Weak Reid
" (Barack Obama is)...a light skinned African-American, with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one."
Senator Harry Reid (D, Nevada), during the 2008 presidential primary campaign
This quotation, from the new book "Game Change" (1), prompted Senator John Cornyn of Texas, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, to demand that Reid resign as Majority Leader, calling his remarks "embarrassing and racially insensitive." (Did you realize that Cornyn was so racially sensitive? I didn't.)
Republican National Chairman Michael Steele compared the quote to one by then Senate Republican Leader Trent Lott that caused him to step-down from his leadership position. At a birthday party for Senator Strom Thurmond (R, South Carolina) in early December, 2002, Lott noted that his home state of Mississippi had voted for Thurmond for President in 1948 (2) and added that "..if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over these years." (3) Steele said that if Lott had to resign as Majority Leader for his statement, so should Reid for his. As Steele put it, "It's either racist or it's not. And it's inappropriate, absolutely." (4)
Senator Reid apologized to President Obama for the remark, and the President accepted his apology and considers the matter closed. Apparently the President is less sensitive to racial slights than Senator Cornyn, let alone Mr. Steele.
In my view, the whole controversy is bogus. First, I do not consider the word "Negro" to be racist, if that is what bothers the Republicans. Harlem activist Marcus Garvey proudly used it in the title of his movement: the Universal Negro Improvement Association. Martin Luther King used it in almost every speech. The United Negro College Fund uses the term today, as does the US Census Bureau. ( Obama could have deleted it from the 2010 census questionnaire, but has not done so. ) Until the Black Muslims repudiated the word in the 1960's, everyone used it to describe Americans of African ancestry. Today "Negro" may be a bit quaint, but I do not believe it is pejorative, and certainly not racist.
But what about the remark itself? Suppose that a politician would have remarked in 2004 that Joe Lieberman has a good chance to become president because he doesn't look too Jewish, and does not have a Yiddish accent, although he could speak that way if he wanted to. I would have considered the remark fatuous, but not anti-Semitic. Like it or not, the ethnicity and appearance of a candidate, as well as his style of speech, are factors in his electability. Reid did nothing more than apply these factors to Obama, and I see no need for him to apologize for doing so, let alone resign his leadership position.
But what about the comparison to Trent Lott? Apples and oranges, I say. Reid's comment had no bearing on public policy. But if Strom Thurmond would have been elected President in 1948, as Lott would have preferred, the Executive Branch of the US Government would have opposed racial equality under the law for at least four years, with consequences far beyond that term of office. (5) One would have expected the Republican leader to have endorsed GOP nominee Tom Dewey for the 1948 election, rather than a maverick Democrat! (Thurmond switched to the GOP in 1965.)
As Democratic leader of the Senate, Harry Reid pales in comparison to men like Lyndon Johnson and Mike Mansfield. If he steps down, it would be no great loss--- Charles Schumer (NY), Carl Levin (MI), or Richard Durbin (IL) would all be better. Moreover, polls in Nevada indicate that Reid will lose his seat in November, anyway. He would be no worse off if he had responded to the torrent of criticism by saying, " What I said was true, and I am not sorry for it."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) By Mark Halperin (of Time Magazine) and John Heilemann (of New York Magazine).
(2) After the 1948 Democratic National Convention had approved a civil-rights plank for the platform, most of the Deep South delegations walked out and created a splinter party called Democratic States' Rights, aka the Dixiecrats. The new party nominated Gov. Thurmond for President and Gov. Fielding Wright of Mississippi for Vice-President. The ticket finished a distant third with about 2% of the popular vote and 39 electoral votes.
(3) Lott said the same thing in 1980. (Washington Post, Dec. 11, 2002, page A06)
(4) Associated Press, Jan. 11, 2010.
(5) As President, Thurmond could have appointed racist judges to federal courts, including the US Supreme Court, who would have decided civil rights cases for decades thereafter.
Senator Harry Reid (D, Nevada), during the 2008 presidential primary campaign
This quotation, from the new book "Game Change" (1), prompted Senator John Cornyn of Texas, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, to demand that Reid resign as Majority Leader, calling his remarks "embarrassing and racially insensitive." (Did you realize that Cornyn was so racially sensitive? I didn't.)
Republican National Chairman Michael Steele compared the quote to one by then Senate Republican Leader Trent Lott that caused him to step-down from his leadership position. At a birthday party for Senator Strom Thurmond (R, South Carolina) in early December, 2002, Lott noted that his home state of Mississippi had voted for Thurmond for President in 1948 (2) and added that "..if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over these years." (3) Steele said that if Lott had to resign as Majority Leader for his statement, so should Reid for his. As Steele put it, "It's either racist or it's not. And it's inappropriate, absolutely." (4)
Senator Reid apologized to President Obama for the remark, and the President accepted his apology and considers the matter closed. Apparently the President is less sensitive to racial slights than Senator Cornyn, let alone Mr. Steele.
In my view, the whole controversy is bogus. First, I do not consider the word "Negro" to be racist, if that is what bothers the Republicans. Harlem activist Marcus Garvey proudly used it in the title of his movement: the Universal Negro Improvement Association. Martin Luther King used it in almost every speech. The United Negro College Fund uses the term today, as does the US Census Bureau. ( Obama could have deleted it from the 2010 census questionnaire, but has not done so. ) Until the Black Muslims repudiated the word in the 1960's, everyone used it to describe Americans of African ancestry. Today "Negro" may be a bit quaint, but I do not believe it is pejorative, and certainly not racist.
But what about the remark itself? Suppose that a politician would have remarked in 2004 that Joe Lieberman has a good chance to become president because he doesn't look too Jewish, and does not have a Yiddish accent, although he could speak that way if he wanted to. I would have considered the remark fatuous, but not anti-Semitic. Like it or not, the ethnicity and appearance of a candidate, as well as his style of speech, are factors in his electability. Reid did nothing more than apply these factors to Obama, and I see no need for him to apologize for doing so, let alone resign his leadership position.
But what about the comparison to Trent Lott? Apples and oranges, I say. Reid's comment had no bearing on public policy. But if Strom Thurmond would have been elected President in 1948, as Lott would have preferred, the Executive Branch of the US Government would have opposed racial equality under the law for at least four years, with consequences far beyond that term of office. (5) One would have expected the Republican leader to have endorsed GOP nominee Tom Dewey for the 1948 election, rather than a maverick Democrat! (Thurmond switched to the GOP in 1965.)
As Democratic leader of the Senate, Harry Reid pales in comparison to men like Lyndon Johnson and Mike Mansfield. If he steps down, it would be no great loss--- Charles Schumer (NY), Carl Levin (MI), or Richard Durbin (IL) would all be better. Moreover, polls in Nevada indicate that Reid will lose his seat in November, anyway. He would be no worse off if he had responded to the torrent of criticism by saying, " What I said was true, and I am not sorry for it."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) By Mark Halperin (of Time Magazine) and John Heilemann (of New York Magazine).
(2) After the 1948 Democratic National Convention had approved a civil-rights plank for the platform, most of the Deep South delegations walked out and created a splinter party called Democratic States' Rights, aka the Dixiecrats. The new party nominated Gov. Thurmond for President and Gov. Fielding Wright of Mississippi for Vice-President. The ticket finished a distant third with about 2% of the popular vote and 39 electoral votes.
(3) Lott said the same thing in 1980. (Washington Post, Dec. 11, 2002, page A06)
(4) Associated Press, Jan. 11, 2010.
(5) As President, Thurmond could have appointed racist judges to federal courts, including the US Supreme Court, who would have decided civil rights cases for decades thereafter.
posted by Gerald S Glazer at 9:26 AM
4 Comments:
Excellent post, I agree completely. The repubs are idiotic for making a big deal out of this and Reid is idiotic to apologize for the truth.
I agree, except we all know that if a republican had made a similarly benign statement, he would be forced out. Liberals can easily survive these sorts of statements (and much worse) because they are “correct” on the issues. It’s all politics.
Nice to be in your site,
anyway, could you exchange link?
Here is my site:
http://sompost.com/
I hope you could do it to share more friendship
Any way, it is an honor if you could link my site in your site in bloglist.
Please let me khnow if you link me at http://sompost.com/
My best regards,
sompost
Why should Reid have to aploogize to Obama? He said nothing offensive about Obama. If anthing, he needs to apologize to the American people, for suggesting that they would vote for or against someone because of the shade of his skin. I certainly agree that he said nothing racist, however. He's just a typical liberal who thinks America is a racist nation. Everyone except him, of course.
Post a Comment
<< Home