The U.S. government paid a controversial civil rights activist/comedian to deliver an anti-white racist tirade at a major federal agency during Black History month and Judicial Watch has obtained the disturbing transcript of the offensive political rant.
It took place at the United States Census Bureau earlier this year and the paid speaker was Dick Gregory, a self-professed humanitarian and drum major for justice who claims that his social satire changed the way white Americans perceive African American comedians. But Gregory’s angry outburst at the Census Bureau was not funny to some employees and the agency was forced to explain that it will thoroughly review its procedures for selecting future speakers to “ensure their views are appropriate for the federal workplace.”
Based on Gregory’s well-known reputation as a fiery race-baiter, it’s unlikely that the government officials who booked him didn’t know about his discriminating, shock-based performances. The Census Bureau paid Gregory $1,400 to “share a wealth of history as a Civil Rights Activist,” according to the records obtained by JW under the federal public records law known as the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Instead, American taxpayers funded a disgusting stand-up routine filled with the “N word” and replete with conspiracy theories about whites and the U.S. government targeting prominent blacks – including Martin Luther King and Malcom X – for assassination or career destruction (golfer Tiger Woods and beleaguered comedian Bill Cosby).
Gregory also said whites stole black inventions, such as ice hockey and the cotton gin, and accused the U.S. government of conspiring to kill Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri and Tamir Rice in Cleveland, Ohio. The movie King Kong is really a depiction of former heavyweight champion Jack Johnson dating white women, Gregory claimed at the Census Bureau performance, and whites treat President Obama “like dirt” and “like he’s a Redneck Cracker that can’t read or write.” Gregory delivered most of his routine in Ebonics (also known as African American Vernacular English) and advised his black audience not to obey “white racist cops,” which he also referred to as “filth.”
The rioters who destroyed Ferguson after a cop fatally shot a black man with an extensive criminal record who had just committed a robbery, didn’t steal enough merchandise from the businesses they looted, Gregory told his government audience. “I was complaining about Ferguson because the Nigger wasn’t getting enough,” Gregory said, according to the transcript obtained by JW. “Did you see the brother go in there and walk out with a half-pint, I said ‘Get some tips.’ And, y’all be trying to trick them White folks and say rebellion. No rebellion is put together, predicated, on some White person shooting a Black person and that tips it off. Those was riots, riots.”
Gregory also told his audience of public servants that if he were president of the United States no white people would be in his cabinet. “Had I been elected to be the President, listen good White folks, none of y’all would be in my cabinet,” he says. “Now don’t worry about Black folks who be saying ‘oh, he didn’t mean it.’ So, I’ll say it ten times, non of y’all be in my cabinet, none of y’all be in my cabinet, none of y’all be in my cabinet.”
The Missouri Democratic Party is changing the name of its annual “Jefferson-Jackson” fundraising dinner, deleting the names of slave-owning party heroes Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson. The party will instead honor avowed racist Harry Truman.
Though the state party denied that the name change was due to racial issues, Democratic state Sen. Jamilah Nasheed, who has called for the name to be changed, said that it was probably due to race. Every state Democratic party holds an early-summer Jefferson-Jackson fundraising dinner. Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton recently attended the dinners in Arkansas and Virginia.
But the Missouri party’s decision to instead name the dinner for Harry Truman might not have been the most racially savvy choice.
“I think one man is just as good as another so long as he’s honest and decent and not a nigger or a Chinaman,” Truman wrote as a 27-year old in 1911. “Uncle Will says that the Lord made a white man from dust, a nigger from mud, then He threw up what was left and it came down a Chinaman.”
“[Uncle Will] does hate Chinese and Japs,” Truman wrote. “So do I. It is race prejudice, I guess. But I am strongly of the opinion Negroes ought to be in Africa, yellow men in Asia and white men in Europe and America.”
Though Truman nearly lost the 1948 Democratic nomination when Southern Democrats walked out of the convention due to Truman’s mildly progressive racial policies at the time, his personal beliefs were pretty firmly racist.
As a U.S. senator, Truman told his daughter in a letter that the White House waitstaff was comprised of “an army of coons.”
Kentucky Judge Olu Stevens gave two armed robbers and home invaders a light sentence because he felt their three year-old baby victim was being racist for fearing black people after the attack.
Judge Stevens went off on the family in court.
Via Right Wing News:
The American Thinker reported:
Soon after the robbery, the little girl told her mother that she was afraid of black people. And the mother told the judge in her victim’s statement.
Judge Stevens did not care for that.
Like justice coming down like rain, Judge Stevens poured his righteous indignation down on them. The family, that is. Not the criminals. All on video.
“There’s a victim impact statement here that bothers me, to be honest with you,” said Judge Stevens. “I assume the victims in this case are white?” he asked the prosecutor, who was hoping for a 20-year sentence for the miscreant. (The gun-toting home invader, not the infantile racist.)
“It troubles me greatly,” said the judge, as he read the mother’s account of how this robbery has traumatized her child. Again, just for the sake of clarity, the judge was not troubled at the trauma the little girl experienced, he was troubled at the trauma he was experiencing that anyone would could be aware that black crime and violence in Louisville is wildly out of proportion.
The mother and child’s reaction was similar to what the Reverend Jesse Jackson said about black crime: “There is nothing more painful to me … than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery, then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved.”
“Really?” Judge Stevens asked after reading the mother’s account of her daughter’s fear of black men following the robbery.
“I want to make that part of the record, I am offended by that,” said the judge.
And just in case anyone did not get the message the first several times, the judge took it to a new level: “I am deeply offended by that.”
He blamed the child’s racism on the parents for “fostering” it. And all of sudden the victims of the racial violence were now the perpetrators.
And the perpetrators? They were the victims.
The judge then faced the one remaining home invader that was left to be sentenced and told him he believed he could be redeemed through the saving power of probation. Not prison.
On November 24, 2014, at least 18 Ferguson businesses were torched to the ground and several more were looted and vandalized after a jury announced it would not indict Officer Darren Wilson in the shooting death of robber Michael Brown.
Thanks to the non-stop protests, the violence, the arson, the looting property values in Ferguson have dropped nearly fifty percent in the last seven months.
The average selling price of a home in the city has been on a steady decline since the shooting of Brown last August, according to housing data compiled from MARIS, an information and statistics service for real estate agents. Prior to Brown’s death, the average home sold in 2014 was selling for $66,764. For the last three and a half months of the year, the average home sold for $36,168, a 46 percent decrease.
The trend has continued on through this year, with the average home selling for only $22,951 so far in 2015. Another negative indicator: in the eight and a half months leading up to Brown’s death, the average residential square foot in 2014 was selling for $45.82. In the eight and a half months since Brown’s passing, the average residential square foot in the city has sold for $24.11. That’s about a 47 percent downtick in one of real estate’s core indicators.
“This is not normal for the region,” says Crista Patton, a local REMAX real estate agent who helped get these numbers for Fusion. “Last time I pulled up numbers like this for a neighborhood around here, we were seeing the market going up,” she says. “In St. Louis in general, the market is going up, and as a whole it’s almost completely recovered from the recession.”
The city admits that its finances are taking a hit, with no end in sight, due to the events since Brown’s death. “The[city’s] response to the unrest, as well as other related matters, has resulted in significant, unanticipated expenditures,” reads the city’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for 2014. “The civil unrest also resulted in some lost revenues… At this time, the total impact of this event on the City’s revenues and expenses is not able to be estimated.”
Attorney General Eric Holder will resign on Thursday, several media outlets have confirmed. “Attorney General Eric Holder will on Thursday announce his plans to leave his post at the Justice Department once a successor is confirmed, a Justice Department official said,” Politico reported. “Holder has been in the job for nearly six years, since the start of the Obama administration.”
“Eric Holder Jr., the nation’s first black U.S. attorney general, is preparing to announce his resignation Thursday after a tumultuous tenure marked by civil rights advances, national security threats, reforms to the criminal justice system and five and a half years of fights with Republicans in Congress,” National Public Radio added.
Holder was voted on a bipartisan basis into both criminal and civil contempt of Congress for his failure to comply with a congressional investigation into the gun walking program Operation Fast and Furious, run by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) with oversight from senior Department of Justice (DOJ) officials. A total of 130 members of the House of Representatives called for him to resign in 2011 and 2012, as did eight U.S. Senators and every GOP presidential candidate in 2012, including the eventual presidential nominee Mitt Romney and vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan.
As the House Oversight Committee voted to hold Holder in contempt on both the criminal and civil citations, President Barack Obama asserted executive privilege over the Fast and Furious documents that Holder refused to provide to Congress pursuant to subpoenas from chairman Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA). The U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, Ron Machen, declined to prosecute Holder on the criminal contempt of Congress citation, but the House of Representatives is currently pursuing ongoing legal action against the administration using the civil contempt citation to fight to have the president’s executive privilege overturned.
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Issa have both argued the president’s privilege assertion over those Fast and Furious documents is invalid and illegal because he used the lower form of the two types of executive privilege – deliberative process privilege – rather than presidential communications privilege. If Obama used the higher form, it would have meant that either he or his senior White House staff was aware of the gun walking tactics employed in Operation Fast and Furious, something that both Obama and Holder have denied. Usually, deliberative process privilege claims are considered invalid when there is even a suspicion of government wrongdoing – something Issa and Grassley have noted time and again – and in this case the government has admitted to wrongdoing.
Nonetheless, President Obama continues to hide these documents from the American people and from Congress.
Holder accused this reporter in November 2011 at a White House press conference of being “behind” the calls for his resignation because this reporter had contacted various members of Congress, asking if they agreed with the surging calls for him to resign.
“You guys need to – you need to stop this. It’s not an organic thing that’s just happening. You guys are behind it,” Holder said of this reporter’s efforts while working for The Daily Caller.
Calls for Holder’s resignation have continued since 2011 for reasons other than Operation Fast and Furious.
Holder’s press team also coordinated against various media outlets using far left-wing advocacy groups like the George Soros-funded Media Matters for America (MMFA). MMFA, which is led by pro-Hillary Clinton activist David Brock, used talking points and direction provided by then-Holder spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler to smear this reporter, Issa, Breitbart News reporters, ex-DOJ officials and whistleblowers, and reporters from across the media.
Emails recently uncovered via a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request by The Daily Caller found that Holder’s press aide Schmaler specifically singled out and targeted this reporter.
“As revealed in the FOIA docs, Media Matters Deputy Research Director Matt Gertz sent a post concerning the NRA’s growing contributions to Holder’s critics to DOJ spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler, Holder’s top press flack who resigned in March, 2013,” the Daily Caller’s Betsy Rothstein wrote.
In response to that email, Schmaler wrote back to Gertz: “Thanks, you know boyle has been doing robo calls to top members right? This is campaign mounted by daily caller. He has called 60 offices and gotten to 8 last week.”
“Yeah, that was what my original piece on the story was about,” Gertz replied.
The terminology that was provided to Media Matters by the Department of Justice about this reporter – the word “campaign” specifically – appeared in subsequent Media Matters posts about this reporter.
The efforts to silence reporting on Fast and Furious are not the only questionable activity Holder and his team have been involved in with regards to the media. The DOJ labeled Fox News’ James Rosen a “co-conspirator” in an effort used to monitor him and targeted the Associated Press by monitoring the news agency’s communications.
Holder has been a lightning rod for scandal since he was confirmed in 2009. Right off the bat, he declined to prosecute the New Black Panther Party (NBPP) for voter intimidation at voting stations in 2008 in Philadelphia, despite efforts by career prosecutors at the DOJ to do so. He has been involved in the Trayvon Martin case in Florida in 2012, the Michael Brown case in Missouri this year, and in allegations by whistleblowers that Holder stopped the prosecution of alleged financial criminals, politicians, and DOJ officials who are accused of having taken bribes in connection with a U.S. Virgin Islands telecom cooperative. Just like how the DOJ originally denied guns were walked in Fast and Furious and has since retracted that denial, the DOJ denied the Virgin Islands scandal’s early report.
I have more respect for a leech, than this miscreant.
Here’s Lee’s disjointed, seemingly disoriented rant. He doesn’t start contradicting his own appeal for peace and calm until toward the end:
“When people get to a point, [unintelligible] that tipping point, they can’t take it anymore. And I’m not saying that people should burn down stuff, riot, and loot. And I don’t even want to use the work ‘riot.’ I’m gonna use the word ‘uprising.’ But this is not the first time we’ve seen this. And I just hope that things will really blow up if the people aren’t happy with the verdict of this upcoming trial.”
He’s not saying people should riot. Because they’re not really rioting. Besides, they’re really angry, which is how we decide these things in America.
Black college students will pay a price because the country’s largest government employee union doesn’t like the conservative philanthropist Koch brothers.
BuzzFeed reports that the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees didn’t like that the United Negro College Fund accepted $25 million from Koch Industries and the Charles Koch Foundation, and that the fund’s president spoke at a Koch-funded summit.
Naturally, the appropriate target is black college students.
AFSCME’s relationship with the UNCF revolved around their Union Scholars Program, in which sophomore- and junior-year college students could work with AFSCME during the summer and receive scholarship support aftwerward [sic].
That program will cease on Sept. 1.
“We must hold ourselves to the same standards that we promote through the Union Scholars Program,” [union president Lee] Saunders wrote. “To practice what we preach, to fight for social justice, and to stand up for what we beleive [sic]. I cannot in good conscience face these students or AFSCME’s members if I looked the other way and ignored your actions.”
The Wire says that’s no chump change for students:
For over a decade sophomores and juniors have been able to intern with the union, and received a $4,000 stipend plus a $5,000 scholarship. A union spokesman told The Huffington Post that AFSCME donates $50,000 to $60,000 a year for the scholarship program and “hundreds of thousands” of dollars annually.
The college fund gave a pleasant middle finger to the union, telling BuzzFeed:
“UNCF has over 100,000 donors with a wide range of views, but they all have one thing in common: they believe in helping young students of color realize their dreams of a college education. For over 70 years we have never had a litmus test and we have asked all Americans to support our cause.”
Last week we learned this…
The former governor’s group paid for the racist radio ads.
FOX News reporter Ainsley Earhardt broke the news on Hannity that that the racist, anti-Tea Party pro-Cochran ads that played on black radio stations in Mississippi were paid for by former Republican governor Haley Barbour’s super-PAC.
Then we found out this…
The NRSC is linked to the racist anti-Tea Party ads in Mississippi.
And, now there’s more evidence the NRSC funded these racist anti-Tea Party ads…
Got.News has more proof that the NRSC funded the racist anti-Tea Party ads in Mississippi against conservative Chris McDaniel.
Gotnews.com has exclusively obtained another “All Citizens for Mississippi” radio ad from conservative media consultant Rick Shaftan, who stands by his allegation that these ads were paid for by media buyer Jon Ferrell at National Media of Alexandria, Virginia using funds provided by the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC).
The newly-surfaced 90 second ad features Arthur L. Siggers, who identifies himself in the ad as pastor of the Mt. Olive Baptist Church and makes similar racially-charged accusations against U.S. Senate candidate Chris McDaniel to the ad featuring Bishop Ronnie Crudup of New Horizon Church International that Gotnews.com reported on Monday.
All Frank Otero wanted was a little help getting the word out about his campaign.
After meeting with Rep. Miguel Garcia, D-Albuquerque, at a political event, Garcia reached out.
“We talked on the phone he said he really wanted to help me and help my campaign,” Otero said.
And Garcia stayed true to his word, sending an email addressed to “Fellow House Members, Senate Colleagues, Elected Official Friends” Monday night.
That email enthusiastically backed Otero and fellow Valencia County Democrat Andrew Barreras in their bids in neighboring districts to unseat Republican Reps Kelly Fajardo and Alonzo Baldonado.
But Garcia also lobbed race-based attacks against Otero and Barreras’ primary opponents, fellow Democrats Jim Danner and Teresa Smith de Cherif. Under a section titled “Treachery in Our Ranks Undermine Barreras and Otero”, Garcia wrote:
A minority of unsuspecting Democratic leaders are supporting the Democratic Anglo newcomer opponents in Andrew’s and Frank’s primary races. Anglo Democrats with egos as big as Texas, mouths as big as the Grand Canyon, and much “green” [moolah] from the East and the West Coast.
Garcia’s money reference appears to be more to Smith de Cherif, who has raised more than $10,000 of her campaign funds from out of state per finance records posted online.
Otero immediately condemned Garcia’s racial comments against his opponent Tuesday.
“I just don’t believe in that,” Otero said. “My grandmother was half-Hispanic and half-Anglo. Some of those comments are offensive even to my family.”
“Those kind of comments just don’t fly in any capacity.”
Otero says he believes Garcia owes Danner an apology.
The remarks also caught the attention of House Speaker Ken Martinez, D-Grants, who says he’ll have a talk with Garcia.
“I just have to tell you I’m a little troubled by it and it really doesn’t reflect House Democratic values,” Martinez said in a phone interview. “I just don’t like race to raise its head as one of the issues you should vote one way or the other.”
Garcia declined to answer questions on his comments in the email or back off.
“I did not send the email to the media,” Garcia wrote in a text message. “I have nothing to share regarding my email seeking support for two outstanding candidates.”
Reached by phone, Andrew Barreras said he hadn’t seen the email yet. Also reached by phone, Danner declined to comment on Garcia’s attack on him. Smith de Cherif did not respond to an emailed request for comment in time for this story.
Garcia’s email also included another strange attack on a fellow Democratic representative. In talking about the balance of power in the House, Garcia said Democrats had a 37-33 edge over Republicans but currently “have a renegade Democrat who licks the Governor’s [armpits].”
That reference appears to be to Rep. Sandra Jeff, D-Crownpoint, who has sided with the Governor on several key issues. Jeff was tossed off the Democratic primary ballot after it was ruled she didn’t have enough valid petition signatures.
George Soros-funded Media Matters and the fledgling New York Times are taking a page from the MSNBC playbook of editing video in order to fit their narrative and twist the actual occurrence of an event. (watch video below) This is done in an effort not as journalists, but as propagandist activists. After all, with Soros’ buddy Barack Obama in the White House constantly fanning the flames of racial, gender, and economic divide, they must give the rabid progressive base some fuel for the fire.
MSNBC has been caught deceptively editing video to help drive the progressive false and slanderous narrative that those in the Tea Party movement and also other conservatives are hate-filled racists. They deceptively edited a video from a Million Vet March in October 2013 to make it appear as if the protestor was the instigator in an altercation with police when he was not. They deceptively edited a clip of testimony given by one of the fathers of a Sandy Hook victim to make it appear as though pro-gun rights advocates heckled the dad for no reason. MSNBC deceptively edited statements by a Republican congressman to make it sound like he referred to food stamp recipients as rapists, pedophiles, and murderers. The list goes on and on.
The deceptive editing of video as a type of progressive activism by MSNBC has become commonplace at Obama’s LEAN FORWARD network. While conservative news outlets call them out on it, the damage is already done. In that instant, they have convinced their viewers, albeit they don’t have many, to believe the lies that they as a “news organization” are spreading. MSNBC has perfected utilization of a high profile news network to implement Saul Alinsky’s rule #12 in Rules for Radicals.
Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)
Perhaps that is what has driven Media Matters and the New York Times to follow the lead of MSNBC in the deceptive editing of videos in order to not report the news to people, but rather make people believe the message and propaganda that they want them to believe.
Editing a video to fit an agenda to smear those who oppose big government policies and actions as racist is precisely what Media Matters did in relation to Cliven Bundy. The New York Times condoned these actions by reporting on the edited version of a Cliven Bundy speech. Bundy, the last rancher in Clark County Nevada, has made headlines lately with his battle against the U.S. government in a dispute over grazing fees. The Obama BLM chose to descend upon Bundy’s ranch, in what is largely an administrative matter, with hundreds of armed forces in full tactical gear accompanied by massive weaponry and attack dogs. They were met with opposition by thousands, consisting of private citizens, state legislators, Oath Keepers, among others, who went to Nevada to stand with Bundy against big government overreach.
While the standoff came to an end, Bundy has remained in the news with Democrat Senator Harry Reid calling him and his supporters domestic terrorists. Media Matters and the New York Times made the “journalistic” decision to continue the smear campaign by editing a video of a speech given by Bundy to make it appear that he is a racist.
Here is how the far-left, George Soros funded propagandists at Media Matters edited Bundy’s speech.
Let me tell, talk to you about the Mexicans, and these are just things I know about the negroes. I want to tell you one more thing I know about the negro. When I go, went, go to Las Vegas, North Las Vegas, and I would see these little government houses, and in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids – and there’s always at least a half a dozen people sitting on the porch. They didn’t have nothing to do. They didn’t have nothing for their kids to do. They didn’t have nothing for their young girls to do.
And because they were basically on government subsidy – so now what do they do? They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never, they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered are they were better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things? Or are they better off under government subsidy?
You know they didn’t get more freedom, they got less freedom – they got less family life, and their happiness – you could see it in their faces – they wasn’t happy sitting on that concrete sidewalk. Down there they was probably growing their turnips – so that’s all government, that’s not freedom.
The narrative being pushed based upon this edited video is that Bundy is an outright racist. However, looking at what the propagandists at Media Matters edited out of the video puts what Bundy said in a completely different context and perspective.
What is quoted above is the middle of Bundy’s speech. Here is what Bundy said in the beginning.
…and so what I’ve testified to you – I was in the Watts riot, I seen the beginning fire and I seen that last fire. What I seen is civil disturbance. People are not happy, people are thinking they don’t have their freedoms, they didn’t have these things, and they didn’t have them.
We’ve progressed quite a bit from that day until now, and we sure don’t want to go back. We sure don’t want the colored people to go back to that point. We sure don’t want these Mexican people to go back to that point. And we can make a difference right now by taking care of some of these bureaucracies, and do it in a peaceful way.
Now, here is what Bundy said at the end of the actual clip.
Now, let me talk about the Spanish people. You know, I understand that they come over here against our Constitution and cross our borders. But they’re here and they’re people – and I’ve worked side by side a lot of them.
Don’t tell me they don’t work, and don’t tell me they don’t pay taxes. And don’t tell me they don’t have better family structures than most of us white people. When you see those Mexican families, they’re together, they picnic together, they’re spending their time together, and I’ll tell you in my way of thinking they’re awful nice people. And we need to have those people join us and be with us not, not come to our party.
Is the terminology that Bundy used in calling blacks ‘negro’ a bit outdated. Sure it is. But, Harry Reid used the exact same word to refer to Barack Obama in 2008 when he said Obama was very electable because “he was light-skinned with no Negro dialect unless he wanted to have one.” In that instance, there was no outrage from the left, because Reid is on their side so they went into protectionist mode.
But, back to Bundy. The 67 year old rancher actually defended Hispanics, even illegal aliens, stating that he has worked side by side with some describing them as hard workers with a devotion to family resulting in better family structure than whites. In regards to blacks, Bundy was not saying that blacks were better off as slaves. He was actually make a rather rudimentary comparison between the lives of blacks during the days of slavery to the bondage far too many find themselves in now as slaves to big government programs and pawns in a warped progressive chess game for power.
Could Bundy have worded things differently? Is what he said about the impact of Democrat policies on the black community true? Far too many people will not pose those questions because of the selective editing by Media Matters, in true Alinsky fashion, to push an agenda.
The Bundy ranch conflict put the egregious overreach of big government on full display. It brought about recollections of Obama’s call for a civilian police force as powerful as the military. It shed light on the massive stockpiles of ammunition being purchased by government agencies that have no need for such firepower. It made Americans aware of just how many government agencies have ‘civilian police forces’ and the force the government will use to make you comply.
Maybe its expecting too much for George Soros funded Media Matters to operate with journalistic integrity since one of their major goals is to destroy FOX News, the only major network with a conservative bend. But, for the New York Times to participate in this Saul Alinsky scheme is both shameful and sad.
But, this is what the left does when they see that they are losing an argument or losing at an issue. They pick a target, freeze it, polarize it, and personalize it. They do what they have to do to incite fear, anger, and resentment so that they can bring more people into the controlling arms of big government. They go after people, not institutions, just as Saul Alinsky instructed. It makes it personal.
Media Matters edited Bundy speech:
Actual Bundy speech:
In stunning audio posted at TMZ, Los Angeles Clippers’ owner Donald Sterling chides a person who is apparently his girlfriend for “taking pictures with minorities” and “associating with black people.” Sterling sees her as a “delicate” “Latina or white girl,” and as such doesn’t understand why she should “associate with black people.” He doesn’t want her bringing black people to games, including NBA legend Magic Johnson.
Assuming the audio is authentic – What kind of crazy, reactionary mindset would cause an owner who works in an industry dominated by black players to have such opinions and feelings? The evidence is admittedly thin and a bit dated, but to the extent it exists, that answer is, apparently, “one who supports and donates to liberal Democrats” (HT Gateway Pundit):
Donald Sterling, Los Angeles Clippers
Records show Sterling has donated just $6,000, with no activity since the early 1990s. He supported Gray Davis early in his career, as well as Bill Bradley.
As noted, this is not definitive evidence of Sterling’s current political leanings. But if the Clippers’ owner had a 20 year-old record of donating to Republican candidates, it would not only be included in mainstream media stories about the controversy; it would also be considered prima facie evidence of racism.
So far, there’s stone silence about Sterling’s politics in stories found at the Associated Press, which notes that Sterling “has a decades-long history of alleged discrimination and offensive behavior”; the New York Times; and the Washington Post, which has included a quote from the Clippers’ team president noting that the woman involved “is the defendant in a lawsuit brought by the Sterling family alleging that she embezzled more than $1.8 million.”
…if msnbc doesn’t focus on him exclusively for the next 2 weeks… he’s not a Republican.
He was scheduled to receive his second lifetime achievement award from the NAACP but it has been cancelled in the wake of the comments he made to his girlfriend.
In an excruciating example of bad timing, the Los Angeles chapter of the NAACP was scheduled to bestow its Lifetime Achievement Award to Donald Sterling, owner of the Los Angeles Clippers basketball team, at its May 15 banquet. Sterling is now under fire for racist comments caught on a recording that surfaced on the TMZ website. Even President Barack Obama weighed in, condemning Sterling’s remarks as “incredibly offensive.” The NBA is now investigating Sterling’s remarks and could invoke sanctions, including removing him as Clippers’ owner. […]
Yes, there’s no way that the NAACP could have known that Sterling would be caught making those comments. But there’s also no way that the NAACP could not have known that Sterling has a long history of racist comments and racial discrimination in his rental properties.
Indeed, the NAACP seems to suffer from amnesia. Almost exactly five years ago, a similar controversy arose when the civil rights group honored Sterling with the same award! At the time, Elgin Baylor, who served as the Clippers general manager from 1986 to 2008, had just filed an age and racial discrimination suit against Sterling. According to Baylor, Sterling had a “Southern plantation” view, preferring to field a team of “poor black boys from the South… playing for a white coach.”
Despite the controversy, the NAACP proceeded to give Sterling its award, even though the billionaire’s track record of housing discrimination against African Americans, compounded by the brouhaha with Baylor, was already well-known. To justify the 2009 award, the president of the Los Angeles branch told the Los Angeles Times that Sterling “has a unique history of giving to the children of L.A.,” revealing that the owner donates anywhere from 2,000 to 3,000 tickets a game to youth groups for nearly every Clippers home game.” (Of course, Sterling may simply have wanted to fill the many empty seats at the woeful Clippers’ home games).
Chicago public schools are set to introduce a new Afro-centric curriculum, according to a closely-guarded copy obtained by The Daily Caller News Foundation.
The curriculum covers kindergarten through tenth grade and is designed to align with Common Core. It includes a web link to TheAfrican.com, a website whose publisher decries “fake-Jews” and calls the United States a “Zionist-occupied enemy territory.”
The site also claims that the world will end sometime this year and that President Barack Obama is “merely another trick of [the beast of the 4th Kingdom].”
The new Chicago curriculum was announced last December.
“CPS has taken great pride in developing a yearlong, interdisciplinary African and African-American studies program that will enrich the understanding and appreciation of African and African-American history and culture to help build stronger and more cohesive student communities,” said Chicago Public School chief executive Byrd Bennett in an announcement of the curriculum, dubbed IAAAS.
CPS began developing IAAAS after a push last year from groups that wanted to implement a state law passed in 1990 that required public schools to offer one unit on African-American history.
But CPS went above and beyond, implementing the curriculum across all core disciplines, which include literacy, mathematics, science, social science, the arts, physical education and health.
“The law said it had to be one unit devoted to the history of African-Americans,” Annette Gurley, CPS chief officer of teaching and learning told the Chicago Tribune in 2013. “What we’ve done is we’ve taken it throughout the year for all subjects, not just one subject.”
But some of the subjects, including those discussed at TheAfrican.com, are heavily controversial. The Chicago curriculum topic discussed at TheAfrican.com is “The Black Athena,” a book written by historian Martin Bernal. Sixth and ninth grade Chicago students will discuss the book and an accompanying full-length Youtube documentary.
In the work, Bernal claimed that ancient Greeks stole much of its civilization from Egypt, which, Bernal asserts, was populated by blacks. The Chicago curriculum entertains rebuttals to Bernal’s theory but skews heavily in its favor.
Ron Fritze, a historian, the dean of Athens State University, and author of the book “Invented Knowledge,” says that Bernal’s theories are not historically accurate and have no place in Chicago schools.
“As a historian and an educator, I am very troubled by the notion of [students] in Chicago city schools spending five weeks on Bernal’s ideas,” Fritze told TheDCNF.
“His ideas are outliers of scholarship and have been largely discredited among other scholars,” said Fritze, noting that few scholars from Egypt or even China and Japan subscribe to Bernal’s theories.
Fritze says that while most of Bernal’s critics had proven expertise in Classical studies, ancient history, and Egyptology, most of his supporters were not specialized in those fields.
“But they were people who found his ideas to be politically attractive,” said Fritze.
Chicago fifth graders will be exposed to another controversial and widely-criticized theory in Ivan van Sertima’s “They Came Before Columbus.” Van Sertima, who taught at Rutgers University, theorized that Africans populated the Americas well before Columbus.
But critics largely panned the work. In a 1977 New York Times book review, archaeologist Glyn Daniel called van Sertima’s work “ignorant rubbish” and labeled it “myth and folklore.”
Fritze is critical as well.
“I and most historians of exploration consider ‘They Came Before Columbus’ to be very wrong in its contentions about African voyages to the Americas,” he told TheDCNF.
Nevertheless, the IAAAS curriculum provides a unit on the work that includes links to seven-part Youtube video series.
Laid out in the curriculum are pictures with arrows drawn to help guide teachers’ lessons. One asks, “Is the water under the ‘boat’ telling us that these people traveled over the ocean from a place with pyramids?”
CPS initially denied TheDCNF’s request for a copy of the curriculum, made last year, citing the fact that the curriculum was still a preliminary draft.
But last December, Byrd-Bennett made a presentation using slides taken from the IAAAS curriculum. State open records laws require officials to release records of preliminary drafts when those records have been discussed in a public forum.
The Chicago curriculum does focus heavily on well established history and events – including discussions on slavery, the histories of black inventors, the civil rights movement and President Obama.
But other sections also delve into controversial areas. The eighth grade literacy section unit, titled “Being an Advocate to Social Justice,” directs students to the website for the American Civil Liberties Union. It also includes a poem titled “Racism is Around Me Everywhere,” cartoons from the website LeftyCartoons.com, and it encourages discussion of Attorney General Eric Holder’s infamous “nation of cowards” quote.
The ninth grade literacy section encompasses a study of the Pan African Movement. Teachers are encouraged to engage their students in debate over voluntary segregation. “Have someone read the following resolution, Resolved: voluntary segregation promotes growth in a diverse community. Teams then participate in a graded formal debate.”
Tenth graders are introduced to “critical race theory,” which holds that institutional racism and white privilege are pervasive throughout society.
A request for comment from Chicago Public Schools was not answered.
Last month, Alabama State Rep. Alvin Holmes (D) made some controversial and racially-charged statements that could cost him $100,000 if he is willing to put his money where his mouth is
During a legislative session discussion on abortion rights, Holmes speculated that members of the GOP would be supportive of abortion if their daughters were impregnated by black men. The elected official, who has served in the state house since 1974, then offered to pay $100,000 cash to anyone who could show him a “bunch of whites” who have adopted black children in Alabama.
Those comments sparked the formation of a group of families in Alabama who are easily able to disprove Holmes’ theory.
Faces of Families in Alabama is the name of the Facebook group dedicated to showing Holmes and the world that families – adoptive families – are not as racially divided as he believes. In less than a month, Faces of Families has earned more than 7000 “likes” on the social media outlet and photos are coming into the group daily, showing off the mosaic of families made up of all colors.
On Wednesday, Faces of Families in Alabama gathered on the steps of the State House to demonstrate just how many multi-racial, adoptive families were in the state. By all accounts, the rally was peaceful and positive.
After the group showed up, Holmes doubled down on his comments, telling a local television station, ”The majority of the white people in the state of Alabama are against adopting black children.” The group has asked for an apology from Holmes and some are calling for his resignation.
What about the $100,000 in cash that he offered to anyone who could show him a “bunch of whites” who have adopted black babies in Alabama?
It would appear that Faces of Families in Alabama met his challenge. One adoptive mom, Beverly Owings, who has a 13-year-old bi-racial daughter told the local ABC affiliate, “he should have to put his money where his mouth is.”
We did speak with Beverly Owings on Thursday afternoon and she confirmed that Holmes had been invited to attend the event, but did not appear. Beverly and her husband Jeromy, are parents to four adopted children, one is bi-racial children.
“This was not about money, but about changing Holmes opinion,” she told TheBlaze, “and about getting out the word about how many children are available for adoption in Alabama.”
A few hours after the rally, Holmes reportedly called into a local radio show where the Ownings were slated to be guests for 30 minutes to talk about the event. That appearance reportedly turned into a one-hour show with more call-ins than the station had seen in quite some time. We have requested a copy of the audio and will attach it when it comes available.
TheBlaze has made several calls to the offices and home of the representative. The state legislature is currently not in session and no voice mail messaging options were available on his home or district phone numbers. When we get a response from Holmes we will update this story.
In honor of President Lyndon Johnson and the 50th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act, President Barack Obama on Thursday honored Johnson, calling him a “master of politics and the legislative process” who paved the way for him to become the first African-American president.
“Because of the Civil Rights movement, because of the laws President Johnson signed, new doors of opportunity and education swung open for everybody,” Obama said. “Not just blacks and whites, but also women and Latinos; and Asians and Native Americans; and gay Americans and Americans with a disability. They swung open for you, and they swung open for me. And that’s why I’m standing here today – because of those efforts, because of that legacy.”
As the president faces a divided Congress and tries to recover from the rocky roll-out of the Affordable Care Act, Obama harkened back to Lyndon Johnson’s passage of significant pieces of legislation like the Voting Rights Act and the Fair Housing Act.
“Passing laws was what LBJ knew how to do,” Obama said. “No one knew politics and no one loved legislating more than President Johnson. He was charming when he needed to be, ruthless when required. He could wear you down with logic and argument. He could horse trade, and he could flatter.”
“What President Johnson understood was that equality required more than the absence of oppression,” Obama continued. “It required the presence of economic opportunity. He wouldn’t be as eloquent as Dr. King would be in describing that linkage… but he understood that connection because he had lived it. A decent job, decent wages, health care – those, too, were civil rights worth fighting for.”
Using Johnson’s legislative success as a backdrop, Obama made the case that government has a role to play in addressing economic inequality. “In a time when cynicism is too often passed off as wisdom,” Obama said, “it’s perhaps easy to conclude that there are limits to change; that we are trapped by our own history; and politics is a fool’s errand, and we’d be better off if we roll back big chunks of LBJ’s legacy, or at least if we don’t put too much of our hope, invest too much of our hope in our government.”
“I reject such thinking,” Obama added, emphatically.
This magazine has long specialized in debunking pernicious political myths, and Jonah Goldberg has now provided an illuminating catalogue of tyrannical clichés, but worse than the myth and the cliché is the outright lie, the utter fabrication with malice aforethought, and my nominee for the worst of them is the popular but indefensible belief that the two major U.S. political parties somehow “switched places” vis-à-vis protecting the rights of black Americans, a development believed to be roughly concurrent with the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the rise of Richard Nixon. That Republicans have let Democrats get away with this mountebankery is a symptom of their political fecklessness, and in letting them get away with it the GOP has allowed itself to be cut off rhetorically from a pantheon of Republican political heroes, from Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass to Susan B. Anthony, who represent an expression of conservative ideals as true and relevant today as it was in the 19th century. Perhaps even worse, the Democrats have been allowed to rhetorically bury their Bull Connors, their longstanding affiliation with the Ku Klux Klan, and their pitiless opposition to practically every major piece of civil-rights legislation for a century. Republicans may not be able to make significant inroads among black voters in the coming elections, but they would do well to demolish this myth nonetheless.
Even if the Republicans’ rise in the South had happened suddenly in the 1960s (it didn’t) and even if there were no competing explanation (there is), racism – or, more precisely, white southern resentment over the political successes of the civil-rights movement – would be an implausible explanation for the dissolution of the Democratic bloc in the old Confederacy and the emergence of a Republican stronghold there. That is because those southerners who defected from the Democratic party in the 1960s and thereafter did so to join a Republican party that was far more enlightened on racial issues than were the Democrats of the era, and had been for a century. There is no radical break in the Republicans’ civil-rights history: From abolition to Reconstruction to the anti-lynching laws, from the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the Civil Rights Act of 1875 to the Civil Rights Acts of 1957, 1960, and 1964, there exists a line that is by no means perfectly straight or unwavering but that nonetheless connects the politics of Lincoln with those of Dwight D. Eisenhower. And from slavery and secession to remorseless opposition to everything from Reconstruction to the anti-lynching laws, the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, the Civil Rights Act of 1875, and the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1960, there exists a similarly identifiable line connecting John Calhoun and Lyndon Baines Johnson. Supporting civil-rights reform was not a radical turnaround for congressional Republicans in 1964, but it was a radical turnaround for Johnson and the Democrats.
The depth of Johnson’s prior opposition to civil-rights reform must be digested in some detail to be properly appreciated. In the House, he did not represent a particularly segregationist constituency (it “made up for being less intensely segregationist than the rest of the South by being more intensely anti-Communist,” as the New York Times put it), but Johnson was practically antebellum in his views. Never mind civil rights or voting rights: In Congress, Johnson had consistently and repeatedly voted against legislation to protect black Americans from lynching. As a leader in the Senate, Johnson did his best to cripple the Civil Rights Act of 1957; not having votes sufficient to stop it, he managed to reduce it to an act of mere symbolism by excising the enforcement provisions before sending it to the desk of President Eisenhower. Johnson’s Democratic colleague Strom Thurmond nonetheless went to the trouble of staging the longest filibuster in history up to that point, speaking for 24 hours in a futile attempt to block the bill. The reformers came back in 1960 with an act to remedy the deficiencies of the 1957 act, and Johnson’s Senate Democrats again staged a record-setting filibuster. In both cases, the “master of the Senate” petitioned the northeastern Kennedy liberals to credit him for having seen to the law’s passage while at the same time boasting to southern Democrats that he had taken the teeth out of the legislation. Johnson would later explain his thinking thus: “These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days, and that’s a problem for us, since they’ve got something now they never had before: the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this – we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference.”
Johnson did not spring up from the Democratic soil ex nihilo. Not one Democrat in Congress voted for the Fourteenth Amendment. Not one Democrat in Congress voted for the Fifteenth Amendment. Not one voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1875. Eisenhower as a general began the process of desegregating the military, and Truman as president formalized it, but the main reason either had to act was that President Wilson, the personification of Democratic progressivism, had resegregated previously integrated federal facilities. (“If the colored people made a mistake in voting for me, they ought to correct it,” he declared.) Klansmen from Senator Robert Byrd to Justice Hugo Black held prominent positions in the Democratic party – and President Wilson chose the Klan epic Birth of a Nation to be the first film ever shown at the White House.
Johnson himself denounced an earlier attempt at civil-rights reform as the “nigger bill.” So what happened in 1964 to change Democrats’ minds? In fact, nothing.
President Johnson was nothing if not shrewd, and he knew something that very few popular political commentators appreciate today: The Democrats began losing the “solid South” in the late 1930s – at the same time as they were picking up votes from northern blacks. The Civil War and the sting of Reconstruction had indeed produced a political monopoly for southern Democrats that lasted for decades, but the New Deal had been polarizing. It was very popular in much of the country, including much of the South – Johnson owed his election to the House to his New Deal platform and Roosevelt connections – but there was a conservative backlash against it, and that backlash eventually drove New Deal critics to the Republican party. Likewise, adherents of the isolationist tendency in American politics, which is never very far from the surface, looked askance at what Bob Dole would later famously call “Democrat wars” (a factor that would become especially relevant when the Democrats under Kennedy and Johnson committed the United States to a very divisive war in Vietnam). The tiniest cracks in the Democrats’ southern bloc began to appear with the backlash to FDR’s court-packing scheme and the recession of 1937. Republicans would pick up 81 House seats in the 1938 election, with West Virginia’s all-Democrat delegation ceasing to be so with the acquisition of its first Republican. Kentucky elected a Republican House member in 1934, as did Missouri, while Tennessee’s first Republican House member, elected in 1918, was joined by another in 1932. Throughout the 1940s and 1950s, the Republican party, though marginal, began to take hold in the South – but not very quickly: Dixie would not send its first Republican to the Senate until 1961, with Texas’s election of John Tower.
At the same time, Republicans went through a long dry spell on civil-rights progress. Many of them believed, wrongly, that the issue had been more or less resolved by the constitutional amendments that had been enacted to ensure the full citizenship of black Americans after the Civil War, and that the enduring marginalization of black citizens, particularly in the Democratic states, was a problem that would be healed by time, economic development, and organic social change rather than through a second political confrontation between North and South. (As late as 1964, the Republican platform argued that “the elimination of any such discrimination is a matter of heart, conscience, and education, as well as of equal rights under law.”) The conventional Republican wisdom of the day held that the South was backward because it was poor rather than poor because it was backward. And their strongest piece of evidence for that belief was that Republican support in the South was not among poor whites or the old elites – the two groups that tended to hold the most retrograde beliefs on race – but among the emerging southern middle class, a fact recently documented by professors Byron Shafer and Richard Johnston in The End of Southern Exceptionalism: Class, Race, and Partisan Change in the Postwar South (Harvard University Press, 2006). Which is to say: The Republican rise in the South was contemporaneous with the decline of race as the most important political question and tracked the rise of middle-class voters moved mainly by economic considerations and anti-Communism.
The South had been in effect a Third World country within the United States, and that changed with the post-war economic boom. As Clay Risen put it in the New York Times: “The South transformed itself from a backward region to an engine of the national economy, giving rise to a sizable new wealthy suburban class. This class, not surprisingly, began to vote for the party that best represented its economic interests: the GOP. Working-class whites, however – and here’s the surprise – even those in areas with large black populations, stayed loyal to the Democrats. This was true until the 90s, when the nation as a whole turned rightward in Congressional voting.” The mythmakers would have you believe that it was the opposite: that your white-hooded hillbilly trailer-dwelling tornado-bait voters jumped ship because LBJ signed a civil-rights bill (passed on the strength of disproportionately Republican support in Congress). The facts suggest otherwise.
There is no question that Republicans in the 1960s and thereafter hoped to pick up the angry populists who had delivered several states to Wallace. That was Patrick J. Buchanan’s portfolio in the Nixon campaign. But in the main they did not do so by appeal to racial resentment, direct or indirect. The conservative ascendency of 1964 saw the nomination of Barry Goldwater, a western libertarian who had never been strongly identified with racial issues one way or the other, but who was a principled critic of the 1964 act and its extension of federal power. Goldwater had supported the 1957 and 1960 acts but believed that Title II and Title VII of the 1964 bill were unconstitutional, based in part on a 75-page brief from Robert Bork. But far from extending a welcoming hand to southern segregationists, he named as his running mate a New York representative, William E. Miller, who had been the co-author of Republican civil-rights legislation in the 1950s. The Republican platform in 1964 was hardly catnip for Klansmen: It spoke of the Johnson administration’s failure to help further the “just aspirations of the minority groups” and blasted the president for his refusal “to apply Republican-initiated retraining programs where most needed, particularly where they could afford new economic opportunities to Negro citizens.” Other planks in the platform included: “improvements of civil rights statutes adequate to changing needs of our times; such additional administrative or legislative actions as may be required to end the denial, for whatever unlawful reason, of the right to vote; continued opposition to discrimination based on race, creed, national origin or sex.” And Goldwater’s fellow Republicans ran on a 1964 platform demanding “full implementation and faithful execution of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and all other civil rights statutes, to assure equal rights and opportunities guaranteed by the Constitution to every citizen.” Some dog whistle.
Of course there were racists in the Republican party. There were racists in the Democratic party. The case of Johnson is well documented, while Nixon had his fantastical panoply of racial obsessions, touching blacks, Jews, Italians (“Don’t have their heads screwed on”), Irish (“They get mean when they drink”), and the Ivy League WASPs he hated so passionately (“Did one of those dirty bastards ever invite me to his f***ing men’s club or goddamn country club? Not once”). But the legislative record, the evolution of the electorate, the party platforms, the keynote speeches – none of them suggests a party-wide Republican about-face on civil rights.
Neither does the history of the black vote. While Republican affiliation was beginning to grow in the South in the late 1930s, the GOP also lost its lock on black voters in the North, among whom the New Deal was extraordinarily popular. By 1940, Democrats for the first time won a majority of black votes in the North. This development was not lost on Lyndon Johnson, who crafted his Great Society with the goal of exploiting widespread dependency for the benefit of the Democratic party. Unlike the New Deal, a flawed program that at least had the excuse of relying upon ideas that were at the time largely untested and enacted in the face of a worldwide economic emergency, Johnson’s Great Society was pure politics. Johnson’s War on Poverty was declared at a time when poverty had been declining for decades, and the first Job Corps office opened when the unemployment rate was less than 5 percent. Congressional Republicans had long supported a program to assist the indigent elderly, but the Democrats insisted that the program cover all of the elderly – even though they were, then as now, the most affluent demographic, with 85 percent of them in households of above-average wealth. Democrats such as Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare Anthony J. Celebrezze argued that the Great Society would end “dependency” among the elderly and the poor, but the programs were transparently designed merely to transfer dependency from private and local sources of support to federal agencies created and overseen by Johnson and his political heirs. In the context of the rest of his program, Johnson’s unexpected civil-rights conversion looks less like an attempt to empower blacks and more like an attempt to make clients of them.
If the parties had in some meaningful way flipped on civil rights, one would expect that to show up in the electoral results in the years following the Democrats’ 1964 about-face on the issue. Nothing of the sort happened: Of the 21 Democratic senators who opposed the 1964 act, only one would ever change parties. Nor did the segregationist constituencies that elected these Democrats throw them out in favor of Republicans: The remaining 20 continued to be elected as Democrats or were replaced by Democrats. It was, on average, nearly a quarter of a century before those seats went Republican. If southern rednecks ditched the Democrats because of a civil-rights law passed in 1964, it is strange that they waited until the late 1980s and early 1990s to do so. They say things move slower in the South – but not that slow.
Republicans did begin to win some southern House seats, and in many cases segregationist Democrats were thrown out by southern voters in favor of civil-rights Republicans. One of the loudest Democratic segregationists in the House was Texas’s John Dowdy, a bitter and buffoonish opponent of the 1964 reforms, which he declared “would set up a despot in the attorney general’s office with a large corps of enforcers under him; and his will and his oppressive action would be brought to bear upon citizens, just as Hitler’s minions coerced and subjugated the German people. I would say this – I believe this would be agreed to by most people: that, if we had a Hitler in the United States, the first thing he would want would be a bill of this nature.” (Who says political rhetoric has been debased in the past 40 years?) Dowdy was thrown out in 1966 in favor of a Republican with a very respectable record on civil rights, a little-known figure by the name of George H. W. Bush.
It was in fact not until 1995 that Republicans represented a majority of the southern congressional delegation – and they had hardly spent the Reagan years campaigning on the resurrection of Jim Crow.
It was not the Civil War but the Cold War that shaped midcentury partisan politics. Eisenhower warned the country against the “military-industrial complex,” but in truth Ike’s ascent had represented the decisive victory of the interventionist, hawkish wing of the Republican party over what remained of the America First/Charles Lindbergh/Robert Taft tendency. The Republican party had long been staunchly anti-Communist, but the post-war era saw that anti-Communism energized and looking for monsters to slay, both abroad – in the form of the Soviet Union and its satellites – and at home, in the form of the growing welfare state, the “creeping socialism” conservatives dreaded. By the middle 1960s, the semi-revolutionary Left was the liveliest current in U.S. politics, and Republicans’ unapologetic anti-Communism – especially conservatives’ rhetoric connecting international socialism abroad with the welfare state at home – left the Left with nowhere to go but the Democratic party. Vietnam was Johnson’s war, but by 1968 the Democratic party was not his alone.
The schizophrenic presidential election of that year set the stage for the subsequent transformation of southern politics: Segregationist Democrat George Wallace, running as an independent, made a last stand in the old Confederacy but carried only five states, while Republican Richard Nixon, who had helped shepherd the 1957 Civil Rights Act through Congress, counted a number of Confederate states (North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida, and Tennessee) among the 32 he carried. Democrat Hubert Humphrey was reduced to a northern fringe plus Texas. Mindful of the long-term realignment already under way in the South, Johnson informed Democrats worried about losing it after the 1964 act that “those states may be lost anyway.” Subsequent presidential elections bore him out: Nixon won a 49-state sweep in 1972, and, with the exception of the post-Watergate election of 1976, Republicans in the following presidential elections would more or less occupy the South like Sherman. Bill Clinton would pick up a handful of southern states in his two contests, and Barack Obama had some success in the post-southern South, notably Virginia and Florida.
The Republican ascendancy in Dixie is associated with the rise of the southern middle class, the increasingly trenchant conservative critique of Communism and the welfare state, the Vietnam controversy and the rise of the counterculture, law-and-order concerns rooted in the urban chaos that ran rampant from the late 1960s to the late 1980s, and the incorporation of the radical Left into the Democratic party. Individual events, especially the freak show that was the 1968 Democratic convention, helped solidify conservatives’ affiliation with the Republican party. Democrats might argue that some of these concerns – especially welfare and crime – are “dog whistles” or “code” for race and racism, but this criticism is shallow in light of the evidence and the real saliency of those issues among U.S. voters of all backgrounds and both parties for decades. Indeed, Democrats who argue that the best policies for black Americans are those that are soft on crime and generous with welfare are engaged in much the same sort of cynical racial calculation President Johnson was practicing when he informed skeptical southern governors that his plan for the Great Society was “to have them niggers voting Democratic for the next two hundred years.” Johnson’s crude racism is, happily, largely a relic of the past, but his strategy endures.