Thursday, May 17, 2012

Modern Day Civil War South: The Poor, The Uneducated, The Violent, The Republican

A friend of mine mentioned recently how he couldn't understand why the republican right and the south, generally, defend the confederate flag as non-racist, when neo-nazi white supremacists use it all the time as their basic logo. That made me think about the "modern" Civil War confederate states and how they've progressed over the years--or not. Here's what I found; feel free to draw your own conclusions:

Confederate States. There were 11 confederate states in the Civil War. (Note that Virginia was one state at the time, and that West Virginia is counted here as "half" a state.) (Source: PBS)

Voting. Of the 11 modern Civil War states, 8.5 voted republican in 2008. (Source: NYT)

Poorest. Of the top 10 poorest states, 9 voted republican in 2008; NC was the exception. Of the 10 poorest states, 6 are in the modern Civil War south. (Source: Huffington Post / Wall Street Journal)

Least Educated. Of the 5 least educated states, all of them voted republican in 2008. Of these 5, 3 are in the modern Civil War south. (Source: Investopedia/US Census)

Most Violent. Of the 10 most violent states, 8 of them voted republican in 2008, and 5 of them are in the modern Civil War south. (Source: Vision of Humanity Research Study)

Graphic: Groobiecat
Data Sources: Indicated above



51 comments:

  1. What happens to your numbers if you add Oklahoma to the Confederacy? (Bear in mind that the majority of the Civilized Tribes declared for the South during the war and actually raised several regiments for the war, and that the Creek and Cherokee held large numbers of slaves.)

    There are also arguments to be made for including (in descending order of strength) Kentucky, Missouri and Arizona as Confederate states.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good points, thanks for the comment.

      Delete
    2. If you add in Oklahoma, it only strengthens the writer's argument. The crude narcissism of southern Republicans makes it difficult for them to accept that anyone else has rights or needs and makes it difficult for them to accept a reality in which they are less than perfect.

      Delete
    3. As a Missourian I would ask you not to include us in that list of potential considerations. Missouri was a "border state" during the Civil War, and had no affiliation with the Confederacy. Battles were fought in Missouri, but the Union army held it's place in St. Louis, Rolla, Springfield, across much of the state.

      That said, Missouri *did* vote Republican in '08 and '10, and is a pretty red state once you leave the St. Lou or Kansas City metro areas.

      Delete
    4. As another Missourian, I'll think you'll find the most violent and crime-ridden areas are Democrat strongholds, such as St. Louis, KC, and Columbia. It is also telling that most of the states mentioned are also some of the most charitable. I also realize it's an old saw to mock the intelligence of southerners, but how are they doing in Detroit or Newark?

      Delete
    5. While I don't disagree with the major tenets of this, it's not actually fair to point out that, in the 2008 election results, North Carolina deserves to be purple instead of blue. I also don't think it's necessary to draw that distinction to make the point. Also, depending on your criteria or criterion for making that decision, you might want to include Indiana, if it is based on vote count and "close call". Other states, too, could be purple if you were indicating historical precedent.

      Delete
    6. To "another annoymous Missourian," you stated "As another Missourian, I'll think you'll find the most violent and crime-ridden areas are Democrat strongholds, such as St. Louis, KC, and Columbia. It is also telling that most of the states mentioned are also some of the most charitable. I also realize it's an old saw to mock the intelligence of southerners, but how are they doing in Detroit or Newark?"

      Well, first, this is a state-level map, and we're talking national level politics here. I invited folks to draw their own conclusions at this level. The issue of individual "democratic strongholds" and crime rates in urban areas is fodder for a much different post--which isn't not being addressed here. But hey, be my guest. I'd love to read it. As to the issue of charitable giving, I'm wondering if the following statistics have anything to do with this generocity:

      Of the top 20 states that take more in Federal taxes than they pay, 70% of them voted republican in 2008. Interesting how these states align with the other data categories in my original modern civil war map--perhaps I should repost an update. They include:

      Mississippi - modern civil war state
      Alaska
      Louisiana - modern civil war state
      W. Virginia - modern civil war state
      North Dakota
      Alabama - modern civil war state
      South Dakota
      Montana
      Arkansas - modern civil war state
      Oklahoma
      S. Carolina - modern civil war state
      Missouri - ?

      So, 6 of the reddest states in the Union take in more far more federal dollars than they generate. These data are mapped in a previous blog post: http://groobiecat.blogspot.com/2012/05/fucked-up-friday-red-state-hypocrisy.html for those who are interested. Cheers.

      Delete
    7. The fact that you fail to place the 5 Civilized Tribes Indian Nations (Oklahoma) in the Confederacy shows your ignorance. Oklahoma would not be a state today if they had not sided with the South giving the U.S. pretext to abrogate their 1830s removal treaties and confiscate large tracts of the 5 Civilized Tribes' land and allot the remaining to individual rather than collective tribal ownership.

      Delete
    8. Ignorance is a double-edged sword: in fact, the 5 tribes were never clear-cut allies of the Confederates. The tribes fought a civil war amongst themselves before and during the American Civil War: for example, the more pure-blooded members of the Cherokee tribe fought against the mixed bloods within their own tribe, the slave-owning Cherokees fought against those who opposed slavery, and the old feuds dating back to which side your fathers took on the Indian Removal Acts of the 1830s revived in new bloodshed among several of the tribes. The Creeks and Seminoles, who a generation earlier had been the most ardent opponents of the U.S., became some of its most ardent soldiers in the Civil War. Many Indians from Oklahoma fought both for and against the Confederates over the course of the war.

      This is the same kind of ignorance I see on display today by West Virginians on those occasions I pass through their state. Their ancestors were overwhelmingly opposed to the Confederacy, yet I see the Confederate flag on display more there than in any southern state.
      --DCTroid

      Delete
  2. This is a surprise to anyone?!?!?!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No surprises, but it's important to reiterate what's happening--with actual data--and to see that, over time, not that much has really changed in the 150 years since the "last" civil war (we're currently in a new one, I believe, it's just a civil "cold" war. Thanks for the comment.

      Delete
    2. jchuckjohns@hotmail.comMay 18, 2012 at 11:46 AM

      I can't see how this would suprise anyone. If you keep the people fearful and uneducated,they are more likely to watch and believe things like fox. And if you can get them to watch and believe those so called "news sources" guess how they are going to vote. Is it just me or am I seeing a pattern here? Cut eduacation funding,keep college costs so high that only the chosen few can go and cut all funding for the poor so they don't have a say in anything, PLUS force cuts to planned parent hood and public school sex ed so that we always have a new crop of cheap, uneducated laborers. This has 1% wriiten all over it.

      Delete
  3. This post and your statement, "That made me think about the 'modern' Civil War confederate states and how they've progressed over the years--or not," is completely devoid of any basis in historic analysis or fact and also ignores the tremendous changes the South has seen since the Civil War. The South has many problems, as do other parts of the nation, but pinning the South's modern-day social and economic problems on one political party alone does not do justice to real rational thought and the many efforts long underway to improve life in impoverished areas of the southern states. I say this as a proud Democrat but also as a student of history, noting that Republicans alone cannot be blamed for modern-day problems which have their historic roots in slavery, Reconstruction, the "New South," Jim Crow laws and more, championed at the time, of course, by southern Democrats.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I will also add that many economic and social problems in the South can be directly linked to an over-dependence on an agricultural economy. Before the Civil War, agriculture was the only game in town. Changing an entire region's economic stability, especially following a devastating war, is not a mere difficulty -- it is near impossible. After Reconstruction, men of industry began to capitalize in the South, but their success has been slow and has taken decades to form vibrant economic and metropolitan centers like Atlanta, Charlotte or Birmingham. And, in many cases, the South remains a poor, agrarian area, or, in places like Eastern North Carolina, poor with nothing yet to replace an absent, once-strong agricultural economy.

      Delete
    2. You mean "Dixie-crats"?

      Delete
    3. The "Dixie-Crats" were certainly not liberal. If you do your history homework right, you remember the "Radical Repubs", the Liberal Repubs and what not which stood against what the close-minded south stood for during reconstruction and what not. In those cases the Republican and Democratic parties were very different than they are now, and it would go more along liberal/conservative ties. Remember the Dixie-crats stood for Jim Crow, against interracial anything and were very against Catholics, Jews and other religious groups.

      Delete
    4. I'm fully aware of the changes in party ideology over time, which makes it even more difficult to pin modern-day problems on Republicans when they have their roots in something much deeper and more historic. You're trying so desperately hard to blame this on Republicans -- and, certainly, I'm no ally of the Republican Party or their policies and positions -- but in this respect, the Republican Party is not to blame. This map and the premise of this post and some of the comments here are far, far too simplistic and are not giving way to rationale or reasoned debate; it's just a point the finger and blame game.

      Delete
    5. Yes Matt, the Republicans ARE the problem.

      The Republicans play the "Guns, Bible and Minorities" cards and people vote for them because they're sure that their guns are going to be taken away by Godless Liberals, and that Minorities are sucking up all the benefits.

      Let's review: George W Bush had a supermajority in the House, the Senate and packed the Supreme Court, but didn't do a damned thing for the average voter (and somehow never got around to addressing the Right Wing's favorite bugbear, abortion) but passed plenty of laws relaxing limits on banks, credit cards, and collections agencies.

      Obama came to office with a simple majority and passed Health Care Reform.

      Don't give me the "Blame Game" bullcrap, and "All politicians are alike". It's a lie.

      It's stunning that the people in the poorest and least-educated states are voting for the Republican Party's Corporate shills who actively campaign on taking away healthcare and Social Security, which will leave these people dying in ditches.

      Maybe these idiots will figure it out when their tar-paper shacks fall into fracking holes.

      Delete
  4. If you're only counting Virginia as 1/2 a state, then there were only 10 1/2 Confederate states. Consistency is important. There were actually 11 Confederate states, and 8 of them are red. West Virginia was not in the Confederacy (it formed its government in June 1861 and recognized by Lincoln as the true Virginia government), therefore shouldn't count as a Confederate red state.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What I was about to say, except you did it more succinctly then I would have blathered.

      Delete
  5. i think religion plays a role here too.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The majority of the south is won in the election by three simple things from the candidates mouth.

    1. They love the Bible and God.
    2. The love guns.
    3. Well, ....actually I think it's just the first 2 that win them over.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You forgot using either overt racism or code words for racism.

      Delete
  7. Very interesting. You could easily make an argument also that Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Arizona were "Confederate Territories" during the Civil War, though none of them really had a chance to assert their statehood during the conflict.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Native Americans did not have slaves they harbored run away slaves.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. that is not uniformly true. some native american tribes had their own slaves or were as hostile to slaves and runaways as white americans

      Delete
  9. "I will also add that economic and social problems...directly linked to an overdependence on an agricultural economy". That over-dependence you speak of only exists because of lack of education (and frankly intelligence). For example, the PNW was heavily timber and gold, no? After many laws and over mining that is no longer the case, are they as impoverished? NO they are not, why? They learned to adapt, to change, to educate themselves, to stand up for what's right and necessary to make those changes. To blame the souths social and economic issues on one circumstance is a cop-out, particularly if that circumstance is exaggerated or the premise flawed (as shown above with the PNW). You see it is the people of an area that decide their fate, when you have a group of people that can not adapt to changes in order to survive (not be the poorest or most violent) the result is an archaic outdated culture that breeds it's own ignorance. It is very simply social anthropology. 150 years is plenty of time for social or cultural evolution, and even more so because of the adversity of the circumstances you named. Or in lay men's terms... if the way they made money changed and they did not change with it then that alone is proof of ignorance. You say you are a student of history, and yet you come to a conclusion that doesn't include control groups to prove your point. You really should consider other cultures around the world that have adapted and compare those to what the south has or has not done to change with the world around them. Life, ALL life is about adaptation, if you don't adapt, you die!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nathaniel GoldsteinMay 18, 2012 at 12:58 PM

      Forgot something, You compare the difference between the south and the PNW, you do realize that you still have fish, water ways that are navigable everywhere, and you have timber. The south doesn't have much of that and there also has to be a willingness for companies to come here.

      Delete
    2. I think it is a stretch to compare the South with the PNW, precisely because of the very different historic paths of each area. For one, the South's economy and culture is much older than the PNW. Changing an older, more ingrained culture takes longer than a younger one. Unfortunately, Anonymous, you also fall into the trap of painting southerners as stupid and ignorant; this shows bias on your part and puts you in no position to objectively opine on what it takes to be a "student of history."

      Delete
  10. There's a reason they're called "flyover states". Who the hell would want to actually drive through most of them?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nathaniel GoldsteinMay 18, 2012 at 12:51 PM

      Anonymous, you are either blind or ignorant. They are flyover states because they have been ignored for the most parts. Many of the southern states are absolutely gorgeous. I am a liberal and I agree that many in the south are ignorant, but it doesn't help that these liberal pages claim that we are all inbreeds and other such crap. I live in Kentucky and I can tell you that there are few places I would rather drive through and I haven't seen a state in the north I want to drive through. Think before you speak and stop being a coward and hiding behind anonymous. I know you have a name.

      Delete
    2. "and I haven't seen a state in the north I want to drive through."

      Then you haven't seen enough of the north. The coastal areas of Great Lakes and New England States are gorgeous.

      Delete
    3. Perhaps your biggest problem is that you want to drive through them instead of stopping to see what we have. In the northern plains area we provide a large percentage of your food that you sit down to eat, we also one of the largest wine regions in the nation (if I am not mistaken second only to Napa Valley region). We have thousands of fresh water lakes to fish, a few large rivers and an abundance of wildlife. Hey, but maybe your just a pavement pusher and don't enjoy the outdoors.

      Delete
  11. Three more indicators tying the Confederacy to the Republicans to family value indicators (inversely, that is). Source: National Center for Health Statistics, 1998 (if anything, I suspect more up to date data would show even a stronger link between these indicators and pro-Republican, ex-Confederate states).


    Top 10 states for
    --Divorce rates per 1,000 population (3 are ex-Confederate; 8 voted Republican in 2008)


    Nevada
    Tennessee
    Arkansas
    Alabama
    Oklahoma
    New Hampshire
    Wyoming
    Idaho
    Kentucky
    Arizona


    Top ten states for
    --out of wedlock births as % of all births (6 are ex-Confederate; 6 voted Republican in 2008)


    Mississippi
    Louisiana
    New Mexico
    South Carolina
    Arizona
    Delaware
    Florida
    Georgia
    Arkansas
    New York

    Top 10 states for births to Teen mothers
    --Percent of live births to mothers under 20 years of age (7 are ex-Confederate; 9 voted Republican in 2008)


    Mississippi
    Arkansas
    Louisiana
    New Mexico
    Alabama
    Oklahoma
    Wyoming
    Texas
    South Carolina
    Tennessee

    ReplyDelete
  12. Were your violence numbers adjusted for population? Every time I read the news, there are a half-dozen to a dozen shootings in the city of Chicago alone, so it seems to me that a much less populous state, such as Arizona, might actually have lower violence numbers per capita. Also, since you mentioned some of the "semi-confederate" states, such as Oklahoma, Missouri, Kentucky, you might also look at the southern half of Illinois during the 1860's. Much of the southern half of the state was sympathetic with the Confederacy. Several regiments from Illinois refused to fight after Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation.

    ReplyDelete
  13. It's true, the south has a good deal of horrible, vicious, and ignorant people - However, be careful to apply that to everyone, or even every area.

    Though I'm from the north, off the top of my head, even I can name some areas that are far from conservative, and are in fact, quite open minded: Athens, Austin, the tri-city research triangle of NC, northern Virginia areas like Richmond, Miami, New Orleans, Nashville, and so on. Not every area in the south is a stereotype, and cities like this deserve strong support, not insults.

    ReplyDelete
  14. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e0/2010_Senate_election_results_map.svg

    Looks like those racist confederates are moving north. I wish we had those racists Republicans Lincoln and Grant to help push them back down to the south where they belong.

    ReplyDelete
  15. You know, stereotypes do have to come from somewhere....

    Case in point:

    Top ten states with highest rate of tooth loss
    -as measured by % of residents 65 and older suffering complete tooth loss (6 are ex-Confederate states, 9 voted Republican in 2008)
    W. Virginia
    Kentucky
    Alabama
    Louisiana
    Oklahoma
    Mississippi
    Georgia
    North Carolina
    Kansas

    source: 2004 statistics from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System noted on he Fluoride action network

    --DCTroid

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oops, I forgot to include #3 on the list: Tennessee.

      My apologies to the dentally-challenged, Dixie-whistling denizens of the great Volunteer State!

      --DCTroid

      Delete
  16. Oh wow... Look, real data, with actual cited sources, bonus points for being credible sources too! Now if we could only teach the republicans what these are...

    ReplyDelete
  17. I love the stats and story but being that the "parties" have changed so much since the Civil War, Reconstruction, the New South and Jim Crow until the Civil Rights movements in the 60's...both parties currently are nothing like the parties of the same name in that Civil War era.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Can you do the opposite? Most educated, least violent, Richest states and how they voted.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Nathaniel and Matt... there is no fishing in the south? Really? Then why did BP have to pay so much for lost wages? The south has had 150 YEARS to adapt, entire cultures/societies have been created and evolved to many adversities in that time. So why should the south get special recognition for being below par in adaptation? You say because the culture was older and more established? Are you kidding me? The culture didn't exist for 150 yrs prior to the war, why would it need more than that after to adapt. I only argue with fact so here it is... Fact: the south boasts the lowest avg iq in the nation...http://www-958.ibm.com/software/data/cognos/manyeyes/visualizations/iq-by-state-us-2. Fact, they use more money than they contribute...http://www.balloon-juice.com/2010/04/11/welfare-states/. Fact, they have less college graduates...http://www.epodunk.com/top10/collegeDiploma/index.html. Fact: they have the most states in the top ten worst for domestic violence...http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-sugarmann/top-ten-most-murderous-st_b_774021.html. They are the least educated about health and therefore the most unhealthy http://statehealthstats.americashealthrankings.org/#/list/US/2011/Overall-State-Ranking. I could go on and on and on and on siting each and every fact. So if we presume something about the south, if we have "biases" about the south, all the facts do is support those biases. PERIOD!!! If you don't like how the south is viewed then try to spread the value of education to them not me. Try to spread the value of factual information to them not me. I have lived there, my whole family is from there, I decend from Appalacian hillbillies and southern baptists biggots, so you are right to say I am biased, but all my biases are supported by the facts, and all these facts derive from a culture that is too dam afraid of education and thought to adapt to a world that shows them to be the fools they are. They have yet to be on the right side of history... Civil War/ Desegregation/ Civil Rights. Prove to me thru sited facts that I am wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AND you can address me as LeeAnna.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I'm from Missouri and how embarrassing thats becoming!! Please a bust of Limbaugh in my State Capitol!! It angers me! The Missouri legislator has not created one jobs bill, they've spent my tax dollars on trying to disenfranchise voters! They try to make us a 'right to work' state! They want to take away my patient rights under the Affordable Care Act! Roy Blunt wants to take away rights of women!! Missouri legislators have jumped on the 'birther' bandwagon!! There is actually a Missouri GOP legislator that has sponsered a bill that a employer can't discriminate against someone that owns a gun or partakes in activities that involve guns (even though there is not one case of anyone in Missouri being discriminated against because they own guns) You would think folks in my county were going to stroke out when the President was going to give a back to school address to students! A teacher from Pettis County named Sheri Melby who apparently does'nt believe in science actually said we don't believe in evolution whenever the school board pulled Smith Cotton High School band tee shirts because it showed the evolution of musical instruments!! And alot of these republicans run their campaigns through the churches (I'm thinking it's about high time to tax the churches) The list goes on and on and on!! Wake up folks and vote these GOP clowns OUT and lets give the President 4 more years and a DEMOCRATIC HOUSE AND SENATE in 2012!! REPATRIATE YOURSELF - VOTE DEMOCRATIC!

    ReplyDelete
  21. This is exactly what our political leaders want. Keep the country divided and hung up on draconian lunacy such as red or blue while they bilk the nation for every last red penny. Money buys them power and the ability to continue to write policies that fill their pockets while the rest of the country is circling the drain fighting over moronic red/blue manufactured issues. I am an American. When we all become Americans again we will be a force for change a force to be reckoned with!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "This is exactly what our political leaders want." I don't think that's what all political leaders want. The left has offered its hand in compromise to the tea party in the house and it was batted away with a definite sneer. When the tea party candidate for senate won the primary last week in Indiana, he indicated that he wasn't interested in political compromise--and that the only thing he'll accept is when the left becomes the right. That's not leadership, and that's not unifying. You use generic phrases like "they" to conflate all politicians as being the same--and this is exactly what the mainstream media do. But it's incorrect. The details behind the "headlines" or "bullets" in your case indicate that the right has become much more concretized and uninterested in working with the left. So, you may be an American, but there's zero interest in consolidating and unifying the country from the the most conservative party--and that includes the Tea Party--in 100 years. Speaking of the Tea Party, they say they're non-partisan. That's complete bullshit. Every. Single. Candidate has been a republican or right-wing libertarian. I hope we will get past this division one day, but until people stop calling the president a marxist and socialist and nazi and every other seditious epithet out there, I for one will not stop working against their bulwark of ignorance. Thanks for stopping by and commenting.

      Delete
    2. I say "they" in reference to the ever growing wave of career politicians saturating or government. are they all bad? No I don't think so. Are they operating in a political system that allows them to break laws without any repercussions? absolutely. Insider trading is the bread and butter of these politicians and they conduct these activities on our dime in our congress. This is a very detrimental flaw in our system of government. Career politicians care nothing about the people they represent. They are in it for profit and as most of us know profit and compassion really don't make great bed fellows. So you disagree with everything that any "red" believes in? What about money giving certain individuals a bigger voice in our government? I think its a safe bet that every American can agree that money needs to be removed from our political process. Again this is just one example. It is my belief that if we can see our way past the smoke screen that our government is desperately trying to keep us in and we as Americans came to our "leaders" as one voice we could accomplish a great deal. I don't think pinning our hopes on some politician to do the right thing is going to get us far. We need to come together as a nation and push our elected officials in the direction that we want our country to go and not the way the corporations and big banks who have bought our system want.

      Delete
    3. Just want to add that you said "I hope we will get past this division one day". That day will come when people like you and myself get past the things we agree we cant agree on and really start making an effort to work on the things we do. Thanks for the reply.

      Delete
    4. Anonymous, I completely agree, and I look forward to that day, which to me, is called "the '80s and the 90s." Today's republican party really is the most intransigent it's been in 100 years. Researchers have proven this (but really, we already know it - http://groobiecat.blogspot.com/2012/04/new-research-republicans-are-more.html). There is some hope out there: Listen to this podcast by This American Life. It's disturbing in that it talks about money in politics, but it offers hope in that I think this is an area where both sides can agree on. And, in fact, I think the early Tea Party was very interested in this. http://groobiecat.blogspot.com/2012/05/this-american-life-podcast-undo.html --just posted it. John McCain, a republican, and Russ Feingold, a democrat, have been working closely for many years to get money out of politics. They're great friends in the way that old school republicans and democrats used to be, before they hated each other's guts. At any rate, it's very much worth listening to. Cheers.

      Delete
    5. I often think that the big difference between the Old South and the Old North, and what seems to continue to this day, is the desire to maintain a feudal approach to local governance - from the landed gentry who operated their plantations like fiefdoms, and who maintained an aristocratic dismissiveness to anybody who wasn't up to their class, especially the slave classes, and what has become known colloquially as "white trash" to represent all the lower-class tenant farmers, laborers, and tradesmen (serfs). Regardless of what name (party) you attach to this mindset, I believe it is at the heart of the separation that this group wants to maintain even now. So, to me, it's not the agricultural economy that kept them down, but the aristocratic "lord of the manor" mindset that agricultural plantations promote. Much our current rhetoric about "job creators" and other myths about the self-made exceptionalism of the wealthy smack of the old "divine right of kings" mentality that was the norm prior to the formation of this country. One need merely re-read the Declaration of Independence to see just how much our Founding Fathers so despised this mindset and to wonder again at why the modern Right Wing is so fond of that document, even as they try to tear down everything it was aiming at.

      Delete
  22. Jerry,

    Well put. My other recent post on cognitive dissonance can perhaps provide a clue about the "why" the right espouses virtues that they themselves are against. The more I consider it, the more I think it's a nasty mix of denial, projection, arrogant entitlement, and, frankly, racism, that also accounts for their contradictory behavior. As an example, their myriad initiatives to disenfranchise black voters are well known--not terribly democratic of them. I take issue with the view that it's not generally a divide along party lines, because this is very specifically republican-driven strategy (there are no reports of democratic led disenfranchisement, for example, that I'm aware of). The most famous was initiated by that night-mare of a secretary of state, the history-altering human known as Katherine Harris in 2000.

    As for ignoring other founding documents, the tea republican party today reviles taxes and the welfare state as somehow unconstitutional and anathema to the core principles of our country. In fact the opposite is true. Section 1, Article 8 of the Constitution states: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;" --There it is, in black and parchment. Yet, no one one (and certainly not the errand boy known as the mainstream media, with a few notable exceptions) holds them accountable. Thanks for the thoughtful comment.

    ReplyDelete