no-one sells those.
John — The Dean at my law school, Edward McGlynn Gaffney, made a regular practice of using female pronouns when referring to God. It always bugged me, and I was surprised to see you use the same language. I’m glad it was “only a test.” Regards.