Something in wikipedia...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red-baiting

The United States government's measures in 2008 to address the subprime mortgage crisis, such as TARP, were not only criticized as “corporate welfare” but red-baited as a “gateway to socialism”.[14][15][16][17] Political activist and author Tim Wise, however, argues that the emergence of red-baiting may be motivated by racism towards U.S. President Barack Obama and fear that the progressive policies of his administration will erode white privilege in the United States.[6]

A pretty blatant example of how the left often enjoys worshipping it's corporate masters harder than the right.

IF YOU DON'T WANT 80% OF YOUR TAX TO GO TO CORPORATE WELFARE YOU'RE RACIST

>>4
Take a closer look, of course he isn't going to directly state "threaten the people who sign my pay checks and I'll call you racist", he is a highly educated and intelligent member of a corporatist propoganda division who has spent much of his adult life studying and practicing the science of psychological manipulation and logical fallacy construction, specializing in abuse of the anti-racist movement. Read between the lines.

http://www.counterpunch.org/wise08112009.html

The process he uses is to link anti-socialism to racism then to link anti-socialism to criticism of the corporatist propoganda line used to justify his employer's actions.

Much as the white right blew a gasket at the thought of bailing out homeowners with sub-prime and exploding mortgages a few months back (and if you listened to the rhetoric on the radio it was hard to miss the racial animosity that undergirded much of the conservative hostility to the idea, since they seemed to think only persons of color would be helped by such a plan)

He slipped up here but considering his target audience are emotionally vulnerable people it probably went unnoticed. How much of the bailout money went to homeowners? This is a text book corporatist propoganda line, he obviously picked that up somewhere officious.

Do I sound like a conspiracy nut? Influencing public opinion has a cost and sometimes the cost is too high to cover the benefits which are often indirect and unquantifiable and sometimes the benefits covers the costs, abuse of the anti-racist movement is one such niche where influencing public opinion is cheaper than usual. It's a dynamic.
>>5
You're not very consistent. Are you saying both whites and black should be racist or should both blacks and whites not be racist?