is going to people who could work and do not, who spend the money on
drugs and feel that the world owes them a living. Who pays the tab? The
middle and working classes—the rich get tax breaks. Yet it is the middle and
working classes who are barred from an opportunity to better themselves by
affirmative action, which gives any decent job to minorities, whether quali-
fied and hardworking or not. They perceive the whipsaw: affirmative action
on the income side and welfare abuse on the outgo side.

Most people in the room think they know why these unfair, antiworker,
antiwhite policies persist. The beneficiaries of affirmative action and of
welfare abuse are supported by minority group racial solidarity. Because all
blacks support the same candidates, politicians support the policies to get
bloc votes and stay in office. Thus, politicians get campaign contributions
from the rich (who get tax breaks) and votes from minorities (who get
minority programs) and rip off the white middle class. Then they raise their
own salaries and use their connections to get benefits for their friends and
families.

Other politicians who represent the interests and values of Duke supporters
are mentioned. For working-class Duke supporters these politicians include
Louis Lambert, a populist "watchdog" against high utility rates, and Woody
Jenkins, a conservative antiabortion advocate. Middle-class Duke supporters
prefer Buddy Roemer, the "scrub-the-budget" and anti-special interest gov-
ernor, and George Bush, the stern enforcer of a line drawn in the sand.

David Duke, however, satisfies both groups. First, he speaks out against
welfare abuse and affirmative action, whereas other politicians seem afraid
to. Second, as a candidate he perhaps can rally enough votes on these issues
to outweigh minority bloc voting. Third, he proposes what they see as univer-
sally fair policies, stressing individual equality and strict guidelines. Most of
the anti-Duke campaign information and media coverage they dismiss as just
more negative political campaigning from the same people who are already
abusing the public trust. Supporters identify with David Duke: once con-
vinced—often by his TV messages—they may not say anything, but when
he is attacked or insulted, they feel offended.

Are they racists? They do not think they are. Yet their admiration of blacks
is slow and grudging, while their criticism is fast and free. All say that blacks
take away more than they contribute to contemporary American life. Though
some are bothered by Duke's Ku Klux Klan background, they agree with his
issues, and because they feel more strongly about the issues than about the
background, they are prone to give their man the benefit of a large doubt. The
KKK is not part of their lives, except when someone uses it to attack Duke.
They feel less racist than victimized: they are not to blame for slavery, they

-xx-