During the German elections a month or so ago, a junior minister in the government of Chancellor Shroeder offered the view that US President George Bush had similar tactics as the disgraced Adolf Hitler. The comment caused a storm of criticism from around the world, not the least from the United States itself which was already reeling from Chancellor Shroeder’s criticism of US war policy with regard to Iraq. Anxious to repair relations with Washington, German officials wasted no time in putting distance between themselves and the offending minister in an effort to calm frayed nerves in the United States. The minister was severely repudiated even if the sentiment she expressed was seen as containing a modicum of truth, and hers was perhaps a position held by a not insignificant portion of the German population.

    Then came the episode in Canada where a spokeswoman for Prime Minister Jean Chritien called President George Bush a “ moron”, meaning an idiot. Again the Canadian gave vent to a widely held view of George Bush as an intellectual lightweight, a man who has difficulty speaking in complete sentences, and has often been the butt of numerous jokes about his mental competence. As in the case of the German minister, the Canadian spokeswoman was severely criticized in Washington and the controversy did not go away until she offered her resignation.

    Just a couple of weeks ago there was widespread rioting and pitched battle between Moslems and Christians in Nigeria over a newspaper article suggesting that if Mohammed, the Moslem prophet, were alive he might have wanted to marry one of the Miss World contestants competing in the pageant originally scheduled in Nigeria. The reporter received a death sentence for the remark which was believed to insult a majority of the Moslem population. She fled to the United States to save her skin.

    The lesson from these and other episodes of loose talk by public officials is that words do matter, and that even the private pronouncements of public officials carry public consequences. And that’s how it should be. After all, we live in a world of mass communication and instant sound bites. The wrong thing said at the wrong time can reverberate around the globe in minutes and cause an incalculable amount of hurt and mayhem.

    So when Trent Lott, the incoming Senate majority leader from Mississippi which has a dark history of racial intolerance, opined recently that had the US elected retiring Senator Strong Thurmond president in 1948 when he ran on a platform of racial segregation, the country would not have been in the “mess” it is in today, more than eyebrows were raised. Senator Lott dug deep into an old wound and reminded America that all is not well on the racial front.

    The irony is that Lott apologized for “the wrong choice of words”. What else could he mean by suggesting that the country is in a mess because it had the courage and the fortitude to promote racial equality, a dream that remains unfulfilled despite the progress that has been made since Strong Thurmond tried to turn back the march of progress? Can we be gullible enough to believe that his comments were a mere slip of the tongue when he was quoted as making an almost identical statement in 1981?

    Needless to say, black political and civic leader are incensed at Lott’s irresponsible pronouncement, as they should be. There are those, this writer included, who believe that the progress made in race relations in this country came rather grudgingly, perhaps out of necessity rather than a deep moral or philosophical commitment to the principle of racial justice. And this sentiment is reinforced by Lott who spoke with his guard down, providing us with a rare moment to look into his soul. And what we see is not pretty.

    Too often public officials make pronouncement that provoke anger and controversy, only to seek refuge in lame excuses like being taken out of context, or made the wrong choice of words. The truth of the matter is, however, everything that Lott says going forward will be seen as colored by his racial bias.

    Can Lott honestly look at Colin Powell, the amiable and competent Secretary of State, and say that the country is not better off because it promoted an environment in which Powell and his like were permitted to realize their fullest human potential? Can Lott look at Condoleeza Rice and say that the country is in a mess with the first black woman serving as National Security Advisor? And the countless others who would have perished under the sheets of the Klu Klux Klan whom Senator Lott evidently champion?

    There is no question about the effect of Lott’s statement. He has effectively repudiated everything positive that has come out of the civil rights movement over the last fifty years. And for this he should be severely repudiated. He has brought shame and embarrassment to Republicans of all stripes. The image of his party can be salvaged only with the resignation of Lott from his leadership position in the United States senate, if not from the senate itself.

    If Republican leaders fail to act against Lott, it will be fair to say that he deserves to be in their party. It will just prove that the Republican party is a natural habitat for racists and others who do not share in the dream of a just and fair society.

    President Bush needs to think seriously about his association with Senator lott. Perhaps the President needs to reflect on the incidents in Germany, Canada and Nigeria and come to the only logical conclusion that Senator Lott has forfeited his right to represent the American public.