Louisiana's Lott: Meet Jeff Crouere
By David C. Bellinger

April 6, 2003 - NEW ORLEANS (apj.us) -- On December 16, 2002, on WTIX 690 AM radio, broadcasting from Metairie, Louisiana, Jeff Crouere -- the former executive director of the Louisiana Republican Party and current radio talk show host of "The Ringside" and co-host of "Breakfast at TIX" on WTIX Radio -- made the following comment in response to a caller expressing a liberal viewpoint concerning the dismal condition of race relations in Louisiana:

"I want to just state my position, just, huh, for the record. I am not for, huh, discrimination against any group of people whether it be, huh, gays, blacks, women. I mean, huh, I am all about freedom. I am all about equal opportunity, I just don't think that government has a role going into businesses, going into schools, mandating quotas, mandating certain types of populations. I was opposed to, huh, forced bussing; I am opposed to forced segregation or forced integration. And I think we got to do a better job of working together as a community, as a nation, as a state and I think there is too much, huh, discrimination right now, there is too much, huh, too many problems between the races; I completely agree with that. And this has brought up a lot of old wounds, but I don't think the government getting involved is the answer in trying to heal them."

WTIX is currently owned by one George Buck, the same person who owned the station when David Duke was permitted to have his own talk radio program in the mid-1990's to spew racial hatred and anti-Semitism. Buck also allowed Keith Rush to have a talk radio program on the same station -- the same Keith Rush who supported and campaigned for David Duke in the 1991 Louisiana governor's race and was a speaker at Duke Fest on July 4, 1991, at the old City Park driving range in New Orleans.

But let us return our attention to Mr. Crouere (who is also a current political analyst for WGNO ABC 26 television in New Orleans).

Against "forced integration," you say?

Was not the purpose of the landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision to eliminate the practice of mandating separate, but (un)equal, accomodations? What you call "forced integration" opened uniform public education to all citizens of all races.

Was not the intent of the 1964 Civil Rights Act to mandate "forced integration" in places of public accommodation and was it not a major turning point in the civil rights movement?

It seems that the conservative mind set does not have an appreciation for the deleterious injuries caused by racial discrimination, which I submit plays a major role in our nation having a massive difference in the unemployment rate between African-Americans -- which increased to 11.5% in December 2002 -- and White -- whose overall unemployment decreased to 5.1% in the same month.

As to the assertion that government shouldn't play a role in combating the dreadful effects of racism: the remarks I have quoted are about as logical and offensive as saying the communities, the states, and the nation, on a voluntary basis, should have opposed the evil forces of Fascism which existed in 1941 and, at the same time, should have been against the government getting involved using the authority of the law to defend the freedom of our nation.

How regrettable it is that the current thinking on conservative talk radio doesn't seem to have any pragmatic solution for those minority Americans who are still attempting to find true social and economic freedom.

If the common conservative philosophy I have quoted of resolving racial inequality would be applied to other wrongdoings -- such as murder, kidnapping, rape, and robbery -- then the local and national law enforcement agencies would have to be abolished and the victims would have an unpractical and ineffective volunteer system of justice.

Real people feel and suffer real pain and real injury which stems from the nation's shameful racial past and, even, from present day bigotry and hatred and to so much as to suggest that there should be no method to legally redress such grievances I believe is simply unthinkable and indefensible.

Frankly, I am frustrated and disgusted that many conservative radio talk show hosts, while enjoying a life of privilege, can, in most cases with complete impunity from their mainly conservative radio audiences, address their concerns regarding racial injustice with worthless discourse compressed in compassionate sounding words and phrases which are lacking even a symbol of sincere and accurate authenticity in the real world that minority people are forced to live and experience each and every day of their lives.

Just as Sen. Trent Lott has expressed his regret saying racism was wrong, Lott cannot separate himself from his past of not recognizing and attempting to resolve the immorality of racial inequality in the same vain that so many conservatives have chosen to address the ills and wretched consequences of racism; that is, offering a remedy that would, in many cases, metaphorically speaking, or perhaps not, leave African-Americans still sitting in the back seat of the bus.

And, as a point of fact -- one Crouere and other conservatives are apparently unaware of -- the U. S. Supreme Court has ruled quotas [Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978)] are unconstitutional (for a political analyst/columnist not to be aware of this fact is unconscionable) and quotas were only invoked in cases involving extreme racial discrimination.

However, when the words "racial quotas" are sent out over the radio airways -- something conservatives enjoy doing quite frequently -- the words, in my opinion, are used for the specific purpose of stoking and inflaming racially controversial disputatious feelings in a disguised and coded message to a listening audience that is brimming with prejudicial racial feelings -- in a spurious and surreptitious manner -- to boost ratings.

What a God awful shame that this is the current state of conservative talk radio in America.