What is the southern strategy (with pictures) gas x chewables reviews

###

The Southern Strategy is the policy of the Republican Party in the United States to gain political support in the Southern section of the country. Politically, the concept generally uses themes traditionally supported by residents of the Southern states to win election in those locations. Since segregation continued well into the late 20th century in the region, the Republican Party officially attempted to utilize this wedge issue as a way of garnering support for their political faction in these states. In addition to the issue of segregation between white residents and African Americans, the party also utilized Southern values of religion, gun control and a distrust of counterculture to win votes.

In the 1950s and 1960s, the Republican Party generally opposed desegregation and the Civil Rights Movement. This stance caused a major shift in the voting practices of the African American community to the support of the Democratic Party, the faction which helped legislate laws such as the Voting Rights Act. Party officials, specifically President Richard Nixon’s political strategist Kevin Phillips, understood that in order for the Republicans to win the Southern states, they needed to focus their attention on the Caucasian population.

The implementation of the Southern Strategy by the Republican Party represented a major shift in political power in the region. Since the Civil War, the Democratic Party was the primary force in the South due to its support of the region during Reconstruction. In addition, the Republican candidate Abraham Lincoln was seen as the primary instigator of the war by most Southern residents. Between the 1950s and the early 1980s, the South shifted to major support for the Republicans. At the same time, much of the North and the West became a major supporter of Democrats.

Despite the Republican shift, by the end of the 20th century, it was generally understood that the South had lost its importance as a major prize in presidential and national elections. Without a majority of electoral votes or heavy populations, the power distribution of the constituency moved to the Northeast, California, and Texas. According to the results of the elections since 1984, every president elected would have taken office regardless of the South’s votes.

During the 1990s and early 21st century, the concept of the Southern Strategy focused less on the region known as the “Bible Belt” and more on a general principle. Using wedge issues such as family values, abortion and threats to gun ownership, both parties attempt to segment their ideology to different sides. Voters during this time period followed suit, making the factors involving leadership and legislation secondary to candidates positions on the wedge issues. The Republicans use the conservative principles of the Southern Strategy on a nationwide level to help generate support in new regions of the country.

Fifth: I come from a white, well-off middle class family in Virginia. There are Baptists and Catholics in my family, mostly Republicans who support gun rights, oppose state funded abortions and who are generally, the kindest people you’d ever want to meet. They are active in charities. The only "racist" in the family (more like “diet-racist” in that he finds the “nappy-head” jokes, etc. funny and isn’t shy about saying controversial things in a picking/joking manner) is my maternal grandfather, who is also the only full-fledged Democrat in the family, and he voted for Obama, even though he himself has been a life-long gun-owner and hunter.

The only other two I can think of in the family who voted for Obama are my great aunt and uncle. My uncle is a retired, soft-spoken, incredibly nice and fun-loving Baptist minister (seriously, he even enjoyed a Catholic Mass!). Another uncle is an equally uplifting and Christ-like Christian who won’t ever vote for Obama, but not because he’s black! He also hated the Clint Eastwood portion of the RNC because it belittled every shred of moral principle the GOP was trying to claim. Instead, they found their own use of Hollywood garbage that says vote "x" because the others are so bad while simultaneously spitting on any relevant notion of respect for others and personal, moral responsibility.

I myself tend to lean to the conservative. The best idols, in my opinion, that one could possibly look to are Gandhi, Mother Teresa, Pope John Paul II, Martin Luther King Jr., and Jesus Christ (I’m sure there are others too). What do they all have in common? Civil rights, human rights, and morality was never a political, governmental, taxation issue; it was a personal issue.

Recently I saw a bumper-sticker saying that Jesus was a liberal, and another saying King was a conservative. In point of fact, Jesus said "give to Caesar that which is Caesar’s, and to God that which is God’s" (in other words, what you do for others/God has nothing to do with what you do for a government/state/etc. regardless of the programs they support), and King never said "let’s change hearts and minds by voting Republican – or Democrat."

My take is, and you’re plenty free to disagree, that gun-ownership is our right (though perhaps not machine guns — no need to go hog-wild) — in other words, responsibility — speaking for my family since they’re responsible people, even though I don’t personally own a gun. There should be government support for those in need of help, but the definition of "need" ought be restricted, and churches and private charities should have more freedoms to provide care and not be demonized for the ridiculous notions such as "hating women." Mother Teresa couldn’t tolerate abortion, for example, and she was the 20th century superwoman. Conversely, no politician should try to legislate the Bible, Q’uran (which is why we should oppose Sharia courts or any other such religious court) or any other religious ideology.

What the idols I mentioned did: they changed hearts and minds. They didn’t believe that problems could be fixed by legislative action/law, and that the phrase "in it together" means personally taking care of others, loving others, and inviting others to serve, not acting through the ballot box.

You want to serve the poor? Then serve. You want to change gun violence? Teach moral responsibility. You disagree with "life at conception" and believe in abortion as legitimate? First advise of other options, and always stand against the notion that a baby is a punishment, and then if necessary donate to institutions with your view (others might, but I won’t demonize anyone for believing differently on that issue). You oppose abortion? Don’t demonize others’ choices, but still push for better notions of responsibility in cases of "mistakes," at least allowing for understanding in extenuating circumstances.