oleeb's picture

    What Makes Right Wing Authoritarians Tick?

    The right wing authoritarian Republican Nominee for US Senate in Delaware shown above. Over the past 40-50 years we have seen American right wing extremism and authoritarianism grow from a tiny, isolated, and reviled but committed faction to a...

    The right wing authoritarian Republican Nominee for US Senate in Delaware shown above.

    Over the past 40-50 years we have seen American right wing extremism and authoritarianism grow from a tiny, idolated, and reviled but committed faction to a now robust and burgeoning proto-fascist movement.  There is tremendous ironyreagrding this problem in that the traditional powers in the Republican Party are now being threatened and displaced by the very crazy extremism they spawned.  I will cry no tears for the tradtional Republicans when they are snuffed out, but I am highly concerned that the right wing authoritarianism they nurtured is now metastasizing at an alarming rate.  For while the traditional Republicans gave birth to this virulent political tumor neither did the Democrats do anything in order to combat them nor to prepare for the time we will have to go up against them at the ballot box.  Now there's a serious chance that crackpots the like of Rand Paul, Sharon Angle and other genuine loons like Christine O'Donnell are going to become US Senators.  If the right wing authoritarians are to be stopped then they will have to be stopped by the Democrats.  If Democrats have any hope of beating back the authoritarian horde it is necessary to understand right wing authoritarianism. 

    Many a pundut has scratched their head wondering aloud how on earth these crackpots could be taken seriously and/or howcould anyone vote these kind of people into office?  They wonder because they are assuming the candidates and the teabaggers in general are normal people.  They are not.  They fit a specific profile that has been extensively and scientifically researched.  Yet few people have had any exposure to this important body of work.  We can no longer afford not to be very well informed about the right wing authoritarian mind and personality. 

    If you haven't read John Dean's book "Conservatives Without Conscience" you really should.  In it, Dean describes the evolution of conservatism in America in the modern era.  I will not recap the book in full, but essentially Dean describes how, in the name of conservatism, authoritarian personalities have come to dominate, if not destroy, both the Republican Party in the US and our system of constitutional government right before our very eyes.  I highly recommend the book.  It is not a long book and Dean, as you probably know, is a brilliant observer and superb writer.  Much of the information about authoritarianism in Dean's book is based upon research done by a Professor at the University of Manitoba named Bob Altemeyer. 

    Prof. Altemeyer has spent most of his career studying authoritarianism and has conducted extensive, scientific psychological research on the subject that sheds a bright light on who the authoritarians are, what makes them tick, how they think and why they think as they do.  He may well be the foremost expert on authoritarianism in the world. 

    Prof. Altemeyer thinks that American democracy is in danger.  I agree. 

    It may seem obvious to some that the authoritarian threat has been on the rise for decades, but it clearly is not obvious to many citizens nor is it obvious to many key people in our society such as opinion leaders nationally, those employed by the corporate media, many, if not most, of our political leaders and decision makers and others and that is distressing to say the least.  It isn't because people don't recognize the extremism and radical views espoused by the authoritarian Republicans because they do.  But most people a) do not understand what drives either the leaders or the followers and b) they continue to make the mistake of assuming that underneath it all these people are rational and well meaning but they are not.  One simply cannot reason or work with someone whose psychology is fundamentally and unalterably unreasonable and totally inflexible.

    Even though there is plenty of information available about the authoritarian enemies of democracy, few have read much about it, fewer still know anything about it whether they are citizens in the hinterland, the nonauthoritarian elites of Washington DC or the perorters and editors of the media.  This is especially clear regarding the elites when one takes into account some of the amazingly naïve, almost surreal talk emanating from Washington by well meaning Democrats about "bipartisanship" and how important it is to work with the Republicans.  This has been an ongoing lament on the part of Democrats throughout the entire era since the authoritarians first emerged and as they have become the dominant force in the Republican Party.  The Democrats' continued misunderstanding and more importantly mishandling of the authoritarians they are dealing with is central to what leads to the frustration of policymakers who continue to get hoodwinked, outmaneuvered and just plain snookered by the bad faith and underhandedness of the Republicans.  It also leads to the massive frustration on the part of citizens and activists who cannot believe that Democrats are unable to make any real progress on their agenda despite overwhelming Democratic majorities.  Without properly understanding and coming to grips with the authoritarian personalities they face, how such people think and operate, it will be impossible for Democrats to effectively counter their amoral, demagogic, and extremist methods.  What is clear is that it is high time to abandon the naïve and potentially dangerous notion that the authoritarian Republicans are either reasonable or honorable because they are neither of those things.  They are fundamentally unethical and amoral beings.  In other words, the problem is much deeper than a mere ideological problem.

    So, what is to be done? 

    The first step to understanding the rise of the authoritarian political phenomenon is to understand the authoritarian personalities involved.  So definitely get a hold of Dean's book but also take a look at what Prof. Altemeyer has written.  How can one do that you ask?  Well, there is a very easy and accessible way available to all that doesn't cost a thing.  Prof. Altemeyer, apparently at the request of John Dean, wrote a book for nonscientists explaining in straightforward language the findings of his research and in which he shares his insights and observations of over 40 years.  The book titled "The Authoritarians" is freely available on the web and is easy to download.  I urge you to click on the link below and start reading Altemeyer's important work which, while written several years ago now, remains just as important and timely as it was then.

    Following is a brief excerpt from Altemeyer's introduction to the book that will give you an idea about the work and, I hope, convince you to learn as much as you can about the authoritarian personalities we are threatened by so we can effectively counter and neutralize them.

    But why should you even bother reading this book? I would offer three reasons. First, if you are concerned about what has happened in America since a radical right-wing segment of the population began taking control of the government about a dozen years ago, I think you'll find a lot in this book that says your fears are well founded. As many have pointed out, the Republic is once again passing through perilous times. The concept of a constitutional democracy has been under attack--and by the American government no less! The mid-term elections of 2006 give hope that the best values and traditions of the country will ultimately prevail. But it could prove a huge mistake to think that the enemies of freedom and equality have lost the war just because they were recently rebuffed at the polls. I'll be very much surprised if their leaders don't frame the setback as a test of the followers' faith, causing them to redouble their efforts. They came so close to getting what they want, they're not likely to pack up and go away without an all-out drive. But even if their leaders cannot find an acceptable presidential candidate for 2008, even if authoritarians play a much diminished role in the next election, even if they temporarily fade from view, they will still be there, aching for a dictatorship that will force their views on everyone. And they will surely be energized again, as they were in 1994, if a new administration infuriates them while carrying out its mandate. The country is not out of danger yet.

    The second reason I can offer for reading what follows is that it is not chock full of opinions, but experimental evidence. Liberals have stereotypes about conservatives, and conservatives have stereotypes about liberals.  Moderates have stereotypes about both.  Anyone who has watched, or been a liberal arguing with a conservative (or vice versa) knows that personal opinion and rhetoric can be had a penny a pound.  But all that arguing never seems to get anywhere. Whereas if you set up a fair and square experiment in which people can act nobly, fairly, and with integrity, and you find that most of one group does, and most of another group does not, that's a fact, not an opinion. And if you keep finding the same thing experiment after experiment, and other people do too, then that's a body of facts that demands attention.  Some people, we have seen to our dismay, don't give a hoot what scientific investigation reveals.  But most people do. If the data were fairly gathered and we let them do the talking, we should be on a higher plane than the current, "Sez you!"

    The last reason why you might be interested in the hereafter is that you might want more than just facts about authoritarians, but understanding and insight into why they act the way they do.  Which is often mind-boggling. How can they revere those who gave their lives defending freedom and then support moves to take that freedom away? How can they go on believing things that have been disconfirmed over and over again, and disbelieve things that are well established? How can they think they are the best people in the world, when so much of what they do ought to show them they are not? Why do their leaders so often turn out to be crooks and hypocrites? Why do the followers accept the flimsy excuses and even obvious lies that their leaders proclaim, and cling to them so dogmatically? Why are both the followers and the leaders so aggressive that hostility is practically their trademark? Why are both so unaffected by the evil they do?  By the time you have finished this book, I think you will understand the reasons.  All of this, and much more, fit into place once you see what research has uncovered going on in authoritarian minds.

    Ready to go exploring?


    Here is the link to Prof. Altemeyer's book, "The Authoritarians": http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/



    With only 20% average turnout for primary elections, the idea that an "extremist" ideology has taken over the republican party is more jumping at shadows based on anecdotal evidence at best.

    http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e66/LarrytheDuck/Dag_Blog_Duck/4860e5ea-1.gifQuack Quack Quack Quack Quack . . .



    Thanks for this Oleeb.

    Jason, I hear you. But I think you are just whistling past the graveyard.

    I believe you to be a reasonable person. Unfortunately, that is becoming a less desireable attribute to a growing number of wingers, baggers, birthers, tenthers and deniers.

    Whatever you do (oh he who joined the Republican Party in the summer of 2008)don't make any statements based on actual knowledge such as reading John Dean's book or Professor Altemeyer's book or perhaps even turning on your television set and watching the news to see what is happening for all to see.

    Certainly you are correct that the extreme right wing has not been increasing it's stranglehold on the Republican Party as evidenced by the primary election defeat of incumbent Republican Senators in Nevada and Alaska by totally unqualified right wing extremists or the defeat of perhaps the most prominent Republican in Delaware by a totally unqualified nutcase. Nor would the crushing defeat of Republican candidate Lazio in New York state last night indicate extremism in the Republican Party there simply because a totally disgraceful and disreputable right wing extremist rode the authortiarian Tea Party Express to victory in their Gubernatorial primary. Don't let the fact that a far right wing extremist Teabagger won the Republican nomination for Governor in Colorado either. Of course, it also means nothing that a right wing extremist candidate won the Republican nomination for Governor in South Carolina or that the extremist candidate for the Republican nomination for Senator in NH, at minimum, came within a hair's breadth of winning that primary and may actually be the party's nominee when the final tally is known. And it means zilch that John McCain publicly humiliated himself by pandering to the extremists in Arizona by flip flopping on all kinds of issues in order to survive a primary challenge from the far right. And let's not forget that it is simply meaningless that right wing extremist Pat Toomey drove long time Senator Arlen Specter out of the Republican Party entirely in a desperate attempt to hold on to his Senate seat in the face of rising right wing power in the Republican Party in that state. These are, of course, only meaningless, unimportant examples making headlines right now and naturally don't include the extreme authoritarian right wing Republicans already serving in the US Congress like Jim "know nothing" Demint, Michele Bachmann, SC Congressman "You lie" Wilson and many others. Nor does this list include the hundreds of right wing authoritarian Republicans already serving in state legislatures or the many, many more who are on the ballot in November. And those are only a few of the utterly meaningless, anecdotal examples that don't indicate at all the presence of a growing influence of the extremist authoritarian faction in the Republican Party. It isn't as though there are any prominent right wing authoritarians like Newt Gingrich, Dick Armey or Sarah Palin prominently leading the extreme right wing faction either. Another meaningless, anecdotal bit of nonevidence of extremism among Republicans would be the stubborn belief despite all evidence, demonstrated in survey after survey that nearly half of all Republicans think the President of the United States is a foreign born Muslim socialist. Lots of regular, everyday moderates believe such things don't they? And to top it all off, nobody of any import or who has any real knowledge or experience in these matters is concerned about this nonissue nor have they been raising the alarm over it for years, as long as you don't count John Dean (a piker with no knowledge of Republican politics), Prof. Altemeyer (barely qualified to speak on this subject), or the likes of Paul Krugman or Bob Herbert or Dwight D. Eisenhower's granddaughter Susan to name just a few. Naaaah! Nothing to see here so pay no attention to what's going on out there and it will just go away.

    This is all somehow the President's fault.

    Ya know, I don't think anyone has even faintly implied that.  Nope.  That would miss the point entirely.

    I think it is important to see the emergence of the Histrionic Right in the context of a nation that has been moving steadily toward the right since 70s.

    A book I have been reading lately is Right Turn, written by Ferguson and Rogers and published in 1986. It details how the "moderate" Democratic elites pushed the party into the business oriented policy formation. The book also goes into how the deals between labor and big corporations were deteriorating before Reagan came on the scene to play champion for the business elites.

    The book also studies the growing number of people who stopped participating in the Democratic party because they felt it did not participate in them. They were making the point in regards to the Democratic party that Jason E Miller often makes about the Republicans of today.

    24 years after its publication, Right Turn looks like a blueprint of the present day. The structure has been built, the people have moved in. A few of those people think the structure is good and everything is as it should be. Others think it is wrong and want to remodel or demolish it. A great many just think it is what it is and there is no reason to have much of an opinion about it.

    The rightward turn of the Nation is not a shift in opinions or values so much as it is a general acceptance that what makes the way things are now is huge and powerful and is able to defend itself.

    The acceptance leads to a narrowing of political expression. Now all sides declare themselves enemies of the status quo. Everyone agrees something is rotten in Denmark. In this play, there are two kinds of roles: Hostages and Prostitutes.

    So I agree that serious efforts should be made to stop the right wing from handing out too many shivs to those Hostages who think the System is a liberal conspiracy but the underlying problem has more to do with the prison itself. The prison all of us hostages and prostitutes built together.

    Also pertinent on this topic is Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson's (authors of the excellent The Great Risk Shift) latest, Winner Take All Politics: How Washington Made the Rich Richer and Turned Its Back on the Middle-Class.  This is just out and is getting significant buzz in commentariat circles.  I've only read reviews of it, not yet the book itself, but according to those reviews, one of the topics discussed in depth is the internal shift within the Democratic party since the 1970s toward far greater influence by elites who have tilted the party's agenda towards their priorities and preferences and away from policies that benefit the middle class, let alone the poor.  

    Part of how this elite influence within the Democratic party has manifested itself, however, is through market fundamentalists unwilling to regulate Wall Street--which is somewhat the opposite of an authoritarian dynamic.  (Authoritarianism being a term that is applied to the more overt functioning of a political system.  We don't apply it to the functioning of an economic system--not yet, anyway.  Although perhaps at some point we will start to do that.)

    This, rather, is economic dominance, and dominance of the political system by vast economic power.  It has over the past 30-40 years brought about the selective triumph of laissez-faire policy approaches on many economic issues--not authoritarian outcomes in the conventional sense.  (related, see my comment in this thread in re to Anonymous' comments on Ron Paul, in which I note several ways in which I want a much bolder government, as the only practical way to counter what otherwise would be the dominance of private interests whose policy triumphs are defeats for the vast majority of us.)

    On this point also see Michael Hirsh's new book Capital Offense: How Washington's Wise Men Turned America's Future Over to Wall Street, which I am going to buy later today based on what I'm hearing about it.  Even though he isn't spending a lot of his time running a blog site where I am writing these days.  :<)

    Thanks for the heads up, American Dreamer. I will check the book out.

    Sure, you're most welcome, moat.  I figured there must be someone who is glad for book references I sometimes sprinkle into what I write.  Or maybe I just hoped that was the case. 

    Authoritarians play on the fears of dominant or once-dominant in-groups in a society that fear they are losing power and standing they once thought was secure, and believe should always be secure, to one or more groups of "others". 

    A very good book, highly relevant to your post, is Marc Hetherington's recent Authoritarianism and Polarization in American Politics (out 2009 in paper)


    I already wrote something along these lines.

    I always liked John Dean of course and Altemeyer's book looks intriguing. Another wonderful tome we can reach right on the web.

    I was just reading a review of a 40 year old book by a fellow named Hofsteder on this same subject. Back then it was the  Red Menace.

    I am interested in what's inside this 'system'. Individuals can 'buy' the talking points and make a lot of money. Newt and rush and sarah and the rest make a lot of money speaking in this manner.

    So, I must conclude, that the corporate bodies paying these demagogues have a plan. A symbiosis of sorts. But the corporate bodies are the ones who really make out in all of this.

    That is why I see a grand design. Defense contractors want wars and need there to be at least fears of war and destruction so they can make money.

    Financial markets need billionaires and hundred millionaires so they must design a propaganda system that works for them.

    Oh well, that's all I got. Nice post Oleeb.

    There are lots of facets to this problem.  I keep trying to focus people's attention on what compels the authortiarian leaders and followers to believe and behave as they do.  I think it exremely important because if people do not understand what it is that is driving these people it will be difficult, if not impossible, to counter and defeat them.  For example, this idiotic belief amongst some Democrats (Obama is one) that you can reason with and find common ground with these extreme right wing authoritrians when, in fact, you cannot.  It doesn't work.  Not only is it not how they operate, they can't function in that manner.  They cannot compromise with what they consider anathema to their very existence.  They live in a black and white world where you are either all good or all bad and everyone who is not with them is against them, thus: all bad.  They also posses distinct personality dysfunctions that can and should be used against them tactically.  If you think they are just reasonable people who hold a few wacky beliefs then you misread them entirely and their intentions as Obama and company have done over and over and over.  The monied upper classes use and exploit the psychological characteristics of these people much to their advantage and particularly use them to fight their battles for them as proxies.  Thus the super rich appear to be disiniterested and aloof from such concerns when, in fact, they are up to their eyeballs in it all trying to keep their greedy paws on as much money as possible.

    Please lay out your argument for how Rand Paul could possibly be viewed as authoritarian.

    It can't be done.

    Sure it can be done.

    I'm not sure exactly who your comment is addressed to but I'll respond to it.  Perhaps others will too.

    One of the hallmarks of authoritarian leaders is their hypocrisy and I think if elected, we'll see an amazing degree of hypocrisy between what he says now and what he does as a Senator.  This, if course, on top of the hypocrisy we can already verify.  But that's just the beginning.  I think he is a kind of hybrid who talks liberterian and behaves authoritarian.  Just as one example, his religious and racial bigotry which is a central characteristic of authoritarians.  His lack of self awareness and not seeing at all how badly he comes off to people when expounding on his crackpot ideas about race and discrimination.  His dishonesty about his personal and professional life.  Again, something you will find is a comon characteristic of authoritarians.  If you look down th list of personality traits of authoritarian leaders he has most of them.

    To go with the last comment, here is Rand Paul's platform.  What about it is authoritarian?


    will never, ever vote for a taxpayer bailout of a private industry. Whether it’s big banks, automakers, or any other industry — you succeed or fail on your own.
    • I will not vote for an unbalanced budget.  I will not vote for a tax increase.   Ever.
    • I will fight for new rules like a Balanced Budget Amendment and Term Limits.
    • I will not take ANYTHING off the table in the fight to balance the budget. Anyone who says something like they will “freeze non-defense discretionary spending” is blowing smoke at you and hoping you won’t notice.   That would balance the budget — MAYBE — in about 80 years.
    • We have to keep our promises to seniors and keep our country strong, but every area has things that can be cut.  Every agency has things that are duplicative or that could be done better or cheaper.
    • I will propose and force a vote on an Enumerated Powers Act, to force Congress to point to the part of the Constitution that justifies their bills.
    • I will fight for the Bill of Rights. Democrats often love the 4th amendment.  Republicans the 2nd.   I will fight for them all, which means fighting for your free speech, gun rights, and civil liberties. Laws that infringe on ANY of these make the federal government more powerful, and we cannot continue to allow that.
    • I will not allow our troops to be the world’s policeman, and I will force a vote on a Declaration of War if any President seeks to commit our military to battle.

    What you’ve just read above is an agenda unlike any politician in the country.  While solidly conservative, it also shows first, a great loyalty to the Constitution and to our freedom.  You cannot fight for liberty while voting for bills that embolden the state. You cannot fight for some of our founding rights without others.  And you cannot enable change in Washington by sending the same old people there.

    "You cannot fight for liberty while voting for bills that embolden the state."  --Anonymous

    Spoken like a true ideologue, who believes the only, or most important harm, that can come to ordinary citizens is through a government that is too powerful. 

    As for me, I need a state that is emboldened enough to regulate Wall Street sensibly to keep our economy from collapsing rather than cowering in the face of that lobby and in so doing selling out the public it is supposed to be protecting.  I need a state that is emboldened enough to keep our water and our air clean.  I need a state that is emboldened enough to win all of us over to a major, intensive plan, part voluntary and incented and part mandatory, to do our part to cut carbon emissions, and that in so doing will attain greater credibility and ability to persuade and bargain with other countries to do likewise.  I need a state that is emboldened enough to put to work people who have lost their jobs, in order that they might regain their dignity and sense of hope and at the same time build us a first-class, greening infrastructure that can support a strong economy to replace the deteriorating and increasingly disfunctional foundations we have now.  I need a state that is emboldened enough to tell the private health insurance companies to go fuck themselves, that they are not going to block the kind of health care reform that we really need to control costs, insure everyone, and free people from having to make decisions about where and for whom they work based on which company happens to have decent health insurance, rather than on where their passion lies. 

    So, to Rand Paul, I would ask him to take off the blinkers, maybe look around to his left and to his right, take in the landscape of what is actually happening to ordinary Americans, and try to ween himself away from what appears to be his view that our complicated world isn't really so complicated that a nice, neat, simple philosophy provides all the answers we need.  I need someone who can think, not someone who can apply a shallow, wrongheaded philosophy in a pure way to the key policy questions we have to deal with and get right soon.

    In fairness, my concern with Rand Paul isn't so much that he's an authoritarian (although I never thought about it much either way) ... my concern is that he's an apparent dimwit.



    Now I know what you mean by refugee site.  So what happens now?  Do we come here to post?  Will our posts simultaneously appear on TPM?  I'm totally confused - why did they do this in the first place? 


    You and others can come here to post, if you wish, as the site permits anyone who registers to do that. 

    On whether posts here automatically appear there, I don't believe so.  I don't see how they could, with the reader blog function there being shut down, unless the shutdown is not working to shut everyone down. 

    Why did they do this?  If by "they" you mean the dagblog operator, Genghis, he is basically trying to offer a bed for the night for those who can no longer blog at the cafe.  He's writing a book and no doubt would be thrilled if at least some of the folks he's taken time to help out here were to buy a copy when it comes out and maybe tell others if they like it.  To my knowledge no final decision has been made by Josh as to whether the reader blog function will be brought back at the cafe or not. 

    There are at least two other sites where former tpmcafe'ers have been invited to blog for the time being, at least.  I'm having trouble finding their names right now but I'm sure another readers has that info handy if you want it.  Genghis and several former cafe denizens have mentioned them here as other options for folks looking for a home at the moment.


    Once Upon a TPM which runs under WordPress,


    TPMaholics powered by Blogger.

    I haven't narrowed it down yet, but I think TPM stands for either Total Productive Maintenance, The Philosopher's Magazine or Tame Pet Monkey.

    Temporarily Permanent Mindlessness

    Thankless Pissy (but Humanitarian) Misanthropes
                    (or Peptic)

    or, if you prefer,

    Truly Perceptive Memers

    Tart Political Musers 


    Troll Proof Megasharks

    Totally Pwned by MegaShark!!

    That, too.

    Truculent Peasant Menagerie

    Truculent Proletariat Menagerie.

    Troublemaking Pitchforker Menagerie

    (ok, i'll stop now..)

    Thanks for the roundup, dreamer. Everyone who blogs here will in fact have to buy one copy of my book for every comment they make. It's in the fine print of the terms of agreement. So far, that's 18 books for this thread alone.

    Glad ya found us here Eric!

    You must have missed the several weeks of consternation and gnashing of teeth over the shut down of the cafe reader blogs atTPM.  It is unclear whether they will ever return or not.  Optimists are hoping it will.  Pessimists are resigned.

    You can have all your posts migrated here by downloading them or having Genghis download all your old posts and import them here for you.  Genghis, BTW, is some osrt of saint for doing that for folks just for the asking.

    So yes, this is one of several refugee sites to be found at.  Another is at FDL.  Another is tpmaholics I believe.

    http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e66/LarrytheDuck/Dag_Blog_Duck/4860e5ea-1.gifWell well . . .

    The pressing question was...

    • What Makes Right Wing Authoritarians Tick?

    In the case of the current crop of crack pots?

    Frigidity and/or the lack of positive sexual satisfaction.

    Just my guess ...

    Paddlin' on ...


    Altemeyer is an associate prof of psychology in Canada with no credibility on this issue, whatever this issue is. Authoritarians who are not really authoritarians running for office and losing, I think, to other authoritarians who are also not authoritarians.

    http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e66/LarrytheDuck/Dag_Blog_Duck/4860e5ea-1.gif Uhhhh ... Hello Rootman . . .

    Are the lights on? What I mean by that is, I'm not the one who wrote this blog. That's Oleeb. So why are you replying to me?


    Nixon's "southern strategy" is the cause of what we are seeing now. Nixon began it and Reagan fine-tuned it, with  his "welfare queens" and "state's rights". It was all very simple: it was postulated on the theory that southern whites, who had supported the Democrats solidly (the solid south) since the Civil War and had been some of most favored by FDR's "New Deal", in fact hated black people more than they loved their own children, who needed healthcare, housing and schools. This curious theory proved correct and since then, the southern states and a great many poor whites elsewhere vote Republican.

    Latest Comments