 |
|
|
|
||
|
<% dim printurl
printurl = Request.ServerVariables("URL")%>
|
|
December
20, 2002 11:20 a.m. |
|
eter
Beinart of The New Republic wrote
recently:
National Review also seems to consider liberal criticism of Lott dishonest because liberals haven't been as critical of Democrats. In an article titled "Selective Moral Outrage," Mark R. Levin details Bill Clinton's praise for segregationist Arkansas Senator William Fulbright. But it's a dumb comparison. First, Clinton, while praising Fulbright, never praised his segregationism. If Lott had simply called Thurmond a great old guy — rather than specifically endorsing his segregationist presidential run — his comments wouldn't have made a stir either. Second, Clinton doesn't have a record of segregationist comments and actions; Lott does.
Actually, my contention has been that not only do liberals have selective moral outrage — i.e., that they're hypocrites on the subject of race for refusing to criticize their own tolerance for, or even embrace of, racist politicians — but that numerous conservatives are trying to avoid comparisons between Trent Lott's comment and segregationist (or neo-segregationist) Democrats because they don't want their moral outrage with Trent Lott's comments to be construed in any way as a Clintonian diversionary device, or an excuse for Lott's comments.
Mr. Beinart's first point is that while Clinton praised ex-Arkansas senator J. William Fulbright, "he never praised his segregationism." I believe James Taranto (a conservative) of Opinionjournal.com was the first to make this argument, or one similar to it. If anything, it underscores my contention.
The following excerpt from my December 10, 2002, "Selective Moral Outrage" piece is probably what Mr. Beinart finds "dumb."
[B]ack on May 5, 1993, in what the Washington Post characterized as a ". . . moving 88th birthday ceremony for former senator William Fulbright, President Clinton last night bestowed the Presidential Medal of Freedom on the man he described as a visionary humanitarian, a steadfast supporter of the values of education, and 'my mentor.'" Clinton added, "It doesn't take long to live a life. He made the best of his, and helped us to have a better chance to make the best of ours. . . . The American political system produced this remarkable man, and my state did, and I'm real proud of it."
Even if we ignore completely what Clinton said, how do you ignore what he did? He gave the nation's highest civilian award — the Presidential Medal of Freedom — to a man who spent the vast majority of his public career and life as a proud segregationist. Mr. Beinart sees a substantive and, therefore, moral distinction between Lott's comment and Clinton's action. I doubt he would cling to this position if, say, Strom Thurmond had been awarded the Medal of Freedom by George W. Bush — a medal that neither Fulbright nor Thurmond deserve.
Having blithely dismissed this embarrassingly obvious example of selective moral outrage, Mr. Beinart then asserts a second point in trying to distinguish the Lott-Clinton comparison: "Clinton doesn't have a record of segregationist comments and actions."
Let me encumber Mr. Beinart with some disturbing historical facts.
1. Bill Clinton interned for J. William Fulbright in 1966-67, when Fulbright was still a segregationist. Fulbright became Clinton's "mentor." By comparison, Lott worked for a segregationist congressman.
2. In April 1985, Governor Bill Clinton signed Act 985 into law, making the birthdates of Martin Luther King Jr. (the preeminent leader of the civil-rights movement) and Robert E. Lee (the general who led the Confederate army) state holidays on the same day. Of course, the word "segregation" never passed Clinton's considerable lips, but the (uncoded) message he was sending to certain of his white constituents could not have be clearer. His support for the Lee day seems as bad — if not worse — than a gaffe at an old man's birthday party and Lott's opposition to an MLK day.
Lott's 1983 vote against making King's birthday a national holiday — which he opposed for reasons other than race (as did Warren Rudman) — is now said by some to be further evidence of his racism or insensitivity to race.
3. Clinton had a Confederate flag-like issue of his own. Arkansas Code Annotated, Section 1-5-107, provides as follows:
(a) The Saturday immediately preceding Easter Sunday of each year is designated as 'Confederate Flag Day' in this state.
(b) No person, firm, or corporation shall display an Confederate flag or replica thereof in connection with any advertisement of any commercial enterprise, or in any manner for any purpose except to honor the Confederate States of America. [Emphasis added.]
(c) Any person, firm, or corporation violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be fined not less than one hundred dollars ($100) nor more than one thousand dollars ($1,000).
Clinton took no steps during his twelve years as governor to repeal this law. And we know why, don't we? He didn't want to offend certain of his constituents.
4. Newsmax.com recently reminded us that in her 1998 book, Lift Every Voice, Lani Guinier wrote of another disturbing event involving Clinton. She stated, in part:
In the late 1980's, in a particularly tense meeting in southeastern Arkansas — a section of the Mississippi Delta region where antebellum social relations are still in many respects the order of the day — Dayna [Cunningham] and a local [NAACP Legal Defense Fund] cooperating lawyer were part of a handful of black people there to discuss remedies for a highly contentious [Legal Defense Fund] voting rights suit.
The meeting turned sour when one of the local whites demanded to know why, in his view, the whites were always made to pay for others' problems. Other whites in the group began to echo his charge. . . .
Bill Clinton, the lead defendant in the case, took to the podium to respond. In a tone of resignation, Clinton said, "We have to pay because we lost."
"Clinton had so irresponsibly pandered to the backwards feeling of the white constituency," Cunningham told Guinier.
Clinton's "we lost" comment referred to the South losing the Civil War. Let's imagine if the South had won the Civil War. Among other things, was Clinton endorsing segregation, or much worse? Yes, I know, what a "dumb" suggestion, albeit made to demonstrate the selective moral outrage surrounding Lott's comments.
The truth is that during much of his political career, Clinton has been dancing with segregationists. But Mr. Beinart assumed Clinton hadn't, so he didn't bother to investigate, or he simply didn't want to know, or he simply dismissed the evidence. And herein lies the hypocrisy.
In the current climate, it's enough to condemn Trent Lott's comments and actions. If you take a step beyond, you are somehow defending him through evasion or diversion. Yet, many of those who hold this view — who are parsing words and contorting logic to avoid the greater debate over race — and Mr. Beinart is not alone in this regard — now hold themselves out as the scorekeepers in this debate. They are now declaring who among us is righteous, who among us is righteous for the right reasons, and who were the first to be righteous. It's a pathetic spectacle.
Finally, I have no input into National Review editorial positions, but I found NR's justification for Lott's ouster to be both intellectually honest and largely persuasive. It condemned the hypocrisy of the Left, expressed moral outrage at Lott's comment, and denounced his ineffectiveness (past and likely future) in advancing the conservative agenda.