Author: Andrew Sullivan

Do these words sound familiar:

And I would hope that we could move on from that and move to things that we can do to help the people all across this country, economic opportunity for everybody, community renewal, which is something that’s important for people of all races and income levels, work to make sure we have election reforms that guarantees that people have an opportunity and a right to vote, and the funds to pay for it; put more money in the education, so that really no child is left behind. That’s the best way to show how you really feel, is by doing things that will open up the opportunity for people all across our state.

Blah blah blah. Reading the transcript of Lott’s interview with Lott-defender Sean Hannity, you have to wonder who Trent Lott is channeling. This last piece of Clintonian blather was preceded by a long, elaborate Clintonian fib. When Trent Lott thinks of the presidential candidacy of Strom Thurmond, what he’s really thinking about is … national defense! As they say out there on the web, ROTFLMAO*:

If you look back at that time, which was 1948, defense was a big issue. We were coming out of the war, of course, but we also were dealing with communism and then in the ’80s, you know, when I talked about Strom again, we were talking about the problem in Iran, talking about deficits over the years, strong law enforcement speeches. I remember when I first got to the Senate, one of the first speeches I ever heard Strom give was talking about the need to have strong law enforcement to protect the people, all of the people. And also, I have a memory of Strom promoting economic development in South Carolina, as have others there in that state. So those are the kinds of things where we’ve had problems over the years with defense, budgets, you know, law enforcement. I think we could have done a better job.

Hands up everyone who thinks he’s telling the truth. The trouble with Lott is that he combines the worst part of some Democrats – big-government pork-barrel spending – with the worst part of some Republicans – racial obtuseness, in Lott’s case, to the brink of outright bigotry. The connective tissue is Clintonian spin. I’m not saying he doesn’t deserve to be a senator from Mississippi – that’s up to the voters. What I am saying is that he cannot be Republican Senate Majority Leader any more without destroying a good deal of what George W. Bush has accomplished. Nice try, Mr Lott. But your time is up. Do the decent thing and get the hell out of there.
(* i.e. Rolling On The Floor Laughing My Ass Off. By the way, Bob Herbert thinks Lott should stay. Doesn’t that tell you something?)

LOTT AND THE YOUNG: Here’s an email that confirms my suspicion of an age gap in how seriously to treat Trent Lott’s apparent nostalgia for Jim Crow:

You are absolutely correct on the generation gap. I am 32, my father is 55. We are both attorneys practicing in Toledo, Ohio, both Republicans. He thinks the Lott gaffe is just that, a gaffe, and thinks we should give him a pass. I, on the other hand, agree with you, Lott has to go. Lott is the worst kind of government lackey. He has no principles, other than governing, for the sake of governing. To Lott, and his ilk, it’s all about pork. Big government is good, as long it is my big government. I cannot stand this in a politician. At least Ted Kennedy does not hide his love for government. Lott would sell out any conservative principle (school choice, small government, pro business, growth through tax reduction, personal and economi freedom) to have a bridge built in Mississippi. And he is my party’s “leader” in the Senate?
I was ready to pull my hair out yesterday having this discussion with my father. Even he knows Lott’s conservative shortcomings, yet still gives him a pass. As a practical matter, the GOP has its best chance to dump Lott now. As a principled matter, the GOP has no business having this segregationist as its front man. Good bye, Mr. Lott.
And what really insenses me, what really makes my blood boil, is those who attempt to deflect Lott’s statements by citing to Robert Byrd and the KKK, or Bill Clinton and his southern pals. You know what? Jim Crow is Jim Crow. My GOP racist is no worse than you democrat racist? Dammit, what the Hell? Sean Hannity, as entertaining as he can be, is going total hack on this on his radio show. Mr. Hannity, condemn Lott, don’t compare, condemn. Where is your soul?

Yes, Hannity has been among the worst on this issue. Didn’t come as a surprise to me.

THE JESUITS TAKE A STAND: The current issue of America, the American Jesuit magazine, is devoted in large part to a defense of gays in the priesthood. Alas, the essays require subscription. But this wouldn’t be happening if the Society of Jesus wasn’t deeply worried about the forthcoming directives from Rome. What it suggests to me is that if Rome decides to purge celibate and faithful gay priests and seminarians, then the American church will not take that decision as binding. Many in the clerical hierarchy and many more among the laity and religious orders will simply disobey, leading to crisis and/or a real danger of schism. This may, of course, be what some at the Vatican want, and in the absence of a functioning pontiff, they might get away with it. But not without a struggle. And not without fierce resistance in America.

THE STEROID PANIC: A useful counterweight to the New York Times’ recent scare story about steroid use can be found in the current Reason magazine. But where both pieces agree is the need for much more research on how steroids can improve health and beauty, if used responsibly. I’ve experienced this myself and seen it in others with HIV and AIDS – enough to wonder how much more good these drugs could do if allowed to be used more widely:

One reason the health effects of steroids are so uncertain is a dearth of research. In the almost 65 years that anabolic steroids have been in our midst, there has not been a single epidemiological study of the effects of long-term use. Instead, Yesalis explains, concerns about extended usage are extrapolated from what’s known about short-term effects. The problem is that those short-term research projects are often case studies, which Yesalis calls the “lowest life form of scientific studies.” Case studies often draw conclusions from a single test subject and are especially prone to correlative errors.

And yet we all carry about in our heads the notion that steroid use will cause you to drop dead in your fifties. More research and less hysteria, please.

RAINES DIGS IN: The indispensable Sridhar Pappu has the goods on what really went down last week at the Times:

Mr. Raines, according to a Times source, has told people that the incident will not change the way he and the rest of the masthead conducts business at the paper. However, the story revealed a measure of control that surprised the outside world. Some asked if Mr. Raines had contracted the kind of iron-fisted attitude that former editor A.M. Rosenthal had insisted upon during his tenure. “So much of this comes from a top-down management structure as it does ‘censorship,'” said one Times source. “These are decisions that would normally be made by a section editor who would say, ‘You know what? I don’t like this for whatever reason.’ … Here, they’re actually making the decisions and putti
ng their fingerprints on it and they’re going to continue to put their fingerprints on it because they don’t trust their editors enough.”

Not encouraging, is it?

“As a student at the Catholic University School of Law I read with great interest your commentary on Doug Kmiec as a potential candidate for a seat on the D.C. Circuit. Having been a student at the Catholic University’s law school for one and a half years under Dean Kmiec’s tutelage, I feel uniquely qualified to offer further insight Kmiec’s particular viewpoint. What troubles me most about the possibility of Judge Kmiec is that he has an abiding inability to divorce his ultra-conservative religious views from his use of garden-variety logic.” – this, and a Democrat defends Trent Lott, on today’s Letters Page.

A hopeful sign from Michael Kramer’s column:

Unofficially, the Bushies are beside themselves. “We need this like a hole in the head,” says one. “At a time when we’re trying to reach out to black voters, Lott’s an embarrassment. Gore’s right on the substance and also on the politics. If he runs again, blacks are going to remember that Gore was the one who bashed Trent early, and I can easily see all those Democratic commercials replaying [Lott’s] words ad nauseam.”

Dan Drezner has more.

James Taranto has a superb and measured condemnation of Trent Lott today. So does the American Prowler. Josh Marshall discovers Lott defending Bob Jones University’s old segregation policies. Still no official word from 43d Street. Maybe the New York Times actually wants to keep Lott as Majority Leader. They know how damaging he is to the Republican Party.

Different perspectives but similar conclusions:

I’m from Mississippi and until now, a Republican. Trent Lott’s patently racists remarks horrify me on many levels. I wholeheartedly agree with you, he must step down as Senate Majority Leader. And I am enraged that Lott spoke as if all Mississippians agree with his vile remarks.
Then, today, the staggering practical damage becomes clear. Until now, the Republican party, nationally and in Mississippi, seemed finally to be breaking free of its stolid, exclusive image — thanks largely to President George W. Bush. And it’s now time down here to recruit candidates for state legislative elections next year. I have been encouraging several black friends to run as Republicans in a number of key races. Now I hardly know what to say to these people.
Unless the GOP quickly disavows Lott in no uncertain terms, it will take decades to undo the damage with black voters, who were until now receptive to Republican ideas. The loss of these good people because of Lott’s indefensible statement sickens me. I cannot continue to consider myself a Republican so long as Trent Lott is a party leader.

And this one from a black Democrat, who also sees problems within his own party:

My roommate turned me onto your site some time back and I enjoy it immensely, but I disagree with you a bit on the Trent Lott fiasco. While I agree that bringing up Robert Byrd is not a sufficient response (Lott should resign immediately, before the inevitable pressure from the press and the Democrats make it look like caving-in rather than acting on principle.), neither is it beside the point. The Democrats and members of the press, including you to a certain extent, have used this mess to make sweeping statements about the Republican party. In that context, isn’t it reasonable to point out the Democrats’ similar behavior?
I’m a lifelong Democrat, and Black, but this seems like a golden opportunity to spotlight my party’s hypocrisy. They talk a good game when they’re trying to get out the Black vote, but between elections they act no better than the opposition, and in some cases even worse. I cannot stand the man, but George Bush got about 5% of the Black vote and his cabinet looks like Showtime at the Apollo.
I’m beginning to wonder if my loyalty is misplaced.

And then there’s this email from one half of an inter-racial marriage:

I’m adrift. I’m the white half of an interracial couple, and my politics might be described as leaning-libertarian. I was pleased that Bush beat Gore, and equally pleased with the results of the latest midterms. But I’m not a Republican, and I did not cast my vote for Bush.
While I don’t suspect racism, latent or otherwise, in the heart of the President, there’s a reason why I couldn’t cast my vote for him: his appearance at Bob Jones University. In that single moment of sad acquiescence to the bigot wing of the party, George W. Bush lost my vote. And Trent Lott’s recent comments represent yet another, even more jarring “Bob Jones Moment” for me.
Simply put, if Trent Lott is allowed once again to assume the mantle of majority leader, without dissent from the President or anyone in the President’s party, how can I ever vote Republican again? How can I look my black wife in the face after doing so? How can I live with my own conscience?
This could be a moment of truth for the Republican Party. It certainly is for me.

Me too. We’re waiting for you to speak out, Mr President. This is your moment of truth as well.

It has been really encouraging to see many conservative outlets coming out and decrying Trent Lott. It tells you something when the Washington Times has editorialized and the New York Times hasn’t. The best piece so far is Jonah Goldberg’s. It has a brutal sentence: “[Lott is] a deal-cutter who seems to stand for nothing except massive amounts of pork to his home state and, occasionally, sticking up for Jim Crow.” My gut tells me that this contempt for Lott is particularly acute for younger conservatives/libertarians/classical liberals. In arguing for a race-neutral society, we have an obligation to repudiate with even more vehemence those formally racist institutions of the past. A loathing of Jim Crow is a critical part of our attempt to persuade people that our opposition to, say, affirmative action is not a function of racism, but a function of anti-racism. With this comes an obligation, especially from non-blacks, to acknowledge the uniquely hideous legacy African-Americans have endured. Indeed, it should not be up to blacks to complain about this kind of statement. That’s why I’m heartened by the conservative reponse. It’s a watershed. But that’s also why having someone like Lott as the leader of the Republicans in the Senate is such an intolerable affront. Lott makes the Left’s point for them. And he undermines a politics of race-neutrality that is still empathetic to the historic plight of African-Americans while eager to move on. Perhaps older conservatives can look beyond this. Younger ones, who were born after Jim Crow, can’t. It’s time for Lott to go. And it’s time for Bush to say so.

ANTI-WAR SPIN: Someone out there has begun to realize that the anti-war movement needs a radical make-over. Plagued by Marxist nut-cases, anti-Semites, and varied extremists, it has come to seem to many indistinguishable from a pro-Saddam movement. So in some ways, it’s encouraging that this particular message is now being re-tooled. “Win Without War” has this as its credo:

We are patriotic Americans who share President Bush’s belief that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq cannot be allowed to acquire weapons of mass destruction. We part ways with the president, however, on the issue of pre-emptive military attack against Iraq.

So what do they propose? The best guess is that they will argue as Saddam wants them to argue: that Iraq is fully compliant now with the international community, that inspections are all we need to verify this, and so on. Indeed, one of the new slogans is “Let The Inspections Work.” But don’t they realize that the only reason we have inspections at all is the threat of military force? Meanwhile, the photograph acompanying the new York Times’ sympathetic account shows a protestor with a sign declaring that president Bush is an “international terrorist.” Ah, yes. Let the inspections work …

Sorry to those who think I’m making too much of this. But it seems to me that the G.O.P. has zero credibility on racial matters until they get rid of this man as Senate Majority Leader. When I’m in agreement with the Family Research Council, a virulently anti-gay group, you know something’s got to give. Last night’s revelation – that Lott had said almost identical things over twenty years ago – clinches in my mind that this was not a poor choice of words. It was a classic political gaffe – where the politician in question accidentally says what he truly believes. And no, I don’t think bringing up Robert Byrd, another old bigot, is a satisfactory response. It’s a sign that you cannot defend someone when you respond by attacking someone else. Lott had a chance to repudiate his words and he chose to side-step the issue. He’s flirted with racists before. He’s said the same things before. It seems to me that president Bush now has his Sister Souljah opportunity. Just as Clinton secured centrist backing when he repudiated the anti-white racism of Sister Souljah, so Bush needs to repudiate the anti-black racism of Lott publicly, clearly and irrevocably. If he doesn’t, then I’m afraid he will lose any black support indefinitely and the respect of many decent voters who aren’t black as well. Lott’s remarks are, in fact, a direct insult to black members of the administration and the Republican Party. Mr. President, we’re waiting for you to say something.

RAINES AWARD NOMINEE: This is how the Washington Times spins the Trent Lott story today: “Black lawmakers upset with Daschle.” At least Howell Raines has some sophistication.

PAY-UP WEEK UPDATE:Alas, we’re still in the dark about a truly accurate up-to-the-moment tally. Amex reports things late and the mailbag won’t reveal its truths for a while yet. But the good news is: yesterday looks almost as good as Monday. We’re close to 3,000 paid-up subscribers to the site, which represents a stunning step forward for the blogosphere, and for this blog. I’m really, really grateful. But we’re still short of our goal. If you’ve paid up already, my eternal thanks. If you read this blog regularly, and haven’t paid yet, please do your part in keeping it alive. We’re asking $20 for the year (including the past two years, if you’re counting), which is about as good a media deal as you’re likely to find anywhere. The money will pay me a decent salary, allow me to hire help, and spend more time on the blog. So please, make Paul Krugman’s day. Click here to give a little back to the site.

THE AXIS OF EVIL I: Remember all those people who derided president Bush’s inclusion of North Korea in his “axis of evil?” Remember all those who said there was no logical connection between them? I wonder what they’ll say about the interception of North Korean scuds bound for some party in the Middle East? Particularly appropriate on the day when the uber-appeaser Jimmy Carter got the Nobel “Peace” Prize, don’t you think?

THE AXIS OF EVIL II: Have you been following the news from Iran? It’s a little hard since the major media seems intent on burying news from this country that could be on the brink of a world-changing revolution. But this story in yesterday’s Times caught my eye. Why, I wonder, wasn’t it on the front page?

HOW TOUGH IS THIS FORD? Plenty, it seems. I enjoyed this piece by Time’s Jack E. White. I was unaware of the racist, Uncle Tom rhetoric used against Congressman Harold Ford by the Congressional Black Caucus. But given the state of racial rhetoric on the left these days, I’m not surprised. If he plays his cards right, Ford could become a post-racial politician for the next generation. I certainly hope so.

THE TIMES’ MATH: Jacob Levy does a simple math job on a recent, completely bogus story in the New York Times on an alleged collapse in the advancement of minorities in higher education. As usual, the Times doesn’t let the facts get in the way of a purely ideological piece.

THE TIMES’ CLUELESSNESS: A while back, the New York Times ran a glowing profile of an Indian guru, Sai Baba. Check out MSNBC’s cursory investigation into the story. The guru is an alleged serial pedophile, with complaints against him for abusing children well-reported in the Daily Telegraph and India Today. UNESCO dropped participation in a conference with Baba for the same reason. But nowhere in the Times piece is there even a reference to the charges. Why? Don’t they have Google over there?

MY GAY PASSION: Just a word in response to some emails that have been telling me I’m all reason when it comes to most subjects but all emotion when it comes to homosexuality. I think you’ll find, if you read my work on the gay topic over the years, that I have done more than most to channel my natural emotions on this subject into reasonable discourse. Many who disagree with me on this topic have been kind enough to concede this. But undoubtedly my feelings run high on the topic; it’s close to home; it affects my loved ones – living and dead. It affects my own life directly every day. So when I hear arguments that essentially assume that gay people are somehow depraved or sick or vile or embarrassing, it’s hard not to respond with passion. I’m actually proud of that. Maintaining my liberal principles – on issues like hate crime laws – has led me to become a pariah in some gay circles, an object of scorn and hatred. Equally, maintaining my Catholic – yes, Catholic – principles about the inherent dignity and equality of gay people – on issues like marriage and military service – has alienated many on the other side. All I can say is that I have learned to do without much support on this issue but try daily to balance reason with emotion, to make sure I don’t confuse feelings for an argument. Most of the time I succeed. Sometimes, I don’t. I’m only human. But when your own identity is being raised as something up for discussion, it’s hard to stay cool. And at times, I think anger is thoroughly justified. It’s obviously not my only passion – on terrorism, on the Church, on the nihilist left, I can be just as energized. But it is one passion, for which I do not apologize. All I can say in defense is this: imagine if you had to defend your heterosexual marriage from charges that it will debase civilization and is one step away from child abuse. Imagine that it had no standing in law. Imagine that some civilized people you respect and who otherwise respect you nonetheless feel contempt for the love you have for another human being, and believe deep down that you are mentally or psychologically disordered. Now try not to be angry and hurt. It’s difficult. I’m not playing the victim card here. I’m just trying to explain.

My piece opposite responds to some of the fears fanned by Stanley Kurtz in recent articles on National Review Onine. One amendment to the piece: I wrote, “Read [Stanley Kurtz’s] original piece, “The Right Balance,” in favor of the Federal Marriage Amendment and try and find a mention of equal protection. Good luck.” With a bit of luck, you can, in fact, find a reference. My bad. There is one sentence at the end of a paragraph where he mentions it. It’s a little easy to miss since almost the entire argument is devoted to the Full Faith and Credit Clause. My point remains, however. Kurtz once first fanned the flames of hysteria, by saying that the FFC would nationalize gay marriage. Now he says that equal protection arguments will nationalize it. The first is almost impossible; the second extremely unlikely in the foreseeable future. But Kurtz wants to amend the U.S. Constitution right now even to avoid the remote possibility of gay citizens enjoying equal rights under the law at some time in the future.

“Because of an editing error, an article yesterday about heightened alarms over terrorism in Europe misstated the location of a bombing in Tunisia last spring that killed 21 people, including 14 German tourists. It was at a synagogue, not a mosque.” – The New York Times today. Does it get any more priceless than that?

How far out there on the far right is Douglas Kmiec? Waaaay out there. If you’re worried about the erosion of the separation between church and state, you should start panicking. If you believe the U.S. Constitution guarantees individual rights against the state rather than, in Kmiec’s view, representing Catholic natural law that can mould citizens’ souls, then be afraid. Worse than that, Kmiec is a supporter of the discredited Church hierarchy in its attempt to cover up its own tolerance of child-abusers and just penned an op-ed against California’s attempt to find a way to allow victims to sue in civil court for the abuses that occurred long ago. Earlier this year, he blamed the Church crisis on homosexuals and opposes the current Court’s decision, giving some limited protection for gay citizens, in Romer vs Evans. If the president chooses this man for the federal appeals court, he will be sending a clear signal. He will be saying that he supports the Catholic right’s political and social agenda, and wants to see its influence spread through the judiciary. He will be telling gay voters and their families that he is not their ally or friend but supports those who would continue scapegoating gays and denying them even a modicum of legal protection. A great week for compassionate conservatism: the Senate majority leader says he regrets desegregation and the administration floats the idea of nominating a far-right social conservative to the federal appeals court. Ah, yes. Hubris in the White House. Suddenly the Democrats seem more palatable, don’t they?

THE BLOGOSPHERE AND LOTT: Howie Kurtz notices how much quicker on the draw the blogosphere was on the matter of Trent Lott’s declared regrets for the passing of Jim Crow. I’m still stunned at how little the New York Times made of it (although Krugman seems to have drawn from lots of blogosphere arguments for his column today). Why this discrepancy? I don’t really know. One thought I have is that the media bigwigs really do operate socially in Washington and find it hard to pounce on people they know, like, respect or need as a source. That’s one reason I try hard to remain pretty socially reclusive in DC; and why I think occasional periods away from town actually helps you be a better journalist. The way in which people like David Broder or Bob Novak simply brushed this one aside is a sign, I think, less of their craven politics than of their DC socialization. Another advantage for the blogosphere. We don’t give a damn. And by and large, we say what we believe.