- Lee Hamilton: November’s elections won’t resolve much of anything
- Pec Playhouse Theatre announces auditions for holiday production
- Keeping up with Aida: A western adventure, part three
- State prepares for thousands of medical marijuana applications
- Rockford’s Choices Natural Market celebrates Non-GMO Month
- Week 5 NFL picks: Lions to improve to 4-1, Packers and Bears will keep pace at 3-2
- Craft Beer Scene Around Rockford: Revolution Brewing’s Oktoberfest offers good all-around balance
- Rockford’s Fall ArtScene at 37 locations Oct. 3-4
- Tales from the Trough: Preseason interview with ‘The Voice of the IceHogs,’ Mike Peck
- Mr. Green Car: Saltwater-powered car: the Quant e-Sportlimousine
The Lott affair
The Lott affair
By M.L. Simon
I think that those of us in the radical center must be explicit in where we stand on the Sen. Trent Lott affair. I have seen way too much mushy thinking on the issue from all the factions in the debate.
For me, it is not about race. It is about free association.
Let me see if I can make a clear case for or against supporting Lott on those grounds. Did Lott support Strom Thurmond based on free association grounds, or on racialist grounds?
One way to tell is to look at a group that Lott thinks has the right attitude for all Americansthe Council of Concerned Citizens. This is a white racialist group that, in effect, is a mirror image of the Al Sharptons of the world. Their agenda is racial preferences for whites. You can read about their racialist agenda here: http://www.cofcc.org/millard.htm.
As far as I can tell, Sen. Strom Thurmond was using the rhetoric of states rights to cover his racialist views in 1948. After all, you have never heard of Thurmond or Lott standing up for states rights when it comes to medical marijuana or any of the other law enforcement issues that relate to drug control. Yet, we do know that traditionally law enforcement is a state, not federal issue. Yet, nary a peep from either on that states rights issue. Could it be that when they were calling for states rights, they were pandering to racialists and not standing for principle?
My point of view is simple. Government ought not have any racial preferences. So far, what the courts have done in America is replace one evil for another on the same grounds the original evil was decided. This in general, is the way of all politics. What we need to get back to is a place where neither forced segregation nor forced integration is part of government. On these grounds, I think Lott fails. He has never, to my knowledge, promoted the principles of government color blindness according to the free association principle. His color blindness was never a matter of principle but expediency. And why expediency? Because of whom he associated with and the way he expressed his support for themhe was a racialist. When racialism became unpopular, he changed his tune, which is fine if that is what the people of Mississippi want to represent them. I do not think it is what Republicans in general want to represent them. On that basis, Id say Lott ought to resign.
M. Simon is an industrial controls engineer for Space-Time Productions and a Free Market Green. (c) M. SimonAll rights reserved. Permission granted for one time use in a single periodical. Concurrent publication on the periodicals Web site is also granted.