Symbolic Lynching Resolution Forced Concrete Political Choice

Cochran's spokeswoman, Jenny Manley said the difference was that Native American and Japanese American apologies "were resolutions on behalf of all America," while the anti-lynching apology dealt specifically with past Senate actions, which Cochran felt had nothing to do with him.

I talked to several Republican Senate officials. They told me that their senators merely didn't feel the need to co-sponsor every piece of legislation that came down the pike. Enzi spokesman Coy Knobel said Enzi "in general doesn't co-sponsor bills that don't give specific legislative action or direction to a specific agency."

Cornyn spokesman Don Stewart said, "at this point, it's after the fact." The senator absolutely supports the resolution, though. Stewart said liberal groups and bloggers are going overboard, trying to "make it a political tool. And that's disrespectful to the families" of people who had been the victims of lynching.

Alexander's office sent this statement from the senator, which said he did not co-sponsor the resolution because he is pushing a different measure "condemning lynching, celebrating the accomplishments of African Americans and recommitting the Senate to improving health, education and job opportunities for African Americans and all Americans."

Bennett's office pointed out that although he did not sign on as a co-sponsor, he did sign an oversized copy of the resolution that will be preserved in a traveling photography exhibit about lynching. Crapo, Grassley and Shelby also signed that copy, or expressed their support to Landrieu's office.

The Choice

Really, what reasonable person thinks any of the senators who didn't sign the lynching apology bill actually endorses that morbid practice?

The better question is, by declining to sign on to the resolution, did they practice symbolic politics, just as those who signed it also practiced symbolic politics? The senators who failed to sign the measure prior to its passage -- with the exception of Voinovich -- were either from southern states or states with relatively small African American populations. Only the senators themselves know their true motivations.

The lynching resolution wasn't the kind of policy legislation that cuts taxes or increases funding to a particular project. It was a symbol that different voters interpret differently, and every senator made a choice about which voters he or she wanted to risk alienating with a symbolic message that -- as Howard Dean and Sen. Richard Durbin have learned -- is easy for political enemies to exploit.

Staff writer Sehrish Shaban contributed to this report.