Wednesday, November 30, 2011

EXTRA EXTRA: Get your sexual impropriety here, Today only


Herman Cain

Why have both of the most prominent black conservatives of the past 20 years been targeted by sexual allegation? Why don’t white conservatives get similarly accused? Why does the Left seem to find such charges against black conservatives so credible? Why do charges of sexual impropriety against conservative black men”stick” so readily in the minds of the Left?

I think that the Left has fallen into a psychological rut worn deep in our collective cultural conscience by a century of scientific racism. I think they are all primed to see black men as sexually impulsive. That is why they instantly think such charges as credible.

Classical racism (pre-WWII) held that non-white races were less evolved away from animals than whites and therefore had more animalistic natures. Under the non-Darwinian concept of evolution ascendant at the time,  the “scientific consensus” held that natural forces were pushing all living things along a predetermined development towards some “higher” or “perfected” state. In humans, that meant our brains grew larger, increasing intellect and emotional control but at the same time weakening the body.

Non-whites were believed to be less evolved and therefore mentally and emotionally inferior but with the relative strength and stamina of animals. In a time when most men still performed manual labor for a living, the era’s progressives argued that the “lesser” races had an unfair advantage in the free-market when it came to competing for manual labor jobs so the government had to step in. Most Jim Crow laws, unions and immigration restrictions on Asian were supported by the era’s progressives with the argument that “greedy” business owners would hire non-whites because they could do the job better without paying attention to the “socially responsible” need to maintain white supremacy.

One side effect of seeing non-whites, particularly black people, as more animalistic, was that they were also seen as being more sexually virile.  However, they were also viewed as being more animal like in having far less sexual self-control and more likely to give into impulses. In a time when people had direct exposure to the highly aggressive and dangerous sexual behavior of bulls, stallions and boars, it was easy to see the supposedly more animalistic black males as posing a similar danger, more over, the fact that a white man needs a white woman to conceive a white baby was more of a threat to Black society than the fact that blacks can take any person on earth and conceive a black child that's where the idea that black men looking at white women posed a danger comes from. It got a lot of innocent men and boys killed.

Many Black-American thinkers today maintain that the fading echoes of this old concept still resonates within our cultural subconscious and that we are all, regardless of race, primed to see Black-American males as overly sensual and sexually impulsive. While being stereotyped as virile is boon to the teenager and college aged, being seen as impulsive in any way is detrimental to rising to positions of trust and authority. Many black men still feel they are viewed as impulsive and thoughtless.

Given this history, shouldn’t we be asking just what is driving accusation of sexual harassment against first Clarence Thomas and now Herman Cain? Why these particular allegations against the only two Black-American male conservatives to seek high Federal office?

Anita Hill Dripping with sex appeal

The acts that Anita Hills alleged, even if taken at face value, were trivial acts. Did Thomas’ race and sex amplify the significance of those acts in Hill’s mind?  Moreover, were they amplified in the minds of the Leftists who sought to bring Thomas down? Did Cain’s secret accusers likewise assume that a black man, even an older, educated black man, must be sexually impulsive and magnify innocuous comments into something sexual and aggressive?
Clarence Thomas

Does our collective legacy of racism drive us all to we assume that the faintest hint of sexual suggestion on the part of a black man must represent the tip of an iceberg of animalistic sexuality? Do women, even black women, feel more threatened by the comments of black men than those made by other men?

Most worrisome, do these charges gain instant traction on the Left because of cynical political calculation or because of the Lefts’ latent racism? When faced by an Black-American male who refuses to defer to them, do they revert to cultural subconscious racism and assume that the offending black man must be sexually dangerous?

I think it quite possible.

One of the defining aspects of Leftism is a complete lack of individual moral introspection. Leftists have an unshakable faith in their own moral rectitude. They are the elect and the rest of us are the damned. Leftists never stop to wonder if subtle, inherited racism influences their thoughts and actions. Believing themselves immune to such failings, they never defend against them and always fall prey.

Racism is a moral failing Leftist definitely believe themselves immune to. They won’t admit that in their hearts, they see African-Americans as lesser people, ever trapped in an infantile state and always requiring the benevolent protection of the noble white Leftists.

They won’t  admit that Cain and other black conservatives provoke such a strong emotional reaction precisely because they refuse to act like dependent, subservient infants. They won’t admit to themselves that they are so quick to believe accusation of sexual misconduct against black conservatives because when blacks challenge Leftists the Leftists have no psychological barriers to reverting back to culturally inherited stereotypes about the supposed dangerous sexuality of black men.

The Left thinks they’ve advanced so far but they haven’t. When tested they fail. All it takes is the least suggestion and they revert to the ugly past.

Wednesday, November 23, 2011

Nuclear Proliferation Gaining Strength

Russia has joined the U.S. and Britain in backing Israel's view that the Middle East cannot be turned into a zone free of nuclear arms without progress on peace in the region.
That dovetails with Israel's view that peace must prevail in the Middle East before it can be made into a nuclear free zone. But it clashes with the Arab position that the two issues are separate. The Arabs say Israel's undeclared nuclear arsenal is the biggest threat to Mideast peace.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad denied and insisted that it’s not up to Tehran to disprove the allegations, "The West must prove its claims that Iran seeks to build nuclear weapons" Ahmadinejad said today. His remarks follow the latest report by the U.N. nuclear watchdog that cited evidence indicating that Iran is conducting secret experiments toward development of nuclear weapons.

“The (U.S) tells us that we must prove that we don’t have an atomic weapons program. How can something that doesn’t exist be proved? It’s nonexistent. How can we prove it?” he told thousands of people in Pakdasht, 25 miles southeast of the capital Tehran.
“The one who levels the accusations must prove their claims. You must prove that someone is guilty,” he said.
Ahmadinejad said that if Iran decides to build nuclear weapons, it will do so openly.

The Russian statement was made available to various press agencies after a closed door meeting.The first meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) dealing with a nuclear-free Middle East assembled on Monday, with Israeli representatives describing the Arab nations' criticism of Israeli nuclear policy as unexpectedly sedate.

As a result of Iran's boycotting of the meeting, the most critical of the Arab IAEA members was Syria, whose representative depicted Israel's alleged undeclared nuclear arsenal as a "grave and serious threat."
But officials reporting on the closed meeting said that except for Syria and Lebanon, its lockstep ally, other Arab nations speaking at the meeting were lower-key than usual in chastising Israel refusing to open its nuclear program to UN perusal.
One Israeli official, who agreed to speak under conditions of anonymity said the atmosphere was "much less confrontational, much less hostile" than at other IAEA gatherings focused on the Middle East, which traditionally see Muslim nations speaking with one strongly critical voice about Israel's nuclear capabilities.
Ahmadinejad said the United States, which itself has stored 5,000 nuclear weapons, charges that Iran is guilty without providing evidence, yet it wants Iran to prove its innocence.

The president also warned that Iran would treat any country that freezes its assets as a “thief.” "The slightest appropriation of the Iranian nation’s currency reserves will be tantamount to theft. The Iranian nation will deal with the perpetrator as a thief,” Ahmadinejad warned.

He was reacting to reports that the U.S. and its allies might freeze assets belonging to Iran’s central bank following a new set of sanctions imposed on Tehran by U.S., Canada and Britain. The new sanctions seek to apply greater pressure to get Tehran to halt its suspected nuclear weapons program.
The measures were built on previous sanctions to target Iran’s oil and petrochemical industries and companies involved in nuclear procurement or enrichment activity.
How Iran Deals With Sanctions

Israel's traditional position is that a serious discussion of a nuclear-free Mideast would only take place after certain ground rules were established, such as recognition of Israel by the Arab states, as well as peace agreements that would include security arrangements and an agreement on regional disarmament from nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons.
The session is not expected to reach any decisions, but serves as a precedent by having taken place.
In toning down their comments, most Mideast participants at the 97-nation meeting appeared to be heeding an appeal by IAEA chief Yukiya Amano.
In opening remarks made available to reporters, Amano urged Mideast nations to focus on "fresh thinking," adding he hoped they would be able to move "beyond simply restating long-established positions."

Officials and participants warned against high expectations at the gathering, which is hearing presentations on already established nuclear-free zones elsewhere as a way of stimulating discussion on the Middle East and is not meant to reach any decisions.
A decision last year by the 189 members of the Nuclear Nonproliferation treaty to convene a UN-sponsored conference on establishing a Middle East nuclear-free zone in 2012 was an incentive for most of the region's Muslim nations to meet this year with Israel for the exploratory Vienna talks.

Tuesday, November 22, 2011

Let's Play The Blame Game,,,Once Again

As a handful of the lawmakers on the sputtering joint Congressional committee charged with drafting a deficit reduction package met for what seemed like one final time, the White House said yesterday that only Congress could have produced a solution, while Republican presidential candidates moved to frame the committee’s failure to meet its deadline as a lack of leadership by President Obama.
Troops Stand down Because Of Funding

Already some Republicans were saying Monday that they would try to spare the massive and automatic cuts to military spending that has been triggered since Congress couldn't agree on a deficit reduction plan.
Optimism was never that high on the panel would ever succeed, but stock markets were still dropping at midday, with stocks off sharply as bond yields fell.
At the White House, where the president signed legislation intended to spur the hiring of veterans, Mr. Obama urged lawmakers to get back to work on economic issues in a spirit of bipartisanship, but made no direct reference to the collapse of the deficit talks over the weekend and yesterday— even though some of the legislators involved were attending the signing ceremony.
Jay Carney

The White House press secretary, Jay Carney, pointedly noted that the responsibility for getting a deal belonged to Congress, not the White House. First Blamer
“They should do the right thing and come together,” Mr. Carney said. “From the beginning of this process, what the Congress needs to do to get this done has been obvious to everyone.”
At a campaign stop in New Hampshire, one of Mr. Obama’s chief Republican rivals, Mitt Romney, said Monday that what was most disappointing about the panel’s failure was “that our president has had no involvement with the process.”
Mitt Romney

“I find it extraordinary that there would be a committee with such an important mission as finding a way to provide fiscal sanity in America, and with the penalty, if that fiscal sanity is not found, of a $600 billion cut to our military,” Mr. Romney said.
He added that the White House should promote legislation that would hold the military out of a set of automatic cuts, known as sequestration and divided between security and domestic programs, that are set to trigger in 2013 unless some other resolution is devised.

In a speech Monday, Newt Gingrich, another Republican candidate for president, called the failure of the committee “good for America.”
While Congress is on break for the Thanksgiving holidays, many members, especially Republicans, will turn their attention to the looming Pentagon cuts. As part of the legislation written to raise the debt ceiling earlier this year, a failure of Congress to reach a deal by the end of the year would result in $1.2 trillion in automatic spending cuts in domestic and military programs over 10 years, starting in January, 2013 — after elections that could reshape the Congress and perhaps replace the president.
Jeff Sessions

“We need to more appropriately allocate spending reductions,” Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the ranking Republican on the Senate Budget Committee, said in an interview. “Congress could alter the sequestration. I am hoping for that.”
John Kerry
On Monday, several members from both parties met in the office of Senator John Kerry, a Democrat from Massachusetts and a committee member, at his behest, along with Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona, a Republican member.

 As he left the meeting, Senator Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana and chairman of the Finance Committee, said: “We are working as hard as we can. We are continuing to meet.”
Mr. Baucus said panel members were discussing a “new idea” floated by Senator John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts. Mr. Baucus declined to give details. Aides to committee members said the discussions had not narrowed the vast differences between the two parties over taxes and entitlements.
Jon Kyl

Senator Baucus said, “Both sides are feeling angst, more angst, at the possibility of no agreement, so they should work harder and more creatively.”
The Republicans were Representative Fred Upton of Michigan and Senators Jon Kyl of Arizona and Rob Portman of Ohio. The Democrats, besides Mr. Baucus and Mr. Kerry, were Representative Chris Van Hollen of Maryland and Senator Patty Murray of Washington, a co-chairwoman of the panel.
While the meeting began as a bipartisan affair, the Republicans left the Democrats to ponder their fate alone.
Fred Upton

With the apparent collapse of the deficit reduction committee, Republicans in Congress were looking for other ways to rein in federal spending. Some House Republicans have discussed the possibility of seeking a vote on deficit reduction proposals advanced in the last month by Republican members of the committee. While such proposals would have no future in the Senate, they would give House Republicans an opportunity to show their commitment to fiscal restraint.
In the next month, lawmakers face deadlines to deal with several pressing issues: extension of a payroll tax holiday, extension of jobless benefits for the long-term unemployed, a 27 percent cut in Medicare payments to doctors and relief from the alternative minimum tax.
Items on this list carry big price tags. When Congress addressed them last year, the Congressional Budget Office said the temporary reduction in the payroll taxes would cost more than $110 billion, while the temporary extension of jobless benefits cost $55 billion and the remedy for the alternative minimum tax cost more than $130 billion. Shielding doctors from pending cuts in their Medicare fees would cost at least $20 billion to $30 billion.
Republicans in both houses said they would insist that Congress find ways to offset most of these costs. Otherwise, they said, the upshot of a year focused on deficit reduction could be an increase in the deficit.
 Jeb Hensarling

Senator Patty Murray, Democrat of Washington, the deficit committee’s chairwoman, and Representative Jeb Hensarling, Republican of Texas, its chairman, were expected to announce later Monday in a news release their failure to reach an agreement after 10 weeks of negotiations.
Although stocks on Wall Street traded sharply lower this afternoon, some analysts said that it was Europe’s debt crisis, not America’s fiscal impasse, that was depressing sentiment.
Yields on 10-year Treasury bonds, in fact, were down to about 1.95 percent, while prices were up, a sign that investors continue to see assets like Treasuries as safe havens.

In Europe, on the other hand, interest rates on government bonds in the countries seen as most troubled, Italy and Spain, rose to near record levels, and Moody’s Investors Service warned that France’s top credit rating was vulnerable.
Rob Andrews

Representative Rob Andrews, Democrat of New Jersey, reminded an interviewer on CNBC that some spending cuts were already in hand from the summer’s negotiations, others might take place automatically.
“Remember that there’s a trillion or two of spending cuts now locked in when the committee fails,” he said. “Now, there’ll be an effort to repeal that lock-in, but I think the repeal will fail. And therefore, we’ll get another trillion-two in spending cuts, which is not a bad thing.”
Mr. Van Hollen

  Trying to sound hopeful, Mr. Van Hollen, a Democratic member of the panel, emerged from the Kerry-Kyl meeting on Monday and said, “We’re just having last-minute discussions.”
The White House watched as the congressional super-committee failed on debt and deficits as was exspected.

 Presidential spokesman Jay Carney said there is still time to achieve a "balanced approach" to deficit reduction.

 He lamented the finger pointing and the "blame game" in Congress and said lawmakers should make bold moves to solve big problems.

 Carney said the American people are demanding that Congress be accountable.
 Meantime, Carney rejected criticism that President Obama has been "disengaged" from the debate over deficit cuts.

The super-committee confirmed the failure to strike a bipartisan deal on more than one-trillion dollars in spending cuts over ten years.

That failure will trigger sweeping, across-the-board budget cuts, beginning in 2013.
Half the cuts would be in national security, including defense.
Leon Panetta

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has warned of devastating consequences. Republicans and Democrats on the super-committee have been stuck in familiar territory, unable to find agreement on tax hikes or cuts in Social Security and Medicare.

After the meeting, the Republicans retired to Portman's office. Aides from House Speaker John Boehner's office and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's office joined the supercommittee members about 30 minutes later.

If the supercommittee fails to reach agreement by tomorrow, $1.2 trillion in draconian cuts will go into effect in 2013 across all government departments, including defense. Some lawmakers have called for a reconfiguration of the cuts to spare the Defense Department.
It's your fault;  No, It's your fault

Republicans and Democrats must stop blaming each other for the congressional supercommittee's impasse, the White House said. "This committee was established by an act of Congress. It was comprised of members of Congress. Instead of pointing fingers and playing the blame game, Congress should act, fulfill its responsibility," White House spokesman Jay Carney said Monday during a media briefing.
John Boehner 

Earlier, Boehner, R-Ohio, blamed Obama for the panel's failure to come to agreement. The Speaker's office distributed a memo Monday that says the supercommittee "was unable to reach agreement because President Obama and Washington Democrats insisted on dramatic tax hikes on American job creators, which would make our economy worse."

Carney laid blame on the Republicans deciding they are "unwilling to do what the American people say they believe should be done, which is ask the very wealthiest Americans, millionaires and billionaires, to pay a little bit extra so that we can achieve the kind of deficit reduction and long-term debt control that we need."
Newt Gingrich

On the stump in New Hampshire, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said the failure of the committee would be good for America. Gingrich, among those seeking the GOP presidential nomination, said Monday he thinks the country's debt problem can be solved through the regular work of Congress.

"I think it's important to understand it's not that Washington is inherently gridlocked, it's that the current players behaving in the current way are inherently gridlocked," Gingrich said. "It's partly the president's fault. It's partly the Congress' fault. But it's a mess."

During his speech at Rivier College in Nashua, Gingrich did not mention the government shutdown that occurred while he was speaker in the mid-1990s came after he and President Clinton failed to resolve a budget impasse.

Monday, November 21, 2011

The Terrorist Next Door


Jose Pimentel

Jose Pimentel, suspected of plotting to bomb various targets in New York City has been denied bond, Naturally. He  bought bomb-making materials and had began to build them, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg said in a press conference this yesterday.

video platformvideo managementvideo solutionsvideo player

Police constructed a duplicate of the bomb and showed this video of the detonation at the press conference. His targets list included US troops returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, police cars, post offices and a police station, Mayor Bloomberg said.
"The Late" Anwar al-Awlaki

A devotee of American Al Qaeda propagandist Anwar Awlaki , built a pipe bomb described in Al Qaeda's Inspire magazine, posted entries at least twice on Islam Policy, the radical Web site previously known as Revolution Muslim.

Pimentel was a prolific blogger and highly connected social media user. He ran his own Web site, TrueIslam1. Revolution Muslim, a pro-Al Qaeda website founded by American radicals, was suspended briefly after one of its writers threatened the creators of South Park for depicting the Prophet Mohammed. 
Younus Abdullah Mohammed

But the site soon returned, voluntarily changing its name to Islam Policy. The current leader of Islam Policy, Younus Abdullah Mohammed, was recently arrested and is now facing charges in relation to those threats. Another American, Zachary Chesser, was arrested in July 2010 and subsequently convicted for the same threats.

Pimentel posted on Revolution Muslim as "M. Yusuf" at least twice, one on "Rape in the U.S. Army," and once on the Arab Spring. Both posts were made in April 2011 and linked back to TrueIslam1.

"I say to the brothers and sisters in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, and the rest of the Muslim world that establishing the Islamic laws is an obligation upon us that cannot be overlooked, the Day of Judgment is near, and Allah is quick in accountability and severe in punishment," Pimentel wrote. 
Zachary Chesser

Another post, also apparently by Pimentel, was titled "How Can I Train Myself For Jihad" and was later deleted from Islam Policy, but reposted to the Al Jahad extremist Web forum. The post was dated July 2011, but the content was dated 2008, suggesting Pimentel may not have written but simply reposted it.

The article encouraged firearms training and the use of U.S. military training materials available online to prepare for violent jihad.

"The majority of the time spent in Jihad is learning to cope with harsh, physically and mentally demanding living conditions. It is not about fighting glamorous battles for your pictures to appear on the Internet. Jihad is tough and difficult, which is why the rewards for it are so great," the post read.

In a section on firearms training, the post read: "Useful courses to learn are sniping, general shooting and other rifle courses. Handgun courses are useful but only after you have mastered rifles."

Friday, November 18, 2011

The G.O.P's Dilemma: Why Blacks Think Republicans Are Racist

G.O.P.?    Hey, Aren't You Guys Racist?

A myth about conservatism is circulating in academia and journalism and has spread to the 2004 presidential campaign. It goes something like this: the Republican Party assembled a national majority by winning over Southern white voters; Southern white voters are racist; therefore, the GOP is racist. Sometimes the conclusion is softened, and Republicans are convicted merely of base opportunism: the GOP is the party that became willing to pander to racists. Either way, today's Republican Party—and by extension the conservative movement at its heart—supposedly has revealed something terrible about itself.
Biographer Dan Carter

This myth is not the only viewpoint in scholarly debates on the subject. But it is testimony to its growing influence that it is taken aboard by writers like Dan Carter, a prize-winning biographer of George Wallace, and to a lesser extent by the respected students of the South, Earl and Merle Black. It is so pervasive in mass media reporting on racial issues that an NBC news anchor can casually speak of "a new era for the Republican Party, one in which racial intolerance really won't be tolerated." It has become a staple of Democratic politicians like Howard Dean, who accuses Republicans of "dividing Americans against each other, stirring up racial prejudices and bringing out the worst in people" through the use of so-called racist "codewords." All this matters because people use such putative connections to form judgments, and "racist" is as toxic a reputation as one can have in U.S. politics. Certainly the 2000 Bush campaign went to a lot of trouble to combat the GOP's reputation as racially exclusionary. I even know young Republicans who fear that behind their party's victories lies a dirty, not-so-little Southern secret.
Earl and Merle Black

Now to be sure, the GOP had a Southern strategy. Willing to work with, rather than against, the grain of Southern opinion, local Republicans ran some segregationist candidates in the 1960s. And from the 1950s on, virtually all national and local GOP candidates tried to craft policies and messages that could compete for the votes of some pretty unsavory characters. This record is incontestable. It is also not much of a story—that a party acted expediently in an often nasty political context.

The new myth is much bolder than this. It insists that these events should decisively shape our understanding of conservatism and the modern Republican Party. Dan Carter writes that today's conservatism must be traced directly back to the "politics of rage" that George Wallace blended from "racial fear, anticommunism, cultural nostalgia, and traditional right-wing economics." Another scholar, Joseph Aistrup, claims that Reagan's 1980 Southern coalition was "the reincarnation of the Wallace movement of 1968." For the Black brothers, the GOP had once been the "party of Abraham Lincoln," but it became the "party of Barry Goldwater," opposed to civil rights and black interests. It is only a short step to the Democrats' insinuation that the GOP is the latest exploiter of the tragic, race-based thread of U.S. history. In short, the GOP did not merely seek votes expediently; it made a pact with America's devil.
George Wallace

The mythmakers typically draw on two types of evidence. First, they argue that the GOP deliberately crafted its core messages to accommodate Southern racists. Second, they find proof in the electoral pudding: the GOP captured the core of the Southern white backlash vote. But neither type of evidence is very persuasive. It is not at all clear that the GOP's policy positions are sugar-coated racist appeals. And election results show that the GOP became the South's dominant party in the least racist phase of the region's history, and got—and stays—that way as the party of the upwardly mobile, more socially conservative, openly patriotic middle-class, not of white solidarity.
Barry Goldwater

Let's start with policies. Like many others, Carter and the Black brothers argue that the GOP appealed to Southern racism not explicitly but through "coded" racial appeals. Carter is representative of many when he says that Wallace's racialism can be seen, varying in style but not substance, in "Goldwater's vote against the Civil Rights Bill of 1964, in Richard Nixon's subtle manipulation of the busing issue, in Ronald Reagan's genial demolition of affirmative action, in George Bush's use of the Willie Horton ads, and in Newt Gingrich's demonization of welfare mothers."

The problem here is that Wallace's segregationism was obviously racist, but these other positions are not obviously racist. This creates an analytic challenge that these authors do not meet. If an illegitimate viewpoint (racism) is hidden inside another viewpoint, that second view—to be a useful hiding place—must be one that can be held for entirely legitimate (non-racist) reasons. Conservative intellectuals might not always linger long enough on the fact that opposition to busing and affirmative action can be disguised racism. On the other hand, these are also positions that principled non-racists can hold. To be persuasive, claims of coding must establish how to tell which is which. Racial coding is often said to occur when voters are highly prone to understanding a non-racist message as a proxy for something else that is racist. This may have happened in 1964, when Goldwater, who neither supported segregation nor called for it, employed the term "states' rights," which to many whites in the Deep South implied the continuation of Jim Crow.

The problem comes when we try to extend this forward. Black and Black try to do this by showing that Nixon and Reagan crafted positions on busing, affirmative action, and welfare reform in a political climate in which many white voters doubted the virtues of preferential hiring, valued individual responsibility, and opposed busing as intrusive. To be condemned as racist "code," the GOP's positions would have to come across as proxies for these views -and in turn these views would have to be racist. The problem is that these views are not self-evidently racist. Many scholars simply treat them as if they were. Adding insult to injury, usually they don't even pause to identify when views like opposition to affirmative action would not be racist.

In effect, these critics want to have it both ways: they acknowledge that these views could in principle be non-racist (otherwise they wouldn't be a "code" for racism) but suggest they never are in practice (and so can be reliably treated as proxies for racism). The result is that their claims are non-falsifiable because they are tautological: these views are deemed racist because they are defined as racist. This amounts to saying that opposition to the policies favored by today's civil rights establishment is a valid indicator of racism. One suspects these theorists would, quite correctly, insist that people can disagree with the Israeli government without being in any way anti-Semitic. But they do not extend the same distinction to this issue. This is partisanship posturing as social science.
Woodrow Wilson

Franklin Roosevelt
This bias is evident also in how differently they treat the long Democratic dominance of the South. Carter and the Black brothers suggest that the accommodation of white racism penetrates to the very soul of modern conservatism. But earlier generations of openly segregationist Southerners voted overwhelmingly for Woodrow Wilson's and Franklin Roosevelt's Democratic Party, which relaxed its civil rights stances accordingly. This coalition passed much of the New Deal legislation that remains the basis of modern liberalism. So what does the segregationist presence imply for the character of liberalism at its electoral and legislative apogee? These scholars sidestep the question by simply not discussing it. This silence implies that racism and liberalism were simply strange political bedfellows, without any common values.

But the commonality, the philosophical link, is swiftly identified once the Democrats leave the stage. In study after study, authors say that "racial and economic conservatism" married white Southerners to the GOP after 1964. So whereas historically accidental events must have led racists to vote for good men like FDR, after 1964 racists voted their conscience. How convenient. And how easy it would be for, say, a libertarian conservative like Walter Williams to generate a counter-narrative that exposes statism as the philosophical link between segregation and liberalism's economic populism.

Yet liberal commentators commit a further, even more obvious, analytic error. They assume that if many former Wallace voters ended up voting Republican in the 1970s and beyond, it had to be because Republicans went to the segregationist mountain, rather than the mountain coming to them. There are two reasons to question this assumption. The first is the logic of electoral competition. Extremist voters usually have little choice but to vote for a major party which they consider at best the lesser of two evils, one that offers them little of what they truly desire. Segregationists were in this position after 1968, when Wallace won less than 9% of the electoral college and Nixon became president anyway, without their votes. Segregationists simply had very limited national bargaining power. In the end, not the Deep South but the GOP was the mountain.

Second, this was borne out in how little the GOP had to "offer," so to speak, segregationists for their support after 1968, even according to the myth's own terms. Segregationists wanted policies that privileged whites. In the GOP, they had to settle for relatively race-neutral policies: opposition to forced busing and reluctant coexistence with affirmative action. The reason these policies aren't plausible codes for real racism is that they aren't the equivalents of discrimination, much less of segregation.

Why did segregationists settle for these policies rather than continue to vote Democratic? The GOP's appeal was mightily aided by none other than the Democratic Party itself, which was lurching leftward in the 1970s, becoming, as the contemporary phrase had it, the party of "acid, amnesty, and abortion." Among other things, the Democrats absorbed a civil rights movement that was itself expanding, and thus diluting, its agenda to include economic redistributionism, opposition to the Vietnam War, and Black Power. The many enthusiasms of the new Democratic Party drove away suburban middle-class voters almost everywhere in the country, even in the South.

Given that trend, the GOP did not need to become the party of white solidarity in order to attract more voters. The fact that many former Wallace supporters ended up voting Republican says a lot less about the GOP than it does about segregationists' collapsing political alternatives. Kevin Phillips was hardly coy about this in his Emerging Republican Majority. He wrote in 1969 that Nixon did not "have to bid much ideologically" to get Wallace's electorate, given its limited power, and that moderation was far more promising for the GOP than anything even approaching a racialist strategy. While "the Republican Party cannot go to the Deep South"—meaning the GOP simply would not offer the policies that whites there seemed to desire most—"the Deep South must soon go to the national GOP," regardless.

In all these ways, the gop appears as the national party of the middle-class, not of white solidarity. And it is this interpretation, and not the myth, that is supported by the voting results. The myth's proponents highlight, and distort, a few key electoral facts: Southern white backlash was most heated in the 1960s, especially in the Deep South. It was then and there that the GOP finally broke through in the South, on the strength of Goldwater's appeals to states' rights. Democrats never again won the votes of most Southern whites. So Goldwater is said to have provided the electoral model for the GOP.
Strom Thurmond

But hidden within these aggregate results are patterns that make no sense if white solidarity really was the basis for the GOP's advance. These patterns concern which Southern votes the GOP attracted, and when. How did the GOP's Southern advance actually unfold? We can distinguish between two sub-regions. The Peripheral South—Florida, Texas, Tennessee, Virginia, North Carolina, and Arkansas—contained many growing, urbanizing "New South" areas and much smaller black populations. Race loomed less large in its politics. In the more rural, and poorer, Deep South—Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, South Carolina, and Louisiana —black communities were much larger, and racial conflict was much more acute in the 1950s and '60s. Tellingly, the presidential campaigns of Strom Thurmond, Goldwater, and Wallace all won a majority of white votes in the Deep South but lost the white vote in the Peripheral South.

The myth that links the GOP with racism leads us to expect that the GOP should have advanced first and most strongly where and when the politics of white solidarity were most intense. The GOP should have entrenched itself first among Deep South whites and only later in the Periphery. The GOP should have appealed at least as much, if not more, therefore, to the less educated, working-class whites who were not its natural voters elsewhere in the country but who were George Wallace's base. The GOP should have received more support from native white Southerners raised on the region's traditional racism than from white immigrants to the region from the Midwest and elsewhere. And as the Southern electorate aged over the ensuing decades, older voters should have identified as Republicans at higher rates than younger ones raised in a less racist era.

Each prediction is wrong. The evidence suggests that the GOP advanced in the South because it attracted much the same upwardly mobile (and non-union) economic and religious conservatives that it did elsewhere in the country.

Take presidential voting. Under FDR, the Democrats successfully assembled a daunting, cross-regional coalition of presidential voters. To compete, the GOP had to develop a broader national outreach of its own, which meant adding a Southern strategy to its arsenal. In 1952, Dwight Eisenhower took his campaign as national hero southward. He, like Nixon in 1960, polled badly among Deep South whites. But Ike won four states in the Peripheral South. This marked their lasting realignment in presidential voting. From 1952 to the Clinton years, Virginia reverted to the Democrats only once, Florida and Tennessee twice, and Texas—except when native-son LBJ was on the ballot—only twice, narrowly. Additionally, since 1952, North Carolina has consistently either gone Republican or come within a few percentage points of doing so.

In other words, states representing over half the South's electoral votes at the time have been consistently in play from 1952 on—since before Brown v. Board of Education, before Goldwater, before busing, and when the Republicans were the mainstay of civil rights bills. It was this which dramatically changed the GOP's presidential prospects. The GOP's breakthrough came in the least racially polarized part of the South. And its strongest supporters most years were "New South" urban and suburban middle- and upper-income voters. In 1964, as we've seen, Goldwater did the opposite: winning in the Deep South but losing the Peripheral South. But the pre-Goldwater pattern re-emerged soon afterward. When given the option in 1968, Deep South whites strongly preferred Wallace, and Nixon became president by winning most of the Peripheral South instead. From 1972 on, GOP presidential candidates won white voters at roughly even rates in the two sub-regions, sometimes slightly more in the Deep South, sometimes not. But by then, the Deep South had only about one-third of the South's total electoral votes; so it has been the Periphery, throughout, that provided the bulk of the GOP's Southern presidential support.

The GOP's congressional gains followed the same pattern. Of course, it was harder for Republicans to win in Deep South states where Democratic-leaning black electorates were larger. But even when we account for that, the GOP became the dominant party of white voters much earlier in the Periphery than it did in the Deep South. Before Goldwater, the GOP's few Southern House seats were almost all in the Periphery (as was its sole Senator—John Tower of Texas). Several Deep South House members were elected with Goldwater but proved ephemeral, as Black and Black note: "Republicans lost ground and stalled in the Deep South for the rest of the decade," while in the Periphery they "continued to make incremental gains." In the 1960s and '70s, nearly three-quarters of GOP House victories were in the Peripheral rather than the Deep South, with the GOP winning twice as often in urban as rural districts. And six of the eight different Southern Republican Senators elected from 1961 to 1980 were from the Peripheral South. GOP candidates tended consistently to draw their strongest support from the more educated, middle- and upper-income white voters in small cities and suburbs. In fact, Goldwater in 1964—at least his Deep South performance, which is all that was controversial in this regard—was an aberration, not a model for the GOP.

Writers who vilify the GOP's Southern strategy might be surprised to find that all of this was evident, at least in broad brush-strokes, to the strategy's early proponents. In his well-known book, Kevin Phillips drew the lesson that a strong appeal in the Deep South, on the model of 1964, had already entailed and would entail defeat for the GOP everywhere else, including in what he termed the Outer South. He therefore rejected such an approach. He emphasized that Ike and Nixon did far better in the Peripheral South. He saw huge opportunities in the "youthful middle-class" of Texas, Florida, and other rapidly growing and changing Sun Belt states, where what he called "acutely Negrophobe politics" was weakest, not strongest. He thus endorsed "evolutionary success in the Outer South" as the basis of the GOP's "principal party strategy" for the region, concluding that this would bring the Deep South along in time, but emphatically on the national GOP's terms, not the segregationists'.

The tension between the myth and voting data escalates if we consider change across time. Starting in the 1950s, the South attracted millions of Midwesterners, Northeasterners, and other transplants. These "immigrants" identified themselves as Republicans at higher rates than native whites. In the 1980s, up to a quarter of self-declared Republicans in Texas appear to have been such immigrants. Furthermore, research consistently shows that identification with the GOP is stronger among the South's younger rather than older white voters, and that each cohort has also became more Republican with time. Do we really believe immigrants (like George H.W. Bush, who moved with his family to Texas) were more racist than native Southerners, and that younger Southerners identified more with white solidarity than did their elders, and that all cohorts did so more by the 1980s and '90s than they had earlier?

In sum, the GOP's Southern electorate was not rural, nativist, less educated, afraid of change, or concentrated in the most stagnant parts of the Deep South. It was disproportionately suburban, middle-class, educated, younger, non-native-Southern, and concentrated in the growth-points that were, so to speak, the least "Southern" parts of the South. This is a very strange way to reincarnate George Wallace's movement.

The Decline of Racism

Timing may provide the greatest gap between the myth and the actual unfolding of events. Only in the 1980s did more white Southerners self-identify as Republicans than as Democrats, and only in the mid-1990s did Republicans win most Southern House seats and become competitive in most state legislatures. So if the GOP's strength in the South only recently reached its zenith, and if its appeal were primarily racial in nature, then the white Southern electorate (or at least most of it) would have to be as racist as ever. But surely one of the most important events in Southern political history is the long-term decline of racism among whites. The fact that these (and many other) books suggest otherwise shows that the myth is ultimately based on a demonization not of the GOP but of Southerners, who are indeed assumed to have Confederate flags in their hearts if not on their pickups. This view lends The Rise of Southern Republicans a schizophrenic nature: it charts numerous changes in the South, but its organizing categories are predicated on the unsustainable assumption that racial views remain intact.
Historian David Chappell  

What's more, the trend away from confident beliefs in white supremacy may have begun earlier than we often think. David Chappell, a historian of religion, argues that during the height of the civil rights struggle, segregationists were denied the crucial prop of religious legitimacy. Large numbers of pastors of diverse denominations concluded that there was no Biblical foundation for either segregation or white superiority. Although many pastors remained segregationist anyway, the official shift was startling: "Before the Supreme Court's [Brown v. Board] decision of 1954, the southern Presbyterians. . . and, shortly after the decision, the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) overwhelmingly passed resolutions supporting desegregation and calling on all to comply with it peacefully. . . . By 1958 all SBC seminaries accepted black applicants." With considerable understatement, Chappell notes that "people—even historians—are surprised to hear this." Billy Graham, the most prominent Southern preacher, was openly integrationist.
Richard Nixon

The point of all this is not to deny that Richard Nixon may have invited some nasty fellows into his political bed. The point is that the GOP finally became the region's dominant party in the least racist phase of the South's entire history, and it got that way by attracting most of its votes from the region's growing and confident communities—not its declining and fearful ones. The myth's shrillest proponents are as reluctant to admit this as they are to concede that most Republicans genuinely believe that a color-blind society lies down the road of individual choice and dynamic change, not down the road of state regulation and unequal treatment before the law. The truly tenacious prejudices here are the mythmakers'.