Where I Stand — Brian Greenspun: Decide Lott’s fate now

Tuesday, Dec. 17, 2002 | 8:50 a.m.

LET'S HANDLE this mess next year.

As America moves in on the Christmas season, American business moves away from the hard decisions that haven't yet been made. I don't know why it is that way, but it is the case that if it hasn't been dealt with by this time of the year, most matters can be delayed until "next year." And they are.

And, as much as some members of government have professed for years that politics and the people's business should be run more like America's businesses, they finally may get their way. Although, in the case of the Republican Party versus Trent Lott, waiting until 2003 may not be the right move.

I don't suppose there is anyone left in the United States who hasn't heard the bonehead move that the Senate's once, former and already elected future majority leader, Trent Lott, pulled off the other day at a birthday party. But, just in case you just got to town, here's what happened.

Sen. Strom Thurmond of South Carolina turned 100 years old recently, just days following his last day of service to our country as the longest-serving U.S. senator in history. The Senate is known as the most exclusive club in the world so it stands to reason that its members would celebrate the coming of age of one of its own. As the leader of the GOP in the Senate, it was Lott's prerogative to say a few obligatory words on such a momentous occasion. And, as a colleague from neighboring Mississippi, it was a distinction that could not and should not have been avoided.

So, Trent spoke. As it so happens -- at this, and as I am certain at other similar celebrations -- Mississippi's pride and joy said just a bit too much. Perhaps it was in the spirit of the moment, perhaps it was just a bit of over the top effusiveness in trying to make an aging, correct that, an aged colleague feel good, or perhaps there were other, deeper reasons for his words. No matter, the result was the same.

Sen. Trent Lott, the majority leader of the U.S. Senate, told the gathering that had Strom Thurmond won his bid for the presidency of the United States in 1948, the country "wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years."

Oh, did I mention that Thurmond ran as a Dixiecrat on a segregationist platform? So, now you understand Trent's problem.

By the way, there were a whole lot of Americans who agreed with Thurmond in 1948. Many still agreed with him in 1954 when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the public school system had to be integrated. And still many others agreed with him in 1964 when President Lyndon Johnson pushed through the Civil Rights Act, which made it illegal to discriminate, i.e., no more segregation.

But most of those people have thrown off the yoke of ignorance with which they were raised and have come to realize that the American dream belongs to all of its citizens, not just those whose skin is white. In fact, an overwhelming and very welcome majority of Americans in 2002 find it abhorrent to even think such thoughts.

That may explain why Lott's comments were initially downplayed as ill-conceived words of gaiety and not considered remarks about U.S. policy. But that forgiveness didn't last long because Lott's actions during his public career seem to have matched his ill-spoken words. And, unlike some of his peers who have changed with the times, it doesn't look like Lott has been so enlightened. And, unless his contrition during his appearance on Black Entertainment Television Monday night stems the tide, there is trouble ahead.

The dam, which usually protects members of the Senate from public scorn, is beginning to break. And not from Lott's Democratic opposition where one might expect it to come. The first sledgehammer was thrown by none other than the president of the United States, George W. Bush. While he didn't call for Lott's resignation as Republican leader, the president did pull the rug out from under him by rightly condemning his words as un-American.

Once the president, who has an agenda, a re-election and a regard for the right way to do things in America, gave his OK, the piling on started. First, Sen. Don Nickles suggested that a new election for majority leader be held, intimating that there were other qualified people who could lead the Senate and the country forward. Next came Sen. John Warner, who ever so cleverly played the responsibility card by calling for a decision in the very near term so as "not to let this thing be dangling out there day after day."

Then we heard from Bill Bennett, who never is at a loss for the moral bearing he believes the country needs. Simply put, he said Lott should go. And, of course, there has been a growing chorus of Lott detractors from the ultra-right side of the aisle who think Lott should have gone a long time ago because he has compromised with the Democrats to pass needed legislation.

So there you have it. We have heard it all before, "It is time for him to go."

So, why wait until next year? Do Lott's supporters think that the joyousness of the season will spill over until Jan. 6, when the GOP is supposed to vote again on Lott's leadership future? Do they think Santa will save the sinking ship of Trent Lott's state? Do they think that visions of sugar plums and other fanciful thoughts will crowd the Republican leader's problems off the front pages and away from the airwaves during Christmas so that the public will not be reminded day after day of bygone times of disgust and racial unrest?

Who are they kidding? They should get this thing done now. Vote him in or vote him out, but do what Sen. Warner says and not let this story dangle day after day.

Come on Republicans. Get on with it and don't let this Grinch of a problem steal an otherwise merry Christmas.

6, when the GOP is supposed to vote again on Lott's leadership future?

archive