I point this out, Tom, not because its not true. But that it should actually matter. Mormons are different too. So are catholics. But those differences aren't stessed when discussing politics of people of these faiths. . Only the "black versus White".

no, when Kennedy ran for President, his being Catholic was indeed brought up. Oh wait, was he black? According to your "fact" it must be so?

and if someone voted for a less qualified candidate simply because of his race, either because it made them feel good about themselves or simply because they were also that same race, that would most certainly be a racist reason. Why can we agree those who voted for McCain for no reason other than Obama was black, those were racist reasons of course, but so were those 'feel good" votes, if it was for no reason other than race, it's racist plain and simple.

I am not going to cry foul, sure the Republicans lost quite a few votes to blacks who voted racially onlt, yes there were quite a few votes lost to these "feel good" voters as well. But the Democrats certainly lost plenty of votes to those bigots who voted for the white guy for race reasons, doesn't change the fact that feel good voters were racists as well.

GMTom wrote:and if someone voted for a less qualified candidate simply because of his race, either because it made them feel good about themselves or simply because they were also that same race, that would most certainly be a racist reason. Why can we agree those who voted for McCain for no reason other than Obama was black, those were racist reasons of course, but so were those 'feel good" votes, if it was for no reason other than race, it's racist plain and simple.

So if a voter decided the most important issue for him this election would be that America elects his first non white/female president and voted for Obama or Hillary that would automatically be racist/sexist motives ? Just wondering, because i'm not sure i would agree with that, interesting thought though.

I have several observations on this topic

(1) I see where Randy indicated that a white man voting for a black man on the basis of race would be racist. I have to disagree. I think it distorts the meaning of racism to allow the word to cover this situation. Racism should be defined as favoring your own race over other races, usually with negative characteristics attributed to the other race. The real danger of racism is when one group is racist and has power over another group. It is typically not true that blacks have power over whites; it is much more likely that whites would have power over blacks. You cannot equate the racism of a minority group with that of a majority group with a disproportionate share of power. I think minority groups can still be racist (some on the left would argue that they cannot be racist because they have little power) but it is not equivalent to white racism, to the extent that white racist exists

(2) Do we really think that 45 years after the Civil Rights Act that we would have a society where race is not a factor? There is this tendency among many whites to have this knee-jerk reaction whenever someone says that race might be motivating a person’s actions. A person subscribing to this belief might say that “Yes, slavery was terrible, and blacks were mistreated in the South and had to go to separate drinking fountains but that is all over now and people are throwing the race card around when someone is accused of being racist…” There is a significant part of our society that grew up in a country where minorities were not equal to whites. We’re only talking 40-50 years ago. And of course there is a large amount of people who were raised by parents that grew up in a society that was not equal. It is thus unlikely that the effects of conscious, legal racism would fade so fast.

(3) To say that we are generally not a racist society is to ignore how our brain works. We are not like Spock--we cannot rationally just decide to be race neutral. We have a neo-cortex where reasoning goes onbut we also have a much older limbic system that provides emotional content to our reasoning process and an even older amoral reptilian brain where we have our primitive drives. Yeah, we can rationally decide that there is no reason to think that any race is inferior but our thought processes are not driven by a Spock like reason,

(4) I know of at several studies indicating that the amygdala in Whites will react to a Black face. See http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~mrbworks/ar ... 00_JCN.pdf The amygdala is a significant player in our fight or flight response and it acts quicker than you can rationally respond to a situation. I have seen at least one other study indicating that the amygdala is activated in Blacks even when they see other black faces (one thinks of the studies referenced in Brown vs. Board of Education where African-African girls liked white dolls) These studies indicate that while conscious racism might be low ( a good thing), behavior driven by unconscious emotional processes probably is affecting a great deal more people to a greater or lesser degree

(5) Of course the argument can be made people are acting rationally when they have a fear response upon seeing an African American face, given that they are more likely to have a criminal record. But that is the point. Our brains are conditioned to promote survival. When you see the other, someone who we don’t know, then our brain tries to assess the threat by coming up with general characteristics it associates with that particular other. In our culture people have internalized negative stereotypes about African Americans that cause our amygdala to see them as a threat. Now, of course, when more information comes in (they speak like you do, they are educated, they act in a non-threatening manner, and you get to know them) then the stereotypes fade and you know the person as an individual. But I don’t think it is a stretch to assume that when you talking about how you feel about a person you don’t know (Obama, for example) then those negative stereotypes will have an effect


(6) All this is not to say that Republicans cannot be justifiably irritated if their well-thought criticisms of Obama are sought to be trivialized as being due to racism. However, when you recognize that the existing science indicates that is virtually impossible for someone to be race-neutral (whether you have negative or positive stereotypes about other races you are very unlikely to have a blank slate with regard to other racial groups because your rational part of your brain is not in total control), and that in our culture negative stereotypes in particular are attributed to African-Americans, then I think you probably want to keep your criticism of Obama limited to substantive issues . When you start bringing up ridiculous issues like Obama’s birth certificate you are inviting charges that your opposition to Obama is based in part by unconscious fear/dislike of Obama because he is black.

Personally I think that there are elements within the Republican hierarchy who, while not actually racist themselves, have recognised that there's an awful lot of Americans who respond to dog-whistle insinuations about Obama and whose votes are worth having. So all the birther stuff is tacitly encouraged. Senior Republicans don't get involved of course because they know it's all nonsense, but they're quite happy for the lunatic fringe to keep banging away because it energises the crazies, and the crazies have nowhere else to turn when the next election comes around.

The problem with this is that along comes somebody like Donald Trump who recognises that he doesn't need to just nod and wink towards the crazies, he can directly appeal to them and steal a march on his rivals. So now what ? How do mainstream Republicans (assuming such a creature still exists) respond ? Do they totally repudiate the lunatic fringe, thereby alienating a powerful constituency in the primary race, or do they move closer to their position to try and win their votes away from disastrous candidates like Trump ? Either course presents difficulties. You'd think the logical thing would be to leave Trump to it and try to take the high road, but will that get you onto the ticket ?

no, when Kennedy ran for President, his being Catholic was indeed brought up.

Yes. That was 50 years ago. Can you imagine it being an issue today? Do you think Mormonism will be an issue that defines Romney the way being black defines Obama?
And when that was going on (Kennedy) what was the state of equality for blacks? The battle for civl rights was just beginning.

You don't heal a racial divide created by 150 years of slavery and another 125 years of discrimination in a generation. And you certainly don't heal it when there is an actual tolerance for blather about race that isn't justified by evidence. The best example would have been Glen Beck's pronouncement that "The president has a deep seated hatred for whites".
Here's a man on a national televison network making outrageous, and even in his interviews about the claims, unsubstantiated claims . (He never even bothered to be specific) Yet there was no fall out for him . Indeed his comments were treated with respect and repeated ad naueseum in the media.
The fact that "birtherism" is also a reflection of that acceptance of the casual acceptance of racially charged claims in the presidents direction doesn't seem odd. America has always tolerated, and even celebrated cranks. As long as they diminish the opponent or the position that one opposses, some will allow cranks to rise up and say any damn thing.
A politician who had a respect for objective truth would have disowned the birther issue repeatedly But republican pols who saw it as a "stoke" for the base tolerated the nonesense. And tolerance of it made it legitimate. Until it wasn't.
It was a perfect issue for a person like Trump who has only a passing familiarity with honesty or ethics. And Trump is a perfect personality for a nation that celevrates, every so often, demagogues.
Racism will disappear for good, when it stops being useful to people . It will stop being useful for politicans when the media and the public challenge it and call it what it is whenever it raises its head. But that still doesn't happen.

ummm, how come we have heard things from the left regarding some Republicans religious beliefs regarding creationism? If they believe the world was created by a big bang or a big God, how does that affect anything as far as the Presidency?It doesn't and It and plays into nothing but the religion issue. What about other candidates running such as Jews and Mormons? Their religion comes into play even though it does not affect their positions. To pretend it doesn't come into play is just a flat out lie.

And the question earlier
Anyone who votes based on race is racist by definition, voting on sex is sexist by definition.

Discriminatory especially on the basis of race or religion.

and it would seem you Obama supporters want to claim any and every criticism is based on racism? Why is this birth issue one of race? Why is it assumed this is a race issue, I don't get it, nothing but nothing about it has to do with race. This is nothing but a convenient diversion, don't like what someone has to say? Blame it on race.

GMTom wrote:ummm, how come we have heard things from the left regarding some Republicans religious beliefs regarding creationism? If they believe the world was created by a big bang or a big God, how does that affect anything as far as the Presidency?

I would argue that being religious implies a lack of critical thinking ability that i think is necessary for a person leading a nation. People probably wouldn't vote for a person that believed the Easter Bunny is real or Odin or Batman, but if one believes in God that's somehow perceived as positive.
I'll probably never understand that.

Being an American implies a lack of critical thinking, so what? If you're leading a nation of religious people in a democracy than if you have adequate thinking skills you'll conclude that it makes sense to be religious, no?

??? He looks brown to me!

Neal Anderth wrote:Being an American implies a lack of critical thinking, so what? If you're leading a nation of religious people in a democracy than if you have adequate thinking skills you'll conclude that it makes sense to be religious, no?

In terms of being elected it certainly would make sense to be religious or at least fake it. The former still would mean that you're believing in the cousin of the Easter Bunny and the later would make you dishonest. Plus i really don't think you can consciously chose to believe, from the talks i've had with religious people it's some sort of emotional need.

GMTom wrote:and it would seem you Obama supporters want to claim any and every criticism is based on racism?

Really? I don't see that anywhere. Some have suggested that a lot of it is, but that's not the same as 'all' (and not even the same as 'most'). Straw Man alert!

Why is this birth issue one of race? Why is it assumed this is a race issue, I don't get it, nothing but nothing about it has to do with race. This is nothing but a convenient diversion, don't like what someone has to say? Blame it on race.

It is not nothing to do with race, and while you may think ones parentage and ones birth are separate issues, it's not actually completely different. It's not 'assumed' to be an issue of race, it's been noted that a portion of the opposition to Obama concerns his race, some his alleged nationality, and some his religion. It is also unfortunately the case that certain code-triggers allow racists to say stuff that they would be rebuked for were it more explicit, under the cover of the birther issue.

I'm sure that to you the issue is not one of race. But that doesn't mean that everyone who opposes Obama thinks like you. And just because those of us who support Obama (or rather in some cases, oppose him less than they would a Republican) see some of that opposition as racially motivated does not mean that we are saying it all is.

Too complicated?

Faxmonkey, What's the point of being an atheist (rhetorical)? There are plenty of top notch scientists that are theists. If nothing matters in a grand sense beyond our own perception of reality than religion makes perfect sense in regards to having a framework for life that you appreciate. Atheists have to have some framework that makes living sensible to them.

You hardly need to look farther than Redscape to see that often religion is just one of many factors to consider. Take the NeoCons that can't imagine the solution to any problem that doesn't involve violence. They are made of both avowed atheists and the very religious. The same can be said of the radical libertarians at Redscape, both religious and atheist.

What do you care if I'm religious, or I you if you're atheist, if neither of us is trying to impose on the other?

The overwhelming majority of top scientists are either confirmed atheists or agnostics with a distinct atheistic bias.

But anyway, I don't think Faxmonkey does have a problem with religious people per se, he'd just prefer not to vote for somebody who passionately adheres to irrational beliefs because he suspects that this implies impaired judgment. I agree with him, although in practice I couldn't possibly say that I'd never vote for a strongly religious candidate because there are so many other factors that would affect how I choose to cast my vote.