Danny Cardwell's picture

    Pat Buchanan's America

    In the popular culture of the '40s and '50s, white men were role models. They were the detectives and cops who ran down gangsters and the heroes who won World War II on the battlefields of Europe and in the islands of the Pacific.

    They were doctors, journalists, lawyers, architects and clergy. White males were our skilled workers and craftsmen -- carpenters, painters, plumbers, bricklayers, machinists, mechanics.

    They were the Founding Fathers, Washington, Adams, Jefferson and Hamilton, and the statesmen, Webster, Clay and Calhoun.    

    Pat Buchanan


    On April 22, 2014 Conservative radio show host Dennis Prager penned a column in the National Review titled "From The Great Man Theory To Dead-White-Male Criticism Theory". I didn't read this article until a friend sent it to me in September of 2015. After reading it I wrote a series of articles about race and used his arguments as a springboard for the first installment titled "The White Washing of American History". In his article Mr. Prager waxed nostalgically about a time in American history when all of the heroes were white males and their atrocities were hidden from plain sight. He went on to attack the universities for teaching a version of history that called into question the founding fathers. For many Americans the myth of America as a Christian nation ordained by God is as real as the Easter bunny is to a small child. They reflexively attack anyone who dares to present historically accurate evidence that contradicts the notion of "American Exceptionalism". The quote I opened with comes from an eerily similar Pat Buchanan article published on May 26th titled "The Great White Hope". After reading his arguments I was convinced that many on the right are suffering from an acute case of paradoxical thinking which is defined as:

    cognition characterized by contradiction of common logical procedures. Even though this form of thinking can be correlated with skewed thought procedures, like those appearing in schizoid personality disorder or some types of schizophrenia. It can additionally be utilized as a way of abstaining troubles or aversive beliefs in a positive way. They've fought the notion of white privilege so long that the moment whiteness doesn't afford what it use to they liken the push for racial equality to white oppression. 

    The plight of white men in America is worsening at a time when racial minorities and women are represented in greater numbers across a variety of fields; however, the racial and sexual demographic shift the right complains about isn't truly reflected inside the power centers of America. Women, blacks, gays, Mexicans, and Muslims are blamed for the declining status of white men in America, but a majority of the causal links to this decline can be directly attributed to decisions made by other white men. The reflexive need to scapegoat the "other" is an outward sign of ignorance and cowardice. Instead of challenging the power structure in a direct and meaningful way too many choose to aim their anger at those standing beside them or beneath them on the socioeconomic ladder. Now that large numbers of white men are suffering fates usually reserved for those of us on the underside of America's caste system conservatives are taking drug addiction, alcoholism, depression, shortened life expectancy, and suicide serious. The Republican debates were awash with one tale of drug tragedy after another. Carly Fiorina, Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, and Ted Cruz all told gut-wrenching stories about their families personal struggles with losing a loved one to drug addiction. The same politicians who thought incarceration was the solution to the inner-city drug epidemic have now shifted to policies geared towards treating the white men who've become the national face of these epidemics.

    My whole life I've been told by conservatives and the conservative media that the very real instances of racism I've experienced weren't racism at all, but a combination of my overly sensitive perceptions about race and the legitimate economic realities facing Americans as a whole. I was told to ignore the statistics that chronicled the disparities in educational outcomes, employment, housing, incarceration, and mortality rates. I was told that those outcomes were due to the breakdown of the black family and Affirmative Action; in short: there's nothing to see here. The conditions too many inside the black community live in are a direct consequence of historical racial animus and the growing disparity in wealth accumulation. The condition many working class whites find themselves in is solely a product of our shared economic struggles. Global capital markets demand the cheapest labor force possible to insure high quarterly profits. This isn't an either or proposition. Americans, as a whole, are suffering from decisions made by the heads of multinational companies. The unemployment rate is half of what it was at the height of the economic crash, yet wages have remained mostly flat. The greed at the center of capital markets has reduced America's working class white population to an after thought. Money is more important to the powers that be than heritage, culture, and racial pride. The only thing sadder than this reality is the fact that so many working class whites refuse to accept that they've become victims of the one thing the wealthy elite in this country believe in more than "American Exceptionalism": capital markets.


    Men like Pat Buchanan and Dennis Prager are so invested in the lies they've told their respective audiences over the years that truth looks like partisan opposition research. If you scan the channels on your television white men will still represent the majority of the people you see. If you show up on 99% of college campuses a majority of people you see with tenure are white men. If you read the above the fold stories in any major news paper the majority of those stories will be written by white men. Donald Trump's campaign is a symptom of the white male push to stem the demographic shift America is undergoing. Once the Tea Party proved to be ineffective at governing they changed their name to the freedom caucus, and once Donald Trump loses in November his base of angry white men will find another vehicle to vent their frustrations through. The inclusion of women and minorities to fields that are still dominated by white men is seen as proof of America's decline. I'm almost as frustrated with those on the left who try to legitimize and explain this line of argumentation as I am with those on the right who offer it as a reason for white male suffering.


    It's difficult for me to place the newfound suffering of working class whites ahead of those who've struggled with systematic oppression in America for hundreds of years. I empathize with their plight, but I won't stop pursuing racial and social justice because someone fell off of a socioeconomic ledge they didn't earn. America has undergone a major economic shift over the last 35 years; much of the economic pain historically felt by people of color has shifted to working class whites. I don't know If it's possible to bridge our racial and social divides in a way that would be acceptable to all parties involved. I'm certain black people aren't willing to accept less for the sake of racial harmony with dissatisfied white men, and my hunch is women aren't likely to do so either. I don't know how to connect with someone like Pat Buchanan when he writes:


    The world has been turned upside-down for white children. In our schools the history books have been rewritten and old heroes blotted out, as their statues are taken down and their flags are put away. Children are being taught that America was "discovered" by genocidal white racists, who murdered the native peoples of color, enslaved Africans to do the labor they refused to do, then went out and brutalized and colonized indigenous peoples all over the world.


    My parents were still attending segregated schools over a decade after the Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas decision was rendered. I know people who went to school districts in Virginia that chose to shut their doors to all children before they would educate black children. This America Donald Trump wants to take us back to and the right misses so much isn't a place I want to visit much less live. I understand that all of the really good jobs belonged to white men and that it was probably pretty cool to sit in a diner and not see anyone who didn't look like you, but those weren't great days and anyone who believes they were should never challenge the notion of white privilege: or as I like to call it for my overly sensitive progressive friends "advantageous societal predisposition". As bloggers we sometimes make the mistake of thinking we can solve society's problems in a few short paragraphs. Sometimes we just need to add our perspective to the problems we're facing so another voice of dissent can be registered. It's harder to cure a disease by treating each individual symptom rather than addressing the root cause of the illness. If a majority of the people on the right think like Pat Buchanan is it possible to change that thinking? Do we bear the responsibility for reaching out to them?





    Danny, this is as usual, very well-written and thoughtful. I hope you will submit it to The Richmond Times Dispatch, WAPO, and the NYT (at least) as an op-Ed.  The clarity and intelligence of your words might just enlighten those who will read it with an open mind.  

    You won't convince any Trumpets, but I do think there are a few sane people left who just haven't seen things with this level of objectivity.  This is important.  Thank you.


    BTW, I hope that I had some small role in getting Pat Buchanan off of Rachel Maddows show on MSNBC.  He was on there all the time in her effort to be "balanced."  I wrote her emails and letters every time he was on.  I'm sure others did too, but I hope my outrage helped get him off her program.  I haven't seen him in years but I don't watch FOX.

    Excellent post.

    Rank and file Republicans do not view their party as racist. They call bringing attention to racism playing the " race card". In order to remain in good standing with the GOP, Black Republicans have to ignore the racism in the party. Black Republicans save their venom for the black community and the poor. Herman Cain told the unemployed they were responsible for their situation. Cain said that blacks had been brainwashed into voting for Democrats, and spent little time seeking black votes when he was a Presidential candidate. When Cain had a negative reaction to the N-word appearing at the entrance to political rival Rick Perry's family ranch, he quickly found out that Conservatives don't like blacks calling other Conservatives out on issues involving race. There was immediate backlash against Cain for questioning Perry about race. Republicans attack anyone who suggests racism exists.

    Dr. Ben Carson became the darling of the right by publicly criticizing President Obama at a prayer breakfast. Carson rejects the importance of race and criticizes the government programs that lifted him from poverty. Carson was the toast of white Conservatives until he imploded.

    Crystal Wright who blogs as ConservativeBlackChick found a goldmine promoting Conservative ideas and bashing the black community. (Wright voted for Obama in 2008). She has a new book "Con Job: How Democrats Gave Us Crime, Sanctuary Cities, Abortion Profiteering, and Racial Division" covering topics in a fashion expected from a black Conservative. Wright told Fox News viewers that Republicans should not concern themselves with black voters because black voters are "slaves" to the Democratic Party.

    Fox gives black Conservatives an open invitation to criticize and demonize the black community. Given the constant diet of hatred of blacks fed by Fox and other Conservative outlets using blacks as the messengers, there is very little that can be done to change the attitudes of white Conservatives when it comes to the black community.


    I have a friend who knew Crystal in the early 90's. She was to the left of Cuba back then. We followed each other on Twitter until she blocked me.

    Interesting. Thanks for sharing that information.

    I have read enough of Buchanan to understand his history of the world.

    One feature of his idea of ethnic solidarity that is kind of odd is that it doesn't actually explain Black people being in this place at all. And when I say "all", I mean zip, nada, etcetera.

    He has plenty of matrices for other groups but English speaking Black people who are as deeply involved with what happened here since it was taken over from other people who live here are invisible to him.

    Yet, other other people have written books about this phenomenon.

    So, I don't know what to call his thing. It is racism, for sure. But it is something else too.

    Prager knows all about racism and the Black experience. After all, he lives in La Canada-Flintridge where 0.2% of the population is black. 

    Most conservative "experts" on the black experience know very few black people.

    Danny - you don't appear to have any hopes that blacks and poor and working-class whites will unite in the cause of economic justice for all.  Your conclusion is racism will keep us divided so we continue to elect neo-liberal leaders whose policies have left most African-Americans and at least half of all white Americans relatively worse off than they were in the early-70s?  Why don't you think a coalition of white voters and voters of color working to elect folks like Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Keith Ellison, and Raul Grijalva could change America for the better just as FDR and LBJ and the civil rights movement did in the 1930s and 60s?  After all, a self-described Democratic Socialist  almost won the Democratic nomination and, if present polls are to believed, is easily the most popular politician in America right now.

    You seem to forget that a significant segment of the voting public will vote for a bigot like Trump. McConnell, Ryan, and rank and file Republicans will vote for Trump. Republicans will try to suppress votes.That is problem number one, obstruction by reactionary forces. Problem number two is that many Progressives have no real connection to ethnic minorities. Sanders has been in Congress for decades and was a virtual unknown to the Congressional Black Caucus. His surrogates demonized Civil Rights icons, and wonders why Sanders did not catch on with minority communities. Some Progressives seem to think the obstruction will disappear if only the right person is elected. Some Progressives are also tone deaf when they speak to minority communities. Minority communities realize change does not occur overnight. The also have been face to face with reactionaries wanting to go back to the good old days. Minority communities are not going to buy into a simplistic ideology that is based on electing the right person, and not attacking the core problem, the bigoted obstructionists. Sanders supports three or five "true" Progressives, that is no solution to the problem.

    Thanks rmrd.  Your response is somewhat inchoate.

    On the one hand, you argue reactionaries will rig the election to ensure that true change agents can't get elected.  On the other, you claim the Democratic Socialist is not a true change agent.

    Let's address these in turn.  Regarding your first claim, I'm sure you'd be the first to argue that the election of President Obama signified the most radical anti-establishment move ever by the electorate.  Yet it happened. The reactionaries did not or could not prevent it.  Accordingly, there is no reason they could or would stop Bernie Sanders from being elected if the 99% united in support of him.

     Your second argument is many progressives "are tone deaf," and don't realize "change does not occur overnight."   While this is no doubt true of many progressives, the fact remains a multi-racial coalition could have united to elect a Democratic Socialist who has throughout his life championed the very policies that history has proven proven improve the economic lot of poor whites and blacks regardless of whether the Democratic Socialist is tone deaf and believes change can occur overnight.

    You argue that blacks and minorities have not made the progress they should have made. This is despite electing an anti-establishment candidate. The obstructionists decided to make Obama a one-term President. When that didn't happen they went bonkers leading us to Donald Trump. The reactionaries blocked progress.  Obama got elected but his options were limited.

    The Democratic Socialist had not done any outreach to minority communities during his decades in Congress. The Black Caucus was originally divided between Hillary and Obama. Both had made outreach to the black community. Sanders was an unknown to the CBC. Less than 10% of the CBC came to what was essentially a meet and greet with Sanders because Sanders never spoke to them in any serious fashion prior to needing their votes. The Democratic Socialist was so focused on millionaires, billionaires, and Wall Street, that nothing else mattered. Heck animal rights activists stormed the stage at a Sanders event because, he didn't have time to meet with them. Hillary had a meeting with the animal rights group long ago and promised to add items to the party platform.

    Sanders focuses on Wall Street. Hillary just took Trump apart on foreign policy. Hillary can bring a multi-prolonged attack to Trump. Bernie is limited in his interests, thus would be a weaker opponent. Sanders has no diverse appeal because he rarely ventured out of his bubble.

    Edit to add:

    link to animal activists


    Sanders is not going to be the Democratic nominee. He needs to begin working to unity the Democratic Party. He needs to take steps to insure that his choices for the platform committee work in harmony with the rest of the committee. He will not get everything he wants in the platform because he is not the nominee. He needs to focus on defeating Donald Trump. The ball is in his court.

    Again you have ignored my point in response to Danny's pessimism about the chances of meaningful change.  A multi-racial coalition could have united in support of true economic justice.

    Hal, a multiracial coalition is the makeup of the Democratic Party.


    Hal, you're a 1-trick pony where everything's the fault of "neo-liberal leaders", and you can't even admit black progress in terms of income and unemployment, key indicators in your "economic justice for all".

    31% black income growth under Clinton - yet blacks should join your anti-neo-liberal revolution...?

    One issue is that government employment continues to drop (see lowest graph), and traditionally blacks have had more jobs in government than other ethnic groups - thus making it hard for them to bounce out of recessions.

    Yes, if you look at the charts - even black education - Obama's done well. Maybe not as fast as hoped, but it took Bush 8 years to build up the tsunami - bouncebacks from royal incompetence can be slow, especially with a Republican congress to hinder progress and new ideas. Should blacks blame the black guy in the White House, or all the knuckle dragging idjits that insisted on no new spending while trying to emerge from a whopper of a recession, even shutting down government & refusing to pass budgets to get their way?

    I got to talking to some auto workers here in the redneck South yesterday - and without my prodding, they were praising Obama for handling the auto bailout - a pretty crappy situation where they stood to lose all their lives' work and pensions. Not everyone's so hard to please.

    One big issue we discussed was lack of pensions for the next generation, the bait-and-switch with 401(k)'s and the shift to contingent workers - that apparently the Census department/BLS isn't even tracking. Yeah, the Uberization of America is a threat to everyone, and probably the only real point of convergence between black needs - economic and anti-racism - and the greater white labor force. Maybe home ownership/mortgage issues as well, though predatory behavior is greater for minorities.


    An oft-repeated myth about the Clinton administration is that although it was overly tough on crime back in the 1990s, at least its policies were good for the economy and for black unemployment rates. The truth is more troubling. As unemployment rates sank to historically low levels for white Americans in the 1990s, the jobless rate among black men in their 20s who didn’t have a college degree rose to its highest level ever. This increase in joblessness was propelled by the skyrocketing incarceration rate.

    Why is this not common knowledge? Because government statistics like poverty and unemployment rates do not include incarcerated people.


    So when is Bernie Sanders going to apologize for voting for the 1994 crime bill?

    He used the bill to show that he was tough on crime when he ran for the Senate in 2006.



    RMRD - we had the chance to elect a President who has championed economic justice for the poor - who are disproportionately African-American.  Doesn't this show Danny's very deep-seated pessimism about the possibility of a multi-racial coaltion working together may be unwarranted?


    Hal, I have repeatedly tried to impress upon you that Democratic voters see the enormous pushback Obama received when trying to advance common-sense reforms. The idea that one man makes the difference does not hold water. Bernie's default is millionaires, billionaires, and Wall Street. Blacks realize the impact of racism along with the economic factors. Like Sanders, some Progressives repeatedly imply that so-called economic justice solves all ills. When I talk about tone-deafness, it is on display when racism is put to the side. Sanders never understood black voters. Sanders never got how racism would stunt his efforts for economic justice. All Sanders has is noun, verb, Wall Street. He simply cannot connect with the black community.

    There was a case involving black farmers who were blocked access to loans given out to white farmers by the Department of Agriculture. The black farmers won a lawsuit. Despite winning the case, it took decades for Congress to finally allocate the funds to begin paying the farmers. Some farmers died before receiving restitution. Racism is part and parcel of black life. Sanders does not understand that simple fact. He sees solving economic disparity as the solution to racism. He ignores that racism blocks access to economic justice. He is tone-deaf.

    The black community walks in tandem with Progressives when it serves the purpose of the black community. The black community does not see Sanders as even being aware of their feelings. They have been through long battles and consider Sanders ideas as simplistic. Hillary is seen as a fighter, Sanders is seen as naive.

    Blacks already have found a coalition with whites, Latinos, Asians, etc. In the Democratic Party. When a Democratic Socialist comes along and has no connection to the black community, he will be scrutinized. When his surrogates call John Lewis and the CBC sellouts, attack President Obama (the third rail in the aback community), and question others like Al Sharpton, Sanders and his surrogates are dismissed.

    We have had this conversion many times. Sanders is not the black community's choice for President. You will never fully accept that reality. You will never understand why Sanders was so off putting to the black community. Blacks are Progressive and blacks are pragmatic. Sanders is not the one.

    BTW: Hillary is a Progressive 

    RMRD - I asked a question: "We had the chance to elect a President who has championed economic justice for the poor - who are disproportionately African-American.  Doesn't this show Danny's very deep-seated pessimism about the possibility of a multi-racial coalition working together may be unwarranted?"

    You failed to answer my question.  You wrote a whole lot in response however including this: "Sanders is not the black community's choice for President. You will never fully accept that reality. You will never understand why Sanders was so off putting to the black community. Blacks are Progressive and blacks are pragmatic. Sanders is not the one."

    What have I ever written that suggests "I don't accept the reality" that a very large majority of blacks voted for Clinton in the primaries.  To be clear, I accept the reality that a very large majority of blacks voted for Clinton in the primaries. 

    Now, can you address my question which is: "We had the chance to elect a President who has championed economic justice for the poor - who are disproportionately African-American.  Doesn't this show Danny's very deep-seated pessimism about the possibility of a multi-racial coalition working together may be unwarranted?"

    If you don't like that question, try this one on for size: Doesn't the fact that the next President is almost certainly going to be the one whom blacks disproportionately supported rather than the one who repeatedly called for us to work "together" suggest, to your mind at least, that a multi-racial coalition is working together to fight for economic justice?


    As I have repeatedly noted Sanders and his surrogates have not talked about working together. That is why he has no broad ethnic appeal.

    Civil Rights icons were called sellouts. Latino activists were called sellouts. Hilary supporters were labeled not Progressive enough. Sanders appointed people to the platform committee who may attempt to disrupt the sessions. There is nothing about unity in Sanders message. Sanders says that it is not his responsibility to unite the Democratic Party.

    I am answering your questions. Sanders is not, I repeat not, a uniter.

    Edit to add:

    You keep suggesting that Sanders was bringing us together. That is not true.

    There are many white people voting for Trump, I am pessimistic, just like Danny 

    What you consistently refuse to consider is that we did have a multiracial coalition that united behind a candidate that championed economic justice for the poor as well as many other issues important to democratic primary voters. And with that multiracial coalition she quite easily won the democratic nomination.

    He keeps asking how we can build a coalition. Hillary built the coalition. Sanders and his supporters are the ones demanding that everyone else bend to their will. Sanders and his supporters never ask what they need to do to become more acceptable to the Democratic majority. If there everyone else does not agree with them, they whine about the system being rigged.

    There are days when Sanders is doing his speech about Wall Street and ending with. " ...  and because of these things, my supporters are revolting." and I am reminded of History of the World Part 1, "Yes, they stink on ice."


    Edit to add:

    Sorry, the History of the World Part 1 comment was over the top.

    Yes, you shoulda held out for the sequel.

    Thanks O-K.  You wrote exactly what I did.  Not sure why you felt the need to argue with me.  My point was Danny's piece is too pessimistic given the fact that the most popular politician in America today - excepting of course the President - is the one most focused on making America fairer and juster.  The second most popular politician - the Democratic nominee - is also supported by a multi-racial coalition and is likely to be the next President.  The most divisive candidatei is also the most loathed and unlikely to prevail in November.  For all these reasons, we should be celebrating our ability to work together and figuring out how to make our nation a better place for all.

    Hal, you are free to your perspective. What happens with some Progressives is that they cannot understand why other people do not agree with how they interpret events. The fact that Trump will not win does not mean that his supporters will go away. Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, Ben Carson, and a host of so-called moderate Republicans is willing to walk in lockstep with Trump. The political battles will remain fierce. Facing that reality means that there will be no great coming together of the races. A minority of white voters will be voting against Trump.

    Hal, there's not much celebrating about HRC among the  democrat hierarchy, according to the scuttlebutt in the news. They see that HRC is extremely despised by too many people almost as low rated as Trump but he could improve his image while Clinton's has nowhere to go but down. Apparently her handlers realize this problem and her speech in San Diego pandering to the militarists and exceptionalists shows her moving to the right as was expected.

    It's doubtful they can do anything now but the idea of them pulling the rug from under this grifter duo, at the last moment, is a satisfying image to ponder.

    The democrat (sic) hierarchy?  Well, if they are so upset it's to be Hillary, what is the scuttlebutt telling you about who they would like to have in?  Someone who has never been an democrat, and has described the party in more toxic language than any Republican?

    Interested people want to know.

    In the competition for content and clicks you'll find a lot of scuttlebutt, often contradictory. I tend to take all the articles that "inform" us of the beltway chatter with a grain of salt. I rely more on what the political class says publicly and even more on what they do.

    How exactly do you think Hillary's speech "pandered to militarists and exceptionalists?" You'd be hard pressed to get any information about Hillary's foreign policy from that speech that was mainly an attack on Trump's insane rantings. I agree with all of Hillary's criticisms of Trump's crazy talk but the most I could get from the speech about Hillary's positions was she won't be insane like Trump. There's plenty of articles discussing Hillary's foreign policy but this speech wasn't one of them.

    This issue is being reported on by HP and the WSJ, i think,  and referred to statements made by Carl Bernstein about the discussions at the White House. The Democrats are stuck with HRC and her 4 to 1 disapproval rating so nothing is likely to happen but they are worried and somewhat panicked by the albatross they have hung around their neck.

    Of course it's being reported and of course it's all over HP. Puffington Post focuses on sensationalism and gossip. And they love the celebrity nudes, rapes stories, side boobs, and nudes nudes nudes of any type.  I don't expect to get serious news there. I only read it because it's so popular. The WSJ will post whatever version of the scuttlebutt they think is most damaging to the democrats.There's gossip across the board on democratic beltway chatter. I could post links that tell us the scuttlebutt is that insiders are rallying around Hillary and working behind the scene to convince Sanders to drop out. You say the democrats are stuck with Hillary but I just read a gossip article that claimed the party establishment is preparing to unveil a Biden/Warren ticket at the convention to supplant both Hillary and Sanders. Frankly I'm not interested in arguing gossip by posting the beltway chatter that supports my favorite narrative. None of it is trustworthy but you can buy into whatever version of the bullshit that most appeals to you.

    If you want to seriously defend your comment post exactly how you think Hillary was, " pandering to the militarists and exceptionalists" in her foreign policy speech. Because, again, all I see is an attack on Trump's insanity. Here's the transcript.

    Hal, repeating bullshit over and over doesn't make it true. The most popular politician has the most votes. Everything else is just pissy moaning over coulda-shoulda-woulda. Embrace being 2nd - being a good loser is often more important than being a lousy winner. Pretending he was wronged and America just doesn't understand sounds like whining - and America usually hates whiners, if there are any large conclusions we can make about our political system. "the one most focused on making America fairer and juster" is just your opinion, and one that seems to have lost with the majority electorate. Yes, Hillary is trying to make fairer and juster too, and the majority of her party think somehow she's better able to handle those tasks and goals as president.

    "ability to work together" while hanging on to flawed framing makes it much harder. Bernie gave it an impressive shot but he lost - though he's been given a lot of consolation consideration, much more than Hillary got in a closer race 8 years ago. Certainly few said it was up to Obama to still convert her supporters. So time for Bernie, at least on Wednesday, to suck it up and take it for the team, however he does in 1 specific state. If playing with the team is too much, then it shows a flaw that probably would have made him disqualified from the beginning - politics is largely a team sport, despite the array of overloaded egos.

    Here's a map to remind that Hillary won 27 of 48 contests so far, and New Jersey will assuredly be a win Tuesday, plus a map from 2008 to remind that close only counts in horseshoes, hand grenades & atom bombs.  (Hillary in gold in both maps)



    That was GREAT LuLu!  Thanks for a trip down memory lane!

    Yeah, memory lane for sure. I think you are from the 'Class of 65' too. Glad you liked it.  

    When deciding who's more popular in a country, do you only count the people who voted in one party's primary or do you count all voters?  I count all voters.

    Youre counting people who didnt vote; Im talking about people who voted.

    I'm counting Democrats,  Republicans,  and  Independents. You're only counting people who voted in the  Democratic primaries.

    Youre making the assumpton that these jackoff national polls actually mean something. Certainly Sanders is not popular whatsoever among Republicans, and for independents like the Bundys he's also not popular, so I've no idea what it means, and neither do you. Even Nate Silver proclaims the irrelevance of these little turd bucket exercises except to stir the shit and keep more media stories going where there's no news.

    Hillary wiped the floor with Bernie in open primaries across the south - 30-60 points - plus Ohio (15%). She tied him in open primaries in Michigan, Indiana, illinois, Missouri, Washington. So what's his big advantage, with independents or whatever? Wisconsin? Wow, feel the Bern. Talk about overreaching for conclusions.

    Hilary is more popular than Trump.

    She certainly is. The three most popular politicians in America are all Democrats. You should be more optimistic.

    Hal, if you are black in America, pessimism is required for survival. There has been tremendous change, but there is still a lot more to be done. Ben Carson is not pessimistic. It may also be the case that Ben Carson needs psychiatric help. Michelle Obama noted that she wakes up in a house built by slaves. She also saw her husband have to produce a full form birth certificate. I have discussions on a daily basis with people who tell me what black people need. These people feel justified in ignoring what black people say they want. I remain a pessimist. I hope that society will do the right things. I don't have a strong belief that society will do the right things. From that standpoint Hillary has a better grasp on reality than Bernie ever will.

    The majority of the population hated Muhammad Ali. When Ali developed a neurological disorder and was no longer a threat, he became a hero. Martin Luther King Jr. was hated for most of his life. When King died, he became a hero. There is a book that may help you out. Carol Anderson in "White Rage" notes that every major advance made by African--Americans has been followed by an attempt by white reactionaries to counter that advance. In the age of Obama we had the Birthers and an open pledge to make Obama a one-term President. Obama was called a liar at the State of the Union. Progressives wanted a primary challenge to Obama. The leader of the Birther movement is now the GOP Presidential nominee.

    I am not tap-dancing. Some Progressives are clueless.

    Well, I remember us young white dudez liking Ali and later Kareem, etc The Muslim thing didnt throw us for a sec, even in the south. Certainly much cooler than Frazier, Foreman, Tyson or Spinks.

    The public at large hated Ali. His religion was anti-white. Ali was against the Vietnam War. He was stripped of his boxing title



    Bill Clinton will deliver the eulogy.


    Yeah, Im talking about (some) young dudes. We had multiracial bands like Allman Brothers and Booker T & the MGs, and  thecops used to pull them over on the B'ham - Atlanta highway on some charge and shave their heads before letting 'em go. Aretha recorded in Muscle Shoals as did Wilson Pickett. Hendrix's Electric Ladyland pulled us out of Beatles-mania, while Exile on Main Street was totally mixed race feel. Normal white kids had a ton of black sports heroes from Chamberlain to Bob Gibson to Otis Taylor & Buck Buchanan and of course Hank Aaron. They weren't into the Vietnam War like their parents. I remember a coach transplanted from NJ describing the Ali-Frazier fight - Frazier "won" - and then spent 3 days in the hospital. I cant extrapolate this across the whole south, but it was much more generational divide. I dont think most southern kids under 30 wanted the fight in Vietnam, despite the larger support for military academies in Carolina and Virginia. Just my gut feeling. 

    Not dismissing your experience, I'm just noting how the nation as a whole felt about Ali at the time.

    Yep, certainly he pissed off the majority and the response was rather unforgiving, though the unanimous Supreme Court ruling his way was rather remarkable, especially considering today's makeup. He would have had an easy time in the Army like Elvis, but instead he took a stand and lost 3 of his most talented youthful years.

    Easy for him in a way. He wouldn't have been on the front line in the jungle. But his job would have been propaganda, sucking kids who idolized him into being cannon fodder.

    America has a rich history of celebrating the impotent and dead civil rights leaders. It would take a fool to believe that if Muhammad Ali was on the ground in Ferguson or Baltimore he would be this celebrated. I wish people would be honest about this.

    Herpes is more popular than Trump.  

    But Hillary is more popular than Bernie.

    Apparently I misunderstood the point you were trying to make.

    I understand in 1863 blacks were more interested in freedom than a pay-raise. You have to go with people's own priorities, not foist your own upon them. That's what makes democracy messy.

    Hal, I wish I had your optimism, but I've been jaded by 41 years of living in the south. The hatred, vitriol, and racial animus is real. Some of the very people you are asking minority communities to unite and work with would rather die than be seen as equal to us. Resentment is real. I know lifelong Democrats who switched party affiliation when President Obama won the nomination in 2008. If you could craft some sort of argument to use and convince some of our southern brothers and sisters that me and my family deserve the same dignity and respect that they deserve we would greatly appreciate it, but most of the animosity is flowing in one direction; that doesn't mean there aren't people of color who don't harbor grudges for past indecencies suffered, but for the most part those people are going to be receptive to which Democrat does a better job of reaching out to them, whereas many southern Democrats have eschewed their political dogmas to follow Donald Trump's xenophobia. For once it would be nice if some of the burden of building a multiracial coalition was on the southern whites who've done everything in their power to exclude people of color.


    With all of this said: I'm hopeful that things could change, but I haven't personally seen enough evidence for optimism.


    Thanks for engaging this post.  

    Thanks for commenting Danny

    Danny, I can understand your skepticism, and I believe it is justified. Let me tell you a little about myself that I have never shared anywhere before now.

    First of all, my parents were brought up during the depression, and my father referred to black people as "boys."  If you asked him his opinion of black people. He would tell you that he would trust them with his life.  He was drafted in WWII, but was stationed at Fort Story, Virginia, so he never saw combat, but maybe that was because he was a professional baseball player.

    When I was very young, my aunt, who lived in what we thought of as a mansion, (but was actually a very average house with a gorgeous mountain view) in the mountains of Virginia, my sisters and brother often visited her and our cousins.  We thought they were rich because they had a maid, "Mary."  

    Mary had 9 children, and we used to all play together and pick Huckleberries, and the pick ticks off of one another for a few days after.  My aunt, who was one of the most generous people I've ever known, gave Mary her house.

    Although I disagree with the concept of children saying "Yes Maam' and "No Sir," etc, and so my own children have never been taught that, I was taught to do that.  When my mother heard me say "Yes Ma'am" to Mary, she told me not to do that. When I asked her why not, she just said it wasn't right.

    The fact that I am  68 years old and still remember it makes me think it was a transformative moment for me.  Years (many years) later, when my daughter was a student at Sweetbriar, I was delighted to speak to one of Mary's daughters (all of whom had graduated from college).  In fact , all of Mary''s children graduated from college.

    I could go on, but my point is just to let you know that people who have been brought up with assumptions that are immoral, can actually think and realize that they are wrong.  Sadly, I don't think that Republicans are capable of that.

    Amen brother, It saddens me to see the snake called racism slithering on to another generation of children. I appreciate the journey you've made. There are a lot of really good folks who can't pierce through the mendacity of our times. I salute you and thank you for the time you took to comment. Have a great day!

    LOL, that would be "sister!"  Also, once my kids were in high school, they of course had friends that I did not meet for a while.  They would talk about them though, and relate conversations and sports stories, etc.  I can't tell you how proud I was when I finally met my daughter's friend, Sean when he came by to take her to a football game.  He was the same witty, intelligent guy that she had described so well.  But you know what?  She hadn't thought to even mention that he was black.  The same thing happened with my two sons as well.  

    I am hoping that it is a sign of good things to expect from my children's generation.  (At least in Charlottesville, VA!)

    I have some very good friends in Charlottesville. One of my mentors is Bishop Gordon Fields the senior pastor at Living Waters Baptist Church. I love Charlottesville. Our part of the world has some unique challenges when it comes to race and race relations. I was at a march in Charlottesville about 18 months ago when ABC officials beat up Martese Johnson. I apologize for confusing your gender: blame it on my head and not my heart. Thanks for supporting my work on this site.


    Have a Great Day!


    Danny - America united to elect President Obama.  His approval ratings are far higher than Bush's were at the same point in his Presidency.  Yes, there is terrible racism still.  But whites, blacks, and browns are all struggling.  The majority of us want a fairer juster society.  We disagreed on who would be more likely to deliver it to us - Sanders or Clinton.   If Hillary Clinton demonstrates a true commitment to economic justice for poor, struggling, and working Americans and fights for them consistently, as her supporters here and elsewhere believe she will, things will get better.

    I have watched the Great-Great-Grandson of one of the worst Presidents of these United States of America for decades. hahhahah

    Wilson decided that a segregated DC works better and....

    But Pat thinks this was a good idea. hahahhaha

    Then Pat writes two books, not just one book, praising the ability of Hitler. hahahah

    Remember that some folks feel that Reagan lost his mind sometime before his second term?

    Well, Pat lost his mind years ago. hahhahahah

    Well it sells!

    I recall that Chris Matthews just laughed when Pat came on to promote his new book.

    A book about Hitler being a courageous man.


    Latest Comments