Mitt Romney: Why the Republicans lost and may continue to lose

The fanfare is officially over. After hundreds of thousands of phone calls, tens of millions of tweets and billions of dollars spent on campaigning. America decided to stick with President Barack Obama.

In the hours after his victory speech, many both domestically and internationally are making huge sighs of relief to see the 44^th President re-elected, despite a clear victory in the all-important Electoral College.

Yet, for a long time, many Democrats feared the worse. Many influential commentators believed that Obama was on the verge of becoming the first Democratic President to serve one-term since Jimmy Carter. Perhaps he should’ve been.

Obama has already highlighted his desire to finish what he originally set out to do. It is true this is made easier by the fact that he no longer needs to be concerned about his re-election prospects and can ‘get on’ with the so-called job. However, for many ordinary Americans, the idea of getting the job done may appear vacuous and non-evident. For all the rhetoric Obama promised in 2008, much of his ideals and promises lie dormant. The audacity of hope became the absence of anything.

The economic legacy inherited by the Obama administration was far from healthy. Increasing unemployment, a chaotic financial system as well as dealing with two long-term wars and an ever increasing public debt. For any President arriving into White House, any sort of political legacy would need to be put to one-side whilst dealing with the bigger issues. Yet Obama chose to deal with healthcare.

There are arguments to be had about healthcare in general in America. Whether you agreed with George W. Bush extending Medicare or the universal cover provided by Obamacare. But why was this his focus? Why did Obama fail to create the jobs he said he would create? Why was the stimulus seen as the only answer to solving America’s crisis?

Some complain that the Republican majority in the House of Representatives made things impossible, but other Presidents had managed to deal with this before (Clinton springs to mind).

No incumbent President had ever gone into the polls with such poor unemployment figures and approval ratings. So the question is how did the Republicans lose it?

The wrong message

There’s no doubt that Mitt Romney was the best out of a bad bunch, but it shouldn’t deflect from the point that he is a more than competent candidate to become President. A successful businessman, family man, and politician with an excellent record as Governor, Romney was a capable of winning.

Yet, perhaps the Republicans forget the most important thing about politics. Elections are about winning. For too long the candidates slung mud and created an unhealthy portrait of each other. Commentators point at the fact that this allowed Obama to spend his campaign money during the election, but money fundraising wasn’t an issue during the election for either side.

The problem was that we saw the Republicans for what they really were and it was a right-wing party that did not reflect the rest of the electorate. Politics is tribal, but surrendering the centre-ground can be ill-afforded in any election. The GOP may have targeted the blue collar and the religious vote, but its policy towards immigration, the economy and women saw it ostracise a huge proportion and increasingly important section of the electorate: Hispanics and women. Suicidal when one looks at the make-up of the swing states.

For now, the debate will quickly move on as Obama tries to deal with the impending issue of America’s fiscal cliff but the question for the Republicans really remains where do they go next? Was Romney a failure because he wasn’t conservative enough or was it that the party is too right-wing?

2016 will see two new candidates from each side fight again. Even if the Republicans decide to lead with a woman (not Palin) or even a Hispanic, what’s more important is that they sort out their politics, otherwise they won’t be elected any time soon.

Mitt Romney: A rock and a hard place.

Mitt Romney is now confidently sauntering towards the Republican Presidential nomination as he comfortably beat his nearest and fiercest opponent Newt Gingrich in the Florida primary. Gingrich, the former Speaker of the House, appeared last week to be making a serious challenge after winning the South Carolina primary. However, a series of setbacks including some effective negative advertising campaigns has seriously undermined his bid to challenge Barack Obama for the Presidency in November. The other candidates Rick Santorum and Ron Paul both failed to make double digits.

The results reflected the amount of money spent on campaigning. Both Santorum and Paul spent nothing in Florida taking fewer than 350,000 votes. According to CNN, Romney outspent Gingrich by 5-1 and crucially takes all 50 votes from the Florida delegates.

After his victory Romney reflected that he hoped to return to Tampa in August to be officially confirmed as Republican Presidential nominee. Perhaps most importantly, he added that he hoped that it will be a time for all Republicans to reunite behind him.

This is where the issue lies. At his State of the Union address, President Obama set out his agenda on how the election will be fought: fairness. He believes that the positioning of the Republican delegates places his party in a better position to speak to ordinary Americans.

We have already discovered that Romney pays 13.9% income tax on over $21 million whereas Gingrich received a $1.6 million advisory fee from the insolvent mortgage lender Freddie Mac. It is a tactic that may easily play into the hands of Mr Obama, who will also be glad to see a growing economy and lowering unemployment. A few months ago, Republicans were certain Obama would be a one-term president, now they're not so sure.

The ultimate problem for the party is that they still have an identity crisis. Similar to the Left in Britain, there is still an ongoing argument on where the party should be positioned. This was reflected in the votes, where four out of ten Florida voters thought Romney was not conservative enough (Washington Post). Much of the debates are dominated by issues regarding immigration and ‘European-style socialism’. Although no Tea Party backed candidate is running, their spirit is evident.

Yet it would be unwise to pander to such ideologies. Nearly 40 per cent of Americans declared themselves to be independent voters and many of the issues raised by Tea Party members do not function in the day-to-day lives of ordinary Americans. It could be a vote loser.

Romney will most likely win. His message is more consistent, he is better organised, he looks more like a leader; but it may not be enough to take him to the White House. If not, then what do the Republicans do?

Obama - a year to go.

When Barack Obama was inaugurated as America’s 44^th President, he used the Bible of his political hero, Abraham Lincoln, to be sworn into office. Throughout his election campaign, Obama had highlighted his inspiration for America’s 16^th President and particularly the work that he performed during the dark days of America’s Civil War, illustrated in the book ‘Team of Rivals’. As a bust of Winston Churchill had adorned the office during the Presidency of George W. Bush, Obama soon replaced it with one of Lincoln. Immortalised at Mount Rushmore and the grand Athenian-style memorial in Washington, Lincoln was famed for his ability to negotiate with sworn enemies and eventually reunite the Confederacy with the Union after four years of fighting. At the moment of victory, ‘Honest Abe’ was assassinated at Ford’s Theatre on Good Friday, and nearly 150 years later he is still revered by most, though not all, Americans. Obama, now  less than a year away from the 2012 Presidential elections  and with approval ratings hovering ominously low around the 45 per cent mark, America’s first black President will be hoping that he does not cede office after one term and can overcome hostilities like Lincoln fared during his tenure.

It was a moment that the whole world appeared to revel in. America, a country that for decades was torn apart by race relations had elected a black President (mixed-race to be specific). The First Lady’s Michelle Obama genealogy revealed that a remarkable five-generation journey from slavery to the White House.  Fifty years before him, America’s most famous black orator and civil rights campaigner, the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. delivered his ‘I have a dream speech’ and yet the early part of his prose, which is often forgotten, speaks of how America reneged on its promise he said:

“Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand today [Lincoln], signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Negro slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of their captivity.”

It appeared the world had now come full circle. Here was a man, in the shadow of Lincoln and King, completing the Trinity. Obama, the community campaigner from Southside Chicago had become President.

For most international observers, he was importantly not George W. Bush. He was much more circumspect with his words; he wasn’t as moralistic as his predecessor and he appeared to hit the right note when talking to his audience. Obama had written his own political verse ‘The Audacity of Hope’ in 2006, a manifesto of his own thoughts. It is true that many Americans appreciated the honesty of George W. Bush and his world view; however it was clear that his perspective was often blurred by American exceptionalism and the neo-conservative ideology, which is coarse by most standards but became toxic after eight years in office. Despite the whirlwind election campaign that firstly knocked out Hilary Clinton and then Republican candidate John McCain, Obama tried to play down his ambitions. He was not a lifesaver, but just had a different perspective. Here was someone who had opposed the Iraq War that had bogged down American foreign policy, he was not an establishment figure.

There have been some high points during his Presidency, the extension of Medicare to poorer citizens, the killing of Osama bin Laden and the general bonhomie has returned towards America from abroad. Yet as this blog has mentioned before, Obama has been prostrated by the global economy and a militant Republican Party/Tea Party. So a year away, what chance does Obama have to a second term in office and does he deserve it.

As any public relations or electioneer expert will tell you, the secret to success is to keep expectations low and then to exceed beyond those boundaries. Obama, who was reluctant to accept the ‘Yes We Can’ slogan during his campaign has found it difficult to make the transition of some of his promises and in turn as received a great deal of criticism. He has been unable to close Guantanamo Bay, Afghanistan and Pakistan have became major  foreign policy headaches, the operation to clean up the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico directed criticism at him and the stimulus packages have caused great rancour from across the country. Some states such as Wisconsin and New Jersey have almost come to a standstill as the fiscal crisis puts increasing strains on the American economy and the public sector. Unemployment remains high around nine per cent, the credit ratings agency Moody’s downgraded US debt and the economy continues to stagnate.

Critics have labelled him a ‘do-nothing President’, the man who is known to think before he speaks is seen and labelled as weak. Not to mention rumours that he wasn’t even born in the US. The midterm elections that saw him lose control of the Senate and encounter an extremely right-wing Republican Party has done him no favours either. The brinkmanship nearly the pushed the country into default as the two sides could not agree an amendment on the debt ceiling in August. Although he has been able utilise their robustness as a tool of politics, it seems unlikely that Obama will be unlikely to use the economy as the platform to be re-elected. Certainly, the measures put forward by Republican candidates are hardly enviable (more tax cuts to the rich) but as Apple guru Steve Jobs said to the Obama he was heading for a one-term Presidency if he did not sort out his growth and business policies.

It seems most likely that his election strategy may be built on the better than the alternative idea. Although Mitt Romney appears to be the candidate that most deem to be Presidential, he is mistrusted by much of the Republican faithful. The alternatives of Herman Cain or Rick Perry could be possibilities. If he is unable to surmount past the 50% approval ratings then we are likely to hear musings of squeeze the middle and favour the wealthy, it will be about economic inequality. Though whichever candidate he faces will determine what line he plays. The last thing he wants to do is ostracise both blue and white-collar white voters, a place where he built his victory on in 2008.

Obama has overseen a different type of America and is trying to reduce its footprint on the international scene. He was most notably quiet during the Arab Spring and reticent during the NATO campaign in Libya. Although he has managed to use his stardom in the international arena, he doesn’t necessarily flaunt it. He has been happy to allow Secretary of State Clinton to be take stage internationally and isn’t as convivial abroad as predecessors like JFK or George W.Bush . Americans are used to their politicians being able to feel their pain and yet be the Commander in Chief and ebullient statesman, something Clinton and Reagan managed with ease, yet Obama doesn’t conform to nor want to. It appears that the many of the qualities that Obama came to office with have become his handicap. With 37% of American voters declared to be independents and 14 million currently unemployed, Obama may need to dig into the stardust that brought him to power if he wants a second term.

The Tea Party's budget

Over the weekend, the town of Ames, Iowa held a straw poll to see who would lead as the early contender for the Republican Presidential nomination in next year’s election. Out of the ten candidates who put their names forward, it was the fiery Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann, who won the poll slightly ahead of Texas’s Ron Paul. Historically the result has been insignificant, in 2008 Mitt Romney won here only to lose the caucuses to Mike Huckabee and the eventual candidate John McCain. So as the electioneering and rhetoric begins are we still any closer to understanding what the Republicans will bring and whether they will make a challenge to President Obama.

The debacle over the American debt crisis was an embarrassment to the American economy leading to its credit downgrading from Triple A status to AA plus by the ratings agency Standard and Poor (S&P). It highlighted the toxic brinkmanship within Congress, particularly from the Republican controlled House of Representatives but also reflected on President Obama’s weakness to negotiate. Many critics say that the continuous sluggish growth, high unemployment and ineffectiveness of the stimulus package has meant that a well-packaged economic policy from the Republicans could pose a threat to Mr Obama in next year’s poll.

Yet the Republicans will continue to struggle until they are able to compensate over the power struggle held by the Tea Party. Vice-President Joe Biden allegedly called them ‘terrorists’ in the budget negotiations over the budget ceiling. Though strong in its meaning, perhaps he had a point. During the Presidency of George W. Bush, the budget ceiling rose on five separate occasions, two full- scale combat missions launched and Medicare extended, all at a great cost. Under Obama: operations have ended in Iraq and heightened in Afghanistan (partially in Libya), extensive reforms of healthcare to the poor, young and unemployed and at the same time no tax rises. Yet the Republicans see the raising of the debt ceiling as outrageous. America has a cultural issue of spending and consumerism that needs addressing, but the political wrestling over a possible default showed how unrealistic the Tea Party is behaving.

The Republicans will continue to sneer at the liberal elite that hold sway within the Democratic Party and enforce its tough talking on anti-abortion, gun control, evolution, loose interpretation of the Constitution and water fluoridisation, yet its fiscal and economic policies continue to fall out of line. Romney, the Mormon former Governor of Massachusetts, extended health care and introduced real term tax rises; yet this is a policy he isn’t talking about because it bears resemblance to that of Mr Obama’s. Mrs Bachmann, a trained tax attorney, has credentials but appears to be playing to the crowd that desperately loves her social conservatism and doppelganger, Sarah Palin. Rick Perry, the Governor of Texas (a la George W. Bush) and newcomer into the race, has cleared the State’s debt and has kept taxes low (though critics will point to high oil prices) though whether he can adapt his methods to the entire country is another question.

These polls have no real significance and ultimately play a role in raising funds for the candidates. The tough talking will continue to flourish between all candidates, yet until one of them can conceive a viable economic plan then it isn’t worth listening.

It's the economy, dumbass!

The political change taking place across the Middle East and North Africa has surprised most commentators and politicians in terms of its success and speed. Many of the countries that have changed during the ‘Arab Spring’ had been controlled by strongmen who had been in charge for decades. Hosni Mubarak, who stood down from Egypt after thirty years, was only the third president since the 1952 revolution. What has interested me most besides the timing, has been the reaction of the world’s major countries, particularly America. The US has been a major player in the region in the past sixty years, providing aid (and arming) Israel, placing sanctions on Iran and removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. The US has a varying record across the world but it is always unanimous when it comes to promoting and pushing values of democracy and liberty.

These values are mentioned dozens of times in any presidential speech and evolve ultimately from America’s Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights. American troops are deployed all around the world to protect the love of their country and the values it evokes. Yet despite the vivid portrayals of flags and parades adjoined to the rhetoric from the likes of Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann, I wonder whether America is perhaps over-democratised and whether its ‘brand’ of politics is tarnishing the way the system works?

To many, 20 January 2009 was a historical day across the world, but particularly in America. Barack Obama was sworn in as the first black US President. It was a magical moment to watch and the banners for change were painted across cities and small towns in America through the ubiquitous ‘Hope’ posters that will come to define a generation. Yet since that day the obvious stalling of the American economy has defined Obama’s first term as President and with that an infectious antagonism has developed between the President’s Democrats and the Grand Old Party (GOP), the Republicans.

The passage of Obama’s healthcare bill that in essence extended insurance provision to the poorest in society caused fractions between both parties. Obama’s Presidential opponent, Senator John McCain called the bill ‘unconstitutional’ and the President was called a liar by Republican Joe Wilson during a joint session of Congress, a major disrespect in American conventions and in most democracies. The issues of late has been the nation’s high unemployment rate, around 9%, and the inability to agree on America’s deficit (currently America’s total debt stands at $14 trillion (and increasing)). The Democrats, who suffered defeats during the midterms, struggled to pass through the President’s budget until the last minute. Yet, the belligerent GOP who block every bill proposed by Mr Obama, have struggled to formulate their own deficit reduction plan. Congressman Paul Ryan who put forward a much tougher plan, compared to the Democrats, called the ‘Path to Prosperity’ wanted tighter reforms to healthcare and federal spending. This too was voted down. Politicians are embattled over the Treasury’s ceiling limit of American federal debt and the unrest is visible as states such as New Jersey, California and New York struggle to tackle their public spending, even the NFL nearly went on strike. Yet amongst all this, it appears we are yet again in election season.

Despite the US elections being over 18 months away, we have already descended into the hubbub of caucuses and campaigning. The Republicans candidates are still deciding whether 2014 is the best opportunity for them to run. Most headlines nationally and internationally focus on the glamorous, relentless yet fallible Sarah Palin. An ambassador of the Tea Party and a saviour to America’s right, Palin has taken herself on a tour of the US but has yet to confirm whether she will stand. The flamboyant property tycoon Donald Trump also ruled himself out after questioning Obama’s citizenship. Another unhealthy idea evolving from America’s Right is the re-emergence of Reagonomics, in honour of the Republican’s ideological God – Ronald Reagan. Yet Reagan’s policy of cutting taxes yet maintaining a large military capability through borrowing seems idiotic but plays with the patriots’ hearts, despite a horrendous deficit. There appears to be plenty of choice of candidates but no one outstanding.

American electioneering has revolutionised the way democracy and politics works and moves. From the advent of Presidential debates that saw the rookie John F, Kennedy defeat the experienced Richard Nixon to the sophisticated internet campaign that saw Obama steamroll Hilary Clinton as nominee then John McCain. Presidential campaigning is a billion dollar industry and has been used over the years to the Philippines, Venezuela, even the Scottish National Party (SNP) adopted the technology in the recent local elections in the UK.

Now here is the problem, expect utterances of ‘American exceptionalism’ and the usual musings of freedom, hope etc. Yet, it appears to deflect from the big elephant in the room. Bill Clinton’s infamous election phrase, ‘It’s the economy stupid!’ America is in a safer position compared to Britain because the dollar is the world’s reserve currency and developing nations are still prepared to buy US Treasury bonds. Yet the dynamics of American electioneering deflect from the intrinsic importance of policy making and sorting out the economy. The current UK coalition between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats could of course collapse at any time, coalitions do, but the five year plan to wipe out the deficit, despite its critics, is backed and understood by most members of the British public. The British economy is of course entirely different to the American, but the flexibility of the Parliamentary system, which does have its flaws, has shown that the benefits over a codified and rigorous constitutional system. America’s love of democracy isn’t helping any recovery.

America should be proud of its values and persistence to promote and enhance the lives of others across the world. Its labour markets are flexible enough to create new jobs and adapt to the global economy, yet it the constant dogmatism and disorder, perhaps over-democratisation, mixed with the professional electioneers, has caused it to stall and lose focus on important matters. By no means, would any American lust for the Chinese political system or the over bureaucratic system of India but it would aspire for year on year high economic growth and end site to potential financial meltdown. The world could not afford the American economy to default, but you wish someone would stop talking about flags and just say ‘it’s the economy stupid!’

America: she will bounce back.

It is becoming self-evident that Americans believe themselves to be in decline. Many are now thinking that the next generation of Americans will be poorer than their parents. It appeared to be inevitable that America would be caught up economically by the population-heavy likes of China and India but is it possible that there is a decline in cultural identity and that Americans are losing their ability to understand what being American is all about.

After America’s defeat of Soviet Communism that led it to become the world’s only superpower, it appeared not to have even reached its apogee. Over the next few years the world looked to America’s vision and leadership over global events. As American backed democracy helped paint the world in new shades of hope and freedom, the US-led coalition defeated Saddam Hussein in the first Gulf War; the American dream was living, loudly and proudly. September the 11th changed all that, it made Americans question why people would want to attack them and their country. The War on Terror showed that it was incapable of fighting all wars by itself and the rhetoric of omnipotence was as apocryphal as the enemy itself.

We now know that the Soviet economic plan was flawed and struggling before the words Glasnost and Perestroika entered our political discourse. Perhaps the immediate struggle is the idea that China, using a similar economic model to the US, is now competing to overtake her in political, economic and military stakes. Even Napoleon said ‘When China wakes, she will shake the world.’ America cannot begin to compete at the same economic revolution that is propelling China forward. The ideological battle of the free West against the shackled East appears to be fragmenting in round two.

Many Americans hold proud the idea that to be American was to be winner in the lottery of life; though it is something President Obama holds with a deal of relativism. People forget that these words were being uttered a century before by an Englishman in a similar position.

An abandoned factory in Detroit, Michigan.
http://www.urbanghostsmedia.com/2010/06/rust-belt-road-trip-75-urban-decay-pics/

Many Americans hold dear that being American is not a nationality, it is an ideal. A place where no one is judged, the land of opportunity; something we see every day when watching an American film. Is this what America is struggling with? The idea that it may no longer be ‘great’ and that is being usurped by foreign powers. The more acerbic members of The Tea Party movement saw the founding fathers and constitution as divine and cannot concede to inferiority, particularly if it is God-given. The great industrial hearts of Pittsburgh, Detroit and Cleveland – the factories of the Midwest – are rusting into economic grapes of wrath. Even on television, the anachronistic films starring John Wayne or Bruce Willis – the American good guys – are being replaced with a different view of America – Mad Men during its rise to The Wire showing its fractured soul. Even America’s own portrait is distorting.

Yet despite America’s political upheaval in recent years it is still the place where people want to go and fulfil their lives. It is still generating ideas that are transforming the way we live our lives i.e. Facebook, Google and Apple. The world is becoming multilateral and American ideas are propelling it forward, despite the economic setbacks of recent years. America must remember the dark hours during the Civil War and Pearl Harbour, it did emerge stronger. America is changing: ethnically, culturally and evolving politically; it must meet the challenges economically. The world doesn’t get excited over Chinese state visits or Indian trade missions; they look to Presidential visits and the excitement of going to America. America cannot be cleansed of its soul in a decade, the world owes it too much and it will fight back.

The Tea Party: A storm brewing?

Almost two years since President Barack Obama entered the White House, a new grip of political fever is sweeping across the States. The Tea Party are a political force, backed by Sarah Palin, with ambitions to reinvigorate and change the face of modern American politics. They want to see an end to big government and a return to the founding principles of the constitution. With the November mid-terms approaching, what is this movement? Is it a revolution or something purely futile? Will this transform the way Americans think about politicians? Is it a force for good?

The movement became prominent after President Obama’s bail-out bill that threw billions of dollars at troubled financial institutions and created the Troubled Asset Relief Protection scheme (TARP), in essence government intervention into ‘failing’ industries. This for many American conservatives was a step too far; this was the encroachment of big-government and the antinomy of federal autonomy. One surprising feature of this movement has been the proportion of women. Much of this has been put down to the amount of unemployed female population forced to manage the accounts of households. Why they ask do they have to tighten their belts, when the government is adding to the fiscal debt each day?

However, the party appears to be far from a group of fiscal conservatives concerned about the national balance sheet. It is an amorphous group of disillusioned citizens at society, immigration, politics and the essence of America. The recent march on Washington saw a call to return to fundamentals and the upholding of the constitution. Is this romanticism and the amelioration of an earlier era, a desire to return to ideals or does it possess racist undertones? The movement is full of poor, white families who feel ostracised from an America they once knew. The changing face of America and the failure to tackle immigration has only exacerbated the problem. It seems far from coincidental though that the election of a black President could push this into the mainstream.

I don’t think this is all aimed at Obama; this is an objection to all politicians and the way both main parties play ball. The fact that the Tea Party are placing candidates mainly in fringe Republican seats does not necessarily mean it is win-win for the Democrats, many people are disaffected with the change they thought this new era of politics would potentially bring. The biggest mistake would be for the Republicans to cater for this fringe. It is probably true to say that two years ago, these members could have been called extremists, though it was a collapse in the politics of centre that brought Hitler to power right?

I don’t know what everyday Americans think or whether Sarah Palin could possibly be made of substance (probably not). This is a challenge to the norm and certainly come mid-November politicians will sit a little uneasy when the polls are announced.

Racism in America: What would Atticus say?

It is 50 years this week since the publication of Harper Lee’s ‘To Kill a Mockingbird’. Set in 1930s Alabama, it tells the story of a white family, Jem and Scout Finch and their lawyer father Atticus. In a deeply racist society, Atticus defends a young black man called Tom Robinson, who is accused of raping a white girl. Despite the lack of evidence and the cross-examination the all-white jury finds Tom Robinson guilty; to the despair of the onlooking Jem and Scout. The book, which sold tens of millions across the world, highlighted the inequality and injustice that existed in the supposed free world of America.

Yet, the American dream was essentially a white man’s ideal. The founding fathers believed that eventually Negroes would be repatriated back to their own homelands in Africa. As history demonstrates a bitter civil war between the North and South broke out in the 1860s, primarily over the issue of slavery. It was President Lyndon B. Johnson who pushed through the equality laws that finally ended the inequalities between white and black Americans.

Fast forward fifty years, there is now a black President in Barack Obama and for many white Americans the scary fact that in 2050 they will a minority in their original settlement. So much has changed since Mockingbird’s initial publication but to what extent do black Americans still see themselves within Thomas Jefferson’s notion of a separate nation within a nation, that is: after being treated for so long as second class citizens there is a difference between being black and being American.

We have seen the rise of Barack Obama; and before him Condoleeza Rice, Colin Powell. Not to mention many in popular culture such as Sammy Davis Jr., Oprah Winfrey and Michael Jordan. However; the fact is there is still a huge divide socially. Fewer black Americans identify the all-American optimism unlike the many white and Latinos who do. Seventy percent of black children are born into families without fathers, a trend Bill Cosby identified to continue. And white people, even back in 2008 the lacrosse team at Duke University (very much a white institution) was accused of raping a black girl and one of the alleged had apparently said, ‘You’re daddy picked the cotton from my shirt’. It appears that despite the time and change since the civil rights movement, there will always be an underlying thought that this was accepted as the norm for generations.

It was interesting listening to an interview from a reverend in Monroeville, Alabama, the town where Harper Lee lives and based her book on. He, a white man that lived through and supported the civil rights movement, believes it will be another generation before any underlying cultural and racial divide finally dissipates. I think it’s a testament that today Tom Robinson would have been cleared, though for many Americans they will always have to relive that guilt and injustice, like Atticus did.