The similarities you cite are all superficial and apply to a judgment of true similarity about as much as would the similarities between moths and bats. The two creatures are similar in many ways, but we ought not on the basis of their similarities claim moths and bats are essentially the same.
In each case the remarks were construed in a sense they were not intended.
Highly insignificant. If you were to say 'I love all plants' and someone mistook your statement to mean something you did not intend, this would be no reasonable basis to claim the moral implications and context of your statements are identical to those of Trent Lott. It is the implications of the statements that matter here, particularly in light of their total context. At the time of his statement, Lott had a history toward blacks, a sordid and un-repudiated history the likes of which were not by any means possessed by Clinton toward the Irish. Indeed, Clinton himself is Irish.
In each case the racial group involved could be offended by the remarks on face value alone.
Of course "the face value alone" of the remarks is not exactly the most important consideration here, JLA. Had the same remarks been made by a "common Joe" there would not have been a furor. It is total context that matters. The context of Clinton's statements, including his history toward the Irish, his own Irish ethnicity, his political role and his overall motivation to encourage progress between Irish factions, clearly militate against a reasoned belief that he harbored ill-will toward the Irish and might therefore have wished to exploit his power to bring about policy and law that would deliberately cause them harm. Contrariwise, in Lott's case the context of the statements can certainly cause a reasoned doubt as to whether Lott will be/has been a fair leader on matters of race.
In each case they were stupidly insensitive.....but no more....
Perhaps they were both insensitive, but the statements and the circumstances in which they occurred are so radically different in essence, it is impossible to reasonably claim they carry the same moral and political weight. At the very worst, Clinton used a boorish stereotype against his own people in an attempt to help his own people. In Lott's case he implied the solution to America's problems is to fashion segregationist policies against blacks. The fact that as Majority Leader he is actually in position to help effect these sorts of policies has import to every freedom-loving American. |
