Moral protection

Romney has been running ads attacking welfare. Most of the content in the ads are false. Yet those ads appear to be working. Why?

It turns out the more racist, or more racially resentful, the more likely a person is affected by the ads. That's even though the ads themselves are racially neutral.

This is now a strange situation. Obama can't talk about race. When he does he is accused of playing the race card. But Romney is talking about race a lot, in ways aimed at racists.

Terrence Heath asks an important question. Why is the Romney campaign (and the GOP) getting away with playing the race card? Two parts to the answer:

The media either excuses those comments or pretends the comments aren't really as racist as they appear. Media talking heads can't believe the GOP really is that racist in our supposed "post racial" society.

The base is willing to endorse policies that hurt their own lives as long as *those people* are not helped. Robert Self, in a New York Times article (sorry, no direct link) said, "For liberals, government promises to support individuals and families economically. For conservatives, government promises to protect individuals and families morally." So if a GOP candidate explains the need to end welfare in moral terms he can get support in spite of the harm other policies will have on the voter. And the moral reason is the candidate wants to eliminate a culture of dependency -- a phrase loaded with racial overtones.