Conservatives on Civil Rights

[shunyadragon]

Oh good Lord... It's how the terms are defined, Frank.

con·serv·a·tive
/kənˈsərvədiv/

1. holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in relation to politics or religion.




lib·er·al
/ˈlib(ə)rəl/

1. open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values


So, any change in social value will be labeled "liberal" and any holding to tradition will be "conservative". Nothing in that definition says whether the traditions were positive or negative. Nor does it say that all conservatives are against change on every issue, nor that all liberals are against tradition on every issue.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]6957[/ATTACH]

Duck, Bob and Weave at its finest. Your simplistic definitions fail miserably. What I am referring to as Conservative and Liberal or Progressive is very clear and distinct in political history of the USA since about 1950. This distinction of Liberal and Conservative is well accepted in political history of the period. There is an older political tradition dating back to before the Civil War and earlier particularly in class and race cultural distinctions, but I consider the discussion more focused on the post WWII years when social, civil and legal rights legislation advanced the rights of minorities and women.

It is clearly obvious that you are uncomfortable with the reality of this thread, as well as others that document the problem of 'white Anglo privilege' in the cultural and social history of the USA.

[rogue06]

Simplistic statement without sources. The issue is not party affiliation. You need to do better in your response if your going to defend an alternate view.

False. concerning conservative Republicans. The Republicans that supported the Civil Rights act were northern social moderates. Count in the Civil Rights Act in the South was 1 yes, and 47 no. Goldwater also opposed the Civil Rights Act. The conservative Dixiecrats became Republicans. The lines are more clear and distinct today, and party lines fall more in line between social conservatives and social liberals.

Most of the conservative southern Democrats remained Democrats their entire lives with a few exceptions. And it seems that you are determining the definition of conservative based upon support of civil rights. IOW, for you if they supported civil rights then by your definition they couldn't be conservative but must therefore be moderates. If that were the case then the vast majority of Republicans in Congress during that period were moderates (82% of Republicans in the Senate and 79% in the House voted for the Civil Rights Act). In fact FWIU of 26 major civil rights votes from 1933 through the 1960’s civil rights era shows that Republicans favored civil rights in approximately 96% of the votes (whereas the Democrats opposed them in 80% of the votes).

As one example take a look at Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen, widely recognized as being a key player in passing the Civil Rights Act (presented a civil rights accomplishment award for the year by the head of the NAACP in recognition of his efforts). At the start of his political career he was regarded as a moderate but as the years progressed he was by any measure definitely conservative belonging to the so-called old guard conservative wing of the Republican Party. He was

• staunchly anti-communist to the point of even defending Joe McCarthy

• prominent supporter of the Vietnam War

• ardent supporter of Taft (longtime leader of the Republican party's conservative wing) over moderate-liberal Dewey for the presidential nomination

• introduced a constitutional amendment in support of organized prayer in public schools

• defeated the more moderate John Sherman Cooper for the Senate Minority Leader position

And one look at his voting record reveals that he was steadily conservative on economic issues.

It appears that you have already decided on a conclusion and are seeking to force the facts to fit it and if they don't then simply hand wave them away.

[shunyadragon]

Or their stripes!

nice correction, but both true.

[Bill the Cat]

The thread on 'privileges' revealed some interesting attitudes concerning 'What is privilege?'

This is in part in response to this post by Cow Poke and my response:






The history of 'race relations/Civil Rights' and 'conservatives' is interesting, particularly the last 70 years by far most Conservatives have opposed all progressive Civil Rights and Integration legislation. This is not related to the affiliation to a political party. It is a historical issue of conservatives in America.

I notice Rand Paul in recent speeches is trying rework the conservatives history to appeal to get more blacks to join.

The Republican Party today is no longer the party of Abraham Lincoln.

Sources to follow . . .

Oh good Lord... It's how the terms are defined, Frank.

con·serv·a·tive
/kənˈsərvədiv/

1. holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in relation to politics or religion.




lib·er·al
/ˈlib(ə)rəl/

1. open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values


So, any change in social value will be labeled "liberal" and any holding to tradition will be "conservative". Nothing in that definition says whether the traditions were positive or negative. Nor does it say that all conservatives are against change on every issue, nor that all liberals are against tradition on every issue.

sucks.gif

[Cow Poke]

True, but the issue remains the conservative right, and not party affiliation. Tigers may change their political party, but they do not change their strips.

Or their stripes!

[shunyadragon]

And FURTHER more!!!!!

I fully agree that "republicans" and "democrats" are not necessarily "conservatives" and "liberals", and vice versa. NEITHER party is what it used to be.

True, but the issue remains the conservative right, and not party affiliation. Tigers may change their political party, but they do not change their strips.

[shunyadragon]

There were a lot of conservative Republicans that fought for it and a lot of conservative Democrats that opposed it.

Simplistic statement without sources. The issue is not party affiliation. You need to do better in your response if your going to defend an alternate view.

False. concerning conservative Republicans. The Republicans that supported the Civil Rights act were northern social moderates. Count in the Civil Rights Act in the South was 1 yes, and 47 no. Goldwater also opposed the Civil Rights Act. The conservative Dixiecrats became Republicans. The lines are more clear and distinct today, and party lines fall more in line between social conservatives and social liberals.

[rogue06]

There were a lot of conservative Republicans that fought for it and a lot of conservative Democrats that opposed it.

[Cow Poke]

And FURTHER more!!!!!

I fully agree that "republicans" and "democrats" are not necessarily "conservatives" and "liberals", and vice versa. NEITHER party is what it used to be.

[Cow Poke]

Politics, in my opinion, is so screwed up that neither side really represents the people.

Our "representative republic" has become a "how do I get rich pretending to be a public servant" or "how do I use my office and influence to advance my own agenda.

[shunyadragon]

The thread on 'privileges' revealed some interesting attitudes concerning 'What is privilege?'

This is in part in response to this post by Cow Poke and my response:

Yeah, cause everybody knows that Republicans were opposed to Civil Rights, and Democrats championed it, right?

Not really correct for the time the conservative southern Democrats opposed Civil Rights as well as other conservatives. The Dixiecrats of the South became the conservative Republican core of the South. In other words you cannot equate the Democrats as all liberal in the 1960's. It was some Northern Republicans that helped the Democrats pass the Bill.

President Johnson was indeed prophetic when he stated, "The Democratic Party lost the South when we passed the Civil Rights Act."

From your source.

Enten points out that Democrats still played a key role in getting the law passed.

"It was also Democrats who helped usher the bill through the House, Senate, and ultimately a Democratic president who signed it into law," Enten writes.

The fact is the Conservatives opposed the Civil Rights Act regardless of political party.

The history of 'race relations/Civil Rights' and 'conservatives' is interesting, particularly the last 70 years by far most Conservatives have opposed all progressive Civil Rights and Integration legislation. This is not related to the affiliation to a political party. It is a historical issue of conservatives in America.

I notice Rand Paul in recent speeches is trying rework the conservatives history to appeal to get more blacks to join.

The Republican Party today is no longer the party of Abraham Lincoln.

Sources to follow . . .