Strom Thurmond
Since a lot of people have been gnashing their teeth over the death of Senator Thurmond, I thought I'd make a more personal note about the man.
The one and only time I met Senator Thurmond was in 1997, when he wandered into the front office of the Senator for whom I was working at the time. His genuine friendliness struck me most of all: he spoke to just about everyone in the front office while he was waiting, shook hands (with a very firm grip), and started talking to one of the front desk staff about how annoying the deluge of mail about the tobacco bill was.
(Before you get the idea that Senators don't like having their mail answered, the tobacco companies were handing out a free 'mail your congressman' form with every pack of cigarettes, and some folks were filling out every one the got. It was an enormous task just to avoid multiple mailings.)
I've been reading a lot about how the Senator was senile and feeble, but he certainly didn't show it that day. Nor did he show it when my fellow staffer encountered him working quite avidly at a treadmill in the Senate gym. Perhaps the truth is something more than the evidence of my eyes, but I don't buy it.
Sure, Thurmond isn't going to win any civil rights awards posthumously, but I think most of the folks railing about how racist he was miss the point. He was a relic of a bygone age, someone who term limitation should have taken care of before I was born. Some of his views were vile--although there is evidence that some of them changed over time--but he was a man shaped in an older time. Given how much the political landscape has changed since he was my age, I can't help but think it's a marvel he was flexible enough to survive.
Frankly, whatever you think of your political opponent, if they're democratically elected I think it's churlish to pester their memory after they're dead. Whatever his sins, the man is no more, and it is at the very least indecorous to thrash at dead horses. I never understood the people who could be reduced to apoplexy by Bill Clinton; the Thurmond-haters aren't much better.








Comments
"whatever you think of your political opponent, if they're democratically elected I think it's churlish to pester their memory after they're dead"--Didn't Hilter take power (at least originally) legitimately?
obaevPosted by: asdf | July 6, 2003 09:06 PM
As my old pals used to say, 'You know the discussion's over when somebody brings up Hitler.'
However, if you wanted to consider the above a strict rule rather than a general guideline, I'd say that yes, this might constrain any member of the political establishment in 1930s Germany from criticizing Hitler after he was dead; it would certainly eliminate any Nazis who considered him a political opponent. Given that he wasn't a political opponent for any non-Germans, or indeed for disenfranchised Germans, that's not particularly crippling.
Now, if you'd like to say that Strom Thurmond was someone's military opponent; that he operated outside of the realm of politics and couldn't be elected or defeated at the ballot box; or if you happen to be non-American (hence outside the polity) the statement wouldn't necessarily apply. But Thurmond was none of those things, and you're just being ridiculous.
clmtfyPosted by: Anthony Rickey | July 7, 2003 10:12 AM
Um, no Hitler didn't. His party took about 36% of the vote in the last election, not enough to form a full government. Forunately the Reichstag burned down (either communists or Nazis) and Hitler declared an emergency government and seized power.
By that point his support seemed to be fading, so no. Hitler was not democratically elected.
And since this is Tony's site can I just point out that neither was George Bush ;-)
M
ouqrPosted by: Martin | July 7, 2003 03:34 PM
Ah, thank you, Martin: you got there just before I wrote to ask you myself.
Incidentally, before my resident troll decides to pick at the 'fortunately' in Martin's comment, I've known him for years, he's about as far from a Nazi as you can get, and I'm sure it was either meant sarcastically or as 'Fortunately for Hitler.'
gfudiPosted by: Anthony Rickey | July 7, 2003 03:41 PM
As the resident troll, a few comments: (1) Hitler references typically serve to illuminate absurdities in broad, general statements. Ex: "I believe that every human being, deep down, is good." Well, what about Hitler? (2) If I remember correctly, from "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reicht," Hitler was offered the chancellorship of Germany legitimately--the President needed his party's support for the government to function. (3) Anthony, what I believe your point to be is the following: Since Strom was democratically elected (for about eight billion years), and is now dead (and we typically don't defile the dead), and changed over time (which is true), there's no reason to rail against him for taking a states' rights stand, especially at a time when the majority of the south agreed with him. A valid point, but I think you could've spelled it out a bit more than with the overly broad "whatever you think . . ." statement. (4) The resident troll makes one comment about hearing "Oxford" too many times and all of a sudden he lacks the ability to comprehend sarcasm?
Posted by: asdf (aka Troll) | July 7, 2003 11:44 PM
A friend suggested that the Supremes' ruling against sodomy laws caused him to finally keel over, since he died the same day. San Franciscans have a morbid sense of humor. But you can't tell me that the decision didn't give many "relic[s] of a bygone age" apoplexy.
KC
From Dictionary.com:
churl 1. A rude, boorish person.
rahzxgothic 6. Barbarous; crude.
Posted by: KC | July 9, 2003 01:48 PM
Most Americans are afraid to even mention the name of Hitler, yet in my opinion he was a work of undefined superior mind(s). Of course born in a different country, particulary the former Soviet Union I owe severe declines in family due to Hitler's third reicht. I believe Adolf can not be held responsible for monstrosities toward the allies nor the Jews. He indeed controlled Germany but with the peoples support and brilliant war colleagues. He carried general ideas, that to this day, although not spoken in front of Jewish people, remain amongst Europeans. In this country, where in New York alone there are more Jews than in Israel students of all ages receive hidden Propaganda probably summoned by people who are in control. Rest assure those leaders in the most apparent ways, and like the current monkey-president-hidden, are responsible for us learning to hate a master-mind of the 1900's.
I am not a Nazi, nor do I hold anything against Jewish people...
jmieanplease E-mail me for comments!
Posted by: Kirill Mironov | December 25, 2004 09:49 PM