Fritz continued on with his racism after he got into the Senate. He's always been especially fond of telling racist jokes and talking down to African-Americans, but Democrats (and the media) write it off because he has Hollings (like Byrd) has so much clout.

I think Republicans, in addition to hitting Byrd and Hollings, should also note the Democratic "southern strategy" in 2024's campaign to replace Strom Thurmond, which was to gaybait Lindsay Graham. Nobody in the national Democratic Party repudiated that, either.

Good point in re: Graham.

But we know Hollings and Byrd can't be racists. After all, they're Democrats.

Michelle Malkin is a piece of work: opposing Clarence Thomas is an act of racism? Give me a break.

Beyond that, the equivalency arguments are weird (but you're probably not surprised to hear me say that). Republicans know that they lack credibility among black voters, and that's why they sacked Lott (ceremonially, at least). And the main causal explanation of that lack of credibility, at least the official one among Republicans, is that Jesse Jackson and his ilk have somehow held mainstream black America hostage. This is a weak causal theory on many fronts.

If Republicans want to know why black voters don't like them, they should look at what Republicans do or don't do for black voters. And the "southern strategy" serves as a powerful symbol and reminder of the fact that Republicans have run on issues that appeal to white fears of one sort or another. Again, the causal story of electoral success is complex, but Jesse Helms was a Republican for identifiable reasons. Jesse Helms would not have done what he did if he had stayed Republican. Everyone knows that. The serious self-analytical question for Republicans is to understand why.

Thus endeth my rant. . . :)

Above, the sentence about Jesse Helms should say something like: he wouldn't have done what he did if he had been Democrat. Sorry.

Brett,

Why isn't it possible that Lott got sacked because the majority of Republicans found his comments both stupid and flat wrong (I know I did).

The main reason these days that blacks don't vote for Republicans is largely ideological and policy-based, not because of the southern strategy.

And I agree about Jesse Helms--but I disagree that he is emblematic of the Republican Party or southern Reps writ large. It is a wholly unsupportable contention.

And Democrats use fear all the time to try to convince the elderly to vote for them--in that regards neither party is innocent. And, I would argue they use race-baiting to appeal to the fears of blacks.

Of course the argument really isn't about whether either party is pure in its activities (neither is), but is about the role of the "southern strategey" in the propogation of the Republican Party in the south. And really, the root argument is whether or not the Repubican Party is somehow racists, which is what the argument concerning the southern strategy implies.

Indeed, your statement about Jesse Helms underscores this fact. I concur that he has done some racist things, and am pleased he has retired. But where you get the idea that only Republicans can do racist things? Byrd's comment about "white n-words" only a few years ago was, in my mind, on the same level as Helms' commercial.

And, how about Fritz Hollings who said the following:

Last year, Hollings joked to reporters about African leaders who attend trade conferences in Switzerland: "Rather than eat each other, they'd just come up (to Switzerland) and get a good square meal."

I don't think he switched the to Reps just to make the comment :)

Source: March 8, 1994 in the Cleveland Plain Dealer (via Lexis-Nexis (I saw the quote in a column, but wanted to double-check))

I don't think the question is whether or not Republicans are racist; again, I think that that question is a red herring. The interesting question, to which the southern strategy provides part of an answer, is how the Democratic party went from being the party of segregation to the party of civil rights, and how the Republican party went from the party of civil rights to states' rights etc. You have to admit that the southern strategy is part of an answer to that broad question. And any account of the answer would also have to take account of why blacks fled the republican party over the past 40 years.

As for Lott, the first response of Republicans was that his comments were taken out of context. And then, as you know, the neocons went after him precisely because his remarks represented a kind of Republican view (or image) that the neocons want to ditch. Pat Buchanan make your argument, basically, that the southern strategy thing has been overblown, but that didn't stop neocons from relying on this conventional wisdom (and neocons presumably know what they're doing in terms of Republican strategy).

I'll respond in greater detail later--but please, one request: don't lump me with Pat Buchanan :)

And really, he is hardlty a neocon--neither in the old definition (a liberal who became a conservative) or the new version (Wolfowitz and company), but rather, a paleocon, if not an outright retro-con populist.

And in regards to Lott: the first reaction was that he was trying to be nice to an old man, but that it was a stupid thing to say. Then, when it became clear that he had said it before, and various other issue, he got the ol' boot.

Actually, just one last thing (for now), if the point isn't to point out racism in the Republican Party, why did you say that the Democrats need to learn to point out that there was a southern strategy, etc? Isn't the point of bringing it up as a political tactic to paint the Reps as racist?

Steven:

Buchanan was taking on the neo-cons with his argument; so far, you're the only other person that I've seen make the argument that there really was no southern strategy, but I'm sure that that's a coincidence (and due to ignorance on my part). . .no offense intended!

The point of pointing out the southern strategy is to counter the neocon claim that the Republicans are really the party of Lincoln. They're not. For the past three decades, they've been the party of Reagan, Olympia Snowe, and Jesse Helms. Nary a Lincoln among them. Democrats need to remind people that a vote for Bush is also a vote for the party of Jesse Helms, however else you want to spin it!