Jesse Helms, American Bigot

Jesse Helms' death on July 4 was read by many as the last gasp of a no longer breed of conservatism--the explicit defense of Jim Crow, the escalation of homophobic rhetoric to murderous levels, the hard-edge of red-baiting imperialism. But Helms was in many ways the epitome of the New Right, and his significance should not be dismissed as merely colorful commentary. I asked my friend, Lisa Duggan, professor of American Studies at NYU, how she'd characterize Helms' legacy. She's at work on a political biography of Helms. Here are her thoughts:

Jesse Helms, American Bigot

by Lisa Duggan

Did he plan it? Did he struggle on life support until after the midnight hour, timing his last breath? Or had he been dead for days, his associates keeping the body on ice for the holiday announcement? Jesse Helms, dead on the 4th of July.

Helms would have appreciated the symbolism, confirming the his own mythic identity as a Proud American, but Helms' other legacy as A Big Fat Bigot is well established. From his racist tirades on the radio and television in North Carolina during the 1950s and 60s, to his vicious homophobic rants of the 1980s and 90s, he left a highly quotable record of hate.

On the civil rights movement: "'Candy' is hardly the word for either the topless swimsuit or the Civil Rights Bill. In our judgment, neither has a place in America--unless we have completely lost our sense of morality."

and

"The Negro cannot count forever on the kind of restraint that's thus far left him free to clog the streets, disrupt traffic, and interfere with other men's rights."

On sexual politics and public health: "The government should spend less money on people with AIDS because they got sick as a result of deliberate, disgusting, revolting conduct."

In death it's easy to dismiss Jesse Helms as a colorful buffoon or a relic of the bad old days of segregation and sexism, but that doesn't do Helms' bigotry justice.

Jesse Helms was an important bigot. He didn't just fume and huff. He used the language of cultural politics--called "morality" or "values" or just "freedom"--to shrink the state, reduce the social wage, enhance the interests of ruthless corporate profit mongering, and promote US military interventions around the world. He's the poster boy for how cultural politics works, not as an arena separated from the "real" political economy, but as the site of the language and emotion through which people live politics and economics everyday.

Helms began his political career in North Carolina as a reporter, with ties to the banking and tobacco industries. As a "newsman" on WRAL radio and television in Raleigh, North Carolina, he didn't just hammer opponents with red baiting accusations like every other demagogue, he laced his commentaries on radio and television with the kind of creative rhetorical jihads against the New Deal and the Civil Rights Movement that later gave the Rovian Republican Party its bad name. But he didn't rest on his laurels as a rhetorician. He ran for Congress, built a record breaking Senate campaign war chest, and went on to become a central architect of the New Right network of corporations, foundations and committees.

Malicious rhetorician and image maker, major fundraiser and creator of the modern big money electoral campaign, networked right wing institution and movement builder–Jesse Helms was so much more than just another bigot. He was a stalwart supporter of anti-union policies, and active in US foreign policy debates. In his career on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he pursued US imperial policies both overt and covert. He supported inequality at home and violence abroad and gave it all the name Morality. He wasn't just that annoying Senator No, tying up the Congress and stalling judicial nominations and all that. He both reflected and shaped, and helped legitimate and enshrine, a metastasizing array of virulent anti-democratic forces in American politics in the post World War II period.

To paraphrase Gore Vidal's obituary for William F.Buckley, RIP JH–in hell.

--Lisa Duggan

Comments (35)

1. It's not just that "All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing", it also requires the evil men. We can celebrate our independence from one of them with the passing of JH.

   Posted by hsuBfools at 07/06/2008 @ 10:56am

2. Jesse Helms was a hell of a good man. For one thing, he was actually a man, unlike today's crop of conservatives. Today it's a women's only club, with some of the women sporting testicles. Jesse was as staunchly conservative as Edward Kennedy is liberal. I respect that breed of certainty and voracity that comes from knowing your mind and having the courage to express it fully. Jesse said a lot of very truthful things, however artless or callous, and without considering the painful thud of contact with liberal minds.

   Posted by Person at 07/06/2008 @ 11:32am

3. To the devil, all bad is good and surely his followers know this.

   Posted by hsuBfools at 07/06/2008 @ 12:02pm

4. lvliberty-Which perverts want rewarded?Anyone who thinks that unions are all Marxist live in a fantasy world.

   Posted by i'm nobody at 07/06/2008 @ 1:12pm

5. lvliberty-What kind of disgusting conduct did people who got AIDS as a result of a blood transfusion engage in?How about those who got it as a result of marital sex?How about rape victims?

   Posted by i'm nobody at 07/06/2008 @ 1:25pm

6. happy-The rescue is in the news,but there isn't much to say about the rescue other than it's good,but not an event that would spawn a discussion.

   Posted by i'm nobody at 07/06/2008 @ 1:39pm

7. Happy-It has nothing to do with the left nor does the right consider it to be a topic of discussion.They just say that it's good,too..You guys seem to be more into doom and gloom than anyone else so I'm not sure what point,if any,that you were trying to make with that.

   Posted by i'm nobody at 07/06/2008 @ 1:56pm

8. happy-Neither of those two are heroes of the American left.

   Posted by i'm nobody at 07/06/2008 @ 1:59pm

9. What ignorant thing that people do does not have at its inception an intimate relationship with bigotry? Be it race, family, friends - those close and afar; to even our very environment as well. The seed of bigotry corrupts everything one could have related to and grown in knowledge through.

   One can easily say that bigotry betrays our whole of humanity and future. The bigger the bigot the bigger their inhumanity. That some liked JH and excuse his petty bigotry, only excuses the fact that he could have done a lot worse.

   Posted by hsuBfools at 07/06/2008 @ 2:26pm

10. reminds me of a white Jeremiah Wright....

    Posted by bleedingheart at 07/06/2008 @ 4:15pm

11. lvliberty-Giving treatment for or paying to combat a disease is not a reward for ones actions nor do you get to decide that sex between consenting adults is perverse or not.A smoker or heavy drinker who dies in a govt. funded hospital is not being rewarded for smoking or drinking.Most deadly diseases can be traced to actions of humans,but that does not mean that you treat such people with less compassion or tell them that they are being rewarded because they are,now,going to die a horrible death from AIDS or cancer.Have you ever heard of a guy named Jesus,by chance?You should read his teachings.Very compassionate guy.Your paranoia about commies is strange.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 07/06/2008 @ 4:27pm

12. lvliberty-I did not use a low percentage example.I mentioned humans who have the disease through no fault of their own.Each human is quite important.You do not know every person who got AIDS through marital sex or blood transfusions and don't know their views on the subject of federal aid.AIDS is not a gay disease nor is it a junkie disease since most who have it are straight and are not IV drug users.The fact that junkies picked the wrong drug does not make them worse than someone who picked alcohol or tobacco.If I was a victim then I would rather that you ignore me than tell me I want a reward for having a deadly disease by wanting it cured anyway it can be cured,including federal funding.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 07/06/2008 @ 5:14pm

13. Since we seem to be talking about federally funded health care, I'll throw my two cents in.

    First, no matter how a person contracted AIDS, chances are once they got sick, they would not be able to get health care without such aid. Private insurers either stop coverage altogether, or make it so expensive that it does no good. Or they stop being able to work and lose their insurance. And now that treatment actually can save lives, without public funding, we sentence these patients to death.

    Second, compassion doesn't hurt anyone. If a person is homosexual or addicted, they are still human, and I for one will not say who does or does not deserve to die. If your child goes out when he shouldn't and breaks his arm, is getting him medical care rewarding bad behavior? Everybody is somebody's child.

    Posted by ramara at 07/06/2008 @ 5:38pm

14. Considering that bigotry's greatest purpose is to keep both the bigot and as much of humanity in ignorance as long as possible, one might easily conclude what ¬>¬'s true intentions ultimately are, if indeed they were ever in serious doubt to anyone.

    And it is indeed a seriously sad fact that of all the infinite possibilities, that in one's free choice to be a bigot-- one must dedicate one's life to bringing to the world just a bit more cruelty than there ever needed to be.

    Ergo, the difficulty with attempting to raise the level of discussion to a higher plateau with a bigot, their intent is always just the opposite.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 07/06/2008 @ 6:17pm

15. lvl... Taking Jesse Helms cue on AIDS..?? sad... Then again, a righteous man like yourself, who likes to 'pretend' to follow the word of god, has to be that way right..?? Do you recall just recently when Obama brought up the old testament and the evangalist freaks on the right went nuts claiming basically the old testament really didnt reflect gods intentions..?? BUT, when it comes to fag bashing it works just fine... What do you hide..?? How do you get your 'Freak on'..?? Tell us what deviant behavior you indulge in, oh righteous one.... Dont pretend you dont have your own lil' dark secrets.... Gay porn..?? lil' boys..?? Animals..?? Come clean... It will feel better...

    Posted by Vvf1969 at 07/06/2008 @ 7:34pm

16. lvLiberty - Have you noticed that the people who are taking most of our constitutional rights are the current administration (alas! with some collusion from the dems, but less than there used to be)? If you can make people afraid enough, you can spy on them,strip as many people as possible of as many rights as you can get away with, and God knows what else. We only know the things that have been leaked.

    The CP is not the same as your basic grassroots New Dealer. We simply believe that there are certain times when some people cannot take care of themselves and the government can step up and provide a safety net.

    Posted by ramara at 07/06/2008 @ 7:50pm

17. From Nichols' thread:

    While I think it is absolutely valid and indeed necessary to critique the racism of an individual, it's also important to remember that that racism is not ALL that composes an individual. The man has just died, and when remembering him I think it's worthwhile to remember the WHOLE person, not simply the aspect of him that was racist. Remember that he also had a family, people who cared about him, saw a loving side of him and no doubt mourn him. Remember that he was a human being.

    I can predict pretty easily what the response to this will be. Someone will say "really, should we then 'pay respects', as it where to Hitler? Or Stalin? Or perhaps Che? Saddam?" Casting aside momentarily the multiple faults in that analogy, and realizing how difficult what I'm defending actually is, I'd have to say...yes. No matter how much someone has done, no matter how far they have fallen, they still deserve to be remembered as human beings, who despite whatever they've done to degrade the dignity of others, still possess a kind of "divine spark." There was, in them, some good even if it lay concealed beneath the many hateful things perpetrated by even these the world's worst dictators. This isn't easy to do, I'm sure; I still have a great deal of trouble with it. But, at the end of the day, how else is "love your enemies" to be understood?

    Posted by Thrawn at 07/05/2008 @ 4:02pm

    Posted by Thrawn at 07/06/2008 @ 8:52pm

18. lvliberty-Jesus was not just compassionate to the repentant and we aren't sure what sins he was referring to except for the ones you commit.Jesus said not to judge and condemn others,but that's your favorite past time.Often in life,people do not reap what they sow.Many of the worst humans have lived long and successful lives and not all gays get AIDS.In fact,lesbians have a very low rate.Is lesbian sex okay?Quite often in life two people can do the same thing,but one dies early from it while the other lives quite long."Reap what you sow" never made sense considering reality.Very few commies are still around.Where in the constitution does it say that states were to fund the curing of diseases?

    Posted by i'm nobody at 07/06/2008 @ 9:04pm

19. lvliberty-Please,show where Jesus said to only be compassionate to people you think are repentant.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 07/06/2008 @ 9:09pm

20. "Liberals and leftists continually want to override and/or ignore the constitution because it "feels" right or good to them."

    I assume, considering the actions of our President, that I am missing a subtle irony.

    Posted by onthehelm at 07/06/2008 @ 9:21pm

21. <i>Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/06/2008 @ 9:07pm </i>

    I don't think this is particularly compelling; I'm sure we could easily compile a number of far-right individuals and organizations who express support for McCain's campaign. Does this indicate that McCain in any way affiliates with those organizations? No, of course not. What it tends to mean is that those individuals and organizations believe that, comparatively speaking, McCain is closer to their position than is Obama, just as a communist party would likely identify more with Obama than it would with McCain.

    <i>Jesus made it clear that sex outside of marriage is a sin seperating you from G-d. He also said that marriage is between a man and a woman.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/06/2008 @ 9:26pm</i>

    Where is this from precisely? There are quotes from PAUL making these claims (which I could engage you on if you'd like to make arguments from them), but I'm not really aware of anything JESUS said to reaffirm this.

    There are two places I could potentially see you drawing from. The first is Jesus' claim that not one iota of the law was removed. I don't think either of us believes that this makes all of Leviticus eternally binding, so then you would have to show why homosexuality stands out relative to all of the guidelines and laws we would consider to be culturally conditioned.

    The second possible line of argument that I see comes from Jesus' reference to Adam and Eve. Ignoring the question of a literal Adam and Eve for the purpose of the discussion (I don't think it's key to this particular dialogue), the problem with using this reference is this: which aspects of the story did Jesus intend to make normative? It's clear enough that he considered divorce to be a bad thing, even if it was (as it sometimes is) a lesser of two evils. It's not, however, clear that there's any other respect in which he says all marriage relationships must model Adam and Eve. I think the lack of anything outside an explicit criticism of divorce would make this passage very difficult to make an argument from.

    Posted by Thrawn at 07/06/2008 @ 11:06pm

22. Thrawn, thanks for pointing something out about how the Bible deals with sin. If any true Christian wants to condemn homosexuals, then I suggest that they go read Leviticus again. They will find that there are a lot of people out there who deserve the same kind of condemnation that they appropriate to homosexuals. There are a lot of things Christians are perfectly fine with today that were strictly forbidden in many Bible passages... tattoos, eating "unclean" animals (whatever that means), sex while menstruating (to each his/her own), um, GREED (anyone keeping track of this anymore?)... pretty much anything we like to do, really. So, why does one get more flak than the rest? Beats me.

    Posted by fufuplatter at 07/07/2008 @ 01:38am

23. Posted by fufuplatter at 07/07/2008 @ 01:38am

    Only two "arguments" against homosexuality in the Bible...

    1. Leviticus...but as you noted, that brings up the problem of "wearing garments of two cloths" and "selling your daughter into slavery" and the DEATH PENALTY for "working on the Sabbath".

    Usually fundies say "Well, of course 'Jesus changed The Law'...but it's a good indication of what God thought about it" or ignore Leviticus.

    2. Paul in "Romans". Problem there is...Paul had "issues" about sex. He wasn't married and actively advised against it, unless you were just too horny and couldn't stay "pure". The man was probably a homosexual himself, neither desiring women (hence his call against marriage and some anti-female things he said) and of course, couldn't (at that time) satiate his real desires, so he suppressed them into religious fervor....and wanted the same of others.

    Posted by Mask at 07/07/2008 @ 08:53am

24. 'In his race relations speech, Barack Obama said he rejected Wright's comments but could no more reject the man himself than he could the entire black community.' -- CNN -- 1 May, 2008

    '…it's easy to dismiss [him] as a colorful buffoon or a relic of the bad old days…' -- Lisa Duggan -- The Nation -- 6 July, 2008

    Posted by HonestLiberal at 07/07/2008 @ 08:58am

25. Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/07/2008 @ 10:06am

    Sure it was. On the other thread you got accused (by me, yes) of calling Obama a "Commie". You denied it.

    Then here you started in with "Okay, he's not a Commie I THINK...BUT all his friends are...his 'mentors' are...and they have 'surely had SOME influence on him'"

    You want it both ways (as usual)....Obama NOT called a Commie (because I accused you of doing that)...but Obama "a fellow traveller" with Commies, because (as I also said) you think anybody to the Left of Chuck Hagel is a "Marxist" and therefore Obama has "a lot of Commie friends...just saying".

    Your b.s. is obvious, LL. Always is.

    Posted by Mask at 07/07/2008 @ 10:34am

26. lvliberty-I responded to your very dishonest post on the Obama Iraq transcript board.Jesus gave no rule that said anything about marriage being between a man and a woman.He was commenting on what existed at the time and marriage then has nothing in common with marriage now.Marriage,at that time,was nothing more than a business transaction where ownership of the woman was transfered from dad to the husband so gay marriage was not possible because Jewish men could not be owned.When did Jesus say that those who reject Him are subject to OT law?What does OT law have to do with righteousness?Saying that slavery is good,but mixing fabrics is a sin does not show righteousness nor does making women property show righteousness.Finding ways for men to get around adultery rules does not show righteousness.Killing women who were raped in a big city does not show righteousness.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 07/07/2008 @ 11:05am

27. ahh, quotes "from Jesus".

    any direct quotes? Taken down at the time Jesus allegedly said them?

    Or is it more likely that those that wrote their particular version of scripture allowed their own ideas/morals/ideals to influence what they thought they might have heard years before? Is it "coincidence" or Gods will that a patriarchal society was at the core of those that constructed the Bible from myriad bits and pieces and that a patriarchal society is what can be found in scripture?

    ---

    at his core Helms was a bigotted ass. He used fear and hatred of any Other to gain political advantage. For a man of Christ to defend him is boggling to my small brain. Then, for that same person to attempt to link communism of the 30's-50's with the "left" in the 21st century is, well...amusing. Especially when the left of the 21st century has beaten the Christian right to many ideas they are now coming around to, enviromental concerns and Larrys very own outlook on race to name 2.

    Once again, reading about Helms, and then reading Larrys response, I am struck at how similar their views can be to those thay claim to fight, The Taliban, Islamo-fascists, Communism.

    Anti-homosexual, anti-union, pro-war and zero regard for clean air and water.

    On a side note, related to this discussion...

    (DID ANY OF YOU HEAR THAT TYSON "HOMOSEXUAL" will be running for the US in the Olympics?-http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/07/tyson_homosexual_an d_other_oly.html )

    <i> The American Family Association obviously didn't foresee the problems that might arise with its strict policy to always replace the word "gay" with "homosexual" on the Web site of its Christian news outlet, OneNewsNow. The group's automated system for changing the forbidden word wound up publishing a story about a world-class sprinter named "Tyson Homosexual" who qualified this week for the Beijing Olympics </i>

    From the altered Associated Press story:

    <i>Tyson Homosexual was a blur in blue, sprinting 100 meters faster than anyone ever has.His time of 9.68 seconds at the U.S. Olympic trials Sunday doesn't count as a world record, because it was run with the help of a too-strong tailwind. Here's what does matter: Homosexual qualified for his first Summer Games team and served notice he's certainly someone to watch in Beijing. . . . "It means a lot to me," the 25-year-old Homosexual said. "I'm glad my body could do it, because now I know I have it in me." </i>

    Posted by crabwalk at 07/07/2008 @ 11:20am

28. lvliberty-In other words-you can't show that Jesus said that one must live by OT law if one rejects Jesus.Please show where I put forth my own interpretation of the OT laws that I mentioned..You gave no historical facts nor did you post any facts.You gave your own interpretation of these things.The problem that you're having is that you know that those laws do not show righteousness and that confuses you so you,simply,avoided discussing them..

    Posted by i'm nobody at 07/07/2008 @ 11:33am

29. "Like most on the left, you look for an extreme and low percentage example and attempt to portray it as representative of the norm."

    Actually, the error in reasoning you point to (it actually has a name--Hasty Generalization) is probably evenly spread across all ideologies. Interestingly, your attempt to paint "most on the Left" as employing this error is itself a good example of the error you decry. Who knew you were such a supreme ironist?

    Posted by BlueSpark at 07/07/2008 @ 12:50pm

30. lvliberty-Still waiting for you to give facts that refute what I said and facts that show that none of the laws that I mentioned exist.Still waiting for you to show where Jesus said that one is bound by OT law if one rejects Jesus.You do the same thing that Frankgrits does and that is to ignore facts that are presented to you in favor of a general statement that you know more than anyone else.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 07/07/2008 @ 12:52pm

31. Wow. LVL . You are stretching on that quote you listed.

    "4 And He answered and said to them, "Have you not read that He who made[a]them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,'[b] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?[c] 6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate." "

    Nowhere does it even mention homosexuals. I think if Jesus meant thou shalt not marry he of the same sex he would have mentioned that. This quote is OBVIOUSLY about divorce not about same sex marriage. You are just taking a quote that is obviously about something else and spinning it for your own needs. You are putting political spin on the speakings of Jesus.......HERETIC, HEATHEN. Only kidding about that last part. But please. Stop trying to put spin on the teachings of Jesus. If he didn't actually say it isn't fair to assume then that he did not mean it. He did not say marriage is only between a man and a woman he is speaking of the process of getting married and the lack of ability to divorce. Find a specific quote where Jesus directly says that marriage is between a man and a woman and not between two people of the same sex.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/07/2008 @ 1:51pm

32. Also, LVL, tell us what the Bible has to do with what public policy should be.

    Posted by BlueSpark at 07/07/2008 @ 2:26pm

33. then attacks others for "name calling" and "exaggerations of his opinions". Posted by Maskbeta at 07/07/2008 @ 2:37pm

    "Exaggerations of his opinions"

    Like calling every one who doesn't agree with him a communist?

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/07/2008 @ 2:42pm

34. or claiming he does not want a theocracy, just a bible influenced public policy.

    Posted by crabwalk at 07/07/2008 @ 5:08pm

35. God bless you Jesse Helms, for showing us what it means to be a christian in America. Your hatred for gays and anyone who wasn't white only made way for someone like Barack Obama to steal the democratic nomination. Your hatred turned good liberals into "white guilt ridden" morons who would support a inexperienced, one term junior senator, slimy Chicago politician into the Democratic nominee. Obama is where he is today because of his race and all the hate that southern conservatives like yourself made us feel empathy for someone like Obama. If it makes you rest in peace more, I put you in the same group with Obama, both of yall are arrogant politicians, only difference one is Black and one is white. Thank you Jesse Helms for giving us Barack Obama, your dead, while the living has to put up with this Kenya born jackass.

    Posted by victex at 07/11/2008 @ 2:18pm