It finds, on the surface, the conclusion valid, that the Eisenhower support had largely come from independent action rather than through the Southern Republican Party, even though Republicans had made progress in the battle for supremacy in local and state elections. The black vote remained largely Democratic—the result of large strides made economically and in terms of civil rights progress during the Roosevelt-Truman Administrations and the Federal courts, whose judges were appointed during those Administrations. The piece suggests that with President Truman no longer in office, the major causes of Southern Democratic disaffection, at least among many whites, had been removed—that disaffection having largely centered on the Truman civil rights program and such "socialist" programs as compulsory health insurance to be subsidized by the Government, which had never come to fruition because of a stubborn Southern bloc, combining with old guard Republicans in Congress to block such programs by filibuster.

It finds that Mr. Aiken had underrated two factors, first, that many thousands of Southern voters had broken with precedent for the first time when they voted for General Eisenhower as a Republican, which it regards as a positive thing, as it was a vote for the General and not against Adlai Stevenson, as had been the case in 1928 when Governor Al Smith of New York had lost much of the Southern vote because of his Catholicism and his stand against Prohibition. Mr. Aiken had also overlooked the rapid industrialization of the South, attracting new residents from other areas of the country where the two-party system thrived, as well as expansion of the middle and upper-middle classes, traditionally the stronghold of Republicanism. It thus finds that the potential for a two-party system was present.

Unfortunately, beset during the latter 1960's and onward by the specter of "law and order", the fear of encroaching urban unrest among blacks and long-haired youth, the heavy turn rightward steered by money-grubbing televangelism, intermixing religious fervor with politics of the rightward variety to counteract the civil rights and peace movements with their roots in the churches, both white and black, the convenient use of the emotional tools supplied for "moral majority" checkboxes on political candidates, "pro-life", "pro-gun rights", anti-immigrant, anti-everything which the least smacks of progress, as equating with "socialism", synonymous in the minds of many with Communism, the result in the South has been, in large part, at least, with stutter steps away from it on occasion, a one-party system, flipped instead to the Republicans, characterized by an occluded mindset of obscurantism and inherently paradoxical stands on ad hoc issues about which no candidate has delivered in 50 years because no candidate has that power, either alone or in league with even Republican conservative majorities in all three branches—as what such supporters of that mindset actually want is essentially a dictatorship, contrary to the founding ideals and principles of the nation embodied in the Constitution—which most of them do not bother to study very thoroughly as a whole document, but pluck out words and phrases which they think underscore their particularly slanted authoritarian views of government or lack thereof, as the whims of fancy on a given morning suggest itself as most convenient.

Perhaps, we might see Georgia emerging from that occluded state into the bright morning of awareness, if only by a slim thread of a margin, suggested by recent polls, in the upcoming two Senate races, which will determine control of the Senate for the ensuing first two years of the Biden Presidency, come January 5, the Twelfth Day of Christmas.

Give the man a chance, Georgians, and stop breathing the foul air of Fox News, and the other Onionized Asinine news outlets, geared toward brainwashing you for their own economic well-being and that of the rich fatcats whom they actually serve, having no interest whatsoever in your plight or welfare, either economically or in terms of your civil rights. That is just a bunch of hogwash repeatedly fed you, and you do not seem, except perhaps sporadically, to emerge from that darkness into the light. Try to see, for a change, through these benighted fatcats, represented by that stupid woman who wants to be "more conservative than Attila the Hun", for instance, and that other crook, both of whom are merely telling you that which you want to hear, while ducking and running into the shadows afterward and serving their fatcat pals, who continue to funnel money into their campaigns to spread the brainwashing cult among you in vicious circle, ad nauseam…

Tell us how, in more than 50 years, since the Nixon Administration, after Mr. Nixon fed you that bunk in the 1968 campaign, things have changed for you toward "law and order" and economic and physical security for the better, or how your precious ad hoc issues have advanced, whether they be pro-life, pro-gun, or any of the rest of the bunk. Were it otherwise, you would not still be clamoring about the same old song, "liberal Justices and judges and the liberal media" not serving your interests, etc. The problem is that you do not really know enough about our system of government to understand how to get what you desire for your own actual interests or what your own actual interests really are, in terms of policy, having nothing at all to do with pro-life, pro-gun or the rest of that bunk. Return to reading for a change, that is assuming you can, and read mainstream publications, the Washington Post, the New York Times, and other such publications, the result of a liberal tradition in this country going back to its Founding, never founded on "conservativism", but rather as the most liberal democracy in the history of the world. Any time you hear some charlatan talking about conservatism, remember what they are really talking about—control of your rights, to the extent possible, by gaming of the Constitution and established Congressional rules, in derogation of your interests and your rights, in favor of the corporate interests controlling their campaign purse-strings, sold to you repeatedly as trickle-down economics on the string-along promises of all those goodies in the stockings, pro-life, all the guns you want and "law and awda". Witness Mitch McConnell...

If you want a Federal judiciary dictated by the Federalist Society, find out who that Society represents and what it is before signing on for the sake of your ad hoc issues, which will never be for their patent unconstitutionality, and thankfully so, because those stands disserve your basic interests, do not advance them, provided you understand the history of the country and the reasons for its advancements.

"As Others See Us" indicates that two North Carolina newspapers had taken a look at the Charlotte police corruption scandal investigated by the local grand jury, observing it from their vantage points and arriving at the same conclusion, that the Charlotte officials who had rushed to the defense of Police Chief Frank Littlejohn should have let the law take its course. The Sanford Herald said that it had no information regarding Chief Littlejohn's activities but had more confidence in the American jury system than did City Manager Henry Yancey, when he had commented that the Chief was "neither guilty of negligence nor wrongful acts". The Greensboro Daily News believed, similarly, that Charlotte officials had overdone their defense of the Chief. It recounted that the Greensboro Police Department had come under attack two or three years earlier, was cleaned up, reorganized, and a new chief appointed, after several of its former members had gone to prison. It suggested that perhaps the same kind of housecleaning might improve the situation in Charlotte, without resorting to such drastic action, that the result in Greensboro had been a good Police Department.