"...race is really central..."
Which is why Reagan (Ray-gun) started his 1980 campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi, where the three civil rights workers had been killed in the 1960's. The message to racists was unmistakable.

Race also permeates attitudes towards public spending. A large swathe of white Americans will gladly pay for health, accommodation and training for black Americans, just as long as those black Americans are wearing prison uniforms and sleep in prison cells.

asymmetrical intimidation

This, I think, is the key to saving the Constitution. Somebody needs to put the fear of God into the Beltway opinion-making class. For starters, it should be made clear to Maureen Dowd, for example, that if she tries to give Clinton or Obama the Gore-2000 treatment, even a little bit, it'll be a cold day in hell before she sees the interior of a Democratic White House. And make it stick.

This reminds me of what Robert Wright (I think) said of Newt Gingrich in 1994. Should we retire to our brie and chardonnay and discuss what a brilliant coup Newt has wrought? No! "That's the kind of nerdiness that got us into trouble in the first place. I say we beat the little butterball to a pulp."

The problem is making the threat credible, like a vow never to negotiate with hostage-takers. Liberals do have a long history of nerdiness. Once Clinton or Obama is in the White House, following through on the threat brings no additional reward, so it'll be tempting to relent.

Here's my fantasy solution. Suppose, after being crossed by MoDo, Obama puts more money than he can afford into escrow, with instructions, "If Maureen Dowd sets foot in my White House, give all this money to the American Nazi Party." Now, Obama can't afford to relent. Tom Schelling, handily available at the University of Maryland, could doubtless come up with something better.

Perhaps this is the wrong outlet for fan mail, but it really is a pleasure (in particular when viewed against the propaganda placed on the WSJ web page) to read your work--which infuses economic policy choices with a sense of moral clarity. And your critiques of the media have been spot-on. Would that those elected to think about these issues communicated so well.

Power abhors a vaccuum. It remains to be seen whether any of the other branches of government (or even the media) will seize that power back.

I completely agree, as I've been saying on comment boards on other sites, that the basic problem is the South. If you take away the states of the Old Confederacy, American party / electoral politics would look basically like Canada's or Western Europe's -- especially if you factor out the distorting effect that Southern conservatism has on the national political discussion generally.

The South itself recognized that it was essentially a different country, and it tried to go its own way. It wasn't allowed to. In short, I blame Lincoln.

But what's done is done. For the future, two things are important about movement conservatism: It's not serious about its own principles, and it's going to be proven wrong for the same reason that conservative ideas (including Southern conservatism's signature idea, Jim Crow) have always been proven wrong and eventually discarded. These are matters I discuss in more detail here:

http://conservativesarealwayswrong.googlepages.com/

"When I feed the poor, they call me a saint.
When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist."

By Helder Camara

First, supply-side quackery is only one of the gambits used to sell tax cuts.

The myths of Tax cuts are a big issue in the public discussion, but it is also part of the economic misdirection we face in our understanding of what is occurring.

Profits are what are left over after paying you wages and all your bills. We talk somewhat about the loss of wages by employees, there is controversy about tax cuts, but what have been over looked are the bills that the Republicans have shifted to us the individuals.

We, the individuals, have in the past and are continuing to subsidize the Warfare State for Large Businesses. The costs of goods we buy do not have all the expenses included. Military expenditures for oil, cleanup of the pollution of the hydrocarbons from oil, the water pollution from the toxic chemicals used to produce products and the list is endless.

The European Union, remember that other advanced country, has instituted a cradle to grave capture of the costs to recycle products when you purchase the product. Our environmental requirements for business that have waste byproducts would not be allowed to use our standards there.

We do not hear about the comparison of our environmental requirements in comparisons to theirs and it is not by accident that we kept in ignorance. Ignorance of other countries keeps the market place of best practices unconsidered. It allows the misdirection and thus inattention to the real choices that could make a difference in the quality of our life.

The cost causer should be the cost payer unless there is an agreed upon “Common Good” or Public Interest and Necessity agreed upon by us the citizens. That translates into the attempted practice of cradle to grave capture of costs in the price of the end product in the EU.

Today the US is transitioning to HDTV and millions of televisions are going to be in the waste stream. This changeover is being mandated by the Federal Government actions, but today I have not head of a plan to reimburse local governments for the recycling of the poisonous heavy metals and other toxic parts.

Politics in America is all about getting someone else to pay for your expenses to make an extraordinary profit.

The biggest problems are not the subsidies for the poorest, but the multitude of subsidies we provide to business.

-----------------------------------------------
Today, are we searching for I deals or Ideals?
-Thinking

Corvid

Here we go again with this South=racism paradigm. One takes a huge, geographical section of the country, labels it racist and, voila, there's not one damned thing you need to know or understand about it beyond that.
.
If a neander-con applies some unflattering label to an ethnic group, liberals are all up in arms--as they, and the rest of us, should be. So how can someone like Paul Krugman whip right around and do exactly the same thing when it suits his purposes and prejudices?
.
Can pols use racism as a lever to win votes in the South? I wouldn't be surprised. But is this because the place is just plain racist and nothing else, or is it due to a variety of other reasons--one being that southerners are so often flogged with this ugly charge, another being that northern, free-trade economists like Mr. Krugman have nothing to offer the South (or the rest of working America) in terms of a brighter future?
.

I'll second that sentiment.  Paul Krugman is the reason I bit for a NYTimes Select subscription -- couldn't bear to miss getting my regular Krugman fix!

Especial thanks, Paul, for your continuing work separating fact from myth on the issue of health care, and helping to point the way to a sane and equitable health care policy for this country.

 Since most Americans are not willing to ask those questions, we are forced to point fingers at each other to explain why this is such a brutal country.

Racism boils down to capitalistic greed throughout American history. You may wish to watch the Gangs of NY to see how this same capitalistic greed drove discrimination against Jews, Irish, Catholics etc. The american negro has a unique place in history simply because they were enslaved and labelled property, chattel slavery, enabled the South to flourish. Bottomline, virtual all racism in this country can be traced to the need for cheap manual labor and continued racism reflects an unused surplus of a labor pool directly traced to the import of slaves.

Thus we now have the penal labor pool used by industry which is analogous to slave ownership in the south. Massive incarceration of blacks has resulted in them continuing to be used as a cheap source of labor for capitalistic greed.

In the Gangs of NY the elite describe how they are going to  divide the 'havenots' to ensure the continued rule of the elite capitalists and industrialists. As long as there is internecine fighting among the havenots, the 'havemores' grip on political and economic power is unbreakable as the focus is not on the real problem.

The Iraq war has put racism on the back burner, but from an historical point of view, that is the number one issue.

Not actually when you consider that the number of minorities who serve this country are disproprotionate to their overall population numbers. War is also a means to use the surplus labor pool, when people are unemployable, due to continuing discrimination or legal records, they join the military to gain a foothold economically at the risk of their lives.  This too was shown in the Gangs of NY where the Irish were signed up immediately as soldiers as soon as they  came off the boat.

Nowhere is this more blatantly seen then with the hypocrisy of the pro-life movement. They insist on not using government funds to allow the poor to have abortions under the specious contention of how precious life is and yet will vehemently oppose funding to feed, clothe and educate that 'precious life' until they are incarcerated and vote for the death penalty for that same 'precious life' once their 'life potential' is abused, neglected and distorted in the ghetto.

Pro-lifers are in love with the 'potential' of life not the reality of the living thus they also are willing to usurp the rights of the pregnant woman to decide how to use her own 'potential' life in favor of, one of the biggest misnomers I have ever heard, 'unborn' life.

for some reason he has been treated like a conquering hero by Democrats, most notably when he was handed a prime speaking slot at the 2004 Democratic National Convention

Obviously you did not listen to Al's speech or you would know why he was given that slot. Maybe, you are unaware of the deeply moralistic values that drove the civil rights movement and unaware of how religious AA's are? . The political leaders of the Democratic party could not afford to lose those votes. Do you recall how long the lines were in OH?  Do you recall that there was an anti-gay marriage initiative on the agenda? Go look up the content of Al's 2004 speech and you will know why he was given that prime slot.

See, that's hitting the nail on the head. I disagree that "it's all about race." I think it's all about distribution of wealth, and the power structures put in place by the wealthy to protect that distribution. It happens, to some degree, to mirror racial divides, because wealth has been unevenly distributed between the races and that distribution is reinforced through the aforementioned protective measures. But the racial issue is dwindling as more and more whites become excluded from the central distributions of wealth.

Why?

It happens, to some degree, to mirror racial divides, because wealth has been unevenly distributed between the races and that distribution is reinforced through the aforementioned protective measures

It is not happenstance. It is deliberate and the racism and discrimination is institutionalized with the intent to perpetuate and consolidate the power of the wealth and capitalistic industrials and oil and munitions barons.

But the racial issue is dwindling as more and more whites become excluded from the central distributions of wealth.

I totally disagree. As the pie shrinks racism becomes more virulent as there is less for the 'advantaged and white priviledge becomes more difficult.

I'm seeing this here in Chicago right now, at the hands of a Democratic state and city regime. Chicago public transit is in crisis, due for massive service cuts and fare increases because the Democratic-controlled legislature has failed to come up with funding. It has had no problem with subsidizing new highways and ongoing expansion of roads and airports. It is a local cliche that "there's no constituency for public transportation". Meaning that it's seen as primarily a concession to the dark and the poor.

"notably the claim that government the health insurance industry is wasting your money on vast armies of useless bureaucrats"

Fixed.

"All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." - I.F. Stone

I thought you would go for this...

"notably the claim that government is wasting your money on vast armies of useless bureaucrats"

First I am reading it now. However, I thought you would find it interesting, given your post, since Parent explains the transistion for the use of white servants to black slaves from the perspective of the interests of the White Planter Class.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

Re: Quite simply, if you point out character flaws in a conservative, there will be an all-out effort, involving major media as well as blogs and talk radio, to discredit and ruin you, personally.

Rightwing talk radio and rightwing blogs: yes. But the mainstream media, no. President Bush is routinely depicted as a dunce in the media, and Vice President Cheney as creepy and sinister. And does anyone think that Congressman Foley and now Senator Craig have escaped a full airing of their peccadillos?

So you've been hearing talk of impeachment on the MSM? Do you think Bush's character flaws might be just a little more damaging to America than Clinton's erotic nuttiness?

I also have to disagree with your characterization of Bush. He's still treated as if his opinions matter on their own merit. He is a dunce, but it's only the comedy shows, not the "news", that let on. As to Foley and Craig, the media frenzy was egged on by the GOP powers that couldn't spin or cover up the facts this time around, and thus crowded to the front of the line to denounce them. And it's not coincidental that their moral outrage just happened to focus so tightly on peccadilloes with gay overtones.

Yes, it was set in mid-nineteenth century.

The film begins in 1846 and quickly jumps to the early 1860s. The two principal issues of the era in New York were Irish immigration to the city and the northern federal government's execution of the American Civil War.

Paul, I read you regularly to assure myself there is still some hope for our Republic. But increasingly I am feeling very uneasy. We have outgrown the model that we formed these United States around. The fragmentation we now experience is a natural outcome of a divided republic split by demographic realities.

There is no leadership that can unite such a fragmented, large populous. As we see leadership now aspires to divide us - with fear. What is needed is less central government. Power must come back to small groups of people who can address their local problems. Taxation must be reversed so that the federal government gets only what the local entities allow. Hamilton has had his day with the neo-conservatives. Now lets see the ideas of Jefferson, Madison and Monroe come nto play.

Considering that Al Sharpton was a featured speaker at the 2004 DNC and in view of whiterosebuddy's response, which in my experience is anything but unusual when Saint Sharpton is openly criticized, I'd say, yeah: Infatuation is the right word.

Of course there are racists elsewhere than in the South. There are racists, Lord knows, in Canada, Germany and other social-democratic countries too, for that matter. The difference is that they don't have a huge regional base that gives them critical mass in their nations' politics. They don't dominate the national governments in those countries. In the US, it's the existence of the South that empowers all the other movement conservatives around the country, who otherwise would be a scattered rump.

Someone above mentioned the Willie Horton ad and pointed out that it wasn't just aimed at Southerners. Right, but it was aimed at a national political culture in which enough voters could be expected to respond to such an appeal. Without the South, there would still be some such voters, but not enough to change the whole character of politics and thus make the Willie Horton approach worthwhile.

Here's a more recent example: Without South Carolina, John McCain probably wins the Republican nomination in 2000 and almost certainly (if he wins the election) runs a more moderate administration than Bush has done. And what saved Bush in S.C. after he'd been clobbered by 20 points in New Hampshire? Push-polls and Rove-managed whispering campaigns about McCain's adoption of a mixed-race baby. Wouldn't have been tried in a different region or country and wouldn't have worked if it had been.

I have no doubt at all that Republicans=Racism. That is so obvious that even a dunce like me can see it. The really sad part is how well it works.

Almost as sad is the inability of the Democratic Party to find a solution to that problem. When Howard Dean tried to approach it with economics he was booed off the stage. But, I am convinced that economic arguments are the answer. I just refuse to believe that there are substantial numbers of people who would rather live in poverty than vote for a non-racist candidate.

Hoppy in Sacramento

Strange as it may seem whiterosebuddy, I do not consider falsely accusing people of rape, comparing Mario Cuomo to Hitler, supporting an ally as he fasely accused NYS Attorney General Robert Abrams of maturbating over the photo of a supposed rape victim, implying that anyone who didn't believe her frankly ridiculous rape story of racism—in short whipping up an acrimonious racial frenzy for the purpose of calling attention to oneself— to be my idea of "deeply moralistic values."

Nor did I imply, infer or suggest such. Please note what I specifically replied to in my post. Which was the reasons for Al Sharptons's being given a prime slot, at the DNC in 2004. It was totally political. I did not address Al's baggage. I addressed his political clout and the reason he was given the opportunity to speak.

  If Al Sharpton is such a plus for Democrats why did the Republicans, especially Roger Stone who was instrumental in stopping the 2000 Florida recount, finance his campaign?

Ahhh, so you do not understand the political landscape, either? Do you know what Al Sharpton said at the DNC?  I suggest you may want to look it up as well and or ask yourself whose votes were at risk that afforded the need for Al to have a prime slot.

 Deeply moralistic  values refers to the constituency that Al brings to the political table, not Al, (even though he is REVEREND Sharpton) and specifically what would allow the GOP to siphon off their votes and thus the reason for Stone to finance his campaign.

The grand irony is that no one has done more to discredit racism as a compelling issue than Al Sharpton

My observation is that there is no such irony; rather this holds true for non-constituents of Al and those who are not victims of racism. To those who experience racism daily along with police brutality, gangs in their community and drug infested neighbors..Al's messages ring true.

How could Clinton have won in Louisiana, Tennessee, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky and West Virginia in 2002 and all of those plus Florida (but minus Georgia) in 1996? 

Ross Perot and Willie is a good ol boy aka son of the south.

It's a combination. Race and class are inextricably linked in the United States, thanks to the rather unique situation created by its past of racial slavery and civil war fought over same. The same sort of attacks that you'd see on the lower class in other countries are levelled at urban blacks (among others) in the United States, with the added issues that race itself brings to the mix.

It's a rather handy tool, actually. Any attempt to explicitly attack the lower class would mean admitting that there is such a beast. The elites in the United States would really rather avoid that, as it would pit them against a fair number of their blue-collar supporters and provide the trade unions endless fodder. The "class warfare" label that has proven so effective against the unions would be out the door.

If they simply attack blacks (and, to a lesser extent, other minority groups) they get the benefit of being able to stick it to the proles, while at the same time convincing the non-minorities that they have someone to both blame for their problems and feel superior to. Combine that with the South's continuing issues with the civil war and the racism implicit in their "heritage", and is it any wonder why the Republicans return to that well so often?

I don't know that there is any 'liberal/left' infatuation with Sharpton at all. I think that's one of those little embellishments that substitute for truth in the entirety.

I think that Sharpton's constituency is entirely black, and I think that the white power structure, and the white 'liberal/left' are at the least, uncomfortable with Sharpton.

And there you have it.

I once heard from a black person on the subject of Al Sharpton. His point on Sharpton was that Sharpton stood by blacks, he stood by his people, come hell or high water. He was there. He was there when the cause was unpopular, when it would have been easy to walk away. He stood.

Braintree would have Al Sharpton thrown to the wolves.

But truth be told, are Sharpton's sins worse than George H.W. Bush's? Or Rudy Giuliani's? I seem to recall someone climbing into office of the Presidency on the shoulders of a black convict. I seem to recall someone defending the police and spitting on the corpse of a guy who got shot 41 times for reaching for his wallet, and reviling another guy who got a broomstick shoved up his ass by a crazy cop. Here's one for you, remember Elian Gonzales. Terry Schiavo? Elian and Terry were not black/white issues, but they were extraordinary and disgraceful... and its allowed to

It strikes me, Braintree, that there's a lot of Sharptonism going on by white boy politicians that gets a free pass, that gets overlooked in one way or the other.

Blacks sort of notice this kind of thing, and they are very aware.

That's why they stand by Sharpton, and that's why white establishment demonize him.

Prior to the Civil War it became accepted in the North that "slavery" was itself an atrocity. That required abandoning the idea that Africans were not human.

When they came to the understanding that the Negro was fully a human being, slavery had to go, but they still bought the idea that the Negro was inferior. They had the same idea about Native Americans and after the Civil War about the Irish, the Italians and the Poles. But once their children learned to speak Midwestern English, they could blend in with the rest of America.

The Negroes, even speaking perfect English, were branded by their skin color, so they were never accepted. In fact, the religious leaders of the South branded them as Biblically inferior. (Yea, Southern Baptists!)

As the Japanese internment of WW II proved, the Asians had the same problem, but they did not have a quarter of the American population (the South) that had an invested interest in keeping them in ghettos (China Towns) as the African Americans had and still have. The fact that Southern Congressmen and Senators ran on a platform of Race at home, then because of their long tenure in Congress kept becoming some of the most powerful politicians in America had a lot to do with it also.

So it comes down to a legacy of slavery and segregation, the effective 'branding' of African Americans by their dark skin, along with the consistent animus and national political influence of the American South.

That would be my best guess, anyway.

Racism is a curse on America, and it has not yet disappeared. If I were an African-American it still would not be safe for me to step outside the door of my home and forget for a second that I was not-White. That fear keeps Race-awareness high among African-Americans, which is something few Whites understand. That lack of understanding keeps Race-awareness high among Whites.

That's at least part of the problem, and it is perpetuated by a comparatively few left-over KKK-type crazies who still act as though Race matters enough to kill or injure someone over. That, to me, justifies passing "Hate Crimes Laws."

Expressing ideas like that is going to give the Press and the punditocracy the idea that the left blogosphere is filled with crazies who don't have a proper appreciation for their work.

Oh! Wait! Am I too late?

"If you guys think that those same racial attitudes aren't found all over the country, you are fooling yourselves."

That's what they don't want to hear. I've lived in California, NY, VA, GA and SC and Los Angeles and NYC were the most racially hostile places I've ever been in period. Republicans don't corner the market on racism. Some White Northern Liberals are just as color struck as some card carrying KKK members.

Blue and Red are a convenient way to label everyone but the people being labeled often don't fit everyone's concept of a democrat or republican. I've been discriminated against by way more white, asian and hispanic democrats than anyone else.

Vidiot,

That race is the tool used by the elite to divide the working class is exactly what makes it a factor.

imo, some people don't see any color except for green, as in greenbacks--to these people, the lower economic classes don't hold any value or interest beyond what money they can be parted from.

Race baiting tactics are commonly aimed at lower class whites, who, being close to other ethnic groups socioeconomically, tend to fixate their rage and anger towards those whom they fear will rise above them. Higher classes can hold casual racist attitudes, but the element of anger is diminished, because it is obvious to them that they are the great benefactors, and the gardener, nanny, etc. is their 'ward,' and thus, dependent on their economic 'master.'

Finally, I think perhaps the race factor may become clearer if viewed through the prism of globalism--are Multinational Corporations racist, or merely exploitative?

"Without the South to inject hatred into the American mainstream, would northern racism have been as strong or virulent?"

Yes.
Northern racism is more personal, from my experience.

Jack

The problem is that race & economics are linked in ways too many more idealistic liberals tend to ignore-- racism is often simply the perception that economic stagnation is because of minorities, not a broad trend. In the south, and probably in many rural areas, plenty of people would rather have all the old social and cultural advantages of simply being white than all the union protections and living-wage policies we could throw at them in a lifetime. Because then, you see, they can enjoy a sense (never spoken aloud) of inherent superiority (being white) as well as claim earned superiority (no need for nanny-state wage & job protections)... it's a great self-justifying, win-win subtext that no amount of arguing about trade, education, corporate malfeasance, etc., can shake. Adding the fears of crime and cultural decline just makes the resentment seem more immediate.

I've said this before, but it was very instructive growing up in the south with two grandfathers who both saw their assumed privilege attacked with integration; one actually had no problems traveling the world in an integrated military, but as soon as he retired back home and realized that being a white man didn't count as much as he'd expected, his racism became much more virulent.

are Multinational Corporations racist, or merely exploitative?

Both. And they exploit racism most of all.

But it is crucial to underatand how the GOP flipped the South away from the Dems by deliberately exploiting race; if we don't understand that kind of political manipulation, we fail to understand the whole right wing conservative movement. We (Dems) need to be just as good at this kind of electoral strategizing, but without the descent into the values of the gutter (ie, do or say anything necessary to get power

I think it is far more crucial to understand that the GOP did not flip the South away from the Dems by explotiing race. Racism is not a product of the conservative movement either. What happened is that the racists who dominanted the Democratic party LEFT and became republicans and it is their offspring who now dominate the GOP. The Democratic party was far more racist than the GOP and  subsequent to Truman integrating the military and LBJ signing the Civil Rights bill,  southern racist politicians and segregationists left the Democratic party in droves.

 Strum Thurman was a Democratic governor and he ran on the 'Dixiecrat' platform  as a segregationist after Truman introduced the civil rights plank during the 1948 DNC. Thurman was a Democratic Senator for over a decade and he filibustered the civil rights bill for 24 hours as a Democratic Senator. In 1968 he left the Democratic party to support Goldwater for President and became a republican ( Recall that Hillary was a Goldwater girl) Thurmans leaving the party having been the Dixiecrat Presidential nominee began the defection of Dixiecrats to become republicans.

 The Democrat racists seceeded from the Democratic party just as they seceeded from the union. Nothing has changed in the south except the name of the party which harbors the bigots and racists.  To read any of this as being about the conservative movement is an incorrect understanding of the role racism has played in American politics and paints an inaccurate picture of the role of racism in the Democratic party. 

In short, don't misread the 'liberal' political history of the Democratic party as being pro-civil rights nor misunderstand that it was the GOP which was the party of Lincoln. It was Truman. FDR and LBJ that caused blacks to support Democrats. Not the Democratic party being so liberal as the party harbored some of the most virulently racist Southern politicians as opposed to the GOP.

 They failed to hit drunk driving coke addict alcoholics who never were successful in business where it hurt. Do you honestly believe that if all dems went on about (talking points?) was how GW was a convicted DUI cokehead moron that people wouldn't pick up on it

Alcohol and drugs do not trump racism. BillyBob makes moonshine and SallyRae does drugs, even so they are still white and right. Stars and bars boys drive drunk all the time.

 Racism trumps drugs or Limbaugh would no longer be on Talk Radio exhorting and fanning the flames of racism while spewing bigotted rhetoric. He's been calling folks porch monkeys and knuckle draggin neanderthals since the 90s. Don Imus would not be allowed to pander to racist stereotypes and have prominent politicians come on his show for 5 years either if racism was not acceptable. If racism was a real problem Imus would not be coming back on the airwaves. Yet he will be.

Well I'm substitute teaching poor children, not a lot of blacks but a lot of hispanics and whites.

As I can tell that if the federal government were to become indebted by paying for more teachers instead of more soldiers (or wars,) the poor would trickle up into society a lot more than they are now.

20 students in a classroom compared to 30 or 40 or more, would make a huge difference, and would actually be something that allows the perpetual improvements in 3R test scores.

Private schools probably have 20 students in their classrooms. I suppose that is no coincidence.

Perhaps one reason why neocons (Paul's calling them something else in his post but I'm not learned enough to know the difference and I don't have time to find out) like wars is the alternative might be to pay for more teachers, which would indeed level the playing field.

I suppose that is what folks in the wealthy class want to avoid is the level playing field.

The voucher idea is Robinhood in Reverse as well. Because then the wealthy class not only can afford to send their children to 20 student classrooms, they get a tax break on doing so as well, which of course makes it less probable that the lower class (or minorities if you prefer) will get an improved teacher to student ratio, thereby the upper class retains their *monopoly* on quality education.

How many teachers could we hire for 100 billion? 100 billion is the annual cost of the Iraq War roughly. I estimate one million teachers employed full time funded by the federal government, including their benefits. How's that for an Iraq War opportunity cost? If there are 50 million public k-12 students in the Country (my shoot from the hip estimate,) 1 million additional public school teachers would make a huge difference. If I'm not mistaken, there's probably only 1.5 - 2 million teachers now (shooting from the hip again.)

If Democrats ever do payoff the deficit this time, like Clinton did, I think we should beat the "movement conservatives" at their own game and run up our own deficit of 100 billion on teachers. That way if they ever do gain power again (doubtful IMO, I think G. Dubya Einstein has really dug a grave large enough to drop-kick his entire movement into at this point,) they won't be able to afford another war.

And when we re-establish Robinhood tax rates, we should be able to perpetually fund the 100 billion yearly budget in teacher funds.

The difference between spending it on teachers and spending it on wars and soldiers is spending it on teachers is an investment. Once the investment pays off and the economy improves due to a better educated citizenry, theoretically the new education budget funds itself in increased tax revenues.

The problem my friends is: POVERTY!!!!!!!

P-O-V-E-R-T-Y

Poverty breeds ignorance. Ignorance is the incubator of racism and allows it to flourish.

Poverty causes crime. Poverty causes violence within communities and families. Poverty leads to mental illness and despair. Poverty leads to alcohol and drug abuse. Poverty destroys relationships and familys. Poverty contributes to physical, emotional and sexual abuse. Poverty keeps people so desperate to survive they withdraw from the political system entirely (as has been the case increasingly in the US since 1960).

Poverty destroys the local tax base that supports our schools making it impossible to find the resources they need to address the myriad challenges they face--meanwhile those with the means flee the school system and send their children to private schools further damaging the performance of the schools. Poverty creates fear among the poor and among those more affluent. Poverty contributes to very poor dietary habits and increased obesity and disease.

Poverty helps to maintain the atmosphere and sense of scarcity of money, goods and services so that people compete for diminishing resources and goods instead of cooperate in distributing them equitably. Poverty is a tool of the very small number of priveleged people at the very top of the heap for maintaining their privelege at the expense of the rest of society.

All of the great and highly successful social programs that the Democratic Party instituted in the United States are at their core anti-poverty programs. Social Security, minimum wage laws, child labor laws, the GI Bill, student loans and grants programs, Medicare and Medicaid, food stamps, WIC, Head Start are a few of the names out of many programs begun by Democrats to fight poverty, lift people up into the middle class, stabilize our society through a more equitable distribution of the wealth and to keep our economy strong by putting more money into the hands of more people so they could buy more goods and services for themselves.

America was at its best when Democrats were in power and expanding these kinds of programs and it is no secret or difficult to understand why. All these programs expanded opportunities for our citizens and allowed them, perhaps for the first time in history to be optimistic about the future, to feel invested in the nation and to participate more fully in the society as a whole.

The Democrats lost their way and lost steam in this highly successful effort during the war on poverty and the political/social fiasco of Viet Nam. It was at this time that Republicans correctly sized up the situation and made the strategic decision to make race the centerpiece of the "southern strategy" to split off the south from the New Deal coalition and it worked. Ever since, the Republican Party has aggressively sought to dismantle as many of the programs that brought stability and prosperity to the masses of Americans who had never known it before. Meanwhile, the Democrats in Congress and the stathouses lost faith in the very principles and programs that had served them so well since 1932. Only now are Democrats beginning to awaken from their 40 year slumber and realize that we must reverse the trend of less "government benefits" which for the first time in our history redistributed the wealth of the nation downward and led to sustained economic, social and political progress for all.

Ever since we stopped expanding these programs society has stagnated and the Democratic Party has become inept and impotent--just look at our "leaders" in the current Congress. When we combat poverty we combat ignorance, racism, disease, violence, drug and alcohol abuse, mental illness, failing schools, etc, etc, etc... And, to top it all off, when we effectively fight poverty we whip the Republicans asses and shine like a beacon to the world lighting the way toward a better day for all of humanity. When we have been at our best we have, by our example, shown the world a new model for society or as the founders might have said "a new order of the ages."

If we are ever to pull out of this long political nose dive we must recognize and understand this broad point very well. We can haggle over details later, but we must once again popularize the concept of expanding social benefits. If we do that, we win. If we do not, it is unclear who wins.

Excellent reply! You don't mind if I call you a hypocrite, do you? That wouldn't be the sort of thing to bother a guy like you, I'd hope.

Y'see, listening closely to you, what you say and the things you carefully don't say, and the things you seem to overlook and forget about it, I have some strong impressions, dare I say, even conclusions.

I think that the reason you dislike Sharpton is not the Tawana Brawley matter.

Nope, the real reason is that Sharpton is just the wrong kind of black for your taste.

To reply to your questions:

1) I too would happily throw Bush and Cheney and Giuliani to the wolves myself. But I would note that these guys have attached themselves to far worse excesses than Sharpton has ever been accused of. Lots of white politicians have done as bad or worse a lot more recently, but it gets overlooked, or forgiven or forgotten. But somehow, it's Sharpton that earns your quivering moral ire? Compared to those guys, Sharpton walks on water. True, he pisses off racist white voters, he pisses off the south. True, he's got baggage that the south and racist whites wave like a flag whenever he raises his head. But your own unconscious racism got flagged there when you said 'voters dislike him.' Not actually true. Some white voters dislike him a great deal... like you. On the other hand, lots and lots of black voters idolize him or respect him a great deal. But I guess that black voters don't count as voters for you? Too bad, but they vote anyway.

2) Sure, Sharpton's made mistakes and blown it big time on the Tawana Bradley thing. But guess what, that was 1987, twenty goddammed years ago. Half the people voting today never heard of it. The average voters memory is twenty minutes, people don't even remember Katrina any more. But you think a twenty year old scandal in which no one was actually killed or injured is the be all and end all. Screw it, if it wasn't that it would be something else. Yapping dogs always find something to Yap about, and if they can't find it, as with poor John Kerry and the Swift Boats, they make it up.

3) Give it a rest on Giuliani. He supported the cops every inch of the way on every incident, and he went well out of his way to antagonize his black constituents. I'm not even going to dignify that with a conversation. As far as New Yorks' black community was concerned, he had a hard on for them and he went after them every chance he got...

4) As for Terry Schiavo and Elian Gonzales... Well, George W. Bush, Bill Frist, Al Gore and a whole bunch of other people exposed themselves as lying sacks of shinola over those two cases. There was the same wall to wall media circuses, the same hysterical overheated reporting, the same wild charges and allegations... but hey, all those politicians were white boys and they got to walk away from it. Funny thing that. Funny how your outrage over the Tawana Brawley circus just kind of stops short of the Schiavo and Elian circuses. I wonder why that is.

If anyone is wondering why Rush Limbaugh & Co.

Rush of course being a well known racist douchebag with a long history of lies, inflammatory statements and racist remarks... who somehow gets the free pass from you that Sharpton doesn't.

Hey, remember when Rush was talking violent insurrection, inflaming his callers, putting the craziest of the crazies on, just stoking those militias with call to arms... and then Timothy McVeigh came along? Funny how no one pointed out that Rush was inciting terrorism. How many people died in Oklahoma? 400? How many people died over the Brawley thing? O?

But it's Sharpton who is beyond the pale?
Gotcha.

have been able to paint liberals as crazy, this is a pretty good example right here.

Funny. You don't hear so good. Didn't you read my previous post? You must have read it because you replied to some of it. What's the matter. Some of the words were too hard? Short term memory problems? Selective reading? Or maybe just a bit of careful dishonesty? Maybe you didn't hear because you were grinding your axe too loud?

Let me remind you what I said, since it didn't sink in the first time: I said that it's not liberals who are Sharpton's supporters, it's blacks. And blacks support Sharpton for a very good reason. That reason is guys like you.

Sharpton stands up for the black constituency, he speaks for them and he works for them and he stands by in ways that 'pretend negroes' like Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell never will.

Sharpton is not in business to make you like him. He's not in business to be loved by Liberals. Liberals and lefties, they don't really enter into his equation. Sharpton is in it to represent blacks, and represent blacks 100%, which means not catering to anyone but blacks.

Blacks got a name for the sort of black leaders you'd like. The blacks who are supposed to lead the black community in ways and in a manner that is tolerable to and not disturbing to whites, who won't rock the boat, and who'll focus on getting along with the 'man.' They call those guys 'Uncle Toms.' It's not a nice name.

So the bottom line is that you can give all your white boy politicians all the passes that you want. The blacks have looked at all those white boy passes, and they've given Al Sharpton their own pass. And that's the one that matters to him and for his constituents.

Now get over it.

If it weren't for race (and abortion as well, I think), there would be two parties in America: liberal Democrats and conservative Democrats.

While the two parties would differ in some areas, they would largely agree on domestic economic policy with small disagreements on taxes and spending (but none on capital gains or estate taxes).

Supply-side would return to the fringes, where it belongs. Most GOP rank-and-file broadly agree with Dems on domestic economic policy. They vote Republican for so-called cultural reasons.

Limbaugh and Imus are not the entirety of the GOP and aren't the reason why they won the South. I wasn't saying that alcohol and drugs trump racism I was saying Dems did not go far enough in portraying the right in their true form.
"If racism was a real problem" - exactly. Its not. At least it isn't to most caucasians whether dem or repub. They allow racists like Imus to go on and even cop pleas for them when they get into trouble then go back to meet the press or whatever shows theyre on and pretend to be decent people.

But my point was that the only reason the South was carried by these frauds is because they werent effectively countered. I just don't buy that all my white neighbors vote based on fear of me and run to the whitest candidate they can think of. Maybe Im just senile though.

I stand by my perception that the media is no friendlier to the GOP than to Democrats. It savages both, though I would not make the case that the media does a good job. It plays to the sensational, and ignores the tedious but (perhaps) vital. Bush is portrayed as a dunce, and Clinton as a lecher. Their deeper flaws and foibles were left unexamined.
It really is weird seeing the exact same complaints about the media from both the Left and the Right, in mirror image. Almost I might be persuaded that the media was doing its job right if it's hated by everyone.

Limbaugh and Imus are not the entirety of the GOP and aren't the reason why they won the South. I wasn't saying that alcohol and drugs trump racism I was saying Dems did not go far enough in portraying the right in their true form.

Please specify what you believe this 'true form is. Limbaugh and Imus are the ones who spew the inflammatory rhetoric that is the foundation of the GOP. What you said was that no one 'exposed' the GOP for all the drugs and alcohol within their own party. My reply is that if that was significant Limbaugh and Imus would not thrive in the Red States and continue to broadcast bigotry over the airwaves. You seemed to think that exposing the drugs and alcohol in the party would make a difference. I gave examples of how that does not hold true.

"If racism was a real problem" - exactly

The point was that racism is a big problem and totally acceptable to support even if the individuals are known  sexual deviants, alcohol and drug abusers, pedophiles. bigots or adulterers.

They allow racists like Imus to go on and even cop pleas for them when they get into trouble then go back to meet the press or whatever shows theyre on and pretend to be decent people.

We seem to be saying the same thing here. Imus is a reflection of the racism and no amount of exposure will change his acceptance and popularity. Showing Imus to be what he is does not alter support for him, it merely suspends his actions momentarily until the heat dies down and he can be brought back to continue the race baiting.

But my point was that the only reason the South was carried by these frauds is because they werent effectively countered.

Your point is inconsistent with the reality of Imus and Limbaugh along with O'reilly, Beck and Hannity. Frauds all, yet they command the airwaves with ratings high enough to keep them there.  Folks already know what they are. Why do you think they don't? It is very obvious even to those who oppose their views. Trent Lott is a known racist and he is still in the Senate.

I just don't buy that all my white neighbors vote based on fear of me and run to the whitest candidate they can think of. Maybe Im just senile though.

Or perhaps you do not get what it takes to maintain white 'privilege' in American society. Whites do not have to vote out of fear of anything other than the loss of white privilege. Race baiting and race mongering simply drives more of them to the polls out of fear of losing that due to minorities 'gaining' or getting a 'foothold' or 'handout',

In other words, racism perpetuates white privilege. In order for someone to be privileged others must be denied on the same basis that they are not. Someone has to be disadvantaged by the racism and any loss of that racism diminishes the privileges.  If you think racism is about fear, it isn't. It is about privilege and one group having significantly more advantages based on race over another. The fear is about the loss of their 'privilege' to discriminate against others on the basis of race.

Hmm last I recall Watts was in California and Detroit in Michigan. Anyone who remembers the events of 1965-1968 and remembers where the most violent race riots broke out knows full well that racisim was not and is not a Southern phenomenon. Nor is it limited to a black/white thing. I live in a County that until recently was 97% white. Which limited the racism to the remaining 3% who were Native Americans.

Anyone that thinks that racism is not pervasive throughout this country just needs to talk to a single person in the Indian Nations. Washington State is seen as being a very liberal Left Coast state but until very recently simply ignored the tribes and the reservations. Their poverty, their health systems, their unemployment, well that was a Federal problem, not something the State Legislature had to concern itself about. Until of course the Casinos opened. Then the State started paying attention.

(Not all Washington tribes and reservations are flourishing, too many are too distant from population centers. But two in particular have muscled up and diversified, the Muckleshoots and the Tulalips are now big economic and political players and getting bigger and more self-sufficient all the time. And none of that due to some big hearted help from white liberals like me.)

It's amazing how just about everyone on the progressive side who studies the issue comes to this. Yet it seems that the more it's emphasized, the more resistance one encounters.

I've been reading some preliminary study findings (as yet unpublished) that indicate that white Americans, when confronted with various facts about race, tend to slide between different and sometimes incompatible attitudes about race that reinforce their acceptance of the status quo. These attitudes are:

• Disparities do not exist
• Disparities exist because of personal or cultural failings
• Disparities are inevitable
• Disparities exist, but race-conscious efforts to address themselves are themselves unjust.

Their true form being deceitful, fiscally irresponsible, failed businessmen convict drug addicts who are in the pockets of special interests.

OK, how does this deceit and fiscal irresponsibility trump racism? My contention is that it does not. I gave examples to show that. Can you provide examples of the opposite? Nowhere else on the planet would a man of Obama's credentials  and stature have to struggle against a white female candidate who basically has only the experience of a spouse and whose personality is known to be polarizing. Here you have a man who is not just educated at the most prestigious universities American has to offer, Columbia and Harvard, but he was the top of the top of the top, by being President of Harvard Law review and in additiona being a Constitutional Scholar at the Univer of Chicago one of the most rigorous law schools nationally for constitutional law. He has been an elected official far longer than the 'front runner' and he has a track record of success and outstanding foreign policy acumen.. Yet, America dismisses him as an upstart despite the brillance of his intellect and judgment to question his 'experience' in relation to a woman who has nothing comparable professionally?

Obama is not in bed with special interests but HRClinton is. HRClinton is known to be the largest recipient of healthcare industry dollars, serves as a chair in the Senate for a group known to outsource American jobs and recently she had to return the largest political contribution EVER in history, close to a million dollars, yet she is the frontrunner? She in fact has more lobbyist money than the entire Presidential candidate field combined, GOP and Dem. Her judgment when it comes to the war, foreign policy and lobbying interest has been demonstrated to be naive, timorous and craven, respectitively. And you contend somehow that exposing all this would change her being a frontrunner? Whether she was GOP or Democrat, it is the same.  What accounts for such other than racism?

Limbaugh and Imus are not the foundation of the GOP. Be serious.

I am. Clearly, their thinking is. They spew the talking points that shape the views that form the foundation of the GOP base. You seriously, can't see that? They drive the issues that fuel the masses, along with Pat Robertson for the GOP voters.  

Besides being repubs and or old white guy appeasers they are also what are known as SHOCK JOCKS...That generates more of their audience than GOP core values.

No, no, no.  Limbaugh, O'REilly, Hannity and Imus are not shock jocks. Limbaugh and Imus are acceptable mainstream America bigotry.What they say and peddle IS GOP core values. Can't you see that? They make bigotry and discrimination acceptable to not just think but to actually verbalize and assert as the dominate correct viewpoint by virtue of there being so many who think that way. Being right is about being in the majority and thinking what is popular vs. actually being correct, i.e. 'mainstream views'  Howard Stern is a shock jock, not Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Hannity and Imus. Limbaugh, etc  are far more political and discuss current political issues. Stern is not of the same caliber at all.

The only reason Imus was ousted for a short time was because many blacks organized and told Imus sponsors that they would boycott their products. CBS did nothing until they were forced to...But they damn sure didn't give a crap what their money earner said about black women did they? No

This is not accurate. What happened was that the sponsors of the program notified NBC they were pulling out before Sharpton or any other mainstream black organizations said one word. The reason corporate America was forced to do so was because of the black corporate executives and employees who protested AT P&G and the same happened at NBC. The black and minority corporate executives said that what Imus did would not be tolerated as a matter of corporate policy in their own workplaces so why would the company sponsor Imus and give him a forum for such bigotry. Subsequent to that, black organizations protested but it was diversity at the very top of corporate America that drove Imus off the air, due to the blatant hypocrisy of his actions vs. policies in corporate America. So yes, they were forced to 'care' thanks to diversity within the corporate structure.

No. I seemed to think that showing a fake family values guy presidential candidate as a moron and a habitual drug addict would make him a losing candidate in a presidential race.

If this were true, HRClinton would not be the frontrunner along with Giuliani right now. There was no comparison between Bush and Kerry in 2004 in terms of family values. The differences were very obvious and folks did not care, because Bush was someone 'they could have a beer with'. Bush had been a loser his entire life. His military record was pathetic next to Kerry's and it didn't matter. His daughters were wild skanks next to Kerry's collegians but it did not matter. Southerners stick with southerners and Kerry was an 'outsider' a 'new england yankee' who just was not good enough in relation to a drunken, business failure that mangled the english language whenever he spoke not to mention how he smirked when talking to the 'havenots'.

Unfortunately I have an intimate relationship with white privilege after living 35 years as a person of african descent in America

Great. Then you should not have a problem understanding that being a fine upstanding black citizen with a track record of success and no criminal record does not transcend being a drunken neer do well white male without  a degree and a criminal record in America. i.e. your having family values doesn't trump being white without them even if you have a 800 plus FICO score and the white individual has a 400  FICO score

What I said was I do not believe that all GOP members in the south are white racists and you provide no proof to the contrary.

That's because my contention is that GOP members across the nation are racist and the talk show hosts affirm that, it is not just endemic to the South. You have failed to demonstrate that the bigotry the media spews daily is not a reflection of the racism that permeates America and just so happens to be far more pernicious to the South. The history alone of the Democratic party demonstrates this. All the Dixiecrats were Southern Democrats who defected to the GOP and their descendants now dominate the upper eschelons of the republican party. Those folks were some of the most staunch segregationists in the chambers of the Senate and House. Those folks did not just die off; they took control of the GOP.  Perhaps, you are overlooking that history. Zell Miller virtually shouted it out following the DNC speech of Obama to Chris Matthews, he was so livid he wanted to 'call out' folks for a duel. Yet, you as an individual of African descent do not grasp this?  Are you simply being obtuse? Cause this BS is overt nothing subtle about it at all.

I have seen racist dirty tricks by GOPers such as closing polling places in democratic/black neighborhoods with no alternate polling place listed etc. I do think that is racist and pretty horrible and criminal but that isn't voters doing that, that's Rove's streat team getting out there and ruining democracy.

Well if the voters did not vote for those policies it wouldn't matter who was deterred from voting as the racist measures still wouldn't pass. So it is not just Rove. There are a base of voters who support it. The vast majority of whom are in the Southern region of the USA. BTW, I did not contend that all southerns were racist. I am saying that the region was far more swayed by racism and racist issues than other voting regions of the country.

Show me how a campaign of white privilege and racism carried the South for the GOP in the 2000 and 2004 elections and I will agree that racism carried the South

If you recall Bush visited the segregated campus of some ministry and they sent out flyers claiming McCain had a black child. McCain loss SC and the rest has been the nations long nightmare.  Also, Kathleen Blanco became governor in LA because the GOP would not vote for Bobby Jindal. Blanco was comparable in bkgrd and experience to what HRClinton is relative to her political rival Barack.

When I first moved to New York, 11 years ago, my impression was that it was like one of those billboards that shows a different image depending on where you stand.  Wealth and poverty seemed to be distributed in micro-neighborhoods, such that you could turn a corner, walk half a block, and end up in the middle of an entirely different demographic.  As Art points out above, that's not so much the case anymore.  Manhattan (and increasingly inner Brooklyn) has posh-looking rich neighborhoods, and scruffy-looking rich neighborhoods, catering to different aesthetic tastes, I guess.

What a horrible way to think of the United States!

It is true that slavery has left an idelible stain upon the south but not the entire south. the political culture of the south has been shaped largely by slavery and the aftermath of slavery but that's only a regional distinction, it doesn't constitute a different nationality. Many white southerners were and are liberals as many black southerners were and are. Many of those people fought to preserve the Union and continue to fight to bring the south fully into modernity--politically speaking. The white conservative southerners continue to hold sway in much of the south but that will change with time.

The very idea that the south is a different nation or ever was is so offensive I have no words for it. It also is nothing short of disgracefully insulting to the hundreds of thousands of brave men both black and white who gave their lives to preserve our nation. Our job is to consercrate their sacrifice by continuing to move the nation closer to its ideals and away from the deviant, aberrant and abhorent legacy of slavery.

I'm looking at Birth of a Nation. D.W. Griffith was from Kentucky. The movie was based on a novel and stage play written by Tom Dixon, from North Carolina.

Gone with the Wind? Based on a Margaret Mitchell novel. Mitchell was from Atlanta, Georgia.

What the hell are these works, if not Southerners injecting racism and a romanticized dishonest version of racism into the national body politic?

Birth of a Nation is an appallingly racist and disgusting work. No question. On the other hand it was literally the first movie of its kind, and defined cinematic conventions and structure for generations, persisting even until today. There's no question about it's historical importance, any more than there's a question about Leni Riefenstafal's work. There was simply nothing like modern cinema before Birth of a Nation.

But think about that. If Birth was incredibly influential in terms of convention, structure, form, the inherent narrative structure, editing, etc. of modern cinema... then why wouldn't its content have been equally influential.

Did Birth of a Nation contribute to the national expansion and prominence of the Klan? Did the racist propaganda it represented burrow into the American mind?

I'd argue that you've proved my point. Birth of a Nation is nothing more than southern racism aggressively exported to the rest of America.