Indeed, we must certainly consider the larger context of the comments. Clinton is Irish and also he made the comments with an obvious wish to help the situation in Northern Ireland. If I correctly recall, I think Clinton even referred to Ireland as 'the land of my forebears' just prior to making the controversial statements. He expressed frustration in how the two opposing sides would often come to an agreement and then break the agreement in a fit of anger, just like two drunks, etc... He never called the Irish themselves drunks, but simply used a metaphor that unfortunately for some people conjured up images of stereotypical Irish drunks. Yet even the metaphor could be said to have applied only indirectly tot he stereotype because I don't recall Clinton even mentioning Irish drunks in particular but rather only drunks in general. The comments were not the most elegant, but given the man who made them, his obvious motive and the general context of the comments, I see little reason why anyone would be deeply offended by them.
Contrariwise, Lott's comments reasonably suggests, given his past and his past inflammatory comments, that he can accept and possibly even wishes for an official American policy that would make the United States a Dixiecratic nation. This is particularly true since Lott begrudgingly apologized for his statements even after receiving clear evidence that he inflamed the emotions of a very large number of Americans. As a lawmaker, the chief lawmaker no less, Lott could ill-afford to allow these sorts of valid doubts about his motivations to exist unchallenged. Yet that is exactly what he did, groveling only after it became apparent to him he lived in a new, and in this area much better America than the one about which he quite possibly fantasizes.
The differences between the comments are clear. The import of Lott's comments are more significant by far because they suggest we have a chief lawmaker who longs for and is capable of using his lawmaking power to steer America in an unholy direction. At most, Clinton's statements suggests he doesn't like the Irish combatants of Northern Ireland (they don't even suggest this). The fact that Clinton himself is Irish reasonably proscribes our assuming he wished to use his presidential power to harm Irish people in general.
I do hate to defend Bill Clinton. Such a thing nearly gives me hives. But the incontrovertible fact is there is no dang comparison here at all between Clinton's comments and those of Trent Lott. Folks are gonna hafta do infinitely much better to try and make a case for a double-standard here. |
