Shameful and despicable
I commented that the senate measure to apologize for the Democrats filibustering laws to make lynching a federal crime 100 or so years ago was nothing but a Dog and Pony show (none of the current congress monkeys were around then and this measure will bring no one back). And I stand by that. It’s a pointless resolution designed to garner some publicity. Though it passed unanimously, my understanding is that only six senators were present and there was a voice vote.
Now, the partisans with Ds after their names are equating non-sponsorship of the measure as racist. They are even stating that if you didn’t sponsor this bill, then you are pro-lynching. That is probably the stupidest thing I have ever heard. I share the Commissar’s position. This is nothing more than hateful propaganda. It is vile and disgusting. Now, I expect hacks like Kos and Atrios to engage in such vile, hateful rhetoric. Since they don’t have a branch of government, rhetoric’s all they got. However, when people whose opinions I typically respect play into the asinine propaganda that non-sponsorship equals pro-lynching, it makes me sad.
Thoughts of an Average Woman maintains a list of bigots and attempts to chide Alexander into supporting it. While I support efforts to get senators to act on the will of the people, calling him a bigot is shameful and despicable. Meanwhile, Lamar responds:
There is no resolution of apology that we can pass today (Monday) that will teach one more child to read, prevent one more case of AIDS or stop one more violent crime
I also tend to share La Shawn Barber’s view:
In light of the serious problems we face in the world and our own country, I think this apology is one of the dumbest, emptiest, most politically correct pile of rubbish I’ve heard about in a long time.
We’ve got fanatics trying to kill us all in the name of their god and hiding among us. We’re being taxed to death taking care of deadbeats and criminals, while President Bush is sending even more of our money to brutal dictators in Africa. And the Senate apologizes for failing to pass anti-lynching laws 100 years ago?
Kevin pushes the lynch mob meme too by listing them. He also points out the original sponsor was trying to get away from his racially insensitive past.
If the senate wants to apologize for this crap, that’s what press releases are for. Or each individual senator can go on TeeVee and make an announcement. Trotting out the dogs and ponies is a waste of time.
Update: And I should point out that the senate leader killing a roll call vote is equally asinine. Senators should place their names on what they vote for. Accountability is such a novel idea in government.
June 17th, 2005 at 4:03 am
[…] is point, he has repeatedly asked for a “list” of code words (one such example here), and promptly denied that terms with a racially ch […]
June 15th, 2005 at 9:44 am
So I guess you never say you are sorry for doing something wrong, then, huh, Uncle? An
Senators can put their names as co-sponrs on a bill even after it has been passed. Yet these 15 refuse to do so. All it takes is an intern and a phone. And yet the still refuse to do so. And Frist refused to allow a roll call vote on the bill. To pretend that that has nothing to do with racism is insulting and intellectually dishonest. At least some of those fifteen did not want to have their names associated with a bill apologizing for the senate’s past blocking of anti-lynching laws. They did not want to have to be seen either voting yes or no on the matter. And Frist covered for them. Period. End of story.
It makes me sad that you would fall for the apologists for this kind of disgusting behavior. The Senators had a choice — put their name on the bill, put their name beside the vote and do something, however small, to wipe a bit of dirt of the country’s history, and they chose not to. You can rationalize it all you want, but that is a disgusting comment on them and what they think their political survival requires: sucking up to racists.
June 15th, 2005 at 9:47 am
“So I guess you never say you are sorry for doing something wrong, then, huh, Uncle?”
I don’t know that a current senator did anything to warrant apologizing for lynching. And, as I said at the bottom, the senators can do it on their own.
“It makes me sad that you would fall for the apologists for this kind of disgusting behavior.”
It makes me sad that you would peddle this hateful propaganda.
June 15th, 2005 at 10:33 am
I guess I didn’t realize that there was a statute of limitations on formal apologies. If this were the type of thing that occupied lots of time and federal money, I might see your point, but it’s not. And if the GOP didn’t have a recent history of winking and nodding toward racists, you’d have an even better point. But this is nothing more than a simple gesture, like countless others that pass through the Senate every session, and one that ought to be completely non-controversial.
What’s sad to me is how conservatives get worked up about relatively benign stuff like this, but actively push borderline-unconstitutional measures like “national day of prayer” bullshit. But see, prayer is patriotic, whereas admitting that we were ever wrong about anything merely shows weakness, and we can’t have that.
June 15th, 2005 at 10:40 am
“What’s sad to me is how conservatives get worked up about relatively benign stuff like this”
Benign? Calling non sponsors pro-lynching is benign? Sure, it’s a simple gesture that shouldn’t be controversial but the hateful rhetoric from the left that non-support = pro-lynching or that they are bigots is disgusting.
June 15th, 2005 at 10:52 am
Uncle
Your point about frist proves our point: Why would Senators not want to go on record supporting thsi bill, and why would Frist cover for them, unless they did not want to have to go home and face voters with a YES or NO attached to their name on this bill? And why would a Senator be worried about having a YES next to his name on a bill like this?
And the Senate is an institution — the memebrs ar enot apologizing for their behavior, they are apologizing for the institution’s behavior.
June 15th, 2005 at 10:56 am
“Why would Senators not want to go on record supporting thsi bill”
Dude, they’re all on record supporting it. It passed unanimously, even though only 6 were present on a voice vote. Clearly, we have 94 more racists in the senate, right? I mean if 15 are racists because they didn’t have a staffer make a phone call then the 96 that didn’t show up are equally so, right? Clearly, the didn’t support it by default enough.
June 15th, 2005 at 11:00 am
Co-sponsorship is wholly irrelevant. The bill was non-controversial and passed without objection.
Kevin, can you tell me the last time (if ever) “co-sponsorship” was made into an issue?
June 15th, 2005 at 11:08 am
I’m glad the Democrats have found a hollow gesture around which to raise a stink. It certainly beats doing something useful like proposing reparations for slave labor or addressing racism in the present. It takes a lot of courage to hold Lamar’s feet to the fire over this.
June 15th, 2005 at 11:16 am
“And if the GOP didn’t have a recent history of winking and nodding toward racists, you’d have an even better point.”
As opposed to the Democrats, who only have a fucking Ku Klux Klan Grand Kleagle in their ranks in the Senate.
Or did you have a point OTHER than a simple bash at the GOP?
June 15th, 2005 at 11:29 am
No, the resolution is benign, and I think you knew that’s what I meant. And while I might be inclined to agree that calling the Senators that failed to co-sponsor “pro-lynching bigots” goes too far, it’s not at all out of line to point out that they’re kowtowing to bigots. Which is the only conceivable reason why they might fail to cosponsor this.
As to the question of “why bother” with this? I’ll let Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) answer:
June 15th, 2005 at 11:34 am
No, nobody’s on record opposing it. There’s a difference. If I abstain from voting or sponsoring, I’m not on record at all.
Jay G:
I said recent history. Byrd’s record on civil rights over the last couple of decades is excellent, and he has repeatedly renounced and apologized for his white supremacist past — in both words and in actions.
But hey, you should love the fact that Byrd’s in the Senate, because it lets you divert attention to the Democratic party’s past of institutional racism instead of having to actually address the GOP’s current kowtowing to racists.
June 15th, 2005 at 11:41 am
Think I may need some recent examples of the GOP kowtowing to racists (Trent Lott’s stupid thurmond comments excepted). I always hear this claim and I can buy it on an individual level (i.e., a specific congress monkey did it) but not in the GOP as a whole.
June 15th, 2005 at 12:28 pm
What Uncle said. You keep tossing out this “GOP is racist” party line clap trap without providing specifics.
Was the GOP preparing memos detailing how minority appointments should be held up because of their race? Oh, wait, that was the Democrats.
Was the GOP claiming that their voters in minority areas were too stupid to comprehend a simple ballot? Nope, Democrats again.
June 15th, 2005 at 1:57 pm
Answer my question Uncle: Why would the vote be a voice vote — agaisnt the wishes of the sponsers — and be held outside normal business hours if Frist did not want to provide cover so that at least some of these members did not have to go home and face racist voters with a YES next to their name?
June 15th, 2005 at 2:00 pm
So can we expect an apology anytime soon from the Gore family? After all, AL Sr, tried like hell to derail the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I mean, since there isn’t a timeline for apologies or anything…
June 15th, 2005 at 2:12 pm
Kevin, i have no idea why frist did what he did nor do i care to speculate as to why. After all, he co-sponsored it back in February. And that doesn’t excuse equating lack of sponsorship with being pro-lynching.
June 15th, 2005 at 3:02 pm
Obviously you and Alexander share a disdain for apologies. Perhaps, the great granddaughter of a lynched sharecropper, who was on the Senate floor, would have appreciated the gesture. While we all realize this is only a gesture, gestures do have meanings.
Even though this passed “unanimously by voice vote, not a single senator is on record for a yea or nay, or even a no vote.
FWIW, while I have yet to post on it, I read ALexander’s bill Celebrating Black History Month. As far as lynchings and other forms of terrorism perpetrated to an oppresed group of peoples, his bill leaves a lot to be desired. Acknowledging the terrorism perpetrated towards African American’s is NOT the same as offering the gesture of an apology. The two together would honestly, do his political career the best.
Quite frankly, refusing to offer up two freakin little words, “we’re sorry”, should not cause him any undue stress, particularly at a time when hate crimes are on the rise. Actions speak louder than words, and his actions, as well as the remaining holdouts, will be remembered. Is that a threat? Nope, it’s politics. He, and the rest, have squandered a bunch of political capital, IMO.
June 15th, 2005 at 3:02 pm
Uncle:
Where did Kevin or I ever equate lack of co-sponsorship with being pro-lynching? And it’s not just about the co-sponsorship, as you and others seem to imply. If a Senator refused to co-sponsor but went on-record with a “YES” vote, there would be no problem there, either. The problem is the refusal to co-sponsor coupled with the refusal to go on record in any other way.
Jay G:
Let’s see, aside from the current issue at hand, we could start with their opposition to pretty much any program that primarily benefits minorities; their deference to the notoriously racist Bob Jones University; their deft use of code words to appeal to racists (there are plenty of people still alive who remember that “states’ rights” originally referred to the states’ right to engage in racial discrimination without federal interference, and to defy federal civil rights legislation); local GOP candidates unabashedly schmoozing with white supremacist groups; the Attorney General praising a racist, neo-Confederate magazine; etc.
Yeah, it’s all in our collective imagination, I’m sure.
Drake:
Assuming they haven’t already, yes. But then, since neither is a Senator any more (and one of them isn’t even alive any more), it would have no official standing.
June 15th, 2005 at 3:04 pm
Added to above, “family values” was until recently a racially-loaded code phrase, too.
June 15th, 2005 at 3:12 pm
“Kevin, i have no idea why frist did what he did nor do i care to speculate as to why. After all, he co-sponsored it back in February. And that doesn’t excuse equating lack of sponsorship with being pro-lynching. ”
That’s a dodge, Uncle, and you know it. There is no good reason for doing that and you know it. Pandering to racists is the only reason to go to such lengths to protect his caucus members. Some republicans did not want to have their name associated with an apology for not trying to stop lynchings of minorities. And frist let them get away with it. It is immoral and disgusting and, at best, chaep pandering to racists.
Jay:
Forgetting the Southern Strategy and the embrace of former segregationists, and the refusal to stigmatize Trent Lott for his racist comments, how about we just go with a party line vote allowing comments calling all blacks drug users as appropriate for the House:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A1249-2003Apr9¬Found=true
or how about the GOP leadership refusing to allow a House Vote to condemn the CSC — a racist group:
http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/mar1999/ccc-m25.shtml
Or how about the former head of the RNC refusing to ask that same CSC to remove his photo form their home page — a photo of him at their bar-b-que, I might add, standing with one of their field directors.
All very recent examples of GOP leadership acting in a racist manner. So, gee, wonder where the idea that the GOP panders to racists comes from. must be the darn ol’ liberal media.
June 15th, 2005 at 3:28 pm
CE:
“Obviously you and Alexander share a disdain for apologies. Perhaps, the great granddaughter of a lynched sharecropper, who was on the Senate floor, would have appreciated the gesture.”
Your attempt at villifying my intent is way off base. even if your accusation was correct, it would be irrelevant. The apology, while symbolic, won’t accomplish a thing. And it doesn’t excuse you for equating non-sponsorship with bigotry. I think you owe some folks a symbolic apology.
Tom:
You are correct that neither of you equated that as pro-lynching. However, Kevin did walk lock-step in with posting a list that is mostly meaningless. And neither of you have condemned it.
Also, people can oppose programs that benefit minorities without being racist. And your links are to individuals. I’m sure anyone can find individuals with Ds after their names engaged/affiliated with racists. I still await these code words and proof of institutionalized racism in the GOP. Gonzales and Rice might disagree.
Kevin:
Dodging what? Your dodge of not addressing my assertion that equating non-sponsorship with racism is shameful and despicable? pot meet kettle.
And while i think frist’s actions were inappropriate, it doesn’t mean he was pandering to racists.
June 15th, 2005 at 4:35 pm
80 senators signed on as co-sponsors. It really wouldn’t be much trouble for the other 20 to do so. Senators don’t co-sponsor every bill that they end up voting for, but given the number of co-sponsors, it would be nice for the rest of them to climb on board. There is really no good answer as to why these 20 or so Senators refuse to sign on as co-sponsors. And I simply see no good reason for them not to sign on as co-sponsors. And SU, as Kevin has noted, there is also no good reason for a voice vote at off hours.
I’m glad that the Senate passed this. I would prefer the Senate worry about making laws and what not, but given the time and expense, I think its justifiable.
June 15th, 2005 at 5:20 pm
Far from it, I think the list is a good idea. And you implicitly do too, in complaining that Senators should be on the record. Why would we condemn such lists? We actually do think that the Senators on the list are guilty of, at minimum, giving a wink to their racist constituents. Does this make those Senators themselves racists? No, but it means they’re willing to tolerate racism (or, at best, aren’t willing to go on record against it), which I don’t think is acceptable; I’m surprised you’d think otherwise.
I never said they couldn’t. But when coupled with all the other footsie they play with racists, and when it’s noted that these same people generally won’t put forth alternate solutions to fix racial inequalities, it says something, and I’m pretty sure it’s not a good something.
Except that most of my individuals are prominent within the party, and there are many of them, and the GOP consistently refuses to condemn what they do unless absolutely forced (by public shame) to do so. Dean’s confederate flag remarks drew immediate fire from both sides of the political aisle (and the racism of the remark itself was suspect at best). Not so with most of the GOP links I provided. I’m sure we could come up with plenty more, but if it makes you feel better, go ahead and keep the blinders on.
I don’t doubt that there are racists in the Democratic party. And I don’t hesitate to say that we neither want them nor need them.
Your ignorance of the entire history of the civil rights era is not my problem.
Tokenism doesn’t disprove instutional racism. And in any case, my contention isn’t that the GOP actively engages in racism; rather that it coyly and tacitly tolerates it (and in local races, even encourages it).
If you point out cases where the Democrats are guilty of this, I will be first in line to condemn them for it. It’s too bad Republicans (and, apparently, Republican-leaning independents) don’t have similar scruples.
Then what in God’s creation was he doing? Pandering to other Senators who were pandering to racists? That’s better how?
June 15th, 2005 at 5:26 pm
“And while i think frist’s actions were inappropriate, it doesn’t mean he was pandering to racists. ”
Then what else was he doing? Answer the question Uncle — give me a reaosn to think that holding the vote at night and going agaisnt the wishes of the sponsors and not having an on the record vote was anything other than an attempt to protect senators in his party who where pandering to racists?
June 15th, 2005 at 5:27 pm
Uncle
I also noticed that you ignored my list of the GOP as a party doing racist things.
June 15th, 2005 at 5:44 pm
Kev:
“Then what else was he doing?”
Dunno. But you assuming what he means doesn’t make it so. And I hadn’t clicked all those links yet, got a bit busy. but one rep I’ve never heard of doesn’t denote institutional, codeword pandering.
Now, i did find the CCC thing troubling but again it’s specific people and not institutionalized.
Tom:
“Except that most of my individuals are prominent within the party,”
Never heard of barber and I see nothing inherently racist in Ashcroft’s quote, and I’m no fan of Ashcroft. He must have been using code words.
“Your ignorance of the entire history of the civil rights era is not my problem.”
Then, for the third time, give me the list of codewords (they have a racist to english dictionary, or something?) or some other proof.
“Tokenism doesn’t disprove instutional racism”
I find that statement racist. Sure, Gonzales i have issues with because he’s nuts but he is qualified. Rice is a fine person for the job. I doubt it’s because she’s black.
June 15th, 2005 at 10:23 pm
Uncle:
Why I you “still waiting” for code words when I’ve already listed them here and here?
States Rights:
Other racially-charged code “welfare queens,” “crime in the streets,” etc. To some extent, even “urban,” which has become a euphemism for “black” (or, more frequently n—-r, as in “urban music”).
Of course, virtually all politicians use code words of some form or another, and Bush himself is most likely to use evangelical code words, but the use of racially-charged code words is almost exclusive to the GOP.
As for Barbour, just because you’ve never heard of him doesn’t mean he’s obscure. He was the chairman of the Republican National Committee during the Republican Revolution (1993-1997), worked as Reagan’s Director of White House Office of Political Affairs in the 1980’s, was chairman of Bush’s campaign advisory committee in 2000, and is currently the governor of Mississippi.
As for my statement on tokenism, it is racist if it’s demonstrably false. It’s ultimately a question of whether or not the Bush administration intentionally selects minority nominees so that they can cry racism when people try to block them, even when there’s no evidence that race is a motivation for blocking the nominee (Examples). If you think race didn’t enter into the Bush Administration’s collective mind when putting forth these specific candidates, I’ve got some Enron stock to sell you.
(And for what it’s worth, I don’t think Rice is a “fine person for the job,” particularly not her current job, and this has nothing to do with her race or gender…)
Last note: Your two link limit really sucks sometimes. 🙂
June 15th, 2005 at 10:45 pm
“Your ignorance of the entire history of the civil rights era is not my problem.”
I would suggest you go look at the political affiliations of those that voted AGAINST the Civil Rights Act and then check back with us, ‘K?
Or is this one of those “words mean what I want them to, rather than what they actually do”, whereby all those Democrats who voted against the Act were magically transformed into Republicans?
June 16th, 2005 at 8:54 am
Tom, “state’s rights” and “family values” are not racist code words. And the others are definitely not racist code words in every particular case.
June 16th, 2005 at 12:07 pm
Jay G:
Still living four decades in the past are we? What happened to most of those Democrats who voted against the civil rights act, hmmm? They split off from the Democrats, and ultimately joined the GOP, where they still remain today. They may have been Democrats then, but they’re Republicans now.
Uncle:
It’s a good thing you went into accounting instead of political science, that’s all I can say. Clearly, the whole idea of code words is a complete mystery to you. The whole point is that the words and phrases, taken at face value, seem relatively benign, but that a certain constituency will read much more into them. Specifically, they will read in things that resonate with them, but that you can’t openly say.
Does this make everyone who uses such phrases a racist? No. Does it even mean that everyone who does use them is intentionally appealing to racists? No. But when it’s part of a larger pattern of behavior, it makes one raise an eyebrow.
Of course, we’ve been through this before, and apparently subtlety in political rhetoric is invisible to you. No, Bush didn’t mean for people to get the impression that Iraq was responsible for 9/11, or that they actively worked with al-Qaeda. It was mere coincidence that he constantly conflated all three of those things without ever explicitly linking them…
June 16th, 2005 at 12:14 pm
There’s nothing scientific about politics. And show me the codewords or at least their recent use.
June 16th, 2005 at 2:05 pm
A good recent example of code words, though not racially charged, is “culture of life.” Neat little way of say “hey you evangelicals over there, I’m talking to you, and I’m on your side” without, you know, saying that.
And I think the Ashcroft example is a very good one for the “talking in code” idea. Ashcroft doesn’t explicitly condone racism, but he implicitly does by praising a racist publication for the “good work” they’re doing. The racists in the audience will hear this and think “this guy thinks like us; he’s on our side.” To the non-racists, he can simply say “I didn’t actually say that, and that’s not really what I meant.”
June 16th, 2005 at 2:20 pm
And I guess part of the disconnect here is that you’re looking for me to give you a list of “code words” that have obviously racist meanings; but you’re not going to find those, because those would defeat the purpose of using code in the first place. So instead you have to use words and phrases that can be taken as having a benign meaning, but which can (and will) be understood by certain constituencies as meaning something entirely different. This is the way in which “states’ rights” and “family values” qualify. There are people out there who understand those terms differently, and politicians know this, and use it to their advantage.
June 16th, 2005 at 2:23 pm
“Dredd Scott” is another good example. In the anti-abortion movement, it has a very specific menaing that is not widely understood (I was certianly puzzled by the reference when I first heard it) by outsiders and doesn’t quite match what understanding of the case ther eis by outsiders.
June 16th, 2005 at 2:37 pm
In googling yesterday, I also found an example of someone (presumably a conservative) arguing that attacking “outsourcing” was a coded attempt to appeal to racists in the Democratic party. The contention is that nobody complians about outsourcing to, say, Europe or Canada, but instead to Mexico and China, etc. The problem isn’t just that we’re sending jobs overseas, but we’re sending them to brown and yellow people overseas, i.e. to “them.” I’m not entirely sure I buy that argument, but it isn’t completely without merit.
And while we’re on that subject, debates concerning illegal immigration are often loaded with racially-charged code.
June 16th, 2005 at 6:36 pm
Dontcha love how only the liberals in this group know what the conservatives mean when they use all these “code words?” I’m beginning to think that “code word” is itself a code word for “you’ve made an argument I can’t refute on the merits, so instead I’m going to accuse you of meaning something else.”
June 16th, 2005 at 10:13 pm
Yeah but when the ‘family values’ come, those ‘state rights’ will ‘welfare queen,’ if you know what i’m saying. Wink, wink, nudge, nudge.
June 16th, 2005 at 11:16 pm
If you deny that politicians (of all stripes) use code to appeal to certain constituencies, you’re either naive or stupid. I’ll let you pick.
June 16th, 2005 at 11:54 pm
Hey, Uncle. History quiz for you. What was the official name for the Dixiecrat party?
June 17th, 2005 at 12:07 am
Only the true Messiah denies his divinity.