The untimely downfall of Mississippi's senior senator has given many Southern conservatives much to contemplate. The ease with which the media spun an off-the-cuff remark, should remind every Southern conservative of the unbridled power which resides in the hands of the media. This is the same media which holds the South in near if not complete contempt. Regardless of its power, the media could not have caused Lott's demise without a lot of help from the beleaguered senator and the Republican Party.

Most conservatives never seem to understand that when liberals go on the offensive, facts always take second place to emotions. The crafty use of the emotionally charged issue of race by liberals too often will send conservatives running for cover. Trent Lott's dilemma is an example of the classic use by liberals of the issue of race. Unfortunately, it is also a classic example of conservative tomfoolery. Few debates with liberals are lost when based upon a detailed factual analysis of an issue. Is it any wonder then that liberal positions are defended by the "liberal" use of emotionalism?

Not since General Pierre Gustave Toutant Beauregard sent Yankees reeling back over Bull Run Creek has America witnessed such a reversal of fortune as that displayed by Senator Lott's pitiful and puerile reaction to liberal criticism. Without doubt, America's foremost advocate of Constitutional government in today's Congress is Senator Strom Thurmond. Few conservatives in Washington have a longer or more consistent record of fighting to keep big brother government under the restraints of the Constitution as Senator Thurmond. Not being able to debunk the efficacy of the principle of limited government, otherwise known as State's Rights, liberals went on the offensive. Charging with sabers drawn, the cry of "racism" was all it took to put Lott completely on the defensive. Here we see Lott's first mistake. Rather than taking the fight to the enemies of limited government, Lott opted to kow-tow and otherwise pay homage to the gods of political correctness. Yes, we believe that forced segregation is wrong, Southern conservatives acknowledge this fact. But when will liberals acknowledge that forced integration is equally wrong? As Saint George Tucker of Virginia stated in 1808, the application of illegitimate force by government is a form of civil slavery and therefore evil. Regardless of its pretended objective, civil slavery is an earmark of a totalitarian state. This illegitimate application of governmental force in the Southern public education system has caused untold damage for the education of millions of Southern children. Where are the conservatives demanding an apology for the loss of educational opportunities suffered by black and white children of the South during the past thirty-five years? Why don't conservatives get emotional and demand an accounting from liberals for the debasement of the cultural life of Black Americans? After all, in 1948 (the year of Thurmond's Dixiecrats) 70% of African-American children were born into two parent homes. Today, after fifty years of liberal progress, 70% of African-American children are born into single parent homes. In 1948, sexually transmitted diseases (S.T.D.'s) were infrequently found among African-American teenagers. Today every form of S.T.D.'s, including AIDS, has become epidemic within this age group. In 1948, children in African-American communities safely played outside their homes. Today Black on Black crime and drive by shootings have turned lawns into shooting galleries within many Black communities.

This is not to suggest that the end of forced segregation has caused the aforementioned ailments. The demise of civil slavery, either forced segregation or forced integration should be celebrated by those who love liberty. Nevertheless, the implementation of numerous liberal social programs has reduced a once viable and independent culture into a society evermore dependent upon government handouts. These handouts are provided by liberals, bent upon increasing the size and scope of government over the objections of men such as Senator Thurmond. Thus we see why Senator's Lott's remark became the focus of liberal rage. The emotionalism of race has been successfully harnessed to defame not only an enemy of big government but also to further denigrate the idea of State's Rights, that is, government controlled at the local level. Because conservatives, especially Southern conservatives, refused to meet the liberal challenge head on, a conservative rout ensued.

Even if America's conservatives awakened to their folly in dealing with liberals on this level, Southerners have much more to consider. Did anyone notice how quickly the President and the National G.O.P. tried to distance themselves from the South?

Every four years, National Republicans head down South to collect votes from Southerners for the G.O.P. The South is encouraged to jump on the Republican bus and take a ride. As soon as Dixie gets on board, she is told to "go to the back of the bus, sit down, shut-up, and for goodness sake, don't wave that Confederate flag!" With the exception of Southern pride, the G.O.P. falls all over itself in praise of every form of ethnic pride. Kwanza, Cinco de Mayo, and Islamic holy days are made the occasion for special Presidential orations and proclamations. It appears that Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are setting the social agenda for the G.O.P. All this from a man, George W. Bush, who had the audacity to strip Confederate memorial plaques from courthouses across Texas! It should be clear to every Southerner that, as for the National Republican Party is concerned, Southerners have no reason for pride. After the Lott affair, Southerners now should understand that they are nothing less than second class citizens within the G.O.P.

Is it not time for a little quid-pro-quo? The South has placed the G.O.P. at the forefront of American politics. What has the South received in return for her votes, other than being treated as the redheaded stepchild of the G.O.P.? Looking at major conservative votes taken in Congress during the past twenty years proves that the South has received little in return for voting Republican. By a wide majority, Southern conservatives have voted for limits on immigration, in favor of the rights of gun owners, for prayer in school, against abortion, against forced busing, and against reverse discrimination. Yet, Northern liberals, moderates, and conservatives (Republicans) have joined hands to vote against the Southern position. The long and short of the story is simply this: If Southern conservatives support an issue, they get little support from fellow Republicans in the North. When it comes to issues dear to Southerners, even in Congress, Southerners must go to the back of the bus. How long must the South endure such treatment?

Southerners have "Lotts" to consider in the next few months. Should Bush and the Republican Party be allowed a free ride over Dixie? Surely there is someone in the South who will be willing to challenge Bush? Would it not be somewhat ironic if a new Dixiecrat movement resulted from the treatment the South received during the Lott/Thurmond fiasco? A Southerner challenging Bush in Southern Republican primaries would prove to be a significant embarrassment to the G.O.P. If this challenge led to a Dixiecrat third party movement, that could very well spell the end of Bush II in 2004. A victory for the Democrats may not be a hollow victory for the South. Many Southerners are beginning to repeat the slogan "An avowed enemy is better than a pretended friend!"