Holder, Race and Obama's 10% of the White Alabama Vote
Attorney General Eric Holder's assessment that the United States is a "nation of cowards" on issues of race was perhaps off-puttingly blunt but results from the recent Presidential election support his call for Americans to talk more about race. And while Holder was presumably not singling out a particular group in asking for more focus on race, white voters' attitudes towards Barack Obama's candidacy is as good a place as another to begin: buried in the self-congratulating joy at Obama's historic win and its racial significance, there are disturbing signs that warrant more debate.
Chief among these is the extraordinarily low percentage of the white vote Obama received in the Deep South. Even as white voters nationally moved more or less in the same direction as voters overall, in a number of Southern states, the trend was strikingly reversed. In Alabama, Obama received half the white votes John Kerry did, ending with just 10% (!) of that group. In Mississippi, he received 11%. In Louisiana, where Kerry got a quarter of white voters' ballots, Obama was down to 14%. It is also striking that all but one congressional district for which data is available in those three states voted more Republican than normally. The lone holdout is an African-American district in Mississippi. This means that from urban New Orleans, to suburban Birmingham and to these states' large rural swaths, white voters abandoned the Democratic candidate for President in numbers far larger than usually. Perhaps more chillingly, the youngest of white voters in these states were equally as adverse as older generations to vote for Obama. Meanwhile, voters in four districts in the Deep South did manage to send white Democratic representatives to Washington.
It is of course true that Southern white Democrats have moved towards the Republican Party in droves since the 1960s, when the Democratic Party embraced civil rights and the GOP seized the opportunity to develop its racist "Southern strategy." (How those voters will react to the Republican leader's call for more hip hop in politics is an issue for another day). Beyond that historical shift, though, it is impossible to see in some of the results in the Lower South anything but racial prejudice towards Obama. It can hardly be argued that Kerry, for instance, was less liberal, especially on the social issues that seem to consume many of the voters in the region, or more charismatic than Obama, a far better campaigner and uniter. And so we are left with one way to explain swings of as much as 17% away from the Democratic presidential candidate this year in the Deep South: that even among the few white Democrats in those states willing to vote for Senator Kerry from Massachusetts, nearly half could not get themselves to cast a ballot for an African-American presidential candidate. It may seem naive to highlight this, so ingrained in the national consciousness is the idea of the pervasive racism that afflicts the Deep South. Is it not patronizing, though, to simply take this at face value and move on? Does it not warrant a little more discussion than a shrug and a smirk at people whose bigotry many of us take for granted?
Perhaps the hope is that time will heal some of these cavernous fractures and there are signs that change is on the march, with North Carolina and Virginia leading the way. Both voted for Obama, the first time since 1964 that Virginia voted for a Democratic presidential candidate. In both states, white voters did choose John McCain, but he received a much smaller share of their vote than George W. Bush did. Conventional wisdom is that the population growth in Virginia and North Carolina, fed by internal and international immigration, and both states' educational levels explain the shift. This seems plausible when compared to states further South, all lagging in educational achievement and with little inwards migration. Nonetheless, even in the Deep South, there was progress. In South Carolina, for instance, Obama increased the Democratic percentage of white voters in line with the national average. This achievement is not meaningless as it, together with a large black turnout, allowed the Democrat to score the best presidential result for his party in the state since Jimmy Carter in 1980. In Georgia, Obama came within 5% of winning the state, and would have done so if white voters there had moved to him as much as their peers nationally; nonetheless, he did achieve the same percentage of the white vote as Kerry did, even if it was a meager 23%.
Appalachia was the subject of much focus during the Democratic primary, as the region became the means to Hillary Clinton's attempted comeback in Ohio, Pennsylvania and smaller states. In the general election too, Appalachia, along with Arkansas, and Oklahoma, turned away from Obama. In fact, it did so in proportions sometimes even more striking than in the Deep South. In a spine of states from West Virginia to Oklahoma, including Kentucky, Tennessee and Arkansas, Obama vastly underperformed Kerry in all but two Congressional districts (in Memphis and Nashville). For instance, in districts that are overwhelmingly white and rural, such as Kentucky's 2nd, in the central part of the state, there was a swing of 24% away from Obama when compared to the national average. Even in districts represented by Democrats, such as Oklahoma's 2nd and Arkansas' 4th, Obama had some of his worst results anywhere. Again, the assumption here is that of course isolated, poor, rural white voters will never vote for a black man, so why even bother talking about it? Is it really that simple, and is it not, again, worthy of a little more prodding?
If the majority of areas in which Obama underperformed are indeed in the Deep South, Appalachia and the South Central US, that does not mean there were not pockets of reluctance elsewhere, and not all of it due to demographic shifts favoring Republicans. For instance, in Florida, three heavily Jewish and elderly Congressional districts centered around Palm Beach and Broward counties performed poorly for Obama when compared to Kerry or Al Gore. In rural Northern Minnesota, Obama also struggled relatively, especially as the rest of the state went strongly for him. Some New York City and Philadelphia suburbs in Pennsylvania, Northern New Jersey and Long Island, both Republican and Democratic, also showed some reluctance towards Obama compared to the nation as a whole, at least in predominantly white areas such as Suffolk, Morris and Montgomery counties. In New York City itself, Obama saw one of the biggest swings against him anywhere, in the predominantly white Brooklyn and Queens district of Rep. Anthony Weiner, a candidate for mayor this year. Obama also lagged in some older rust belt suburbs of St. Louis, Cleveland, Pittsburgh and in Upstate New York. Most of these places have little in common besides their disproportionately large white populations and, it would appear, a relative discomfort with voting for an African-American candidate for President.
Conversely, in the mostly white and Latino West, Obama relatively outperformed his Democratic predecessors in every single Congressional district except for a couple in Northern California, in San Francisco, for instance, where there was little room to grow from Kerry's 85% of the vote. One of the major lessons of this election was, in fact, learned in Western states, as well as other areas with large Latino populations that swung decisively to Obama. This was not a given, at least according to the DC conventional wisdom, spun by the Clinton campaign: the idea was that a) Latinos would be reluctant to vote for an African-American candidate for reasons unnamed but presumably having to do with racism; b) the problem would be compounded because Clinton was so idolized among Latinos that they could not possibly muster the enthusiasm to vote for Obama. The results have, hopefully, cleared up this nonsense once and for all. In Texas, for instance, voters in predominantly Mexican-American districts voted in far higher numbers for Obama than they did for Kerry or Gore. Latino flight from the Republican Presidential candidate appears to have accounted for the bulk of Texas's overall shift towards the Democrat in 2008. In mostly white districts of the state, especially in rural and exurban areas, voters were, if anything, even relatively more likely to vote for McCain than for Bush or, more accurately, even less likely to vote for Obama than for Kerry.
Not all rural white voters turned away from Obama. In fact, Iowa, which launched Obama's epic journey to the presidency, is a rural state with a population that is over 90% white. Ironically, for all its unrepresentative lack of diversity, Iowa has replaced Missouri as a presidential bellwether, having voted for the winner of the popular presidential vote in every election since 1988. It is also one of nineteen states in which white voters chose Obama over McCain, from Colorado to New Hampshire and Oregon to Michigan. It is worth keeping in mind that in 2004 Kerry received a majority of the white vote in just nine states, most of them small Northeastern neighbors of his home state of Massachusetts. Notably, white voters in California and New York, presumed bastions of liberalism, were not among them. In 2008, white voters in both states decisively cast their ballot for Obama.
Interesting tests already loom in a number of states in which African-American politicians, perhaps emboldened by Obama's win, are looking for a larger platform next year. One candidate, Democratic Rep. Artur Davis of Alabama, an early and vocal supporter of Obama, is running for the governorship of his state. In most respects he is a good fit for Alabama, with moderate to conservative stances on social issues, and an engaging demeanor. Clearly, though, he will need to get more than 10% of white voters' ballots to be competitive in a general election, should he make it that far. In Florida, another Congressman, Kendrick Meek is running for an open Senate seat. He is sure to face a challenging primary, probably from at least one elected official from South Florida districts lukewarm towards Obama. In California, San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris is vying for State Attorney General, the top law enforcement officer in the nation's most populous state. She was an early organizer for Obama in Iowa.
The complicated picture of how America came to vote for its first black president reflects the country's multifarious attitude towards race. Holder is right to call for a better understanding of Americans' way of thinking about the issue: we may assume that we know what prompts others' attitudes and why, say, voters in places as varied as New Orleans, rural Mississippi, Brooklyn, Boca Raton, Pittsburgh, Kentucky, suburban Philadelphia or Duluth reacted to Obama the way they did, but surely it is worth digging a little deeper, past our own prejudices and conjectures. Perhaps we will even learn something about our own smug selves, unless we are thwarted less by cowardice than by simple intellectual laziness.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I think this is a good conversation starter. I will point out, though, that it's not unreasonable that there would be unreasonable reactions to the prospect of voting for the first African American president. After all, even African Americans weren't supportive of Obama, initially. Only when he won Iowa did he gain their support. If you would indulge my own bit of conjecture, I bet that a lot of whites didn't vote for him because they thought it was unrealistic that a black man could win, and they just couldn't picture America having an African American president. Now that Obama has cleared that hurdle, I think we'll need to wait and see what the attitudes are in 2012 to draw any real conclusions.
As a side note, something you said made me laugh: (How those voters will react to the Republican leader's call for more hip hop in politics is an issue for another day)
Well, I think that MICHAEL STEELE is a bigger issue for those voters than hip hop;) In fact, Michael Steele can only help Obama... no matter what he says or does.
I'm not meaning to pile on here, but, well, allow me to pile on:
Anyone who doesn't find the level of the white vote in Alabama the least bit suspicious just isn't shifting the brain into "Drive." I'm the first person so say "Whoa, hold it there, let's not make assumptions about those who disagree with us" but...TEN percent? Not a little fishy?
Is there anyone out there NOT convinced that race played a part in this? Am I saying every white person who voted against Obama in Alabama is a racist? No. But...maybe SOME of the voters in Alabama need to spend some time looking in a mirror.
Personally, if I were Obama and that's the state of things in the state of Alabama, I would wear those vote totals as a badge of pride. I guess much of the country's ready to move on, and those that aren't are to be left in the dust.
http://TheSnarkingLot.blogspot.com
What about the over 90% of blacks that voted for Obama, would you call them racist?
No, but I would look at the vote totals throughout the country, considering he won by over 9
million, it says most people are tired of republicans, and Obama is a far better alternative
than McCain/Palin who was Way Over her head.
Only if they have never voted for a white guy before.
black folks have been voting 80%-90% for white folks in the past (even when a black candidate was running...see al sharpton and jesse jackson).....your argument has been debunked by history several times during this past election....
I am black and have voted Democratic since age 18. I voted for every Democratic candidate who ran, but I did not support Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton. It's not about race for me. It's about Democratic ideals and policies. I voted for Al Gore and encourage everyone that I knew to vote Democratic, but Bush still stole the election. I was dating a guy who was planning on voting for Bush's re-election. He was black, and that was the end of that relationship. Anybody ignorant enough to vote Republican, I don't have any time for them.
All Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Whites, etc., are not the same. I think most people vote on issues, not skin color. Some people do, no matter what their race. Whites break it down even further though, ie, Italian, Irish, Jewish, Protestant, Catholic, etc.
There is racism and bigotry in this country. This is not new, and electing a black President doesn't change that. It changes the conversation surrounding it. I believe it takes understanding and education to break through the walls of racism, and it won't happen on a blog. There needs to be cultural curriculum in ALL schools, especially rural schools.
I swear, an article like this always brings out those who make broad, sweeping assumptions about the nature and assumed centralization of conservatives in the US--it just isn't so. No doubt, there are far larger concentrations of conservative voters in the south, but this is quite erroneously attributed to pure racism. Again, racism is more of a factor in the south, but to make a blanket assumption that all southern conservatives are functioning on racism alone and that conservatives elsewhere are somehow "above that" is simply an absurd sign of immaturity and naivety.
And while I have no problem casting aside all considerations of religious and socio-economic influences when forming my political views, there are many well-educated southerners who, for a variety of reasons, accept the need for an end to racism yet embrace conservative political values, and yes feel that it's in the best interest of themselves and their families.
So embrace your ignorant stereotypical views of the south as you will; like all subjects where clueless individuals try to paint with far too broad a brush, you miss far too many facts and support irrational concepts on subjects that are far more complex than your little brains allow.
The sad thing about this is yes, in many ways you are correct as to the problems that exist, yet they are never so simplistic when realistically evaluated.
The author gave statistics that lead us to believe the reasons why voters voted the way they did in the areas covered. I don't perceive the article to be stating that every southern conservative who voted for McCain was a racist. I think the article covers more general swaths of areas than people.
Also, my mom is from Arkansas and my dad from Tennessee, and both states are racist, so that's a fact. The author gives Iowa credit for being a largely white state who voted for Obama, and I know for a fact that it's VERY racist in Iowa since I bought a house there 9 months ago. I can attest, as a black woman, it is a racist state. I went door-to-door for Obama and most people were very, very friendly (all that I encountered were for Obama), but in reality, the justice system is biased, there's racial profiling, cops harassing blacks, store owners assume you're going to steal something, etc. There's blatant racism on the newspaper's blogs at qctimes.com that are accepted by the newspaper moderators.
One Obama canvasser knocked on the door and a older woman opened the door. She was asked, "Do you know who you are going to vote for yet?" She replied, "Let me ask my husband." She yelled to the other room to her husband, "Honey! Who are we voting for?" Her husband answered, "We're voting for the n(gg@r!"
Even racists voted for Obama.
Comments on race are very painful, for all involved. And as much as I have been known to talk about the subject here, I still find myself flinching at inconvenient truths and leaving open the possibility of my button being pushed.
I am a coward.
There. It's said. Now can we talk?
I think that more whites are afraid to talk about race than blacks. In my own black experience, everyone that I know would answer questions or talk about race with someone of another race.
Why don't you strike up a conversation with a black person. Start with someone under 50 and just explain to them that you are trying to learn more about black culture for your own personal growth. Make friends with a black person, or a black family. Invite them over for lunch or a cookout or something (potluck). Talk about your favorite movies, music, children, hobbies, whatever. The same things you like to enjoy, blacks do too.
I am a black woman and I like gardening, decorating, live music, and especially home improvement. I like farmer's markets, estate/moving sales and trying new recipes. What kinds of things do you like to do when you're not working? That's a good start.
I'm proud to be part of the 10% that voted for Obama in Alabama, but frankly I was shocked at the backlash I received for it. I make it a policy not to discuss politics around my husband's family, as I'm fully aware of their neocon leanings (my family, fortunately, is as liberal as it gets). At a holiday dinner with my in-laws, my brother-in-law, in the middle of a crowded restaurant, stood up and singled me out, saying he couldn't believe I voted for Obama, as if I'd commited some sort of mortal sin. My only response was that I couldn't believe anyone with half a brain saw McCain as even remotely fit to be president. Needless to say, the evening was ruined for me, as the whole thing rapidly devolved into an Obama Bashfest at that point.
Of course, this is the same brother-in-law who says gays are responsible for the downfall of our society, as their main goal in life is to convert as many of our children to their godless ways as possible. So I've learned to just dismiss his opinions based solely on his stupidity.
HuffPost's Pick
I asked an old racist friend of mine, what was he going to do when he got to heaven and saw all of those Blacks and Hispanics sitting up closer to Jesus than he would be allowed to because of how good they treated people here on earth. The old codger looked at me and said 'What are you trying to do, make me think? Then we both almost fell out of our chairs laughing. Then I said, I thought it might serve you well to think about that before you got there. Then he said, " Boy you sure are right about that because that would have been a wake up call of all wake up calls. And I'd better start re evaluating how I've been treating these minorities because I don't want my actions to come back and bite me someday when it might be to late to do something about it.
WHO SAID YOU CAN'T TEACH AN OLD DOG NEW TRICKS? LOL
Hey, there are more old black people that feel the same way as these are the folks that actually experienced the days of the "whites only" water fountains, etc. Some of them are the equivalent of the older white racists. Some people would call them racists, but I'm not so sure. How can you be the racist because you hate the people who oppressed you?
Those born in the 60's are not predisposed to hating whites. They have had to learn it through their own experiences of unfairness and racism. I think exposure has a lot to do with how we perceive others. If the only depiction of blacks is on the news with the police chasing them or in video's shaking their butts, it is easy, for those who don't know the difference, to think that this is all there is to black culture. If my own family had not had opportunities throughout life to own their own businesses and attend school, and to be exposed to whites on a personal level, who knows? I might think that all whites are racists. I know that all whites are not serial killers and child predators, or even that it's not only white kids that come up missing (they are the only ones showcased on the news). It's all about being educated and exposed to different cultures.
it REALLY is a problem in the deep south [plus texas and oklahoma, where obama got 25% of the white vote] as paul suggests, the coastal south is moving away from the racist reflex and to an extent the border south [kentucky and west virginia] is too....it's even more disconcerting when you look at the percentage of white college graduates that voted for obama in the deep south...10% in alabama, 13% in mississippi, 18% in louisiana...anyone who thinks that our nation as a whole is somehow now post-racial, really needs to do a quick rethink...
answer me this...when the latinos field a viable candidate in 2012 and abandon the black candidate in favor of one of their own are you going to be brave enough to call them racist as well....
They will not be racist if there is a viable Latino candidate and they swing his way. Voting FOR someone is not the same as voting against someone. I know this concept is really, really hard to understand, but it's true.
wtf......so if you lodge a protest vote you are automatically a racist.....you have a strange idea of freedom....so what do you call the black christians who voted against gay blacks....
One other thing to learn about our "smug selves:" Jefferson County, Alabama (the most populous in the state, and the wealthiest) went for Obama. Yes, the rural areas of Alabama (and that is the vast majority of the state) went Republican. But that was true of rural areas basically everywhere, including my home state of Pennsylvania.
Perhaps the difference between the Deep South and other states is not bigotry per se, but the larger expanse of rural America that covers it versus Northern states. Look at a map of rural America as a whole and tell me which parts went for Obama.
Indeed, Jefferson county politics have been dominated by the AA community for at least a couple of decades, and the overall political environment in the Birmingham area is far more progressive than in the rest of the state.
Race isn't the real divider.
Class is. It just uses race as a mask.
The southern states should just leave. We could be a great nation without them.
Hmmm...seems they tried that, and were forcibly kept from doing so; any other "exceptional" suggestions?
I suggest that every racist in both the south and the north is in need of some tough love and if they don't get in this life, they can rest assured, that it will be waiting for them in their next life
Why is racism the default judgement?
Here is another perfectly plausible explanation: John Kerry was 60 years old and served several terms in the house and senate. He was far more experienced than the young senator from Illinois.
Why must you assume the worst in people?
Because there is nothing else to connect these pockets of people other than the color of Obama's skin. To call it any other way, is to continue to put our heads in the sand. We need to ask these people why they didn't vote Obama. The proviso being that they must answer honestly. The author lays out why Obama was a better candidate than Kerry, and yet.... We are all one big family and its time for an intervention.
Nobody has to tell anyone who they voted for, much less why. It is none of your business.
"To call it any other way, is to continue to put our heads in the sand. We need to ask these people why they didn't vote Obama."
That is not allowed, and for good reason; just because it is known that many knuckle-under to various pressures and yes, racial prejudice, it does NOT grant any reasonable permission to mount an inqusition into a citizen's right to vote as they see fit.
Having a racial prejudice that forms your worldview certainly isn't my idea of an acceptable approach to life, but in the US having a racial prejudice is many things--ignorant, counterproductive, anti-social--but it is not against the law as long as a person does not actively seek to infringe upon another person's civil rights.
Actually, John Kerry went directly into the Senate, having previously been
Massachusetts Lt Governor. (He ran for Congress, was defeated, went
to law school, became an asst D.A., then was elected Lt Gov under Mike
Dukakis, who ALSO didn't get elected president, once upon a time.)
The US had a president from Massachusetts once, evidently doesn't
want another just yet.
Maybe a huge part of the problem is political correctness. We should be ready, willing, and able to call it like it is: the Deep South in general is filled with ignorant, hateful, bigoted people who live in a fantasy world--and that is directly due to their love affair with Christian Baptist sects.
I am glad you don't show any prejudice or hatred. It further shows class the way you don't paint with a broad brush or practice unfounded generalizations.
Your religious tolerance is also to be applauded.
The truth hurts. Their may be pockets of unprejudiced people in these states but the vast population I would guess are the bigots or why would we be seeing the same bigotry Senators and Govenors keep getting elected? These people voted according to being told the Appocolypce was coming if they voted for Obama, They were lead to believe the hate and lies of Palin. These masses of uneducated people don't accept change and they apparently are lead by their bigotries and religious lies.
Here's the problem with generalizations: they are always wrong.
I've lived in Alabama for nearly 7 years. I grew up in PA, educated in the Midwest, have lived in Boston, L.A., and a couple of other big cities elsewhere. Here's one thing I know for sure: bigotry and ignorance is EVERYWHERE. I would say that the most openly racist city I have ever lived in was Boston in the mid-1980s. Birmingham in the 21st century, by contrast, is not perfect, but people of all colors are mostly trying to do the right thing on matters of race.
Southern stereotypes are not helpful. Southerners are some of the warmest, most gracious people I have ever known. I made more deep friendships, more quickly, in the South than in any other place I have lived. And Southerners are also known for their extreme generosity in charitable giving -- the highest percentage of income in any part of the country goes to charity here. The lowest? New England.
I'm not knocking any other place. I'm just saying that stereotyping the South the way "chaya" did is not accurate, nor is it helpful in the discussion.
Wow. You just discounted all of the people who voted for Obama. It's not like nobody voted for him in the south. The article is saying that a majority didn't vote for him and they are assuming it was because of race by the process of elimination. There is no real, factual way of determining who didn't vote for Obama and WHY without asking people.
Here is the problem. The south wasn't going to vote for us anyway. The 25 percent of the people who believed Bush did a good job were located in Appalachia and the south. Instead of harping on what is basically a regional rather than racial predilection, how about talking about how huge coalitions of white black and Latino, all over the country, elected the first black president, and the first progressive president. I mean Indiana, Wisconsin, Iowa, Colorado, Oregon, vote overwhelmingly for Obama. It isn't that white people in the south voted against him it is that people in the south voted against him. Non southern dems do not win southern states. If you don't talk with a drawl you don't win the states. Jimmy Carter held the south against Regan. That wasn't race that was region. I am not naive I know what happened in Alabama and Mississippi and in Louisiana. I get it but how about we celebrate the positive. That a group of all white states in the industrial and agricultural mid west and the far north east elected Obama President. How about saying the majority of this country isn't racist, and how about we stop attributing every vote against Obama as a matter of race instead of policy. Some people don't agree with progressive liberals. For the 8 or 9 percent who were dems, who do believe and who voted against him, we'll see you in 2012.
I agree with most of what you said, but I do think it does this country good to look continually at the issue of race and where we've progressed and where we still need to go to us really get to the point where folks won't feel the need to talk about it. It's like a football team that breaks a losing streak. Very few coaches would be content to say that they've found a terminal solution to their problems and they will continually evaluate what the team's doing to keep getting better.
I agree that Obama's win was historic for this nation and showed just how far we have all come, but Obama is a unique candidate. I know that folks are going to take that the wrong way, but let me see if I can explain it in the short number of characters that HuffPo gives us ...
As a country, we can probably all agree that race will no longer be an issue in this country when the country elects a Black George Bush ... TWICE.
I got what you meant without the example. lol Obama is a unique candidate (or was) and the real example is how the right is treating Steele now.
"The 25 percent of the people who believed Bush did a good job were located in Appalachia and the south."
That is simply not true; look at the percentages for all states' election returns for the presidential election and you will instantly see that such an assertion is utter nonsense.
You've missed the point of the article. It's not about finding the positive in the election. It's about getting to the bottom of it, no matter how uncomfortable it makes us.
The anecdote I'll offer on this subject has to do with my sister and brother-in-law:
Being longtime devote christians [southern methodists turned southern baptist in the 1990s], they have attended a nearby baptist church for several years uninterrupted. They both came to the conclusion that they would break with the hardcore baptist political push typical for south Alabama, and vote for Obama.
Apparently they were mistaken in believing that their departure from church political guidance would be no big deal, as they were subjected to a great deal of disapproving comments from folks in their congregation, and are now convinced that finding a new church will be necessary.
Yet they both stick by their decision, and are still somewhat amazed at the reaction to the knowledge of how they cast their votes--I suppose there was a degree of naivety involved, as neither of them have ever been overtly political. To me this suggests that there are many more southerners--largely christians in rural areas, but some urban christians as well--who would have voted against the GOP if not for the knowledge of how they would be treated within their so-called christian communities.
The rural southeastern areas and other rural pockets across the US are where the GOP has installed their diehard, fundamentalist true-believers, and it will take longer in those areas than in the rest of the country to break through the close-minded GOP policies.
I think it's long overdue that sanctions are taken against these churches for pushing their political agendas. It's time they have the tax exempt status pulled to put them back in their places. The only way these religious leaders will listen is by pulling on their purse strings. Mony speaks!!!! They have become too bold and influential to their congregations. If this is allowed to continue into the future we may find ourselves forced into religion of their choice, not your freedom of choice. Let them preach their good deeds and nothing political! This must be stopped, a good example was the gay marriage law in CA and mainly financed from the religious right in Utah.
What a fascinating dynamic that would cause. Would taxable status become a badge of honor? Churches unwilling to silence their political message could reap the benefits of increased freedom marketing their message and brazenly fleecing their potentially larger flock.
This is a dirty little secret, that Reverend Wright was simply a black mirror image to thousands of white preachers and their congregations around the country.
Thank you for letting the secret out the bag, a secret that many of us were very much aware of even as we witnessed the character assassination of Reverend Wright,
The difference between Wright and some of the "thousands of white preachers" around the country, is that Reverend Wright was speaking a truth that many of them have chosen not to speak, which is the truth about race in America.
I can't quite go along with that notion; to me, Wright 1) mostly spoke the truth [albeit in an highly inflamatory manner] and 2) is more a reaction to what is widely know among black religious leaders about the GOP, and how it has infiltrated fundamentalist christianity.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
