U.S. television screens are filled these days with images of President Bush making the rounds in Beijing.  Given the xenophobic perspectives of those who control the flow of images, every effort is being made to present him in a positive light.  Nonetheless, he appears to be a lost man in search of a real mission.

After dithering a few months ago regarding the possibility of boycotting the Olympics in order to protest China’s brutish campaign to quell demonstrations by Tibetans bent on independence, Bush announced that he would indeed attend the opening ceremony.  This decision didn’t go down well with the rabidly anti-China segment of his domestic constituency.  Possibly in response, he delivered a speech laced with tepid criticism of China the day before he entered the Middle Kingdom.

Since his arrival in Beijing, President Bush has apparently devoted the major portion of his time to jock-sniffing U.S. athletes.  As a result, his frequent appearances on television while attending various athletic competitions combine to convey the impression of a confused man in search of something meaningful to do with his time.   I might note the shots of him attending a Christian church service in Beijing in order to elaborate the point.  After the service, President Bush stood before television cameras and opined about the importance of religious freedom.  But it is hard to ignore the fact that his unsolicited comments about the subject would carry far more weight in the U.S., China, and the rest of the world, were it not for the base manner in which members of his administration have savaged the rights of Muslims over the past six years.

It seems reasonable to make a similar critical observation regarding President Bush’s hapless hectoring of China’s officials about the need for them to be more supportive of human rights.   It is undeniable that China can and should do a great deal more to improve its support for human rights.   Nonetheless, George W. Bush is probably the least appropriate person in the world at this moment to make that case.  The op-ed cartoon recently featured in the San Francisco Chronicle captured the inescapable irony associated with his effort to lecture China’s leaders on the topic.  In the cartoon President Bush is presented kowtowing before a Chinese leader seated on an ancient throne.  Bush is sermonizing about the importance of China supporting human rights.  Unfortunately, he is standing in two buckets of hardening cement, one labeled “Afghanistan” and the other “Iraq.”

The point to be understood is that it is becoming increasingly difficult to take President Bush seriously.  Having needlessly and heedlessly squandered the major portion of the goodwill associated with his position as leader of the so-called “free world,” here in the United States he is seen more and more these days as a national embarrassment.  The man who strode the planet just a few years ago claiming authority of the sort historically associated with conquering Roman Emperors,  is much diminished in impact, stature and credibility.

Brought to heel by disasters such as the Katrina holocaust, the Iraqi insurgency, torture scandals and the long running legal travesty unfolding in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, it is difficult to see him as anything more than a little man possessed of archaic sensibilities and narrow vision.  The opinion commonly expressed these days here in the United State is that the very last day of his term in office will not arrive soon enough. 

Excepting his dog Barney, and members of his immediate family, virtually everyone else–including a massive segment of his Conservative base—has tuned him out.  As a result, President George W. Bush has come to be seen as yesterday’s man.  He is vainly searching for face saving gestures that are proving to be too little too late.  He has blown it, and it is time for him to leave.  Thus, his curiously unfocused sojourn to Beijing is more than a little sad. 

Given his youth and relative inexperience, it is not surprising that Senator Barack Obama is a work in progress. This is a significant source of his infectious appeal to many U.S. citizens, and the impressive number of foreigners who are following the current U.S. presidential contest with the same level of excitement and incredulity as the rest of us. My key point here is that Senator Obama’s youth and inexperience are sources of strength and weakness.

For example, because he is new and relatively unknown outside Illinois until recently, the Senator’s supporters routinely fill-in-the-blanks regarding what they think he stands for, supports or opposes. Thus, it is not uncommon to encounter Obama supporters who discuss him in an almost messianic fashion. Such folks appear to be convinced that, through the force of personality, and the clever deployment of charm and charisma, Obama is destined to right all that is wrong with the U.S.—and much of the rest of the known world. Projections of this sort, based as they are on vague hunches and unrestricted trust, may eventually produce consequences that haunt Senator Obama and the rest of us.

On the other hand, the Senator’s relatively spare track record makes it relatively easy for those who oppose him to present negative, and highly offensive statements and charges against him, which are obviously intended to influence the thinking of those who are uninformed—or in search of convenient reasons to support the tradition of elite white male hegemony in the White House. The persistent allegations that Senator Obama is a closet-Muslim are representative of the kinds of mean-spirited slurs his opponents are intent on surreptitiously distributing among the ignorant with increasing frequency as the presidential campaign enters its final phase.

I assume that most of the baseless fantasies and scurrilous allegations being launched at the Senator will sort themselves out by election day. But the possibility exists that they will not, largely because they are rooted in the Senator’s youth and inexperience. In any event, I want to cite Senator Obama’s recent commentary regarding African Americans, and his thoughts on the proper role of the U.S. regarding foreign affairs, in order to highlight some of the dangers inherent in his inexperience.

However much he denies the fact, Senator Obama is using the bully pulpit provided him by virtue of his position as the Democratic Party’s presumptive nominee for the presidency, to publicly berate African Americans in ways that are hurtful, condescending, ignorant and somewhat cowardly. I am specifically addressing comments he made in his recent Father’s Day address, during which he castigated African American males for their alleged shortcomings as husbands and fathers.

I am also addressing similar comments he is expected to make during a featured address at the Annual convention of the NAACP tomorrow regarding the alleged tendency of African Americans to shirk personal responsibility, and blame society for their problems. Taken together, the Senator’s comments indicate that he is willing to play the so-called “race card” in ways which placate racist white Americans in order to win their support. This may prove to be a successful short-term strategy, and it may help Senator Obama get elected president. But in the long run, it is probably going to prove destructive to Senator Obama and the country as a whole.

In any event, the racist nature of his “tough love” attacks on African Americans (males in particular) become apparent when we consider what the Senator has not said about whites who engage in personal and socially irresponsible behavior. He obviously could have used his Father’s Day address to castigate and berate such whites. But he didn’t, and he doesn’t intend to. His primary objective with his niggers-need-to-shape-up commentaries is sending a not so subtle message to white America that if elected he is prepared to be hard on colored people. Nonetheless, it is improbable that he will be able to govern effectively if elected without support from the same niggers he is throwing “under the bus” during this phase of his unprecedented presidential campaign. I want to believe that an older, wiser Barack Obama would understand this indisputable fact.

Regarding Foreign Affairs, Senator Obama has set forth an agenda that is far less committed to change than to maintaining the U.S. Empire via military hegemony. Excluding his specific disagreement with the Bush administration regarding the War Against Iraq, most of Senator Obama’s positions regarding foreign affairs are depressingly similar to those of the current residents of the White House. In other words, the most important difference between Brack Obama and George W. Bush is that the Senator apparently believes he can accomplish his goals and objectives via the use of intelligence and charm instead of threats, torture and brute force.

The major article Senator Obama had printed in Foreign Affairs magazine last July/August is discouraging. More than anything, it exposes the fact that he is a Liberal Hawk regarding the projection of U.S. power abroad. I am particularly disturbed by his bellicosity. He seems not to understand that U.S. military hegemony is a problem for the United States, and much of the rest of the world. Moreover, there is little or no indication in the article that he is thinking about dismantling any significant component of the sprawling U.S. Empire, including the hundreds of military bases aggressively deployed around the world

Despite the extremely important shortcomings addressed in this post, Senator Obama is far better suited to replace George W. Bush in the Oval Office than terminally hapless John McCain. Nonetheless, the point everyone concerned needs to understand is that Senator Barack Obama is a work in progress. As such, he is going to need a tremendous amount of support, counseling and constructive criticism in order to succeed if he defeats John McCain in the upcoming election.

If he has an open-mind and willingness to learn, his election will present the United States with a marvelous opportunity to implement sorely needed reforms in its domestic and international policies. If he is not open-minded and willing to learning, one of the most magnificent opportunities to fundamentally improve this nation, and its global posture, will be wasted by his election.

Mindful of the danger ahead, I am hoping for the best.

General Wesley Clark’s recent commentary regarding Republican Presidential candidate John McCain is accurate and entirely appropriate. The truth of the matter is that the General was correct when he asserted that getting shot down in a fighter jet over Vietnam is not sufficient to qualify one to be President of the United Sates. The point to be understood is that the “war hero” status that McCain has shamelessly milked for the past couple decades is, from my perspective, unseemly and inappropriate.

I have been struck over the years by the manner in which McCain has used his alleged victimhood in order to present himself as a superior person, possessing wisdom beyond that available to those of us who have not worn the uniform and murdered other human beings in the name of imperial patriotism. The folly inherent in Senator McCain’s gruesome posturing is readily apparent when one considers contemporary relations between the United States and Vietnam. For example, the escalating flow of people, goods and services between the two nations expose the ridiculous nature of the horrific war, and the misbegotten reasons why the United States waged it in the first place.

To his credit, in recent years Senator McCain has played a high profile role in helping establish peaceful, normal ties between the United States and Vietnam. But unfortunately, his reckless and poorly conceived support for similar murderous assaults in Iraq and Afghanistan indicate that he has learned little about the savage nature of imperial warfare, and the manner in which such crimes destroy the basic humanity of those who wage them. As a result, those who assert that Senator McCain’s mentality is still stuck in Vietnam, and that he is still metaphorically fighting that particular war, are essentially correct.

I have never met Senator John McCain, and there is scant possibility that I ever will. But if I do, I will ask him how many Vietnamese people he thinks he killed from the relative safety of his fighter jet while flying far above their heads. Assuming he answers the question, I will then ask why he considers himself more civilized and noble than the Vietnamese, who could have killed him at any moment during the five years he was held as a prisoner of war had they so desired. Finally, I will ask why he considers it appropriate for the Bush administration to engage in routine torture of prisoners at the same time he claims every good opportunity to excoriate the Vietnamese for torturing him and his fellow prisoners of war.

In the interim, I salute General Wesley Clark for getting it right regarding Senator McCain’s effort to acquire access to the oval office, and thereby set in motion policies that may well bog the U.S. down in additional criminal assaults on other poor nations of color for the next 100 years.

The latter stages of the historic battle waged by senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton for the honor of being the Democratic Party’s candidate for the presidency in 2008 election has shed unanticipated light on racist white people. Exit poll results obtained after several primaries revealed that a large, and impressively consistent, percentage of such citizens are, according to their reports, viscerally opposed to voting for a person of color. Our perspective of this largely shielded segment of the white community was radically expanded via the efforts of Senator Hillary Clinton. Faced with the prospect of defeat, she, and her ubiquitous, seriously-out-of-touch-these-days husband, launched a series of cynical ploys carefully tailored to win the support of this biased voting bloc on the basis of racial solidarity.

While ostentatiously slugging shots of whiskey, senator Clinton proclaimed herself the representative of such voters, and thereby presented the Democratic Party with a major dilemma. Despite the fact that she and her husband possess financial resources vastly superior to those of the Obamas, Hillary asserted that her opponent is an elitist incapable of winning the respect and support of the vast majority of white Americans—ostensibly because they are viscerally racist. This tactic proved marginally successful, and senator Clinton managed to cobble together victories in several primaries. Nonetheless, she came up short and Barack Obama is now poised to become the first non-white President of the United States. Senator Clinton acknowledged reality this morning and called on her supporters to supporters to provide full support to Obama and the party’s push to retake the White House in the upcoming election. All seems well at this point, and the television talking heads that moderate public dialogue in this nation are obviously preparing to move on. Many of them have already turned their attention to the upcoming confrontation between Barack Obama and John McCain.

Nonetheless, this African American is still pondering the relatively large number of white Americans who say they do not believe in voting for non-white people. My best sense is that they are an extremely important component of the overall community. As such, they need to be studied far more seriously than has been the case by those who moderate mainstream political, academic and journalistic dialogue in this country. For example, we need to know more about the origins of their bias, and the ways in which it is passed from one generation to the next. We also need to know how the biases of such people impact schools, hospitals, courts, financial institutions and the law enforcement community. In addition, we need to know how the biases of such people are used to operate and maintain race-based systems of exclusion and oppression.

I will be elated if groups of allegedly brilliant scholars, legal authorities and journalists study the extent to which the racist biases of this segment of the U.S. population is responsible for the widespread, multigenerational poverty which cruelly haunts the lives of non-white people in every section of the nation. I will be similarly impressed if significant attention and discourse is devoted to the manner in which Republican and Democratic politicians use the reservoir of white racism to maintain their domination of the nation’s political affairs. Finally, someone serious needs to bring to the fore a discussion of the manner in which white racism of the sort being discussed here influences the formulation and exercise of U.S. foreign policy vis-à-vis the rest of the world, which is approximately 80 percent colored.

The point I am attempting to make here is that white racism is a metaphorical anchor tied to the neck of this nation. It is holding us back and pulling all of us down. Little of the promise inherent in the Obama candidacy for President has a ghost of a chance of significant success unless and until this issue is addressed. It needs to be dragged out into the open, dissected, discussed, denounced and decommissioned. Until this is done, the full promise of what the U.S. could and should be cannot be realized. Finally, I would like to note that our overall approach to this age-old social cancer should be positive and innovative. In other words, I am advocating that these particular racists be disarmed via the use of diplomacy, charm, goodwill and commitment to remaining engaged with them until those infected with racist hatred agree to join the rest of us because they genuinely believe that all their most important legitimate issues have been positively and definitively addressed.

Given the fact that economic insecurity is almost certainly the foundation of much of the edifice of white racism in this nation, I recommend that we commit from the very beginning to the development and implementation of a comprehensive Affirmative Action program for lower-class and poor white Americans.

Senator Barack Obama’s unprecedented campaign to become President of the United States is providing numerous insights into the minds of white Americans, and the character of life in this multiracial society. First off, I am pleased to note that his success so far is largely due to strong support from whites in every section of the nation, including the old slave-holding regions south of the Mason-Dixon Line. This suggests the “New South,” which moderates and liberals from the region have been touting for decades, has finally arrived.

The long term ramifications of this welcome development portends good things for the nation’s future because it indicates that many of the deeply entrenched prejudices that have tragically undermined the best interests of the region and the nation since the end of Radical Reconstruction are collapsing. Thus, the racist, cynical manipulations at the root of the Republican Party’s so-called “Southern Strategy” are probably going to prove ineffective, if not futile and counterproductive, from this point forward. This fact alone suggests that the United States is headed for a fundamental shift in its domestic political paradigm. As a result, many social and political options that have been thwarted by the organized, consistent, barely concealed, racism that serves as the foundation of the Republican Party’s national coalition is on the way out. If nothing else, Obama’s extraordinary victory in the Iowa phase of the Democratic Party’s nominating process showed that an emergent majority of the nation’s whites have moved beyond the traditional divide-and-conquer tactics that have been used to oppress people of color, and isolate progressive whites on the sideline of the nation’s political culture.

Nonetheless, the current phase of Senator Obama’s long, strange, but undeniably inspiring, journey toward the oval office located at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, indicates that much important work remains to be done regarding the foul and oppressive legacy of white racism. This is being made patently apparent via the primaries in which, poorly educated, low income whites, are acting out in racist ways when they show up at ballot booths. The barely concealed hostility and contempt that this group is expressing toward Obama via their votes and exit interview commentaries exposes one of the nation’s most important dirty secrets: a notable segment of the white community in this nation is racist in ways which defy logic, common sense and their own best interests. My hope is that judges, legislators, educators, and other representatives of government will begin to acknowledge, and firmly repudiate, the racist inclinations of this group as the nation moves forward. The point to be understood is that the racism that this group is proudly advocating and practicing via their votes in the Democratic and Republican primaries is not restricted to election days.

It is also operative on a daily basis in every aspect of society where such people are permitted to act on their prejudices. Thus, it is no longer possible to deny the ramification of their destructive impact in schools, on juries, in law enforcement, at financial institutions, etc. We will know that the United States has finally emerged from the swamp of ignorance, hostility, mediocrity and systematized oppression which characterizes such an awesomely large segment of this nation’s culture and social order, when journalists, scholars, judges, and others responsible for public order, economic opportunity and social justice, begin to regularly and consistently acknowledge and discuss white racism with the same level of intensity and outrage that they normally bestow on the so-called “black underclass.”

During the past week or so, propaganda mavens for Mayor Gavin Newsom’s administration have launched a high profile campaign designed to convince the public that massive success have been achieved regarding San Francisco’s tragically large population of homeless people.

Primary focus is being placed on the mayor’s highly controversial “Care Not Cash” program, which provides “supportive housing” for homeless people instead of monthly cash payments. According to the mayor and his minions, the program has proven to be a resounding success. More than 2,500 people have reportedly been removed from the streets and into affordable housing wherein they are provided the means and assistance to live off the streets and out of sight. My best sense is that the “out of sight” portion of the social equation is the most important component for the Mayor and the rest of the success has been achieved crowd. Moreover, it goes without saying that the San Francisco Chronicle is playing an prominent and important role in distributing the success is at hand mantra regarding municipal homelessness. In addition to prominently displaying congratulatory stories about the mayor and Care Not Cash, the Chronicle continues to deploy C.W. Nevius to wage pit bull-like assaults on homeless people in general, and those who support them in particular.

Nonetheless, to my knowledge during the years that the Newsom administration has been implementing the Care Not Cash program the Chronicle hasn’t devoted notable time and attention to the living circumstances of the homeless people being hustled from the streets by the Newsom administration. Where are the people being housed? What are their living circumstances? Who is providing them “supportive Care?” What more do they need? Are their quarters temporary or permanent? What does the Health Department think of the quarters being provided via Care Not Cash? I pose these questions because anecdotal information I have received over the years from acquaintances deeply involved in providing services to homeless and other destitute people suggest that the living conditions of most of those being hustled from the streets by the city administration are abominable, if not criminally negligent. In any event, it seems reasonable to assume that the people in charge of The San Francisco Chronicle are not particularly interested in obtaining and distributing answers to questions such as the ones presented above.

No one familiar with the local power equation should be surprised that The San Francisco Chronicle’s staff of see-no-evil reporters consistently support Mayor Newsom’s largely ineffectual efforts to make city government serve segments of the population which subsist outside the charmed circle composed of those who are comfortably wealthy. We understand that one of the Chronicle’s most important functions is keeping alive the notion that San Francisco is a playground for wealthy people. Homeless beggars mar the beauty of the fantasy. Although his agenda is synchronous with the one being pursued by The San Francisco Chronicle, Mayor Newsom has more ambitious objectives. He aspires to higher office. He is apparently positioning himself to run for Governor, and, if all goes well, and lightening strikes, President of the United States. But…in order to make it happen, he has got to be able to show substantive success regarding the signature issue he rode into the mayor’s chambers here in San Francisco. That issue, and none other is as important, is homelessness. Without a record of genuine achievement regarding homelessness, his way forward politically will be blocked.

Nonetheless, according to official estimates, San Francisco has the highest per capita number of homeless people of any major city in the United States. The rough consensus shared by those who claim expertise is that there are from seven to 10,000 homeless people residing on the streets of San Francisco. City officials contend that 3,000 or so of that population consists of chronically homeless people. Unfortunately, despite moderate success, Mayor Newsom’s Care Not Cash program is fatally flawed. This is due to the fact that it was never intended to provide life-changing assistance to the vast majority of the city’s homeless people. Nonetheless, by focusing only on “the chronics” the program set the bar for success so low that minimal achievements could cited as resounding success.

That is exactly what has happened. Therefore, these days the aforementioned propaganda campaign is being by the mayor, his staff and The San Francisco Chronicle convince the general populace that Gavin Newsom is a resolute, noble, effective, visionary, compassionate solver of social problems. In the meantime, thousands of homeless, destitute people continue to populate San Francisco’s streets in much the same manner as they did before Gavin Newsom coined his rhetorically clever slogan about cash and care. Moreover, invaluable time and opportunity have been lost, and needless human suffering continues unabated.

The people of San Francisco deserve better. And this is particularly the care regarding the 7,000 or more members of our community who are homeless, and essentially ignored by the mission accomplished, success-is-at-hand crew over at City Hall, and the callow, we-have-your-back-covered, fellow travelers at the San Francisco Chronicle.

Senator Hillary Clinton’s win tonight in the Pennsylvania primary probably portends bad tidings directly ahead for the Democratic Party. The reasons why are important and instructive. The key point to be understood is that the manner in which she and her husband went about manufacturing the victory is almost certainly going to engender bad blood across a large swath of the voting public.

For example, she and her most ardent supporters have been arguing for weeks that Obama can’t win the general election because he is black. That charge provides cover for Republicans, and whites who admit that they are opposed to voting for a black person, no matter how qualified and good that person might be. I might also note that a significant portion of Senator Clinton’s supporters consistently say that if Obama wins, they intend to vote for Senator John McCain. The ramifications of all this are not good.

Most important, the Clintons’ take-no-prisoners approach presents the Democratic Party with a massive dilemma. It is common knowledge that the party’s most loyal voting block consists of African Americans. And this has been the case for generations, even though African Americans have not notably benefitted from such loyalty in terms of party support regarding their/our most important problems and aspirations. If the Party has to broker a decision at the upcoming summer convention because neither Barack nor Hillary has garnered enough delegates to win the nomination outright, the Democratic Party will be, in a manner of speaking, faced with the worst of all possible worlds.

Given such a scenario, and if she runs true to form, Senator Clinton and her supporters will ardently reassert the mantra that they have been not so subtly uttering ever since if became apparent to her that absent mean-spirited, negative attacks on Senator Obama, she was probably going to lose. Her mantra consists of the assertion, slyly uttered, and obliquely spread, that white Americans are too racist to support an African American for president, no matter how qualified that person might be. If this occurs, and why would she reject the tactic which obviously worked for her in Texas and Pennsylvania, there is a distinct possibility that she will manage to garner enough super delegate support to win the nomination. But such a “victory” will almost certainly leave African Americans feeling betrayed in a way such that a substantial percentage of them will abandon the Democratic Party–forever.

Moreover, I suspect that many educated people, college students and people of color will feel much the same, and respond in a similar manner. Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi. Harry Reid, and everyone else who considers him or herself a bigwig in the Democratic Party, should take careful notice because if they mishandle this situation the Democratic Party may well shatter in ways which leave it permanently dysfunctional.

Here’s my two cents worth regarding the surprise and outrage engendered by the widely distributed and much derided excerpts from Senator Barack Obama’s minister’s critical comments about the United States and related matters. Virtually all African Americans have attended such churches. As a result, few of us were in any way surprised by the nature of the minister’s comments, including his vigorous denunciations of the United States and its consistently biased policies toward poor people of color.
One of the most striking aspects of the entire affair is the apparent surprise of whites. I got the impression that many of them had never heard such, and that they were convinced, therefore, that the Reverend Jeremiah Wright is some kind of rare hateful monster. Many whites expressed similar sorts of statements of wounded innocence in the immediate aftermath of the devastating attacks of September 11, 2001. Claiming that they had no sense that anyone in the world could be angry enough to attack they U.S. in such a manner, they were obviously shocked. Their ignorance was embarrassing, at least to those of us who participate in communication channels outside the ones so tightly controlled by the mainstream mavens of mass communication here in the United States.
In any event, as indicated, only a small percentage of the U.S. black community can claim ignorance regarding the style and substance of Senator Obama’s colorful minister’s irate remonstrations. I might also note that a similarly small percentage of the nation’s African Americans claimed in the aftermath of the 9-11 tragedy that they were unaware that people out there in the world hate Americans. My key point here is that the pervasive racism that is characteristic of the commentary and news distributed via mainstream mass communication venues here in the United States is extremely destructive. This is particularly the case regarding those white Americans trapped inside the significantly racist narratives dispensed via the mainstream mass media. In other words, too few of the nation’s mass media are open to regular, sustained participation by non-white people, whether domestic or foreign. As a result, comprehensive, racist censorship is being practiced across the board here in the United States in ways which make is virtually impossible for the average white American to obtain sustained access to the mood, attitudes and experiences of people of color.
This is dangerous in ways that are not good for the United States and its best interests in a world wherein the overwhelming majority of the people are colored. If those in charge at the Federal Communication Commission can be dislodged from their self imposed hibernation regarding the manner in which racial bias distorts and impedes healthy communication in this nation, we might have reason to hope for better days ahead. Unfortunately, there are virtually no indications that the FCC is in any way interested in addressing the various ways in which traditional modes of mainstream racial discrimination are undermining the nation and its citizens.

A great deal rests on the outcome Tuesday’s Democratic primary election in Texas. Conventional attention is focused on the race between Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. However much Clinton and her supporters contend that she is an authentic agent of change, chances are that any change associated with a decisive victory for her will be marginal. On the other hand, if Obama wins there is a good chance that the United States is headed for a transition of the national political order that could have revolutionary ramifications.

The overall significance of the Texas primary, can probably be best understood within context of the titanic struggle for the soul of the south that has been waged on and off since the late 1870s and the end of Reconstruction. The most recent segments of that ancient, acrimonious struggle have their roots in the tumultuous period when President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the 1965 Civil Rights Bill. Upon doing so, President Johnson is reputed to have observed that it was the right thing to do for the United States. But, he noted, his doing so would lead to the destruction of the Democratic Party in the South for at least a generation. He was right. And that’s how important the south is to presidential elections.

The South lost the Civil War. As a result, southerners have subsequently tended to define their identity via loss and grievance. Because slavery and race were at the core of the issues for which the south fought, until relatively recent times the region has tended to be dangerously racist and socially conservative. It is rural, highly religious and conservative in most social matters. Excepting a few metropolitan areas such as Atlanta, Durham and Dallas, the region tends also to be extremely poor in comparison with much of the rest of the nation.

But there is an emergent New South, and it consists of educated whites in search of a new identity, blacks and Latinos who love southern culture and intend to stay, and educated, liberal people from a variety of races and nationalities who have moved into the region from other sections of the nation and world. These factions have begun to work together, and they are fighting to represent the South in matters large and small. Most important, they want to move the region’s identity and politics beyond race, sexual orientation and the Bible.

In any event, with the signing of the 1965 Civil Rights act events were set in motion that led to the Republican Party taking complete power in the South. The old Democratic Party, of which President Johnson was a member, has been neutered. The term used to describe the methods used by Republicans to bring about this transformation is “the southern strategy.” That “strategy” was based on the use of some of the most vile, racist tactics employed in the United States since the Civil War era. And for the most part, those tactics were consistently designed to appeal to the worst racist instincts of white southerners.

Richard Nixon initially employed the strategy, and every Republican presidential candidate since has used it to good advantage. Ronald Reagan was a master in the use of the party’s southern “strategy” via his apocryphal tales about so-called fat, black “welfare queens.” Such tales uttered before all-white audiences engendered powerful racist responses, which the Republican Party gleefully used to organize and expand its political clout across the South. Homage to the “strategy” involves symbolic acts such as speaking at universities that oppose racial integration, denouncing Affirmative Action, calling for more “law and order,” promising to appoint more strict-constructionist federal judges and honoring heroes of white resistance to racial integration. Trent Lott’s much maligned homage to Strom Thurmond was a classic example of the genre.

However, there is good reason to believe that the Republican Party’s southern “strategy” has begun to unravel. This is critically important because the party has become so dependent on white southern voters that it can’t win national elections without them. Thus, it is almost certain that the Republican Party’s leaders are currently alarmed because McCain is not winning big in the South. Moreover, the old segregationist faction, frequently referred to these days by deferential members of the see-no-evil mainstream media as “social conservatives,” has begun to demand that Huckabee be put on the ticket or they are going to boycott the upcoming November election. Without their support, McCain is toast.

In addition, Barack Obama’s striking primary victories in the South Carolina, Georgia, and semi-southern locations such as Iowa and Missouri, has to be engendering rising alarm among Republican strategists. Heretofore, at least since Lyndon Johnson’s signing, it was inconceivable that a non-white person could win a significant statewide political race in those previously viciously, racist states. Thus, Obama’s unprecedented victories are the first clear, unambiguous indication that the long touted, but late arriving, “New South” is here at last. As indicated above, we will know a lot more about all this after Tuesday’s primary in Texas. If Obama wins big, it will probably mean that the moment for generational change has arrived. It will also mean that the people of the United States will be free, for the first time in a generation or more, to think in terms of what we might do if presented with the opportunity to enact fundamental social and political reforms.

Having shared some personal thoughts about why I am thinking about leaving the United States, it makes sense to provide similar commentary regarding the reasons why I will almost certainly remain here. But first I need note the fact that no matter how much I have ever enjoyed living abroad, being here at home provides soul satisfaction that can’t be replicated or equaled at any other location on the planet earth. It is that real, and it is for me as natural, wonderful and deeply satisfying as breathing. I am an American citizen, and I have no problem with that.

What I do have a problem with is the U.S. government policies and practices that threaten and undermine the extraordinary principles on which the most wonderful portions of our contested national heritage rest. In other words, I wrestle with the moral dilemmas associated with life inside a dominant global empire at war. It is as simple as that, and I am very much aware that the problems associated most directly with my concerns are as old as civilization. But knowing this does not absolve me of responsibility for making morally sound decisions.

My best grand perspective of the situation is that empires of the sort exemplified by the United States generally fail for two or three reasons. First, they go bankrupt due to their inability to pay the wildly expanding costs associated with maintaining the empire. Second, they run out of blood, and thereby lose the ability to mount armies large enough to maintain their geographic perimeters. Third, the weight of the edifice of empire inevitably engenders a general decline in sobriety, civility, legality, fairness and social commitment to the common good.

It is easy to see that the U.S. is currently suffering mightily due to the escalating, deleterious impact of these three maladies. Moreover, the current administration’s crude assertion that international laws that obstruct its imperial objectives will be blithely ignored is an extremely bad sign. No matter how things work out, I fear that deeply troubling times lie ahead. If we get through the current presidential election cycle without anything out of the ordinary happening, I will be significantly reassured. I will also be deeply pleased if I have to proclaim in the aftermath of a totally normal election that I was unduly alarmed during this period. But I don’t expect to be surprised in that manner. This is due to several factors, not the least of them being the current state of the presidential campaign.

Where the most important geopolitical issues are concerned, each of the remaining presidential candidates remain wedded to the symbols and substance of empire. The Republicans vow to win the so-called “War on Terror” (against real and imagined enemies) with more troops, tighter surveillance, more military equipment and gobs of additional money. The Democrats claim that they can attain the same imperial objectives embraced by Republicans for less money via smarter, low profile, less irritating tactics.

None of the primary candidates to replace the hapless, don’t have much of a clue crew currently occupying the White House seems to be seriously considering the possibility that the U.S. government is actually at war with inevitable problems engendered by imperial hubris. For example, much of what the government and mainstream news media have taken to calling “terrorism” is little more than push-back responses by those in other sections of the world whom we presume to tutor and rule. My thoughts about leaving the U.S. notwithstanding, my basic commitment is to remain here, hunker down, and do whatever I possibly can to help make the case for dismantling the global U.S. empire.