He was wowed by Obama's oratorical gifts and believed that the country was ready to embrace a black presidential candidate, especially one such as Obama -- a "light-skinned" African American "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one," as he said privately. Reid was convinced, in fact, that Obama's race would help him more than hurt him in a bid for the Democratic nomination.
Reid apologized profusely, of course. And Barack Obama, no fool he, was quite magnanimous in accepting his apology:
"Harry Reid called me today and apologized for an unfortunate comment reported today. I accepted Harry's apology without question because I've known him for years, I've seen the passionate leadership he's shown on issues of social justice and I know what's in his heart. As far as I am concerned, the book is closed."
So I suppose we should close the book on this one, right? While I suppose it's churlish to bring up a few other examples, sometimes churlishness is its own reward, right? So let's remember that the Internet is forever. Here's Barack Obama, then an Illinois state senator, discussing Trent Lott's controversial comments made at Strom Thurmond's 100th birthday party, back in 2002:
Illinois Senator Barack Obama (D-13th), who hosted WVON's Cliff Kelley Show, challenged the Republican Party to repudiate Lott's remarks and to call for his resignation as senate leader.
"It seems to be that we can forgive a 100-year-old senator for some of the indiscretion of his youth, but, what is more difficult to forgive is the current president of the U.S. Senate (Lott) suggesting we had been better off if we had followed a segregationist path in this country after all of the battles and fights for civil rights and all the work that we still have to do," said Obama.
He said: "The Republican Party itself has to drive out Trent Lott. If they have to stand for something, they have to stand up and say this is not the person we want representing our party."
But it would be churlish to point out that double-standard. After all, we know what's in Harry Reid's heart -- the President has vouched for him -- and he's always been quite fair to other African American public figures. Oh, wait:
MR. RUSSERT: Why couldn't you accept Clarence Thomas?
SEN. REID: I think that he has been an embarrassment to the Supreme Court. I think that his opinions are poorly written. I don't--I just don't think that he's done a good job as a Supreme Court justice.
Reid said that in 2005 on Meet the Press. When asked to elaborate on his remarks later on, his response was risible, as James Taranto pointed out at the time. I've italicized Reid's comments for clarity, and Justice Thomas's comments as well:
An alert reader points out that on the Dec. 26 episode of "Inside Politics," a little-watched CNN show, Reid actually did name such an opinion, at the request of host Ed Henry (we've corrected several obvious transcription errors here):
Henry: When you were asked on NBC's "Meet the Press" whether or not you could support Justice Thomas to be chief justice you said quote, "I think that he has been an embarrassment to the Supreme Court. I think that his opinions are poorly written." Could you name one of those opinions that you think is poorly written?
Reid: Oh sure, that's easy to do. You take the Hillside Dairy case. In that case you had a dissent written by Scalia and a dissent written by Thomas. There--it's like looking at an eighth-grade dissertation compared to somebody who just graduated from Harvard. Scalia's is well reasoned. He doesn't want to turn stare decisis precedent on its head. That's what Thomas wants to do. So yes, I think he has written a very poor opinion there and he's written other opinions that are not very good.
It's interesting to learn that in Nevada eighth-graders write dissertations; we guess that explains how Harry Reid got to be as erudite as he is. He must immerse himself deeply in legal scholarship to be familiar with a case like Hillside Dairy v. Lyons, which doesn't exactly rank up there with Marbury v. Madison, Brown v. Board of Education and Roe v. Wade among famous Supreme court rulings.
To be honest, we'd never even heard of Hillside Dairy until we read the CNN transcript, so we went and looked it up. It turns out to be a 2003 case about California milk regulation. Here is Thomas's opinion in full:
I join Parts I and III of the Court's opinion and respectfully dissent from Part II, which holds that §144 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996, 7 U.S.C. §7254, "does not clearly express an intent to insulate California's pricing and pooling laws from a Commerce Clause challenge." Ante, at 6-7. Although I agree that the Court of Appeals erred in its statutory analysis, I nevertheless would affirm its judgment on this claim because "[t]he negative Commerce Clause has no basis in the text of the Constitution, makes little sense, and has proved virtually unworkable in application," Camps Newfound/Owatonna, Inc. v. Town of Harrison, 520 U.S. 564, 610 (1997) (Thomas, J., dissenting), and, consequently, cannot serve as a basis for striking down a state statute.
Is that written at an eighth-grade level? We report, you decide.
Taranto asks a good question. As it happens, I have a son who is an 8th grader, the ever-erudite Benster. While he usually devotes most of his writing efforts to picking football games, I asked him if any 8th grader he knows would write a paragraph of this sort. Benster's response:
"Most 8th graders I know don't care much about agriculture, and the last time I checked no 8th grader has ever been on the High Court."
When in doubt, go to the source.
So can we infer that Harry Reid is a racist? Who knows? I don't know what's in his heart and frankly wouldn't want to venture any closer to analyze the matter. I suspect that Reid finds it pretty easy to criticize African-Americans, especially those who don't toe his particular line. He's hardly unusual that way. P. J. O'Rourke to Garrison Keillor, hardly ideological soulmates, have both argued that many liberals treat the people they love like hell.
A better question is this: should Harry Reid be held to the same standard as Trent Lott? And will he be held to the same standard? My take: Reid might be held to the same standard, but it's not necessarily the best thing for conservatives. Let's not kid ourselves -- having Harry Reid as the majority leader in the Senate is a gift that keeps on giving to those of us on the other side of the aisle. He's much more useful to Republicans as one of the key faces of the Democratic Party than he would be if he were relegated to the backbench with Lott. Keep fighting the good fight, Harry -- your failure is our success!
28 comments:
Dennis Miller had one of the best Harry Reid "rants" I have ever heard. Footage is from about 2-1/2 years ago.
I don't think you actually feel that making examples is churlish.
Here's some quibbling. Reid said "like looking at an eight-grade dissertation..." Does Taranto simile much?
(Aside: There are a lot of black politicians/judges from which to choose, and we're going with Thomas?!?)
Anyway, to demonstrate the effectiveness of the simile, one would have to list Thomas' opinion next to Scalia's.
And it's always been my impression that Thomas IS the requisite nutjob on the bench.
As to Reid, I would say that the his is remark is racist, but not because he believes in WHITE SUPREMACY. (Do you read me? I will get to that below.) I am open to debating the implications of such a thought, whether it is indicative of racism or contributes to racist attitudes in our country. To be impressed that someone would have oratorial gifts despite the fact that they are black is DEFINITELY racist, but to acknowledge the fact that people treat "blacker" people with more discrimination is not. To acknowledge that "Black English" is a dialect or language spoken by many people in our country is not racist, but to discriminate against/label people who do use Black English is. To refer to it as "negro dialect" is racist, but there is room for the possibility that Reid is a fogey who's not up on the current appropriate terms.
A politician ought to be up on the current terms, but hey, maybe Reid IS a bit of a racist. As long as it doesn't pop up in his voting record, a few racist remarks hit pretty low on my outrage-o-meter.
(Apparently 15 years ago we could only say "African American" - or at least, that is how the terminology was presented in the media. Now "black" is back, at least informally. (As per social justice blogs I follow.) Which is why I'm using that terminology. In case anyone was thinking I'm racist.)
Lott, on the other hand, was a staunch civil rights opposer for the entirety of his career, which culminated dishonorably when he said that we should have elected a segregationist president.
And you're calling out "hypocrites!" Please.
If Republicans wanted to have a conversation about race, they'd have a conversation about race. This is just a hollow opportunity besmirch the opposing party.
There are a lot of black politicians/judges from which to choose, and we're going with Thomas?!?)
Yes, because that's who Reid slammed in a ridiculous, gratuitous way.
And it's always been my impression that Thomas IS the requisite nutjob on the bench.
And that impression is also ridiculous and gratuitous. Read some of Thomas's opinions. Look at his life story. Look at his body of work on the bench. He's a conservative, yes, but he's hardly a nutjob.
As to your assertion that Trent Lott is a white supremacist -- can you prove that? Show me examples, specific examples from his career where he actively worked to keep African-Americans down. We'll be waiting for you, Amanda.
I don't think you're seeing the larger point here, anyway. The issue isn't whether Reid personally is a racist or not. The larger issue is how his behavior is typical of white liberal politicians treat African-Americans. And also how African-Americans are only allowed to hold certain views, lest they be called "nutjobs."
The greatest freedom I have as a white man in America is this -- I can believe whatever the hell I want to believe. Minorities? Not so much.
Oh, Amanda, I forgot one thing:
Anyway, to demonstrate the effectiveness of the simile, one would have to list Thomas' opinion next to Scalia's.
That would be a good idea. The problem is, in the case Reid cited, Scalia didn't even write an opinion. John Paul Stevens wrote the opinion and Thomas wrote a very short opinion that dissented in part.
http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2002/2002_01_950
Thomas's opinion is what I quoted in full in the post. And again, you skirt the question -- was the opinion written in an 8th grade style? My son the 8th grader doesn't think so.
Bottom line is this -- Harry Reid, bless his soul, has a history of taking gratuitous shots at people.
And as I said, I think that's fine. If he's fit to lead the Democratic Party in the Senate, in the view of those he would lead, that's not my concern. But I'm surely going to enjoy pointing out his, ahem, tendencies.
Let's not forget Joe Biden during the campaign: “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.” Of course, it's only Biden, a guy who brushes his teeth with Tinactin.
Perhaps neither Reid's or Biden's ramblings are that inflammatory in context, but you gotta love the sensitive Dems having to take their petard into the shop so it can be put on the hoist.
I think Amanda points out a very real problem in her comment (though perhaps not on purpose.)
There's this ridiculous "rule book" of what is racist and what isn't. The problem is that it isn't a published book where everyone can know and follow. It is by nature a subjective, contextual thing. And so people are arbitrarily deemed "racist" or not based on "rules" that float in the ether. As a result of this arbitrariness, people become paranoid about what they say out of fear.
At this point, we are fast approaching, or have already passed, the point where it is helpful to publicly judging people on this. Racism is bad, but judging people arbitrarily is bad too. In fact, they're kind of the same thing.
So is Harry Reid a racist? I don't care. It doesn't matter. What matters is what he does. And on that basis I pronounce him a bum.
Here is a great example of unsubstantiated blather:
"And it's always been my impression that Thomas IS the requisite nutjob on the bench."
I am sure that impression has been formed by years of partisan Democrat talking points.
I can spot that Liberal Fascism a mile away.
But wait, folks, there's even more:
"Lott, on the other hand, was a staunch civil rights opposer for the entirety of his career, which culminated dishonorably..."
More drone-like unsubstantiated Democrat propaganda.
Now wait a bit, folks, the real clincher comes at the end:
"This is just a hollow opportunity besmirch the opposing party."
Amanda, I think that sums up YOUR comment quite well; spot on! Hollow and unsubstantiated, indeed.
Of course, it's only Biden, a guy who brushes his teeth with Tinactin.
As the law professor would say, "Heh."
The problem is that it isn't a published book where everyone can know and follow. It is by nature a subjective, contextual thing.
Guess will have to rely on "social justice blogs," then. And that's why this is such a mug's game. We're simply relying on a different self-appointed priesthood to tell us how we ought to think on race or any other matter. And in my experience, anything that's subject to the whim of the priesthood is going to be problematic.
Amanda made the point about having a conversation about race. We haven't had a conversation for a long time. We've had varying monologues.
We haven't had a conversation for a long time. We've had varying monologues.
In approved dialects?
Reminds me of this post from the vaults, featuring the Chevy Chase/Richard Pryor "job interview" skit from SNL's first year: http://thenightwriterblog.com/2008/03/27/of-isms-schisms-colloquialisms/
Great post, NW -- and 2 years later, we're still very much in the same place.
Before the ridiculous "analysis" of the Thomas opinion and Reid's remarks on it gets more out of hand, I'm just going to go ahead and say that any attempt to demonstrate that Reid's remarks about Thomas somehow display Reid's racist personality is a complete stretch.
Bottom line is this -- Harry Reid, bless his soul, has a history of taking gratuitous shots at people.
Whatever the bottom line is, the main point is "hypocrisy!" If I'm wrong, then I'm interested in hearing you explain how cheerleading a black man for president is "taking gratuitous shots at people."
I will get to rest of the response to me later, when I have time.
Yet saying a few kind words on a person's 100 birthday is the utmost form of racism?
Hypocrisy indeed.
Examples for Mr. D:
Trent Lott had a long-term association with the white supremacist group Council of Conservative Citizens. Please, PLEASE don't make me explain why this is a racist group. For anyone who doesn't know, Wikipedia the group.
Cited here.
The following quotes are from this article.
"In 1981, the year Lott became majority whip in the House, he prodded the Reagan administration to fight for tax exemptions for racist private schools like Bob Jones University."
"In 1982 and again in 1990, Lott voted against extending the Voting Rights Act. In 1983 he voted against a national holiday for Martin Luther King, Jr., and in 1994 voted to de-fund the Martin Luther King holiday commission. In 1990 Lott voted against the continuation of the Civil Rights Act."
I don't have all day to research Lott's entire voting record, and I shouldn't have to, in order to prove that point. You asked for examples, I have given some.
(And before someone argues with me about MLK, really, it's not about just MLK. It's a signal that you don't support equality for black Americans.)
The larger issue is...how African-Americans are only allowed to hold certain views, lest they be called "nutjobs.
The greatest freedom I have as a white man in America is this -- I can believe whatever the hell I want to believe. Minorities? Not so much.
Where is it demonstrated that Black Americans are only allowed to have certain views? Since I'm such an idiot who reads "social justice blogs" (nice sarcasm, there, BTW) I am confused as to how this post POSSIBLY explains that.
I REALLY don't want to talk about Thomas, but can you be respectful and TRUST ME when I say the "nutjob" comment has NOTHING to do with the fact that he's black? If Scalia or Roberts supported the same issues that Thomas is a fan of, I would have the same opinion of them. To tell me "No Amanda, you are saying that because he's black" is INCREDIBLY patronizing.
Your advantage as a white man isn't that you have more freedom to have an opinion. It's that people aren't constantly giving you patronizing pats on the head for being what they perceive as right or wrong.
Thomas's opinion is what I quoted in full in the post. And again, you skirt the question -- was the opinion written in an 8th grade style? My son the 8th grader doesn't think so.
I am not skirting the question. Reid was being metaphorical. It was obtuse of Taranto to respond literally to that statement.
NW said Let's not forget Joe Biden during the campaign: “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.”
This is the over-reaching point that people willing to have a conversation about race in this country need to understand: everyone is racist. Every person forms opinions about people based on the color of their skin, especially people they don't know, at some level. It's not purposeful for everybody, especially people who believe in equality. But it exists. Not everyone would say something aloud like what Biden said, which was stupid of him, but his comment illustrates that.
and BPW said There's this ridiculous "rule book" of what is racist and what isn't. The problem is that it isn't a published book where everyone can know and follow. It is by nature a subjective, contextual thing. And so people are arbitrarily deemed "racist" or not based on "rules" that float in the ether. As a result of this arbitrariness, people become paranoid about what they say out of fear.
(It did occur to me that people would think of that when I wrote it, actually, but my comment was getting loooong.)
I agree that it could seem arbitrary, but I think that the evolution of terminology demonstrates strides toward equality that Black Americans have made. The terms represent the predominant thinking of the population, depending on where they were historically. It can seem unfair for those "not in the know" that they would be accused of racism for not using the "right" term, but in my experience, innocent ignorance is quickly forgiven.
Black Americans (or other POCs, or White Americans) ought to be allowed to define their collective identity (political groups do this, too); to do that a group must start with the name.
Sorry, WBP, for mixing around a couple of your initials!
- I really don't want to get semantic on the "everyone is racist" point. It doesn't mean everyone treats all black people the same way. It means at some point or another in a person's life, they have formed an opinion about a person that was actually based solely on the color of their skin. I've done it. The continuing, important struggle, is to recognize it and correct it.
The continuing, important struggle, is to recognize it and correct it.
Perhaps. And a laudable goal, at that. The way it is being played out, however, is that the struggle is all about playing "gotcha" with the opposition, ginning up outrage and crocodile tears over style while doing everything possible to divert attention from anything substantive, and the posturing on both sides only deepens divides. The only awareness it raises is of the perfidy of the opposition.
the real issue here is that the GOP is so insistent on kissing the black asses that will never vote for them anyway, that they are willing to eat their own over the most goofiest of charges. and with glee.
short: the GOP is stupid.
democrats, on the other hand, stick together like stink on shit.
is it any wonder why the left continues to make strides, while the right is always on defense?
Amanda,
I appreciate that you care deeply for equality. I say that sincerely.
However, I don't quite think you appreciate the link between ideology and racism. People with certain political beliefs are more vulnerable to charges of racism than people of other political beliefs, irrespective of their actual convictions, words and actions concerning race. This inequality of the application of standards has caused people to lose jobs and to have their character impugned, sometimes very publicly. Like racism, this is injustice. People of good will need to stand up against both of these travesties that besmirch human dignity.
such as: i consider it racist to assume a black isnt capable of competing in the marketplace against whites, or that a black kid with lower scores is admitted to a college ahead of a white kid with higher scores, and is why i oppose affirmative action.
but, to the left, i would be a racist.
Amanda,
My oh my, we've touched a nerve here. I've been running around all evening and haven't had a chance to respond. I'll try.
Whatever the bottom line is, the main point is "hypocrisy!" If I'm wrong, then I'm interested in hearing you explain how cheerleading a black man for president is "taking gratuitous shots at people."
I'm talking about Thomas at that point. I know Reid was attempting to praise Obama, but his manner was to give him, to use your words, "patronizing pats on the head for being what they perceive as right or wrong."
Clarence Thomas does not write (or think) at an 8th grade level, literally or metaphorically. It's absurd to say that and Taranto is quite right to point that out.
You later argue that "If Scalia or Roberts supported the same issues that Thomas is a fan of, I would have the same opinion of them." Check their voting records. Check their opinions. Thomas is not out of the conservative mainstream in any way. In fact, he's not out of the mainstream at all. By all means, feel free to disagree.
You then say, "To tell me "No Amanda, you are saying that because he's black" is INCREDIBLY patronizing." And it would be incredibly patronizing if I'd said it. But I didn't. I suggested that Harry Reid is making that argument by belittling Thomas, however. And I think on good evidence.
More in a moment.
Amanda,
A few other things:
You say: Since I'm such an idiot who reads "social justice blogs" (nice sarcasm, there, BTW) I am confused as to how this post POSSIBLY explains that.
I never called you an idiot. And I certainly don't think reading social justice blogs is an idiotic thing to do. But I wouldn't rely on them any more than I'd rely entirely on any one source. And I'm well aware that you seek out other points of view -- hell, you're here. My reading of your initial comments was that you found the views promulgated on "social justice blogs" dispositive. It would appear that I am wrong.
As for the rest -- Lott may or may not be white supremacist based on the evidence you've provided. I do appreciate your providing it. I'll do a little more research on the matter. I suspect that K-Rod is correct, however -- the words Lott spoke that day were meant as a kindness to a man who had turned 100 years old.
Which leads us to NW's crucial point:
The way it is being played out, however, is that the struggle is all about playing "gotcha" with the opposition, ginning up outrage and crocodile tears over style while doing everything possible to divert attention from anything substantive, and the posturing on both sides only deepens divides. The only awareness it raises is of the perfidy of the opposition.
That's right, of course. And if you remember the original post, I said the following:
So can we infer that Harry Reid is a racist? Who knows? I don't know what's in his heart and frankly wouldn't want to venture any closer to analyze the matter. I suspect that Reid finds it pretty easy to criticize African-Americans, especially those who don't toe his particular line.
I don't know what's in Harry Reid's heart. But I don't think my observation is wrong. Reid's praise of Obama, however he meant it, was patronizing. Reid's criticism of Thomas was purposely belittling, and wrong both on style and on substance.
I'm not outrageously outraged by Reid's behavior. But I'm not surprised, either.
Amanda, by your own admission YOU are racist; that on its own is not illegal, but please do NOT lump me in with that kind of ilk.
What I oppose is the obvious double standard and the ignorance of some people not to see it.
Anyone that gave Lott a pass should give Reid one.
Anyone that wanted Lott punished should want the same for Reid.
....
Gino is spot on:
"short: the GOP is stupid.
democrats, on the other hand, stick together like stink on shit."
what is often left out of quotes is not just context, but the manner in which they are delivered.
Lott was stooping over the old man in his wheel chair, doing the old 'pat on the back' type gesture while recounting the geezers career for the benefit of the geezer himself.
when he said something along the lines of 'if you won, we might have not had some of the problems we have today'.
basically, he spoke nothing but a polite and substanceless platitude, that could have been said to any geezer politician from either party by anybody, and such words usually are. i've seen enough of them just in the local area.
but, like anything in partisan gotcha, its not what you say, its how it can be used.
Yes, I was a little electric there in the beginning, but I calmed down. To be honest, other than the Thomas issue, I was quite surprised anyone would have anything to disagree with in my first comment.
WBP - People with certain political beliefs are more vulnerable to charges of racism than people of other political beliefs, irrespective of their actual convictions, words and actions concerning race.
I think one could argue that white people are more vulnerable to charges of racism, but frankly, this is based on history. Would it be possible for a white person to be charged of racism based only on the fact that they are white and Republican, despite their voting record? Maybe.
In Lott's case, though, his comment was in keeping with his support for segregation and white supremacy.
NW - I agree that the conversation about be about racism, and not "who's a racist."
I don't respond to K-Rod's comments, but since Mr. D chimed in re: Lott's kind comment to an old man on his birthday: Sure, I don't think anyone thought he wasn't trying to be nice. That wasn't the point. That old man ran for a party that promoted violence against an entire race of people. When someone turns 100 years old, they've done a whole lot more in their life for which to be congratulated, other than support segregation, just by the length of lifespan. Lott didn't have to pick that event (the '48 race). That should have been an event that all of Thurmond's supporters should have been *ashamed* to admit.
I am going to be stereotypical, and use the Nazis as an example (not particularly extreme when one accounts for pre-Civil Rights violence against black people in this country), but say Hitler had survived WWII. Would it be "okay" to toast him on his birthday with "the world would be a better place if your campaign against the black people - Oh wait, I mean Jews - had succeeded!" Of course it wouldn't.
And finally, re: social justice blogs. I threw that out there as an example of where I read a lot of literature written by people of color. And thus, why I would have an idea of the current "correct language" of the narrative, to explain my use of "black" over "African American" (the latter being still correct, but a little too precious, and definitely more annoying to type).
Anyway - nice conversation, people. Mostly. :p
"In Lott's case, though, his comment was in keeping with his support for segregation and white supremacy."
This is proof that the commenter thinks blacks should be forbidden from public office. True racism, as admitted, indeed.
.... .... .... ....
Amanda, equating a member of congress to Hitler is quite the opposite of a "nice conversation".
Please don't act like a left-wing-moon-bat from moron.org.
.... .... .... ....
Also, regarding your non-response, you wear that white flag well; it was a very wise choice for you not to show up to a gun fight with your knife. Heh heh heh ;^)
equating a member of congress to Hitler is quite the opposite of a "nice conversation"
Godwin's Rule. And in the informal rules of this blog, resorting to Hitler references is unconditional rhetorical surrender.
Post a Comment