Despite its good intentions, Andrew Hanauer's column entitled "Lott is not Alone" (The Dartmouth, Jan. 9) is tragic demonstration of the manner in which the reactionary left has undermined open, honest discussion of race relations in America. That is not, of course, to suggest that the left's record on race is somehow more invidious than the right's -- the victory of the Civil Rights movement over state-sponsored segregation is one of the great chapters in the history of American liberalism. Rather, it is to suggest that the present atmosphere in America, in which race is never discussed openly and is always used as a means to silence one's opposition, is an atmosphere for which liberals are much to blame.
Hanauer demonstrates with a terrible sort of grace the trinity of liberal mistakes in discussions of race, which I will label over-inclusiveness, false equivalence and racial unilateralism.
The first two, over-inclusiveness and false equivalence, are necessary partners. Over-inclusiveness is the classic element of stereotyping. Hanauer cites two cases of elected Republican officials making comments related to segregation and deduces from these that, while not all Republicans are racist, racists "[are not] the exception." Critical to supporting this claim is false equivalence. Trent Lott's implicit praise of segregation -- particularly when considered against the backdrop of his poor history on race -- is in a realm completely different from Rep. Cass Ballenger's, which evokes, more than anything else, the sort of critical self-reflection in George Orwell's excellent essay "Shooting an Elephant." To hold segregationist feelings is pathetic, antiquated and wrong; but to praise segregation as a means of avoiding "all these problems over the years" is evil.
To revel in one's flaws, as Lott did, is disgusting, but to admit and reflect upon one's flaws is a necessary step toward correcting them. Indeed, the most desirable result of the Lott scandal -- other than Lott's resignation -- would have been for the Republican party to openly and seriously come to grips with the racism within its ranks, past and present. But such open discourse is simply impossible when their political adversaries, hungry to find some issue on which to be relevant in light of their recent electoral disaster, engage in the race-baiting tactics that Hanauer has displayed. Any admission of racist mistakes or of improper feelings and any real attempt to change will prompt a new chorus of liberals demanding resignations.
But even more destructive than this component of the liberal racialist agenda -- which is, obviously, not characteristic of liberalism as a whole -- is the notion that racism can only flow from whites to minorities. Hanauer's dismissal of Sister Souljah's cry for racially motivated murder would be laughable if it were not so commonplace and frightening. His description of the notoriously anti-Semitic Cynthia McKinney as a victim of racism is particularly one-sided, given her efforts to categorize her Democratic primary opponent Denise Majette as a racial sell-out unfit to represent African Americans. Of course, Democratic primaries are not foreign to race-baiting -- it was, after all, Al Gore who created the infamous Willie Horton ad in an effort to defeat Michael Dukakis in the Massachusetts primary.
The failure of Republicans to censure Ballenger pales in comparison to the lack of outspoken Democratic criticism of, say, Harry Belafonte's description of Colin Powell as a house slave, criticisms of Harold Ford Jr. for his "high yellow skin" by members of the Congressional Black Caucus, Jesse Jackson's "hymie-town" speech, or Amiri Baraka's "poetic" criticism of "Tom Ass Clarence" and the "skeeza" Condoleeza Rice. More distressing is the general refusal of large portions of the left to acknowledge the obscene homophobia, misogyny and anti-Semitism of radical Islamist regimes or the brutal human rights violations of African dictators -- can they not see that those who have once been oppressed may also become oppressors?
One wishes our society were free of racism, and, in some critical ways, I believe that we have made enormous advances away from state sponsorship and public acceptance of racism. But racism remains, and not only among Republicans or among whites. To confront racism requires three virtues to counteract the three mistakes I have enumerated. The first is tolerance of human flaws and an honest recognition that racist beliefs, if not acts, are widespread. The second is swift and universal public condemnation of racist speech and action. The third is the critical capacity to identify the difference between impropriety and evil, between feeling and action and between mistake and deliberateness. Armed with these tools, liberals and conservatives can sort out racial issues, rather than tossing them back and forth for political purposes like hot potatoes.
Hopefully, future discourse at Dartmouth can reflect these sensitivities, without losing sight of the ultimate goal of eradicating racism.
