It’s more subtle — less overtly racist — than in 1865 or even 1954. It’s a remake of the Southern Strategy, crafted in the wake of the civil rights movement to exploit white resentment against African Americans, and deployed with precision by Presidents Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan. As Reagan’s key political strategist, Lee Atwater, explained in a 1981 interview: “You start out in 1954 by saying, ‘N-----, n-----, n-----.’ By 1968 you can’t say ‘n-----’ — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like ‘forced busing,’ ‘states’ rights’ and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things, and a byproduct of them is blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I’m not saying that.” (The interview was originally published anonymously, and only years later did it emerge that Atwater was the subject.)
Now, under the guise of protecting the sanctity of the ballot box, conservatives have devised measures — such as photo ID requirements — to block African Americans’ access to the polls. A joint report by the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund and the NAACP emphasized that the ID requirements would adversely affect more than 6 million African American voters. (Twenty-five percent of black Americans lack a government-issued photo ID, the report noted, compared with only 8 percent of white Americans.) The Supreme Court sanctioned this discrimination in Shelby County v. Holder , which gutted the Voting Rights Act and opened the door to 21st-century versions of 19th-century literacy tests and poll taxes.The disproportionate effects of the recession and the right-wing's efforts to weaken social safety net programs and the public sector in general are also part of this pattern, as Anderson points out. (And to be sure, the right is also fighting advancement and enfranchisement of Hispanics, women, LGBTs, and anyone who might be considered a potential Democratic voter). The election (and re-election) of Barack Obama was simply the most recent cause for the unleashing of the white right's rage.
While we're on the subject of white rage, look no further than the same
[Obama] demonstrated the self-destructive nature of his now-evaporating presidency by his contemptuous, and contemptible, treatment of Ryan on April 13, 2011. After he loftily aspired to teach Washington civility, the White House invited Ryan to sit in the front row at a speech in which Obama gave an implacably hostile and mendacious depiction of Ryan’s suggestions for entitlement reforms [ed. note: bullshit]. Obama thereby repeated his tawdry performance in his 2010 State of the Union address, when, with Supreme Court justices in the front row of the House chamber, he castigated them for the Citizens United decision, which he misrepresented [ed. note: bullshit again].
Both times, Obama’s behavior bespoke the insecurity of someone who, surrounded by sycophants, shuns disputations with people who can reply. Ryan, however, has replied with a book that demonstrates Obama’s wisdom in not arguing with a man who has a better mind and better manners. (our emphasis)A "better mind and better manners?" Asinine on many levels. We seem to recall Joe Biden already did a beautiful job of popping Ryan's deep thought balloons. But that was one white guy schooling another white guy, so no multi-year umbrage from Will. So are we the only ones who detect more than a whiff of condescending plantation racism in Will's wording? To us, that wasn't even dog whistling, that was a siren. Should the twice-elected President of the United States not presume to challenge his white betters?
If the
BONUS: If you're still not convinced there's a problem in the Ferguson, MO, police force, check this out.
BONUS II: Still not convinced there's a discrepancy between police treatment of whites and blacks? Remember this? And we won't even get into Cliven "Hoof" Bundy and his band of armed thugs.
