Lincoln also was presiding over a bitterly divided country undergoing a terrible crisis, facing a determined, ruthless oppositon that publicly insulted and ridiculed him, doing everything they could to humiliate and obstruct his policies. He also succeeded in re-election to a second term because of a majority of the American people’s faith in him.

We are watching history being made.

For example, there are certainly liberal bigots, and many conservatives are fair, tolerant and color-blind people. And we know there are people of color who are conservative themselves. There is nothing in conservative dogma or philosophy that necessarily promotes or depends on hatred of other races. The pattern we see is much more subtle than that, and it is not cultural, it is due to deliberately planned, cynical political calculation.

The strong correlation between conservatism and racism is the result of historical circumstances, specifically, the “Southern Strategy”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

adopted by Richard Nixon in the 60s to capitalize on Southern States anger at Civil Rights legislation championed by Democrats. It was wildly successful in turning the South from a Democratic stronghold to a Republican one. You will recall that many blacks used to vote Republican due to the legacy of Abraham Lincoln and the Civil War/Reconstruction Era. Reversing that polarity was a triumph of Machiavellian politics, and a tragedy for America.

“From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don’t need any more than that…but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That’s where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats.”
-Kevin Phillips, Nixon Political Strategist

This strategy was evolved and refined so that by the 80s, celebrated Right Wing thug Lee Atwater could be quoted in an interview:

Questioner: But the fact is, isn’t it, that Reagan does get to the Wallace voter and to the racist side of the Wallace voter by doing away with legal services, by cutting down on food stamps?

Atwater: You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger” — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now [that] you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I’m not saying that. But I’m saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.”

I grew up in the South and I was old enough to see this unfolding right before my eyes. It played a great role in forming my own political opinions. I wasn’t black, but I was “colored”, or at least I was viewed that way by many of my neighbors, and I knew someday Atwater’s plan could very well be applied to me, too.

There’s a little bit more to being a Liberal than just “I love big government and I want free stuff.”

Yeah TB, there was never anyone who thought Obama had an edge right? No one ever needed to unskew polls for any reason. LOL

But there is a big difference between determination and committment and pure bravado and boast, bullying and smug arogance.

I pride myself on being cautious, careful, respecting the capabilities of the other side and even trying to see their point of view–to a fault. (No contest is EVER totally one-sided, we must always pick the lesser of two evils.) But maybe I overdo it. It’s probably cost me a few close contests, but it has saved me from being ambushed and massacred a few times too.

As for voting for the “winning side”, I don’t agree. I don’t believe on-the-fence people are likely to rush out and vote for a candidate they believe will win, on the contrary, it leads to apathy. Look at that guy whose wife ran him over for failing to vote for Romney.

I am more inclined to think people who can’t make up their minds tend to vote for the perceived underdog. At least, that’s how my brain is wired.

If there was such a thing as an ‘on the fence’ voter, I think they’d rather have their vote come down on what they perceive as the winning side.