|
|
|
|
Home Archive Submit About Contact Us |
COUNTERPOINT Response to "Double Standards" By STEPHEN PALMER 11.30.03 11:04PM CST Some have suggested that the Democratic Party has employed a double standard by calling for the resignation of Trent Lott from his Senate leadership position after he waxed nostalgic over segregation but not calling for the withdrawal of Howard Dean from the presidential race in response to his comments about the Confederate flag. Not only is this "double standard" factually and logically questionable, but it pales in comparison to the true double standards of the Right. In an interview published in the Des Moines Register, Dean was quoted as saying, "I still want to be the candidate for guys with Confederate flags in their pickups." Dean acknowledges the reality that many in the South still consider the Confederate flag to be a symbol of Southern pride, whether defensibly or not, and he wants to court the Southern vote. While it is unfortunate and reprehensible that Dean chose to invoke such a historically divisive symbol, it is clear from his statement that he was not advocating any of the racist policies that have been associated with the Confederate flag. The same cannot be said of comments made by former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott. At a birthday party for the late Senator Strom Thurmond, Lott said, "I want to say this about my state: 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 all these years, either." In addition to strongly suggesting support of segregationist policies, Lott's comment was only the latest in a string of similar actions. Lott voted against reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act and against declaring a national holiday to honor Martin Luther King Jr., both of which even Thurmond supported. In a case before the Supreme Court, Lott filed an amicus brief supporting Bob Jones University as it tried to maintain its tax-exempt status despite its segregationist practices. Additionally, Lott has supported legislation protecting private schools that exercise segregationist selection policies. It is important to note that it was not Democrats who called for Lott's resignation. Certainly, some prominent African-American leaders and perhaps some isolated Democrats made such demands, but the official Democratic Party stance was a call for formal censure. However, high-level Republicans and potentially even the White House worried that this incident would make Lott an ineffective leader and maneuvered for his resignation. It is surprising that Republicans would accuse Democrats of applying a double standard when their own double standards are so much more gratuitous. The recent marathon Senate session over judicial nominations was indicative of the persistent and pernicious double standards of the GOP. In the battle over federal judicial nominees, Republicans have loudly and inaccurately tried to brand Senate Democrats as irresponsible and obstructionist. At issue is the fact that Senate Democrats have filibustered several of Bush's judicial nominees. Bush has called the Democratic response "ugly politics." In contrast to Republican rhetoric, Democrats have helped confirm 165 of Bush's appointments in less than three years compared to 374 appointments confirmed under all eight years of Clinton's terms. Democrats are blocking five Bush appointments compared to over 60 appointments blocked by Republicans under Clinton. On national security issues, Republicans have applied an even more egregious double standard to Democrats. As the threat of global terrorism became apparent in the mid-1990s, Clinton tried to pass legislation to bring antiquated laws of evidence up to date with respect to modern technology. The legislation included expanding the ability of law enforcement agents to collect evidence through wiretaps by allowing warrants to apply to individuals rather than phone lines. At the time, Senate Republicans led by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch denounced the proposition, citing civil liberties concerns. After the terrorist attacks of September 11, Republicans quickly passed the USA PATRIOT Act that included many of the same wiretap expansion provisions. In the post-September 11 world, national security is of utmost important which makes it even more distressing that the investigation of one of the most significant breaches of national security in recent memory is quickly becoming a casualty of yet another Republican double standard. After anonymous White House aides leaked the name and occupation of an undercover CIA agent working against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, many Democrats called for the President to appoint an independent counsel to investigate this breach of national security. Rather than appoint an independent investigator, the White House and Congressional Republicans have adamantly insisted that the Justice Department is capable of conducting an independent investigation. However, Republicans did not apply this standard to the Clinton White House. In 1997, Senator Bill Frist was quoted in the Chattanooga Free Press as saying, "It's important, if you're looking at the executive side, not to have the Department of Justice investigating the executive side." Orrin Hatch, in an academic article on the Independent Counsel Statute, suggests that "to the extent that any prosecutor is accountable to the executive branch, there inevitably will be pressure not to investigate and prosecute aggressively scandals at the highest levels of government - an inherent conflict of interest." Under the Bush White House, however, a different standard apparently applies and, even in the increased national security environment of the post-September 11 world, these Senators and many other Republicans, who strongly favored the appointment of an independent counsel to investigate the Executive branch in the past, are strangely silent. It is natural that politicians will give members of their own party the benefit of the doubt more readily than members of the opposition party but one would hope this tendency does not transform into blind and uncritical support. Although some actions on the part of the Democratic Party may evoke the appearance of a double standard, particularly the Democratic response to Howard Dean's clumsy invocation of the Confederate flag, a closer examination of the situation shows no real double standard. The Republican Party, however, has displayed a stunning series of double standards that have become destructive to the national system of checks and balances, our national security, and even the integrity of the American democratic system. |
for compensation of any kind without prior written permission from the author.
Direct questions about permissions to lbjjpa@uts.cc.utexas.edu.