---

Jan 23, 2003
Trent Lott, George Allen, and Cross Burning: Lessons to be Learned , by Kevin E. Martingayle, Esquire
Hypocrisy in Government reaches a fevered pitch! (Editorial)

As the United States Supreme Court is wrestling this term with the question of whether "cross burners" can be convicted and imprisoned as felons, a former noose-dangling Southern politician just got a promotion because a fellow Southern politician was demoted after he made a "racially insensitive" remark at a birthday party for a really old Southern politician who used to be a segregationist. Real life, it seems, is sometimes stranger than fiction.



As the United States Supreme Court is wrestling this term with the question of whether "cross burners" can be convicted and imprisoned as felons, a former noose-dangling Southern politician just got a promotion because a fellow Southern politician was demoted after he made a "racially insensitive" remark at a birthday party for a really old Southern politician who used to be a segregationist. Real life, it seems, is sometimes stranger than fiction.

In late October 2000, during the final stages of a heated Senate race between then-Senator Charles Robb and his challenger, former Virginia Governor George Allen, Robb asserted that Allen was "insensitive" on issues of race. As part of his proof, Robb pointed to Allen’s history of opposing civil rights laws, support for the creation of "Confederate History and Heritage Month", and display of a confederate flag in his home and a hangman's noose at his law office. Allen dismissed the criticism as race-baiting politics, defended his voting record, and claimed that the "stars and bars" was merely a part of a flag collection he displayed in his home in the early 1990s. The noose, he said, symbolized his belief in strong punishment for violent criminals and was not meant to have any racial overtones. The media reacted mildly to the whole debate and George Allen was elected to the United States Senate.

Exactly one year later, the Virginia Supreme Court, in a 4-3 decision, struck down a state statute banning cross burning. The media paid a lot of attention to this story, often criticizing the ruling without explaining it.

The majority opinion of the court held that the law impermissibly infringed upon free speech and expression rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution, and noted that not all cross burnings necessarily equate to threats. Because the cross burning law automatically presumed every burning to be threatening and therefore illegal--without proof of any of the circumstances--the law took away the right to use a burning cross as a political statement. To give a timely example, the law would criminalize a cross burning at a rally protesting the Catholic church's handling of the priest molestation cases. The law's over breadth led to its demise.

The government appealed the ruling, and the United States Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. During oral argument on December 11, 2002, Virginia’s Solicitor General argued that cross burning conveys only one message...a hateful threat that severe violence is about to be perpetrated upon someone. According to the government, the KKK has a monopoly on the symbolic use of a burning cross. Surprisingly, few of the justices on the court challenged this unproven, sweeping assertion. Media reports made it sound like the court would and should rule against the cross burners.

In the meantime, Senator Trent Lott was busy with early damage control efforts in the aftermath of his unfortunate remarks at Senator Strom Thurmond’s 100th birthday party. Lott’s sin was expressing approval of Thurmond’s segregationist 1948 presidential campaign and opining that the country would have been better off had Thurmond been elected. The story developed slowly at first, then exploded.

Senator Allen initially jumped to Lott's defense, calling criticism "political", and giving both verbal and written statements of support. Days later, however, as it became obvious that Trent Lott would not survive his gaffe and that advancement opportunities might be in the offing with Lott pushed aside, Allen called for Lott to resign from his post as Senate Majority Leader and declared that the Republican party should avoid even the appearance of being insensitive on issues of race. Essentially, Allen said "do as I say, not as I do." Lott stepped down. Allen was given much of the credit.

What happened next is puzzling. Allen's switch of positions and calls for "sensitivity", which ought to have led the media to make a detailed comparison between his own history and Trent Lott's, were deemed statesman-like gestures, with little analysis of Allen's past displays of a noose and rebel flag, or the irony that the nation's highest court is dealing with controversial symbols right now in the cross burning case.

Trent Lott and George Allen both have episodes of racial insensitivity scattered throughout their records. Lott's apologists have tried to explain that he's an older guy from the deep South, a product of his age and environment. These excuses may or may not have some validity, but Allen doesn't have them at all. Allen grew up the well-off son of an NFL football coach in California. He's only 50 years old. One might say that more competence on racial subjects is expected of a person like George Allen.

Then there's the inevitable comparison of the symbolism behind crosses and nooses.

The historical basis for making it a felony to burn a cross is that there was a time in Virginia and elsewhere in this nation when a burning cross was a signal that a violent act was about to take place, usually against a black person, often a lynching. The lynchings were generally carried out by lawless white mobs. Whereas the burning cross was the warning, a hangman's noose was the actual tool used to carry out the death threat.

Just as no one believes that Trent Lott actually favors segregation, no one can seriously contend that George Allen favors lynching anyone, including the "violent criminals" he believes ought to have "strong punishment". Allen, like all Americans, enjoys the right to use symbols to convey his political views, including nooses and rebel flags. Yet it is almost certain that Allen's noose and flag displays were intimidating to some people, especially those who have suffered hate crimes, or whose ancestors were tortured or killed by racists. Sometimes the message received is not the message intended.

Senator Allen, a self-described history buff, was emphatic in denying he meant any harm by the display of a noose or Confederate flag, even if many people find it deeply disturbing. But if Allen is allowed to show off his noose and rebel flag without fear of prosecution--or even harsh criticism for that matter-- then he suddenly and unwittingly becomes the poster child for those who wish to burn crosses to state their political beliefs, however unpopular those beliefs may be. Under any balanced system of justice, cross burners cannot be jailed if George Allen is treated as a rising star on the national political scene. People ought to be able to look to their elected leaders for guidance. "Do as I say, not as I do" doesn't wash when you're in the US Senate and the subject is race relations.

With the GOP struggling to repair the damage of Trent Lott’s birthday remarks, George Allen has been promoted to new Majority Leader Bill Frist’s old job as Chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee. Allen's duties involve finding ideologically appropriate candidates, funding political campaigns through like-minded financial backers, and working to increase the Republican control of the Senate. Some say Allen is a future Presidential contender. What message do the Republicans think minorities have received from Allen's move up? If Lott is an inappropriate leader because he's not "sensitive" enough, is Allen the best choice to help shape the "kinder and gentler" face of the GOP?

Many pundits have said the Trent Lott fiasco taught politicians a big lesson about racially loaded words and symbols. Given George Allen's history, sudden change of heart about Trent Lott, and step up the ladder of the Senate power structure, at least three lessons are obvious. And most of the "pundits" have whiffed on all three.

First, when the noosemen on your own side want you gone, they'll seize on any opportunity and weapon available. The GOP calls for Lott to step down had everything to do with politics, and nothing to do with "racial sensitivity". George Allen didn't change his mind because he learned something new about Lott. He did it because he wanted to come out on top with the winners and get more status in the GOP. Mission accomplished.

Second, Trent Lott's fall isn't the story.... the continuing rise of a guy like George Allen is. With Allen calling the shots and launching friends into the Senate, the GOP will remain the same old club. No one can look at Allen's ascension and believe that the national GOP is any different now than it was a month ago.

Finally, the media truly is the "watchdog of government". The media was wide awake following Lott's birthday party remarks, covering not just what he said then, but what he's said in the past. The information swayed public opinion and as a result, Lott was told by his own party to quit his dream job. But Allen hasn't been subjected to this scrutiny. With a load of information available, the media has been snoozing on the riddle of how Lott can be so reviled, while Allen is so revered. And because of that slumber, Allen is a hot property.

So while the cross burners wait to hear from the Supreme Court to see if they're to be punished as felons, and the clumsy birthday speaker licks his wounds and wonders how it all fell apart for him, good ole rebel flag wavin', noose danglin' Senator Allen adds to his national profile as the media looks somewhere else for the next big story.

It really is true that the truth is sometimes stranger than fiction. Too bad no one seems to know the truth about Allen.



[Editorial note: I represent one of the appellees (O'Mara) in the Virginia v Black case pending in the US Supreme Court. I do not agree with any of the actions of the appellees, but recognize the right of people to engage in disagreeable expressive conduct under certain circumstances without fear of criminal prosecution. That said, Allen ought not be "prosecuted", but criticism is another matter. He deserves that.]

Contributed by:
Charles Shaw
©2002 Charles Shaw/Newtopia Magazine
Email: charles@newtopiamagazine.net
Website: Newtopia Magazine