Italian Vogue's 1st All Black Issue Defies Mainstream Fashion Media Assumptions

My last blog about the fashion industry and race here on culturegeist was on June 24, 2008 after the media was swirling with reports about Naomi Campbell's latest meltdown in Heathrow Airport over her baggage not being put aboard her flight. I wondered how such behavior impacts other younger black models in the industry.

I HAD to comment on reports about Italian Vogue's recent all black issue, that's right! You heard it correctly! Oh, in case you're wondering that's 17 year-old British modeling sensation Jourdan Dunn, pictured left, gracing THE cover of the moment.

It was photographer Annie Leibovitz's April, 2008 Vogue cover that prompted me to start blogging about fashion and race in the first place - her cover photo of Cleveland Cavaliers guard Lebron James dribbling a basketball and cradling model Giselle Bundchen was so flagrantly filled with negative racial overtones I began to seriously wonder about little Annie's childhood.

A MAINSTREAM FASHION magazine filled with with nothing but black models? But how can that be? Fashionistas and media pundits have been mumbling on about how fashion magazines with black models on the cover "just don't sell" for years.

As a writer my career interests have expanded beyond just the publishing industry but I still read my trusty Ed2010 - that's where I saw the citation of Mediabistro's Vogue mention earlier at work, I was too busy to fire off a blog.

The coolest part is that it reportedly sold out on the news stands everywhere; you can't get your hands on a copy. In this era of flat print magazine ad sales, Vogue had to do a reprint!

Of the possible backlash, Italian Vogue editrix Franca Sozzani said:

"Maybe in our country it's not the best idea, but I don't care. I think if they don't like it it's not my problem it's their problem." You go Franca!

Perhaps the editors at Italian Vogue decided to show that Annie Leibovitz's cover doesn't accurately define the totality of Vogue's editorial and ad content. Perhaps there are those who dislike the assumptions about black models perpetuated by the fashion industry and their advertisers.

Maybe it's like a football game where a ref doesn't catch someone holding you on one play, but he gives you a make up for it later in the game without saying anything.

Well partial make up anyway, none of the ads in the issue featured models of color - but I guess it's a start. And that can be a very important step.

April , 2008 Vogue Cover of LeBron James & Gisele Bundchen - Racist Imagery?

The monthly cover of Vogue magazine will never be confused with a bastion of multicultural imagery by any means, so it's hard to find fault with the world's elite fashion book when it finally puts an African- American male on the cover.

But the April, 2008 cover (pictured left) has generated a surprising amount of nationwide media coverage and public commentary; most of it negative.

The image of Cleveland Cavalier's basketball phenom LeBron James with model Gisele Bundchen cradled in his left arm continues to draw the attention of local and national media in print, on the Web and on television - where the Today Show had quite a debate.

In an article posted on the fashion industry trade magazine WWD's Website, some black editors and media critics pointed out that the picture points to the larger issue of the way mainstream media portrays African-American men in visual images. Many have even suggested it's sub-conscious reference to King Kong carting off the terrified blond female.

The Garden State's nj.com Website quotes a University of Maryland professor as saying the image only serves to reinforce long-held stereotypes of black men, particularly black athletes as savage brutes; the image depicts the laid back James with an intense, scowling open-mouthed snarl as he dribbles a basketball in one hand as he clutches the demure Bundchen with the other.

The controversial image also stirs comparisons to age old myths and hysterical fears about black men threatening white women with their sexuality - myths that once led to the lynching of thousands of innocent black men in this country.

To be fair, James himself seemed unfazed and dismissed criticism of his Vogue cover photo taken by Uber photographer Annie Leibovitz as one of many shots depicting a range of emotions. Maybe, but we see which one hit the stands.

No matter where you stand, it does illustrate an important issue that impacts our collective culturegeist - does the media intentionally manipulate images of black men to play on stereotypes?

Remember it wasn't that long ago that Time magazine presented OJ Simpson's arrest photo on the cover of it's June 27, 1994 - and editors intentionally darkened his skin color from the original photo to make him seem more menacing. Skeptical? Check it out, judge for yourself.

Or maybe people are just envious that James got to spend the day taking snapshots with one of the hottest women on the planet?

As Roy Johnson, editor-in-chief of Men's Fitness observed in the WWD article:

"It's a reminder that as African-Americans, we have come very far to have an African-American male featured on the cover of Vogue, but we have very far to go to continue to educate people within our industry regarding the power of images and the potential impact they can have on their readers."

Hollywood Shuffle: Oscar Noms & Kevin Hart's Shirtless THR Cover Photo

Comedian/Actor Kevin Hart preps for THR cover pic

With the film awards season well underway, media attention (mainstream, business and social) is once again focused on the lack of diversity in the 2015 Oscar nominations, reflecting a troubling trend in the film industry.

Ava DuVernay, the director of the MLK biopic 'Selma', was (on the surface anyway) measured and cool in her response to not being nominated by The Academy in the best director category.

In a profile written by Gavin Edwards published in the January 29, 2015 issue of Rolling Stone, the 42 year-old DuVernay said of the buzz surrounding her possibly being the first African-American woman to be nominated for best director, "It's not important to me, but I know it's important to other people."   

Director Spike Lee took a more blunt stance about the Oscar snub, he was quoted as saying: "If I saw Ava today I'd say, 'You know what? Fuck 'em'."



While neither DuVernay or leading actor David Oyelowo  were nominated for Oscars, the film itself was nominated in the best picture category.

As an important industry magazine geared towards film and television professionals, The Hollywood Reporter deserves credit for doing a pretty solid job of consistently staying on top of the challenges industry companies and the executives who run the studios, production companies and agencies face in trying to bring more diversity both behind and in front of the camera; in terms of both race and gender.

THR has made it a point to feature a range of African-Americans on the cover of the magazine in recent months, including Shonda Rhimes, Chris Rock, Michael Strahan, Oprah Winfrey, Kevin Hart, Kerry Washington and Sidney Poitier.

But perhaps more importantly, THR reporters and writers have brought up the issue of diversity in both articles on different subjects, and in their informative industry round table discussions with prominent producers, directors, agents, writers and actors.

So I was a bit confused about THR's decision to use a photo of a shirtless Kevin Hart wearing an immense "Marie Antoinette" type of wig on the cover of the January 23rd issue (see photo above). 

Granted, the specific photo above with an array of Afro picks decorating the wig (Hmmm..) was not used for the cover, but another version of it was. 

Now I understand that Hart is a really funny and successful comedian and a popular actor with a string of number one movies to his credit, but he's also a savvy, intelligent industry professional who understands his brand and knows how to operate in Hollywood.  

So why use a cover photo of him with no shirt on wearing a wig?

Alternate THR cover photo of Kevin Hart with pups

A number of different cover photos of Kevin Hart were shot for the cover; why didn't they use this one for instance?  (See left).

This version captures his smile, he's wearing a stylish suit, an expensive watch and he's holding a bunch of cute puppies.

It's funny, cool and to me, more of a reflection of his public personae than him shirtless in a wig.

As a member of the Screen Actors Guild who writes both screenplays and graphic novel scripts, I find The Hollywood Reporter an important and informative source of information about the entertainment industry; that's why I subscribe.

The extensive coverage of the business side of the film and television industry, updates on productions and deals, as well as the insightful one-on-one interviews with influential entertainment executives makes it an indispensable source of information for anyone trying to broaden their understanding of the entertainment industry. 

I read it each week and I honestly can't recall a cover photo of anyone being photographed without a shirt on.

Do I think it's racist? No.

But over the years I've often used this blog to talk about about ways in which the media distorts the perception of African-Americans and the black male physiology in particular; so I think the decision to use the photo is probably more reflective of a degree of non-diversity in the editorial ranks of The Hollywood Reporter than it is an intentional racial insensitivity on their part. 

Perhaps they just thought it would be funny, or were trying to show that he has sex-appeal

But if there was a qualified person of color sitting at the table in the editorial meeting when they were discussing the cover photo of Kevin Hart, I have to think that person would have raised the point I'm trying to illustrate.

If you remember, the editors of Vogue faced quite a bit of heat over a similar cover photo.

Back in April of 2008, I was just one of many mainstream journalists and  bloggers to write about the decision by Vogue to put a picture of basketball player LeBron James cradling Brazilian-German super model Giselle Bundchen on the cover.

Many felt the photo (pictured left) reflected once commonly-used racist depictions of black men as terrifying ape-like savages bent on carrying off white women. 

Those kinds of images were once used to dehumanize black men and reinforce the warped perception of them as second-class citizens to be feared.

A quote by Roy Johnson, the (then) editor-in-chief of Men's Fitness magazine, in an article about the LeBron James photo in the influential fashion industry publication Women's Wear Daily offers relevant perspective on the THR cover photo of Kevin Hart.

Of the LeBron James-Giselle Bundchen Vogue cover photo, Johnson said:

"It's a reminder that as African-Americans, we have come very far to have an African-American male featured on the cover of Vogue, but we have very far to go to continue to educate people within our industry regarding the power of images and the potential impact they can have on their readers."  

It's often said a picture is worth a thousand words.

I remain an avid reader and fan of The Hollywood Reporter, but I would've hoped a magazine like THR would have given a little bit more thought as to the sub-conscious message the picture of a shirtless Kevin Hart in a wig sends to the thousands of members of the entertainment industry who read the magazine; or leave it out on the desk or coffee table in the offices of the prominent Hollywood executives who influence the green lighting of  projects, casting and hiring decisions.

Especially in an industry obviously struggling to bring more balance to the diversity of it's ranks.
 
A successful, popular (and bankable) young African-American performer gracing the cover of THR is in itself, an important step for the industry. One would hope care would be exercised by the editorial staff to be sure and portray such a person in the best and most professional way possible.

I'm just not sure a photograph of Kevin Hart shirtless and wearing the kind of wig more commonly associated with a perfumed lady of the French court of Versailles portrays him as an industry professional to be taken seriously.

Lena Dunham's Awkward Millennial Moment

 Actress / writer Lena Dunham

As you may have heard, last week Lena Dunham, the creator, writer and star of the HBO series Girls, made a pretty big social media splash - and not for a good reason.

As the New York Times reported last Wednesday, she found herself on the defensive after comments she made during an interview with actress / comedienne Amy Schumer about Odell Beckham Jr., a talented African-American wide receiver for the New York Giants in which she ascribed thoughts and words to him that he didn't actually say.

Let me first say that I don't think that Dunham is a racist at all, in fact her politics are clearly pretty progressive.

When she made the comments in question, she was interviewing one of the most talented comediennes in the business via Skype, so clearly she was having a one-on-one conversation and trying to be funny, but it didn't come off that way.

The interview was published the Friday before last in the online newsletter Lenny Letter, which was founded last fall by Dunham and Girls co-creator Jennifer Konner as an online forum for young feminist voices to be heard through stories, essays and interviews.

It gained notoriety when actress Jennifer Lawrence published her online op-ed piece, "Why Do I Make Less Than My Male Co-Stars?" on the Website last fall, generating a slew of media attention to the gender pay gap in Hollywood.

During the interview with Amy Schumer two weeks ago, Dunham was trying to steer the conversation towards an issue that's very personal to her; the distorted perception of female body image that exists within media, art, entertainment and popular culture.

Dunham in a photo she posted on Instagram

Part of Dunham's appeal is that she's the opposite of the standard thin blue-eyed blonde stereotype that saturates film and television; she looks like an "average" woman, someone you might know or work with.

Her body isn't artificially "perfect" in the sense of the hyper-toned meticulously sculpted female figures most commonly seen in American films and television that radically distort perceptions of the normal body types of women and girls.

Dunham accepts herself for who she is; a talented writer with a voice who isn't afraid to express her opinion, or show her body off as evidenced by the nude scenes she's done on Girls or the pictures she posts on social media.

So as she began her interview with Schumer, who's made herself famous for her own jokes about her embracing her own body type, Dunham referred back to the fact that both she and Schumer sat at the same table at the ultra-exclusive Met Gala back in May.

The Met Gala is an invitation-only annual charity fashion event that benefits the Metropolitan Museum of Art Costume Institute that is chaired and hosted by Anna Wintour, the American Vogue editor and artistic director of publishing giant Condé Nast; individual tickets run about $30,000.

Although companies, or loaded individuals, who slap down $275,000 for a table often invite well-known people who might not otherwise be able to afford a ticket for the opportunity to mingle with them, simply because it's interesting and worthwhile to have them there.

So unless you're an A-list actor, really hot model, wealthy financier/lawyer/media executive, or a talented and well-known designer, athlete, musician, writer, politician or performer (or are dating or married to one of the above...) don't expect an invitation in the mail from the notoriously discerning Ms. Wintour anytime soon.

So it's more than a little ironic that Dunham and Schumer were at the same table at an exclusive event that is essentially a money-festooned ode to the "perfect" female body.

Dunham, dressed in a black tuxedo pants suit and wearing oversize thick-rimmed glasses, was sitting next to Odell Beckham Jr. at the event and in an effort to sort of sarcastically play on her own personal insecurities about her body and looks in a room full of some of the hottest models in the world, during the interview Dunham told Schumer that she felt like Beckham dismissively looked at her because she wasn't as attractive as the other women at the Met Gala.

Giant's receiver Odell Beckham

She told Schumer:

"I was sitting next to Odell Beckham Jr. and it was so amazing because it was like he looked at me and he determined I was not the shape of a woman by his standards. He was like, 'That's a marshmallow. That's a child. That's a dog.' It wasn't mean, he just seemed confused." 

Then it got even stranger.


"The vibe was very much like, 'Do I want to f*ck it? Is it wearing a...yep, it's wearing a tuxedo, I'm going back to my cell phone.' It's like we were forced to be together, and he literally was scrolling Instagram rather than having to look at woman in a bow tie. I was like this should be called the Metropolitan Museum of Getting Rejected By Athletes."

Check out the comments on LennyLetter.com for yourself, they came pretty early in the written online interview.

As I said, I don't think Dunham was being racist per se, but her comments about Beckham, even if meant in jest, clearly tap into damaging, demeaning and enduring stereotypes about black American males being simplistic, over-sexualized predators consumed with bedding white women.

Last week black female culture writer Zeba Blay took Dunham to task in a well-written op-ed titled
"The Way Lena Dunham Talks About Black Men Is Peak White Entitlement" posted on Huffington Post that noted that Dunham has had several other instances or comments with decidedly racial overtones that have made media headlines since 2011; including comments she made during a 2013 interview suggesting black Canadian rapper Drake didn't find her physically attractive.

Does Dunham have some kind of "thing" about black men not finding her attractive?

I don't know. Her style of humor tends to be so layered with cynicism and sarcasm that at times it's hard to pin down what Dunham herself actually thinks or believes, versus what she wants people to think that she believes.

It's hard to gauge what's in someone's mind, but my sense is that Dunham's comments reveal an awful lot about her own personal insecurities about her body and her looks, I mean if you read her quote above, if you didn't know she was a 30-year old writer and actress, you might have thought it was written by a sixteen year old high school girl who secretly pines after the varsity quarterback.

Again, from the perspective of a guy who played college and professional football, I've been around and known a lot of very talented athletes, white and black - many of them come from very modest means that are lightyears from the privilege that surrounds professional football.

Claire Danes at the 2016 Met Gala

It's important to remember that although Odell Beckham signed a four-year contract worth a guaranteed $10.4 million when he was signed as a first-round agent out of LSU in 2014, including a $5.8 million signing bonus, and was listed on GQ's best-dressed list in July, he's still a 23-year old kid who grew up in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

The football players you see on the field may exude confidence, but they're still human.


Lena Dunham is not only seven years older than him, she's made a movie, pitched and sold a TV series to HBO, started a Website and been published as a writer; she's a "player" and as such has had infinitely more experience at formal events packed with influential and wealthy people - she's also been attending the Met Gala since at least 2014.

So maybe she didn't stop to consider that Beckham might simply have felt a little bit insecure himself at that table at the Met Gala surrounded by some of the wealthiest and most famous people in the world.

If she was so curious about what he thought, why didn't she just turn to him, introduce herself and try and get to know him? Isn't that what most of us make an effort to do when seated at a formal event or affair with people we don't know?

Maybe Beckham sort of retreated into looking at his cell phone because no one thought to include him in the conversation taking place at the table.

Have you noticed that looking down at one's cell phone and pretending to be occupied has become something of a social crutch of sorts in today's hi-tech society?



A lot of people do it, but I think it's especially true of Millennials, who at times can seem tethered to their phones through some sort of WiFi umbilical cord.

Maybe there were other social dynamics at that table that Dunham simply didn't pick up on that caused Beckham to tune into his phone.

I mean, say for example Chase Manhattan or Time Warner had paid $275,000 for the table at the Met Gala where Schumer, Dunham and Beckham were all sitting that night, and the rest of the people at the table were wealthy C-level executives of the company with their spouses who all knew each other - Beckham might have felt left out or no one thought to include him the conversation.

Believe me (not to "Trump" out), I'm a fairly intelligent guy who can converse on an any number of topics, and I've been to social occasions where people make some pretty base assumptions about me because they find out I play or played football - there are people who think football players are lunk-headed idiot simpletons.

But to get back to the topic, as Dunham said, she had Amy Schumer at the same table and they've known each other for years and are friends - I'd be interested to know if there were any other people of color seated at that table or what the dynamics of the conversation were.

Schumer, Dunham & Beckham at the Met Gala

There were certainly some A-list black people at the Met Gala event including Rihanna, Beyonce Knowles, Jay-Z, Drake, Kanye West and Idris Elba among others - but of the 600 guests who attended, how many of them were people of color?

Personally I think Dunham's actions were something of a "Millennial-thing"; Millennials being those born in the 1980's to early 90's.



Obviously it's not fair to ascribe behavioral characteristics to an entire generation of people.

But in both the professional and social sense, American Millennials have certainly been tagged with attributes that can sometimes cause Baby Boomers and Gen X'ers like myself to scratch their heads; in particular a tendency to be remarkably self-focused and to use social media to broadcast anything they think onto the internet.

So I think Dunham's identity as a feminist whose also sort of unofficially been dubbed by the media as the "voice" of the Millennial generation (Hearst Media backs her Website LennyLetter.com and Time-Warner behemoth HBO bought her series Girls...)

If you stop to think about it, what really qualifies Lena Dunham to be crowned as the unofficial spokesperson of the Millennial generation?

Sure she wrote and directed the critically well-received 2010 film Tiny Furniture and found a way to successfully tap into some of the anxieties of Millennials and fictionalize them for an HBO series; but does she genuinely represent the Millennial mindset and values?

Maybe it was just convenient for mainstream media to appoint Dunham because the executives who spend their days trying to figure out how to market to them and sell them stuff had a hard time understanding them and their elusive (and oft all-consuming) social media habits.

Does the Millennial voice have to be someone who had been on television or in the movies?

Remember last fall when a white University of Southern California fraternity brother leaned out of a window of his frat house and hurled a nasty ethnic slur at Indian-American student Rini Sampath and chucked a drink at her as she was walking by?

USC Undergrad Student Body Pres. Rini Sampath 

Sampath just happened to be the president of the USC undergrad student body, but the frat brother didn't know that, in the bliss of his ignorance he just saw a female with dark skin walking by with her friends and took it upon himself to say what said and do what he did.

In true Millennial fashion Sampath, whose undergrad student body vice-president Jordan Fowler is an African-American woman, quickly took to Facebook and posted about her experience as a means to try and make sense of what happened.

By doing so she brought national attention to the climate of intolerance on the USC campus, (like the University of Texas chapter of Phi Gamma Delta that banned Mexicans, gays and interracial dating) and brought focus to the prevalence of bigotry and prejudice at American institutions of higher learning.

That's when the Washington Post and other large national media outlets picked up the story.

Incidents like that were the topic of a lot of mainstream media discussion last fall, winter and into the spring, illustrating how the divisive racist, anti-immigrant rhetoric of the Trump campaign had seeped into mainstream culture; as if intolerance and bigotry had been given a collective nod of approval and some students took it upon themselves to openly express that on the campuses of their respective colleges.

So why doesn't mainstream media crown Rini Sampath as the voice of the Millennial generation?

She's certainly a feminist in the truest sense of the word and has devoted herself to causes like mental health, religious and ethnic tolerance and the promotion of diversity on college campuses.

Clearly her own message is as relevant as Lena Dunham's is, and arguably just as meaningful - it's certainly less snarky and more inclusive in the racial, ethnic and cultural sense.

I may be just a Gen X fringe media guy, but in my book Rini Sampath makes a pretty good case for being regarded as the "voice" of the Millennial generation.

Again, I don't think Dunham is a bad person, maybe she just needs to develop a social media filter, or just stop and consider that just because a particular train of though pops into her head, it doesn't mean everyone is going to find it as witty and urbane as she seems convinced she is.

Or maybe Millennials simply find the old adage "some things are better left unsaid" a bit elusive.

The Republican Now Or Never

The Circus co-hosts Halperin, McKinnin &Heilemann

The reviews for The Circus, Showtime's new weekly documentary-style analysis of the 2016 presidential campaign trail produced in cooperation with Bloomberg Media, have been somewhat mixed.

But I don't think it's really fair to make a final judgement about any TV or cable show after only a couple episodes.

Like a good stew, the contents of a show need time to blend together and simmer and I don't think The Circus is quite done cooking yet; and I mean that in a good way.

In a recent review of the show, Salon.com's Steve Almond called it "straight pundit porn"

And to a degree it is.

But while Almond uses wit and sharp eye to sum up the show nicely, his well-written review of the show stuck me as a bit harsh given that they're only two episodes in.

As a political junkie, I'm not looking for 60 Minutes or Frontline when I tune into The Circus; I'm hungry for an interesting and entertaining take on the 2016 presidential campaign trail that I don't get from CNN, MSNBC or network news - and for me it delivers a nice Sunday night snack.

The Circus is ably hosted by seasoned Beltway observers John Heilemann and Mark Halperin, who both co-wrote the searing expose of the 2008 presidential race, "Game Change", and the perpetual hat-wearing ex-Democrat-turned-conservative political adviser and former George W. Bush confidant, Mark McKinnon - all three share good chemistry.

It runs a breezy 28 minutes as the constantly-moving cameras move back and forth between the three hosts meeting to dish on various aspects of the presidential race, and, more interestingly, following some of the leading presidential candidates around from week to week as they traverse the American terrain of the campaign trail.

It offers a refreshing glimpse of the candidates themselves, not just at the podium delivering the usual mix of predictable sound bites and political shtick - but up close and personal where they are bot more vulnerable and open than we usually get to see them in carefully edited 10-second video clips, or on stage in debates.

If a quick inside glimpse of the 2016 presidential campaign trail is your thing and you have access to Showtime, I suggest you check out a couple episodes.

Obama being interviewed by Glenn Thrush on Monday

With the critical Iowa and New Hampshire primaries just around the corner, influential mainstream and moderate conservatives are gearing up their efforts to try and stitch together the tattered pieces of a Republican party fragmented by months of being driven by an extremist faction.

In an interview with Politico's Glenn Thrush on Monday, President Obama, contrasting the tone of the Republican party during his 2008 race against Senator John McCain with today's Republican party, the president said the GOP in 2016 has moved so far to the right of the political spectrum that it's now "unrecognizable".

It's nice to hear him say that but it's not like the President really needed to point that out to us; or to Republicans for that matter.

As the approaching Iowa and New Hampshire primaries bring the 2016 presidential race closer to reality, it's not just Democrats, liberals or centrist voters of both parties who find the idea of a right-wing extremist like Donald Trump or Ted Cruz getting the 2016 Republican nomination for president repugnant.

The staunchly conservative editors of The National Review made headlines (and irked some of the Tea Party Republicans) when they came out against Donald Trump last Thursday.

Conservative author Charles Krauthammer

Even conservative author and Fox News commentator Charles Krauthammer questioned the wisdom of the Republican party nominating Donald Trump during an interview with Bill O'Reilly on Monday.

The large block of moderate Republicans who sat back and remained relatively quiet over the course of Obama's two terms as the far right Tea Party-Libertarian wing became the mouthpiece of the party and hoisted the flag of it's divisive ideology over the GOP have only now really begun to stir.

From the very start of Barack Obama's presidency, Republican lawmakers made it crystal clear that their legislative strategy for the duration of his term in office would be a simple one.

To use their position in office to oppose any initiative he proposed.

Regardless of what motivated this unprecedented partisan opposition, one thing history will be clear on is that this Congress chose not to act on major issues that impact the American people when it had the chance to do so.

Just last March, Republican Senators stymied the president's calls for massive (and critical) infrastructure spending by blocking a $478 billion spending bill that was proposed by Senator Bernie Sanders.

Michigan Governor Rick Snyder

The lead poisoning of the water supply in Flint, Michigan was a result of Republican Governor Rick Snyder's circumventing the democratic process in cities like Detroit and Flint by appointing "emergency managers" to oversee large urban areas suffering from decades of neglect by the state and federal government - then run them like businesses.

Those decisions, so en vogue in 2010 as the wave of Tea Party hysteria broke over the nation and swept conservative businessmen into political office with no political experience.

These men (and women) shared an irrational hatred of government, a fervent belief in anti-labor union "Right to Work" laws and a "starve the beast" philosophy of slashing government spending to finance lavish tax cuts for the wealthiest citizens - what they unleashed upon the country in the name of "conservative values"epitomizes the glaring philosophical failures of the 21st century Republican party.

Just look at the state of the economies of states with similar-minded Republican governors; Louisiana, Kansas, Michigan, Wisconsin, New Jersey....the list goes on.

The moderate Republicans who stood by and allowed their party to be hijacked by these wing-nuts  find themselves in an awkward position.

They realize Donald Trump and Ted Cruz may poll well among conservative primary voters, but pitted in a national election, their right-wing extremism and open tolerance of racism and anti-immigrant hysteria is going to be a huge turnoff for the majority of Americans.

The smart Republicans realize the White House won't be won by systematic voter suppression and vilifying Mexican immigrants and Muslims - conservatives just don't have the numbers.


Especially not with candidates like Trump and Cruz who skew so far right on the political spectrum they scare the centrist voters needed to win enough electoral college votes to win the White House.

As was widely reported this summer, in 2014, the majority of American births were racial and ethnic minorities, a Republican party governed by the racist ideals of Donald Trump isn't going near the White House in 2016 - and could lead to an unmitigated disaster for the GOP in the Senate, House and in state houses across the nation.

That's where the fear and anxiety that Trump deals in comes from - the massive gerrymandering and voter suppression by Republicans across the country is a futile attempt to avoid that reality.

The smart Republicans, the ones who face reality, understand this.

Governor John Kasich

Hence the recent endorsement of moderate Republican Ohio Governor John Kasich for the crucial February 9th New Hampshire primary on Monday by The Boston Globe.

The demographics of this nation are changing much faster than Republicans can enact laws to legalize discrimination, suppress votes and block non-white foreign nationals from entering the United States.

Watch in the coming weeks as more and more resources begin to quietly flow to more moderate candidates like John Kasich and Jeb Bush; remember the Koch Brothers and the conglomerate of shadowy conservative libertarian billionaires described by author Jane Mayer in her book "Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right" want a candidate they can control - someone who needs their billions.

Donald Trump doesn't need their billions, he is a billionaire.

That enough is sufficient to seal his fate in the 21st century Republican party.

For Republicans who are content to continue trying to rely on the votes of a single demographic in this country, and want to retake the White House 2016, it's really basically now or never.