Chattanooga Times editorial page smears Zach Wamp

I never have cared much for the old Chattanooga Times nor its hard-left editorial page, complete with its twice-weekly economic illiteracy from Paul Krugman. Furthermore, it is a partisan Democrat editorial page (that once in a while endorses a liberal Republican to pretend it is bi-partisan), so I hardly am surprised that the editorial writers, Harry Austin and Wes Hasden — both partisan Democrats — don’t like Zach Wamp.

However, on Sept. 10, the Times editorial page truly stepped over the line (which I admit is not hard for someone like Austin) from simple criticism to outright smearing Wamp by likening him to George Wallace and others who sounded the old “states’ rights” line in order to freely engage in racial discrimination against black Americans. To make sure that no one thinks I am exaggerating, here is what the editorial said:

It wouldn’t be a stretch for a politically attuned listener to imagine Mr. Wamp has begun channeling old-style Dixiecrats. His fiery defense of states’ rights recalls strategies of such race-baiting legends as former Alabama Gov. George Wallace, Mississippi Gov. Ross Barnett and South Carolina’s governor and senator Strom Thurmond, who once led the segregationist States Rights Democratic Party as the Dixiecrats’ presidential candidate.

Not that Mr. Wamp is literally rehashing the racist positions of these governors. He is not advocating actions akin to those, say, of former Arkansas Gov. Orval Faubus, whose 1957 challenge of the court-ordered integration of Little Rock’s Central High School caused then-President Eisenhower to send in the 101st Airborne to escort the first black students; or Gov. Wallace, who in 1963 stood on the steps of the University of Alabama’s Foster Auditorium in a grandstand attempt to turn back federal authorities who demanded he step aside to allow the court-ordered desegregation of the university.

But he need not say anything racist to strike the ‘states rights’ chords that still resonate with so many of the older right-wing of his party in the run-up to the GOP primary 11 months from now. It’s enough when he invokes a stiff defense of states’ rights, as he did as his annual political rally-barbecue Monday at former County Commissioner Harold Coker’s farm:

“Part of the reason I’m running for governor is because states are going to need to declare their sovereignty, stick together with other governors to protect freedom in our states, and be willing to meet the federal government at the state line, whether it’s environmental regulations, the speed limit, gun laws, whatever the federal government’s doing that’s onerous.”

In other words, Zach Wamp really is a closet racist using “code words” in order to appeal to Republicans. Now, before I go any farther, I must point out that the old “states rights” crowd in Alabama, Georgia and Mississippi consisted of Democrats. In that day the real election was the Democratic primary, as Republicans were entirely irrelevant.

Furthermore, I do not recall the Times editorialists objecting when Democrats in states that did not politically support President George W. Bush appealed to their own version of “states’ rights.” When the City of San Francisco declared that it would not obey U.S. law on immigration, there were no editorials in the Times equating San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsome with George Wallace.

However, when Wamp runs on a platform of something other than making the State of Tennessee nothing more than an administrative district for the federal government, the newspaper calls him a racist. That’s right, Harry Austin and Wes Hasden, who never could beat Wamp from 1994 to 2008 in Congressional elections — and goodness knows, they tried their hardest — have decided to use the ultimate smear in modern politics: declare that Zach Wamp is little more than a closet Klansman.

Of course, that is not Wamp’s only sin, according to the Times’ editorial. It seems that he had the temerity — the gall — to vote against the Holy “Stimulus.” (I liken the “Stimulus” to someone maxing out his credit cards to fund a big party after he finds out he has lost his job. It was and is utterly irresponsible, no matter what Paul Krugman claims.)

And, yes, after the bill was passed and it was clear that some of the newly printed money was coming to Tennessee, Wamp was able to secure some of it for the Third District, which apparently is a Crime Against Humanity, according to the Times. So, he is damned when he does and damned when he does not, which passes for “fairness and consistency” with that newspaper.

Now, I have had my disagreements with Wamp. I never supported any of the wars of the Bush administration, and I wish he had voted against the final bailout bill last year. The Republicans of 2006 became everything they had stood against when Zach first was elected to Congress in 1994. However, I also think Zach is a decent sort and I believe he would be an effective governor of Tennessee — certainly more effective and more decent than anyone that Austin or Hasden would insist upon running the show in Nashville.

In 1999, the Times praised President Bill Clinton for killing thousands of Serbians in order to permit a Serbian province to secede (and where the residents were conducting an “ethnic cleansing” campaign against Serbians who lived there). As long as a Democratic president was supporting a version of “states’ rights” in a foreign country, the Times was there to be a cheerleader for genocide.

But let Zach Wamp raise issues that are quite real in which Washington is spending recklessly and driving the U.S. economy into the ground (and, thus, following the path set by President Bush), and suddenly he is a racist, a Klansman, a speaker of “code words.” In other words, the editorial writers for the Times were acting true to form in partisan fashion, just as the dogs in Pavlov’s laboratory salivated when the bell rang. It is time that someone called them to account for their reckless and dishonest statements.

—Dr. William Anderson