Thanks for your response and continued engagement on this question, Donna. Just to restate what I sad above about the "southern strategy" -- my claim was not that Democrats had also been responsible for the historically specific goals that phrase refers to, but that they are also complicit in the "moral problem driving" it. Part of this moral problem, as I see it, is to accept (even for pragmatically noble ends) that "political reality" is so determined by right-wing agendas that no serious discussion of race and related topics can be on the policy table. Perhaps you disagree that the Democratic party is complicit in accepting (and to that extent, helping to perpepuate) the political landscape we have, and if so, we may have reached an ideological impasse based on what we think is politically "realistic". But, at any rate, I hope that clears up the actual claim I was making above, which was not about the "southern strategy" itself, but the general absence of any serious discussion of race in the national political discourse.

As far as this election, I'm with you -- I very much hope Romney doesn't win; but I'm not as optimistic as you about Obama's noble intentions. There's too much of a mismatch between his rhetoric and his record for me to believe he's simply helpless before the evil forces across the aisle. I, for one -- and I think many other "idealistic" young folk, progressives and leftists -- would still be in Obama's corner if he had put his money where his mouth was on campaign finance reform, not been arguably more hawkish than Bush on foreign policy, not passed the NDAA and other civil-liberty eroding acts, said or done anything about what Michelle Alexander calls "the New Jim Crow" (the atrocious prison-industrial complex) or its close ally (the War on Drugs), not so quickly erased the words "public option" from his healthcare agenda and replaced it with state-optional expanded coverage which further benefits the private insurance industry, and surrounded himself with an economic team that wasn't chock full of pro-Wall St advisers. Perhaps the "political reality" is that you have to get your hands a little dirty to plant some seeds of change, but most of us are also aware how much a candidate's "reality" is shaped by the people with whom they willingly surround themselves and the Big Money they choose to accept.

Right, well I didn't mean to imply Obama or his spokespersons should make an explicit agenda of it -- I just meant that they have allowed their policies and overall rhetoric to be so manipulated by the right-wing narratives that they end up unable to take a strong stance on issues that disproportionately affect the black and brown poor. Of course our leaders job is specific policy goals, but it's also to lead with vision and honesty, and it's hard for me to see how any admin could address the War on Drugs or prison labor or these new voter ID laws without ever mentioning race. And so I just think we have to admit that the moral problem driving the "southern strategy" isn't limited to the GOP, when we see that -- for all the genuine progress Obama's election represents -- he knows he still can't go anywhere near racially-charged issues without a world of "race card flipping" backlash, and so his answer is to strategically distance himself. Ta-Nehesi Coates's essay in the recent Atlantic, "Fear of a Black President," lays out this racial paradox with nuance and depth.

I'm not blaming him or Dems alone for our political context, and I agree with you that de-moralization has largely to do with corporate power's influence over our political process. But the Obama admin made their bed, too, and I feel he's been a far too-willing servant of narrow monied interest. I agree he's done some good -- you mention his support of gay marriage, and of course DADT and the Lilly-Ledbetter Act -- but even with his centerpiece healthcare bill, I find it shameful how little genuine reform it actually pushes. Perhaps it's not his fault that it's "politically risky" to try to minimally expand coverage for the poor, but our whole conversation about that legislation would look different if we had mainstream leaders independent from the insurance lobbies and others who have a vested interest in prohibiting any real alternative to the current system.

No doubt. Great article Brad. I detect a certain resonance here with Ta-Nehesi Coates's in-depth essay "Fear of a Black President" in last month's The Atlantic. Both touch on the ongoing social expectation that cultural blackness needs to be muted in order to have a non-threatening place in positions of power.

Excellent article Donna. I fully agree, though I also believe the leadership of the Democratic party, as witnessed in the Obama administration, have so adapted themselves to corporate power that they cannot speak meaningfully or boldly about the racial components of our society. Obama's striking omission of all talk of race, and his refusal to take stances on the issues most explicitly linked to it (such as the war on drugs or prison-industrial complex) is a clear sign that Dems often lack moral backbone here, too.

I worry especially about the new '2016' movie showing in theaters, where the far-right wing Indian-American director gives credence to the racism of the GOP by "uncovering" Obama's true identity as grounded in his African father's anti-colonialism -- which of course turns out to equal anti-Americanism. I have several MS family members who I know have seen that film and left feeling totally persuaded Obama is trying to turn "our America" into one of "those" countries. (there's a great JFP article to be written there, by the way!!!)

I'm deeply saddened, but I have to say totally unsurprised, to learn about this. Not the riot itself -- which makes total sense, when placed in context -- but the context itself is what saddens me.

I think the CCA is one of the most destructive, immoral institutions in America today. Mass incarceration -- what Michelle Alexander discussed as "the New Jim Crow" (in her recent book by that name) -- is one of the major moral challenges American society faces today.

I appreciate this article for giving us a glimpse into how that problem is being perpetuated in our state.

Well, fine -- but sounds like too little, too late, to me.

When will an oil spill -- hell, even an oil drilling -- *prevention* council be on the table?

I can't believe this is even serious legislation. What better example of imposing cultural preference as law could there be? I hardly ever find myself agreeing with a Republican, but Fisher is right in this instance.

To be blunt, I'm also surprised that an African-American Board of Supervisors would even consider supporting this, with its obvious racial overtones. It has resonances of a Jim Crow law, in my opinion -- we're offended how *those people* dress, so we should use the language of objectivity morality and law to impose our distaste for their lewd character. I find the whole notion ridiculous.

(Sorry, the last clause of that first paragraph above was meant to be:)
"and we don't actually have an electoral process that is democratic."

There seems to have been an unusually high level of rape-related stories catching at least the social media spotlight this year: the Daniel Tosh joke, Julian Assange, now the Akin gaffe.

Hopefully all this will help shift the national conversation toward greater awareness of the severity of this issue and more sensitivity to our culture's ongoing misogyny.

I agree and appreciate the challenge, Brad. Very well-put. I do wonder, though, if it's not also time to be realistic about the profound structural limits of all our candidates. What I mean is, I'd argue that we are in a national context in which the electoral process has been essentially compromised, since elections are literally bought and sold to the public, and so we have a two-party system that gives us the appearance of choice, whereas in reality, both candidates work for Wall St (or the lobbyists funding their campaings), and we don't actually but isn't actually democratic at its base.

I've been away from Jackson from a long time, but now that I'm coming back, I'm anxious to see if we find ourselves in a similar situation, locally. I'm certainly not presuming the situation is the same, but if it were, I'd be more reticent than you are to equate "political involvement" with voting or simply working *within* the process of electoral "representation" -- perhaps it would mean, then, organizing and working to fundamentally change the system of representation.