Racism Alive And Well In Southern States (Video)

Obamacare + Obstruction X Threats of Impreachment= Racism

The answer to this equation is often the understood but not spoken reason for much gridlock in our government today. Upon my reference, I came across an article, Yes, The South Really Is Different — And It’s Because Of Race. Personally, race has no geographical boundaries in my view. However, the point is well taken that in the South, racist tactics meet little to no resistance such as in gerrymandering, voter suppression, and the very common racial profiling. 

Republicans Have Attacked Civil Rights Legislation, Implemented Questionable Voter ID Laws, with  Regressive Voting Rights Laws  Under Federal Review.

The list could go on, and the pushback is starting to rear its ugly head. With all the rigor and rhetoric of the past weeks, we heard many dogs whistle words coming from the politicians, pundits and citizens; words like "obstruction, ransom, hostage," and phrases like ‘Domestic Terrorist.” There have been many people who feel the actions of the principles on the right were, in fact, seditious. Well, that is a gray area, but one thing this episode did reveal is that the practice of institutionalizing racism is alive and well in the South.

What is Institutionalize racism?  The Urban Dictionary defines it as, “the process of purposely discriminating against particular groups of people through the use of biased laws or practices.” 

 Even though the main purpose of the last government shutdown may have been Obamacare, the underlying issue to all the obstruction and gridlock that led to the shutdown was in fact the fight over the overall regressive policies and practices of the radically right controlled Republican Party; which really were nothing more than prime examples of institutionalized racism. Obamacare is a racial slur given to name what is, in fact, the Affordable Care Act. Yes, it's true that individuals host their set of racist feelings that are, in fact, indigenous to oneself. However, one would be remiss not to recognize the role that institutional racism has played in American History and American Culture. Racism in this country would not have thrived if not for institutionalized racism.

Examples of Institutionalized Racism

• Slavery In The United States- [No Commentary Needed] Civil War ring a bell?
• Racism In Medicine- In a report posted by Mike LaCon/flickr.com he stated that Racism has influenced U.S. health care in the past and continues to do so today. “The most shameful chapters in American history involve the U.S. government funding studies that allowed poor black men in Alabama to succumb to syphilis or Guatemalan prison inmates, mental health patients and soldiers to be afflicted with the disease and other sexually transmitted infections.”
• Racial profiling- People are profiled every single day in this country based on the way they look. People of Middle Eastern and South Asian descent report being routinely profiled at the nation’s airports. In New York City,  Black and Latino men have been unfairly targeted by that city's  "stop and frisk policy.”
• Voting Rights legislation- With the Supreme Court's affirmation that certain aspects of the Voting Rights were no longer relative, there has been an onslaught of voting legislation ram-rodded through.  The Republicans help state governments to make it harder for minorities to vote and use other mechanisms that  purge the rolls of valid voters,  and limit time and access to vote.
• Church Sunday- Racism and segregation can be witnessed in no finer fashion than on Church Sunday.  Even though there have been more inter-racial Church congregations spring up across the country,  most Churches remain segregated and in fairness,  what seems to be by choice. The United Methodist Church and the Southern Baptist formally apologized for their support of Jim Crow laws and other racist practices in recent years as well. Despite their efforts to diversify, overall church congregations remain mostly segregated up until this day.

With the actions of the Republican Party and the Libertarian and Tea Party, all radical elements

within those parties are freely exercising  institutional racism by using the politics of nullification;  the doctrine which holds that the states, singly or in concert, can defy federal actions by declaring them invalid or just ignoring them Don’t expect to see any real change any time soon. In fact, we are seeing emboldened politicians with gerrymandered “safe zones” using nullification to voice the anti-government passions and hate for Obamacare, a fully legally enacted law. We have seen both overt and covert actions to curtail voting, repeal legislation and in the case of President Obama, delegitimize his presidency. 

There Is A Strong Sectional Stronghold of Institutional Racism In  The South

This reality is an understatement. The force of change brings about fear and suspicion to Southern people. Government is seen as an intrusive force with invasive intentions to do harm to individual and community. However, when you look at all unbiased reports, the Southern States garner the most benefits from the “Big Government,” they so rail on about.

To put this all in perspective, a little history lesson is in order. In practical, these radicalized elements within the Republican party are not  new free radicals, they are old radicals nothing more than the old Dixiecrat. The George Wallace Crowd is a group that housed the KKK and other white supremacists within the then Democratic party. You know, the ones who left the party and the Republican Party had no problem embracing when the Democrats adopted both the New Deal of FDR and later the Civil Rights legislation of 1964, which enacted the Voting Rights Acts of 1965.

All of this culminated in a Southern Strategy which is in full force and unlike anytime in history entirely exposed itself since the election of one Barack Obama, the first person of color to the White House and with a foreign name at that. On her nightly show, Rachel Maddow does an excellent job of explaining how this institutionalize racist mechanism has been used for years in the South and moreover, how they won elections using it.

Now that there has been an unveiling of just how some of these racist tactics can be harmful to the overall common good of our citizens, the people are getting a clear view of how right-wing politics is holding back states like North Carolina and Texas and Florida.

Now that there has been a turn on the lights moment when the American people can clearly see how obstruction, voter suppression, and how institutionalized racism has directly caused a government shutdown and legislative gridlock, and the result has been the Republican Party getting the lowest approval rating ever recorded by any political party ever, we can maybe just possibly effect change in the South one voter at a time.

Domestic Terror: The Deadliest Game!

With the big emphasis being on counterterrorism, since 9/11, what has gone unnoticed  has been the rising number of events amounting to Domestic Terrorism done in the same time frame.
People who commit "acts against the state," and draw their inspiration from U.S. inspired ideologies and movements have killed American citizens and damaged property across the country. The Department of Justice [DOJ] and the FBI do not officially list domestic terrorist organizations but have them listed as a "threats" category.  Crimes in the name of ideologies supporting animal rights, environmental rights, anarchism, white supremacy, anti-government ideas, black separatism, and anti-abortion beliefs were all labeled as " threats to public safety.[See Source]

Domestic Terror Groups Are On The Rise In America.

All too often, we hear in America just how awful Jihadi terrorism is and very little is made of the rising events of domestic terrorism and the horror they invoke as well. What's disheartening, these events are on the rise with no end in sight. In the last decade, there has been a steady increase in hate groups across America. There are your usual players the "Klan", and Neo-Nazis organizations. However, spectacularly where the biggest rise came from was the so-called " Patriot Movement." There have been two-dozen incidents of Domestic Terrorism since 9/11, and there appears to be growth in the anti-government extremist activity according to several watchdog groups. 

A large number of these new-age domestic terrorists use non-traditional tactics, suicide bombings or airplane hijackings, which are old-school to these modern-day terrorists. Needless to say, they have been engaged in vandalism, trespassing, and 'Tax Fraud," for example.  Much like the Jihadists, Domestic Terrorists are Internet savvy and use the source as a base for operations. 

Many domestic terrorists rely on the concept of leaderless resistance. This involves two levels of activity. On an operational level, militant, underground, ideologically motivated cells or individuals engage in illegal activity without any participation in or direction from an organization that maintains traditional leadership positions and membership rosters. On another level, the above-ground public face (the “political wing”) of a domestic terrorist movement may focus on propaganda and the dissemination of ideology—engaging in protected speech[See Source] 

Is terrorism becoming just another form of politics? 

One of the main issues we have in combating domestic terrorism is one of a proper definition. Different federal agencies use different criteria to define or describe Domestic Terrorism. Our research also found no real clear data showing just how many incidents have occurred or how many plots have been foiled. Also, there seems to be poor inter-agency communication regarding intelligence gathering with no set standard in place. This intercommunication goes to the state and local areas as well.  You cannot get a precise, comprehensive, and public answer as to why from the government.

The FBI generally relies on two fundamental sources to define domestic terrorism. First, the Code of Federal Regulations characterizes “terrorism” as including “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.”6 Second, 18 U.S.C. Section 2331(5) more narrowly defines “domestic terrorism” and differentiates it from international terrorism and other criminal activity.7 This definition comes from Section 802 of the USA PATRIOT Act (P.L. 107-52). According to 18 U.S.C. Section 2331(5), domestic terrorism occurs primarily within U.S. territorial jurisdiction, and domestic terrorism involves (A) ... acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; (B) appear to be intended— (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping.... [See Source]

  In fact, the Bureau’s practical, shorthand definition of domestic terrorism is “Americans attacking Americans based on U.S.-based
extremist ideologies.

What is confusing is the term "U.S. based ideologies."  The FBI 's definition seems to be straightforward. However, a closer evaluation of many so-called domestic terrorist organizations reveal they have international roots. In addition, they still have active followings abroad.  There is ambiguity on how these incidents are handled, categorized, and reported.

 Decades Upon Decades of  Endless Struggle. 

As the fight against racism took shape in America, the forces of injustice became brutal. This brutality enacted a heavy toll on " life and limb." This struggle continues to this day. The well-published murders of three civil rights workers in Philadelphia, MS, is but just one of many examples of this brutality.

Since 9/11, there have been more American deaths by Domestic Terrorists than Islamic Extremists. 

Anti-Government sentiment is on the rise and rebellion is in the air. The important thing to remember is that acts of domestic terror are not new to the American culture, but the fact they are on the rise is troubling. What we are seeing is the "Christian Right, Return To Its Racist Past."  

1995--Ex-Military turned Domestic Terrorist Timothy McVeigh= Oklahoma City Bombing

This truck bomb attack by Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols killed 168 people on April 19, 1995, – the deadliest domestic-based terrorist attack in US history and, indeed, the deadliest act of terrorism in U.S. History,  before the September 11, 2001 attacks.  It inspired improvements to United States federal building security.[See Source]

      

1996--Ex- Army Explosive Specialist turned Domestic Terrorist Eric Rudolph= Centennial Olympic Park Bombing

The Centennial Olympic Park bombing was a terrorist bombing on July 27, 1996, in Atlanta, Georgia, United States, during the 1996 Summer Olympics, the first of four committed by Eric Robert Rudolph, former explosives expert for the United States Army. Two people died, and 111 were injured.

There Were Zero Muslims Terror Attacks In U.S., In 2012.

 

Prof. Charles Kurzman
UNC School of Sociology 

“Counter-terrorism policies have involved surveillance — not just of Muslim-Americans, but of all Americans and the fear of terrorism has justified intrusions on American privacy and civil liberties all over the internet and other aspects of our lives. I think the implications here are not just for how we treat a religious minority in the U.S., but also how we treat the rights & liberties of everyone.” [See Source]

 Since the 9/11 terror attacks, 33 Americans have been killed by Islamic Terrorists, during that same time frame, 180,000  people were murdered in America. What is more shocking and more troubling is the 66 Americans killed by " Mass Shootings, " which is twice the number who died at the hands of Islamic Terrorists.

 Right-Wing Extremism Is More Of A Threat To Public Safety Than Al Quaeda. 

Common Sense tells us we must have some system in place to detect those who would do harm to the public safety. Most sensible Americans agree that a fair percentage of our tax revenue should go towards this purpose for the common good. And there have been success stories of foiled attempts.

Terrorist incidents from American Muslims is on the decline for the third straight year. After an uptick in 2009, there were 18 plots in 2011 involving 21 U.S. Muslims. And it’s not just violent plots: Fewer Muslim-Americans are getting indicted for money laundering, material support for terrorism, and lying to investigators. There were 27 people indicted on those terror-support charges in 2010, eight in 2011 and six in 2012. [See Source]

 You would think the conservatives in America would be performing " ring-around-the-roses," however, factions within their party are screaming " Big Brother," at the Obama Administration. With the anti-government fear  being what it is today, there have been many groups to organize and more or less radicalize themselves. Right-Wing Extremists are not just racist and hate groups. they also include the people with the mindset that rejects federal authority. The so-called Tea Party-Patriot Movement is a good example. The data is indisputable. Right-Wing Extremism is fueling Domestic Terrorism in America.

 We The People must demand our government to stop ignoring home-grown terrorist organizations. If protecting someone's personal freedoms to be a domestic terrorist endangers the overall public safety, we must apply the common good and wants to override such injurious activity.  Of course, your right-wing gun nuts are going to scream governmental overreach. In the meantime, some whacked-out ex-military holy warrior is going to get in his mind to go "Save America" and shoot up the foreigner's place of  worship. Case In Point:

Wisconsin Sikh Temple Shooting

Wade Michael Page

On August 5, 2012, Wade Michael Page fatally shot six people and wounded four others in a mass shooting at a Sikh temple in Oak Creek, Wisconsin. Page was an American white supremacist and United States Army veteran from Cudahy, Wisconsin. All of the dead were members of the Sikh faith.[See Source]

You hear this hate garbage all over right-wing radio, and the internet is ablaze with anti-government revolution in the air narratives.  Evidently some people take the message to heart and we have dead people to prove it. 


Domestic Terror, the deadliest game that more and more Americans seem eager to play. Extremism is the fuel that ignites this fire. One study found that most law enforcement personnel equate extremism with terrorism. Bottomline is there is a " lack of uniformity" in the way domestic terrorist activities are litigated in America. By using the term, 'Extremist' allows prosecutors, policymakers, and investigators the mobility to discuss terror-like activity without labeling it as " Terrorism." We will cover just "What Is an Extremist" in our next edition[ Read: Personality Traits Of The Right Wing Extremist]

These Type Groups Are Everywhere!

Is Capitalism A Threat To Democracy?

It is stunning following the Wall Street crash, how there has been no expression from any key player from Wall Street of regret or apology for having brought down the entire economy. Nor is there any sense of shame or embarrassment in their continuance to extract exuberant bonuses for producing nothing for the whole of society. There are even traditional conservatives who hold this view. This writer comes from a traditional conservative background. I grew up in a small community in North Carolina called Rosewood. My family raised me to believe in local control, community responsibility, and community values.

However, over a period, I came to realize there are two different definitions of conservatism in the Untied States. One is about the aforementioned traditional values that my family raised me up to believe. I can honestly say for the most part they brought me up focusing on the positive aspects as opposed to the hate element we see in conservatism of today.

What Are True Conservatives Like Today?

The traditional meaning of conservative is a monarchist. One which advocates monarchical rule.[Source: Dictionary.com] The word originated when the term democracy took root in America. The Conservatives were the ones defending the monarchy and central control.  Tension has developed among Conservatives who believe in  global elitist government and those who believe in local and state control. In many ways based on this "writers" understanding of conservatism, there is reason for concern when you see a concerted effort to centralize control.

The world today is all about globalization. The global economy. Huge corporations are parading as a person. The whole dynamic that we have been introduced to as globalization is a process driven by these companies for their corporate interest. They want to eliminate national boundaries, and reduce the capacity of governments to create regulation that maintain a sense of community interest and national interest in the economy. Companies have consolidated their power to rule the world without any democratic accountability. What is interesting is the counter to this corporate globalization. The behavior of these corporate entities has awakened the American people and restored the desire to return to a time when community values and keeping the local, state, and national economies close to home. There is now a globalization of people power. In my view, within this framework we must learn as a society how to work together collectively regardless of  one's political ideology.

You Cannot Have A Capitalistic Democracy! 

Milton Friedman

In many ways, capitalism and democracy are a contradiction of terms. Think about the Milton Friedman's and Ron Paul's and the whole Libertarian babble about free markets and freedom. At best, their sense of freedom is restrictive. It's not the freedom of the working person to control their lives as they see fit.[See Source]  The Libertarians don't like democracy. The freedom they speak of is the freedom to submit oneself to control by a higher authority.[Free Markets] [See Article] The reason the Libertarians don't like democracy is because they are Capitalist. Libertarianism in the United States is, in fact, an extreme example of what true Libertarianism is not. They are in favor of private  tyranny. The worst kind of tyranny!Tyranny by unaccountable concentrations of wealth. When they [Liberitarians] say we don't want government interference in the markets, they mean it. The type of intervention they want to block is the kind that would permit constraints on the utterly irresponsible behaviors of the super-rich.

Corporations are a prime example of private tyranny.

It's worth bearing in mind how radical in opposition this is to classical liberalism.         

Modern-day Libertarians love to invoke Adam Smith.  But, if you read Adam Smith he said the opposite. Libertarians claim Adam Smith was opposed to any form of government control. This presumption is not valid. Adam Smith was in favor of government regulation as he put it "when it favored the working man." He [Adam Smith] was against interference when it benefited the masters. That is classical liberalism. Libertarianism as called in the United States is a concocted methodology which is a complete contradiction to classical liberalism principles. It is astonishing the amount of people especially young people who are attracted by this complete fabrication by design. They say Adam Smith; they invoke him all the time. He was an icon of his time. Many factions considered Adam Smith a radical in his day. Why? Adam Smith was very much an anti-capitalist. Smith condemned the vile maxim of the masters of mankind. All for ourselves and everyone else could just " fend for themselves." Sound familiar! It was Adam Smith who championed the phase and doctrine called the invisible hand.

What is Meant By The Term " Invisible Hand."

Adam Smith rarely even used the term invisible hand. The term is mentioned once in his signature literary work " The Wealth of Nations." The context is an argument against Neoliberalism. Smith argued that if a company in England invested abroad and imported from abroad it might  be profitable for the business but would be harmful to the people of England. Sound familiar! However, they will have enough of a commitment to their country. [home-bias] That if by a. " invisible hand," they will keep to the less-profitable actions, and England will survive what we now call neoliberal globalization. To summarize, England was at the time an agriculture producing nation. Suppose some landlord accumulates an enormous amount of land. This reality creates a situation where everyone else has to work for the owner. Smith held the position that this would not turnout to badly because the landlord will be motivated by his natural sympathy for other people that he will make sure the essentials of life will be equally distributed. This practice in turn will create an equal distribution of wealth as by some invisible hand.

In Wealth of Nations, in the first couple of pages Smith talks about the butcher and his interest. The baker and his interest and this conflicting interest created what came to be known as a division of labor. However, how many have read a couple hundred pages into the work where Smith bitterly attacks the division of labor. Smith pointed out if you pursue the division of labor people will be directed to actions that they will repeat the same mechanical operation over and over. What this reality does is deskill a person. Smith advocated this would turn people into stupid and ignorant as a human can get. Therefore, in any civilized society the government will have to intervene to protect the will of  " We The People." This view is very different than the one held by Libertarians today. A Capitalistic Democracy would self-destruct and for the most part did during the Bush II administration and after decades of Reagan's trickle-down economic theory which mirrored the invisible hand concept. And, with the current time disparity in the distribution of wealth this hand has surely been invisible.

Reagan's Trickle Down Was A Prime Example of the Invisible Hand Debacle!

Why Understanding The John Birch Society Is Important

Order Here

What is the John Birch Society? Founded, in Indianapolis, IN in 1958, it was chartered under the general laws of Massachusetts. The society presented itself as a non-profit educational organization. The John Birch Society made no bones about who they were, and their sense of entitlement to the American way of life. They were the molders and shapers of public morality. Some early declarations made by the JBS were false. The JBS was inclusionary to all races. Not true. They insisted their membership reflected the cross-section of America on all social and economic levels. Not true. The JBS marched around proclaiming themselves an individualist. However, the JBS never minced words when it came to the common thread of. " defeating communism."

"I knew how much my father hated John Kennedy, and Kennedy was not the first or last Communist my father hated. With the help of his arch-right-wing friends, in and out of the JBS.  Dad could recite a list of " dirty Reds." [Wrapped In The Flag Author, Claire Conner]

 In a nutshell, the John Birch Society over the years till this present day has been the leader of the anti-federal government movement. They are the faction that all modern-day factions aspire to. They were clear and upfront about their desire to control public morality. [See Article]

Less Government---More Responsibility---A Better World 

The JBS set the organization up as a vocal grass-roots stopgap against the spread of Communism. When Sen. Joe McCarthy went on his famous political witchhunt, in the 1950s. McCarthy became an instant superstar with the now growing JBS. When McCarthy announced, he was naming names about 200 total who were all commies he [McCarthy] became JBS hero. The JBS wanted it known they were taking the lead on the fight against Communism. The JBS proclaim themselves the protectors of western-civilization.

         
The JBS was the most useful, best-funded largest radical right-wing group in the history of America. The JBS was not the first radical right-wing organization and has not been the last. However; the JBS did something no other such group had ever done before which involved a coordinated effort to get all of its members doing the same thing at the same time. The JBS got a populist political activism organization started and organized by mail-order for lack of term. The JBS has a top-down authoritarian approach. Robert Welsh, the founder of the John Birch Society, always proclaimed that the JBS is monolithic. He often boosted there will be " no democracy here."

   So, let put Welsh's comment into perspective. A political faction claiming to be both the defender and avenger of our democratic way of life will have none of it within their organization. This element begs the question; what type of government would these people run?  In digging to find the answer to the question, our research ran dead into the question now slogan. " we are a republic, not a democracy." Is this mindset not the rallying cry for many Americans today. What is very interesting is this political philosophy question is the very one many people have said turns on the light switch that these people may have it wrong.

Why Understanding The John Birch Society Is Important?

Right now, the question of voter turnout and the rights of people to vote have been- challenged across the country. We have seen right-wing radical groups that have infiltrated every level of local-state, and federal government, control legislation and legislative bodies as well. The JBS from its inception has proclaimed everyone does not have the right to vote. 

For example, the JBS advocated the repeal of the 17th amendment.

The JBS believed there was a secret communist around every corner and in every facet of government. At the time, the 1950's there was a very real fear of communism and the spreading thereof. This fear was used by the JBS to make everyone afraid of the Reds. McCarthy started naming names. Do we see a return to McCarthyism in the Republican Party today? The JBS felt that 70% of the Federal Government had to go. So, what does that mean what would have to be cut and in what order?

• Social Security, right off the bat.
• Unemployment Benefits
• Welfare Programs 
• Public Education

 This hatred of the Federal Government would put cuts on many less-publicized departments of government as well. Like, Dept of Highways, the JBS were against the repeal of the " Jim Crow," laws in the South. The JBS held a position that the government had no place in the enactment of civil rights laws. With the JBS, any thought of government regulation goes ' down the drain.' The overall rallying cry of the Bircher is the Federal Government is evil. The JBS solution was the dismantling or privatization of the Federal government. We are seeing these solutions being implemented in many states across the country. We have seen a move to privatize prisons and education. Most of this radical legislation has passed in bright red legislatures. Public funds being diverted from public schools to charter schools has turned into a disaster.

There are myriad of reasons why we should understand the mindset of the radical- right-wing and the crazy proposals they put forth. I think an insider's view of this subject matter is invaluable. From Wrapped In The Flag, Author: Claire Conner.

 

In closing, it is important [in this writer's view] to be aware of the motives of these rogue elements of our political sphere. There is a connection between people who are " Birch minded," and the Dominionist. They both quest to dominate or lord their mortality over us to the point of censorship and unconstitutional laws being passed. That why it's important to understand the John Birch Society.

Guess What? Republican Tax Cuts Don't Work, And The Only Thing That Trickles Down Is Deficits!

Guess What? Republican tax cuts don't work, and the only thing that trickles down is deficits. In the 2010 mid-term elections, the Republican Party had a field day. Due to lack of involvement the Democratic Party took the election off and will pay dividends for years because of it. Not only has it allowed for stalemate in our national and state-wide governance it has created a helpless state of gerrymandered safe-zones for Republicans.

It was about this time last year, when the GOP was ranting and raving about the unemployment, the ill effects of Obamacare, and how it was ruining our economy. And, of course, the deficit. Quite frankly, with a politically uneducated American electorate the GOP was salivating with talking points for the now nearing 2014 mid-term elections. What a difference a couple of good financial reports, in the last several months has had on erasing those aforementioned talking points. See, time is a revealer of the truth. As reported earlier this month, in a historically right-wing financial Bible for lack of term, "Forbes," it was indicated that, in fact, Obama has out-performed Reagan on jobs, growth, 

investing and the deficits. 

There is an example after example of how Republican ideology fails not just in the social arena but in the financial realm as well. Cases in point. In 2010, Kansas voted Republican Sam Brownback as its governor. He got right to work cutting taxes. One of the biggest realities that the Republican Party and its adherents tend to overlook is that when you cut taxes-"taxes get cut." Subsequently, revenue could not keep up with expenses that will create a shortfall of about $900 million by fiscal year 2019. [Source: Bloomberg Business Week] This action by the so-called Tea Party favorite Brownback got the states credit rating downgraded by Moody's Investment Services which stated it was the states tax plan that was the main reason for the downgrade.[Source: Washington Post] 

In 2010, a Republican Governor took over in the state of New Jersey. Chris Christie. You know the one-time Republican front-runner for president before." Bridgegate."[See Article] One of the first things Christie did once in office was to cut taxes. Once again, seemly shocked to realize that by cutting taxes you cut revenue the state had a whopping $807 million revenue shortfall which added yet another self-imposed misery on the  wonder-boy of the Republicans.[Source: NJ.Com] 

What is apparent to this writer is this is a trend. These are not isolated occurrences. In 2010, North Carolina elected Republican Pat McCory to be governor of that state. In step, with his republican ideology he gives the wealthy a tax cut which in turn blows up the state's budget. These tax cuts created a deficit to the tune of $445 million. [Source: WRAL.com] Once again, its like a reoccurring nightmare that will not go away. Tax cuts wreck economies, slowdown growth, and wipe-out job creation. In fact, as I reported back last year in a Liberal America article  the good Governor raised taxes on the poor and middle-class to attempt to soften the blow, which in practice gave many of the very people who voted for him in that state a tax hike.[See Article] What were the reasons for these failures? According, to these governors, it was Obama's fault. Right, blame it on the black guy. 

While these Republican Governors were busy blaming Obama for their failures, a report was released on a budget that Obama was the overseer of " The Federal Budget." which indicated a 107 billion dollar surplus.

“Compared to the size of the economy, the deficit in 2013 is much lower than in 2009, when Obama took office. The deficit will be 5.3 percent of gross domestic product this year, nearly half the 10.1 percent of GDP in 2009.” [Source: Forbes]

 Republican's, Have Tried To Focus Their Media Echo Chambers On False Scandals To Avoid The Reality Of Falling Deficits Under The Obama Administration. 

Deficits Have Lowered At A Historic Rate Under President Obama's Term.

Republicans have purposely ignored these historic reductions in our nations deficit under Obama. Over the course, of the last two years and the entire Obama term Washington has been eaten up with fake scandals and left field conspiracy theories. To be honest, it would be hard for the most dedicated political study to keep up with them all much-less a causal follower of politics. While the Republican Party was blowing our tax dollars trying to repeal Obamacare a law that the majority of Americans are in favor of and voted for in the last two elections. Is it not clear that the Republicans are suffering from a new form of political dysfunction called the ' Deficit Attention Disorder." In English,what this means is that the GOP does not want to face the music that the deficits are falling at a historic rate under Obama. This drop has been unexpected. And, the truth is it has caught the Republicans off-guard. One of their most relied talking points for the 2014 mid-terms has evaporated. In a Washington Post report, the Congressional Budget Office[CBO] claims the deficit problem has been solved for the next 10 years.  

The conundrum for the Tea Party, Republican Party, and Libertarian's is their mantra of public discourse, they're tried and true rallying cry, of how liberal and progressive policies,  are unsound  has been discredited by facts and empirical data. It's as if the. "carpet has been jerked from underneath their feet." All we have heard from the right from politicians like Sen. Paul Ryan (R-WI) is how Obama refuses to do anything about the debt crisis. A picture of the egg in the face comes to this writer's mind. Where are the Republicans celebrations? Where are the front page headlines? Where is Fox News telling us what a great day it is to be an American. Any logical person would think this economic upturn would draw praise from the right. But, the realities of this polarized world we live in comes into focus. All we have heard from the right is Benghazi-Benghazi-Benghazi.

As a writer, my goal is to make one think and ask questions. What were Republicans doing when all this good news about our nations economy hit? Trying to repeal Obamacare for the umpteen thousand time at a dastardly cost  of millions to We The People. We The People voted overwhelmingly for Obamacare, and to see it start to pay dividends and be a positive influence on these very deficit reductions brings the ole ' please pass the jelly," commercial to mind.

What is Obamacare?

One of the biggest determinants to our debt as a nation has been health care. With the implementation of Obamcare between 2009 and 2011, total health care spending grew at the slowest rate in the last five decades, at just 3.9 percent per year.[Source; New York Times]  Health care cost are coming down which was one of the goals of Obamacare. Where is the " that a boy,'" from the Republicans? As a student of politics all my life, this writer has insights on this question. When politicians in Washington are talking about deficits, in fact, they are not. Truth is republicans don't care about the deficit and haven't for a long time especially since Reagan. The reason the republicans are not lauding the president for lowering the deficit is that they don't care.

There Has Been One Person In Washington For Sure Who Cares About Deficits And He Now Has The Stats To Back It Up. 

What the Republican Party has done for decades now is use the deficit as a cloaking issue. As the House of Public Discourse reported just last month, the Republican Party relies heavily on  poor, uneducated white people for votes. They use this issue to get the base all riled up knowing that most of their constituents don't know or care that they the Republicans have been the biggest villains in terms of driving up our nations debt. George Bush, Jr ring a bell. If not, do a Google search on the growth of our nations debt under Reagan. What the Republican Party is sayings is they want to cut spending on social safety net programs and  first-step help initiatives to compensate for their giving the wealthiest members of our society tax cuts. These are the very tax cuts that have driven downgrades and revenue short- falls in mostly red states.

What is paramount in the now, is that the Republican Party once thought to be a shoe-in to take back the Senate and House and pick up more Governor seats is in serious jeopardy. With these vanishing talking points, the only real hope for  Republican's is a low voter turnout like in 2010. Many are predicting that to be the case. As a liberal progressive writer, I harken back to the ole baseball saying " say it isn't so, Joe." We will see if these predictors hold true. But, this writer is an optimist and Guess what? Republican tax cuts don't work, and the only thing that trickles down is deficits.

     

Party Identification Has Become The Lens Most People See Through.

Huffington Post Image

According to Wikipedia, Party Identification refers to the political party with which an individual identifies. Party Identification is typically determined by the political party that an individual most commonly supports (by voting or other means). Studies have shown that most people consider themselves independent- minded people. As a child growing up I remember hearing grown-ups always saying "I vote for the person, not a party." I remember them saying this with such a sense of pride. In addition, I remember thinking how civic minded these persons were.

I remember thinking to myself how thoughtful and intelligent these people were to hold such an open-minded attitude. Even, as a small child, I remember thinking how ignorant it was to just blindly support a political position or candidate based on party affiliation alone. However, the reality is a little different now in my adulthood. First, it's a fact, most people vote on the basis of their party identification. We may hear people in the morning coffee houses claiming they are weighing all the issues and candidates but when it comes time to vote they do so with a political party they most identify.

Party Identification Has Become The Lens Most People See Through. 

The truth in modern day politics is that most people have a political party which they identify. Even more, but, not always, people have the same party identification as their parents. Second, in general, its people with strong party identification who tend to be better informed and better educated. These factoids have a number of implications. What they reveal to us is that voting and party identification are far more complex than we realize.

Today, when you ask someone, what party they support, you can pretty much guess who they are voting for and be right most of the time. When trying to ascertain a person's party identification, I would simply ask what political party do your parents support. Studies have shown that most people form their political views early in life and remain stable over time so for lack of term it's pretty fair to say most people are " born into it." Now, this writer is not one to generalize anything, however, in general 7 out of ten people identify with the political party of their parents. In some regions of the country, it has been shown to be almost 4 out of 5.

Gallup

It is very unusual for a person to switch their party identification in America today. Also, it is rare that in the political climate of today that people vote for a candidate that is not affiliated with the party they have supported all their life. In the 1940's and the 1950's political scientist started doing research on voting. The purpose of these studies was to see what affects campaigning had on voters. The basic mindset going in was that political campaigns would have the same effect on people as advertising. However, what they found surprised them. As it turned out, the campaigning had little to no effect on most people. Furthermore, there was something else that surprised them. It was the better educated and informed voter that was least affected by the campaign. It is these type people who overwhelmingly vote for their party identification. Voters who were most effected by campaigns and changed their votes were less educated and less informed.[See Article: Why Do Poor Uneducated White People Vote Republican.]  What was even more shocking, is that many of these less educated and inform voters did not even realize that the candidates they were supporting  had contrasting positions. These findings were quite disturbing. These finding raised serious questions about Democratic government.

.

     

    

These early studies changed the way academia thought about voters and voting. For example, it came to be that the mindset was you don't win elections by changing people's minds. You win elections by mobilizing your core supporters or base. The problem is roughly 40% of the electorate are Democrats and 40% are Republicans that leaves 20% more or less Independent. Bear in mind these numbers deal with people who take part in the process. These numbers create a dilemma. While it is imperative that political parties mobilize their base. In turn, they must attract these Independent or swing voters without alienating their core supporters.
 

  With such a wide spectrum of voter mindsets in modern day politics, the general rule of thumb has been to hug the middle. You want to be moderate enough to appeal to Independents without losing your core supporters. Normally, voters at the Republican end of the line will be conservative and at the Democrats end of the line liberal. The moderate voters are in the middle. This reality in the past has kept both parties platforms moderate. James Madison Federalist papers,  part of the narrative was how the extended republic solves the problems of factions. The American voter has created a paradox. We want our political parties to stand for something, but; we want them to corporate with one another. We want our political parties to work together in the public interest. However, there is an important exception that makes it really hard to generalize party identification.

The South       

In the South, we don't have the above mentioned spectrum of voters. In the south, moderate voters are few and far between, in the south, studies and surveys have clearly shown that the swing voters are highly conservative. Why? It only makes sense if we look at it historically. In my last article, Why Do Poor Uneducated White People Vote Republican, we covered the transformation of the south regarding politics. By and large southerners did not start voting for Republicans until the late 1960's. Back in the 1960's there was a very conservative faction within the Democratic party that left the party over the Civil Rights Acts. It was not until the early 1980's with the emergence of Ronald Reagan did we see a wholesale change of party identification from Democrat to Republican in the south. The term Reagan Democrat  was born.

Ronald Reagan

This transformation was largely due to an influx of northerners who started leaving the north and moving south. So, let's make no bones about it, in the south, in the 1980's and 1990's, swing voters were more conservative in mindset than moderate. Most racist conservative southern Democrats who for the longest time could not stomach calling themselves Republican because of it being the party of Lincoln finally started switching their voter affiliations. However, even in the south, with this new dynamic neither party has a majority in the region. So, to put together a majority and win elections in the south both parties have to appeal to these swing voters which puts the Democrats at a huge disadvantage. As we have seen, this disadvantage has translated to the south becoming almost entirely red states.

The Republicans can easily pick up the swing voters in the south without upsetting its core supporters. This fact is not the case for the Democrats. The Democrats face an uphill battle to win back swing voters in the south. So, starting in the 1980's there has been a complete take over by the Republicans in the south. One of the awful side-effects of these changing dynamics is partisanship.






Partisanship has undermined the aforementioned theory by James Madison and created an environment of factions and the quest of the political parties to appeal to the moderates. Bi-partisanship has been thrown overboard in today's political arena. The whole game plan of the Republican party has been to champion issues that make their base " foam at the mouth." Knowing there could be no compromise from the Democrats that puts not only the political parties at odds, but the American people as well. Issues like abortion, same-sex-marriage, social safety net programs, wedge issues. This divisive formula has led to a deep polarization in America today. What this all boils down to is the Republicans feel they can play to their base supporters and win in the south that will create political safe zones and allow them to gridlock and obstruct the nation on mass. We have seen this work quite well for them but, however, there is a change happening in the south.

    What is becoming clearer. By the day, is that this devilish political strategy by the Republicans that assumes winning over the base is enough to ensure victory could be put to the test by the changing population demographics in the south. As a writer and everyday person I have a few self-contained truism that I hold dear. Of those, my most valued is "that nothing in life is permanent except change." There are several changes going on now in the south. Minorities are starting to take part in the political process. It's a real simple equation. High voter turnout spells victory for the liberals and defeat for the conservatives. What we are seeing is all these divisive issues that the Republicans have been shoving down our throats is starting to backfire on them. Pushing all these wedge issues, and their lack of compromise and partisanship has backed them into a collective corner with no way out. The Republicans complete obstruction of the overall general welfare of the American people is soon to render a serious recompense. In addition, to these changing demographics we are seeing a new age voter today. We are seeing more younger voters abandon the politics of mom and dad and form their views. We are seeing the alienation of woman, veterans, and the elderly. All of this has put a strain on many of those southern swing voters who are sick of the partisanship.

Independent Voters In The South Are Changing! 

We can distinguish two types of Independent voters. One group of Independent voters can accurately be described as 'weak party voters,' meaning, voters who tend to lean to one party or the other, but; describe themselves as independent voters. These type voters tend to proclaim their independent mindsets but normally vote for the same party year after year. The other group, the true independent voter don't show a preference for one party over the other. These voters fit the pattern that was revealed about the mentioned voter studies back in the 1940's. These voters still tend to be poorly informed and lack any real passion for politics in general. These voters tend to be of the mindset their vote doesn't matter and that all politicians and the parties they represent are corrupt. The bottom-line with this type voter is they tend not to vote

However, these trends are slowly changing [in this writers view] and the election of Barack Obama is my proof. With the election of America's first person of color to the White House, we saw in 2008 how a candidate based campaign as opposed to a party based campaign could ignite the sleeping giant. These truly independent voters engaged themselves in the process. Both in 2008, and 2012 we saw record numbers of new voters enter into the voting process. With this renewed awaking, we have seen the Republican Party combat this by implementing regressive voting suppression measures in their political safe zones. We have seen political obstruction to the point some claim hinges on sedition. We have seen the use of institutional racism used to enrage less educated poor white people to call for the impeachment of Obama based on trumped up bogus scandal accusations.
[See Article: Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi, Enough Already!] 

It has become clear that one of the fundamental flaws in conservative thinking is manifesting itself. The inability to adapt to change or accept it. As previously stated, this writer shouts from the mountaintops that the only thing permanent in life is change! Cause of this reality, the Republican Party has been labeled by many as " the party of no."

What Does All This Mean, Now? 

Partisan politics has caused an eyesore on American's system of politics. Which in turn has led to more true independent voters which have weakened the element of Party Identification. This partisanship has led many political scientist to conclude that the mass electorate party that we have known is just about over. This factor means that political parties are going to become less relative. In a way, it brings the development of political parties back full circle. What this means could actually be a positive for We The People. This development forces  political office seekers to connect with the electorate not based on party platforms but the special needs and concerns of the citizenry. There has become a growing awareness in the mass electorate of how big-money corporations and factions have put American government up for sale. There are major grassroots movements to end corporate person-hood and money equals free-speech. Yes, Party Identification has become the lens most people see through, regarding politics.  And more people are starting to realize that it just might be the cause for much of the partisanship and dysfunction We The People have languished through in recent times.

Written By: Johnny Hill

       

   

Why Do Poor Uneducated White People Vote Republican?

According to a recent article by Quite Mike.org Republicans like to claim they are all about liberty. Then, they support the recent SCOTUS decision where five conservative appointed judges took responsibility away from citizens and placed it in the hands of the corporation.  Their politicians lie to get our country into war about these nonexistent weapons of mass destruction, and now are trying to blame the current situation in Iraq on Obama. The Republicans advocate cutting food stamps, unemployment, education, and healthcare, while cutting taxes for the wealthy. The GOP has a long history of demonizing poor people. The relatively new Tea Party crowd and their pals the libertarians have been on record with "go fend for yourself," type attitudes towards the poor. [See Article; Why Poor People Vote For Republicans]

If You're Poor, You're Just Lazy.

However, the Republicans garner much of the poor white uneducated votes, why do poor uneducated white people vote Republican? Yes, there are the gerrymandered districts and the voter suppression which have been exhaustive not only in the present but historically as well.

Paul Weyrich has often been labeled as one of the founding fathers of the modern conservative movement.

        

In this writers view, just as I reported back last year for Liberal America, racism is alive and well in the southern states. What is even more striking we have seen where this behavior by the uneducated low-income white voter has actually worked against their best interest and is generally the norm. This reality is what makes this whole topic puzzling. For example, white voters in North Carolina have loaded up the statehouse with one of the most radical right-wing factions of government in the country. What did they get in return? A tax increase. This political reality did not spring up over night. What we are seeing is the aggravated side-effects of the decade's long now southern strategy.

Lee Atwater

What is the Southern Strategy?

  In American politics, the Southern strategy refers to a Republican Party strategy of gaining political support for certain candidates in the Southern United States by appealing to racism against African Americans.[Source: Wikipedia] Lee Atwater has been credited with being the founder of this political tactic. 

Let's not pull any punches here the southern strategies main purpose was to transform the south from blue states to red states by invoking the reality of institutional racism. This transformation is one of the most significant in American history. It is also one of the main factors that make modern politics what it is today. However, this transformation is a mystery to most people. People did not just wake up one day and start voting for Republicans in the south. There had to be a plan.



Changing demographics played a role in this strategy. With most industrialization and factories locating in the northern states many black families left the south to relocate in the north. All the while, the white middle-class was growing in the south. With this migration of blacks to the north many whites in northern states migrated down south. This migration lowered the black population in the south and increased the white population. This change in demographics alone set the table for a racist political strategy to take root.

 However, many of the whites that moved from the north were of a different mindset of the traditional southerner. Around this time, late 60's early 70's, the economics of the south improved and this change in demographics and economy gave the south much more power politically than it had before this transformation. These new southern implants from the north were not as preoccupied with the racial issues as the traditional southerner. The Civil War was not an issue for these new southern citizens. These northern implants to the south were a different brand of Republican. More moderate and centered politically than the far-right and radical southern Republicans. However, they were agreeable to the issues of lower taxes, individual freedoms, and less government regulation. So, this new dynamic created a different electorate in the south. This change in the south open eyebrows with the Republican Party elites and gave rise to opportunity for a minority party to garner a foothold in this region of the country.

In addition, with these changing demographics non-traditional type industry started locating in the south. Industries like communications, high-tech fields, like the Research Triangle in North Carolina. With these changes came more urbanization in the south. Cities like Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, experienced phenomenal growth. All of these factors changed the political landscape in the south.

The Rise Of The Southern Middle Class In The South.

This change in demographics coupled with these new industries caused a huge rise in the middle class at this time. In the past, the south was mainly textile mills, basic factory type companies and farming. Traditionally, the south was largely made up of poor people. This change brought about different expectations from government. The voters demanded low taxes, a stable business environment, but, unlike the traditional southern voter they did not want government to go to sleep. Also, there were other changes other than these social and economic issues on the political front.

The African-America Civil Rights Movement.   

 The most dramatic change on the political front was the push by the national Democratic Party for the rights of African-American citizens. Prior to this movement, the Democratic Party had not been particularly favorable of civil rights for blacks. For example, Franklin Roosevelt [FDR] failed to endorse anti-lynching legislation. FDR did not support this legislation in fear that he would antagonize the southern members of the house and senate and not past other legislation he deemed more important. Starting in the late 40's the Democratic Party began to adopt civil rights legislation. President Truman integrated the military after World War II. The very first time civil rights legislation became a part of any political party's platform was by the Democrats in 1948. This eventually led to the enactment of the Civil Rights Act in the 1960's. So, the Democratic Party association with civil-rights was gradual. All this started in the 1940's but was largely interrupted in the 1950's when there was a Republican president and SCOTUS handed down the Brown v.Board of Education case. So, when the schools in the south began to integrate in the 1950's and all the civil unrest that sprang up from it the Republican president was blamed by the angry white bigots in the region. Case in point, Little Rock Arkansas.    

        

To the traditional white's from the south, these changes represented to them the old horror stories of the  Reconstruction Era passed down through the generation from relatives. The sending of the national guard troops was a nightmare come true for the southerners.

So, it was the Republican Party who bore the wrath of the angry white male in the late 1950's. However, in the 1960's this changed. With the changing of the political guard in Washington with John Kennedy and later Lyndon Johnson making a public commitment and contract with the American people on civil rights there was no turning back. While many presidential historians don't give president Johnson high marks on being a principled politician it is without question his efforts are the main reason we have civil rights for all minorities in this country today. It was Johnson who championed the coalitions. He [Johnson] was fully aware that this would spell doom for the Democratic Party in the South. And yet, he went forward with it anyway, because he thought it was the right thing to do. This change and political posturing in the 1940's and in the 1960's created a real crisis for the party in the south. Many southern Democrats became angry with the party over this legislation. One of the common quotes bandied about in those days ' we did not leave the party, the party left us,' represented the mindset on many southern Democrats of the times. Basically, the attitude was that their Democratic Party they knew and loved had changed. In response to this, the hierarchy in the Republican Party saw an opportunity. In fairness, unlike the Republican Party of today, moderation was the order in the party and Eisenhower sending in troops to restore order in the late 1950's is a great example.

The changing times of the political south.

With this new development, and the emergence of the racist Dixiecrat wing of the Democrat Party being shunned there were many in the Republican Party who felt that moderation should step aside to a more right-wing conservative approach. The Dixiecrat's represented a huge block of votes that the Republican elites needed to implement their less government regulation and lower taxes mantra. With these dynamics taking place in the south the Republicans were salivating for these new voters. In 1964, the Republicans nominated Barry Goldwater who was considered a right-wing conservative at the dismay of the more moderate wing of the party. Their fears seemed to be realized as Goldwater went down in defeat. After his defeat, the party began to focus more and more on social issues and religious issues and by the time the 1968 elections rolled around the Republicans had a plan which really represents the early stages of what became known as the southern strategy. The Nixon campaign walked a fine line trying not to be overtly racist, but, his campaign did use soft-celled language that sent a message to southern voters if you are not happy with the civil rights laws we are your solution.

The Wedge Issues.

Issues like forced busing, which drove a wedge between some traditional southern Democrats and the Democratic Party which allowed opportunities for the Republican Party to capitalize on. The Republican Party used the term it was not overtly racist but functioned as a code to insight the racist whites of the south. Affirmative Action was also a wedge issues in the Untied States at this time. It was used effectively by the Republicans to weaken the southern Democratic coalition. In practice, using this drove a wedge between blacks and Jews. Jews up to this point had been sympathetic to civil rights legislation. However, affirmative action reminded many Jews of the days of quotas and created a division of viewpoints within the Jewish community. For the Jew, quotas meant only a certain number could take place in jobs, schools, and so forth. There were many of these wedge type issues whose language were not overtly racist but, in fact, were racist in code. Facts be known, Nixon was in favor of civil rights. Nixon knew to win the south he had to play the " old tricky dick," and be disingenuous. This tactic worked for Nixon. In essence, Nixon fooled a huge block of poor uneducated white voters in the south and Nixon won the south. Some say he would have swept the south had it not been for third party racist George Wallace. So, this in effect was the origin of the southern strategy for the Republican Party. The biggest wedge issues in American political history has been over abortion.  

The transformation of the south was decades in the making.

Even though, southerners had voted for a Republican president in the 1950's and with Nixon in the late 1960's the Democrats continued to dominate in local, state, house, and senate elections. That transformation has took decades to happen. The transformation of the south was a two-staged process. A top-down process. This reality has very important implications regarding party identification. The distribution of voters between Democrats, Republicans, and Independents is different in the south. Historically, the southern Republican voters in the 1980's were generally more moderate. The more conservative southern voter tended to be more Independent. These independent voters tended to be the old Dixiecrat voters the George Wallace crowd.

It was these racist old southern Democrats who were the last to transform themselves into card carrying Republicans. This has set up a dynamic in the south that has made politics in the south distinct, but, also has very important implications for the rest of the country. It is the primary elections that determine who will run in the general elections. What we have learned that people who vote in the primaries are generally the people most passionate about the issues of the day and more importantly most loyal to the party of their choice. This means they are quite different than people who generally just vote in the general elections. So, what has transpired from this is candidates that do well in the primary elections don't always fair as well in the general elections. This is paramount for a minority party like the Republicans. The primaries tend to be way more important to them [Republicans] than Democrats.

For example, in the Democrat Party most candidates from the south tend to be in step with the national Democrats as a whole. Which is basically the more liberal wing of the party. Moreover, because of the civil rights legislation, and the Democrats position on many of the aforementioned wedge issues Democrats have overwhelming garnered the black, Hispanic, and woman vote in the country. This reality has led to very successful general election outcomes for the Democratic Party over the years. In has become the order of the day to be successful a political candidate must not just get the support of the party loyalist but must attract what has become known as the swing voter.  However, in the south, for Democrats getting the support of these swing voters has become an issue. On the other hand, in the Republican primaries, appealing to the base is pretty much a given, but; attracting the swing voter is paramount.

What is so very distinct about the south, to this very day, is that the swing voters in the south tend to be the old Dixiecrat, that's right that now aging George Wallace crowd, the new racist Tea Party crowd and the growing number of white supremacist anti-government groups who in fact are nothing more than domestic terrorist. So, the realty of creating unconstitutional gerrymandered voting districts, by implementing illegal voter suppression laws these primaries have become vital in the transformation of power in the south.

Gerrymandering Has Created Republican Safe Zones In The South.  

These changes have made it increasingly hard for Democrats to win general elections in the south and these tactics and there success thereof has put the Democrats at a huge disadvantage in the south. This all started in the 1970's and has become the standard operating procedure in the region until this very day. This strategy of mobilizing the core supporters has intersected with the issue of race in a startling way. The Republican Party commitment to the southern strategy basically meant the party was writing off the black vote. The party decided they would have to find a way to win without the black vote. This meant that the Republican Party had to win more of the white vote in the south. A startling statistic used in Republican campaigns is called " white votes needed." What has created a huge problem for the Republicans in modern day politics is the upswing in political participation by blacks, Hispanics and woman. This new reality has created a situation were the Republicans now need to win what is called a super-majority, of the white vote. Doing the math on this means the Republicans need to get no less than 60% of the white vote. In this writers view, getting 60% of white people to agree on anything is almost impossible. So, the Republicans decided to use the one issue that they felt could galvanize the electorate to their side race. The thinking is that most white southerners harbor some form of prejudice towards blacks. This reality is nowhere more prevalent than in the poor white uneducated population of the south. Poor whites have a need to feel superior to something or somebody and blacks and now Hispanics are the ticket.

 This political strategy is unfortunate. It has created a huge divide in our country. What is really tragic is the Republican Party is stuck with this strategy and to abandon it would amount to political suicide. This approach on the ill side of the human nature does not fare well for the Democratic Party unless we as liberals can champion a cause of enlightenment and education to these wrongful motives sent forth and to overcome them by the one thing that destroys this plan. Voter participation.The Republicans want you to be discouraged by the process. They want you to surrender to their desire if you're not going to vote Republican you should not be allowed to vote at all. In closing, the Democrats face many disadvantages in the south. To get the issues of gridlock and obstruction from our governess we must not be idle observers. I think Pastor William Barbour, who hails from my hometown of Goldsboro, North Carolina said it best.