Racist Drinking Game?

My last blog post was on the subject of political correctness. And I just read an article which I think exemplifies how politically correct our society has become.

The article was from the New York Times. It was called “‘Racist’ Drinking Game Causes Uproar an High School in New Jersey.” The game was a version of beer pong called Jews vs Nazis or Alcoholocaust.

a13147de39856fd0c7a856f34596e442

As you can see, one team has their cups arranged into the shape of a swastika while the other team has theirs in the shape of the Star of David.

One of the kids at the party took a Snapchat of the beer pong table. A classmate of theirs saw the photo on Snapchat, took a screenshot of it, and posted it to her blog.

That blog post went viral. Numerous news sources ran stories about it. It was even made the news in Israel.

The school released a statement about how they intend to speak with all of the students involved and the parents of those students. And the police have started an investigation.

So, were the students involved actually being antisemitic? Or as the New York Times surprisingly called it, racist?

The student who blogged about it certainly thought so, “They must be trapped in the delusional mindset that making a drinking game based off of the Holocaust is cool. Or funny. Or anything besides insane. Because that’s what this is: insanity. I’m not even Jewish and I’m still offended.”

Well, I am Jewish. And I was offended as well. But not by the Alcoholocaust drinking game, which you have to admit is a pretty clever name for it.

I was offended by the way this self-appointed social justice warrior singlehandedly turned her friends stupid drinking game into an international incident.

As the New York Times pointed out, “The high school boys who crowded into a Princeton basement for the game included Jewish students.”

So this shiksa, which a yiddish term for a non-Jewish woman, who wasn’t even invited to the party was offended by what was taking place there. But the Jewish students who were actually there, were not offended.

I think that is insane.

Now I’m not saying that what these kid did was appropriate. But I do think that their biggest offense is the fact that they were drinking while underage.

How antisemitic could they actually be? They invited their Jewish friends to the party and they obviously don’t know what a swastika really looks like since they made theirs backwards.

They aren’t exactly young skinhead Neo-Nazis or members of the Aryan Brotherhood for God’s sake. Let’s just keep things in the proper perspective people.

But that’s just my opinion. What’s yours?

 

 

 

Advertisements

The Problem with Political Correctness

The term political correctness has become sort of a catch phrase for controversial politicians. They use it far too often, usually as some sort of smoke screen for problematic political positions such as opposition to homosexuality or transgenderism.

Pat McCrory,the mayor of North Carolina, a state that recently passed legislation targeting transgender individuals and prohibiting cities from passing non-discrimination ordinances, described the criticism of that controversial piece of legislation as “political correctness gone amuck.” But is it really?

Donald Trump’s controversial comments have become an almost ubiquitous aspect of television news broadcasts ever since he announced he was running for president. And he has frequently used the term political correctness as some sort of shield for the criticism he has received.

So is the term political correctness just an inappropriate attempt to deflect criticism from controversial political decisions, or is there something more to it?

George Carlin was one of the best comedians who ever lived. In his act, he often explored the English language. He took issue with political correctness in the form of euphemisms such as “differently abled” and “minimally exceptional.” He referred to this type of euphemistic language as “verbal slight of hand” and “language which takes the life out of life.” I agree with him.

Bill Maher is another comedian concerned with the increasing amount of political correctness in the country. He took such an issue with it that he named his old television show Politically Incorrect.

On his current television show, Real Time, he often criticizes the liberal obsession with being politically correct. He once said, “lazy liberalism allows scolding to substitute for actually do something.”

Some of our country’s most celebrated comedians such as Jerry Seinfeld and Chris Rock are now refusing to perform on college campuses because of the inevitable protests that will take place.

Jerry Seinfeld said, “They just want to use these words: ‘That’s racist’; ‘That’s sexist’; ‘That’s prejudice.’ They don’t know what they’re talking about.”

Has our country lost the ability to take a joke?

George Carlin said, “Political correctness is America’s newest form of intolerance, and it is especially pernicious because it comes disguised as tolerance. It presents itself as fairness, yet attempts to restrict and control people’s language with strict codes and rigid rules. I’m not sure that’s the way to fight discrimination. I’m not sure silencing people or forcing them to alter their speech is the best method for solving problems that go much deeper than speech.”

And it isn’t just comedians and politicians who are being effected by political correctness. We are becoming a culture that shames anyone who expresses an opinion, or even makes a joke, that people consider indecent.

Justin Sacco wasn’t a comedian. But when she was boarding a plane on a trip to Africa she made a joke on Twitter that would utterly change her life.

 

Justine Sacco

It was a joke which sarcastically used white privilege as a punch line. It wasn’t a good joke, but it was still just a joke. Unfortunately, it caused quite an uproar.

The New York Times wrote an article about what happened to Justine Sacco. It is rather disturbing how she was targeted by social justice warriors who got her fired from her job before her plane even landed and then harassed her online to the point that it caused her psychological damage.

I’m not defending her sense of humor but perhaps this is a case where it is actually appropriate to say that political correctness has gone amuck. Her punishment seemed disproportionate to her crime, if indeed she even committed a crime.

I don’t think she did. What do you think? Is political correctness a problem? If so, what should we do about it? And are politicians drawing attention to this societal issue or just making the problem worse by using the term political correctness to deflect criticism?

 

Bernie or Bust?

According to a recent McClatchy-Marist poll, 25% of Bernie Sander’s supporters would refuse to vote for Hillary Clinton if she becomes the Democratic nominee. This seems insane since there are so many similarities between the political philosophy of Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton and such a stark difference between the Democrats and Republicans.

There is even an online petition called Revolt Against Plutocracy which has gained over 70,000 signatures from people pledging to vote for the Green Party candidate if Hillary Clinton becomes the Democratic nominee. Is this some sort of political death pact?

While I would like to see more legitimacy given to third party candidates, I am afraid that this election is far too important to split the Democratic vote. I believe that Bernie Sanders would be a better president than Hillary Clinton, but I also believe that either one of them would be a far better option than anyone running on the Republican side.

Ralph Nader was widely condemned for splitting the Democratic vote during the election of 2000 which gave George Bush the presidency even though Al Gore had won the popular vote. Damn electoral college.

I don’t think that the criticism Ralph Nader received in the aftermath of the election was fair. But it is a fact that if the votes which went to Nader had gone to Gore instead, then Gore would have won the presidency.

I can understand the feeling of disillusionment which can occur when the candidate you prefer is not chosen as the nominee. But to refuse to vote for the person who is chosen even though they share many of the same political views simply because they weren’t the one you wanted is childish.

I can also understand the feeling of frustration at the political establishment and the desire to see a candidate nominated who would fight to change the system. That’s part of the reason why I supported Barack Obama in 2008.

I was disappointed by some of the policy positions he has taken over the years. But I supported him again in 2012 because he it was a choice between him and Mitt Romney.

Even though I didn’t agree with everything Barack Obama had done, I still thought he was the better option.

If Clinton is the nominee. I would vote for her because she would be the better option.

And I like Bernie Sanders far more than I like Hillary Clinton. But if he is not on the ballot, than he is not on the ballot.

I think that the country has a political system which is based upon compromise. A system of checks and balances keeps our government functioning properly, when it’s functioning.

Politics have become so dysfunctional because politicians no longer compromise with one another. And they don’t do it because they know that if they did, it would cause them to lose elections.

One of the most effective criticisms of Chris Christie during the early days of election season was the photo of him hugging president Obama. It happened during Obama’s visit to the Jersey shore after hurricane Sandy.

The man hugged the president in the aftermath of a natural disaster and it was viewed by members of the Republican party as treason. It basically capsized his campaign.

The Republican Party seems to have been slowly splintering apart ever since the Tea Party surge of 2010 when a freshmen class of ideologically driven and uncompromising congressmen came to the capital.

In some ways you could trace the origins of Donald Trump’s campaign back to the start of the Tea Party. In some ways you could trace it back even further.

Now there is a segment of the Republican Party who wants to prevent Donald Trump from receiving their nomination. They think that he is dangerous.

If members of his own party think he is dangerous, he probably is. So let’s hold it together Democrats, now isn’t the time to turn into the Tea Party.

 

 

The Discourse Divide

Politics has become so contentious that violence is increasingly becoming a part of our political debate. But how did it come to this? Surely, it can’t all be blamed on Donald Trump.

It is undeniable that Trump has used incendiary rhetoric while campaigning. His controversial comments have been widely reported and criticized by most main stream media outlets.

However, instead of damaging his campaign, his comments have only increased his poll numbers. He once bragged, “I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters.”

Controversial comments like this typically capsize campaigns, so how could courting controversy increase Donald Trump’s support?

To better understand this, it is important to consider the discourse divide between the liberal left and conservative right.

When I say discourse divide, I am referring to the way that the country’s political discourse has increasingly become less of a debate between the two political parties and more like two separate conversations simultaneously being conducted within the rigid confines of those political parties.

Even when discussing the same issue, liberals and conservatives use terms which don’t seem to line up with one another. Take the abortion debate for example, by using the terms pro-life and pro-choice, the issue becomes convoluted. Would anyone say that they are anti-life or anti-choice? Of course not. And is life the opposite of choice? Of course not.

This type of political messaging has caused the base of each party to become more ideological and less compromising. And political messaging has become an industry.

The carefully crafted rhetoric used by politicians has become so focus group oriented that it seems more like manipulation than messaging.

Consultants like Frank Luntz have,”forever redefined the way public policy issues will be framed,” as his website points out, “It’s not what you say. It’s what they hear.”

So what do people hear when Donald Trump makes controversial comments? They hear what they want to hear.

The Washington Post has accused Trump of using racially coded language. Perhaps that’s why he has earned the endorsement of several white supremacist groups. But his supporters insist that he is not a racist.

His controversial comments have gained him a lot of support, but there is an anti-Trump movement within the Republican Party.

I think that the discourse divide is almost like a wedge has been driven between the two political parties and Donald Trump snuck in through the gap.

So is this damaging the country? Appellate judge Charles W. Pickering once said, “A healthy democracy requires a decent society; it requires that we are honorable, generous, tolerant and respectful.” So, the answer is yes. Yes, it is.

 

 

Vivian Maier the Secret Street Photographer

I recently watched Finding Vivian Maier on Netflix. It was a very interesting documentary. She was an extremely talented street photographer.

vivian-maier-eye-to-eye-france

She lived in Chicago and took photographs for over 40 years.

What makes her so interesting is the fact that she was never paid for any of her photographs. She worked as a nanny. And she never shared her photos with the public. They were discovered by accident after she died.

From the film, it seems like she was an intensely private person with many idiosyncratic behaviors and one hell of an artistic eye.

new-york-chicago-street-photography-vivian-maier-10

vivian-maier17

med_vivian-maier-press-kit-7-jpg

She often experimented with lighting –

la-ca-0128-vivian-maier-069-jpg-20150203

shadows –

59-2103-august-11-1959-digne-france-1024x1024

and reflections –

vfvf

She was adept at capturing the more tragic elements of human existence.

September 24, 1959, New York, NY

maier_018

And during a time period when America’s racial relations could be considered a taboo subject, she photographed racial disparity.

1954, New York, NY

But she never shared her photos with the public. She reminds me of Emily Dickinson, a prolific poet who never published any of her poems. I’ve always felt that this somehow set Dickinson apart from other poets, but it’s hard to say how. Maybe it’s the same for Maier. They both spent their lives pursuing the perfection of an art form and producing lots of work which they never shared with the world. But why?

Dickinson wrote a poem which called publication the auction of the mind of man, but Maier did not leave any explanation as to why she never shared her artistic talents with the public. The documentary film maker couldn’t find out much about her, but what he did find out was fascinating. He had the items she left behind in a storage unit; hundreds of thousands of pictures, many home movies, and various other things But Vivian Maier remains very much surrounded by mystery and intrigue.

I think that she is inspiring. I’m envious of her talent as a photographer, and I’m inspired  by her dedication to an artistic pursuit.

Apparently, some people find her VERY inspirational. This photo is from Pinterest.

vm-tatoo

But what if she had displayed her photography at a gallery, or sold prints to tourists on the sidewalk of a busy street, would she still be such an inspiration that someone would want to have her likeness tattooed on their arm?

Is there something about keeping your art secret which protects the purity of the it? Does it make that art more appealing?

Please contribute your thoughts. I don’t know the answers to these questions.

 

Donald Trump’s Campaign Manager Charged with Assault

For the past several months, Donald Trump’s campaign rallies have frequently turned violent. Altercations between his supporters and protesters have occurred at an alarming rate. But this morning there was a bizarre twist that could only happen in the ongoing reality show that is Donald Trump’s presidential campaign, his campaign manager was charged with battery against a female reporter.

The charges were filed today, March 29, but the alleged assault took place following a rally on March 8, in Jupiter, Florida. Michelle Fields was covering the event for Breitbart news. After the rally, Fields says she approached Trump as he was walking by and attempted to ask him a question when Corey Lewandowski, Trump’s campaign manager, allegedly grabbed her arm and pulled her away from Trump with enough force that it left bruises.

She filed a police report. The Jupiter police department conducted a thorough investigation which lasted several weeks, and decided to file criminal charges against Lewandowski. They have also chosen to release security camera footage of the incident.

Trump wasted no time in tweeting a repudiation of the charges even though there is a video of the crime taking place.

Trump said this even though before the video was released, Lewandowski denied ever touching Fields.

Whether or not you think his actions should constitute a crime, you have to admit that he did in fact take hold of her arm, which makes his statement a lie.

Any other candidate would distance themselves from a member of their staff charged with battery. But not Trump. Doing so would damage his brand.

Trump has used carefully crafted political messaging to create a brand out of his political campaign. He has effectively portrayed himself as a business savvy political outsider who is fighting on behalf of “real Americans” against the self-serving political establishment and the manipulative liberal media.

Claiming that his campaign manager is being falsely accused of committing a crime against a female reporter supports the narrative that Trump has written for his own campaign. However, if he actually acknowledge that any inappropriate action was made by his campaign manager or any of his supporters, this would contradict his brand.

Even after a Trump supporter was arrested for urinating on a homeless hispanic man and beating him with a metal pole and told the police that, “Donald Trump was right, all these illegals need to be deported,” Trump’s response showed a total lack of sympathy for the victims pain and suffering and a tacit approval of the perpetrators actions.

Trump responded to a reporter’s direct question about his supporter charged with a hate crime by saying,”I think that would be a shame. But I haven’t heard about that. I will say, the people that are following me are very passionate. They love this country. They want this country to be great again. And they are very passionate. I will say that.”

Trump definitely knows how to establish a brand, but what kind of a brand has his presidential campaign become? Who is he trying to appeal to and why?

In this recent interview with George Stephanopoulos, Trump is repeatedly questioned about the violence that has taken place at his rallies, and another incident involving his campaign manager. The way he refuses to admit to what has clearly been captured on video is rather revealing to the way he manipulates information in order to maintain his brand. And the way he blames protesters and insults them without ever acknowledging that they were the victims of violent attacks is disturbing.

What do you think?

Controversy Caused by Kim Kardashian’s Sexy Selfie

For those of you who have spent the last week living under a large rock in an isolated forest far away from a television, the internet, or even broadband radio, let me catch you up on something of significant importance which occurred in the surreal world of social media and has been a topic of discussion for almost every media outlet on the planet; Kim Kardashian posted a nude selfie on twitter, and people lost their freaking minds.

There have been a wide variety of responses to Kim’s nude selfie. Some people view it as a form of female empowerment, a celebration of the female form, and an achievement for the feminist movement. Other people view it as the total opposite, something which encourages the objectification of women, reduces the role of a female to that of a sexualized commodity, and has done damage to the feminist movement.

Many people have commented on the tweet. Some have used memes, such as

CdInKr_WEAEP6d5.jpg-large
and

CdjcPCyUUAEQcg_.jpg-large.jpeg

Several women gave direct criticism to Kim, such as –

As if a beautiful women who has become famous for her sex appeal should suddenly hide her sexuality once she has a child. And –

I guess that the old white woman who tweeted this shouldn’t be judged for her statement by today’s standards, since she came of age in an era when a women’s body was considered to be the legal property of her husband. Let’s not forget, the US did not consider a husband forcefully raping his wife to be illegal until 1979.

Twitter trolls did what twitter trolls do, and spewed forth venomous vitriol. Many of their comments were racist, sexist, agist, and other types of ists that I had never even seen before. I was shocked to see how many people criticized her for being a “hoe” or “slut” and posted sexually explicit still frames from her sex tape.

I still don’t understand using images from her sex tape as way of criticizing her nudity. If you disagree with it, why post pictures of it? Or is it just an attempt to shame a women for showing off her body?

As one person accurately pointed out –

Another person seemed as confused by the criticism as I was –

Several people were inspired by Kim’s nude selfie. Some even posted nude selfies of their own to show their support, including celebrities, male and female, such as Sharon Osbourne, Ellen DeGeneres, Emily Ratajkowski, Courtney Stodden, Glozell Green, Nathan Henry, Danny Tamberelli, and whoever the hell this guy is –

CdQ8wtiWEAETdsF.jpg-large

A few late night TV shows discussed the controversy surrounding Kim’s selfie in a thoughtful and hilarious way, including The Daily Show and The Nightly Show.

An artist in Australia was inspired to paint a large mural of Kim’s nude selfie on the side of a building.

lushkimkardashiannudeselfie2.jpg

(Image Source: LUSH, Dean Sunshine)

Unfortunately, this is what some asshole did to it –

44436eb099ad467aa7f13587ac09ca48

When will society stop shaming women for their sexuality?

SWATTING IS NOT A GAME

I’ve played video games online, and I’ve heard some reprehensible things said by other gamers. Combining such a competitive activity with the anonymity of the internet makes the worst type of trash talking imaginable seem somehow acceptable, racist and sexist comments are commonplace.

However, there is a much more frightening phenomenon affecting the online gaming community. It’s know as swatting.

swatting

Tyran Hobbs sustained severe injures. (Image source: WJLA-TV)

Swatting has been defined by the FBI as, “making a hoax call to any emergency service to elicit an emergency response based on the false report of an ongoing critical incident.” These false reports typically result in, “deployment of SWAT units, bomb squads, and other police units, as well as the evacuations of schools, businesses and residences.”

According to U.S. Rep. Patrick Meehan, R-Pa.,  every year over 400 SWAT team raids result from these types of false reports.

Along with U.S. Rep. Katherine Clark, D-Ma., Meehan introduced a bill named the Interstate Swatting Hoax Act of 2015 to make swatting a federal crime. The bill is currently being reviewed by a congressional committee.

Unfortunately, without such a law in place, it is very difficult to prosecute the perpetrators. As the New York Times has pointed out in an expose about swatting, “right now, many swatters, if charged at all, are charged with misdemeanors.”

The expose entitled “The Serial Swatter,” gives a detailed description of “one of the most disturbing crime sprees in Internet history.” The perpetrator went by the name “Obnoxious,” and was perhaps the most prolific swatter to ever lurk around online.

He found most of his victims on Twitch.tv, an online community for gamers. The site turns online gaming into a spectator sport and certain players develop a large fanbase who watch as they live stream gameplay.

online_gamer_raided_by_littleton_swat_te_1957560000_7593063_ver1-0_640_480

Gamer gets swatted in Denver, Colorado. (Image source: KMGH-TV)

Obnoxious targeted young women on the site, and would harass them mercilessly.

He did DDoS attacks which disrupted their live streaming ability, hacked their social media pages, sent them threatening emails and text messages, blackmailed them into taking nude photographs, and if they didn’t do everything he told them to, he would swat them.

He swatted over 40 women. He was so brazen about it that once he even live streamed himself doing it.

He wasn’t just obnoxious, he was dangerous.

Eventually, he was caught. An underage kid from Canada charged with 46 criminal counts, including criminal harassment, public mischief, and extortion.

Numerous gamers have been swatted while live streaming, either by one of their online opponents or by an anonymous spectator

Several gamers have unintentionally broadcast themselves being swatted.

However, this phenomenon does not only effect the online gaming community. Numerous political activists, online commentators, and even a long list of celebrities have been swatted.

Former US Sen. Ted Lieu, D-Ca., was attempting to pass legislation explicitly prohibiting  swatting, and he was swatted.

So what will our society do to deal with the issue of swatting?

What do you think we should do?

 

Twitter Trending Hashtag: International Women Day

Warning this post contains nudity, but it’s as classy and artistic as a classical Greek sculpture and not at all like a trashy pornography magazine. So, in no way should it be construed as pornography by Wordpress, or by the wonderful college professor who will be grading this.  

March 8th was International Women Day. It was one of the top trending topics on twitter. That’s how I found out that there was such a thing as International Women Day.

I consider myself to be a feminist. Although, I’m apparently not a very good one. But I was encouraged to become better by some of the inspirational tweets I’ve read celebrating International Women Day.

That is how I’ve always viewed feminism. So, I totally agree with that sentiment. Although, I disagree with the spelling.

And that is from a Member of Parliament in Great Britain, a nation known for having a culture as reserved and inhibited as its soccer games are rowdy. I’m down with this MP.

 

Maya Angelou, a supreme celebration on any day. She was a phenomenal women, an inspiration to all women, people of color, and people without pigmentation too.

She was an incredible person and an amazing artist whose resilience will be admired for generations to come.

I had never heard of Margaret Hamilton before, and after reading about her for only a few minutes, I find it shameful that she isn’t featured more prominently in our history books. Her contributions to the moon landing seem impossible to overstate.

And I agree that abolishing stereotypes and striving for equality are aspirations worth accomplishing in our lifetime, even if small minded sexists make it difficult.

Well, Margaret Hamilton is definitely one of the best software engineers to have ever written code. And I do think that women are amazing, and that their accomplishments in many fields have unfortunately gone unrecognized.

However, I have no idea what this tweet is referring to by IT. Is it a sexual innuendo, a double entendre such as writers do it sitting down, or archeologists do it in the dirt? If so, then I agree with it.

 

These women are beautiful. And I support their fundamental right to take sexy pictures of themselves and put them up on the internet for everyone to see.

Although, I think they should work on their grammar. And some people might point out a disparity between their tweet and the one about abolishing stereotypes. But not me. I wouldn’t do that.

CdCbEpGW0AI7COR.jpg-large

Okay then. Thoughts? And I’m not asking about that badass baseboard with the natural woodgrain.

Polarization as Political Strategy

We live in a surreal world of increasingly partisan politics. There is an ever widening gap between republicans and democrats, conservatives and liberals, right and left.

The perceived difference between the two sides is like the difference between a persons’ right and left hand; mirror image opposites of one another. As our county’s political discourse continues to heat up, the metaphorical mirror is getting steamy. The image is being blurred, and the person in the middle is slowly disappearing.

Moderates are an endangered species in the process of extinction. They are going the way of the dinosaur, the dodo bird, and people who pay to download music. This is true for moderate politicians in both parties, and also the citizens who elect them.

The United States has among the lowest voter turnout in the developed world. So politicians use carefully crafted rhetoric specifically intended to appeal to the base of their party in order to increase the likelihood of their supporters actually being motivated enough to get off their couches and into a voting booth.

The political party who does a better job stirring their base into a frenzied fervor is the party who wins the election. And nothing creates a frenzy better than fear. So political messaging has become increasing targeted to trigger the inner fears of people on either side of the political divide.

This has caused both sides to become more ideologically extreme. However, it would be historically inaccurate to say that both political parties are equally to blame for the contentious political climate currently enveloping the country.

Many historians have pointed to the shifting political landscape of the 1950’s and 60’s, as the emergence of our modern political configuration.

In 1948, the States’ Rights Democratic Party, commonly referred to as the Dixiecrats, split from the Democratic Party due to their disagreement with the Democratic party’s support of racial integration.

dixiecrats-poster

The Republican Party was, as many modern Republican politicians like to point out, the party of Lincoln, who freed the slaves by signing the Emancipation Proclamation. But when the Dixiecrats split from the Democratic Party, leaders of the Republican Party saw an opportunity to pursued disillusioned Democrats in the South to switch sides.

The Southern Strategy refers to the systematic way Republican Party candidates started appealing to white voters in Southern states who resented forced racial integration.

When Barry Goldwater ran for the presidency in 1964, he used political messaging which contained coded language supporting segregation and racism.

6a00d8341c579653ef01538e8d30e4970b2013goldwaterline-1x2

He responded to the call for the federal government to recognize the civil rights of African Americans by declaring the importance of states’ rights. This meant that Southern states should be able to continue denying equal rights to African Americans without interference from the federal government.

He responded to the call for desegregation by supporting something he called freedom of association. This meant that business owners should be able to continue choosing who they would and wouldn’t allow into their businesses. In other words, a continuation of segregation and discrimination based on race.

Thankfully, Barry Goldwater lost the election to Lyndon Jonson. And the Johnson administration oversaw the enactment of the Civil Rights act of 1964 followed by the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

This effectually nullified the Jim Crow laws of the South which had previously provided the legal framework for racial segregation and discrimination. The unintended consequence of this was an increase in racial resentment among Southern whites.

Richard Nixon used the racial resentment of white Southerners to win the presidency in 1968. During the race riots which followed the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr., Nixon promised to restore law and order to the country, and he frequently called his core constituency the silent majority. In other words, whites who were not taking part in any protests against racial inequality or against the war in Vietnam.

NIXON

Donald Trump, the leading candidate in the Republican primaries, also calls his core constituency the silent majority. And he also seems to be using something very similar to the Southern Strategy by making racist comments which stir a surprisingly large amount of white people into a frenzy.

He has received the endorsement of the country’s largest white supremacist organization, Stormfront. He has also received the endorsement of the former grand wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, David Duke.

Many members of the Republican Party establishment have expressed extremely unfavorable opinions of Donald Trump. They say he isn’t truly a conservative, or even a real Republican.

Regardless of what they say, Trump has already won several Republican primaries, and it is very likely that he will become their nominee for president. To understand how this has happened, it is important to recognize that a political strategy of racial polarization is the cornerstone of his campaign.

150927_pol_trumpwallace-01-crop-promo-xlarge2

In 2005, before Donald Trump decided to become a politician, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, Ken Mehlman, spoke at the annual convention of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. He apologized to them for his party’s history of exploiting racial prejudice, and said, “Some Republicans gave up on winning the African-American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization.”

Donald Trump could learn something from Ken Mehlman, who also said, “It’s not healthy for the country for our political parties to be so racially polarized.”