  It seems to me that neither Republicans nor Democrats ever really discuss what I would call politics. For the record, I do not define the Lott issue as politics. It's more like idle parlor talk. Ideological masturbation. I see no social or economic problem to solve by applying governmental political theory. To me, it means nothing politically. Emotionally, sure -- I can see it on that level. Sociologically, certainly -- race is a fine subject for sociological study. But politics? I just don't see any point worth making on either ideological side. Note that this is only only my opinion.
However, in the interests of idle parlor talk, I will toss this in the ring: I perceive two kinds of racism. First, conscious racism. This is proactive, goal-oriented. Extreme examples include hunting someone down and killing them, or burning crosses in yards. It's fairly easy to spot, if only for its focused malignancy. The second kind is similar in theme, yet very different. I'll call it, for lack of a better term, unconscious racism. Here, the person does not seek the destruction or expulsion of the group; he or she just sort of doesn't think about them much. In fact, there isn't much thought at all. This describes most of my immediate ancestors. My grandmother, for example, would talk of "colored" people in a way that meant no harm, but something in the tone suggested she unconsciously judged them by race. There was no desire to actively seek out the race and destroy it; she was just -- well -- for lack of a better word -- naive and ignorant. This does not make it right, but it is an important distinction. Because in terms of Trent Lott, I have never perceived him as consciously, actively racist.
However, I have followed various biographies of him over the years, and heard him talk, and I have always felt comfortable that he fits well in the second category. Not that he uses the word "colored," perhaps -- but there is a certain...well, naivete and ignorance in his words. Case in point: the birthday speech. It seems to me that the words he chose revealed that mindless (rather than mindful) naivete and ignorance often exhibited by those who really haven't given the matter all that much thought. This is not to say he is unintelligent, or evil, or good -- it's just an observation of his person.
Note that this is not observation of his *character*, which, for me, would not come into play unless he was in the first category, that of the conscious, ill-willed racist. It seems to me that this is a man who isn't entirely on the ball about the whole race issue, and revealed his ambiguity (ambivalence? ) through a naive and ignorant choice of words at the wrong time. I do not condone what he said, nor do I praise it.
Ultimately it had absolutely no immediate impact on me. I just watched the clip and thought "Huh. What an unfortunate place to utter such poorly thought-out words. " All that said, to return to my original point -- it seems to me that so much more could be accomplished in this country if both Republicans and Democrats spent less time yammering on with all this ideological parlor talk and intellectual posturing, and focused all that mental energy on applying the broad range of available political philosophies to the immediate, tangible social, economic, and international issues that we as a society, a government, and a country would do well to confront.
There are real problems all around us. Let's butt heads in a dialogue that matters, and work towards solutions that piss off all ideological sides just enough to the point that we're as close to the Truth as we can get. I mean, come on, citizens. Surely we're smarter than this. 
