Honesty is a straightforward concept, unless you're engaged in a profession like politics, where the lines between nuance, diplomacy, prudence, misrepresentation and deceit can be exceedingly fine. Still, it is rare to see an individual deny that he said something immediately after he said it, like Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid did during debate over a proposed amendment to a Senate bill, declaring English the "national language" of the United States.

 "This amendment is racist. I think it's directed basically to people who speak Spanish," the Senator said. The Scoreboard concedes that there is nothing unethical about Reid's statement if that's really what he believes. Certainly he has every reason to believe the second part of his statement, for the amendment would have little impact on Americans who speak English as their first language, and if Americans spoke only English, there wouldn't be any need to define the national language. Of course the bill is primarily directed at non-English speakers, the vast majority of whom are Spanish.

That doesn't make the bill "racist," however. The laws against steroid use disproportionately affect athletes, but nobody has suggested that they are motivated by an anti-athlete bias. Laws against rape aren't sexist just because they disproportionate affect men. For Reid to believe his own racist charge, he would have to believe that the motivation behind the bill is animosity toward Spanish speakers (he'd also have to believe that Spanish speakers are only one race, which they are not). Since polls show that a large majority of US Hispanics believe that English ought to be the national language, it's hard to see how he can conclude that anti-Hispanic prejudice is behind the amendment.

Never mind. Though the Scoreboard itself believes that Senator Reid, as is his habit, was engaging in cheap name-calling (which is unethical) as his political weapon of choice in the debate, he'll get the benefit of the doubt for the time being. Where he definitely charged into ethical quicksand, however, was in his response to Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe, who proposed the bill and took understandable offense at the racism charge.

"Even though I feel this amendment is unfair, I don't in any way suggest that Jim Inhofe is a racist," Reid said. "I don't believe that at all. I just believe that this amendment has, to some people, that connotation -- not that he's a racist, but that the amendment is."

So Senator Reid was now claiming that a completely innocent and well-meaning Republican Senator without a racist thought in his head miraculously proposed a racist amendment. Impossible. Racism can only arise from belief and intent. Not hiring a black man for a job is not a racist act. Not hiring a black man for a job because he is black is racist, but someone has to supply the because. That's the one doing the hiring, or the person developing the hiring guidelines. Similarly, for the language amendment to be racist, it must be racist by design. If the designer isn't a racist and has no racist motivation, neither is the amendment.

Of course, the amendment on its face isn't racist. Language is a cornerstone of culture, and every society has a right to define its cultural boundaries, including its language. It can choose not to, of course, but to make cultural choices based on the will of the people is one of the functions of a democratic government. There is also the undeniable fact that English is the national language of the U.S., always has been, and nobody in their right mind anywhere in the world believes otherwise. It would be strange indeed if passing a provision that merely recognizes an existing and uncontroversial feature of American society was regarded as racist. Facts cannot be racist, though some do claim otherwise.

After Inhofe complained, Reid suddenly changed the clear meaning of the words he uttered seconds before. The amendment was "unfair," he said; well, what constitutes unfair is a legitimate basis for debate, but unfair is not a synonym for "racist," and Reid knows it. "Some people" think such an amendment is racist, Reid then said---including you, Senator; you just said so, remember?

So does Senator Reid really think the amendment is racist?

The Scoreboard's answer: nobody should care. A legislator with such little respect for his colleagues, the legislative process, the intelligence of the public and the civility of public discourse doesn't deserve to be taken seriously or to inspire anything but regret that such cynical and unprincipled individuals have influence over national policy. Calling a policy, a bill or a person racist in America is not something one should do without due cause, consideration and conviction. Reid's accusation was irresponsible, and his response to the completely predictable reaction it provoked was dishonest.

What is really disturbing about the episode, however, is that Reid's conduct would not have been out of character for most of the Senator's colleagues from both political parties. And the fact that Harry Reid is the powerful leader of approximately half of them is both a symptom of this sad fact, and a cause of it.