The Free View-- weblog of a presidential candidate: Let 'Em Keep Trent Lott

December 11, 2002

Let 'Em Keep Trent Lott

The Trent Lott fiasco is gaining steam, which is good to hear. I think it's clear that he's not fit to be a major leader of the Republican Party, unless the GOP is really that nasty underside that almost every GOPer will insist they're not-- which is to say, a bunch of "good 'ol boys", with all the negative stuff that can be used to imply.

If they're not that -- and they better not be if they plan to stick around in American politics -- then they should drop Trent like...something that gets dropped very quickly.

In case you haven't heard yet, what happened is that Trent made a comment at Strom Thurmond's 100th birthday party, to the effect that things would have been better if Strom had gotten elected President when he ran in 1948. Sounds nice enough, unless you know that Thurmond ran as a racial segregationist candidate, saying, for example, "All the laws of Washington and all the bayonets of the Army cannot force the Negro into our homes, our schools, our churches." Eek. This was almost 100 years after The Civil War. And Trent said -- granted, loosely, at a party -- that it would have been better if Strom had won back then. Super eek.

There are three possible explanations for Trent's statement. There's the one he's using, which is that it was a "poor choice of words". This is being bolstered by his dwindling supporters, who say that he was just flapping lips at a party, trying to pay an old man a compliment, and it wasn't meant to be taken literally.

If that's the case, then Trent should get the boot. The only non-poor choice of words that a major leader in America should use to refer to Strom's sick, racist '48 campaign is some variation on the theme "that's despicable". Paying it any kind of compliment or positive acknowledgement (other than maybe "He ran for President, and that takes some gumption") is inappropriate. If people want to remark fondly on such a thing, that's fine for them, but that's not who America wants to be leading them. There's a very welcoming subculture for folks like that -- it's called "white supremacists", or more simply, "racists".

If Trent isn't one of those folks, then he truly did make a really poor choice of words. So poor as to be incompetent. He chose lots of words in order to make that statement -- it was multiple sentences tied together into a cohesive paragraph, all building up to his thesis. That's a lot of choosin'. It wasn't a word or two he misspoke -- it was a whole statement.

If Trent is capable of choosing such a colossally inappropriate set of words, the GOP would be nuts to keep him as a party leader.

Another possibility is that he was joking, meaning that he was kidding, and meant the opposite of what he actually said. I actually think this would have gotten the best mileage -- if Trent had claimed sarcastic humor. But he didn't, and there's nothing to support the theory. Sure, the comment was made in good humor, but the intent was to pay a compliment. It wasn't a roast, it was a birthday party. It was sincere good humor, not sarcastic. And while Trent apologized for the misunderstanding, he didn't go so far as to say "I didn't really mean to heap praise on Strom's '48 campaign." It's like he expects that we will accept that he meant what he said, but he didn't say what he meant. Or vice versa. Don't think about it too hard -- there's no way out of that conundrum.

Explanation number three is that Trent really meant what he said. Mississippi is really proud of voting for Strom in '48, and Trent really wishes he had won then. And boy oh boy, wouldn't that have been great! None of this messy "negroes everywhere" business like we have today. (Now that's sarcasm. Maybe I should become a Lott speechwriter.)

If that's the real truth -- and I think that's the most plausible explanation...after all, could he really be stupid enough to make such a "poor choice of words"? -- then we're back to what I said at the outset. Unless the GOP wants to be known once again as the party of racists and rednecks -- an image it has worked decades to shed -- then they should drop Trent Lott like...something that's too heavy to keep holding onto.

Word on the streets is that Trent has known ties to a number of racist front organizations, so it's likely that the perception will focus on that last explanation. Whether it's true or not, it's baggage the GOP doesn't need right now. Keeping Trent as Senate Majority Leader would be bad political economics -- and not just because it will involve other Republicans having to try and defend his mistake. There's just little to gain from keeping him there, and lots to lose.

That said, a big part of me hopes they let him stay. I hope their party is so affected by their own grandiosity that they are dumb enough to let him stay in charge. In some respects, a part of me still tries to hope that goodness and morality and real civic virtue and leadership will get a foothold in one of the two major parties, and deposing Trent would present a great opportunity for the GOP to upgrade in that respect, but I just can't be moved to believe it will do any good. There are a tiny handful of truly useful and virtuous Democrats and Republicans in Congress, but their usefulness and virtue generally correspond with their capacity to go against the grain of their party. Which, in a Congress dominated by party politics and "bipartisanship", means they actually aren't very useful at all. They are powerless and ineffectual -- tiny currents against a mighty tide. And if Trent is deposed, as he should be, that bipartisan tide -- not the virtuous currents -- will choose his replacement. And off we go for another round of Same Old-Same Old.

So, given that I think hoping for the reformation of the "bipartisans" is a waste of time and hope, instead I hope for their demise. Not personally, as in the demise of the people in the parties, but the demise of the parties themselves. The sooner those two are out of our national life, the better. If we leave them there long enough they'll ruin the place for good.

In that spirit, I say to the GOP: Keep Trent in charge. He's a real winning ticket. And he couldn't possibly mess up so badly again, right?

( hehe )