Genre: Opinion/Argumentation

I was just recalling how, about a year ago, my country was swept up in a spasm of self-congratulation. Not only had Barack Obama broken a seemingly insuperable historical barrier in winning the presidency, the media told us, but "we" had as well. We had overcome centuries of gruesome history and proved to the world that America could live up to its promise. The US press in those days duly reported but tended to downplay events that told the opposite story. The footnote, for instance, that the white supremacist website stormfront.org temporarily went dead on 5 November, the day after the election, because it was so inundated with requests for membership. And the tale about the Maine convenience store that started an "Osama Obama Shotgun Pool" inviting customers to bet on the date Obama would be shot, and saying: "Let's hope we have a winner". These were treated as isolated events, and maybe they were. The important thing was the people had spoken, and they'd given proof that America wasn't that kind of country any more. A year later, we've seen an epidemic of hatred against the president that I think is safe to call unprecedented. Bill Clinton and George W Bush were hated -- but not quite like this. When we have a pastor, a real-live Baptist minister in Arizona, devoting a sermon to explaining why the president should "melt like a snail" (and he was explicit -- he meant Obama should be killed), we've reached a new point. Obama, it was reported over the summer, receives 30 death threats a day, three or four times the number issued against Bush. And I think it can't be just a coincidence that you will almost never see him give a speech out of doors, the middle of a heavily guarded military base (Fort Hood) providing a recent and rare exception. We're not supposed to talk about race as a motivator for these kinds of things in this country. There are some decent reasons why. First, it's said, the anger felt towards Obama -- among the "tea party" contingent, for instance -- is in the main ideological. Let me be clear: I agree with this. It is in the main ideological. What a lot of the rest of us see as salvaging hundreds of thousands of jobs and averting a far deeper crisis by taking steps to bail out General Motors, Chrysler, Citigroup and Bank of America, they see as socialism. Fine. It's a free country, as we like to say. Second, race is hard to talk about because it's unquantifiable. If an incident occurs that looks as if it might be a hate crime but contains shadings of ambiguity, we can't say, "Well, that act had roots that were 61% economic and 39% racial". Likewise with Obama hatred. And if something can't be measured, it's hard even to argue about, let alone agree on. And third, I do think it's fair to say that, at this point in US history, most individuals aren't racist, at least in any blatant way. Most white people, especially from middle age down, may have a black friend or two, or at least co-workers with whom they get along fine. When conservatives complain that they feel they can't make criticisms of Obama without being called racist, they have a point, and on an individual level I have some sympathy with them. But here's the thing that most media discussions of race miss. It has to do with the difference between the individual and the crowd. The tea partiers are about 98% white. I went to the 12 September tea party march at the Capitol building. I saw many thousands of people. I spotted about a half dozen Asians, three or four Latinos, and one black person. All the rest were white. Look at the videos from the town halls over the summer. Virtually all of the angry people are white. Look, indeed, at the Republican party. It's almost entirely white. Yes, Michael Steele , a black man, is its chairman. But he was obviously a strategic and even cynical choice (made after Obama was elected) and was not culled from the ranks of numerous available black Republicans, because in truth there are hardly any. Add to this the fact that it is a central article of faith for American conservatism that the whole business of diversity is nothing but a racket, forced on them by liberal elites. I can't think of one measure meant to ameliorate America's hideous history of racial discrimination that conservatives have supported. Literally not one, in the 50 years we've been trying them. This is the Obama-hating crowd. It's deeply conservative, and it's about 98% white. And the thing about crowds is that they develop a personality of their own that is not merely the sum of individual parts. A crowd is an organism that grows in its own way and tends to be led and excited by its extremes. It can mutate into being racist without many or even most of the individuals in it being so. It can be a danger, as we're often reminded, to overstate these things without that magical "proof" we're always looking for. But the greater danger rests in understating them. Americans resist overstatement because we want to reassure ourselves we're a good country at heart. But history has more often proved on this topic that we're not. We'd do well not to forget that. I can't think of one measure meant to ameliorate America's hideous history of racial discrimination that conservatives have supported. Literally not one, in the 50 years we've been trying them. I wonder if that 50 years was chosen deliberately to exclude the obvious examples. Because Dwight D Eisenhower declared Racism a national security issue, filed amicus brief to show the Feds' interest in the Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka case - and when that came down in favour of an end to segregated education told the Washington District that it had to be a model for the rest of the country. That is ignoring the two Civil Rights Acts that Eisenhower proposed and got passed. The last in 1960. So there's one within MT's 50 year time limit. The hatred directed Obama is a good example of how the innate racism of some ordinary folk can be used against them by those of more manipulative bent. There can be few among the ordinary five eighths that would be worse off with universal healthcare, yet I suspect many oppose it because of who's introducing it, and like turkeys voting for Christmas will continue to oppose it while it comes from a black Democrat. Ditto the bailouts. There are plenty here who will vote for parties whose policies hurt them too next year, for no other reason than they want them to be "tough on immigrants". Are you kidding me? There is more hatred for Obama than Bush? Are you really trying to get people to think that is true? Unbelievable. Not only is there less hatred for Obama but also there is much more defense of Obama than Bush hense the calling people racist if they dissagree with him. He is a man, a politician just like anyone else not some god like figure. Actually his fall from grace if you could call it that is alot to do with your colleagues generating such a buzz about him as he was swept into power. What is really happening is people are waking up to the false left right paradigm. It is not a conservative thing as all main stream media try to push. It is normal people waking up to the fact that our elected leaders are not working for our best interests. Watch the "Fall Of The Republic" and you will see just how many promises Obama made before he became President and how he has gone back on every single one of them. That is why he is losing popularity because the "change" he promised is not the change we wanted. But it's not his fault is it he fighting the system but they just wont let him. Utter BS. When we have a pastor, a real-live Baptist minister in Arizona, devoting a sermon to explaining why the president should "melt like a snail" (and he was explicit ? he meant Obama should be killed), we've reached a new point. Not really, actually. We reached a new point when we elected a guy who was largely inspired and tutored by a pastor who continually preached "God Damn America" along with other pleasantries. I can't think of one measure meant to ameliorate America's hideous history of racial discrimination that conservatives have supported. Two words: Robert Byrd. I got one for you Mikey - Can you name me one enemy of this country in the last 50 years that you libs haven't excused and defended? Michael you are wrong. Bill Clinton was hated with much more passion by the right than what you see against Obama today. Funny thing is Clinton was actually trying to take the middle road, his positions and actions were much much more conservative. Yet, the right and the Jewish right hated him I am not enthralled by this President. I do not think he is a nice man. Actually I have noticed a mean streak in him that chills me to the bone. No he is not a good person. And I do not hate him. I am not sure how I, a non white, would be classified, placed in your book. My feelings about him, race has nothing to do with it. To me, he is our GWB. A thouroughly incompetent, not tested, not tried, not developed personality given the highest office because....what. We liberals never admit mistakes. Not when we were for cosying upto the Soviets, not when we kept opposing Iraq war even at the point it was turning out to be the right war and now this man, this administration. Unfortunately, for our country, we have now the most incompetent administration ever. Just this afternoon the Sec of State has announced that, quote, US has no long term stake in Afghanistan This is beyond bad. This is setting the world back a couple of hundred years. Not sure if that was cunning irony, thegonzo, but as the comments will clearly show, there sure a fair few of our half-wit cousins from across the pond ready and willing to read any article including the word 'merica Actually these "If you disagree with Obama your a racist" articles make my chuckle because they make me think about Ali G and his famous "Is it because i is black" quote. LOL When watching the first black President of the US enter the White House i never imagined that because he is black the race card could be used so readily to counter anyone that disagrees with him. It is perfect when you think about it. The question is how far do you take it? What if say Obama wanted to lower the age of consent to 9 years old? Would you call people racist who disagreed with that? Parag - "We liberals never admit mistakes. Not when we were for cosying upto the Soviets, not when we kept opposing Iraq war even at the point it was turning out to be the right war" The mind boggles.... Obama is a huge disappointment. He has shown everyone that his promises about "change" were little more than pipe dreams. Thus far, all he has done is borrow a ton of money and allow the Iraq and Afghanistan crises to escalate even further out of control. The only thing racist going on here is that blacks will not criticize him merely because he is black. I can't think of one measure meant to ameliorate America's hideous history of racial discrimination that conservatives have supported. I can. Conservatives just do not support liberal measures. 1. Conservatives supported welfare reform. The breakdown of the Black family coincided with easy availability of welfare. Public assistance programs needed massive overhaul so welfare recipients would be brought into the working mainstream. 2. Conservatives supported "No Child Left Behind", a program designed to ensure that all schools would provide a quality education. 3. Conservatives supported school vouchers and other school choice programs designed to help inner city children have access to quality education. 4. Conservatives have supported abstinence education. One of the main reasons Blacks citizens have not attained equality is because too many make the unwise choice to be unwed, teenage mothers. 5. Conservatives supported ?faith based? initiatives to help the poor. Many of these programs have an excellent track record for providing assistance, and are often based in the Black churches. 6. White Southern Baptists flocked to New Orleans to assist with rebuilding after Hurricane Katrina, and made available their church camps for temporary resettlement. 7. Conservatives have fought affirmative action programs because these initiatives send a message that minorities can only succeed with special assistance, which other races and ethnic groups do not apparently need. 9. Many conservatives supported the expansion of home ownership to the working poor, so minorities could enjoy the benefits of home ownership. 10. Many conservative businessmen make personal loans to poor, minority employees to help them pay for transportation to get to work each day. 11. Conservatives have supported programs allowing tax breaks for businesses to locate to blighted areas. These programs help businesses that utilize them, but also provide jobs for inner city workers. 12. Conservatives support police hiring so inner city neighbourhoods are safer. Not every program supported by Conservatives has worked as hoped, but most liberal programs have a hideous track record. I don't think many Conservatives are angry at minorities. I believe the anger is directed toward the destruction nature of the misguided liberal programs. When I read something like this, I think the current version of BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome) must be OAS (Obama Adoration Syndrome)... they both cause otherwise intelligent people to almost completely lose their critical facilities. The hatred and sheer vitriol directed at Obama is not (yet) at the level on what was directed at the dismal Bush, but it will be eventually, of that I am sure. The main difference will be that whereas the media were overwhelmingly hostile to Bush, they will stand by Obama and most of the hatred will be from the grass roots and Fox. The irony of arguing that the only reason white people oppose Obama is because he is black is that in doing so you imply, ipso facto, that the only reason black people support him is because he's black. Why can't liberals seem to grasp the fact that racism cuts both ways? Judging by the posts ahead of mine, it appears no one is buying this tripe, which i take as very positive sign for humanity in general. Lets cut through the B.S., shall we? Here are the facts: Obama is in a lot of trouble politically, and although he would never admit it, no one knows this better than Tomasky, and liberals like him . Obama is in trouble on health care, he's in trouble on the economy, he's in trouble in Afghanistan, he's in trouble on jobs, he's in trouble on cap and trade...and the reality is that independent voters (who he could not have been elected without and without whom he can't be re elected) are jumping ship at an alarming rate. These independents, Who supported Obama just one year ago, btw, are largely white, middle class, and would never be caught dead at a tea party. Look at the racist and other vile (Dachau) signs being touted at tea party rallies? http://www.buzzfeed.com/ has a few 'top twenty's' Alongside the real threat to Obama's person there have been a number of shootings ('domestic terrorism') linked to the right and encouraged by the rhetoric. (Much of) the right is in denial. Conservatives who have pointed out or argued against the racist extremists in the midst of the movement and have criticised rabble rousers like Limbaugh have been shouted down or called RINOs. Instead, those disgusting signs are tolerated at those rallies. WTF is that about? Eisenhower was a liberal Republican. I remember reading a letter he wrote in which he called himself a "proud liberal". Maybe that's the letter in which he decried the influence of "stupid Texas oil men" in national affairs. And he is also the man who gave us the phrase "military industrial complex" and warned against its evils. So how in any measure was he a conservative? And how was he anything like the raving lunatics that are today's conservatives? Would anyone from that era short of McCarthy pass for conservative today? I am a white male American, 40, who voted for Obama, (due to lack of alternatives) and while he may be still finding his sea legs, I think he is a intelligent, honest man of good character, quite the antithesis of his predecessor. I am appalled by the amount of ignorant vitriol thrown at him, and have had to rethink the status of racism in this country, of which I can only say, is embarrassing at least and horrifying at best. I try to live by MLK's (paraphrased) words, "..judge on the content of character, not the color of skin." It has worked well for me - I can only hope that it should work for more Americans, of all skin colors and ethnicities, so that we can be the change we want to see in our lives. Ignorance and hatred may be strong, but truth and compassion will always win. It's not about 'conservative' and 'liberal', Democrat or Republican - those are artificial constructs of the two-party system (the two halves of the ruling party) meant to keep us fighting amongst ourselves while the ruling elite does whatever the hell they want. A mind is a terrible thing to waste, so goes the tagline. Not entirely sure about the boggling thing though. Its your mind. Let it boggle, for all I care. lefthalfback Parag- please drop the pretence that you a liberal. OK? Nobody is buying that and you just make yourself look stupid And you know this because you checked my voter registration and that you found out I voted for Nader in 2000, ....and did not vote in 2008 right? Or that I donated to Hillary (no one else). Right? Right? RIGHT? The extreme left has taken over liberalism, so much so, that the values we liberal cherish and have fought for, the battle for those values is now being carried out by the conservatives. As I commented elsewhere, the battle for liberalism is being fought by conservatives. The support from conservatives for every single policy you mentioned comes from a belief that those policies advance conservative social and fiscal values. Those policies were not formulated to address racial inequality and it is proposterous to suggest that they were. He certainly possesses an extremely high opinion of himself, but that is true of the denizens of almost every coffee shop in the West these days. The fact he is an African American is nothing more than a historical footnote. I invite my fellow readers here to tell us - without first researching it - who the first Roman emperor of non-Italian birth was (or of African birth, for that matter)? And yet, there was a day when the fact of such a reign was talked of as somehow being enormously significant for that very reason alone. People thought Obama was anti-war. He is not. He simply thinks that Iraq is a bad war, and he cherishes the fond and secret hope that soon his troops will be fighting the SS in Khandahar. People thought Obama was compassionate. Even if his compassion rises from out of his family circle, it is worth remembering that there are stories that would make many a headsman to have been compassionate. People thought Obama would impose justice after eight years of the Bush administration's contempt for the rule of law and of the laws of nations. Instead, Gitmo is still open, military tribunals will now begin trials of tortured Gitmo detainees, not one prosecution has been initiated against any American official tainted with illegal conduct, and information related to al of this continues to be destroyed or otherwise secreted from the American people. And in the meantime, despite the fact of the ruination of much of the USA's capital by iresponsible financiers and bankers, not one law has been attempted by Obama's administration to prevent another such debacle. Some justice. No president of the USA can reshape that great republic in the first year of their first term. That said, eight years, which is the most any of them can have, is not a long time. Obama knows that people start as they wish to continue. We can all see what his starting choices have been. Living in North America as I do I am slowly coming to the opinion that Obama is turning out to be something of a dud. To be clear, the guy has written himself into history already so it really doesn't matter what he does or doesn't do for the next three years. OK, the Conservatives detest the guy for a whole slue of reasons. Some do hate him for the fact that he isn't White but it isn't as widespread as you'd think. They detested Clinton equally and he is a White Southerner. Anyway, open KKK-style racism is fairly rare nowadays and the Far-Right have learned the effectiveness of 'dog whistle' politics and inferrence. The problem for Obama is that many progressives and independents are unhappy with the guy and see him as too careful and (small 'c') conservative. In the end he may land up with few friends. Some of the comments above are decidedly odd; they seem to assume that it's simply "okay" to automatically hate a politician based solely on political grounds. If that's the case it seems to me a rather sad one to adopt. I mean, I can see why you'd hate Clinton if your a social conservative of a certain bent - though would you want Gingrich or Limby in your corner? And I can see why you'd hate Bush - I mean how many things do you want...? But what has Obama actually done that any reasonable person can actually suggest deserves such pathetic-come-potentially-violent hate? I mean, isn't the sternest critique that he hasn't yet done anything? How can that be sufficient for the emotions/prospective actions being considered? I can only say I completely agree with milleronic's comments, not least: I think he is a intelligent, honest man of good character, quite the antithesis of his predecessor. I am appalled by the amount of ignorant vitriol thrown at him, and have had to rethink the status of racism in this country, of which I can only say, is embarrassing at least and horrifying at best...[Although I think I might put more emphasis on politics I do agree in broad sentiment with the following too]...t's not about 'conservative' and 'liberal', Democrat or Republican - those are artificial constructs of the two-party system (the two halves of the ruling party) meant to keep us fighting amongst ourselves while the ruling elite does whatever the hell they want. 1. Conservatives supported welfare reform. The breakdown of the Black family coincided with easy availability of welfare. Public assistance programs needed massive overhaul so welfare recipients would be brought into the working mainstream. Bill Clinton carried out welfare reform, not the conservatives. They were too busy inventing scandals and peddling falsehoods . 2. Conservatives supported "No Child Left Behind", a program designed to ensure that all schools would provide a quality education. No, a program which confused standardized testing with real education, and which was underfunded for even its limited goals. 3. Conservatives supported school vouchers and other school choice programs designed to help inner city children have access to quality education. And have they actually done anything about this? Conservatives have supported re-segregation of education for years. 4. Conservatives have supported abstinence education. One of the main reasons Blacks citizens have not attained equality is because too many make the unwise choice to be unwed, teenage mothers. Abstinence education has consistently been a failure. Not that you care about that. Ideology is all. The highest number of teen pregnancies are consistently in conservative states. 5. Conservatives supported ?faith based? initiatives to help the poor. Many of these programs have an excellent track record for providing assistance, and are often based in the Black churches. Most black churches are not conservative, to put it mildly. As for supporting faith based initiatives, these usually come with ideological baggage, and are, in any case, inadequate to the task. 6. White Southern Baptists flocked to New Orleans to assist with rebuilding after Hurricane Katrina, and made available their church camps for temporary resettlement. Many groups helped in the aftermath of Katrina. Oddly enough, it was white conservatives who attacked black and minority areas and looted where they could. There was also a conservative president who failed to deal with Katrina, and was too busy eating cake with John McCain. 7. Conservatives have fought affirmative action programs because these initiatives send a message that minorities can only succeed with special assistance, which other races and ethnic groups do not apparently need. No, conservatives have tried to preserve white privilege, just as they did with sun-down towns. They do however support affirmative action for the wealthy and big business. Yes, Clarence Thomas. Funny how conservatives supported that piece of affirmative action. And how many other conservatives supported Kelo? 9. Many conservatives supported the expansion of home ownership to the working poor, so minorities could enjoy the benefits of home ownership. As did many liberals. And conservatives certainly didn't care about minorities. They wanted white working-class votes. 10. Many conservative businessmen make personal loans to poor, minority employees to help them pay for transportation to get to work each day. Name ten. And what makes you think liberals don't show similar generosity, hmm? 11. Conservatives have supported programs allowing tax breaks for businesses to locate to blighted areas. These programs help businesses that utilize them, but also provide jobs for inner city workers. This is standard government policy, not conservative policy, you idiot. 12. Conservatives support police hiring so inner city neighbourhoods are safer. No, not really. It was conservatives who demanded cuts to Clinton's program, which did just this. When we have a pastor, a real-live Baptist minister in Arizona, devoting a sermon to explaining why the president should "melt like a snail" (and he was explicit ? he meant Obama should be killed), we've reached a new point . That Babtist minister is a fervent "right-to-lifer" protesting the president's position on abortion. his rhetoric sounded to me more like the same ranting that I've heard from the anti-abortion movement for years and much less like something that could somehow be construed as racist. But then, I guess you OPED writers can slant it however you want. Here's one for ya: If you're an OpEd writer, you may not be a criminal. But, you've probably smoked pot. It should be remembered that the Republician Party took a sharp turn to the Right after the Eisenhower Presidency. Robert Welch's 'John Birch Society' (a early 60's equivalent to today's Teabaggers) was in the asendency and their campaign was victorious with the nomination of a certain Barry Goldwater in 1964. Goldwater was the most doctrinaire Republican to ever stand for the Republicans in the modern era. In his best seller, "Conscience of a Conservative" he wrote that a limited scale nuclear war with the Soviet Union was not only winnable but desirable and when asked if he was an extremist he replied, "Extremism in defence of liberty is no vice" He would have fitted very well in today's Republican party and I see today's politics as I kind of re-run of the early/mid 60's. My view is that the Republicans will choose an ultra-Conservative to run in 2012. Race cuts both ways. I haven't heard much discussion about the fact that Obama's popularity among African-Americans seems impervious to events. So if some people are upset with Obama's policies it's unlikely that they're black. But the more interesting observation is that most of the movement in Obama's poll numbers are among independents who voted for Obama in large numbers. I don't know why some find this mysterious. First of all, the great majority of Americans have good healthcare coverage. I prefer my present situation over what I experienced in the NHS, although I have nothing negative to say about the NHS. So healthcare reform was always going to involve a large transfer from the majority to the minority, which is never popular. Second, there is zero doubt but that Obama is trying to do too much, too fast. Independents agree on this point. Third, there are the massive deficits. The fact is that no one knows how we are going to be able to afford the current social security system, much less an additional entitlement in the healthcare realm. Finally, there are all the silly things Obama got mixed up in, like the Gates affair and the war with Fox. So in my view the real question is how Obama's popularity could not have moved an inch among African-Americans despite all this. The irony of arguing that the only reason white people oppose Obama is because he is black is that in doing so you imply, ipso facto, that the only reason black people support him is because he's black. Doesn't follow. Logic is not your forte, is it? I can agree with the following, though: Eisenhower was certainly no conservative by your standards, nor by the general standards of America politics today. Yet now you try to pass him off as one? Actually by the standards of today Eisenhower would be too right wing for the Republicans. He was a liberal by the standards of his time. How did he feel about Roe v. Wade? How did he feel about Gay Rights? Welfare Reform? There is no reason to think Einsenhower would have supported any of the liberal Shibboleths of the present. Tucsonian Eisenhower was a liberal Republican. I remember reading a letter he wrote in which he called himself a "proud liberal". Maybe that's the letter in which he decried the influence of "stupid Texas oil men" in national affairs. And he is also the man who gave us the phrase "military industrial complex" and warned against its evils. So how in any measure was he a conservative? And how was he anything like the raving lunatics that are today's conservatives? Would anyone from that era short of McCarthy pass for conservative today? The modern Republican Party is pretty much to the left of the 1950s Democratic Party - and not merely in issues like race given the Democrats were the party of the KKK at the time. On the important issues, the 1950s had not yet come to terms with the issues that are now routine in modern America. How did Eisenhower feel about Gay Rights? He may have come around to the idea but there is nothing to suggest that he would have been anything but appalled by Gay marriage. There is no reason to think he would have given any support to the Welfare state or health care. Not even to Medicare. The fact is America has been moving to the Left for a long time. Einsenhower was to the right of almost everyone. Besides, this is just changing the terms of the debate. You want Ike on your side and so you claim him as one of your own. Big deal. He wasn't, of course. It's not surprising that most of the canon fodder for the corporate machine comes from the white population. The other races have been marginalized in the past so they are more suspicious of the core conservative ideology. They'd have to be amnesiacs not to remember that in the not-too-distant past they were beyond the pale. The real tragedy is to see the poor whites get sucked into this anti-Obama, tea-bag movement. Except for their voting power, poor whites are pretty much useless to the ruling elite. Obama might be a dud, but his blandness is a much needed break from 2000-08. The country really took up the *** under the last guy and we need a rest before the next GOP corporate-backed rapist is elected president and we find ourselves in yet another war to protect our national interests. I guess Americans have to accept that we live in a hi-tech, 18th century empire that needs a new war every 5-10 years to subsidize our defense industry. A year later, we've seen an epidemic of hatred against the president that I think is safe to call unprecedented. I guess its safe to the degree that liberals have assumed that if they keep trotting out anecdote, it just doesn't matter if they really hand together. Like your previous example of large numbers of Republicans being so wiling to doubt Obama's citizenship and how it was matched by equal numbers of Democrats being so willing to sign up to the equally (or more) fringe view that Bush intentionally allowed 9/11 to happen, each anecdote can generally be compared with one from the other side. In fact, the only real difference seems to be the view that is was OK for Bush and no Obama (and then one can wonder about racial motivations there too). I guess the real question is, if an issue that liberals support got little or no black support (say gay marriage) would there be any chance that they would wonder if that issue was racially motivated? Of course we have been there and know the answer. You're on to losing grounds here. A lot of people don't like the policies and he is losing independents. Hell, he's losing liberals. If you start telling people who don't like the policies Obama proposes that at some level they are opposed because you are racist - well see how fast support withers then. transparentgoat, you obviously have committed liberal opinions. However, I wonder how informed you actually are on these matters besides the 'Clinton Good, Republicans Bad' mantra For instance, black churches in the US certainly tend to be socially conservative. African-American pastors & congregations are overwhelmingly against gay marriage, for example. This voting bloc does not vote for conservative politicians but they will support socially conservative policies. "I do think it's fair to say that, at this point in US history, most individuals aren't racist, at least in any blatant way. Most white people, especially from middle age down, may have a black friend or two . . . " For a certain portion of this, we have to thank Jesse Owens, Jackie Robinson, Bill Russell, et.al. It may have taken athletes to break some barriers, but the barriers were broken none-the-less. I suspect that not many Michael Jordan fans call him a n*****r, not white fans at least. "we want to reassure ourselves we're a good country at heart. But history has more often proved on this topic that we're not. We'd do well not to forget that". An internet dating service has a commercial on network TV wherein a mixed-ethnicity couple is kissing. We'd do well to remember that just a few years back censors probably wouldn't have allowed this to occur(Jack Valenti's bona fides notwithstanding) - just as we'd do well to remember that, increasingly(Obama's heritage is apposite), ethnicities continue to become more of a melange with each passing generation. As much as I think the term 'Race' is a misnomer, progress continues in matters of Race. I'm not alone in thinking dark complexioned people with green eyes can be very attractive(my wife is a classic example); the standards upon which we make judgements are evolving and heterogeneousness(cattlemen call it 'crossbred vigor') is now a societal strength. Oh- I see. The first comment got moderated. Have to say that I don't see why, even though I thought the guys was an idiot.. MAM- did you mena to say that Ike would be too far Right for today's GOP? THat's nonsense. Who knows what Ike thougt about gay roghts and abortion but in his Farewell Speech he did warn us about the "military-industrial" complex- and as you point out he made some efforts in the Civil Rights Arena. Hell, today Ike would be a Democrat. tommy-What policiers do people dislike? I ask thta seriously. Bailing out Wall Street? Obviously the bankers were too well protected but something ha dto be done, right? Bailing out GM-were we really supposed to shut down the domestic auto industry? anyway, Tommydog- MT is not talking about peopel who oppose his policies. he is talking abouit people who think that Obama is a Socialist Kenyan who intends to subvert the nation and peopel who are making detah threat. Hasan you are serious asking for one enemy of the US the past 50 years the Liberals haven't supported or excused? I'm asking because I can remember Reagan selling missiles to the "freedom fighters" in Afghanistan, who later created 9/11. It's a none starter. Race? It's such an alien concept. What is that? You mean ethnicity? Cultural heritage? Skin colour? None of these describe or define anything that one could determine as 'race'. There is one race and it is human, a collective of us, we. The sooner people are educated to this fact... well, the better. As for 'hate', well, again rather irrational. If you've moved yourself headlong into that 'fear-space', your arguments, stance and approach are invalid. Hate gives you nothing but blindness, how can you see anything, let alone conclude, when you're filled with hate? Abandon the misconception, the fallacy of race and move away from hate and already you'll be a more insightful, compassionate, understanding human being. And what can be wrong with that? Most popular on the Guardian Today in pictures After advising tourists against travel to the cities of Jammu and Srinagar for nearly 20 years, the Foreign Office has lifted its guidelines after a fall in violence. So, Dal Lake and part of the Valley of Kashmir, one of India's most beautiful regions, are once again open to visitors