Condi Rice and the Tempting Politics of Race

Since the beginning of the Bush Administration, and particularly since the rise of Condi Rice, I have seen a disturbing trend in the rhetoric of conservatives. Many of them have departed from the important principle–though it may be more aspirational than real–that we should be measured by what Martin Luther King Jr. called “the content of our character” rather than the color of our skin. It is tempting to make Condi Rice’s race a part of the discussion about her because her story is so compelling: a little girl of latent promise rises from the most segregated city in America, overcomes a terrorist bombing that killed one of her playmates, and eventually becomes the third most powerful human being on earth–one who is charged with a key role in protecting her entire nation from terrorism. We love what we hope it says about us. I love what I hope it says, too, even as I recognize that there is still much prejudice here and probably always will be.

It’s also tempting to talk about Dr. Rice’s race because many Democrats have argued that race and gender should be factored into a a candidate’s qualifications. This has been true of the debate about affirmative action, and in the specifics of some Democratic nominations, such as the embarrassment of Bill Clinton nominating three white women in a row to be Attorney General, each leaping bravely from the trench after the last was knocked dead by an undocumented nanny. Thus rose the physically gigantic but mentally mediocre Janet Reno. That makes it especially disingenuous for conservatives to say (and correctly, I believe) that race should not be a consideration in hiring and enrollment, but that race should somehow create a boundary of protection around legitimate questions about performance and qualifications. This is the temptation of principle by politics. In this case, it is what conservatives often call “the soft prejudice of low expectations.”

Scott Johnson of the excellent Powerline blog tells Condi Rice’s story beautifully in this piece at the Weekly Standard. Then, he transitions from his insightful and moving discussion of Dr. Rice’s personal story to this passage about her confirmation hearings:

The bombing of the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church had been the handiwork of former members of the Ku Klux Klan–brothers under the hood to former Ku Klux Klan Grand Kleagle and current Democratic United States Senator Robert Byrd. Byrd of course opposed Rice’s confirmation as Secretary of State last week. Standing shoulder to shoulder with Byrd and 11 other Democratic senators in opposing Rice’s confirmation was Democratic senator Mark Dayton who is, oddly enough, the occupant of Hubert Humphrey’s seat in the Senate. History takes strange turns and politics makes strange bedfellows.

First, a word about Robert Byrd. He is a senile, addlebrained gasbag whose vile racism should be pounded like so many ten-penny nails into his half-penny head until it rattles no more. If you believe that the bigotry of his early adulthood safely receded like a bad dream just as he decided to run for national elective office, you probably also believe that Michael Jackson sleeps with boys because he’s really a child at heart. Senator Byrd’s knowledge of war and statecraft is about as good as my toddler’s command of transmission repair. His questioning is undiluted demagoguery. No, I can’t say for certain that he has ulterior motives in Dr. Rice’s case, because I can’t get past the question of what an ex-Grand Kleagle who still uses the n-word is doing in the Senate. Take what’s left of him, sweep it him into the dustpan, and bag him up for next Tuesday.

That said, I thought the attack on Mark Dayton and the others who voted against Dr. Rice was over the line. Which of them carries the baggage that Robert Byrd carries, thereby deserving this comparison, even as “strange bedfellows,” or heirs, “oddly enough,” of Hubert Humphrey’s chair? Are war and peace not proper topics for debate, even if they are done in a manner that sometimes smacks of grandstanding for the cameras? Are these not legitimate reasons for a national security advisor who (quite correctly and honestly, in my opinion) recommended war based on information that turned out to be less than fully correct? How exactly is asking these questions tantamount to blocking her at the schoolhouse door? Because Condi Rice is black?

I will passionately reassert until my dying day that it was just a matter of time before Saddam made and used a nuke or a germ in anger, and that the debate over whether he was ready to do it next week, the week after, or from the safety of the next Howard Dean presidency is mostly silly (the question of whether our intel agencies are competent is another matter). My point here is that this is a tough world, people are trying to kill us, betray us, use us, or rip us off, depending on the day, and if someone wants to be our top diplomat, her qualifications should be an open book. This job will not be easy. It will require long-term thinking, intricate planning, thirty-one flavors of tact, enough determination to withstand withering fire, and a balance between courage and caution that is enormously difficult to calibrate. Anyone who wants that job must first answer the bridge-keeper’s questions, which should be good, hard, fearless questions, or none shall pass. That won’t happen if someone pulls the pin and tosses out the paralyzing, radioactive debate-stopper of race every time a someone who is not (a) white and (b) male is nominated to high office; indeed, artificial shields and lowered expectations only harm the idea that a black person might be just as qualified as a white person. For Dayton, Boxer, Kerry, et al.–in short, everyone but Byrd, who doesn’t get the benefit of any doubts with me–this is called “advise and consent,” and it’s fair game. Take it from no less a source than this:

Recognize the words yet? They have been out of fashion lately.