One thing I learned from a recent break-up is that love blinds. It always expects the best, even in the face of glaring imperfection.

So when Sen. Trent Lott was attacked for his now-infamous comments at Sen. Strom Thurmond’s retirement party, I rolled my eyes at what I perceived to be another knee-jerk, reverse-racist attack on a respected and feared Republican leader. Later, my eyes were to be opened – both of them.

For those of you who were studying for finals or getting a well-deserved rest, on Dec. 5, Lott publicly said America “wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years” if the rest of the nation had followed Mississippi’s lead in electing Thurmond as president in 1948.

And for those of you who have had too many well-deserved rests since freshman history class, Thurmond left the Democratic Party in the ‘40s to help form the States’ Rights Party, “The Dixiecrats.” Thurmond was nominated to run for president, coming in third in the presidential elections, carrying Mississippi, South Carolina, Louisiana and Alabama with 39 electoral and one million popular votes.

Lott’s comment was assumed to be racist because the impetus of the Dixiecrat Party was its pro-segregation platform. Lott’s comment was met with immediate criticism from columnists and liberal lawmakers. Their cries for his resignation were soon repeated by fellow Republicans and even president Bush.

Lott’s comment, by strict definition, was not racist. Thurmond stood for much more than just segregation (hence the title of the party, or perhaps they would have chose “Segregation Party” as an appropriate moniker).

But the connotation, the inferred meaning, of the statement was one of nostalgia for the segregation policies of the Old South. His words were tainted by incriminating evidence, such as a speech Lott gave at a meeting of the Council of Conservative Citizens, an organization that seems very similar to a mainstream, grassroots movement such as the Christian Coalition, but upon closer observation promotes segregation and white supremacy.

Ironically, it was Lott’s apology that finally incriminated him. He offered a brief, two-sentence apology for his controversial comment. Under increased pressure, Lott resigned from his position as majority leader of the Senate.

So segregation is still alive and well in the minds of our national leaders. That’s the obvious lesson. But there is yet another tragedy in this situation largely ignored: the death of dignity.

If Lott meant nothing pro-segregation by his comment, then he should have defended his statement and listed the other things in which he and Thurmond both advocate, such as lower taxes and less federal bureaucracy.

If his statement was nothing more than a 50-years-too-late slip of the tongue, then he could have said something about changing his ways. At least he could confess that racism is a moral issue to be overcome, one that many people struggle with on a daily basis, and that Senators are not immune to such sin.

And if Lott’s critics are correct, and his statement was indeed a coded message to closet racists across the nation, then he should have stood by his words and issued a point-by-point defense of segregation. Even though I disagree with segregation and share this pipe dream of a color-blind society, I would at least respect Lott’s courage for standing up for an unpopular idea against insurmountable odds.

Now I am left with a double disrespect for the man. Not only does he appear to be a racist, but he’s a wimp!

Lott fueled a popular stereotype – that politicians are spineless, only saying what the people want them to hear. The majority of well-meaning statesmen are guilty by association whenever someone of Lott’s stature caves in to public pressure and refuses to confess his faults.

I have admired Lott since I first became politically aware. His accomplishments in securing the Republican majority in the U.S. Congress over the past decade are laudable. His stands against abortion and socialized medicine impressed my young mind and earned my unwavering allegiance (strange that in this instance he was not so adamant).

However, as much I admire the man, ambiguity on a sensitive issue such as segregation is one flaw I cannot overlook. At least he didn’t lie about it. (Or did he?)

And at least I'm not lying to myself about it.

E-mail Andy Hogue at creton4 [at] yahoo.com