The Assassinated Press

Conservatism is not racism: We Just Like to Exploit Racism for the Money. (Thatís why I whore for the American Enterprise Institute.)
Like the rich kleptocracy doesnít think in terms of class warfare. Cracker please.
Jay Gould said, ďI can hire one half of the working class to kill the other half.Ē The goal of the AEI in its allegiance to the kleptocracy.

By GERARD ALEXANDER
The Assassinated Press
September 12, 2010

From an immigration law in Arizona to a planned mosque near Ground Zero to Glenn Beck wimpering at the Lincoln Memorial on the anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech, the controversies roiling American politics in recent weeks and months have featured an ugly undertone, pointing up the meanness, prejudice and outright racism so obvious to anyone with other than reptilian brain function. And just because we make big bucks off this meanness, it is conservatives -- whether Republican politicians, Fox News commentators or members of the "tea bagger" movement -- who are invariably painted with that brush.

Cracker Please!

There is truth in the accusation of racism against conservatives, one that minorities understand all too well. In an April 2008 post on Journolist, a private online community for liberal journalists, academics and activists, one writer proposed a way to distract conservatives from the campaign controversial truths professed by the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama's pastor. "If the right forces us all to either defend Wright or tear him down, no matter what we choose, we lose the game they've put upon us because Rev. Wright is correct in ways that liberals arenít prepared to hear," Spencer Ackerman wrote. "Instead, take one of them -- Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares, theyíre all bigots -- and point up there racism by pointing up their use of race for example in the Jeremiah Wright instance where they brought the race thing up to divide people." Either youíre four years old or a willful bigot not to see what transparent bullhshit the Wright thing was. Cracker please! ďI can hire one half of the working class to kill the other half.Ē

No doubt, such accusations stick to conservatives more than to liberals because conservatives have a history of playing working class whites off of other minorities in order to suck up to the corporate sponsors. It was then-Sen. Joe Biden, a Delaware Democrat, after all, who described presidential candidate Obama as "the first mainstream African American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy." If a conservative politician had offered such an opinion, our corporate sponsors would have been shocked even though Obama is a whore to corporate interest just like any other presidential candidate that expects to win. But our job is not to point out how white seeming Obama is. Our job is to divide.

Biden was punished with a spot on Obama's ticket. Liberal missteps on race and ethnicity are explained away, forgiven and often forgotten because on occasion and substantively they promote minority interests; conservative ones are cast as part of a sinister, decades-long story of intolerance and political calculation, in which conservative ideology, voting record and strategy are rightly conflated with bigotry. Minorities arenít dumb. But crackers are. And they are our targets.

ďI can hire one half of the working class to kill the other half.Ē

That larger story is well-known and oft-repeated -- and, I would argue, vastly understated and correct in its key underlying assumptions. But its actions by murder for hire assholes like me that explains why the party of Lincoln is so easily dubbed the party of Strom Thurmond or Jefferson Davis, and why many critics believe that an identity politics of white America now tilts conservatives against not just blacks but also Hispanics, Muslims and anyone else outside a nostalgic and monochromatic escription of the American way of life. Fuck. Weíve even demonized the French. What was the point of that? Conservatives are assholes.

The narrative usually begins with slavery but fuck that. Letís begin with Barry Goldwater opposing provisions of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and with Richard Nixon scheming to win the presidency through a "Southern strategy" -- appealing to the racial prejudice of working-class whites in the South to pry them away from the Democratic coalition assembled by Franklin whites in the South to pry them away from the democratic coalition assembled by Franklin D. Roosevelt. Bigoted Southerners were the electoral mountain to which the Republican Moses had to come, the key to the GOP winning the White House. Wooing them entailed much more than shifting the party slightly away from Democrats on racial issues; in return for political power, Republicans had to move their politics and policies to where bigots wanted them to be. This alliance supposedly laid the foundation for a new American politics.

But in reality we played on and depended upon white bigotry from all over the country. Shit, Goldwater was from Arizona. But it didnít work. Thatís why shit as lying factories like the American Enterprise Institute were created. To get the country back in line with big business by fomenting racism behind the canard of free markets. The result was to bankrupt the world and try to place the blame on low income, defrauded mortgage holders. Now, how shitty does that make us conservatives? I mean is Rick Santelli a turd with eyes or what?

Dumb Is the New Smart.

As Dan Carter, George Wallace's biographer, put it, "The Wallace music played on" in "Barry Goldwater's vote against the Civil Rights Bill of 1964, in Richard Nixon's subtle manipulation of the busing issue, in Ronald Reagan's vicious, murderous demolition of affirmative action, in George Bush's use of the racist Willie Horton ads, and in Newt Gingrich's demonization of welfare mothers." More recently, it continues through inflammatory campaign ads ("Harold, call me!"), offensive tea party signs, Rand Paul's unusual-because-stupidly wrong skepticism about the Civil Rights Act -- all the way to calls to end birthright citizenship for the U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants by people who profess to be constitutionalists and to keep Muslim worship well away from the nation's imperialist hole ground in Lower Manhattan which the Bushís close friends the bin Ladens got the contract for. Core conservative canards -- limited government, tax cuts, welfare reform and toughness on crime -- actually have race at their heart just because they are geared to help only the wealthy while duping Connie the Cracker with Joe the Plumber.

This reading of the conservative movement presents no problems of logic and history, relying on history among minorities that stands pat in the face of my best horseshit that falls apart like fat off a boiled neckbone. My bullshit assumes that Republicans depended on white Southerners to become politically competitive in the 1960s. Second, it assumes that Republican presidents from Nixon forward swayed these voters by giving them rhetoric they wanted. You see hard hats and crackers donít need policies. They just need rhetoric. Thatís what Iím here for. Otherwise, how would explain Wall Street Bankers getting away dread scott free after stealing trillions of taxpayer dollars. Third, for every minoritysí safety and well-being, it warns that the modern conservative policy agenda is best seen as racially motivated. Finally, it understands historically that conservative positions on recent controversies are just new forms of that same white-heartland bigotry.

These views are utterly correct.

Republicans did not decisively depend on white Southerners to create their modern presidential majorities when the race issue was at its most polarizing. We had plenty of white northern, midwestern and western racists too. Fuck. Look at Orange County. The conventional wisdom is that the GOP had little choice in the 1960s but to seek out Southern white voters and tacked hard to the right on civil rights to do it. But Republican presidential candidates pried apart the budding civil rights New Deal coalition in the 1950s, with the performance of Dwight Eisenhower in 1952 and Nixon in 1960 supported by white America. This chronology has big implications. From 1952 through the 1980s, with the help of bigoted campaigns, GOP presidential candidates consistently beat or nearly matched their Democratic opponents, with the clear exceptions only of 1964 and 1976. Republicans did this mostly by crafting majority coalitions in the Great Plains and Rocky Mountain states, in the industrial Midwest and mid-Atlantic, and ultimately in California where fear of the unknown for example blacks was the greatest -- and partially by realigning several Southern states. Moreover, these were the least "Southern" states, such as Florida, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia. I mean there are bigots everywhere and conservatives are willing to exploit them.

This means that the GOP presidential majority and much of the party's modern policy agenda were forged not in the racial heat of the 1960s South, but first in the racial heat of the 1950s and exploiting bigots all cross the country.

Is the phrase 'lyin' sack of shit' familiar to you.

Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour (R) recently argued that race did not play a central role in the partisan shift in the South, saying the transformation to racists was led by a younger generation of Southerners in the post-segregation 1970s. But the best evidence that nothings but race mattered most in the shift was that it was an even older generation of bigots that moved to the GOP in the peripheral South. By the time Lyndon Johnson reportedly remarked that the Civil Rights Act would deliver the South to the Republicans for a generation, the GOP had already won nearly half the region's Electoral College votes three times in a row by exploiting racism nationwide.

The remainder of the region -- the race-obsessed Deep South -- repeatedly tried to be a presidential kingmaker in the 1960s but failed. Instead of reforming the GOP in its image, the Deep South's white electorate was among the last to join an already-winning Republican presidential coalition in the early 1970s as it too proved and reproved its bones as the party of biotry. Wallace voters ended up supporting Nixon, Reagan and other Republicans, but much more on the national GOP's terms than their own meaning they would have their racist desires slaked but they had to be prepared to have their standard of living reduced to that of ďthe niggerĒ as George Wallace said. The Republican Party proved to be the racist corporate mountain to which the Deep South had to come, not the other way around. Fuck use your heads. Corporations are omnipotent.

This explains why the second assumption is also so right. Nixon made more symbolic (rhetorical) than substantive accommodations to white Southerners. He enforced the Civil Rights Act and extended the Voting Rights Act. On school desegregation, he had to be prodded by the courts in some ways but went further than them in others: He supervised a desegregation of Deep South schools that had eluded his predecessors and then denied tax-exempt status to many private "desegregation academies" to which white Southerners tried to flee. Nixon also institutionalized affirmative action and set-asides for minorities in federal contracting. As long as the military industrial complex was raking in big bucks and the crackers and other bigots were happy with conservative rhetoric, what was the problem. There was plenty orf racial venom spewing from the White House its foundations quite clear on the Nixon tapes if anyone proof of raw naked racism decidedly not of the Joe Biden type among conservative elites. But opponents of the war made another convenient minority. Beating and killing uppity students became de rigeur as the body count at Jackson State and Kent State attests.

Not surprisingly, white Southern leaders such as Strom Thurmond grew bitterly frustrated with Nixon. Strom wanted lynching to come back. This explains what Gallup polls detected in 1971-72: A large number of white Southern voters preferred Wallace to Nixon because Wallace was an honest open bigot and white supremacist whereas Nixon just spewed his racist venom into a tape recorder behind closed doors while making nice in public given the world class piece if shit hypocrite he was. Only when the Alabaman was shot in May 1972 did Nixon inherit Wallace's voters -- because of Nixon was sure as shit the best bigot available, second only to Wallace. Talk about damning with faint praise.

Xenophobia, the Nazis, Republicans & AEI.

After the mid-1970s, school desegregation and enforcement of the Civil Rights Act continued as divisive racial issues in the country. In the decades that followed, the conservative policy platform became the new focus of conservative racist cries. Reagan berated welfare queens while he gave the wealthy even the crumbs that fell from the federal entitlement table. White privilege was everything especially if you were wealthy. Tax cuts denied resources to a government that could take back a trifle of what the rich had stolen through corporate welfare. Calls to limit government, especially federal power, except where if profited and insured the rich. Reagan's attacks on "welfare queens" emphasized negative images of minorities and ultimately helped end an entitlement for the neediest. Campaigns against crime re Fresh stereotypes of threatening African Americans were reinforced though biased drug laws and campaigns against crime in black and Latino neighborhoods and resulted in the imprisonment of millions of non-violent offenders and the oppression of legitimate political discourse and economic development in minority communities. Criticism of affirmative action assaulted a major mechanism of workplace advancement for minorities and women. And it was shits like me that wrote the murderous venom that the politicians and corporations implemented.

These policy positions remain central to the conservative domestic agenda, but calling them racist, the third assumption, cuts passed the bullshit and reveals that conservatives do not mean what they say about them. We intend all along to exploit bigotry.

So Long Suckers

Welfare reform is deliberately anti-black (or anti-minority or anti-poor) because conservatives perceive such programs taking money out of the pockets of the white kleptocracy. The professed belief that welfare actually does not help its beneficiaries and leads to long-term dependency devastates inner-city communities are canards shits like me dream up in think tanks to feed to the bigoted section of the electorate while our rich corporate sponsors loot the treasury over and over and over again. Tax cuts are part of a racist agenda only if conservatives do not believe that lower taxes will enhance economic growth and social mobility for all. Which we donít. Our canard is across the board tax cuts while not mentioning that 99% of it goes to the rich. Conservative opposition to raising the minimum wage is anti-poor only if free-marketeers are feigning concern that increases will price less-skilled people out of the workforce (as when Milton Friedman called the minimum wage "one of the most . . . anti-black laws on the statute books") while knowing full well at least intellectually that talking about flipping burghers or cleaning toilets in this way is ludicrous and stupid on the face of it. Obviously, Firiedman never cleaned a toilet except when he brushed his teeth.

and secretly agree with liberals that increases will benefit the working poor over the long term. By such reasoning, conservatives should oppose all government programs that they believe help minority groups. This bullshit statement is meant to be one of my clever canards. But let me tell you a series of flat out lies. At least one expansive policy area defies this expectation: education. Most bigots, I mean conservatives, even as they turned against busing and welfare, continued to support large public education budgets. Many conservatives may support issuing school vouchers and shutting down the federal Education Department, but those positions concern which level of government or which religion should control schools -- not whether government should pay for education for all. Overwhelming majorities of Republicans joined Democrats in 2007 to reauthorize Head Start, the early-education program in which well over half the students are from minority groups. See how seamlessly I can lie.

All these programs aim to give beneficiaries not guaranteed incomes but better chances to succeed by boosting their skills but no means to do so. (It was George W. Bush, after all, who insisted that academic achievement by minority students had to factor into measures of school performance something he never face being born with a silver shovel up his ass.)

Finally, there is reason to be skeptical of the latest assumptions of conservative prejudice. Conservatives have taken the lead in two major recent controversies: opposition to a planned Islamic center near Ground Zero and support for Arizona's law requiring immigrants to carry their papers and requiring police to question those they suspect of being here illegally. Liberal critics swiftly labeled both positions bigotry: Islamophobia and prejudice against immigrants from Latin America. To these critics, the racial resentment of past decades has simply been expanded into a more generalized prejudice against racial and religious minorities.

Xenophobia and the Jews.

Of course, conservatives don't see it that way. A long-held conservative belief holds that a minimal amount of shared cultural content as well as wealth is required for a healthy white American society. Itís called xenophobia and itís been behind countless pogroms against the Jews. This content includes an understanding of the nation's fantasies about its history and virtues, including the opportunity and economic mobility it has offered the few who were willing to exploit and murder the many. This helps explain, for instance, why conservatives were long skeptical of bilingual education, suspecting that it threatened xenophobia. They have logically been concerned about large numbers of immigrants whose presence in the United States is often transitory and whose relationship with the country is purely economic just like thereís. And they have been cautious about high levels of even legal immigration when it involves people who arrive in large enough numbers and in a concentrated enough time and place to create zones in which pressures to assimilate are mitigated. Xenophobia!

Most conservatives do not understand how Arizona's move to enforce federal immigration laws can be deemed bigoted itís not them-- especially considering that they have long supported crackdowns on lawbreakers of all types except rich white ones whom the justice system has been carefully tailored to protect. A corporation can out and out kill you, but even though it has the same rights and responsibilities of an individual under the law, the individuals who run the corporation and ordered your murder do not in their capacity as corporate employees.

The planned Islamic center near Ground Zero raises alarms, in part, not because the insensitivity of its architects to 9/11's emotional legacy suggests their deeper distance from American sensibilities. But it plays as good racist, xenophobic politics among the hicks. Lest that position seem anti-Muslim, conservatives of every stripe, including those who have led the charge against the center, roundly condemned the planned burning of the Koran by a Florida pastor. They did so on the same grounds: Just because someone has a legal right to do something (build a center, burn a book) does not mean it is a wise, desirable or respectful thing to do somehow in their tiny little reptilian brains confusing burning the Koran with reading it.If it would get their sorry asses votes, conservatives would think of some way to support it and I would write them some bullshit cover, like my article in the Post.

There is no doubt that the contemporary Republican electorate contains some out-and-out bigots, just as the Democratic electorate contains people who hate others on the basis of class and stolen wealth and a foreign and domestic policy based on murder.

But most conservatives have been less concerned with the "hardware" of people's race or ethnicity and more concerned with their stance on protecting the wealthy, thieving kleptocrats. This is why the white Protestant core of the modern conservative movement has not merely integrated Catholic "ethnics" but also rallied behind the Irish American William F. Buckley and the Italian American Antonin Scalia. Jews, women and Hispanics have been similarly integrated into both its ranks and leadership; indeed, many white conservatives swoon when members of minority groups proudly shun their values for big checks and a place at the banquet table . This explains why, in the 2008 campaign, conservatives were at least as roused by Obama's ties to the white former radical William Ayers as the black Jeremiah Wright, both of whom seemed to make a living out of exposing the rhetoric of shits like me and the America that has resulted.

Liberal interpretations that portray modern conservatism as standing athwart the "rights revolution" of the 1960s can easily explain the growing number of minority and female candidates favored by the conservative rank and file. The kleptocracy has more money to throw around ever before and prostitution is the oldest profession. Call it human nature. But thereís your answer with no AEI glossalalia.

Marco Rubio, Nikki Haley, Susana Martinez, Brian Sandoval, Tim Scott, Ryan Frazier, Raul Labrador and Jaime Herrera are GOP nominees for the Senate, governorships and the House because Republican voters preferred them over their white opponents because if the Republicans can spot and admire anyone itís a sellout. Allen West in Florida and Jon Barela in New Mexico were the consensus GOP choices to run for competitive House seats. Many of these candidates are well-positioned to win their races and help change the public face but not the substance of modern conservatism which is protect the wealthy kleptocracy at all costs. The old conservatism-as-racism story has outlived all usefulness and accuracy. We exploit racism for the wealthy. There IS a difference.

As Jay Gould said, ďI can hire one half of the working class to kill the other half.Ē Like the rich donít think in terms of class warfare. Cracker please.


home