WhenNewt Gingrich and his band of revolutionaries stormed our capital in January, they promised to end "business as usual." In one respect they have. In only a few months, Republicans have managed to expunge one of the Democrats' most entrenched practices.
Democrats have been operating under the assumption that their public statements should carry some measure of dignity and that they should refrain from ad hominem attacks on other Americans. Not so, says the loyal opposition.
Republicans dismiss the idea that their crime and welfare proposals have any calculated racial appeal to white voters. This argument would be much easier to swallow if Republican members of Congress, particularly those in leadership positions, were not so open in their contempt for and prejudice against certain groups.
Republican voters probably were not expecting much in the way of racial justice and understanding. After all, this is the party that brought us the Southern Strategy and Willie Horton, not to mention David Duke. But could the new Congressional majority refrain from epithets against Americans citizens? At least in public?
Appearing not long ago on the Don Imus Show, Sen. Alfonse D'Amato (R-N.Y.), chairman of the Senate Banking Committee and key supporter of Bob Dole's presidential campaign, showed his true feelings toward non-white Americans. Before being interrupted by an embarrassed Imus, D'Amato launched into a lengthy imitation of Judge Lance Ito's Japanese accent and his "love of the limelight."
Of course, Judge Ito does not have an accent, so this could not have been merely an offensive personal attack. D'Amato's actions can only be attributed to his own dislike of immigrants (Italians excepted) and their descendants. Or maybe Asians. Or just Japanese.
In any event, D'Amato's comments, however off-the-cuff, belie either outright racism or total disregard for his Asian-American constituents. Neither speaks well of the senator or the party that promoted him to a committee chairmanship.
D'Amato's moronic performance was unexpected, even for him. Others were more predictable. When House majority leader Richard Armey (R-Texas) referred to openly gay Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) as "Barney Fag," he surely regretted the publicity. However, his non-Freudian comments and actions towards gays have hardly been more respectable.
Last week, in a debate over water pollution, Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-Calif.) went out of his way to insult homosexuals. He equated lawmakers who support the bill to those who "want to put homos in the military." He went to great lengths to link a rather mundane bill to a volatile social issue solely for the purpose of offending gay Americans.
Cunningham admitted that, if directed at a specific person, the comment would have been bigoted, but he maintained that a general slur was acceptable for the House floor. He also noted that "homo" is a shorthand term for homosexual. Rep. Cunningham would be well advised that when addressing his constituents of Japanese or Hispanic descent he not use the shorthand "Jap" or "spic."
The most repugnant speech, of course, is saved for the poorest members of our society. After the customary condemnation of the current social welfare system for the damage it wreaks upon poor families, Republicans show their true level of concern.
During committee hearings on the "Personal Responsibility Act," Rep. John Mica (R-Fla.) compared welfare recipients and their children to alligators, suggesting that since the reptiles are not allowed to become dependent on handouts, poor Americans should also fend for themselves.
When this analogy was condemned by more level-headed members, Barbara Cubin (R-Wyo.) oblivious to the cause of the response, suggested that a better analogy for families on welfare would be the packs of wolves in her home state. Sam Gibbons (D-Fla.) responded to the spectacle:
"Mr. Chairman, in my 34 years here I thought I had heard it all, but we have a millionaire from Florida comparing children to alligators and we have a gentlewoman in red over here comparing children to wolves. That tops it all."
Not to be outdone, Rep. Clay Shaw (R-Fla.) said of mothers on welfare that "You wouldn't leave your cat with them on the weekend."
Consumed with their clever animal analogies, it is not surprising that Republicans have ignored relevant social science, such as the large body of literature showing that increased welfare payments have virtually no effect on the birth rates of human recipients. Anecdotal evidence and stereotyping is easier.
Therein lies the greatest danger of these slurs. Public officials, particularly Congressional leaders, have a duty to promote reasoned public debate and discourage their constituents from believing gross stereotypes. Instead, some Republicans are deliberately advancing them. No wonder the first 100 days produced the kind of legislation it did.
When southern politicians fought integration in the 1950's, their epithet-spewing supporters were considered an embarrassment because they revealed the true thinking behind segregation. Today's Republican leaders should take a lesson from Orval Faubus and George Wallace and avoid such offensive comments.
