All your perception belongs to us: the politics of the symbol

Symbolic Lynching Resolution Forced Concrete Political Choice

By Terry M. Neal
washingtonpost.com Staff Writer
Thursday, June 23, 2005; 8:12 AM

There's not much these days that the two parties in Washington can rally around, as evidenced by the increasingly shrill tone here. You might think that one thing on which everyone in both parties could agree would be a resolution apologizing for the Senate's failure, over many decades, to make it a federal crime for racists to hunt black people like animals and hang them from trees.

When the Senate passed just such a resolution last week, 21 senators had not signed on as co-sponsors. Three of those 21 were Democrats, who added their names the next day. Seven Republicans also signed on after the vote, leaving 11 Senators -- all Republicans -- who have yet to sign on as co-sponsors. Because Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) opted for a voice vote instead of a roll call vote, and the resolution passed with only a few senators actually in the chamber. For supporters of the resolution, led by Sens. George Allen (R-Va.) and Mary Landrieu (D-La.), that elevated the importance of having all 100 members of the Senate sign on as co-sponsors, because it would officially put the support of each member into the record.


click here to read the entire piece in context.

here is another story realted to the recent lynching legislation


Some other excerpts from the article (not in context):

On Thursday, Georgia state Rep. Tyrone Brooks (D), president of the Georgia Association of Black Elected Officials, told me: "It's sad. It's a reminder that we're still in an era when there are some in the body politic who still want to play to the racist elements who still live in our country, particularly the South, the Sons of the Confederacy and that sort of thing. These senators are the new Dixiecrats. Years ago, it used to be the southern Democrats [who were the problem]. But today it's the Republicans. . . . It's a reminder that we still have a long way to go."


Tara Wall, an RNC official responsible for minority outreach, accused Democrats of exploiting a non-issue for political gain.

"What I can say is that absolutely we absolutely don't condone lynching," she said. "We support what's been passed unanimously. Now we need to take the opportunity to move ahead and look forward. We need to focus on the next generation of civil rights by closing the wealth gap, enabling more African Americans to own their own homes, [and have better] health care reform and retirement security."

Symbolic politics is the most powerful. Symbolic politics is about messaging. It's about code words. It's how a politician sends subtle cues about priorities and whose interests he or she is there to protect.

Symbolic politics is Ronald Reagan launching his presidential re-election campaign by extolling the virtues of states rights in Philadelphia, Miss., where Ku Klux Klan leader Edgar Ray Killen killed three civil rights workers in 1964.

Symbolic politics is the "white hands" ad that former senator Jesse Helms (R-N.C.) ran against African American opponent Harvey Gantt in 1990. Symbolic politics is George W. Bush going to speak at Bob Jones University in the 2000 presidential election campaign.

From those symbolic events, black people ask, if you can't respect my history how can you protect my interest in Washington?

According to the Congressional Record, these were the members who did not originally co-sign the legislation:
Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.)
Robert Bennett (R-Utah)
Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.)
Thad Cochran (R-Miss.)
Kent Conrad (D-N.D.)
John Cornyn (R-Texas)
Michael Crapo (R-Idaho)
Michael Enzi (R-Wyo.)
Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa)
Judd Gregg (R-N.H.)
Orrin Hatch (R-Utah)
Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex.)
Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.)
Trent Lott (R-Miss.)
Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska)
Jack Reed (D-R.I.)
Richard Shelby (R-Ala.)
Gordon Smith (R-Ore.)
John Sununu (R-N.H.)
Craig Thomas (R-Wyo.)
George Voinovich (R-Ohio)
The three Democrats and seven Republicans -- Crapo, Grassley, Hatch, Murkowski, Voinovich, Hutchinson and Smith -- signed on after the resolution was passed.

I was particularly eager to chat with someone from Cochran's office. Cochran told reporters earlier this week that he didn't feel he could apologize "for something I did not do."

"I don't feel that I should apologize for the passage or the failure to pass any legislation by the U.S. Senate," Cochran told the Clarion Ledger of Jackson, Miss. "But I deplore and regret that lynchings occurred and that those committing them were not punished."

As the newspaper pointed out, Cochran had previously co-sponsored measures "apologizing for the U.S. government's mistreatment of American Indians and Japanese Americans" -- neither of which he was directly responsible for.

Alexander's office sent this statement from the senator, which said he did not co-sponsor the resolution because he is pushing a different measure "condemning lynching, celebrating the accomplishments of African Americans and recommitting the Senate to improving health, education and job opportunities for African Americans and all Americans."

Bennett's office pointed out that although he did not sign on as a co-sponsor, he did sign an oversized copy of the resolution that will be preserved in a traveling photography exhibit about lynching. Crapo, Grassley and Shelby also signed that copy, or expressed their support to Landrieu's office.

The Choice

Really, what reasonable person thinks any of the senators who didn't sign the lynching apology bill actually endorses that morbid practice?

The better question is, by declining to sign on to the resolution, did they practice symbolic politics, just as those who signed it also practiced symbolic politics? The senators who failed to sign the measure prior to its passage -- with the exception of Voinovich -- were either from southern states or states with relatively small African American populations. Only the senators themselves know their true motivations.

The lynching resolution wasn't the kind of policy legislation that cuts taxes or increases funding to a particular project. It was a symbol that different voters interpret differently, and every senator made a choice about which voters he or she wanted to risk alienating with a symbolic message that -- as Howard Dean and Sen. Richard Durbin have learned -- is easy for political enemies to exploit.

Staff writer Sehrish Shaban contributed to this report.
© 2005 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive