RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment

Goldstein writes: "Former President Jimmy Carter, who has long put religion and racial reconciliation at the center of his life, is on a mission to heal a racial divide among Baptists and help the country soothe rifts that he believes are getting worse."

Jimmy Carter. (photo: Action Press/Rex)
Jimmy Carter. (photo: Action Press/Rex)

Jimmy Carter: Trump Has Tapped a Waiting Reservoir of Racism

By Laurie Goodstein, The New York Times

28 May 16


ormer President Jimmy Carter, who has long put religion and racial reconciliation at the center of his life, is on a mission to heal a racial divide among Baptists and help the country soothe rifts that he believes are getting worse.

In an interview on Monday, Mr. Carter spoke of a resurgence of open racism, saying, “I don’t feel good, except for one thing: I think the country has been reawakened the last two or three years to the fact that we haven’t resolved the race issue adequately.”

He said that Republican animosity toward President Obama had “a heavy racial overtone” and that Donald J. Trump’s surprisingly successful campaign for president had “tapped a waiting reservoir there of inherent racism.”

READ MORE your social media marketing partner


A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

-77 # HowardMH 2016-05-28 10:00
Carter absolutely nailed the issue.

His timing is just a little off - it started shortly after Obama took office and the whole world had figured out he was a wimp.

• The wimp runs the most secret administration EVER!
• Black Schools are decaying and falling apart with rats running around in the classroom while there are kids still trying to learn in those rooms.
• Out of 13 presidents since Harry Truman only 3 have been rated lower than the Wimp
• What other president would have the military drop leaflets over an area telling everyone we are going to bomb you in a few hours, before the air strikes started?
• When the French Aircraft carrier was deployed to Syria in response to the bombings in Paris, they destroyed more Oil Tankers in a few weeks than the US has destroyed in a couple of years. Obama the Wimp didn’t want the drivers to get killed, even though they were transporting Oil for ISIS to be sold on the Black Market. (I could go on with more examples of the Wimp, but if you haven’t got the message by now you never will).
+36 # Radscal 2016-05-28 14:15
I agree that the more blatant racism we see rising in the US really took flight after Obama was sworn in.

Republicans in Congress chose to obstruct anything he tried to do, including when Obama promoted Republican policies (most clearly with ObamaCare). In so doing, they opened the floodgates for overt racism to once again show its face, and proudly so.

When the corporate media showed us racist emails and tweets sent by politicians, business leaders and entertainers, they informed us that good old racial stereotyping was acceptable in high places. Many were happy to pick up that torch (in some cases, quite literally).

It should be noted that racism is growing more popular and fashionable in Europe, also. Far right-wing, exclusionary parties are gaining political power across Europe, fanned by the rush of refugees fleeing our Global War OF Terror and neoliberal impoverishment.

Even Latin America is seeing the return of the most European looking and leaning of their political leaders, after decades of growing political power by those with more clearly indigenous heritage.

Divide and rule. When will we finally learn that this strategy - as old as civilization itself - serves only the elite?
+15 # tswhiskers 2016-05-28 14:35
It will be interesting to see if the Reps. decide to "obstruct" Hillary as they did Obama. After all, even if she isn't black, she IS a woman and a Democrat, and we "all know" what frail vessels women are.
+8 # Radscal 2016-05-28 14:59
I don't expect Hillary to become President. Either the Democratic Party will come to its senses and let Sanders win the nomination, or Drumpf will destroy her. The only hope for her to become President would be if Drumpf has been a Clinton patsy all along.

But, if she did move back into the White House, since her policies are so far right, I expect the faux obstructionism would become even more of a kabuki theater than it has been under Obama.

Bear in mind that Obama HAS "succeeded" in continuing all the Bush/Clinton/Bu sh neoliberal/neoc on policies. Few of those issues even rise to the level of debate in Congress. It's mostly the "identity politics" malarky that gets actually obstructed.
+41 # vilstef 2016-05-28 10:09
Jimmy Carter is the quintessential good man, and I would make a small correction on this quote from the full article:

“The use of the word evangelical is a misnomer. I consider myself an evangelical as well. And obviously, what most of the news reporters thought were evangelicals are conservative Republicans.”

I would say the people he is speaking of are not conservative Republicans, but rather reactionary Republicans.
-10 # lorenbliss 2016-05-28 13:33
This "quintessential good man" not only (gleefully) signed the Hyde Amendment into law but was the first president to slash AFDC support for welfare mothers and their children.

Yes, what he is doing now is useful in a limited way (though we are unlikely to get rid of racism and classism until we get rid of its economic cause, which is capitalism).

But it is beyond me how you can call a theocratic misogynist and perpetrator of capitalism's war on the poor a "good man" -- especially since he has repeatedly stressed his lack of contrition for signing Hyde and slashing AFDC.

See for example: (This source is a Christofascist publication, which makes its revelations of Carter's continued efforts against women's sexual freedom extremely relevant.)

For a well-reasoned explanation of why Carter's opposition to sexual freedom is itself racist, see
+16 # Radscal 2016-05-28 15:06
I've mostly blamed Carter's heinous foreign policies (Iran, Indonesia and Afghanistan most blatantly) on his National Security Advisor, Zbignew Brzezinski. But you and others have reminded me of domestic policies that were very anti-woman, anti-labor as well.

His amnesty for Vietnam War "draft dodgers" won over some progressive/lib eral folks. And his work with the poor and in support of fair elections and the Palestinians has made him the best former-Presiden t of my lifetime.

But you're right that we shouldn't let nostalgia cloud our view of the facts.
+3 # tgemberl 2016-05-28 18:42
I read the article you linked to by Renee Bracey Sherman. Let me make this clear: I believe that women should generally have the right to end unwanted pregnancies. And I also realize that this is often even more urgent for low-income women and, therefore, women of color. But I don't agree with Sherman's analysis of the pro-life campaign to reduce abortion among women of color as "racist." If people are opposed to abortion, why wouldn't they try to discourage it among women of color? That's not to say their campaign is right, but why "racist"?

Much of what Sherman says about the history of oppression of black women is undoubtedly true. But can we really conclude that pro-life campaigners today are racist? Let's not overuse that word. Words that are overused lose their power.
+1 # Radscal 2016-05-28 20:44
I haven't read that article, but I have long heard the opposite argument that encouraging abortion (and birth control generally) is "racist." I believe it true that black women are more likely to have an abortion than white women.

And clearly, Margaret Sanger (founder of Planned Parenthood) was a racist eugenicist. She wrote and spoke about that quite openly.

This essay examines Ms. Sanger quite critically:

And here's an interesting collection of her racist and/or eugenicist quotes:

Please don't get me wrong. I support what Planned Parenthood has become, and firmly believe terminating a pregnancy should always and only be every woman's choice. But there are reasons why this particular anti-abortion argument strikes a cord with many people.
+3 # lorenbliss 2016-05-29 01:59
@tgemberl: you wrote: "I believe that women should generally have the right to end unwanted pregnancies."

"Generally?" What -- except when some Christian theocrat says they can't? Or maybe -- as Carter believes -- except when they're too poor to pay for what any Ruling Class woman can easily obtain even if abortion is illegal?

That said, I have no difficulty at all concluding anti-abortion campaigners are racist simply because they are mostly white Christian fanatics -- people who were violently racist long before abortion became an issue.

Such is the legacy of not only my years in the Bible Belt South, but also my years in New York City, where the typical devout Irish or Italian or Eastern European Christian is as malevolently racist as any Ku Klux Klansman.

This entire nation is awash in the venom of racism. To imagine its denial of sexual freedom to low-income people of color is not due to to racist malice -- specifically the malevolent white terror of certain minorities' alleged sexual prowess -- is to blind yourself to one of the more viciously perverse elements of the white segregationist mentality.
+3 # tgemberl 2016-05-29 13:37
As for "generally," I favor a compromise where women could have an abortion with no restrictions in the first trimester but not later unless it was necessary to save the life of the mother or in the case of incest, rape or serious deformity.

I understand that is generally the practice in America, anyway. From what I understand, few clinics will give an abortion to a woman after three months of pregnancy unless her life is at stake.

If we accepted this kind of compromise, I think there's a chance we could actually get a law passed on the matter on the national level. It's unhealthy for our democracy that this is currently treated as a judicial matter. It keeps us worrying about who is going to be on the Supreme Court. It should be something we can make decisions about as citizens.
+1 # tigerlillie 2016-05-31 04:07
[quote name="tgemberl"
... It should be something we can make decisions about as citizens.

Abortion should be something that we can make decisions about as WOMEN.
0 # lorenbliss 2016-05-29 02:36
Down-thumb me all you want, you cannot change historical truth, even if you choose to embrace ignorance: an abyssal, toxic ignorance that is as much a crippling plague on the USian Left as it is an inflammatory goad to the USian Right.
0 # lorenbliss 2016-05-29 18:20
Since many of you are too young (or too much in denial) to remember how Carter's signature maliciously enacted the Hyde Amendment and thereby FOREVER denied low-income women their rights under Roe v. Wade, here are three relevant links:

On the gleeful sneer with which Carter, an avowed Christian theocrat, signed Hyde into law:,9171,915176,00.html

On Carter's present-day, theocratically Christian uncontriteness for having signed Hyde into (permanent) law:

And here, in what should end this ignorance-based debate, is the denouement: Carter in 2005 denouncing the Democratic Party for its support of women's sexual freedom:

Again I say: down-thumb me to your heart's content, you cannot change the ugly historical truth that Carter did more damage to women's sexual freedom than Reagan and the Bushes combined.

And now there's Hillary, conspiring with Sam Brownback and his ilk to do even more such damage by "tunneling beneath" the Constitution, for which see "The Family: the Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power," especially pages 272-277.

Verily, the remnants of our liberty are infinitely more jeopardized by Christians than Muslims.
+2 # tgemberl 2016-05-29 20:11
Here is an excerpt from the Time article (1977). I subscribed just so I could see what it says:

"Life is unfair," John Kennedy observed at a press conference one day in 1962 … Abortion, of course, is a painful issue that has given rise to few ennobling ideas. Anyone who comes to an easy decision on the subject is probably a moral idiot. Four years ago, the Supreme Court declared it legal to terminate a pregnancy in the first three months, or up to six months in some circumstances. About a million legal abortions are now performed every year in the U.S.—a third of them paid for with Medicaid funds. But last month the Supreme Court decided, by a vote of 6 to 3, that the states and localities are free, if they wish, to deny Medicaid money for abortions. Both houses of Congress have made their contribution by passing provisions that forbid federal Medicaid payments for abortions, although the measures differ in severity."
+3 # tgemberl 2016-05-29 20:13
Part II.

"In other words, abortions are fine for the women who, on the whole, have the least pressing need for them: women at least well enough off to buy their own way out of their fecundity. The women (often young girls) who cannot raise the money must presumably either bear their unwanted children—thus bringing many thousands of new customers to welfare—or find some way, however dangerous, dark and filthy, to kill the fetus more cheaply. Such methods have had the result of sometimes disposing of the mother as well.

"When he was asked at a press conference about the logic of this, the President took up John Kennedy's line. "Well," said Carter, "as you know, there are many things in life that are not fair, that wealthy people can afford and poor people can't."

Where is the "glee" in that? The article disapproves of Carter's decision but never implies he made it without sensitivity.

Excerpt from the third article you linked to (a Catholic Community Forum):

“In fact, during the 1976 campaign for president, Carter said he opposed abortion but would not support a constitutional amendment banning abortions or one that would let states vote on the issue themselves.”

Are you saying that any religious-influ enced attitudes on the issue disqualify someone from office?
0 # lorenbliss 2016-05-29 22:35
Misposted my post below here by error.
+2 # tgemberl 2016-05-29 13:40
One other point. You said he "gleefully" signed the Hyde Amendment. So he was rubbing his hands with enthusiasm about it? I doubt it. You might get a better reaction if you didn't use such exaggerated language.

It does look questionable that he signed it. It sounds like Congress couldn't have overridden his veto, since less than 50% of the members voted for it (206 of 435).

But was he really that enthusiastic? Keep in mind that that was a period when evangelicalism was really on the rise in America. He may have thought signing it was a peace gesture to evangelicals, and that private agencies like Planned Parenthood would be able to give poor women the help they needed.
-1 # lorenbliss 2016-05-29 22:42
@tgemberl: I am saying what the (oft-violated) U.S. Constitution says: that we do not (yet) have a state religion, regardless of the efforts of Carter and his Bible-thumping ilk, Republican or Democrat, to make the United States an officially Christian (and therefore officially misogynistic) nation.

Apropos the "glee" associated with Carter's signature on Hyde, I am also saying that -- because I have witnessed, both as a journalist and as a private citizen, the infinite viciousness of Christian fundamentalists -- "glee" is a proper description.

As Carter himself admitted, his private views are far more extreme than he dared express in public.

Thus a better description of the Christian response to Hyde would be "obscene glee" -- chiefly because of the fear and hatred of sexuality that is at the core not only of Christianity but of all Abrahamic religion.

Indeed it is a fear and hatred so profound, the efforts to overcome it have built an entire psychiatric industry.

Obviously I am not going to change your mind, but I do want to illustrate the company in which you place yourself by your defense of Carter's Jesus-brandishi ng misogyny. Hence this parting link:

And then for balance, this:

Lastly, remember Christians have murdered more people in the name of their god than have been slain by all other ideologies combined.
+1 # tgemberl 2016-05-30 11:39
So you are saying that it's okay to say Carter was "gleeful" because you've seen some fundamentalists who were gleeful? You have not sent me anything that indicates he was, personally.

Why would "obscene glee" be a result of fear and hatred of sexuality?

Now, I want to make another point. I do believe women should have the right to terminate pregnancies, if for no other reason that we can't pass a lot that will make mothers love their children. Children should be invited into this world, as someone said once.

But the sexual revolution has not been an unmixed blessing. See for example this Time article:

The mix of sexual freedom and the capitalism you decry has some bad effects. There is also an accompanying piece on the effects of internet porn on women. Here's a quote:

"There is some indication that porn has a liberating effect: heterosexual male users are more likely than their peers to approve of same-sex marriage. On the other hand, they're less likely to support affirmative action for women. And porn users are also more likely than their peers to measure their masculinity, social status, and self-worth by their ability to score with 'hot' women."
0 # tgemberl 2016-05-30 12:38

The first article you sent above says Carter didn't benefit politically from signing the Hyde Amendment. The new Religious Right voted against him in 1980 anyway. But I can see how he might've regarded it as a good political compromise at the time.

Another point that I want to emphasize is that Roe vs. Wade was a major tool in the creation of Reagan's coalition that won in 1980. It allowed him to bring religious conservatives together with libertarian, business conservatives who didn't care about the unborn. Some of them thought, "Reagan wants to stop abortion, but I can vote for him anyway because we have Roe vs. Wade." If you think that's far fetched, let me tell you I know someone who thinks along those exact lines. For him, support for Republicans is about making government small and "kicking the bums off welfare," not any religious concern.
+1 # lorenbliss 2016-05-30 16:18
@tgemberl: My apology for what might be an interesting conversation despite our differences were I not burdened with preparations for temporary eviction from my apartment -- this so the landlord can renovate his building without any loss of rental income.

What the landlord is doing -- forcing us to pack for moving self and all possessions out for one or more days -- is an outrage. My understanding (from Tacoma officials to whom I fruitlessly complained) is it is illegal everywhere save Washington state, where collaboration between the Democrats and Republicans ensures that tenants remain perpetually powerless.

While the landlord's minimum-wage, mostly immigrant workers will do the actual moving, I -- a crippled 76-year-old -- must do all my packing, including 1,026 books. I also had to buy the packing supplies, $110.26 out-of-pocket. Never mind -- thanks to the state Democratic administration' s elimination of the telephone subsidy, its savage cuts in food stamps (88 percent) and Medicare Extra Help (82 percent), and the Obama Administration' s manipulations to avoid a 2016 Social Security COLA -- I now have NO discretionary income. In other words, literally forced to pay to maintain the landlord's profits, I am going without things I desperately need, shoes included.

Such is capitalism in action.

Hence the limitations in our dialogue: I have time to post only when I am resting, momentarily exhausted, from the excruciatingly painful work of packing.

+1 # lorenbliss 2016-05-30 16:48
(Just for the record, 1,026 books, nearly all hardbacks, fill 25 boxes 16"x12"x12" and weigh approximately three-quarters of a ton. I also have to disassemble the book shelves -- about a day's work with a screwdriver and total agony due to arthritis -- not just in my spine, wrists and knees but also in both shoulders. Hence I am admittedly a bit more peevish than normal about capitalism's innate savagery.)

That said, let us return to our disagreement over "gleeful." I was not only alive and conscious when Carter signed Hyde, I was also a member of the Working Press. (My career began 60 years ago next November.) Hence I will stand by my usage.

True, I was not present in Washington D.C., but some of my best federal sources were, and they described Carter's "life isn't fair" remark as "gleeful" and "smirking" and the most maliciously misogynistic comment ever uttered by a 20th Century Democratic president.

Indeed the outrage over his remark was more intense than the outrage over his signature. Why? Because the permanent (and ultimately fatal) damage Hyde did to the personhood of proletarian women would not be recognized for another three or four years.

But from whence -- and for what purpose -- comes your surprise non sequitur of "porn"?

As to the forcible conversion (or more aptly "perversion") of the U.S. into zero-tolerance Christian theocracy, that began in 1954, with the addition of "under God" -- i.e., the Abrahamic god -- to the Pledge of Allegiance.
+1 # NAVYVET 2016-05-30 20:53
It's not the only state where tenants have no rights!
0 # tgemberl 2016-05-31 19:49
It sounds like what you're going through is an injustice.

That's interesting that you live in Tacoma. I'm from Tacoma and still have family and friends there. I have been living in Birmingham, Alabama for 11 years.

President Carter was a man of his own time. He couldn't predict the future, as none of us can. I notice from the first article you linked to below (1981) that he worried about the deficit and thought military spending should be increased some. Those would not be surprising attitudes for politicians of that time. He thought Reagan's tax cuts would be inflationary. It's interesting that today, David Stockman, one of the people who criticized Carter in the article, realizes that the tax cuts were bad, that they caused the exploding national debt.

I think Carter has admitted that he has been a better ex-president than president.

I considered myself a socialist at one time, though never a Marxist. A major factor in my giving up belief in socialism was reading a book (around 1981) by Michael Harrington called Socialism. Though he considered himself a sort of Marxist, he gave good evidence in the book that the proletariat has never been a revolutionary class. His socialism was a "moral" socialism, or what I think Marx would have called "Utopian" socialism: socialism as the moral way to be, not the outgrowth of historical laws.

I brought up the porn article because your posts had emphasized the importance of sexual pleasure in life.
+1 # newell 2016-05-29 14:48
After having read many of your posts--just who is it that you do like?
0 # lorenbliss 2016-05-29 18:30
@Newell: if you have read as you claim, the answer to your question should be obvious: I support Sanders (though I doubt he has the chance of the proverbial snowball in hell).

And I will write him in rather than commit the patently immoral act of voting for either of the candidates, Hillary or Trump, offered us by the One Party of Two Names.

Remember I am 76 years old: that means Hillary will kill me no matter what -- either by slashing Social Security and further slashing Medicare (the Democrats have already cut my Medicare Extra Help 82 percent and my food stamps 88 percent) -- or by starting World War III.

While it is true Trump promises to preserve Social Security and Medicare -- and many Sanders-support ing seniors say that absent Sanders, that's why they'll vote for Trump -- I know history, which includes the lesson implicit in how Trump's idols Hitler and Mussolini promised world peace.
0 # lorenbliss 2016-05-29 22:39
Another posting error, damnit. See above @tgemberl.
+1 # tigerlillie 2016-05-31 04:03
I hope someone will let your senior friends who plan to vote for Trump if they can't vote for Sanders, because Trump promises to preserve S.S. and medicare, that he has already renigged on that promise following his meeting with Ryan Paul. I afraid that Trump will prove quite easily managed by the right wing should he be elected president.
I am with you, and refuse to vote for either monster.
+6 # Shades of gray matter 2016-05-28 10:57
vilstef-ABSOLUT ELY! "Conservativism " can be a very, very constructive philosophy. But authoritarian reactionaries have coopted the label to legitimize themselves. Unfortunately, reactionary & racist are dangerously intertwined in US: Make America WHITE Again. And it occurs in an era when rage is "in," when anyone unhappy with anything has a license to be self righteously OUTRAGED, directing the personal anger of their lives at public figures. Bad combo. So now you're either actively FOR trumpism or ACTIVELY against it; there are no sidelines when mass victims are being targeted for egregious oppression. Venting against lame ducks (of color) plays right into racist hands. Targeting PATHETIC DWS for bombardments of EMOTIONAL rage because you're unhappy is counter productive. You don't focus your attacks in-house when someone in the outhouse is gearing up for war, holocaust. That's pathological narcissism. Get OVER it; move on.
+5 # Shaas 2016-05-28 13:34
if he "has Tapped a Waiting Reservoir of Racism" then we can be thankful for showing what is the problem with America.

The most important thing about Trump is that he is since 10 yrs. consistently against wars outside of the USA, which are the source of unimaginable suffering. That is the main difference to Obama and Dollary who have the mouth full of social issues and peace but are bombing uninhibited acc. to their whims.
+4 # RMDC 2016-05-28 18:02
shaas -- good points.

Also, Trump is just following in the republican tradition since Nixon. It is the "southern strategy" as explained by Kevin Phillips. Trump may be a little more blunt about it and demogogic about it. But probably he is less virulent. Clinton as a "blue dog" democrat also practiced the republican "southern strategy." Hillary's "super predators" is of the same sort as Reagan's "welfare queens." Everyone knew that they meant African Americans by these terms, though they did not say it.

American politics is rife with racism and always has been. It just happens that Sanders is not a racist, Hillary has had no need to show her racism. So Trump stands out like a sore thumb.

It is all disgusting. Americans need to get over this. African Americans have contributed hugely to American life and culture. They are a valued part of America.
+1 # ojg 2016-05-28 18:49
The Trump supporters are alive and vocal at RSN today.
-1 # mmc 2016-05-29 10:11
As is usual, ojg. Trump is a blatant, unabashed racist, but somehow in many of these posts the hatred for all things Hillary puts her on the same race level as Trump, which is preposterous.
+6 # Sweet Pea 2016-05-28 20:06
Trump seems to say whatever pops into his head--no matter that he is insulting smaller people or women is kind of scary that he could be the leader of the U.S.A.. He seem to have not learned the rule of "think first and talk later".
-4 # Robbee 2016-05-28 23:50
i hate hatchetmen! - counting either bernie! or, as here, hill! out of a race against rump!

# Radscal 2016-05-28 14:59
I don't expect Hillary to become President. Either the Democratic Party will come to its senses and let Sanders win the nomination, or Drumpf will destroy her.
-2 # lorenbliss 2016-05-29 01:13
I am stunned by the political and socioeconomic blindness I am witnessing on the abortion issue here on RSN.

But such is the ignorance of a people who for nearly 70 years have been tragically denied access to Marxist analysis, first by the postwar purges, since then by censorship and propaganda as effective as anything orchestrated by Josef Goebbels in Nazi Germany.

Ergo, a primer: denying low-income women birth control and abortion -- as Carter did via Hyde and as his Christian colleagues will continue doing until all save the One Percenters are forced to choose between compulsory abstinence or forced breeding -- is oppressive simply because it abolishes their sexual freedom.

It is racist because at least half the low-income population of the USian Homeland are people of color.

The purpose served by denial of birth control under capitalism is the same as under slavery: a guaranteed supply of impoverished and therefore desperate, cheap and readily exploitable labor.

It also inflicts a level of sexual frustration that is sublimated into increased productivity. Capitalist psychology has known this for nearly a century, which is one of several reasons for the close and ironic alliance between the total moral imbecility of capitalism and the alleged "morality" of (innately misogynistic) Christianity.

Now do you get it?

That's why I cannot accept ANY Abrahamic theocrat as a "good man."

And no matter Carter's disguises, a theocrat he remains.
+8 # joejamchicago 2016-05-29 07:27
If every white person claiming to be concerned about racism would move into a predominantly Black neighborhood, we could end racism in a generation. Talk is cheap.
The farther white folk are from Black, the more they like them. I write as a 72 year old white man who has lived for the past 45 years in a neighborhood on Chicago's west side that is and has been 95+% African-America n since 1970.
0 # lorenbliss 2016-05-30 17:59
I will say it again -- because history is unequivocal on this point -- Carter with his smirkingly self-righteous, fanatically theocratic Christian fundamentalism did more damage to women's rights than all subsequent U.S. presidents combined.

He was also the first U.S. president to impose methodical cuts on welfare -- no doubt a manifestation of the "prosperity gospel" for which USian Christian fanatics are infamous.

Thus Carter, ostensibly a Democrat, was in fact the first president who made it obvious -- though only in retrospect -- the post-Kennedy USian Empire was deteriorating quickly into a despotism ruled by One Party of Two (deliberately deceptive) Names.

Here are a pair of relevant links, the first about Carter himself, the second about the murderous impact of the war on the poor Carter began -- the program of slow-motion genocide that remains a primary endeavor of the One Party of Two Names:

Being mainstream media links, these cannot be readily dismissed as "Communist propaganda."

Obviously this thread is filled with closed-minded Carter disciples who are either too young to remember his betrayals of women and the 99 Percent or have been seduced into forgetfulness by historical revisionists. So be it.

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.