The Dangerous American Love of Conspiracy Theories

For a political party that once upon a time largely valued knowledge, science, education and purportedly personal responsibility, the GOP has morphed into something very ugly.  Now, ignorance, victim-hood, open bigotry are all the norm for the majority of the GOP base.  Worse yet, much of the base seems only to ready to embrace whatever conspiracy theory that fringe elements of the far right might float.  In response, some Democrats have shot back with their own conspiracy theories, although most have a least a shred of reality to support them.  A piece in Politico looks at the conspiracy theories plaguing the 2016 elections.  Here are highlights:

This weekend, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani told Fox News Sunday viewers that Hillary Clinton was seriously ill. The media, he said, “fails to point out several signs of illness by her. … Go online. Search for ‘Hillary Clinton illness.’ Take a look at those videos for yourself.” The idea that Clinton is secretly wrestling with some unknown illness is just the latest conspiracy theory to go mainstream in an election season chock full of them. Conspiracy theories, which I’ve studied for the past seven years, have always been part of American politics, but they’ve tended to pop up in the dark corners of our political discourse, serving mainly as sideshows to more important political disputes. Not so this year; I’ve never seen a time when they so dominated the mainstream debate—and when they had the potential to do so much harm.

Whether it was witches colluding with Satan during colonial times, Freemasons nefariously controlling the government in the 1800s or communists coopting the State Department during the Red Scare, Americans have always been drawn to the idea that certain people or organizations are working in secret for their own benefit against the public good.

Despite this, the United States has not gone off the conspiracy theory cliff because our elite politicians and mainstream news sources generally eschew this type of heady theorizing. A few politicians or news sources might allege a plot from time to time (think Sarah Palin and her Obamacare death panels), but these are usually a result of overheated partisan rhetoric and they tend to receive intense backlash. That was, until now. Donald Trump, one of two people likely to be president next year, has been propagating, and now creating, conspiracy theories as a major theme of his campaign. There’s an obvious reason for this: Donald Trump has branded himself an “outsider.” In my research, I have found that conspiracy theories tend to work best when they are employed by outsiders, electoral losers and statistical minorities. These “losers” have to use conspiracy theories to justify their outsider status, explain away losses and call accepted practices into question.

There is nothing fundamentally wrong with conspiracy theories. They have their positive attributes: Sometimes they turn out to be true (think Watergate, for example), and sometimes they bring new information to light (such as securing the release of many documents pertaining to the Kennedy assassination). But too many can distort ourperception of reality, squander precious government time and resources and endanger lives—especially when they move out of the fringes of political life and become the currency of the truly powerful.

Here are the five most dangerous conspiracy theories of 2016 . . . . . 1. Mexicans and refugees are murderers, rapists and terrorists  Danger: Violence - Donald Trump has accused Mexican immigrants of being pawns in a Mexican conspiracy to send murderers and rapists to America. He also has accused refugees, fleeing their tattered homeland and shattered lives, of working against the government as ISIL agents.

In this case, however, the typical model is reversed: The strong (a man running for U.S. president with the backing of a major political party) is accusing the weak (refugees and minorities). This is a more dangerous type of conspiracy theory because those in power can actually act on their wild hunches, sometimes with deadly consequences.

2. “There’s something going on” Danger: Mass paranoia - A favorite go-to conspiracy theory of Trump’s, used in different circumstances at different points during the campaign, these four words suggest that our governmental institutions and our institutions for disseminating information are not only malevolent, but also engaged in a cover-up of epic proportions.

This conspiracy theory is useful for Trump because it lets him avoid specifics; it’s also dangerous because it’s open-ended, leaving Trump supporters plenty of room to connect their own dots. What is, in fact, “going on”? . . . these four words suggest that everyone is in on it, we need to watch our neighbors, keep an eye on the government and watch the president’s body language like a hawk.
This style of conspiracy theorizing—leaving the details for people to figure out on their own—is advantageous because it gives people less to disagree with.

3. Trump/Clinton is a Manchurian Candidate Danger: Institutional distrust, political polarization - Criticizing Clinton for her mishandling of classified emails, Trump suggested that the Democratic nominee is now beholden to the Obama administration, which decided not to prosecute her. Trump also suggested that other countries now have evidence to blackmail or control Clinton, given that they have been able to hack her private email server. Shooting back, the Clinton campaign put out an ad suggesting that Trump is an agent of powerful Russian interests. Americans of all political persuasions should be able to trust that the two candidates who could lead the national government aren’t pawns to other interests. When they start to doubt their leaders’ loyalty to the country, institutional distrust can skyrocket.

4. Vast right-wing conspiracy Danger: Lack of accountability - There are conspiracy theories; and then there are conspiracy theories about conspiracy theories. This particular one was born during the height of the investigations into then-President Bill Clinton’s business practices and personal life. During a Today Show interview, then-first lady Hillary Clinton dismissed the burgeoning Monica Lewinsky scandal: “The great story here for anybody willing to find it and write about it and explain it,” she said, “is this vast right-wing conspiracy that has been conspiring against my husband since the day he announced for president.” Conspiracy theories aren’t reserved for Republicans. Hillary Clinton has held on to her conspiracy theory that the right wing is in league against her and her family to this day; in fact, she claimed this election cycle that the conspiracy is “even better-funded” now.

5. Everything is “rigged” Danger: Disenfranchisement and alienation - The campaigns of Trump and Sanders repeatedly alleged during the primaries that the nomination process is rigged. Earlier this month, Trump claimed that in states without voter ID laws in place, fraud will be rampant and people will be voting “15 times.” And he asserted that the only way the Clinton campaign can win Pennsylvania is if “they cheat.”

We’ve seen what can happen when people seize on conspiracy theories about fraudulent and rigged elections—despite there being no evidence of mass voter fraud. Over the past few years, similar beliefs have led state legislatures across the country to enact restrictive voter ID laws. But rather than fix a system that wasn’t broken to begin with, these efforts have been shown to disenfranchise minority voters. This year, if Trump deploys supporters to polling stations across America to monitor for fraud and challenge voters’ legitimacy as he is promising to do, the results could be similar.

But such claims about election fraud pale in comparison to the larger allegations that the entire system is rigged.

Far from being helpful, this sort of rhetoric is dangerous. First, it allows for scapegoating (“my lot in life is the fault of the 1 percent”) and indictment (“the rich and powerful have gotten that way only through illicit means”). It also brings about hopelessness and alienation—the feeling that we have been locked into an unfair and degrading system by a few people who wish to abuse us. These sorts of conspiracy theories also serve to depress the vote, as those who believe that elections and governmental processes are rigged will most likely stay home; this weakens our democracy.

The High Cost of the GOP's Populism

With the blame game having started in the wake of Donald Trump's fall in the polls, many Republicans are blaming each other for the problems faced by their party .  Hard core Trump supporters blame the "never Trump" Republicans and/or the "Republican elites" for Trump's decline.There is little effort among the majority of Republicans to admit that  (i) their party selected a horrific candidate and (ii) past GOP policies, including fanning the flames of racism, have helped create the anger that is the main force behind Trump's support. Conservative columnist Michael Gerson puts the blame across the board and particularly goes after the ultra conservatives in Congress.  Here are column highlights: 

With defeat now the likely outcome for the Republican presidential nominee, the blame shifting has begun early and in earnest.

Isn’t it more likely that Republicans are losing because their candidate has committed enough gaffes to torpedo 10 campaigns? Because he has premised his appeal on prejudice? Because he displays no appreciation of constitutional values and offers himself as a strongman? Because he has no knowledge of, or interest in, public policy? Because he is an erratic narcissist with a compulsive need to crush and humiliate his critics? Holding Never Trump forces responsible for all this is akin to blaming the spectators in Lakehurst, N.J., for the Hindenburg disaster. The pointing and gawking did not cause the flames.

A more sophisticated form of blame by other conservatives goes like this: Yes, Trump is a poor vehicle for the blue-collar, populist revolt, but that uprising was invited by the arrogance and indifference of globalized elites, including Republican elites. Chief executives, politicians and Wall Street types live in a bubble of affluence, caring little for American interests and lacking sympathy for their fellow citizens who are sinking into despair, addiction and the floodwaters of Louisiana.

For the record, I am in favor of the Davos set becoming more sensitive to the struggles of their countrymen. But all these fat cats at Coca-Cola, Monsanto, Pfizer and Microsoft deserve at least a bleat in response. They are leading participants in an economic system — with its global supply chains, freely moving capital and rapid innovation — that, during the past 20 years, has taken about a billion people out of extreme poverty around the world. This is arguably the greatest humanitarian achievement in history.

The United States has benefited from being the most engaged and adaptable economy in this global system — selling goods in other countries and buying goods (cars, smartphones, clothing) that have dramatically improved the daily lives of nearly every American. But rapid economic change has also laid waste to whole industries and the communities sustained by them, resulting in toxic stress and terrible suffering. Since the 1940s, American manufacturing output (as a percentage of gross domestic product) has been remarkably stable. But manufacturing employment has fallen by about two-thirds (as a percentage of the U.S. workforce). This is not so much the result of CEOs making a quick buck on outsourcing as a reflection of automation and global competitive pressures.

Our political system has been negligent in helping millions of Americans adapt during a period of rapid economic change. But those on the left and right who promise to reverse the process of globalization are economic charlatans. Their main policy response — tariffs and other forms of protectionism — is a proven path to trade wars and global recession, which hurt the vulnerable most. 

Conservative economics offers three positive alternatives: Provide a growth-oriented economic environment (including opportunities to sell overseas). Give workers the education and skills to succeed in a modern economy. And subsidize the wages of lower-skilled jobs to provide a decent living. 

Who are the obstacles in pursuing such policies? On the latter two, they are not globalized elites; they are more likely to be conservative ideologues. Thirty American CEOs at Davos would come up with several ideas to improve, say, educational standards. Thirty members of the House Freedom Caucus would oppose all of them on principle. In fact, conservative populists are now working along with education unions to undermine rigorous education standards, apparently on the theory that educational failure is acceptable so long as local officials do the failing. 

The response to these economic arguments from populists is usually ad hominem: Of course an elitist would say something like that. Which is particularly annoying coming from conservative elites, who are embracing the cheapest form of populism, involving no intellectual energy, no policy innovation and no actual help for those in need. The poor deserve better tribunes.

Gerson has a point.  Driving home yesterday I heard a portion of a Trump "speech" and it was all generalities aimed at exciting his followers with no on single specific policy proposal.  Just a blame game and selling himself as a strongman/dictator who would make things "change."

Tuesday Morning Male Beauty - Bonus Photo

Tuesday Morn Male Beauty - Pt 1

Louisiana Floods, Trump and GOP Climate Change Denial

Trump on his photo-op mission with hate merchant Tony Perkins

At the moment the far right nose machine is busy maligning President Obama had not visited areas of Louisiana struck by flooding last week and contrasting Obama's supposed indifference with Donald Trumps photo-op inspired mission of mercy to Louisiana.  Never mind that the governor of Louisiana asked BOTH men to stay away so as to avoid interfering with relief efforts or draining off manpower for security details.  Obama honored the governor's request and waited until this week to visit.  Trump, being always all about himself, ignore the request to stay away.  A column in the New York Times looks at both Trump's self-centered conduct, but also the larger issue of GOP climate change denial that will make floods such as the one in Louisiana ever more common.  Here are column highlights:

A disaster area is no place for political theater. The governor of flood-ravaged Louisiana asked President Obama to postpone a personal visit while relief efforts were still underway. (Meanwhile, by all accounts, the substantive federal response has been infinitely superior to the Bush administration’s response to Katrina.) He made the same request to Donald Trump, declaring, reasonably, that while aid would be welcome, a visit for the sake of a photo op would not.

Sure enough, the G.O.P. candidate flew in, shook some hands, signed some autographs, and was filmed taking boxes of Play-Doh out of a truck. If he wrote a check, neither his campaign nor anyone else has mentioned it. Heckuva job, Donnie!

But boorish, self-centered behavior is the least of it. By far the bigger issue is that even as Mr. Trump made a ham-handed (and cheapskate) effort to exploit Louisiana’s latest disaster for political gain, he continued to stake out a policy position that will make such disasters increasingly frequent.

In case you haven’t been keeping track, lately we’ve been setting global temperature records every month. Remember when climate deniers used to point to a temporary cooling after an unusually warm year in 1998 as “proof” that global warming had stopped? It was always a foolish, dishonest argument, but in any case we’ve now blown right through all past records.

And one consequence of a warmer planet is more evaporation, more moisture in the air, and hence more disastrous floods. As always, you can’t say that climate change caused any particular disaster. What you can say is that warming makes extreme weather events more likely, so that, for example, what used to be 500-year floods are now happening on an almost routine basis.

So a proliferation of disasters like the one in Louisiana is exactly what climate scientists have been warning us about.

[W]e face a clear and present danger, but we have the means and the knowledge to deal with that danger. The problem is politics — which brings us back to Mr. Trump and his party.

It probably won’t surprise you to hear that when it comes to climate change, as with so many issues, Mr. Trump has gone deep down the rabbit hole, asserting not just that global warming is a hoax, but that it’s a hoax concocted by the Chinese to make America less competitive.

But when it comes to denial of climate change and the deployment of bizarre conspiracy theories to explain away the evidence, Mr. Trump is squarely in the Republican mainstream. He may be talking nonsense, but anyone his party was likely to nominate would have been talking pretty much the same nonsense.

It’s interesting to ask why climate denial has become not just acceptable but essentially required within the G.O.P. Yes, the fossil-fuel sector is a big donor to the party. But the vehemence of the hostility to climate science seems disproportionate even so; bear in mind that, for example, at this point there are fewer than 60,000 coal miners, that is, less than 0.05 percent of the work force. What’s happening, I suspect, is that climate denial has become a sort of badge of right-wing identity, above and beyond the still-operative motive of rewarding donors.

In any case, this election is likely to be decisive for the climate, one way or another.  President Obama has made some serious moves to address global warming, and there’s every reason to believe that Hillary Clinton would continue this push — using executive action if she faced a hostile Congress. Given the technological breakthroughs of the last few years, this push might just be enough to avert disaster. Donald Trump, on the other hand, would do everything in his power to trash the planet, with the enthusiastic support of his party. So which will it be? 

Monday Evening Male Beauty

Christofascists Rally Around New Faux Study on Sexual Orientation and Gender

As noted in a post earlier today, the Christofascists go to all lengths to avoid admitting that their supposedly inerrant Bible is deeply flawed and in many instances simply untrue.  That same refusal to accept science and objective reality flows over into the never ending effort to sustain the myth that sexual orientation is changeable.  Why?  Because, if homosexuality is a natural phenomenon in nature - in God's plan, if  you will - then their one of their major arguments for condemning homosexuality falls apart.  Likewise, the purported prohibitions in Leviticus are exposed for what they are: the efforts of a small fringe demographic to differentiate itself from older, larger and more advanced surrounding cultures where homosexuality was accepted - e.g., the Persian Empire and Hellenistic cultures.  

In keeping with this seemingly never ending effort to embrace ignorance and rejection of scientific and medical knowledge, the Christofascists are hailing a new "study" that claims that sexual orientation is not fixed - and is therefore changeable - and that rejects much of the existent knowledge on transgender individuals.  In the wake of the repudiation of the sham study done by Mark Regnerus, the Christofascists are desperate for something to keep alive their anti-LGBT lies.  Their lifeline?  A "study" by Lawrence Mayer and Paul McHugh published in “The New Atlantis,” a non-peer reviewed journal co-published by right wing organizations (the current co-chairman of one of them is a founder of the National Organization for Marriage).  For those not knowledgeable about the term "peer reviewed," it means that articles and studys have been reviewed and approved by legitimate scholars and experts.  Non-peer reviewed journals are one step above pay to publish journals which will publish almost anything so long as the author pays the going price to have his/her piece published.  Right Wing Watch looks at the near orgasms being experienced by professional gay haters such as NOM's Brian Brown.    Here are highlights from RWW:

Anti-equality organizations are enthusiastically promoting a new study on sexual orientation and gender, hoping it will be new culture war ammunition.

The study by Dr. Lawrence Mayer and Dr. Paul McHugh appears in “The New Atlantis,” a journal co-published by the right-wing Ethics and Public Policy Center and the Center for the Study of Technology and Science, which shares an address with EPPC. The New Atlantis is not a peer-reviewed journal, and has critiqued peer review, widely considered the gold standard in scientific publishing.

Among the authors’ contentions are that the belief that sexual orientation and gender identity are innate or fixed properties is “not supported by scientific evidence.” The study also says that the stress of social stigma is not a sufficient explanation for higher rates of mental health and substance abuse problems in LGBT communities.

Mayer says that McHugh initially approached him to review a monograph he had written and the project expanded from there. The prominent but controversial McHugh is a Catholic in his mid-80s who has described himself as “religiously orthodox, politically liberal, and culturally conservative – a believer in marriage and the Marines, a supporter of institutions and family values.” The new study builds on a body of work that dismisses the notion of transgender identity. TransAdvocate and others challenged McHugh’s “selective reading of transgender medical literature” two years ago, and ThinkProgress critiqued his work in 2015.

Brian Brown at the National Organization for Marriage can hardly contain his excitement about the new study, writing in a letter to supporters, “The importance of this new study cannot be overstated.” He urges people to “help spread the word” to “make sure that this groundbreaking research gains the wide hearing it deserves despite what will surely be a concerted effort by the media to bury its findings.”

Also participating in the roll-out is the Heritage Foundation’s Ryan Anderson, one of the most prominent opponents of marriage equality. Anderson says the study’s findings undermine the Obama administration’s requirement that schools accommodate transgender children as well as the Supreme Court’s marriage equality ruling.

Anderson has written a book and spoken widely about how the anti-equality movement should reject and resist the Supreme Court’s marriage equality ruling.  Anderson has urged the anti-equality movement to conduct new research (citing  the widely discredited Mark Regnerus study on “family structures”) to create “new insights” that future Supreme Court justices could use as justification for overturning Obergefell.

As readers may recall, the Regnerus "study" was funded by right wing, anti-LGBT organizations and basically picked the conclusion it wanted to reach and doctored the "research" data to achieve that desired result.   Given the authors of this new attack on LGBT individuals, especially Paul McHugh, an ultra-right wing Catholic, I fully expect that dissections of this "study" will similarly tear it to shreds.  Not that the coming repudiation will deter the "godly folk" Christofascists from lying through their teeth.   Other than perhaps Donald Trump, no one lies as often or as viciously as the "godly Christian" crowd. 

Trumpism is a Politics of Loss and Revenge

A piece in Talking Points Memo looks again at the issue of whether Trump's rise is driven by economic decline and marginalization due to globalization, etc., or racism.  As the piece concludes, racism and perceived loss of white privilege is the real driving force.  The irony, however, is that it is those with the least exposure to immigrants and those they deem "other" who are most loyal to Trump's toxic scapegoating of basically anyone who is non-white.   Here are some column highlights:

I wanted to return to what is certainly the stupidest and yet also one of the most important debates of the 2016 cycle: Trumpers, angry racists or economically stressed victims of globalization? By calling it the stupidest debate I don't mean to insult anyone. I've participated in it to some degree and I generally place myself on one side of it. But like any debate which seeks to make a fixed ideological orthodoxy over whether the chicken preceded the egg or vice versa, it can't help but degenerate into something semantic, embattled and ultimately stupid. In any case, it is still a critical question since Trumpism is a hugely significant development in contemporary US politics. So we need to understand what it is, where it comes from and where it's going.

I want to start with this massive study of Gallup data by Gallup's Jonathan Rothwell which attempted and went a long way toward furthering our understand of Trumpism. For many the big takeaway was that the study had debunked the 'economic anxiety' theory because after controlling for race, education and other factors, it wasn't the most economically marginal who supported Trump. Indeed, greater affluence among non-college whites was positively correlated with supporting Trump. Ergo, no more economic anxiety explanation.

I tend to come down on seeing Trumpism more through a racial prism. But seeing the above evidence as ruling out 'economic anxiety' is a naive way of thinking about how societies and social groups work.

In any case, I don't want to go too far down the rabbit hole of seeing Trumpers as modern day revolutionaries. My point is that this kind of crude reductionism, on either side of the debate, proves very little. We don't simply respond to our own personal experiences but the collective experience of communities we identify with.

Two data points from the study seem much more telling to me. First, Trump support is highly correlated with areas experiencing rising mortality rates for whites - a massively important societal development, in addition to a tragedy for the many people affected. When that revelation was hot at the end of last year, some of the follow up debunking showed that a closer analysis of the data showed that the highest mortality spikes were among middle-aged white women. Critics said, well the angry Trumpers are mostly men, not women. So this argument falls apart. Once again, these correlations aren't that simple or linear.

The second, relatively little discussed, finding is that the people who are responding most to the anti-immigrant, anti-refugee politics are those most isolated from both groups. In other words, the people responding most to anti-immigration politics and xenophobia are ones living in fairly racially homogenous and white communities.

I don't want to attempt some grand overarching theory of Trumpism. But, broad brush, I continue to believe that it is best understood as a reaction to the erosion of white privilege, supremacy and centrality in American life. 

That brings us to the second key point: Trumpism is about loss. And that loss is real. It's not just about being haters or uneducated or stupid. The fact that what's being lost is in most respects something that wasn't legitimate to have in the first place - status, centrality and racial privilege - should not blind us to the fact that the loss is real and that it will have political consequences. As I mentioned when I wrote up that mortality study last December, I think this demographic and actuarial marker - an almost unprecedented reversal of a particular group's mortality statistics - is hugely significant to understanding our contemporary politics. It almost unquestionably points to some acute socio-cultural stress. It's just a matter of discovering what it is.

I looked this up when I started looking at the polls showing Hillary Clinton competitive or even in some polls ahead of Donald Trump in Georgia. There's a powerful story here. If you were a 25 year old white man in Georgia in 1980, you lived in a state that was almost literally black and white. And whites were the overwhelming majority of the population. A mere thirty six years later the picture is dramatically different. According to the 2015 US Census estimate, non-Hispanic whites make up only 53.9% of the population. The African-American population makes a up slightly larger percentage of the population - I assume descendants of the early 20th Great Migration returning to the state. The same year Hispanics made up 9.4% of the population, Asian-Americans made up 4% and the remainder is made up of citizens who identified as being of multiple races or 'other'. If you identify politically and culturally with your whiteness this is a profound and profoundly unsettling change.

If you look at the Georgia Republican primary this year, Trump won the overwhelming number of counties. But if you look at the percentages, he did best in counties with the lowest median incomes and those with relatively low percentages of white voters. (Of course, the GOP electorates were overwhelmingly white basically everywhere.)

One of the best and most frequently cited arguments against those who see Trumpism as driven by economic insecurity and globalization is: if that's the case, why does he get basically no support outside of the white community since non-whites are at least as economically stressed as whites and in most cases far more so? The best rebuttal is that if you're pushing a politics about globalization and declining economic opportunity which scapegoats non-whites as the source of the problem, of course you're not going to get a lot of traction with the people your scapegoating.

All true enough. But if you look at the language of Trumpism we see repeated references to getting stuff back, reclamation, anger. This is a politics of loss and grievance. The appeal of an extreme dominance politics is particularly to those who feel they've lost power and who feel increasingly marginal to the direction of the country as a whole. There's a strong theme of Trumpite rhetoric that is about revenge. Put that all together and I think the driving factor is the erosion of white dominance in American life. African-Americans, Hispanics and other rising racial and ethnic minority groups may have grievances or demands for greater inclusion, dignity and respect in American life. But pretty much by definition they're not looking to reclaim something that was taken from them or something they've lost. It is inherently future oriented in a way that this burgeoning white nationalism is not.

It makes perfect sense that this sense of loss and griavance would be felt most acutely by those lowest on the economic and education scale. But go back to what I said about Trump getting his biggest support with people with least contact with the country's new immigrant. If you're more affluent, consider yourself among those succeeding in contemporary America or live in one of the areas that is already defined by the more racially and ethnically diverse America that will define the 21st century, I think you're less likely to politically identify with your whiteness and the loss one inevitably experiences if that is a primary identification. It's hardly like economically vital and diverse major metropolitan areas are filled non stop post-racial Kumbayas. But if that's the world you live in, I suspect you tend to see Trumpism as if not offensive than simply an anachronism. This is almost certainly why Trumpism has virtually no purchase among the young. The numbers are actually quite astounding. A recent McClatchy poll showed Trump running 4th - behind Gary Johnson a nd Jill Stein - among voter 18 to 29 years of age. Jill Stein was at 16% and Trump was at 9%.

Of course, under 30 voters are considerably more diverse, less white, than the electorate as a whole. But they're not that diverse. Even among young white men, Trumpism seems to have very little traction. Trumpism is a politics of loss, nostalgia and grievance for a past these young voters have no experience of. It's driven by attitudes they find offensive or alien.

Why Hillary Clinton Might Win Georgia

A thoughtful op-ed in the New York Times looks at the demographic changes occurring in Georgia and how, in some ways as has happened in Virginia, the Republican Party's increasingly overt racism and socially reactionary policies are alienating moderate Republicans and independent voters.  It compares Donald Trump's campaign to that of George Wallace which played well with segregationists but which failed to gain support of educated  and more moderate whites.  The history of the Republican take over of the South and how it may now be unraveling is thought provoking.  The lessons will likely be lost on the GOP.   Here are op-ed highlights:

Atlanta — Recent polls show something that has caught even the most optimistic liberals by surprise: Hillary Clinton is tied with Donald J. Trump in Georgia, catching up with him in South Carolina and generally showing strength in traditionally Republican parts of the South. It seems like the Democratic dream come true — demographic changes are turning Southern states purple.

But this story has less to do with the future than the past, and both parties run a risk in misreading it. Mr. Trump’s racially charged hard-right campaign reveals a fault line in Republican politics that dates from the very beginning of G.O.P. ascendancy in the South.

The Republican’s Southern Strategy is one of the most familiar stories in modern American history: Beginning in the 1960s, the party courted white racist voters who fled the Democratic Party because of its support for civil rights.

But things were never quite so simple. Yes, racial reaction fed G.O.P. gains in the 1960s and ’70s. And yes, Barry Goldwater called it “hunting where the ducks are.” . . . . Goldwater, however, maintained that he was going after college-educated white collar professionals who were building the modern Southern economy. 

That was the vision he described in his speech at the Georgia Republican Convention in May 1964. . . . Goldwater had a point. It was Southern businessmen who grew the party in the 1950s.

Yet there were never enough of these sorts of Republicans to put together electoral majorities in most Southern states. A notable exception was Virginia in 1969, where Linwood Holton, the father-in-law of the current Democratic vice-presidential candidate, Tim Kaine, put together a progressive Republican coalition to win the governorship. In almost every other case, however, the G.O.P. had to have the old Dixiecrats, too.

The scene played out dramatically at the Georgia Republican convention where Goldwater spoke. He left for California immediately after his speech and thus missed the political decimation of Georgia’s Eisenhower Republicans. In a six-hour political rout, hard-line segregationists swept them out, along with longtime African-American leaders.

The new order was symbolized perfectly later that campaign season when South Carolina’s Democratic senator Strom Thurmond, the Dixiecrat presidential candidate in 1948, switched parties. Thus was established the political strategy in the South that Republican presidential candidates have followed ever since — melding an overtly conservative, socially moderate economic appeal aimed at the middle class with a politics of rage geared toward disaffected white voters.

Ronald Reagan folded in religious conservatives in the 1980s to replace the generation of Dixiecrats dying off, thus consolidating the powerful mix of cultural reaction and economic conservatism that is modern Republicanism.

Yet this year that mixture may not work. Mr. Trump’s extreme language and divisive policies are alienating moderate Republicans in places like the Atlanta exurbs — where Mrs. Clinton is running nearly even with Mr. Trump. And across the state, polls show a significantly low number of Republicans saying they’ll support their party’s candidate.

Mr. Trump’s campaign most closely resembles the presidential campaigns of George C. Wallace, the arch-segregationist Alabama governor. Indeed, Wallace’s legacy is telling. . . . . he never had much appeal among the new class of suburban whites; the two were like oil and water. So, too, it would seem, are Donald Trump and moderate Southern Republicans today.

Whether or not Republicans hold on to Georgia and South Carolina this year, the lessons they are likely to take away are predictable. Democrats will assume that these states, like Virginia and North Carolina, are part of a long-term liberal trend and push traditional liberal ideas harder in future elections. Republicans will most likely write off Mr. Trump as a one-time phenomenon and not do anything. In doing so, both parties will ignore lessons from the history of the Southern conservative majority.

What might be happening instead is something new in the South: true two-party politics, in which an urban liberal-moderate Democratic Party fights for votes in the increasingly multiethnic metropolitan South against an increasingly rural, nationalistic Republican Party. If that happens, it will transform not only the politics of the American South, but those of America itself.

Monday Morning Male Beauty - Pt 2