• printer friendly
• mail this article
• iPod format
• digg

Photo

The “party of Lincoln” has turned into the “party of Lott.”

Trent Lott, embarrassed by his comments that the country would have been better off if segregationist candidate Strom Thurmond won the presidency in 1948, resigned as incoming Senate majority leader because it would have been politically disastrous for Republicans if he stayed. Lott realized he made a political mistake, but never convinced the American people he knew he made a moral error as well.

To look at the debacle in terms of one racist man is to miss the point. The problem is not just Trent Lott; the problem is that Lott represents an entire state and a Southern frame of mind. He, like so many others, grew up in a society with racist values and continues to harbor them today.

What can the country take away from this besides the fact that the Republicans (although it would be both erroneous and unfair to categorize them all as racists) tolerate racism, as long as the racist is a good fundraiser? It is obvious the Republicans are not conscious of the changing face of America.

What made the whole disaster worse were the constant apologies. They were nothing more than another political ploy. And Lott’s appearance on BET, during which he professed to support affirmative action, was desperate.

This is when the issue stops being individual-based and becomes a national issue, a symptom of the larger problem with our country. When one of the two major political parties has, since the 1970s, employed a race-centered electoral tactic thinly veiled as a geographical strategy, alarm bells should ring in the heads of Americans across the country.

The Civil Rights era marked a move away from blatantly practiced and supported racism. A new era began, in which people were still racist, only often behind closed doors. Racism did (and does) not need to be shouted in the streets for it to greatly and negatively affect our country. The one and only good thing about Lott’s statement is that it turned the country’s attention toward addressing the issue.

The members of the Republican Party should take a long hard look at themselves, their electoral strategy, and whom they choose to represent themselves. Party members should not feel proud to be in a party which harbors the lingering prejudices of the South.

The fact that racism is still acceptable in the South should be a main point of the national discussion. But it should not be the only one, because racism is everywhere. Take California: current Republican vice chairman and state chairman Bill Back sent out an online newsletter in 1999 that included an article titled “What if the South won the Civil War?” The article went on to say that Reconstruction, not slavery, damaged the South. He apologized this past weekend, but at some point the apologies have to stop and the learning has to begin.

The whole issue of racism goes in circles. It is not solely based on Lott, the Republican Party, or the South, but they are all key players. People who look the other way, who turn their heads and declare that racism does not exist, are causing almost as much trouble as the actual racists.

Singer is a second-year studying political science. E-mail her at msinger@media.ucla.edu.