Mediaboss Marketing

Editor's note: If you'd like an email notice whenever we publish Ross Ramsey's column, click here.

If you would like to listen to the column, just click on the play button below.

After more than a week of nationwide demonstrations sparked by the killing of George Floyd, a black man from Houston, in Minneapolis police custody, top Republican politicians in Texas are suddenly allergic to racism.

High-ranking state officials are busy disowning GOP county chairs and activists and perhaps even a statewide elected official for social media posts juxtaposing a Martin Luther King Jr. quote with a banana, to conspiracy theories that Floyds killing was staged, to unsubstantiated claims that the protests were designed and financed by a liberal billionaire.

Meanwhile, Texas Democrats are had their state convention last week online, instead of in convention centers and hotel ballrooms but the Texas Republicans are doing them more good than all of the online speeches and pep rallies ever could.

The earth-shattering events of 2020 are fueling a lot of difficult but necessary conversations about our society. At the same time, they are framing the election season that lies ahead. Between the pandemic, an oil price crash, a lingering economic bust and most recently, widespread demonstrations about police brutalizing black people and about racism in general, the political table is set.

Where to start?

Social media posts of racist conspiracy theories about Floyds death from GOP chairs in several Texas counties, including two of the largest?

The chair-elect of the Harris County GOP, who posted a Martin Luther King quote with a picture of a banana? He led his apology with this: Words and images have power. No kidding.

Texas Agriculture Commissioner Sid Miller went whole hog in a post Sunday morning: Folks this is not a protest. It is a well orchestrated attack on America's major cities with plans to attack the police, riot, loot, and burn buildings. The so-called protestors are, in fact, domestic terrorists who were organized and paid for by George Soros to further divide our country. These terrorists were bused into these large cities. We must repel this attack and hold those responsible for their actions. This must be brought to a stop now or we will lose control of our country!

If all of that resulted from a Democratic conspiracy, its a masterpiece of political mud-slinging.

You can see that Republicans think its a dumpster fire.

Texas Republicans at the top of the food chain Gov. Greg Abbott, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, former Texas House Speaker Joe Straus, U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, U.S. Rep. Michael McCaul among them were quick to disassociate themselves and their party from the local chairs spouting crazy racist conspiracies and to start calling for their resignations. Its not hard to see why theyre reacting, especially with the Democrats gathered virtually for a state convention, and with the streets filled for more than a week with concerned Americans seeking talk and action about racial divisions in the U.S., particularly about police violence against black people.

Why would anyone who will be looking for votes and other support not to mention a harmonious and productive society want to get on the wrong side of that?

The problem with that runaway strategy is at the top of the Republican Party, in the White House. In a single day, President Donald Trumps talk of sending troops to American cities, followed by a Bible-waving photo op in front of a church near the White House, might have been enough. The topper police and military personnel clearing the way to St. Johns through a nonviolent crowd with flash-bang grenades, tear gas and rubber bullets was enough to bring harsh words from the same generals Trump used to brag were solidly at his side.

Local and state officials might add some nuance here and some empathy there. Abbott did that just last week, saying he wanted violence and vandalism to stop while making a point of saying he supports the right to protest, that Floyd was murdered, and that he understands why all of those demonstrators are demanding change.

That wasnt exactly a manifesto, but its a lot softer than what the president has been saying, with his talk of dominance and his threat to send U.S. military troops to police American cities.

Republicans on the ballot this year are going to have to run on this guys coattails. The officials who dont have to run a category that includes the governor, the lieutenant governor and most of the other elected statewide executives will be working with whomever gets elected. Texas Democrats need nine votes to win back the state House majority they lost in 2002. That would give them a bit of leverage in drawing new political maps after this years census. It would tilt the tables a bit.

Republicans think they can hold them off, maybe even win a few seats back. But Novembers outcome will depend on all of the usual things: turnout, issues, the economy, the personalities of the candidates.

The issues are real wild cards. The economy is in the ditch right now and isnt likely to snap magically back into order before Election Day. The coronavirus isnt going anywhere, and barring a medical miracle, will still be a serious concern through the rest of the year and into 2021. Floyds killing has raised a perennial thought that this is the incident that will prompt real conversation about police use of force, about institutional and systemic racism, and about setting the course for a fair society.

Add it up, and you have the makings of an upset in November. Its hard to know what an election is going to be about until its upon you. Late-breaking information can turn the tide in a close race; thats what they call an October Surprise, in capital letters.

But the greater frame of an election cycle the events, trends and conditions that deeply influence voters views of the world and the country, that animate their wishes for what should be left alone and what needs to change gets set long before people vote.

About now, perhaps.

Disclosure: The Foundation to Promote Open Society, founded by George Soros, has been a financial supporter of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune's journalism. Find a complete list of them here.

See the article here:
Events, and their own words, put Texas Republicans in an election year bind - The Texas Tribune

The date was June 12, 1920.

The place was Chicago, where 940 Republican delegates from across the country had gathered to nominate their partys candidates for president and vice president of the United States.

The moment occurred when the national conventions presiding chair called upon a delegate from Oregon, who was seeking attention by standing on a chair and waving his arms.

That delegates name was Wallace McCamant, and the brief speech he made upon being recognized would change American history.

McCamants name is little known today, but for several decades his actions and opinions were the subject of Oregon newspaper headlines.

Born and raised in Pennsylvania, McCamant headed west shortly after becoming a practicing lawyer in 1890. Landing in Portland, a rough-and-ready port town of about 46,000 people, he signed on with a Portland law firm that is known today as Miller, Nash, Graham & Dunn. McCamant quickly earned a reputation as an intelligent and eloquent attorney. He became involved in a number of patriotic organizations, and he married and started a family.

Wallace McCamant, circa 1917-18 (Oregon Historical Society)

Along with pursuing his law career (hed eventually become an Oregon Supreme Court justice), McCamant also became a loyal member of the Republican Party, which dominated Oregon politics at the time. He served as a delegate to the GOP national convention in 1896 and 1900.

When the still-popular former President Theodore Roosevelt left the Republican Party in 1912 to run as a Bull Moose after becoming disenchanted with his hand-picked successor, President William Howard Taft, McCamant remained staunchly in Tafts camp.

The Taft-Roosevelt split led to the election of Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat, as the 28th president of the United States, and four years later Wilson narrowly won re-election. So when 1920 arrived, with no incumbent on the ballot, Republicans believed they had an excellent opportunity to return their party to the White House.

McCamant, then 52, wanted to be a part of the effort. Seeking to attend his third national convention, he filed the required paperwork to run for election as a convention delegate. (At the time, both the Republican and Democratic parties in Oregon elected national convention delegates in May primary elections.) The Oregonian reported on McCamants filing in February, stating that Judge McCamant asks that the following be printed after his name on the ballot: For President, an American, a republican, and a statesman.

In speeches leading up to the primary, McCamant made clear that, as a delegate, he would support the candidate who won the Oregon presidential primary -- unless, that is, that candidate was Sen. Hiram Johnson of California. McCamants refusal to support Johnson largely came down to his determined party loyalty: Back in 1912, Johnson had bolted the GOP to run as the vice-presidential nominee on Roosevelts Progressive, or Bull Moose, ticket.

Sen. Hiram Johnson (Library of Congress)

When the May 21 Oregon primary results were tabulated, Johnson had narrowly defeated former U.S. Army chief of staff Leonard Wood -- and McCamant had overwhelmingly been elected as a delegate. The Johnson forces wasted no time in arguing that, no matter his anti-Johnson campaign rhetoric, McCamant was bound by an Oregon statute requiring that each delegate take an oath that he will use his best efforts to bring about the nomination of the person receiving the largest number of votes at the primary.

McCamant, a by-the-book lawyer, was ready with a response. He pointed out that the statute requiring delegates to support the primary winner referred explicitly to delegates who had their names placed on the ballot after simply paying a filing fee of $15. Every candidate for delegate except McCamant had paid that fee. The best efforts statute, however, did not reference the other method for delegate candidates to get on the ballot -- submitting a petition signed by 500 registered voters. This was how McCamant scored his place, with a petition containing more than 1,600 signatures. After the Oregon delegation arrived in Chicago, the conventions credentials committee sided with McCamant: he was free to support the candidate of his choice.

In the end, McCamants presidential vote at the convention made no difference. A candidate needed 471 delegates to win the nomination. On the first ballot, Wood received the support of 287 delegates (including McCamant). Illinois Gov. Frank Lowden placed second with 211, and Johnson ended up in third place with 133. Twelve other favorite son candidates also received votes. After three more ballots resulted in little change, the convention adjourned for the evening.

It was then that the partys bosses convened at the Blackstone Hotel in Room 404 -- a famed smoke-filled room, where presidential candidates often were chosen before the modern primary system began in the early 1970s. The party poobahs, many of them U.S. senators, hashed over the candidates strengths and weaknesses, and, at 3:00 a.m., they reached a consensus: Sen. Warren Harding of Ohio was the best option to break the deadlock. They regarded Harding, nearing the end of his first term in the Senate, as a genial, go-along-to-get-along type who would not be objectionable to either progressive or conservative Republicans. As one of the meetings attendees reportedly concluded: We have a lot of second raters and Harding is the best of them.

It took a few ballots the next morning at the Chicago Coliseum for the decision reached in Room 404 to filter through to the delegates, and then Hardings momentum became unstoppable -- the nomination was his. The powers-that-be then quickly met in a small alcove under the speakers stand to choose Hardings vice-presidential running mate. In hopes of uniting the stalwart wing of the party that Harding represented with the more progressive wing, they decided that Sen. Irvine Lenroot of Wisconsin, a Johnson supporter, would fill out the ticket.

Heres where McCamant stepped into his place in history.

Sen. Irvine Lenroot (Library of Congress)

Nominating speeches were quickly given for Lenroot, but before a roll-call vote could seal the deal, the chairman noticed a stocky, red-faced man standing on a chair and demanding he be recognized, Harding biographer Francis Russell has documented. Affably, the chairman recognized Wallace McCamant of Oregon, assuming that his was merely one more seconding voice for Lenroot.

McCamant, however, had no intention of backing a Johnson ally. He called on his fellow delegates to instead support a man who is sterling in his Americanism and stands for all that the Republican Party holds dear. On behalf of the Oregon delegation, I name for the exalted office of vice president, Calvin Coolidge of Massachusetts.

The mention of Gov. Coolidge, who had achieved national prominence the previous year when he broke up a Boston police strike, ignited the convention floor. Not so much because the taciturn Coolidge was loved, but because few delegates liked that their decisions often were made for them in smoke-filled rooms. McCamant had tapped into a mood of revolt that had been simmering under the surface, and all of a sudden there was a Coolidge bandwagon. The Massachusetts governor received 874.5 delegates to Lenroots 146.5.

McCamants role in choosing the vice-presidential nominee didnt get much attention across the U.S. -- though Oregon took note of it. Naming of Coolidge is Oregons Honor: Response to McCamants Speech Causes Thrill, read the June 13 headline in The Oregonian.

The November election was never really in doubt. After the trauma of World War I, American voters were hungry for the stolid Hardings promise of a return to normalcy. On Nov. 2, 1920, the Harding-Coolidge ticket won a landslide victory over the Democratic nominee, Ohio Gov. James Cox, and his running mate, the 38-year-old assistant secretary of the Navy, Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Less than three years later, on August 2, 1923, Harding died after what is believed to have been a massive heart attack. And, thanks to Oregon delegate Wallace McCamant, the man who took the oath of office as the 30th president of the United States was Calvin Coolidge, not Irvine Lenroot.

Perhaps no Oregonian, before or since, can be said to have made a larger impact on the history of our country. The reason: he may have inadvertently helped bring about Franklin Roosevelts presidency.

Coolidge, a pro-business Republican who reduced taxes and restored confidence in the government after various scandals rocked Hardings administration, would be elected president in his own right in 1924. Even though he was immensely popular, he chose not to run for re-election four years later. Republican Herbert Hoover won in his place, and Hoover would be in the White House in October 1929 when the stock-market crash helped usher in the Great Depression. Hoover would be overwhelmingly defeated by Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1932.

But what if Irvine Lenroot had succeeded Harding as president? Would he have stood for election in 1924? Would he have run again in 1928? Would Roosevelt have had the opportunity to create the New Deal -- and lead the U.S. during World War II -- if a President Lenroot, much more progressive than the rigid Hoover, had been in office in October 1929 and responded aggressively to the countrys economic collapse?

The answers to these questions are, of course, unknown, but they make for a fascinating, Oregon-themed what-if?

What is known, however, is that Hiram Johnson was a man who held a grudge.

Wallace McCamant, late in life (The Oregonian archives)

On May 25, 1925, President Coolidge re-paid his debt to Wallace McCamant by appointing him to the United States 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Since McCamant was appointed during a Congressional recess, he was authorized to serve on the court for one year. If the U.S. Senate confirmed the appointment during that year, then McCamants appointment would be for life.

At that time, presidential nominees to federal courts were routinely confirmed without requiring the nominee to even appear at a Senate committee hearing. Those nominees, however, had not crossed Hiram Johnson. The senator from California used his seniority and influence to block a confirmation vote until he could personally question McCamant.

On January 29, 1926, McCamant faced his adversary in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee. The Oregonian proclaimed: It is doubtful the meeting between these sworn enemies from the west coast has been surpassed in dramatic interest by any that has ever taken place in the capitals long history.

The hearing reached its dramatic crescendo when Johnson focused on speeches during which McCamant had said that the California senator was not a good American. He asked the judge to explain himself. McCamant responded by saying Johnsons support for allowing judicial decisions to be overruled by public vote, part of Theodore Roosevelts 1912 Progressive platform, meant he was not a good American.

Johnson pointed out that the beloved Roosevelt, who had died in 1919, also supported that policy, and he demanded to know if McCamant believed that Roosevelt therefore also was not a good American. McCamant admitted that was, indeed, what he believed.

I stand on that, Mr. Chairman, Johnson called out in triumph. I am willing to see if the United States Senate will confirm a man as circuit judge, the next highest judicial position in this country except only the Supreme Court, who tells this committee that Theodore Roosevelt was not a good American.

Johnson was right. McCamants response had killed any hopes of his confirmation. The Portland-based judge did try to backtrack, sending a letter to committee members stating it was the idea of public recall of judicial decisions, and not Roosevelt, that was un-American, but it was too little too late. President Coolidge soon withdrew the nomination.

McCamant would remain active in the Oregon legal community until his death at the age of 77 on Dec. 17, 1944. When he died, The Oregonian eulogized him as a champion of the Constitution of the United States and a lifelong advocate of the forthright Americanism of the founders.

Tymchuk is the executive director of the Oregon Historical Society.

Read the original here:
The forgotten Oregon Republican who upended national politics 100 years ago and may have paved the way for - oregonlive.com

Ingraham: 'The Angle's GOP platform for 2020

The GOP has to make sure its platform speaks to the horrors and hardship this country is experiencing. It should also give people hope that our best days are ahead of us, not behind us.

Laura Ingraham opened Friday's edition of "The Ingraham Angle"by laying out what she said should be the GOP's platform for the 2020 presidential election, saying the party must give people hope that America's best days are ahead.

"First, we will redouble our efforts to preserve for all Americans their freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of press and freedom of assembly," Ingraham began."We lost a lot more than just our booming economy in those lockdowns.

"And even with states reopening, millions of Americans are still unable to attend church services, go to weddings or any other large gathering, for that matter. Well, unless you're looting, rioting or hurling obscenities at cops, of course, thenit's OK."

Following the fiasco of the coronavirus lockdowns, the host said, "our sacrosanct freedoms should only be abridged in true emergencies and only pursuant to laws passed by elected officials, not by decrees issued by governors or mayors, especially those who don't even follow their own rules."

Ingraham's second platform plankcalled for a stop to "efforts by multinational companies to ship jobs offshore."The third plankcalled for a crackdown on violent criminalsand support forlaw enforcement.

"We want all Americans to feel safe inside and outside their homes. And that means swift and sure punishment for violent crime, especially in poor neighborhoods," Ingraham said. "It also means supporting the men and women who put their lives on the line every day to protect us."

Next, Ingraham called for Republicans to take the threat from China seriously.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

"We recognize that the Chinese Communist Party is a grave threat to the United States and we'll take all measures necessary to prevent it from endangering our national interests," Ingraham said. "Now, for starters, we should prohibit American companies from doing any work in China that would benefit the Chinese military or enable the Communist regime to further oppress its own citizens. Tech companies, we're talking to you. We absolutely need to keep the Chinese from infiltrating and undermining our institutions of higher learning."

Finally, Ingraham called for Americans to teach children the whole of the country's history,"the good and the bad" before calling on the GOP to fight "tyranny."

"Ever since the days of the Revolution," she said, "average Americans have fought against ... tyranny and we pledge to continue this fight no matter the odds."

Link:
Laura Ingraham lays out the ideal Republican platform for the 2020 election - Fox News

AND..The Question Is?

We surely could cover the earth with the endless list of questions formed in a multitude of versions from White Americans regarding what African-Americans want in this society.

To anyone reading this article who ponder the same question my response is as follows. Will another explanation make any difference? Explanations have been given spanning hundreds of years.

The history of the African American experience is unique to any other experience in this country as documented by historians, activist, authors, poets, preachers, demonstrators, warriors, and advocates. There are hundreds whose work you may choose to study.

Here are a few for your consideration: Carter G. Woodson ( 1875-1950), Charles H. Wesley (1891-1987), Rayford W. Logan (1897-1982), Nathan Irvin Huggins (1927-1989) Dorothy Porter Wesley (1905-1995, John Hope Franklin (1915-2009) John W. Blassingame, Sr. (1940-2000).

The question has been sufficiently answered by organization such as the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), National Urban League , Rainbow Push Coalition, Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) Congress of Racial Equality (CORE), Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) The Innocence Project, and Black Lives Matter.

By the time of the American Revolution (17751783), the status of enslaved people had been institutionalized as a racial caste system associated with African ancestry. The 13th Amendment, adopted on December 18, 1865, officially abolished slavery, but freed Black peoples status in the post-war remained precarious. Civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr. said that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was nothing less than a second emancipation.

Present day White American activist Tim Wise explains it in a 2002 essay: n*gger was and is a term used by whites to dehumanize blacks, to imply their inferiority, to put them in their place if you will, the same cannot be said of honky: after all, you cant put white people in their place when they own the place to begin with. Power is like body armour, Tim continues. And while not all white folks have the same degree of power, there is a very real extent to which all of us have more than we need vis--vis people of colour: at least when it comes to racial position, privilege and perceptions. At the root of it all, is there really a question regarding what African-American want in this society or is the issue resistance, denial, solicitude, prevarication of information, and preserving of the status quo.

-- Willie Shaw

View post:
Letter to the Editor: AND..The Question Is? - Evanston RoundTable

*One thing feels different about the current protests we are seeing following the recent deaths of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and Ahmaud Arbery: the composition of the crowds.In some parts of the country, white Americans are showing up. They are protesting, taking the knee, and flooding social media. There seems to be a renewed call for white accountability. But is posting and protesting enough? And will this energy last?

Trymaine Lee talks to Tim Wise, an anti-racist essayist, author and educator, about what white people can do to dismantle the systems of inequality in this country.

Hosted byPulitzer Prize and Emmy Award-winning journalistTrymaine Lee, Into America is an NBC News original podcast that elevates the voices of citizens and captures the impact of the pressing issues of our time.See below for select excerpts of the conversation and listennow wherever you get your podcasts.

SELECT EXCERPTS FROM THE PODCAST

SYSTEMIC RACISM

TRYMAINE LEE: What should white people do to dismantle a racist system erected for them? The thing thats creating so much of the stress and the anxiety that white folks, ironically, have about even sitting down and talking to black and brown folks about racism is racism.

TIM WISE: I think theyre white folks who actually would like to have those kinds of cross-racial, cross-cultural, cross-ethnic connections with people. But they dont and they dont understand why. And its not because theyre bad people and its not because the people they want to be friends with dont want to be friends with them. Its that we have a society that is divided as to such an extent that its incredibly hard. If I have a fundamentally different set of realities than you, how am I supposed to be able to sit down and talk with you about anything meaningful? And if I cant do that. How can I really have connection and friendship? Theres a deep irony, but its also sort of heartbreaking.

WHITE PRIVILEGE

TRYMAINE LEE: But can you explain for folks who dont understand how white privilege works and what it actually is? And white privilege sounds soft, but it still leads to the oppression of black folks, right? I mean, is there a real difference in the way it operates from white supremacy and white privilege? Is there any difference with one simply a soft sounding extension of the other?

TIM WISE: Yeah, I think that white privilege is really a symptom of white supremacy. Right. In other words, if you have a system of domination and subordination that makes one group, whatever, that group is supreme in terms of power and access and opportunity, then by definition that group is going to experience certain relative advantages and privileges over all other groups. But its important that we think of it almost like, you know, a taxonomy and a hierarchy where white supremacy is the overarching concept. And within that umbrella of white supremacy, you have a sense of like white privilege. Right. You have a symptom like discrimination, like discrimination is also a symptom of white supremacy. Its not the problem in and of itself, but its a symptom.

MORE NEWS: Dream Hampton Tapped to Direct Docuseries on Tulsa Race Massacre

WHITE ACCOUNTABILITY

TRYMAINE LEE: Ive been hearing this term white accountability more and more over the last several days. This idea of white people looking at each other, look at themselves in the mirror and holding themselves accountable for the state of things. What is white accountably look like? Join the protests. What is it?

TIM WISE: Accountability means taking your cue from the community that has the most to lose. Accountability means following the lead of people of color. And what people of color need from us right now is for us to do nothing in these protests thats going to hurt them. Thats going to blow back on them. So thats number one. The second thing for accountability is we have to operate outside the realm of the individual act. Theres gonna come a point when were going to need to get back in community and meeting with people and really talking with people and sharing ideas in a collective sense, because the thing about activism and fighting injustice, it can be very, very isolating and it can be very exhausting. And God knows for people who have that privilege, any level of discomfort. Right, folks, Ill throw in the towel. Black folks dont have the luxury of getting time and they do get tired. Right. People of color get tired, but you cant throw in the towel because your life is at stake. But white folks, man, if were doing this and we feel isolated and it gets too hard, I know what were going to do.

TRYMAINE LEE: When folks see white privilege in action or ignorance in action, or racism in action, should white people confront other white people about whats happening? Should they have to be intentional about confronting racism wherever it lies?

TIM WISE: Oh, I certainly think we should confront racism when we see it. But I think the problem is that a lot of times the racism that is confronting all in that terminology is only the most obvious and blatant. Now, certainly we ought to do it. I mean, its very important that if you have friends or colleagues or family that are making racist comments, telling racist jokes, engaged in obviously discriminatory behavior, you should try to interrupt that. You should practice in your own head ahead of time how you might do it. But I think the bigger problem is so much of the racism that exists and stuff that really perpetuates inequality in this country, is the kind of stuff that is oftentimes much more subtle and institutional.

THE TALK

TRYMAINE LEE: There are a lot of people, journalists included, who ask and have been asking black folks about the talk they have with the children, you know, capital letters, the talk about police and how to respond. And more broadly, just how to engage with white society, white people, period. But my question is always, Do white people have a talk with their children about race and race relations and how to move and engage with other people? Should white people right now be right parents be talking to their kids about race and white privilege? And what should that sound like?

TIM WISE: Well, the first part of the question, the answer, sadly, is no. Most white folks dont have that talk with their children. I know that for me, of course, that was never going to be an option for my children. I didnt want to hit them over the head with it all the time, because I do think one of the things that helped me was not just a parent that talked, but a parent that acted. And sometimes the actions are more important than the words

So the talks are important and we should certainly have them. And there were resources out there for white folks who want to figure out how to talk to their kids. Theres a great book called Raising White Kids that talks about how to have this conversation with white children in a way thats really meaningful. But, but we must do it. And in our home, you know, I remember those talks. I started having those talks with my children when they were really young.

CHANGE

TRYMAINE LEE: In this moment were in right now. Do you think George Floyd protest included or not, that white America wants the change that black folks are calling for?

TIM WISE: Are there enough white folks that are prepared to join in solidarity with peoples of color, particularly with black folks, to push for a different way of living? And are there enough white folks that are prepared to find a different way of living in the skin that were in and fighting for pluralism and multiracial democracy? I happen to believe that thats possible, but I have to also remain agnostic about it because I havent ever seen it.

CREDIT: INTO AMERICA // NBC NEWShttps://www.nbcnews.com/intoamerica

Related

Read the original post:
New on the 'Into America' Podcast: Into an American Uprising: White Accountability - Eurweb.com