Why Are These Remarks Different Than All Other Remarks?

Surely you've heard about Senator Harry Reid's comments by now. In response, Republican National Committee Chariman, Michael Steele championed the Sunday news programs comparing the reaction to Harry Reid's comments about Barack Obama -- "light-skinned" and with "no Negro dialect unless he want[s] to have one" -- to the troubling comments of of Trent Lott(R-MS) that later led to Mr. Lott's resignation. Rewinding the tapes back to 2002, during a birthday celebration of the legendary Strom Thurmond, Lott commented on Thurmond's 1948 segregationist presidential campaign suggesting that it was a shame his policies could not have been carried out. The Dixiecrat who once said of Clarence Thomas' nomination to the Supreme Court, "...I don't care if it's a pig, so long as it's not black." is hardly a hero to many. Nevertheless, Lott promptly apologized, but was forced to step down as Senate Majority Leader.

Upon reflection, Mr. Steele danced across the airwaves with:

There is this standard where the Democrats feel that they can say these things and they can apologize when it comes from the mouths of their own. But if it comes from anyone else, it's racism. It's either racist or it's not. And it's inappropriate, absolutely.

Steele's analysis is spot on in that there is a double-standard being applied, but falls short when comparing the comments of Reid to Lott. The reason is that Lott cheered the policies of a segregationist presidential candidate as if to suggest that 'separate but equal' would have resulted in a better outcome for America. His comments represent a norm within white America's thinking process and therefore supported the notion of segregation over diversity and integration. Unfortunately, many Americans then and still today, uphold this philosophy both in public and in private.

Reid's comments were speculative on the potential for Barack Obama to win the 2008 election. They represent a norm of thinking upon which white American's carried out at the polls. I recently reviewed an unpublished manuscript from the University of Michigan that found that Democrats who supported Barack Obama were more likely to see him as light skinned. Whereas Republicans who opposed him, were more likely to see him as dark skinned. Understanding this concept more intimately, research out of the University of California at San Diego claims that many rely on racial stereotypes and past patterns in race relations to assess the likely consequences of a black candidate’s victory. The result is that many whites fear that a black leader will favor the black community over the white community. They expect a black leader to redistribute income, encourage integration, and generally channel resources toward the black community. In short, they imagine that black control will have negative consequences for themselves and their neighbors. Once a black candidate is elected, however, whites gain access to better information about the policy preferences of black leaders and the effects of black leadership. In short, it's all the candidate is packaged during a campaign.

Trent Lott is a man who honestly deserved what he got if he truly supports policies of segregation. But I don't think Lott believed any such thing. However, I am not convinced it matters here. What matters is that what Harry Reid said was indeed how many people pulled levers. I am left to wonder not why Republicans are calling for Reid's head on a stick -- I know the reasons, but rather why they are not disgusted by research that supports that his comments upon the basis for how levers were pulled amongst many white Americans.

I am also left to speculate as we approach the upcoming holiday weekend, whether so many prominent Republicans would be so willing to quote Martin Luther King if he had lived. more...