Michael H. your response shows a larger problem. It tries to wipe away 150 plus years of post slavery treatment of black Americans. Do you really believe that 150 years ago black and white citizens were immediately on equal footing? Blacks had to give up their seats on buses to whites BY LAW until just over 50 years ago. And this didn't change out of the goodness of white America, it was a violent struggle for equality. The simple fact that you don't even know about Jim Crow laws makes Charles' point emphatically.
I'm not convinced the change can be attributed to increasing liberalism in the Democratic party. Democrats have been the pro-choice party for decades. Obama is not especially liberal among Democratic presidents/nominees of the past 40 years.I do think Democrats have made at least two mistakes that contribute to this decline among Southern whites. First, in the struggle against Southern Republican gerrymandering, the push-back by judges and activist groups has been almost exclusively focused on preventing *racial minority* under-representation (as opposed to overall party representation).Imagine a state that is 60% white Republican, 20% white Democrat, and 20% black Democrat, with 10 House seats. Republicans have figured out that they can draw up districts that give black Democrats three seats and claim the remaining seven seats for themselves, thus making BOTH white Republicans AND black Democrats overrepresented. However, because this comes at the expense of white Democrats, it benefits Republicans overall.The other issue is that Democrats have used language that over-emphasizes advocacy for specific groups rather than principles, like fairness and opportunity, that apply to everyone. I would argue that middle class white men (I am one) best serve their interests by voting Democrat. When many Southern whites hear Democrats talk about addressing income inequality, they incorrectly interpret this to mean helping blacks but not whites (or even at the expense of whites).
So an angry and huge 18 years old black man punchs a white guy several times to the point that the white guy fears for his life. That's what you and the grand jurors are saying. Then, I look at the pictures of the white guy and see only redness. Then, you and the grand jurors ignore all the little reasons that drive white guys to shoot at young black men. Somehow you don't make sense and just want to justify your story. Of course, the only time white young men are shoot is when another white crazy man shoots indiscriminately at a crowd; you don't see white young men getting shoot for stealing at a 7 eleven.
We've got major corporations in America donating money to a party that stands for bogus voter restriction laws. Those donations to the US Chamber of Commerce and the Republican Party have to be approved by the presidents of those major corporations. If you were a black engineer, black MBA white collar worker you'd have a pretty good idea of your path for advancement. Not much.
To disabuse some comments:1. The black communities haven't been responsible. In the neighborhood I know, people have worked their fingers to the bone for 30 - 40 years, to no avail. The basic issue is poverty, unrelieved poverty.2. If white people get shot or killed by cops, it doesn't make the news; only black or brown killings do. C'mon. Reflect on this.3. Cops need to protect property. Yes, that's why in black neighborhoods they are almost universally white, because they are protecting the property and "civil calm" of white people, and especially rich white men and their banks, who own nearly everything. Black people own very little. So who and what are black cops protecting? Besides, white racists (c. 33% of whites I'd say) believe black people can't be relied on to police black neighborhoods.3. Police forces should be totally integrated. The mandate of what is protected will not change, so this window-dressing integration, like most integration in the US, turns people of color into collaborators with their own oppression.The basic issue is poverty, and the impoverishment and exploitation of black and brown people for centuries. It's race and class intertwined. So while Mr. Blow paints a grim picture, he -- and no ruling class spokesperson -- can name the real issue. As the President's Commission on Civil Disorders said in 1968: We are two countries, black and white, moving further apart. Going on fifty years now. . . .
This is absolutely disgusting and it is race-baiting. I don't care which party does these kinds of appeals, it's absolutely wrong and antithetical to our democratic system.What's even worse is that, in this case, the party that's doing it is no stranger to these sort of tactics. During the 1870s, it was the Democratic Party that ran some of the most explicitly racist campaigns ever...think of the major race-baiting used by Horatio Seymour in 1872 painting himself as the "white" candidate and Grant as the "N-word" candidate. The slogan of the Democrats in that election was even more disturbing, "This is a white man's country, let white men rule."For a party that has this shameful history behind it, to be using the same tactics in reverse, in the hopes that it can save victory out of the jaws of defeat is beyond the pale of decency. I feel this way irrespective of the fact that Dixiecrats bolted to the Republicans and that Republicans themselves have used those tactics in the past. As someone else said on these posts, two wrongs don't make a right.But even more so, to equate a Republican electoral victory with the murder of black people or the tragedies of Martin and Ferguson, is absolutely ridiculous. We have elected the first black president, and we see higher levels of black unemployment than in previous years. Perhaps people are so tired of Obama's ineptitude that they just want a change. Let's not take this disgusting step labeling Republican voters as racists.
America is a mature country. Mature countries do not want much in the way of change. Change is a threat to the white power and white money that now rules. Why else disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of minorities except for the threat it is imagined they pose.The white party will win this election if for no other reason than to show the black man in the white man's house who is still boss. There I have simplified the election for you. Check out McConnell's tens of thousands of ads against Grimes. She is always pictured next to the black man and it is always stated that the black man needs her and that a vote for Grimes is a vite for the black man. These ads only confirm the racism in Kentucky.