Nixon's Republican Party: Modernizing Racism

As I've said before, I do quite enjoy politics.  I also enjoy political history and science.  They both show human development through the voices and actions of those who lead us.  President Nixon was one of those people - a man with a strong legacy, and notorious reputation.  For someone who shaped his political party's future for the next three generations and possibly more, he gets overshadowed so much by the image of figurehead Ronald Reagan.  Since Nixon abused his power so much, his infamy forced him out of the spotlight.  But his aides, interns, former employees and staff continued on.

I will say this many times: The President is an administration, not a single person.  The president is the group of people who run this country - all the secretaries, chiefs of staff, assistants and advisors are the people running the show.  We can attribute decisions, signings and vetoes to one man; all else is to the collective administration of the president.  

That being said - much of Nixon's legacy comes from his administration.  But there were some very key things that Nixon imprinted on his party, and they bely the racism of the segragationists from the deep south.  The first time we saw the arguments familiar with us today was in the election of 1968.  But some things I will speak on come from Nixon's first presidential camapaign.  

1960: Kennedy v Nixon, Kennedy wins.  It was a close election, and Nixon lost.  It was supposed to be the end of his political career.  There was a thought that Kennedy gerrymandered Illinois for the win.  But also, it showed a split in the democratic party and the south.  Nixon felt that if he had embraced the more conservative segregationist policies of the south, some of the democrats voting for a third candidate, Byrd, might have voted Republican, thus giving him the win.  

Of course, Kennedy got killed before he could sign into law the Civil Rights Act - and there are some that believe Nixon hired/assigned the guys to the job, utilizing old contacts in the Senate and CIA.  Those guys he hired would later become his "plumbers," or, the guys who fixed the "leaks."  

1968: Nixon v. Humphrey - This one was considered a realigning election, as the deep south had been brutally scarred by the riots and civil rights protests that had pockmarked its history throughout the 60's.  The segregationists had their own candidate in George Wallace, but Nixon wanted the Republican party to appeal and possibly steal the south away from the democrats.  Thus, he implemented what is known as the Southern Strategy - described as a way of securing the southern voters by focusing on racial issues.  It worked - not as well as it did later in 1972 - but it worked enough to show the south the Republicans had their back.  And they still use that strategy to this day.  

It has come a long way since then and has evolved into states rights, welfare reform, trickle down economics, and the drug wars.  

Nixon went very far to push to the Republican party to the right, and succeeded as we see today. The party now speaks about immigration reform (Romney's "self-deportation" blunder comes to mind) getting back to family values, medicaid reform, school voucher programs, union busting, voter ID laws, stop-and-frisks, checks for immigration papers... Its all rooted in Jim Crow, and the belief that white people are paying to give black people money to sit on their ass and do nothing.  It's a flawed mindset, and one to which many Republicans will cling - the people who believe the stereotypes presented to them.  Since we now have a news organization - FoxNews - that caters to this line of thinking, it makes it so much easier for everyone to segregate into their demographics and play it safe.  

I'm a white male.  I'm poor - making less than 20K per year.  I was on state benefits early in my life, but haven't been since because of the support system I have with my family and friends.  I understand that not everyone has this kind of support system - not everyone has parents who make more money than they spend in a year.  While I get by on my own somewhat (I have a roommate who is also my landlord), if there is an emergency in my life, I know I can turn to friends or family, and they will help me - mostly because they know I would do the same if I had the opportunity.  There are those out there - millions of them to be sure - who do not have well-off friends and parents they can ask for help.  The government is the only place they can turn.  

So what do the Republicans decide to do?  Focus on calling these people lazy, entitlement dependent, unemployed and unmotivated - or rather, lump them into a stereotype.  Then, they talk about how their policies, favoring the wealthy, will help create jobs.  I think it can officially be said now that "job creators" can fall under the abstractions that originate in the Southern Strategy.  The very wealthy are almost 100% white, and the only demographic that can truly force the population into economic slavery.  

Well done, Republicans.  I don't think it will work out for you - but well done.  You've abstracted the notions of racist policies to the point that people don't even know they're arguing for it.  Rather than wonder why 47% of the population isn't paying taxes and working to reduce that number by creating higher paying jobs - or by paying those people who really make you all that money more - you ignore and dismiss them as dependents on a democratic nanny state. 

Good game, willful ignorance.             

   

Why Mitt Romney Will Lose

I love watching politics. The discourse of human events and the conversation of what our society should become with the technology we've created is one of the most beautiful displays of awareness and understanding, strife and peaceful co-existence. I enjoy hearing someone who believes in a different philosophy of government and human social adaption - it helps me not only know what arguments are out there, but also helps frame my own opinions on matters that are important to me.

Moreover, it provides a way for me to relate to someone on a magnanimous scale - where things totally out of my control become important, and I am a major player in a political game. What's my lame one vote going to do?  ...but then again, add up enough lame one votes, and you get an election.

On to my point.

Mitt Romney's campaign is dependent upon FoxNews and the Republican Party.  In order to be their candidate, he has to be far right, meaning "no new taxes", tax cuts for "job creators", against "Obamacare", for national social security destruction, pro-life, anti-gay marriage, and much more.  Moreover, he has to do so AND win the vote of the majority of people in the United States. It is proven that there are more people in the city than in the rural counties, and more people in the cities vote Democrat. The Republicans, who have traditionally relied on the rural vote as of the 1960's and on, have two methods of winning in the cities:

1. Get people in the city to hate their neighbor (1968 Southern Strategy a'la Nixon) by continually harping on how much of their tax dollars go to people in entitlement programs (fear socialism!) while promoting individual responsibility (yay capitalism!) as the answer our social needs.  It's old, it's been said before.  

2. Eliminate votes through voter ID laws, redistricting and requiring criminal background checks for registering voters.  These are just simple and easy ways Republicans eliminate the votes the way they claim Democrats falsely add to them.

I point this out because these are the same tactics used by Nixon to win in 1968: Hate the hippies, they destroyed our country and Nixon is here to bring it back. There was much more to it, the but Republicans in general focused on wedging the factions apart and focusing only on specific votes for a win, and they've been doing it ever since.

But they're doing another thing with it - this time they're using the traditional Democratic technique of "don't look at me, this guy's worse" - or the "anyone but that guy" method.  The Dems used it in '04, and it failed.  Now, the 'Pubs are using it.  Most of the time, when a political party uses the "anyone but that guy" method of attracting voters, they have a solid enemy, or a guy who stands up better against the opponent on certain issues.  But when the enemy of the enemy is worse than "that guy" - which for Mitt Romney is the case for 80% of America - it becomes a poor campaign.

During a time when we have 8% and higher unemployment, displaying a rich, connected, well-to-do businessman that cut and slashed his way to success as the better choice for president than the guy who came from a single-parent home is a bad move, and a good way to lose yourself an election.

The Dems turned the table on the 'Pubs at their convention by using Bill Clinton's "Arithmetic Speech".  It brought the conversation from the anyone but "that guy" that kept billowing through the Republican halls of thought to the "Which guy has a better plan and more experience" part of the conversation.  It set Obama for the win.

This is now "that guy's" election to lose - and Mitt Romney will not be able to prove he's better than "that guy," no matter how hard he tries.  It's only a matter of time before Fox News starts talking about 2014, or 2016, and their next big stud.    

     

Welcome

For those of you who know me - this post isn't going to be anything new... probably just a clarification of what you already know. For those of you just finding me on your random search, the following will provide you with a bit of information as to my background and personal character.

Hello.

Now that I have that out of the way, let's get down to what this blog is about. I believe that humanity, in all its glory and flawed nature, is the source and the truth of art. Throughout the course of human history, everyday lives of people have played out through expression of intent and emotional awareness.  For this reason, I say humanity IS art in and of itself. The frustrations we all experience, the common joys we have together and apart, unite us in an artful mosaic that plays the symphony of life.

I am the audience; You are the audience; We are the performers.

So, this blog is a small commentary on the art of everyday life, and the big things playing out at home and abroad. Here, I will focus on the major shifts of human history, art, and life - be them political, sociological or artistic in form. I guess I could say the focus is on Humanity.

My background is in English, but I have studied current events, history, philosophy, education, sociology, anthropology, theatre, chemistry, biology, music, art history, and mathematics throughout my career as a human being, as have many of you - especially if you are reading this.  My hope is to apply my own humble opinion to the goings on of everyday human life.

Since many of us know the truth about politics - that BOTH major parties are out to take our money and give it to people who have a lot more of it than we do; BOTH major political parties want power, and will say anything to get it; BOTH major parties have propaganda organizations acting on their behalf - I will say that I side with reality, scientific and historic consensus, and common sense.  Since both major political parties are out to give us the proverbial SHAFT - I prefer the one who likes to use lubricant.  

I have read too much philosophy to believe in religion.  I have a faith in something, I call It God, and I think It's in all life - as many religions do.  We should be good to one another - all religions say this.  We should respect our elders and strive to help our neighbor.  "How" becomes the question, and when we can understand that we all come from the same place in our faiths and political ideology, we can begin to have a conversation about something truly amazing.  When we can accept a possibility that we are wrong, the true communication can begin.

Thank you for reading.