The national consortium of rightists who are quite angry with the Republican Party was made quite angrier yesterday when Trent Lott emerged as minority whip in the United States Senate. Parochial extravagance and concessions to Democrats are believed to have figured in Republican losses nine days ago, and the return to Senatorial prominence of a man who is obeisant (in the words of others) and prodigal (pretty much in his own) was enough to incite threats of another punitive general election two years from now.
Those who criticized the decision demanded answers — why hadn't Republican senators listened to them and done what they wanted, or if senators didn't know, at least asked politely to determine what it was? Possibly because other voices, while not louder, were clearer. Senator Lott's reelection occurred last week, though it wasn't news because the state of Mississippi elected Lott over his opponent two-to-one. And Lott, invulnerable after a lifetime on Capitol Hill, was still one of the lucky Republicans not beaten by Democrats, whose caucus was approved, however slightly, by voters.
Disaffected rightists wanted the implication of the second expression to be an order to rehabilitate. OK, House Republicans are talking about Newt Gingrich again; Senate Republicans have apparently looked at the other party's reward, inferring a political mandate that isn't theirs. Unintended consequence? Yes. Unforeseen? No, disregarded, because there was chastening to be done.
Elsewhere in the upper chamber, Joe Lieberman has yet to sit down on one side of the aisle or the other, and there is a loose end that piques. GOP Joe? The man whom Connecticut sent to Washington is sincere, and before Election Day he said in so many words that his votes would be the same, just with a new designative capital letter. But Lieberman is a politician. As a Democrat at variance he will command value. As a corresponding Republican he would be ordinary, worth very little and, too, at risk from the vindictive right.