Parker: Both Biden and Booker could have put it better

Biden had other ways to illustrate his point. Booker was blatantly trying to score political points.

By Kathleen Parker

The Washington Post

The problem with a lifetime in public service is a lifetime in public service.

Enter Joe Biden, whose list of former offices and distinctions exceeds my word limit, and the recent scandal of his nurturing of working relationships with segregationists Sens. James O. Eastland and Herman Talmadge back in the 1970s.

Unsolicited, Biden proffered this history at a fundraiser last Tuesday to illustrate his record of forging consensus even with those with whom he disagrees, as he presumably would as president of the United States.

“I was in a caucus with James O. Eastland,” Biden said. “He never called me ‘boy,’ he always called me ‘son.’”

Hoo boy, son.

If one wishes to expand comity, one probably shouldn’t attach oneself to a long-dead, die-hard racist who called African Americans “an inferior race.” Surely Biden has worked with others since the ’70s who were less despicable?

And, what’s with bringing up “boy”?

The former vice president is notorious for saying strange things that range from inappropriate to daft to comedic to offensive. In 2007, Biden notoriously referred to Barack Obama as “the first mainstream African American who is articulate and bright and clean.” He’s still in politics because?

A year earlier, Biden had made another cringey remark during a speech in Columbia, South Carolina. In a strained attempt to establish commonality, he remarked that Delaware had also been a “slave state.”

I can’t speak for Delaware, but as a South Carolinian, I can confidently assert that slavery was not our proudest moment. Nor was Jim Crow and its horrific terrorist manifestations. Everyone, including Biden, knows that when a racist white person referred to an adult, black male by calling him “boy,” it was intended to diminish and intimidate. So what made Biden think it was a good idea to invoke that?

Sometimes, there’s just no accounting for what Biden says, or why. The boy-son comment came out of nowhere. We can only chalk it up to Joe-ness: Joe being Joe. Biden watchers could fill a book with malapropisms that have slipped the lips of the widely beloved, nicest guy in Washington.

But no one thinks Biden is a racist or that he ever intends to hurt others’ feelings, in contrast to the current occupant of the White House. Surely even Sen. Cory Booker, D-New Jersey, shares this view, and yet he latched onto Biden’s remarks like a barnacle on a whale, demanding that the former vice president apologize for touting relationships with proud segregationists.

As one of 20 Democratic presidential candidates who aren’t breaking double digits in the polls, Booker surely also saw Biden’s self-inflicted debacle as a way to distinguish himself. It certainly gave Booker ample airtime on cable news shows last week, and it prompted Biden to demand that Booker apologize to him. (The two did chat by phone Wednesday night, but apparently no apologies were exchanged.)

On Thursday, the heat turned up further on Biden after archived correspondence between him and Eastland was reported by The Washington Post. The letters showed that Biden was eager to work with the avowed racist to advance Biden’s 1977 legislative push to block the busing of students to integrate schools.

This sounds terrible in the context of our times. But 40 years ago, busing was a divisive, painful issue. It’s more than possible that the much-younger Biden was responding to contemporaneous concerns, even if it meant drafting the help of the worst kind.

Neither Biden nor Booker emerged from this fracas as the better man. Biden so easily could have said, Look, I picked a lousy example, but I was trying to say that I’ll work with anybody to get results. That I was then working to stop busing wasn’t about segregation for me but about protecting children from upheaval and unknown collateral damage. I’m sorry for that now, but I acted in good faith, as I always do.

Booker, though he may have been personally offended by Biden’s recollection, clearly magnified the long-ago offense and the current comments for political gain. Such transparently opportunistic trolling lacks proportionality, especially when no one thinks that Biden’s intent was to convey approval of segregation or its proponents.

A better tack for Booker would have been to solemnly shake his head in recognition of Biden’s limitations and his out-of-touch foolishness, which, he might mournfully note, is not uncommon among those of a certain age.

Kathleen Parker’s email address is

Talk to us

More in Opinion

Editorial cartoons for Friday, May 29

A sketchy look at the day in the coronavirus pandemic (and politics).… Continue reading

Editorial: State officials’ pay raises poorly timed

Set by a citizen panel a year ago, the raises begin just as the state needs to make deep budget cuts.

Comment: Cooper’s ‘damsel in distress’ act has sorry history

The claim that white women needed protection has been used to justify lynchings and bigoted laws.

Commentary: Twitter struck fair balance between liberty, fact

Twitter did not remove President Trump’s tweet. Its small label informed people how to ‘get the facts.’

State action on dams is good news, but more action needed

In response to the recent editorial (“State gains keener watch of dams… Continue reading

Consultant report arguement against City of Snohomish rezone

The City of Snohomish planning director has released a project update on… Continue reading

Disease screening should be required for imported dogs

More than one million dogs are imported into the U.S. each year… Continue reading

Editorial: If not for yourself, wear face masks for others

Masks aren’t perfect, but studies are showing they can help limit the spread of the coronavirus.

Most Read