Keeping Duke away from publicity is
like trying to separate the cast of Keeping
up the with Kardashians from the gaze of a television camera, and so when
Baton Rouge local radio host Jim Engster invited
onto the air last week the guy who makes a living from other people’s
donations, he presented himself present and correct almost as fast as Pres. Barack Obama
walks back promises about red lines, closing detention centers, keeping doctors
you like, etc.
Duke was miffed at Scalise when the
latter had the audacity last month to offer a preemptive apology in case he
might have spoken to members of a group Duke fronted that evinced white
supremacist overtones. Given that the group essentially was unknown to many
Louisiana politicians, that it never publicized in advance his appearance, that
the talk had to do with tax issues, that the organizer of it said the invitation
came from a neighborhood association of his creation (dueling for attention
with a rival organization from which it had broken) and any group members there
had wandered in early, that any organization related to Duke who by this time any
connection to whom was toxic to any politician that would make any of them keep
as far away from this as possible, and Scalise’s own history of personal
comportment and principled politics, it’s certain that anything Scalise had to
do with the group was incidental and accidental.
Nonetheless, so radioactive is Duke
that Scalise, without even remembering the event at first, felt compelled to apologize
for not knowing he may have spoken to some people who may have white
supremacist views, and is accepting sanctions such as having to sit
down and listen to the vacuous policy suggestions of the likes of former
New Orleans Mayor Marc Morial, now heading up the Urban League. All of which provokes
Duke, who basically said that Scalise was nowhere near the man “David” (yes, he
referred to himself in third person in the interview) is and expressed
indignation that Scalise would have said at one point he was Duke without the “baggage.”
Meaning then, of course, that
Scalise then (and now) preached economically conservative politics but continues
to abhor the white supremacist views that Duke had keep under the sheets during
his statewide office runs in the early 1990s but which inevitably came out,
principally because Duke couldn’t help disseminating wacko racist literature
and statements in private. But to Duke, views about conspiracy theories making
Jews the locus of badness in the world, that the Holocaust was trumped up if it
ever happened, and that blacks don’t share virtually all the same genetic
information with whites and/or are so warped intellectually that the two races
cannot share a common culture, seem mainstream enough that it offends him if
somebody implies they are deviant and turn off voters. And therefore to Duke it’s
an insult to apologize for being around, even accidentally and unknowingly, a
group that seeks to enact public policy stemming from these base assumptions.
Thus, Scalise earned from Duke the
epithet “sellout” and threat that he might run against him in 2016, which no
doubt sent waves of fear coursing through Scalise’s veins, being put up against
the wall by a guy who couldn’t win the office of dogcatcher if his life
depended upon it. Yet the real impact of this is it reduces what little heat
Scalise feels over this trumped-up partisan issue, for having Duke disown you
just about exonerates one concerning race issues as much as can be possible.
Nutjobs
out there will continue to try to use the ancient incident as a scarlet R
on Scalise and by imputation Republicans and conservatives, and some even may
believe the whole interview was a put-on with Duke and Scalise even now kicking
back with some cocktails, talking about white broads, and snickering at success
of their damage control efforts (these true believers also choosing to
disbelieve Duke when he said he had no relationship whatsoever with Scalise).
There’s no way to help those kind of people, but for the rest of the world, interestingly
Duke’s cravenness to regain the spotlight briefly should turn out to deliver
the denouement to this manufactured
controversy that at most becomes an obscure footnote in the serious world of
public policy-making.
Nice spin, professor. You rant and rave that it is all fake, that Scalise had no idea he was a talking to a white supremacist group and how it was a Democratic lie. Then, David Duke comes forward and basically says your explanation is a joke, that Scalise was, as he himself said, "David Duke without the baggage" and that Scalise is now being a traitor to his true beliefs. You take that to somehow back up your ridiculous attempt to cover for Scalise and declare the matter closed.
ReplyDelete