The illustrious David Broder wrote a column a couple of weeks ago for the Washington Post that shows why he remains one of the darlings of the beltway media establishment.
Titled, “Jesse Helms, white racist,” this was determined to be the official political epitaph of the man known as “Senator No, R-N.C.”
Broder attacked his media establishment colleagues in a way they love to be attacked – for being too nice to conservatives and Republicans.
Broder claims it wasn’t Helms’ conservative credentials that set him apart among his colleagues. It was his racism.
“What really sets Jesse Helms apart is that he is the last prominent unabashed white racist politician in this country – a title that one hopes will now be permanently retired,” he wrote. “A few editorials and columns came close to saying that. But the squeamishness of much of the press in characterizing Helms for what he is suggests an unwillingness to confront the reality of race in our national life.”
Let’s examine the evidence Broder puts forward to substantiate the heavy charge against Helms that he is ready, willing and able to “pick at the scab of the great wound of American history, the legacy of slavery and segregation, and to inflame racial resentment against African Americans.”
Now, before we do so, I feel it is important to point out that I am by no means a member of Jesse Helms’ amen corner. I have written many critical articles about the man. But is he a racist? That’s the serious charge raised by Broder.
“To the best of my knowledge, Helms has never done what the late George Wallace did well before his death – recant and apologize for his use of racial issues,” Broder wrote. “And that use was blatant.”
No it isn’t, Broder. At least you don’t make the case in your column.
As evidence Broder writes, “In 1984, when Helms faced his toughest opponent in Democratic Gov. Jim Hunt, the late Bill Peterson, one of the most evenhanded reporters I have ever known, summed up what ‘some said was the meanest Senate campaign in history. Racial epithets and standing in school doors are no longer fashionable,’ Peterson wrote, ‘but 1984 proved that the ugly politics of race are alive and well. Helms is their master.'”
That’s opinion, Broder – not evidence, not fact. Where’s the beef?
Broder continues: “A year before the election, when public polls showed Helms trailing by 20 points, he launched a Senate filibuster against the bill making the birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr., a national holiday. (Strom) Thurmond and the Senate majority were on the other side, but the next poll showed Helms had halved his deficit.”
That’s evidence of racism? To oppose a national holiday for a black man is racist? I suppose if some idiot proposed a national holiday honoring Rodney King, all opponents would be labeled racist. Is it possible to have a civil debate about issues involving race today without the use of such insulting epithets?
I very much opposed a national holiday honoring Martin Luther King. I would be in favor of repealing it today. Does that make me a racist?
Again, Broder resorts to citing the second-hand reporting of Peterson to make his spurious case: “Helms campaign literature sounded a drumbeat of warnings about black voter-registration drives. … On election eve, he accused Hunt of being supported by ‘homosexuals, the labor union bosses and the crooks’ and said he feared a large ‘bloc vote.’ What did he mean? ‘The black vote,’ Helms said.” He won, 52 percent to 48 percent.
Racist? Hardly. The black vote in this country is a bloc vote. Blacks vote Democratic to the tune of 90 percent or more. Why is it racist to acknowledge reality?
And here’s the clincher from Broder: “In 1990, locked in a tight race with an African American Democrat, former Charlotte mayor Harvey Gantt, Helms aired a final-week TV ad that showed a pair of white hands crumpling a rejection letter, while an announcer said, ‘You needed that job and you were the best qualified. But they had to give it to a minority because of a racial quota.’ Once again, he pulled through.”
Big deal! Helms opposed illegal, unconstitutional racial quotas in the name of misguided affirmative-action programs. Good for him. I do, too. Most Americans do. That’s why Helms was a political winner most of his career.
“That is not a history to be sanitized,” concludes Broder.
Is that your best shot? You hurl around defamatory charges like “racist” with such flimsy evidence? For doing so, you ought to have your mouth washed out with soap. Volatile insults like that are beneath you and your lofty position. They are a discredit to you and your profession.
So sanitize that.
Related offer:
Has Jesse Jackson met his match?
Get Jesse Peterson’s no-holds-barred analysis of the civil-rights industry.
