Conservatism: a racist ideology

Whites only

Is racism still alive in America?

The question seems really strange to me. I understand that there are some out there that think racism is dead and gone, (Chief Justice Roberts is one of them) but these are people that don't seem to have any awareness of what's going on around them. The election of the country’s first Black American President, (Some still don't think he's an American, and that includes members of Congress ) hasn't erased centuries of hate. Obama won two terms because of his appeal to minorities that outnumbered the majority white population.

Despite Chief Justice Roberts declaration that “Racism is dead in America”, I have to disagree and suggest that the Chief Justice is wearing blinders. The systemic institutionalized racism that exists has recently been uncovered with the Justice Department’s investigation of the Police Department of Ferguson MO. The Police actions in Staten Island with the killing of Eric Garner caught on video tape and no indictment defies reason. The video tape of the SAE Fraternity, and most recently the murder of Walter Scott in North Charleston SC, with the attempted cover up and planting of evidence all caught on video lead us to think that this kind of thing is happening with too much frequency to be coincidental. We're seeing "Snuff" Films on TV now showing white police killing black men and even children. We ask ourselves, did all of this start with the advent of the cell-phone camera? Probably not. It’s probably been going on for a long time. The available technology is just bringing it to light. The victims are all black. A young (black) boy is shot and killed by a cop in Cleveland within seconds of arriving on the scene because the boy is waving a toy gun. Had it not been for the video in North Charleston, the officer would not be in jail charged with murder, but back on the job. In fact, without the video it’s quite likely that a campaign of destroying the credibility of the only witness would have been launched on Fox News immediately vilifying the witness as a liar or worse and the victim, Mr. Scot, as a Thug who got what he deserved. Are we post-racial? I don’t know what that means. Are we post-racist? Absolutely not.

I would say that as long as conservatism exists as a "legitimate" ideology, racism will be with us. It's woven into the very fabric of the ideology. That's probably going to offend some people, but I really don't care about offending them. I'm offended by what I see, and it seems that we are deliberately avoiding the elephant in the corner of the room. Nevertheless, I'll give my reasons, but first we'll need to understand what is meant by "conservative".

Let me begin by saying I don’t define other people. I certainly don’t define myself. I could never put a fence around who or what I am and say... that’s me. No more. No less. I hope to continue to grow and learn each day for the rest of my life. There's a line from a song that goes, " There are so many things that I've left undone, so many places to see. And there ain't enough time in what's left of this life, but it's more than I thought it would be".

Life is for learning, and that makes everything interesting for me. Thinking that I know all I need to know, would be a huge mistake. I'd stop growing. For one thing, it locks me into a box of my own making. I can’t be more or less than the definition. And the definition then becomes dependent on other definitions. I’ve been asked many times by conservatives in political debates, to define conservatism. My response is always the same: It’s not up to me to define what a conservative is. I’m not a conservative. I leave that to them. Besides, if I were to put forth a definition, I would likely be told that I don’t know anything about it. So I leave it to them to define themselves which they are more than willing to do.They'll tell me about it whether I ask them or not.

Conservatives seem very big on defining things, and that includes conservatism itself. They’re very proud of their conservatism and love to aggressively demonstrate it at every opportunity, usually in the most belligerent manner possible with snarky and snide attempts at humor intended to insult - always falling flat but never failing to give them a perverse sense of satisfaction . My position is to critique the definition that others are giving, to see if there are any holes in the logic or reasoning process. I think that all positions are open to criticism. There are no sacred cows when it comes to ideas. I’ve been asked to define Liberalism as well, and the best I can offer is to tell those asking that I can more easily tell them what it is not then what it is.

So, with that in mind, my own understanding of conservatism comes from those that defined the ideology itself. I figured, that would be the best place to start. The conservative movement goes back to the anti-Enlightenment views of Edmund Burke in the late 1700's. Burke was an Irishman of a Catholic sensibility in believing that the authority of tradition, lies at the core of Christian practice. This stands in stark contrast with Locke's workmanship ideal, with it's emphasis on the sovereignty of each individual's subjective relationship with God. Burke was a traditionalist - conservative. As a traditionalist-conservative, he thinks about social change in a cautious and incremental way and characterizes the social contract as binding on those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are yet to be born. He was the major voice of the anti-Enlightenment, and of course this country was founded upon the Enlightenment ideas of Locke, Voltaire, and others of that time. If there is a single overarching idea shared in common by adherents to different strands of Enlightenment thinking, it is faith in the power of human reason to understand the true nature of our circumstances and ourselves. The Enlightenment outlook is optimistic to its core, supplying impetus to the idea of progress in human affairs. As reason’s reach expands, it seems plausible to think that understanding will yield the possibility to control and perhaps even improve our environments and our lives.

So, those claiming a conservative tradition in this country, are claiming that we were a product of the Anti-Enlightenment, and that’s simply false. Jefferson was profoundly interested in the work of the French Enlightenment philosopher and historian Voltaire and owned seven works by the author. Jefferson even had a bust of Voltaire in his home in Monticello. We are and always have been an optimistic people, going back to the time of actually believing that we could break from England and defeat the most powerful army in the world. Today, Modern Conservatives look back to Burke as the father of the movement. That’s not me saying this; it’s Conservatives themselves. Thinkers like Burke place individuals as subordinate to society and its traditions.

Burke believed that conserving an imperfect inherited world from the worse imperfections that human beings are capable of contriving is the business of political leadership; hence his emphasis on preserving tradition. He is famous for propounding the doctrine that a Member of Parliament— which he was for a good part of his life— owes it to his constituents not to sacrifice his judgment to conform to their opinions. ( I can certainly see how he would make for a good Republican) He was unimpressed by the human capacity for reason to understand much, let alone to reshape the world in accordance with the particular wills of any generation.

Therefore, the anti-Enlightenment is a rejection of both of the central tenets of the Enlightenment; the commitment to individual rights, and to science and reason. So tradition plays a profound role in the conservative ideology. Conservatism wraps itself in traditional values. Now, I don’t see how they can demonstrate those values as true, but - that’s at the core of the ideology, and that’s on them, not me. They are defining themselves along these terms. And in doing so, are establishing a foundation for the ideology. So, it’s foundationalist from the onset. The problem is that Foundationalism leads to infinite regress. What that means is there’s no way to establish a basis for the basis that will justify the basis required to justify the original foundation. Attempting to do that leads into a black hole with no escape. So, it just sits there, proclaiming itself as its own authority which is an exercise in circular reasoning. It's authoritarian in it's nature, and it is its own authority.

The Ideology of Conservatism:
In 1953, Russell Kirk wrote a book called The Conservative Mind. In his lecture on The Origins of the Modern American Conservative Movement given to the Heritage Foundation in 2003, Dr. Lee Edwards cited Russell Kirk, author of The Conservative Mind as providing the central idea upon which American conservatism is essentially based, calling it "ordered liberty".

Now, I’m looking at a Conservative ( Lee Edwards) lecturing on the origins of the Modern Conservative Movement to the Heritage Foundation which is a Conservative Think Tank. I have to assume that this man understands conservatism as well as, if not better than most.
His resume’ reads; “Distinguished Fellow in Conservative Thought, B. Kenneth Simon Center for Principles and Politics. As Distinguished Fellow in Conservative Thought, Lee Edwards, Ph.D., is Heritage's in-house authority on the U.S. conservative movement. “
“A leading historian of American conservatism, Edwards is the author or editor of 20 books, including biographies of Ronald Reagan, Barry Goldwater and Edwin Meese III as well as histories of The Heritage Foundation and the movement as a whole.”

Ok. I accept his credentials as somebody that can tell me what conservatism is.

Edwards states this:
Kirk described six basic “canons” or principles of conservatism:
1. A divine intent, as well as personal conscience, rules society.
2. Traditional life is filled with variety and mystery while most radical systems are characterized by a narrowing uniformity.
3. Civilized society requires orders and classes.
4. Property and freedom are inseparably connected.
5. Man must control his will and his appetite, knowing that he is governed more by emotion than by reason.
6. Society must alter slowly.

This is interesting. Canon #1, "A divine intent, as well as personal conscience, rules society". He introduces a religious element to conservatism. and in #2, " Traditional life is filled with variety and mystery while most radical systems are characterized by a narrowing uniformity." Traditional life". Religion and Traditional life are his first 2 Canons. One of the key elements of Tradition is preserving existing institutions. Especially those institutions that blend easily with or enhance other traditional institutions, that help define traditional life to the conservative.

This is demonstrated by the conservative view on same-sex marriage. The gist of the argument centers around a challenge to traditional values on the subject of marriage.

Canon #3 says that Conservatism requires "classes". He doesn't say what he means by classes. Social classes. Economic classes. So there needs to be an upper and a lower class of people either socially or economically or both. Conservatism is class conscious.

This is all very Burkean, but updated to appeal to a more contemporary audience. So, that is what is called “ordered Liberty”.

Edwards states that “the work established convincingly that there was a tradition of American conservatism that had existed since the Founding of the Republic. With one book, Russell Kirk made conservatism intellectually acceptable in America. Indeed, he gave the conservative movement its name.”

So Russell Kirk is providing the “Canon” of Conservatism. This is the doctrine as he defines it, and Edwards proclaims it as the definition of conservatism. And there we have it. And of course, definitions are open to criticism. To begin with I find that issuing what he calls the Canon, is pretty presumptuous. He's proclaiming himself as the authority of what conservatism is, but Dr. Lee Edwards at Heritage agrees, so who am I to argue? It sounds more Ecclesiastical as if it’s a religion, then a political philosophy. Nevertheless, he’s setting the foundational table for the movement. If you aren’t following the 6 Canon’s, you aren’t a conservative. He later expanded on this with his 10 Principles of Conservatism. Ronald Reagan ( Mr Conservative) was a big fan of his and gave him the Medal of Freedom, so he seems to have struck the right chord with the right people. I think I can draw from this that Kirk has articulated the “essence” of conservatism. If I see these values being expressed, I can probably see the conservative mind at work. Actually, what I see today, are these ideas taken to the furthest extreme, but they still call it conservatism.

Conservatism is the product of the anti-Enlightenment ideology of Edmund Burke and the re-affirmation of it by Conservative writer Russell Kirk. Burke was a traditionalist conservative as was Kirk and traditional values are held fast by conservatives. (There’s probably a strong connection here as to why so many conservatives are evangelical Christians as well. They can easily identify with traditional and fundamentalist values as expressed in the Bible. Conservatism seems to adopt the mantle of a religion requiring the same commitment of belief.) These "authorities" that identify themselves as “Conservative” have told me so. They are describing the conservative ideology. I have no reason to doubt them.

In his chapter on Southern Conservatism from his book, Kirk writes “that while human slavery is bad ground for conservatives to make a stand upon, yet the wild demands and expectations of the abolitionists were quite as slippery a foundation for political decency”.

In the practice of Critical Thinking, the language used by the arguer may not be especially unclear, but often it is awkward to deal with because it does not even take the form of proper sentences. Rewriting the material in terms of ‘if— then’ sentences makes the argument easier to handle and its logic more obvious. This is what we mean by logical streamlining. There are many, many ways in which ordinary language can be awkward to reconstruct, and in which logical relationships can be concealed; But here is one ‘rule of thumb’ that you should apply whenever you can do so in a way that remains faithful to the arguer’s apparent meaning:

  1. Where appropriate, rewrite sentences as either conditional or disjunctive sentences of the following form:

    If P then Q. If P implies Q and P is true, then Q is true. Conditionals are most characteristically expressed using the ‘if— then’ form of declarative sentences. For example: If it is raining, then it is cloudy.

    This is called Modus Ponens. It can be summarized as "P implies Q; P is asserted to be true, so therefore Q must be true." The history of modus ponens goes back to antiquity.

    Modus ponens can be stated formally as:

    P>Q, P ~ Q

    The first premise is the "if–then" or conditional claim, namely that P implies Q. The second premise is that P, the antecedent of the conditional claim, is true. From these two premises it can be logically concluded that Q, the consequent of the conditional claim, must be true as well.

    An example of an argument that fits the form modus ponens:

    If today is Tuesday, then John will go to work.

    Today is Tuesday.

    Therefore, John will go to work.

    This argument is valid, but this has no bearing on whether any of the statements in the argument are true; for modus ponens to be a sound argument, the premises must be true for any true instances of the conclusion. For example, John might be going to work on Wednesday. In this case, the reasoning for John's going to work (because it is Wednesday) is unsound. The argument is not only sound on Tuesdays (when John goes to work), but valid on every day of the week. A propositional argument using modus ponens is said to be deductive..

    In general, a conditional is a compound proposition consisting of two parts, each of which is itself a proposition, where these two parts are joined by some connecting words (they are called ‘logical connectives’) such as ‘if— then’, ‘either— or’, ‘unless’, or ‘only— if’, or something similar. However they are joined, what a conditional says is that the truth of one proposition ensures that of another. In formal logic this relation is represented by a single device, usually an arrow: It is raining (P)→ It is cloudy (Q). P → Q.

    A conditional is said to be true or false, rather than valid or invalid. For a conditional is not itself an argument. A conditional is one proposition that comprises two propositions as parts, joined by ‘if— then’ or a similar device. An argument cannot be just one proposition. It needs at least two. The following, however, would be an argument: It is raining. Therefore, it is cloudy. This is not a conditional, but an argument composed of two propositions. Moreover, this argument actually asserts that it is raining, and also that it is cloudy. A person giving it would actually be asserting those things.


    With regard to Mr. Kirk, he makes the argument:
    P1, “human slavery is bad ground for conservatives to make a stand upon,

    C:Therefore: the wild demands and expectations of the abolitionists were just as slippery a foundation for political decency”,

    Kirk is making two assertions here.

    The premise of Kirks argument, doesn't demonstrate the truth of his conclusion.
    This argument actually asserts that it while slavery is bad policy for conservatives, the wild demands of abolitionists were just as slippery a foundation for political decency.

    A person making this argument (Kirk) would actually be asserting those things.Not so for the corresponding conditional: to say ‘If human slavery is bad ground for conservatives to make a stand upon, then the wild demands and expectations of the abolitionists were just as slippery a foundation for political decency. Kirk is making a value judgment here and asserting a moral equivalence that can't be demonstrated as true.

    What Kirk seems not to understand is that a conditional does not assert either its antecedent or its consequent. An argument asserts its premises and its conclusion.

Reconstructed, Mr, Kirk says this;

IF human slavery is bad ground for conservatives to make a stand upon, Then the wild demands and expectations of the abolitionists were just as slippery a foundation for political decency”.

Human slavery is bad ground for conservatives to make a stand upon.

Therefore, the wild demands and expectations of the abolitionists were just as slippery a foundation for political decency.

Really? What kind of demands would the abolitionists have made that could be worse than slavery? He's making a value judgment here without demonstrating why that value is true. How does the one thing demonstrate the truth of other. In modus ponens; How does the antecedent demonstrate the truth of the consequent? As a straight deductive syllogism, how does the premise demonstrate the truth of the conclusion? An argument may be about any subject and have any number of premises, but it will always have only one final conclusion. This argument has just one premise: Bart has two sisters. Therefore, Bart is not an only child. So how does Kirk come up with:

P1.Human slavery is bad ground for conservatives to make a stand upon.

C.Therefore, the wild demands and expectations of the abolitionists were just as slippery a foundation for political decency.

How does he make that kind of leap in logic? The premise is true, but you can't draw that conclusion from it.

I think we could even simplify Kirks statement with this: “human slavery is bad ground for conservatives to make a stand upon, BUT the wild demands and expectations of the abolitionists were just as slippery a foundation for political decency”, without distorting the meaning at all. Kirk seems to find a moral equivalency between slavery and the "wild" demands of the abolitionists. Just remember; There's an old saying: everything before BUT, doesn't count. It's a little reminder that whenever you hear a politician on TV talking, he'll set up his argument, and then insert BUT which is meant to dismiss everything before what is to come next.

Kirk describes“Negroes” as; “the menace of debased, ignorant and abysmally poor folk” he argued they “must tend to produce in the minds of the dominant people (re:White) an anxiety to preserve every detail of the present structure, and an ultra-vigilant suspicion of innovation”.

In complete accordance to the high values of traditionalism that are embedded into the Canon, and reach back to Burke, the preservation of existing institutions is vital and necessary to the conservative theory of rationality. Any challenge to them will be met with conservative resistance.

According to Kirk, “In politics we do well to abide by precedent and precept and even prejudice, for the great mysterious incorporation of the human race has acquired a prescriptive wisdom far greater than any man’s petty private rationality.” (He gets this directly from Burke, and rewords it for those who never heard of the man.)

Kirk is justifying prejudice here. Again, prejudice is necessary to the conservative theory of rationality, and we have many examples of conservatives over the years, decades and centuries, taking that justification to heart.

What we gain from this is an understanding of what Conservatism means to the Conservative, as told to us by the very Conservatives that defined the ideology and the movement that followed it. I don’t define them. They define themselves.They use tradition to justify prejudice.

Conservatism is that system of ideas employed to justify any established social order, no matter where or when it exists, against any fundamental challenge to its nature or being, no matter from what quarter. It’s not difficult to see that the conservative position on race would necessarily follow form. They have strong solid values that they don't compromise, and they take great pride in that non-compromising stand.

Being an ideology that is definable by its adherents, it would be open to a logical syllogism:.

P1. Slavery was institutionalized in America
P2 Conservatism believes in preserving existing institutions as a value
C: Therefore, Conservatives believed in preserving slavery.

That seems to have been born out with the fact of the Civil War. If the premises are true in a deductive syllogism, the conclusion MUST be true. The premises are true. So, the conclusion must logically follow.

Or this:

P1. Segregation was institutionalized in America
P2. Conservatives believe in preserving existing institutions as a value
C: therefore, Conservatives believe in preserving segregation

Again, if the premises are true, the conclusion Must be true.

Or this:
P1. Conservatives in the South believe in traditional values
P2. White Supremacy is a traditional value in the South
C: therefore, Conservatives in the south believe in White Supremacy.

If they no longer hold that as a value, then they have obviously compromised their values by letting it go, which is something that conservatives simply don't do. To do so would be hypocritical, and demonstrate a crack in the ideology. If they are maintaining their Conservative principles, either they still hold that view, or they are demonstrating their own hypocrisy by compromising a traditional established value. If they are traditional-conservatives, then they would hold that view.

The question now becomes, are these values that the conservative holds today, or has he compromised those values? And if so, how many other values does he cherry pick, and still claim that he doesn't compromise his conservative values? What parts of traditional conservative values has he let go of, and what has he maintained? Is Conservatism a unified system of thought, or is it a hodge-podge collection of unrelated absolute values without any basis that can never demonstrate their truth?

I think that any time an ideology defines itself, it opens itself to that kind of logical scrutiny.

The Civil Rights movement was a direct challenge to the existing institutions of the time, and conservatism as an ideology is thus a reaction to a system under challenge, a defense of the status – quo in a period of intense ideological and social conflict. The very notion of a race of people that was; at our beginnings as a country, only considered to be 3/ 5’ s of a human being, now having equal footing with those that actually believed in this idea, is a direct challenge to a long held traditional social concept. It denied the idea of white supremacy as legitimate.

It’s surprising how many people still cling to this idea, and will go to extreme lengths to perpetuate it. The idea that a person that could have been your slave at one time, could today be your boss, or even President of the United States, is more than some people can deal with on an emotional level. I don’t pretend to be a psychologist, but when long held beliefs are not only challenged but overturned, and deemed illegitimate values, some people are probably not happy about it and might be filled with resentment, and even hatred for those that made that happen. White supremacy as an institution is renounced, discredited, and dismantled, and that is a major blow to an existing order and traditional institution, and conservatism is always a reaction to a challenge to an existing order or traditional institution.

It’s my observation, that these are people that desperately need somebody to look down to in order to validate their own self-worth. Maybe it's that "class" thing that Kirk was talking about in Canon 3. “Sure, life is tough. But at least I’m White.” They can no longer rely on a policy that used to be institutionally enforceable. When that is removed by law, hostility is the result; hostility for those that have been emancipated by law and elevated to equal status, and hostility for the law itself including those that proposed it and passed it. Just because a law or an amendment is passed doesn’t meant that the attitudes that opposed that law have changed. Passing a law doesn’t change conservative ideology. A conservative isn’t going to change his position just because a law that challenged it was passed. If anything, he’s more likely to take on an even more defiant position. We saw that after the Civil War and Reconstruction with Jim Crow. The south may have lost the war, but even if the slaves were freed, the conservative would see to it that those that were freed, were now worse off than they were as slaves and nobody would be there to stop them from making that a reality.

This is the ideology of conservatism as presented by those who gave the conservative movement its name. Racism and prejudice are embedded into it, and conservatives must grapple with this as long as they call themselves "conservative".

When I'm asked; "how long I thought racism would exist in America". My answer is that it will exist as long as Conservatism exists. Racism is in the Conservative ideology DNA as much as tradition itself. It can’t be stripped away without altering the concept of preserving traditional institutions and values. Preserving existing institutions and traditions are the very things that define the ideology for conservatives. Slavery was an institution in this country. It was embedded into our constitution in Article 1 sec 2, Article 1 sec 9, and Article 4 sec 2, and 3. A Civil War was fought to preserve that institution. After Reconstruction, Jim Crow laws were established to preserve the racial and social hierarchy (Class) in the South. Those laws were racist, and an era of racial terrorism spanning decades was established to preserve those traditions. Segregation was an institution that conservatives fought to preserve.

The conditions imposed upon Blacks in the South were so intolerable that it took Acts of Congress in the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act to force Conservatives, especially those in the South that were the most vocal in their opposition, to accept the fact that blacks now had equal rights and the days of White Supremacy were over.

The fact that the laws were passed does not mean that the attitudes of the conservative mind accepted those laws. The laws violated the conservative Canon. If you are a conservative you don’t compromise your values. You don’t compromise the Canon. You believe in it. You’re not an apostate. If you are a conservative, you hold those values as essential to who you are. This is the thinking of the ideologue. It’s a fundamentalist way of thinking, and shares the same commitment to the dogma as found in any fundamentalist religion.

We can see today that there is no room for the “moderate” in the Republican Party. Each person running for office must demonstrate that he’s more conservative than his opponent, and that pushes them ever further to the extremes of the right wing. You can’t demonstrate that by compromising your beliefs. If you do that, you’ll lose your base. Your conservative beliefs must be without question or compromise. Each candidate becomes more extreme than the next, and his commitment to those beliefs must be demonstrable.

William Bartley said: “Beliefs must be justified by an appeal to an authority of some kind (usually the source of the belief in question) and this justification by an appropriate authority makes the belief either rational, or if not rational, at least valid for the person who holds it.”However, this is a requirement that can never be adequately met due to the problem of validation or the dilemma of infinite regress vs. dogmatism.

And that’s the dilemma of the conservative. There is no justification for the continually extremist views that he holds, and his traditional views must include its embedded racism in order to maintain consistency. He is staring into the black hole of infinite regress of justification with each position more extreme than the last. The only outlet for him is to say the conservatism is based on itself, which is a circular argument.

The Conservative ideology is foundational. It’s fundamentalist. It requires bases. If we claim a basis gives us truth, we then are making the implicit claim that truth requires bases. But then it is plainly obvious our own basis lacks a basis, as it cannot be its own basis.

David Miller, in his book Critical Rationalism: A Restatement and Defense, points to Bartley’s formulation of Comprehensively Critical Rationalism:
In speaking of his Pan-Critical Rationalism: “This framework permits a rationalist to be characterized as one who is willing to entertain any position and holds all his positions, including his most fundamental standards, goals, decisions, and basic philosophical position, open to criticism; one who never cuts off an argument by resorting to faith, or irrational commitment to justify some belief that has been under severe critical fire; one who is committed, attached, addicted, to no position.”

If Bartley, or anybody else for that matter, subscribed to that idea, how can prejudice enter into it? There doesn’t seem to be any room for it in that statement. Because if you are willing to criticize even your own most fundamental standards, goals, decisions, and basic philosophical position, then your own prejudices would be included among them. In other words, if you subscribed to this thinking, it would force you to confront those prejudices wherever and whenever they arise, and you would not be able to resort to faith, or irrational commitment to any ideology to justify that prejudice. All your positions are open to criticism and that would include your prejudices. It seems to me that a person committed to the idea of criticism must be willing to direct that criticism at himself as much as he is toward any outside ideas presented to him by others. Although it’s impossible to be completely objective about ourselves, if we are confronted with a prejudice that lies somewhere hidden within us, and we hold to the Pan-Critical Rationalism that Bartley has put forth, we can either address that prejudice and rid ourselves of it, or accept our own hypocrisy and inconsistency in our thinking, and look for some way to justify it, but we can’t do both. You can’t hold two opposing positions simultaneously. Well…I suppose you can, but not rationally.

When I look back at this country’s history, it’s impossible to separate race as a major factor in who we are as a nation. It’s been there from the beginning. It’s our “original sin”. It was a factor in the Constitution. I never had to fight for my place in the social fabric of this country. I never had to fight, bleed or die for the right to vote. My ancestors were never held as slaves. I was never denied access to a hotel, a restaurant, a school. I was never beaten, or tortured, or lynched for not saying “sir” or stepping off the sidewalk when a white woman was coming toward me, or refusing to work without pay. There was a time when I was told I couldn’t marry a person of another race, but we eventually got past that. Other than that, I benefited from the genetic lottery. My church was never bombed. My home was never burned. No family member was ever lynched. No blood was ever shed to have the same rights as everyone else. They came to me free of charge courtesy of the genetic lottery. I had nothing to do with it. No strings attached. I never had “the talk” that black parents give their sons on how to act if stopped by the police. I never feared the police. Not being black, I can’t really put myself in their shoes. But if I can empathize with others, and I think I can, then I can begin to understand how blacks might not be too trusting of the motives of some people, especially those whose entire ideological identity is grounded in the very traditions and values that were deployed against me, or my ancestors over our history, to block or deny me the same rights that everyone else enjoys, and relegated me and my family to second class status. Why would I believe that their Canon, that is the doctrine and dogma of the ideology that they base their identity on, has somehow been modified and altered for my sake? If they really believe this stuff, they aren’t about to change it on my behalf. I can look at the legislation that is offered by these people, and see clearly that it impacts people of color in ways that it doesn’t affect others. I can see on TV the video snuff films of unarmed blacks being killed by white cops, and see no indictments coming forward, and I question if this is justice. Racism isn’t simply using the “n” word. It’s the complete benefit of the doubt toward one group, and the total skepticism toward another.

This is how I see the racial situation in our country. I see it perpetuated by an ideology that will never let go of its traditional views on race. I think that Conservatism is a racist ideology and that racism is literally woven into its fabric, and it can’t escape that fact without radically altering the entire concept of conservatism. Are there black conservatives. Of course. Not many, but there are a few. I have no idea what they see in it. It may be profitable for them. Whatever their reasons are, I doubt that they’ve been able to justify its views on race. Maybe they look the other way. They are certainly useful to other conservatives to illustrate how open to minorities they really are. That would certainly be a way of showing inclusiveness, but why would conservatives feel a need to show that, unless they recognized that it was a problem with the ideology all along? It's like the time when they called themselves "compassionate conservatives" (?) Why would they feel a need to call themselves that unless they knew that they weren't.

We have a long, long history of that ideology that would inform us that the ideology isn’t going change to accommodate a few minorities. In order for that to change, Conservatives would have to discard the most significant part of the Canon; Traditionalism, and their dedication to preserving existing institutions and never compromising on their traditional values...(except maybe when it's expedient to do so). But without that, Conservatism no longer exists, and we'd all be the better for it.

More by this Author

  • The Mind-numbing Hypocrisy of the GOP
    12

    Hypocrisy: 1.the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense. a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc.,...

  • The problem of inductive reasoning
    54

    It was David Hume that brought forth the Problem of Induction in the 1700’s. Philosophers have tried to solve it for centuries. The problem of induction is the philosophical question of whether inductive...

  • A Critique of Conservatism
    16

    The very first sentence in Mark Levin’s book reads, “THERE IS SIMPLY NO scientific or mathematical formula that defines conservatism. This is probably true. If there were a scientific or mathematical formula...


Comments 41 comments

Superkev profile image

Superkev 19 months ago

"In the name of the greatest people that have ever trod this earth, I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny, and I say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever."

-George Wallace (D) Ala. Governor

Sen. Robert Byrd (D) WV Grand Kleagle of the KKK -Democrats called him the conscience of the Senate.

Bill Clinton said "He was a country boy from the hills and the hollows of West Virginia. He was trying to get elected, and maybe he did something he shouldn't have done" What do you think these things might have been? Ho many lynchings do you think he may have been directly or indirectly responsible for?

"Is you their black-haired answer-mammy who be smart? Does they like how you shine their shoes, Condoleezza? Or the way you wash and park the whitey's cars?"

-- Left-wing radio host Neil Rogers

Or is it's only racist when it's against black liberal females?

(On Clarence Thomas) "A handkerchief-head, chicken-and-biscuit-eating Uncle Tom." -- Spike Lee

Or liberal black males???

"He's married to a white woman. He wants to be white. He wants a colorless society. He has no ethnic pride. He doesn't want to be black."

-- California State Senator Diane Watson on Ward Connerly's interracial marriage

"Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds."

-- Former Klansman and US Senator Robert Byrd, in a letter written in 1944, after he had supposedly quit the KKK.

"I'll have those n*ggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years."

-- Lyndon B. Johnson (D) President of the United States

"There are white n*ggers. I've seen a lot of white n*ggers in my time." -- Former Klansman and US Senator Robert Byrd, in March of 2001, long after he supposedly, 'wasn't racist' anymore.

"...all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free"

-Abraham Lincoln (R) President of the United States 1861-1865

Tell me again about how you think it's Conservative Republicans who are the racists.


adagio4639 profile image

adagio4639 19 months ago from Brattleboro Vermont Author

I didn't say ANYTHING about Republicans. That's you jumping to that conclusion. I said Conservatism. Don't confuse parties with the ideology that drives them. You point to Wallace in Alabama. Alabama is one of the most Conservative states in the nation. It always has been. It was conservative Democrats, and today it's conservative Republican. But what has never changed, is it's still conservative.

You point to this: "..all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free"

-Abraham Lincoln (R) President of the United States 1861-1865

What is the point you're trying to make? Lincoln freed the slaves. The Emancipation proclamation. We all know that. Slavery was the condition in the Conservative South. The south has always been conservative. Conservatism is an ideology. Republican and Democrat are not ideologies or philosophies. They're political parties. Don't make the mistake of confusing them. They don't teach Republican or Democrat in philosophy courses at Universities.

And I'll tell you again Conservatism is a racist ideology. That has nothing to do with Republicans OR Democrats.


feenix profile image

feenix 19 months ago

It is quite obvious to me that you are one of those whites who treats and deal with blacks in patronizing ways. In fact, you have the same view of blacks that most people have of pets and livestock. You believe that we are poor dumb animals that must be cared for and treated with kindness and compassion.

Well, let me tell you something: I, and other blacks who are liberated in the way they think, do not want or need your kindness and compassion; nor do we need that kind of a thing from other white liberals.

As a matter of fact, we do not give a damn whether whites accept us or not. And that is because we do not base our well being and success in life on being PERMITTED to intermingle with whites.

Furthermore, you, a white man, left a comment on my most recent hub admonishing me for being conservative. Well, by doing that, you came off just like the average white man who believes he is superior to blacks. It is quite obvious that you believe you are the smart one, because you are white, and I am the dumb one because I am black. You are one of those whites who does not like smart nig... Oh, you know what I'm talking about.

I suggest that you do some deep soul searching. You need to ask yourself such questions as do you love blacks as much as you think you do; do you understand blacks as much as you think you do, and do you have as much knowledge of the black experience in the USA as you think you have?

In summation, I must say that your sticking up for the Civil Rights Movement and attempt to "educate" me about all of the cruel-and-inhumane things that have happened to American blacks was Mighty White of you.


adagio4639 profile image

adagio4639 19 months ago from Brattleboro Vermont Author

"It is quite obvious to me that you are one of those whites who treats and deal with blacks in patronizing ways. In fact, you have the same view of blacks that most people have of pets and livestock. You believe that we are poor dumb animals that must be cared for and treated with kindness and compassion."

Congratulations. You've just described the Southern Conservative. Bravo. Not bad. I don't hold that view. Never have. I understand when the deck is stacked. And it was always stacked in my favor based solely on the genetic lottery. I'm a white guy. I never once had to bleed or die for the right to vote. Never had a cross burned on my lawn or my church bombed. Never was denied access to a school or a hotel. Never had to drink from a separate water fountain. It's called White Supremacy and that is a Conservative idea. It was renounced, dismantled and tossed into the trash bin and rightly so. And political parties have NOTHING to do with ideology. The ideology ALWAYS directs the party. Not the other way around. If you don't know that then read a book, and wake up.

"Furthermore, you, a white man, left a comment on my most recent hub admonishing me for being conservative. Well, by doing that, you came off just like the average white man who believes he is superior to blacks."

I asked you to justify the racial terrorism against blacks waged by conservatives during the Jim Crow era. What does that have to do with any idea of me, a white man, thinking that I think I'm superior to a black person? Besides absolutely NOTHING? You still cannot justify that. You still cannot square that circle. You still prefer to keep company with those that have lynched, mutilated, castrated, burned alive black people. I wouldn't have anything to do with them and I'm white. They're the scum of the earth.

"It is quite obvious that you believe you are the smart one, because you are white, and I am the dumb one because I am black. You are one of those whites who does not like smart nig... Oh, you know what I'm talking about"

No. What seems obvious is that you have identity issues. My race has nothing to do with any intelligence factor. I can acknowledge what people of my race did to people of yours. I reject that. You on the other hand embrace it.

"You are one of those whites who does not like smart nig... Oh, you know what I'm talking about"

Sorry, I don't use the "N" word. NEVER have. Not once in my lifetime, unless I was quoting the words of some racist douch-bag that happened to also be a conservative.

"I suggest that you do some deep soul searching. You need to ask yourself such questions as do you love blacks as much as you think you do; do you understand blacks as much as you think you do, and do you have as much knowledge of the black experience in the USA as you think you have?"

I love my daughter in law and my grand-daughter who happen to be black. I wrote a book called "Growing up White in Racist America" which details everything that I saw over my 67 years. And that racism was also embodied in Anti-Semitism as well as every form of xenophobia that a conservative can come up with. It's not racist to notice that a person is black or white, or Latino or Asian or Jewish or Arab or whatever. What makes it racist is thinking that it matters. You should learn that.

"In summation, I must say that your sticking up for the Civil Rights Movement and attempt to "educate" me about all of the cruel-and-inhumane things that have happened to American blacks was Mighty White of you.

Because I stick up for the Civil Rights Movement....and have to remind you of what YOUR ideology did to your own people, that's very White of me?? So any time I see injustice, on any front, and point it out... that's being very white of me? Oh man, you need a shrink. You're drinking from a poisoned well. Go back to your war on Democrats. I'm pointing out the inherent racism that is found in an ideology that you embrace. Good luck with that.


feenix profile image

feenix 19 months ago

"...Sorry, I don't use the "N" word. NEVER have. Not once in my lifetime..."

So you have never said nigger. What do you want, a prize?

Anyway, I am nearly 70 years old, meaning that I was around during the 1950s and 1960s when racial unrest in the US was at its height. However, contrary to what is currently being taught in educational facilities, shown in movies and wrote about in books, the vast majority of blacks in the US during 1950s and 1960s, were quite well off.

The truth is, back in those days, blacks had plenty of such things as good jobs, good schools and clean-and-orderly communities. And hardly any of them experienced such things as having crosses burned in front of their homes, getting lynched by white mobs, being chased down by the Ku Klux Klan and having their homes and churches burned to the ground by racist white thugs.

In fact, from the end of slavery to 1955, the US's black society made one of the greatest comebacks in world history. That is true because when blacks were freed from slavery, hardly any of them could read and write, and most did not even have a few pennies in their pockets.

But without undertaking a massive "Civil Rights Movement," and without receiving billions in government assistance, by 1955, black society had advanced by leaps and bounds. In fact, by that year, or less than 100 years after the end of slavery, blacks had independently pulled themselves up to the point where such things had happened as blacks had established a sizable and rapidly-growing middle class; a steady flow was lifting themselves out of poverty; the group was increasing its average level of education at nearly warp speed, and a considerable number had achieved fortune and fame in a broad range of fields with many more poised to join them.

But along came such things as the Civil Rights Movement, War on Poverty and a huge army of bleeding-heart white liberals who mistakenly believed they knew what was best for blacks. And as a result of those factors, much of the nation's "black community" was knocked right back to where it was in slavery -- being profoundly dependent on The Great White Masters in Washington and other high places and lacking the will to be self-reliant, self-sufficient and self-determined.

Adagio, please stop trying to do battle with me, because you are not black and you are nowhere close to being in my league.


adagio4639 profile image

adagio4639 19 months ago from Brattleboro Vermont Author

"So you have never said nigger. What do you want, a prize?"

Nope. Don't need one. But don't go implying that I use that word. And don't deny it. this is what you said; ""You are one of those whites who does not like smart nig" I'm simply stating a FACT that repudiates your baseless insinuation.

"Anyway, I am nearly 70 years old, meaning that I was around during the 1950s and 1960s when racial unrest in the US was at its height"

Same here. What do you want, a medal? I lived through the whole thing.

"However, contrary to what is currently being taught in educational facilities, shown in movies and wrote about in books, the vast majority of blacks in the US during 1950s and 1960s, were quite well off."

That of course is bullshit. Unless you think that segregation made you better off. Or that you were denied housing, or access to schools or restaurants, or jobs. Do you know what a Sundown Town is? I lived in one. They were all around the Chicago Suburbs. And they were everywhere in the South. Man of the world huh? Not from what you're describing to me. When I saw a black on TV in the 50's it was Amos and Andy, or Rochester on Jack Benny, or watching sports. Leave it to Beaver had no blacks. None of the TV shows did. None of the commercials did. Blacks were not part of the American culture except as entertainers. So don't tell me about how good things were in the 50's and 60's. I was there.

"The truth is, back in those days, blacks had plenty of such things as good jobs, good schools and clean-and-orderly communities."

That isn't the truth. In fact it's completely false.

"And hardly any of them experienced such things as having crosses burned in front of their homes, getting lynched by white mobs, being chased down by the Ku Klux Klan and having their homes and churches burned to the ground by racist white thugs."

Right. Hardly any. If you ignore the 3959 that were lynched or mutilated or burned alive between 1877 and 1950 by conservatives in the Southern Confederate states plus Kentucky.

"In fact, from the end of slavery to 1955, the US's black society made one of the greatest comebacks in world history. That is true because when blacks were freed from slavery, ( Whoa...you mean they didn't do that on their own?? Why not? Where's all that initiative you've been talking about. Based on what you've been saying, they must have freed themselves ) hardly any of them could read and write, and most did not even have a few pennies in their pockets."

And that would have continued if not for the Civil Rights Movement. "Millions of black Americans left the South between 1910 and 1970 in response to the instability and threat of violence that racial terror created in the region. These largely involuntary relocations compmounded the trauma suffered by terror survivors, even as leaving the South improved their physical safety. After generations in this country, black Americans who moved to the North and West were exiles - internally displaced people, who had more in common with the vast movements of refugees from famine , war, and genocide in other parts of the world then with their new neighbors. African American migrants were less terrorized in their new cities and towns, but they were not entirely welcomed. Institutional inequality, continued marginalization, and unaddressed histories of trauma have created a unique legacy of chronic generational poverty, persistent urban distress, debilitating violence, and limited educational opportunity. "

Equal Justice Initiative. Lynching in America: Confronting the legacy of Racial Terror. http://www.eji.org/

"But without undertaking a massive "Civil Rights Movement," and without receiving billions in government assistance, by 1955, black society had advanced by leaps and bounds."

Bullshit. Blacks were excluded from living anywhere they chose. I know that to be true. I went to the only integrated high school in the Chicago western suburbs. ONE town out of hundreds had a black population. All the towns had unwritten policies keeping blacks out. Prior to the Civil Rights Act, discrimination and segregation were legal. The CRA changed that. And the Voting Rights Act insured the right to vote. You don't know your history.

"In fact, by that year, or less than 100 years after the end of slavery, blacks had independently pulled themselves up to the point where such things had happened as blacks had established a sizable and rapidly-growing middle class; a steady flow was lifting themselves out of poverty."

The thing that pulled blacks out of extreme poverty was the Civil Rights Movement, which was a black movement. What's your problem with acknowledging what your own people did with regard to gaining that kind of mobility?

"But along came such things as the Civil Rights Movement, War on Poverty and a huge army of bleeding-heart white liberals who mistakenly believed they knew what was best for blacks."

The Civil Rights Movement WAS a black movement. What makes you think that they didn't know anything about what was best for blacks? They were black.

"And as a result of those factors, much of the nation's "black community" was knocked right back to where it was in slavery -- being profoundly dependent on The Great White Masters in Washington and other high places and lacking the will to be self-reliant, self-sufficient and self-determined."

What a total crock of crap that is. If it hadn't been for the Civil Rights Movement we wouldn't have a Black president today. He knows that even if you don't.

"Adagio, please stop trying to do battle with me, because you are not black and you are nowhere close to being in my league."

Sorry about that, but I'll do battle with you everyday. You're right. I'm not in your league. You're Bush League. You don't know your history and you're simply filled with hate. You can't even recognize your own mistakes when you call me a liar when I'm commenting to somebody else. You know absolutely NOTHING about the ideology that you embrace. You don't know where it comes from. You don't know what it thinks of you. In fact, you don't know squat. I don't need to be black to know history so don't pull the race card with me. Got it?


feenix profile image

feenix 19 months ago

adagio, you wrote, "...In fact, you don't know squat. I don't need to be black to know history so don't pull the race card with me. Got it?"

Well, well, well, man, you are a real tough guy.

Now, let us end our communicating with one another right here and now.


adagio4639 profile image

adagio4639 19 months ago from Brattleboro Vermont Author

Yeah...that's what I wrote. You don't know squat. You certainly don't know your history. And you know even less about the history of the ideology that you embrace. So go have your war on Democrats. In the future pick your battles better.


feenix profile image

feenix 19 months ago

adagio, you obviously put a lot of work in to writing down your thoughts. It is too bad that only two people have left comments.


adagio4639 profile image

adagio4639 19 months ago from Brattleboro Vermont Author

I don't worry about that. It's all about knowing who to piss off, and you obviously were an easy get. After all, you needed to chime in. You're here aren't you? Now go distribute your books and set up your "world class blog", and your TV interviews, and get moving with that war already. And I will be lurking there ready to take you down for the person that "doesn't have a problem with being honest, except that sometimes he's dishonest". So...just how will anybody know when you're telling the truth? Now begone with you. Or do you plan on stalking me?


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 19 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL

In one study, http://people.ucsc.edu/~rfairlie/papers/published/...

black and white male unemployment rates were roughly the same from around 1880 to 1920 when blacks fall way behind in terms of unemployment rates. The disparity rose from parity in 1910 to black unemployment being 102.4% greater in 1960 to 93.8% greater in 1970 to 103 6% greater in 1980 and 144% greater than white unemployment in 1990.

So yes, by this measure, the Civil Rights effort helped until the enemies of civil rights marshalled their forces and counterattacked.

What @feenix implies regarding educational achievements is suspect as well. For example, the ratio of illiteracy rates between blacks vs white is 6.9 (79.9% vs 11.5%) in 1870 and 6.1 (11% vs 2.8%) in 1947; huge improvements but there is no catch-up in 77 years. Finally, 12 years later, after major strides in integration in the military and federal government, blacks did catch up a little to 4.7:1 (7.5% vs 1.6%). By 1980, after the Civil Rights movement, it dropped to 4:1 (1.6% vs 0.4%).

Question, what are the dynamics going on to maintain this still huge disparity in illiteracy rates between blacks and white?


adagio4639 profile image

adagio4639 19 months ago from Brattleboro Vermont Author

"The disparity rose from parity in 1910 to black unemployment being 102.4% greater in 1960 to 93.8% greater in 1970"

Millions of black Americans left the South between 1910 and 1970 in response to the instability and threat of violence that racial terror created in the region through conservative racist Jim Crow laws and lynchings and other forms of violence. These largely involuntary relocations compounded the trauma suffered by terror survivors, even as leaving the South improved their physical safety. After generations in the country, black Americans who moved to the North and West were exiles -- internally displaced people who "had more in common with the vast movements of refugees from famine, war, and genocide in other parts of the world than with their new neighbors. African American migrants were less terrorized in their new cities and towns, but they were not entirely welcomed. Institutional inequality, continued marginalization, and unaddressed histories of trauma have created a unique legacy of chronic generational poverty, persistent urban distress, debilitating violence, and limited educational opportunities.

I don't know to what extent this has to do with the huge disparity you point to, but the timeline certainly matches. The "Great Migration" of African/Americans from the South to the North during that time span provided a safer environment, but it also brought another set of problems for them with regards to employment and educational opportunities.


junko profile image

junko 19 months ago

Again you wrote the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth and you took your time to developed your conclusions through historical facts. Conservatives can't honestly say "You lied" they can only not read what you wrote and claim that you are a liberal lover especially since you have African Americans family members. I believe the majority of white American are liberals and don't know it because they vote Republican because they are white just as the majority blacks vote Democrat. When and if Conservatives win the White House many more whites will enter the underclass and realize they are white but, because they are poor and needy without jobs they are Liberal to true Conservatives.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 19 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL

Another fun fact regarding how much educational opportunity was available to blacks. From 1940 to 1966, black, males graduation rates climbed 245% from 1.4% to a whopping 5%. At the same time, white male rates increased 850%, from 5.9% to 13.3%. From 1940 to 2012, black male rates increased 1293%, to 19.5. White males, on the other hand, increased 2436%, to 35.5%; almost double that of black males. Yes, black males are doing great.

On the bright-side black women are doing better than white women relative to the males in their race. Black women's college graduation basically mimic their male counterparts, and exceed them by 2012. White women, however, trail their counterparts consistently since 1940, although they are only 5% behind as of 2012.

As to Conservatives, its not their fault; nor is it Liberals fault that they're liberal. It is my observation, after looking at this for the last three years, is that one's fundamental political outlook is driven primarily by genetics with an overlay nurture.

Conservatives and liberals are built to see the world differently, to each that view is perfectly rational and to the other completely irrational. One of the best example is this: Each side wants a stable and secure society. However, conservatives see that happening by following tradition and accepting the fact that society is naturally hierarchical where some have more privilege than others, e.g., men over women, leaders over workers, etc.

Liberals, of all ilks, don't see it that way. Their focus is on the individual and not the class; egalitarianism is the watchword ... within limits and the historical times. Thomas Jefferson, for example, wrote the Declaration of Independence with "All men are created equal", yet he owned slaves until the day he died. Even so, he opposed slavery and worked hard for their emancipation, but, even so, he did believe blacks and whites couldn't live together and therefore blacks should go back to Africa, at the government's expense.

From then on, liberal groups fought conservatives for the freedom of blacks, and later women. Both sides rationally, in their own worldviews, believed they were right and the other side wants to bring down the nation.

So what I am saying is that most Conservatives are that way not because they are mean (from the liberals point of view) but because that is what makes the most sense to them.


adagio4639 profile image

adagio4639 19 months ago from Brattleboro Vermont Author

That's an interesting theory, but....don't you love it when "but" comes into the equation? There's a great saying that goes "everything before "but" doesn't count". If liberal and conservative world views were really a matter of the genetic lottery, then where does logic fall into that equation? Because we can certainly evaluate through logic and critical thinking if a position stands up as a valid or sound. We can't prove a theory. Every attempt to validate a theory requires inductive reasoning and induction NEVER proves a theory. At best all you can do is come up with a generality, but generalities aren't proof of anything. Saying that All Swans are White because every Swan we've ever seen is white doesn't prove that the next one we see won't be white. In fact they found black swans in Australia. However we can disprove a theory through deductive reasoning. We can falsify a theory through deduction. Modus Tollens. Logic doesn't have a political agenda. It's neither liberal nor conservative. It's math. It's also something that I think conservatives prefer to avoid, because it always works against ideologies. You can never demonstrate the truth of a value and traditionalism is a value that is embedded into conservatism DNA. So if a conservative holds and maintains a position based on his traditional values, he's simply making the Appeal to Tradition (Argumentum Ad Traditio): This line of thought asserts that a premise must be true because people have always believed it or done it. Alternatively, it may conclude that the premise has always worked in the past and will thus always work in the future. Such an argument is appealing in that it seems to be common sense, but it ignores important questions. Might an alternative policy work even better than the old one? Are there drawbacks to that long-standing policy? Are circumstances changing from the way they were thirty years ago? If we assume that both the liberal view and the conservative view are simply genetic attributes then there is no truth. Truth for the liberal and truth for the conservative and they simply cancel each other out leaving no truth at all. I don't believe that. If there were no truth, how could we identify those things that are false without having something to compare them to? In my "Liberal" view, truth does exist and it's found by a deductive process. By stripping away those things that obscure it. We can never possess it, or hold it or put into our pocket and claim ownership of it. But we can acquire it incrementally by ridding ourselves of those things that obscure it from our vision. From what I've seen, liberals tend to rely on deductive reasoning while conservatives rely mostly on inductive. They seem to lean heavily on generalities, whereas liberals rely on those things that are demonstrably and factually true. For my taste truth is more important than a bunch of generalities.


adagio4639 profile image

adagio4639 19 months ago from Brattleboro Vermont Author

Hi Junko. You wrote: "Conservatives can't honestly say "You lied" they can only not read what you wrote and claim that you are a liberal lover especially since you have African Americans family members".

I think that's pretty accurate. I have no reason to lie about anything, because I really have no position to defend. I guess that sounds a little strange, but I'm not an ideologue. I really don't have a position on anything. I have a strong sense of social justice. But other than that, I'm open to any well reasoned argument. I just never hear one from conservatives. So I have nothing to defend and therefore no reason to lie about anything. My ego is not at stake so I don't need to lie to protect it. I don't have to be right about everything. I just strive to avoid being wrong, and when I am, I make the necessary change to rid myself of that error. I certainly don't cling to an error for the sake of an ideology. I think truth is more important than solidarity with some group. I'm really into the truth, and I find that it's easier to get to that by asking those people that do hold positions what makes their position true.

A conservative will probably say; Yes you do...you're a liberal. But what's really going on is that I'm NOT a conservative, so by default that sort of makes me a liberal. What I am is a fallibalist. I know that I could be wrong about a host of things. But I also know that everybody is fallible, whether they'll admit it or not. Conservatives will tell you that, well, of course they're fallible. After all, they can't claim to be perfect. Only Jesus was perfect. But they speak about their conservatism as if it IS INFALLIBLE. The ideology, which is man-made...the idea...that's infallibly correct. The obvious question is how can an infallible idea come from a fallible source? It can't, but they'll argue that their conservatism is absolutely correct, and then begin with the personal attacks as if that is a winning formula in any debate.

I think logic and critical thinking are sadly missing in our debates, and that's the only useful tool in the box.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 19 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL

I like that, a "fallibalist"; describes me to a tee.


adagio4639 profile image

adagio4639 19 months ago from Brattleboro Vermont Author

That's good to hear. A fallibalist is probably the least likely to be committed to an ideology. Simply because he knows they could be wrong. They're all fallible and prone to error. Anytime I hear somebody make some kind of absolutist pronouncement, ( and it's always a conservative) I know they're full of crap. That of course leads to questions that they can't answer without falling into an infinite regress of one justification after another, for one basis after another in an endless spiral into a black hole of irrationality. Eventually, they either recognize that they have a problem...or if they're totally committed ideologues , they'll tell you they believe that the ideology is based on itself, which is circular reasoning and a logical fallacy. A person that embraces a logical fallacy when he knows it's a logical fallacy, is completely irrational, and why would I want an irrational person running my government?


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 19 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona

Racism is very much alive today.

There is the very real liberal racism of low expectations in which they openly embrace the notion that blacks simply cannot compete with whites without the benevolent and lifelong aid from kindly liberals. We are also expected to ignore the nearly 75% out-of-wedlock birthrate in the black community that almost insures that most young single mothers and their children are doomed to poverty. It's not PC to speak out about it.

Then there's the back on white racism that we all know exists but are expected to ignore; again for the purposes of political correctness:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lif...

Yes, there's plenty of racism in America, but most of it is not coming from conservatives. Even blacks agree that most of it is now black on white.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 19 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona

What 'name calling'? And i do agree with Feenix.


adagio4639 profile image

adagio4639 19 months ago from Brattleboro Vermont Author

"Then there's the back on white racism that we all know exists but are expected to ignore; again for the purposes of political correctness:"

So...we're supposed to believe that after hundreds of years of White Supremacist racism which is embedded into the conservative ideology...that what exists today is so-called "reverse" racism?

And Tsad. this is the last time I'll address you. If you are going to comment here, you will deal with the topic. Since you can't seem to do that. Your post is removed.

"Yes, there's plenty of racism in America, but most of it is not coming from conservatives. Even blacks agree that most of it is now black on white."

Yeah it is. Conservatism can't help itself. And no. Blacks don't agree that most of it is coming from blacks. Try to provide some other link than Rasmussen which is a poll used most by Fox News. I'm not inclined to take them seriously.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 19 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona

"Yeah it is. Conservatism can't help itself. And no. Blacks don't agree that most of it is coming from blacks. Try to provide some other link than Rasmussen which is a poll used most by Fox News. I'm not inclined to take them seriously. "

Oh, I see! You're one of those folks who simply dismiss any source that proves you wrong, by claiming that it's not 'up to your high liberal standards'. FYI, Rasmussen is not affiliated with FOXNews and enjoys a very high accuracy rating.

But very well then. There's no point in arguing with a closed mind like yours. Have a great day!


adagio4639 profile image

adagio4639 19 months ago from Brattleboro Vermont Author

Alright. Tsad was warned. Now he's gone.

And to Will. I didn't say that Rasmussen was affiliated with Fox. I said that Fox uses Rasmussen as their poll of choice. So far you haven't addressed a single point in a very long Hub.

The problem you are having is with this kind of statement.

"There is the very real liberal racism of low expectations in which they openly embrace the notion that blacks simply cannot compete with whites without the benevolent and lifelong aid from kindly liberals"

It assumes the position that Liberals and Blacks are separate "things" when almost all blacks ARE Liberals. Probably around 95% of them. Maybe more. So for your comment to be true, it implies that blacks themselves embrace the notion that blacks simply cannot compete with whites without the benevolent and lifelong aid from kindly...liberals", and of course by liberals you mean White Liberals inspite of the fact the most blacks are themselves liberals. So what you're suggesting is that Blacks are pointing this racism at themselv3es. That's absurd. Come up with something more well reasoned and thought out. Good luck with that.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 19 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona

' "It assumes the position that Liberals and Blacks are separate "things" when almost all blacks ARE Liberals. Probably around 95% of them. Maybe more. So for your comment to be true, it implies that blacks themselves embrace the notion that blacks simply cannot compete with whites without the benevolent and lifelong aid from kindly...liberals"...'

That would be accurate. Liberal white Democrats have neatly trapped liberal black Democrats into an endless cycle of generational poverty and permanent dependence on their liberal white Democrat masters. That's what we mean by the 'liberal Democrat plantation'.

Thank you for pointing that out.


adagio4639 profile image

adagio4639 19 months ago from Brattleboro Vermont Author

"That would be accurate. Liberal white Democrats have neatly trapped liberal black Democrats into an endless cycle of generational poverty and permanent dependence on their liberal white Democrat masters. That's what we mean by the 'liberal Democrat plantation'."

That's what YOU mean by it. It also implies that the vast overwhelming majority of liberal blacks are simply too stupid to figure out that they've been taken in by white liberal racists Democrat "masters" to keep them on a plantation created by conservatives. Well, how totally racist of you to make that assumption. So blacks can't actually think for themselves, and black liberal democrats are all about keeping their own people on the "plantation". Your argument doesn't make any sense. Blacks wanted freedom. They wanted equality. Conservatives stood in the way of that throughout our history. Now because there are liberal whites that agreed with the blacks, those whites are racists that are trying to keep blacks on the plantation. It couldn't possibly be that there are whites that think ideas like yours are poison could it? Try not to make stupid assertions. The topic is Conservatism: a Racist ideology. there are plenty of reasons cited to support that thesis. Try addressing them.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 19 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona

Hogwash. It was the Republicans who fought for emancipation, and it was the Republicans who fought against the segregation imposed by Southern Democrats.

Look it up.

You don't know what you are talking about, so you cover it up with long-winded BS.

I'm done with you.


adagio4639 profile image

adagio4639 19 months ago from Brattleboro Vermont Author

Hogwash indeed. I said Conservatives. Try reading it again. I'll help you: "Conservatism: a racist ideology". Ok? got it now. I said nothing about Democrats OR Republicans. You look it up. Republican and Democrat are NOT ideologies. They don't teach Democrat or Republican in philosophy courses at ANY university in the world. They're political parties. They don't determine their own ideology The ideology does that. It determines the direction of the party which carries out their policies based on the ideology. Clearly, not only do I know what I'm talking about, you are clueless as evidenced by your stupid answer. Try thinking for even a moment. People have ideologies. They have philosophies. Those with shared views gather together and form political parties that are the vehicles for the ideology or philosophy that they want to promote. A political party is nothing without the ideology that drives it. In the South it was Conservative Democrats. Today it's Conservative Republicans. Yet the South is still as conservative as ever. Wow. they switched roles. imagine that. So Democrat and Republican are subject to change. But what doesn't change is Conservatism. That remains the same. So before showing me that you know nothing about this subject, do the necessary work. Try taking a political science course, or take a philosophy course. Do something to avoid looking stupid.

This has NOTHING to do with parties, and EVERYTHING to do with the ideology of conservatism. And it doesn't matter if it's Democrat or Republican. It's STILL conservative


adagio4639 profile image

adagio4639 19 months ago from Brattleboro Vermont Author

Tsad...you add nothing to this conversation. It's clearly over your head. Begone.


adagio4639 profile image

adagio4639 19 months ago from Brattleboro Vermont Author

"I'm done with you."

You said that before, and still you return. I don't think you're equipped to deal with this. You should probably find something safe. This isn't the place for safe.


junko profile image

junko 19 months ago

You think he finally got it? Democrats and Republicans are nouns (words used to Describe) Conservative and liberals are verbs (Action Words.


adagio4639 profile image

adagio4639 19 months ago from Brattleboro Vermont Author

Probably not. It's too basic. These guys think that a party tells their people how to think, rather than the people telling the party what it stands for.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 19 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL

"They don't teach Democrat or Republican in philosophy courses at ANY university in the world." - I like that and must remember for future edification of the uninitiated.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 19 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL

WillStar said "Hogwash. It was the Republicans who fought for emancipation, and it was the Republicans who fought against the segregation imposed by Southern Democrats."

ME replies - While adagio is correct, Republican and Democrat aren't philosophies, I will nevertheless use them with appropriate adjectives which add the philosophical belief to the Party label. It goes like this:

1. Replace Republican with Liberal (or Progressive) Republican

2. Replace Democrat (at that point in time, it didn't need to be Southern) with Conservative Democrat.

When you do, you will have it right.

(Of course Conservative Democrats and Liberal (Progressive) Republicans hardly exist anymore. The conservative Democrats were mostly voted out of office by the Tea Partyites, while Liberal (Progressive) Republicans were booted out of the Party by the conservative Right.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 19 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL

What those on the Right simply can't comprehend is the generations long impact of 245 years of slavery in pre- and post-United States; 100 more years of widespread, systemic discrimination, followed by 51 additional years of widespread, ad-hoc discrimination; has on modern black social structure. They seem to believe that with the passage of the 13th Amendment, blacks were on equal footing with whites and all they have to do is try hard to succeed.

Those on the Left know that is pure bull; it is also highly illogical. While the ball and chain was a physical reality to slaves, it is no less an impediment to advancement when it takes the form first blatant, and then after 1964, hidden discrimination in both work and educational opportunities. Smart people know this kind of societal environment completely disrupts normal family life that whites are accustomed to.


adagio4639 profile image

adagio4639 19 months ago from Brattleboro Vermont Author

"1. Replace Republican with Liberal (or Progressive) Republican

2. Replace Democrat (at that point in time, it didn't need to be Southern) with Conservative Democrat.

When you do, you will have it right."

This is true. You didn't have to from the South to be conservative. Goldwater was from Arizona. Hardly Dixie. Most all of the Southern Dems were conservatives, as they are today Conservative Republicans. But conservatism wasn't dependent on a regional qualification. It was simply most prevalent in Dixie. Conservatism stays. When a majority of the party becomes more liberal or conservative, that's the direction that the party takes. If a party becomes more conservative then that's what they become. Vehicles for that ideology. They may change their position, but that's totally dependent on the ideology that prevails at any given time.


adagio4639 profile image

adagio4639 19 months ago from Brattleboro Vermont Author

My Esoteric: "What those on the Right simply can't comprehend is the generations long impact of 245 years of slavery in pre- and post-United States; 100 more years of widespread, systemic discrimination, followed by 51 additional years of widespread, ad-hoc discrimination; has on modern black social structure."

That's precisely the problem. It simply didn't vanish with the 13th Amendment or the Civil Rights Act. To think that racism and racist policy disappeared as a result of those two things is absurd. You don't erase that kind of embedded cultural ideology with the stroke of a pen. "the law is this, so now we'll all be nice to each other". Anybody that thinks that way is simply nuts. Or...looking for some excuse for their continued racist views.


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 19 months ago from Somewhere in the universe

So many words on this page! I'll just add my 2 cents and move on. Texas was a Democratic, fairly liberal state for most of my life. Then we got invaded by the oilmen and they are way conservative. But even then "liberal", Texas was quite racist. Even I do not go to East Texas with my lily white skin. Those people are crazy.

I experienced reverse discrimination while living in Hawaii. I was known as a "stinking haole" as most mainlanders are. I find it amusing to think of one human discriminating against another for the shade of their skin tone, their eye slant, their hair color, their accents, or any of the hundreds of reasons that people find to discriminate other people for.

The Christians hate homosexuals and Catholics, but if a gay priest walked up to them, they would hide their hatred behind their hypocrisy so fast it makes one's head spin.

And after working with blood for 38 years, I can tell you that EVERYONE's blood is read. That every human is born, lives, and then dies. It's the great equalizer.

The "conservative" movement in the U.S.A. today is just an excuse for hypocritical bigots, no matter what you look like or "believe". It's just another case of My god is better than your god or my football team is better than your football team. It's disgusting.


adagio4639 profile image

adagio4639 19 months ago from Brattleboro Vermont Author

It's not racist to notice that a person is black, or brown, or Asian, Arab. What makes it racist is thinking that it matters.

Religion is very tied to Conservatism. Russell Kirk actually named his 6 original principles of conservatism; "Canons", which sounds pretty ecclesiastical to me. That's doctrine. That's Dogma. Conservatism is a religious cult and conservatives invest the same zeal in their ideology as they do in their religions.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 19 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL

I would reduce the scope of "religion" to "fundamentalist religion". There are many religious denominations which identity with today's Democratic Party.


adagio4639 profile image

adagio4639 19 months ago from Brattleboro Vermont Author

I agree. It's really fundamentalists in every religion that seem to make life miserable for everyone else.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 19 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL

Bingo!

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working