Senatorial slip-up
Carly Wolfrom
Issue date: 1/20/10 Section: Opinion
So, in fact, that statement would leave some to believe that Reid would not actually change the context of his wordage but rather replace the term "Negro" with less offensive terminology. The sentiment would still remain the same while the phrase became more politically correct and socially acceptable.
According to the Associated Press, "Obama said the senator was actually praising him, but chose 'inartful language' to do so."
During a session with the press, First Lady Michelle Obama stated, "Harry Reid had no need to apologize to me because I know Harry Reid. I measure people more on what they do rather than the things that they say."
Senator Reid's record of supporting civil rights legislation has acted as a historical exoneration from the insulting and provocative comments. But if certain aspects of this story are changed, would the outcome have been as uneventful?
In 2002, Republican Senator Trent Lott attended the celebration for former Senator Strom Thurmond's 100th birthday. Thurmond had run for president in 1948 under the Dixiecrat party that supported racial segregation. At the festivities, Lott said that, "When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over the years, either."
These comments were enough to alter the path to a top GOP leadership role that Lott had been climbing towards. Denounced and abandoned by the media, Democrats, Republicans, and former President George W. Bush, Lott's prospective future as the Senate Majority leader vanished.
Do the similarities between these two events amount to what Senator John McCain calls a "stunning double standard?" What if Mitch McConnell, the Republican Minority leader of the Senate, had said that Obama was a good African-American candidate because he was "light-skinned" and didn't use whatever a "Negro dialect" is?
Bill Clinton's quote, found in the same book, has received even less attention so far. Regarding Obama again, Clinton commented to Senator Ted Kennedy that "A few years ago, this guy would be getting us coffee." Imagine Sarah Palin or Rush Limbaugh had said the same sentence. It's unlikely a simple apology would have sufficed.
Politicians use words to construct stirring speeches, sway public opinion, and gain votes. Language is the crux of politics, yet officials continue to utter these verbal blunders. While they are human, the accountability of politicians' speeches is a vital part of the job description. If these words are to be used as a measuring stick, then the same stick needs to apply to all regardless of their orator. A constructive conversation on race can never take place when comments become variables.
Abraham Lincoln once said, "It is better to keep one's mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and resolve all doubt." Harry Reid and others like him are paid to talk, the least they can do is think before they speak.
According to the Associated Press, "Obama said the senator was actually praising him, but chose 'inartful language' to do so."
During a session with the press, First Lady Michelle Obama stated, "Harry Reid had no need to apologize to me because I know Harry Reid. I measure people more on what they do rather than the things that they say."
Senator Reid's record of supporting civil rights legislation has acted as a historical exoneration from the insulting and provocative comments. But if certain aspects of this story are changed, would the outcome have been as uneventful?
In 2002, Republican Senator Trent Lott attended the celebration for former Senator Strom Thurmond's 100th birthday. Thurmond had run for president in 1948 under the Dixiecrat party that supported racial segregation. At the festivities, Lott said that, "When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over the years, either."
These comments were enough to alter the path to a top GOP leadership role that Lott had been climbing towards. Denounced and abandoned by the media, Democrats, Republicans, and former President George W. Bush, Lott's prospective future as the Senate Majority leader vanished.
Do the similarities between these two events amount to what Senator John McCain calls a "stunning double standard?" What if Mitch McConnell, the Republican Minority leader of the Senate, had said that Obama was a good African-American candidate because he was "light-skinned" and didn't use whatever a "Negro dialect" is?
Bill Clinton's quote, found in the same book, has received even less attention so far. Regarding Obama again, Clinton commented to Senator Ted Kennedy that "A few years ago, this guy would be getting us coffee." Imagine Sarah Palin or Rush Limbaugh had said the same sentence. It's unlikely a simple apology would have sufficed.
Politicians use words to construct stirring speeches, sway public opinion, and gain votes. Language is the crux of politics, yet officials continue to utter these verbal blunders. While they are human, the accountability of politicians' speeches is a vital part of the job description. If these words are to be used as a measuring stick, then the same stick needs to apply to all regardless of their orator. A constructive conversation on race can never take place when comments become variables.
Abraham Lincoln once said, "It is better to keep one's mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and resolve all doubt." Harry Reid and others like him are paid to talk, the least they can do is think before they speak.
Be the first to comment on this story