There's a prevailing attitude in public perception, fair or not, that the Republican Party is fundamentally prejudicial against minorities...even women. Case in point, how many 2008 campaign ads not officially from the McCain/Palin campaign mentioned something about Sarah Palin's appearance? Even now, if you Google "Republican women Democratic women", as I just did to see what the demographic looked like in congress, all you will see are agitprop websites objectifying Republican women as hotter than Democratic "dogs".

     As far as minorities are concerned, there are too many examples to cite all of them as to why the Republican Party has garnered an image of bigotry and racism. The party's hardline approach to immigration, as well as Republican-enacted laws in Arizona and Georgia, show an ethno-centric ideology, and a fearfully reactionary WASP-dominant culture. There are a number of conservative Republican hardliners in my own extended family, with whom I've spoken at length about nearly every GOP platform debate. Ostensibly, they're not racist people; but I have noticed that if they're talking about a young black man on the basketball court or the football field, they speak admiringly of him, but if he's walking down the street or hanging out at the mall, there's a snide remark about "where our tax dollars are going."

     That same reactionary ideology is often articulated on a national scale among top-ranking Republicans; the cultural gatekeepers, so to speak. Rep. Peter King, Chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, was heavily criticized for his decision to hold "Muslim radicalization" hearings, in which Muslim Americans suspected of having ties to extremist terrorist Islamic groups would be questioned. Many accused King of further demonizing the Muslim American community, of "stereotyping and scapegoating", and raising the specter of the McCarthy "anti-communist" hearings of the 1950's. King persisted, and in June he announced there would be another round of hearings. "To back down would be a craven surrender to political correctness," King said. Rep. Bennie Thomson (D-Miss.) retorted, "an obligation to be responsible does not equal political correctness."

     The rebuff of "political correctness", often said with a disgusted sneer, has become a canned response to criticism of prejudicial practices and policies. The same was said about critics of Arizona's anti-immigration law; a piece of legislation responsible for thousands of Hispanic-Americans (legal citizens, mind you) moving out of the state. Political correctness, or P.C., as it's referred to, is the practice of not saying or doing anything discriminatory or divisive in public. Holding public hearings of Muslim men in Washington D.C. because they attend a mosque instead of a church blows P.C. out of the water, as does passing a legislation that requires law enforcement to verify a Hispanic person's legal status if they're pulled over for speeding. How many of us carry our social security card with us? Passport? What if I look Hispanic by I'm actually black or multi-racial? These kinds of institutionalized discrimination, perpetuated largely by the Republican Party, go well beyond "political correctness" and are exactly why the party is so often considered a party of bigotry and hatred.

     To add gas to the fire, GOP hopeful Herman Cain as recently said that American communities have the right to ban mosques in their community. This comes after his public denouncement of the building of a mosque in Tennessee. On Fox News, Sunday, Cain was interviewed about his comments with Chris Wallace. He explained his position on Muslim mosques (as well as a comment he made earlier in the month promising to "be wary" about appointing Muslims in his administration) like this:

     "Our Constitution guarantees the separation of church and state...Islam combines church and state. They're using the church part of our First Amendment to infuse their morals in that community...Islam is both a religion and a set of laws, Sharia laws. That's the difference between any one of our traditional religions where it's just about religious purposes...I'm simply saying I owe it to the American people to be cautious because terrorists are trying to kill us."

     1. A mosque has no judicial or legislative power, and Sharia law is considered a facet of their religious practice. There's no way for the building of a mosque to translate to American women suddenly being required to wear a burkha. Separation of church and state has nothing whatsoever to do with a mosque being built for Muslim-Americans.

     2. As far as Islam being the only 'traditional' religion with laws, obviously Cain isn't aware of the Twelve Commandments of Christianity, the Eight Pillars of Buddhism, Halakha Jewish Law, or the fact that Hinduism has one of the most complex and integrated systems of religious law in the world.

     Despite the very obvious thinking errors involved in his argument, it's clear that Cain is perpetuating his party's stereotype as the party of bigotry: reactionary, paranoid, fear-mongering. The fact that we might expect him to be more sympathetic of minorities, being an African-American man himself, may be a stereotype in and of itself, but I would at least expect him to be one of the least prejudicial of the 2012 GOP hopefuls. Instead he's taken the forefront in the anti-Muslim Republican agenda with Palin, Bachmann, and King.