Wednesday, December 18, 2002

Shelby Steele's take on the Lott scandal. I think that Lott's refusal to totally denounce and renounce segregation and the Dixiecrat platform suggests that he deserves what he's getting.
The senator's many apologies--perhaps more than his original gaffe--have revealed him to be a man who has troubled himself very little with self-examination where race is concerned. And now, in racial crisis, he has no inner anchoring to call on.. . .


But in the end a man cannot be redeemed by a moral equivalence. That those who ask Sen. Lott to imagine beyond his race do not do so themselves is no consolation. The senator is probably a more moral man and thus a better conservative today than he was two weeks ago, but moral calculus is more forgiving than political calculus. He is now so politically compromised that in his Black Entertainment Television interview he declared "across the board" support for affirmative action, vowed to rethink his support for Judge Charles Pickering, and agreed to a "civil rights tour" with Rep. John Lewis.

Exactly.


As for Bush's refusal to call for Lott's resignation, it's entirely appropriate. The President shouldn't be seen to be trying to control internal matters of the Senate. He's made clear what he thinks of Lott's gaffe. It's now up the Lott's fellow Republicans to do what they should in order to rescue their declining credibility.


I know I've waffled somewhat on the seriousness of Lott's big blurt, but it's more out of a desire to be forgiving and to give him the benefit of any doubts that remain. He still deserves that, but not enough to remain Senate Majority Leader. I believe in repentance and forgiveness, but they don't entitle us to escape the consequences of our sins. Forgiving someone is not the same as condoning the evils he has done.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home