Romnial

Romnial

by Lori Latrice Martin | special to NewBlackMan (in Exile)

During the 2012 presidential campaign, the term Romnesia was added to the American lexicon. President Obama came up with the term as a way to describe Governor Romney’s apparent “flip flops” on a host of issues. The term, criticized by some on the right as trivial and unbecoming, described what President Obama said was Romney’s “changing up so much, backtracking and sidestepping.” It appears that while the election may be over, and diagnoses of Romnesia are now few, and far between, that Romney, and other members of his party, are suffering from yet another condition, one that could be called Romnial.

Romnial is a condition characterized by series of political denials, which began afflicting Romney and other Republican candidates, even Republican operatives, beginning election night. First, Governor Romney was so convinced that he would win the election that he apparently did not even prepare a concession speech. Romnial. Although the state of Ohio was called for President Obama by watchers at various news outlets, including at Fox News, some on-air analysts and personalities, refused to concede defeat. Even Governor Romney took his time conceding the election, hoping, and perhaps praying that somehow, someway, everyone in the know got it wrong. Romnial.

Governor Romney’s own analysis as to why he lost the election is further proof that he has come down with a case of Romnial. On a conference call to donors and fundraisers, Governor Romney attributed his defeat to the belief that President Obama essentially dangled a host of political gifts before the eyes of selected voters. These voters, according to Romney, already see themselves as victims, who are dependent upon government. These individuals, including young people and people of color, were undoubtedly, included in the now infamous 47%. They, say Romney, believe they are owed an array of unearned and underserved entitlements. Romnial. Romnial has clearly caused some to ignore the broad-based coalition; superior voter turnout machine; and republican gaffes; that led to the downfall of Governor Romney’s presidential aspirations.

As was the case with Romnesia, Romnial also appears to be contagious. Vice President Joe Biden observed that Congressman Paul Ryan had come down with a case of Romnesia. Other Republicans have apparently come down with Romnial. For example, Representative Allen West apparently developed a case of Romnial. West was defeated by Democrat Patrick Murphy, and refused for a time to concede. Legal challenges not only failed, but revealed, according to the Daily News, that West may have garnered less support than shown in the original count. West, also suffered from an apparent case of Romnial. Even more well-known Republicans, like Arizona Senator John McCain have come down with Romnial.

The pre-emptive attack on Dr. Susan Rice, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., led by McCain and others, is reflective of a serious case of Romnial. Michael Tomasky of The Daily Beast, said it best, “In reality land, she’s done nothing that ought to be considered all that controversial. But again, conservatives don’t like the outcome—Democrats having the upper hand on foreign policy and national security—so they’re trying to make her controversial.”

McCain, perhaps still bitter about his loss in 2008 and embarrassed by his party’s showing in 2012, is waging a war with the administration, when there are clearly more important battles to fight. Some have even said that the attack on Susan Rice smacks of racism and sexism, both aimed at her and the nation’s first president of color. Apparently, Romnial can result in political hallucinations and paranoia.

There is hope, not all Republicans appear to be suffering from Romnial. Some Republicans have not only publically refuted comments made by Governor Romney, but they have already started placing political and physical distance between themselves and their former “golden boy”. Even the governors of New Jersey and Louisiana have denounced his comments. Some on the Hill have even expressed a willingness to work with President Obama on a number of issues, including on immigration and the so-called, fiscal cliff.

Whether those afflicted with the most serious cases Romnial will recover remains to be seen, but the mandate that President Obama and his party received on election night, may indicate that they have no choice but to take a shot of reality and a sip of a serum called, truth.

***

Lori Latrice Martin is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Africana Studies at John Jay College of Criminal Justice and author of the forthcoming, Black Asset Poverty and the Enduring Racial Divide (First Forum Press, a Division of Lynne Reinner Publishers).

HuffPost Live Mashup: "Horses and Bayonettes"

HuffPostLive

 

A musical mashup in which Mitt Romney wants to play Battleship, and Obama keeps it old school with horses and bayonets.

"Don’t Call It A Comeback"--Jay Smooth on Debate 2.0

Jay Smooth: The game still makes no sense, but at least Obama played it right this time.

Mashup: "Binders Full of Women"

HuffPostLive
 

A musical mashup in tribute to Mitt Romney's search for women, and finding them in binders.

Secret Debate Contract Reveals Obama/Romney Campaigns Excludes 3rd Parties, Control Topics

Democracy Now 

As President Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney prepare for their second debate tonight at Hofstra University on Long Island, we speak with George Farah, author of "No Debate: How the Republican and Democratic Parties Secretly Control the Presidential Debates." The debate will feature questions from the audience that have been pre-selected by moderator Candy Crowley of CNN -- a detail revealed when Time magazine published the contract secretly negotiated by the Obama and Romney campaigns and the Commission on Presidential Debates.

Freeloading Muppets: Mitt, the Conservative Right and its Assault on Sesame Street

-->
--> --> --> -->

Freeloading Muppets: 

Mitt, the Conservative Right and its assault on Sesame Street

by David J. Leonard | NewBlackMan (in Exile)

During last night’s presidential debate, which was lackluster to say the least, Mitt Romney finally unveiled some specifics as it relates to his slash the deficit, taxes, and spending economic plan – the “no reason to hope, the future will be grim” plan.  He announced his desire to defund PBS, which according to Neil deGrasse Tyson, accounts for .012% of the federal budget.  His war on Muppets prompted a deluge of social media posts ranging from images of an unemployed Big Bird to an angry Elmo seeking revenge. 

While reflecting people’s anger and anxiety about the nature of the political process, his oft-handed remark is revealing.  At one level, it demonstrates the Republican Party’s opposition to public support for institutions and organizations that advance a social good.  It represents their contempt for the social contract. At another level, it embodies an ideological movement that promotes divestment from public education, health care, and countless other social programs.  The recasting of Cookie Monster, Grover, and Snuffy as freeloading welfare recipients constitutes a continuation of the GOP’s structural adjustment program that started some thirty years ago.  Whether or not Mitt Romney like’s Big Bird, or public teachers, firefighters, or health care workers is irrelevant.  

The gutting of public higher education throughout the nation, the destruction of America’s parks and recreation facilities, and now the proposed foreclosure on Sesame Street is part of a larger movement to divested from public support and institutions, that which is utilized by the middle-class, working-class and America’s poor.  It is yet another example of the true essence of the GOP AKA POP – Privatization Old Party.

While also akin to announcing a saving's plan for a new car solely based around searching for pennies in the couch, the assault on Big Bird, Elmo, and friends is revealing.  And it ain’t all about the Benjamins.  The GOP’s disdain for Sesame Street is nothing new.  During the summer of 2011, Ben Shapiro, while making an appearance on Fox News’ Hannity,  “jokingly” announced his desire to “cap” the characters of Sesame Street.  He followed this up with more “serious” criticisms, denouncing America’s favorite kid’s show because of its “soft bigotry of low expectations,” its promotion of “gender neutral language,” and its advocacy to “give boys dolls and girls fire trucks.”  The other members of Hannity’s “great all-American” panel similarly spoke about the downgrading of America’s moral fabric, seemingly linking the messages of Sesame Street to the cultural wars.   The Huffington Post describes his criticism of Sesame Street in the following way:

Citing interviews with one of the show's creators, early episodes of the show featuring hippies and racial reconciliation and, more recently, incidents such as 2009's "Pox News" controversy, Shapiro writes that "Sesame Street tried to tackle divorce, tackled 'peaceful conflict resolution' in the aftermath of 9/11 and had Neil Patrick Harris on the show playing the subtly-named 'fairy shoeperson.'"

Patrick Harris, to Shapiro's chagrin, is gay. And, even scarier, Cookie Monster says cookies are only a sometimes food now; the venerable sweets machine has added fruits and vegetables to his diet, indicating a major liberal plot.

On Martin Bashir’s show on MSNBC, Shapiro similarly denounced children’s television for promoting “a self-esteem ethos, the idea that, to paraphrase Barney ‘everyone is special’; an unearned self-esteem.” In other words, it is a show for the 47%, who purportedly think of themselves as victims.  For Mitt and friends, Sesame Street coddles and placates this segment of society.

Yet, the attacks on Sesame Street (and by extension the liberal media and big government intrusion in family matters) are nothing new.  A 1992 column in The Economist similarly denounced Sesame Street as a liberal assault on American values:

The problem comes when the sensible tolerance and respect of “Sesame Street” are mutated into something less appealing. First, it becomes a kind of hypertolerance (which argues, for example, that the canon of black female authors is as rich as that of white male authors); which is merely silly. Second, it becomes an intolerance of those who do not practice this hyper-tolerance (so that anyone who argues that a canon of authors who happen to be white and male is better than the one picked by sex and skin color is a racist sexist); which is pernicious. It is the intolerance that has come to be called “political correctness”—or PC (Sesame Street, the acceptable face 1992, A30).

The talk of budget deficits and sensible economic policy is a farse, a rouse given the longstanding effort to divest from public programs, particularly those ideas of justice, equality, and social good.  The criticisms that “multiculturalism” or “tolerance” represents a vehicle for the “intolerance” for dominant values (white, Christian, middle-class) that have purportedly been central to America’s historic greatness are common to the broader culture.  Equally troubling to those critics of Sesame Street is not only tax-payer support for a program that is neither intended for white-middle class audiences (Shapiro notes the history behind Sesame Street), but in their mind devalues whiteness for the sake of multiculturalism agenda. 

To understand this criticism and to comprehend the right’s denunciation of Sesame Street mandates an examination of this larger history and the ways in which Sesame Street has built upon the civil rights movements and those concerned with justice, equality, and fairness.   In 1979, The New York Times identified the primary focus of Sesame Street as the “4-year-old inner-city black youngster.” Jennifer Mandel, in “The Production of a Beloved Community: Sesame Street’s Answer to America’s Inequalities,” argues that while the original intended audience for the show was “disadvantaged urban youth” who suffered because of “the limited availability of preschool education” the appeal and impact of the show transcended any particular demographic.  

While addressing structural inequalities and countering the systemic failures in America’s educational television was part of the show’s mission, it more masterfully offered a utopic vision of America and the broader world.  Joel Spring describes the mission of Children’s Television Workshop with Sesame Streetas one bound by a desire “to shape public morality” and offer “a standard as to what the world should be like.  Or as Robin D.G. Kelley might describe it, it is a show dedicated to the cultivation of “freedom dreams.”  Imagining a place of “sweet air” and “sunny days” that “sweep the clouds away,” where “friendly neighborhoods” meet and “doors are open wide” Sesame Street is a utopia worthy of any person’s imagination.  

The power of Sesame Street doesn’t merely resonate with its history, its efforts to challenge differential access to educational opportunities or even its emphasis “on the representations of diverse groups” (Kraidy 2002), but through its opposition to the normalization of whiteness; its power rests with its critiques of and counter narratives to hegemonic notions of identity.   No wonder Mittens and friends have no love for Sesame Street.

The examples of Sesame Street’s opposition and resistance to Mitt’s America are endless. The history Sesame Street is one where it sought dominant white racial frames, particularly those that reinforced the desirability and hyper visibility of white, male, heterosexual middle-class identities – Mitt and friends. The anti-Sesame wing of the GOP doesn’t just hate Big Bird or the cost to produce Big Bird, but the agenda, message, and dreaming available on Sesame Street.  

At its core, the criticisms directed at Sesame Street are racially coded and racially reactionary; it is not simply a matter of the unnatural celebration of undesirable and inferior identities and experiences but denying white male Christian identity its rightful place on America’s cultural mantle.  The argument offered by Willard Romney, Shapiro and others imagines Sesame Streetas a white-funded source of propaganda that unnaturally elevates racial (and sexual) Others all while denying the beauty and superiority of whiteness.   In their estimation, it is yet another program where he and his friends are paying for something that benefits the 47%.

Given the history of the show and the efforts to challenge, in message and in its opposition to invisibility, the systemic normalization of particular white identities, it is hard not to see his comments as part of a larger backlash against multiculturalism and any effort that unsettles the hegemony of whiteness.   It isn’t simply about liberal bias but the perceived threats to whiteness.  Should we be surprised that Mitt doesn’t like Elmo?  Cause surely Elmo don’t love Mitt’s vision of America.

***

David J. Leonard is Associate Professor in the Department of Critical Culture, Gender and Race Studies at Washington State University, Pullman. He is the author of the just released After Artest: Race and the War on Hoop (SUNY Press) as well as several other works. Leonard is a regular contributor to NewBlackMan, layupline, Feminist Wire, and Urban Cusp. He is frequent contributor to Ebony, Slam, and Racialicious as well as a past contributor to Loop21, The Nation and The Starting Five. He blogs @No Tsuris.

William 'Sandy' Darity Discusses 2012 Presidential Race in North Carolina on PBS NewsHour

PBS NewsHour

In 2008, North Carolina went blue for the first time since 1976, in large part due to a high turnout of African-American voters. But with enthusiasm ebbing over the down economy and unmet expectations among key voting blocs, turnout may be too unpredictable to know which way the state will swing in 2012. Jeffrey Brown reports.

Ill Doctrine: The Tale of the Tapes

How Mitt Romney’s 47 Percenter drama restored my faith in humanity.

Ill Doctrine: The GOPs Rick Ross Convention

Jay Smooth on how the Maybach Music boss wrote the blueprint for Mitt Romney’s convention.

Beneath a Romney Lie, A Racist Dog Whistle: Melissa Harris Perry on Maddow

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Ill Doctrine: We're on an Awkward Tour with Romney My Man

Trying to figure out what goes wrong whenever Mitt Romney interacts with members of the human species.

Ill Doctrine: Mitt Romney's Blackest Week Ever

Jay Smooth Looking back on Mitt Romney’s wacky week of adventures with black people.

Christopher Emdin: 5 Reasons Why Romney's Urban Education Plan Is Disastrous

5 Reasons Why Romney's Urban Education Plan Is Disastrous

by Christopher Emdin | HuffPost BlackVoices

In his most recent comments about education in the United States, and in a sampling of the rhetoric that will soon come from both parties as the presidential debates loom over the horizon, republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney pronounced that inequity in education is "the civil rights issue of our era." This statement is an echo of the sentiments expressed by President Obama a year ago when he also said that "[education] is the civil rights issue of our time." 

This positioning of educational inequities as a civil rights issue has been a part of the discourse for decades among educational researchers and experts lamenting the increasing educational gaps among youth from different race and class backgrounds. However, the most recent publicizing of these civil rights issues, and their visibility in the political sphere warrants some attention.

Last week, Mitt Romney released a paper outlining his education plans, and then visited a charter school in West Philadelphia, populated by urban youth of color, to tout his new message of civil rights in education for those who have been "denied an education" in urban schools.

As Romney walked the halls of the urban charter school, met with students and teachers, and provided sound bytes from his new education proposal, it became clear that there are certain messages about his urban education plan that those of us with a vested interest in the education of urban youth must pay attention to. This was made even more clear as he repeated these points during a number of speaking engagements where African-American and Latino voters gathered.

1) "As president, I'm going to give the parents of every low-income and special needs student the chance to choose where their child goes to school."

Romney's blind support of charter schools is indicative of a greater societal problem. The reality is that just because a school has their students in uniforms doesn't mean they're doing any better than neighboring public schools. The question of why charter and private schools are being endorsed so heavily should be paramount among those who have a vested interest in urban education. 

Is the intent to send a message about the fact that all public schools are bad and all alternatives that have roots/connections to privatization are good? If all public schools are indeed bad, what does that say about all the students in these schools and how they are viewed by politicians? Is there any truth to the fact that parents will have unlimited school options or are they limited to a "choice" of privately funded or charters that are often unproven as far as student success is concerned and are often experiments in how to engage urban youth? What implications does traveling hours away from their home have on youth, especially when they end up the only person of color in a school with affluent classmates who often don't want them there to begin with? Are they viewed as "the bad kid from public school"? 

Urban educators who ask these questions are NOT against ALL charter/private schools. In fact, I am not. However, I am against a narrative that is supported by a political campaign that presents public schools as beyond repair and charters/private schools as the only viable alternatives. 

2) "For a single mom living in a shelter with a couple of kids -- those kids are at an enormous disadvantage... trying to help move people to understand, you know, getting married and having families where there's a mom and a dad together has a big impact."

The statement above was made during a speech where Romney advocated for teaching youth who attend schools in impoverished neighborhoods about the benefits of two-parent families. While this may seem like a good idea by many, the assumption that socioeconomically disadvantaged populations choose to have children out of wedlock, and need to be taught to want the "traditional American family" with a "mom and dad" is problematic. First, it does not consider the larger societal biases that result in higher arrests for black/brown males that overwhelmingly affects sustaining "traditional" families in these communities. Furthermore, it does not consider the different models for family that are, and can be, perfectly functional.

3) "... it's not the classroom size that drives the success of school systems." 

The statement above has been repeated in many different forms by Romney in defense of his belief that classroom size is not a factor in student success. In his reasoning, he mentions education systems across the globe that have huge class sizes and still manage to be successful. This certainly does not mean that we should make our classes bigger or consider class size a non-factor in education achievement. It's important to consider that the private schools that Romney attended, and the ones his children attend, have small class sizes.

In essence, the Romney campaign is saying that class sizes in public schools can be as large as possible, while those in private schools will remain small. Both kinds of schools will then be compared to each other. This appears to be a deliberate effort to sabotage certain schools, and sends a strong underlying message that blindly supports a privatization of schools.

4) "... if school was a business"

Recent speeches by Romney have discussed his new education plan by making problematic comparisons between education and running a business. This has been a piece of much recent rhetoric on education which suggests that students are products to be manufactured, that teachers are workers that can and should be replaced by less expensive ones if possible, that schools should be for-profit enterprises, and that the entire enterprise can be led by business managers. Each of these notions does not consider that education is completely different from a business. Students are human beings and teachers are experts who develop their skills over time and should be compensated accordingly. A school's main goal should be should meet the students individual needs, not to make a profit. Most importantly, those who lead schools MUST have experience in education.

5) "Eliminate unnecessary certification requirements that discourage new teachers."

In any profession where people have the responsibility to give care to others, it is imperative that those who have this charge are properly certified for their job. The suggestion that teacher certification examinations should be eliminated, essentially means that the Romney camp believes that anyone can walk into a school, and begin teaching students. 

In public schools, it is imperative that teachers receive certification. In many cases, they must continually take classes, have at least a master's degree in their field, and take ongoing courses that include topics such as identifying child abuse while also improving their content knowledge. In many charter and private schools, teachers do not necessarily have to be certified. The hiring of non-certified teachers allows the institutions that hire them to pay low salaries (based on their lack of experience), and in the case of for-profit schools, increase their financial bottom line. This stance takes no consideration for the effects that poorly trained teachers have on student outcomes. 

Romney's "A Chance for Every Child" is no different that Bush's "No Child Left Behind." Both phrases tug at the heartstrings of the public, but the initiatives themselves are poorly constructed, laden with misconceptions about the nature of teaching and learning. This plan has no respect for teachers and public schools and treat the most vulnerable of our youth like commodities to be assessed, tested, and sold to private companies. Perhaps the real civil rights issue of our time is the politics of rhetoric, and the way that slick political campaigns function to demonize urban youth, pretend to extend a hand via privatization of schools, and concurrently ensures that the needs of urban youth are not met in the schools they are currently in.

***

Urban Education Expert, Dr. Christopher Emdin, is a Professor at Columbia University Teachers College and is the Director of Secondary School Initiatives at the Urban Science Education Center in New York. He holds a Ph.D. in Urban Education. Dr. Emdin has taught middle school science and mathematics, high school physics and chemistry, and was the chair of science departments in New York City public schools. Emdin is the author of Urban Science Education for the Hip-hop Generation.

Jay Smooth: "Cory Booker and the Young Money Clique"

illdoc1

Explaining why Cory Booker, who's usually the smoothest Mayor around, took a major L on Meet The Press last week. For background info see here: http://www.salon.com/2012/05/20/cory_booker_surrogate_from_hell/singleton/

NOTE: I've started a partnership with my people at Animal New York to make videos for you more often, and from now on my new videos premiere at http://animalnewyork.com/ I'll still be putting all my videos up here too, but only a week or so after they premiere over there (this video was originally posted on Animal last week)

Jay Smooth: Mitt Romney Scares The Crap Out Of Me

Goldman Sachs' 'Muppets' and Mitt Romney: James Braxton Peterson on MSNBC

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Lehigh Professor James Braxton Peterson and Ken Vogel of Politico on Martin Bashir | MSNBC

James Braxton Peterson on Mitt Romney's Image & Cash Problems

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Martin Bashir | March 13, 2012

Jay Smooth: "Phony" (A Song for Mitt Romney)

from ill-Doctrine:

After Jay-Z recorded "Glory" to welcome his new daughter into the world, I wondered what it would sound like if Republican voters made a song to welcome Mitt Romney as their now-inevitable nominee.

---------------------

"Phony" featuring W.M.R.
LYRICS:

Can't explain how uninspired i feel
Looking at this primary field
Mitt romney, I freaking hate you
I can't believe the nomination is you
You're phony.

False promises, false starts
Six different frontrunners falling apart
Now look who we're stuck with
The million dollar Tin Man with no heart.
One percenters, you dance for them
Then you switch up your stance for them
You're phony...

You are amazing, you're unbelievable
I mean literally, Icannot believe in you
Just an empty suit, who's really in control?
There's nothing in your soul except opinion polls
The fakest in a room full of fake actors
You've never paid dues, you barely pay taxes
And every time you speak it makes me hate you more and
It's not cuz your faith is Mormon it's cuz your so fake and boring.
You're boring. And Phony. So phony.
boring boring bo

You're phony it's never been disputable
You look phony in every interview you do
You look phony at weddings and at funerals
You even look phony singing America the Beautiful

You're the child of a party's legacy
Now you're the child that made that party dead to me.
You're a smarmy dog-torturing fake moderate turned fake conservative
What a terrible recipe.

Whistling Dixie (the remix): The Southern Strategy in the Age of Color-Blind Racism

Whistling Dixie (the remix): 

The Southern Strategy in the Age of Color-Blind Racism

by David J. Leonard | NewBlackMan

In recent weeks, with the GOP establishment coming to the aid of Mitt Romney and because of Newt Ginrich’s efforts to sell himself as an outsider, an increasingly visible narrative has emerged: as the anti-GOP establishment.  Given Newt’s racial politics and his entire campaign strategy, it is hard to think of Newt as anything but the GOP establishment.

At the same time, there has been a growing sentiment about the hegemony of colorblind racism within the GOP.  “Colorblind racism is the new normal in American conservative political thought,” writes Edward Wyckoff Williams.  The “2012 Republican candidates are using egregious signals and dog whistles to incite racial divisiveness as an effective tool for political gain. But when confronted about the nature of their offensive rhetoric, the answer is either an innocuous denial or dismissive retort.”   The codes or dog whistle politics are not new, nor is the denial.  While the audacity of race denial may be on the rise, the clarity of the GOP’s race politics have been on full display.  No secret decoder is necessary especially as we look at the larger history of race and the GOP. 

Like so many of his fellow competitors, Newt’s racial demagoguery, his demonization of people of color, and his efforts to scapegoat have been a daily reality during the 2011-2012 GOP presidential primary. This is nothing new from Newt, who has made his career on the demonization of “welfare moms,”  “illegals” and a “food stamp president.”  In 2007, Newt took exception with bilingual education, announcing: “We should replace bilingual education with immersion in English so people learn the common language of the country and they learn the language of prosperity, not the language of living in a ghetto.” 

This has continued during the current election cycle with his recycling of the Moynihan report and his policy initiatives focusing on teaching black kids a work ethic.   The language, the policies, and the centrality of race illustrate the profound ways that Newt Gingrich is the GOP establishment.  As the voice box for the racial ideologies and the torchbearer for the GOP’s southern strategy (demonizing people of color in hopes of galvanizing white voters to support a party that doesn’t represent their economic interests), Newt’s denied GOP credentials is almost laughable. 

This is the party of Nixon, whose southern strategy sought to scapegoat African Americans.  This is the same man, who talked about “Negro bastards" who "live like a bunch of dogs" on welfare rolls.  This is the GOP that was led by Richard Nixon, who one said:

Bill Rogers has got — to his credit it's a decent feeling — but somewhat sort of a blind spot on the black thing because he's been in New York," Nixon said. "He says well, ‘They are coming along, and that after all they are going to strengthen our country in the end because they are strong physically and some of them are smart.' So forth and so on.

My own view is I think he's right if you're talking in terms of 500 years," he said. "I think it's wrong if you're talking in terms of 50 years. What has to happen is they have be, frankly, inbred. And, you just, that's the only thing that's going to do it, Rose.

This is the party of Reagan, who described outrage from working Americans over the sight of a “strapping young buck using food stamps to buy T-bone steaks at the grocery store.”  When not demonizing black men, he spoke about “welfare queens” in Chicago, “who drove a Cadillac and had ripped off $150,000 from the government using 80 aliases, 30 addresses, a dozen social security cards and four fictional dead husband.”  This is the same Reagan, who started his presidential campaign in 1980 in Philadelphia, Mississippi with an “ode to state’s rights,” a theme that continued with his defense of segregationist Bob Jones University and his denunciation of the voting right act as "humiliating to the South."  As the patriarch of the party, it is no wonder that racist rhetoric and appeals are central to the 2012 campaign.  

This the party who used Willie Horton, who the Bush campaign portrayed as a dangerous super-predator, lurking in dark alleys, ready to kill and rape.  This is the party of Trent Lott, who at the birthday party of segregationist Strom Thurmond announced, “When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either.”

This is the party that brought us Barbara Bush, who after Hurricane Katrina, announced:

Almost everyone I've talked to says we're going to move to Houston...What I'm hearing, which is sort of scary, is they all want to stay in Texas. Everybody is so overwhelmed by the hospitality. And so many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway, so this -- this is working very well for them.

This is the party that has used ACORN, Jeremiah Wright, and blamed minority homeowners for the recession.  It is the party that popularized Barack Hussein Obama and used “pallin round” with terrorists with great frequency. 

This is the party of Rick Santorum, who routinely demonizes Islam, who has called for a “long war” with Muslims: “What must we do to win [against Islam]? We must educate, engage, evangelize and eradicate.”   This is the party of scapegoating “illegal immigrants,” the criminalblack man, the Arab terrorist; it is the party of fear and division, and one that is “addicted” to race-baiting.

Newt’s campaign, his constant deployment of racial codes, his demonization of communities of color, and efforts to mobilize white voters is representative of the GOP.  The frames, daily rhetoric of racism and demonization, which has been central to Republican politics for the last 40 years, is in fact the basis of his campaign. If it walks like an elephant, talks like an elephant, demonizes like an elephant, and stomps all over other people like an elephant, well he must be an elephant.

***

David J. Leonard is Associate Professor in the Department of Critical Culture, Gender and Race Studies at Washington State University, Pullman. He has written on sport, video games, film, and social movements, appearing in both popular and academic mediums. His work explores the political economy of popular culture, examining the interplay between racism, state violence, and popular representations through contextual, textual, and subtextual analysis. He is the author of Screens Fade to Black: Contemporary African American Cinema and the forthcoming After Artest: Race and the War on Hoop(SUNY Press). Leonard is a regular contributor to NewBlackManand blogs @ No Tsuris.

Jay Smooth: First Thoughts on Gingrich vs. Romney