The following list is just a small selection of the many ways conservatives are trying to suppress minority voting. From https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/20/opinions … ndex.html:
1 - "In rural Randolph County, Georgia, the local board of elections (all two members -- a third recently stepped down, according to the Washington Post) has proposed closing seven of the county's nine polling places ahead of the midterm elections. Critics have condemned the move, citing the vast size of the county -- 431 square miles -- and the fact there is no public transportation system."
2 - "In many states, Republican legislators and elections officials have steadily created barriers to voting that specifically target core Democratic constituencies. These GOP partisans know full well that pushing down Democratic turnout by even a few percentage points can make the difference between victory and defeat."
3 - "These polling place closures are part of a stark pattern that we are seeing across Georgia whereby officials are working to make it harder for African-Americans and other minorities to vote," is how Kristen Clarke, president and executive director for the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, put it to the Washington Post."
4 - After the courts shot down NC 1st attempt to discriminate, they tried again - "But North Carolina Republicans haven't given up. This year, a new law will require counties that offer early voting to keep the polls open 12 hours on weekdays in addition to weekends -- a measure that will dramatically increase the cost to counties, which will then be forced to cut back on early voting."
5 - "In Arizona, the Republican secretary of state, Michele Reagan, who oversees elections, refused last week a request by the ACLU, made last year, to coordinate with the state Department of Transportation to automatically update her records when the driver's license of a voter gets changed.
The result is that an estimated 500,000 voters -- over 20% of whom are Hispanic -- could end up with a mismatch between their license and their voting records, making it harder to cast a ballot in a state that requires voter ID."
6 - "In New Hampshire, Republican leaders recently passed a controversial law that requires college and university students to prove they are permanent residents of the state in order to vote, a change from prior laws allowing students to vote freely while living in the state."
7 - "Florida tried a different version of the same voter-suppression stunt when the state's Republican governor, Rick Scott -- currently running for US Senate -- banned early voting on college campuses. A federal judge recently struck down the plan in stinging language: "Simply put, (the state) opinion reveals a stark pattern of discrimination," Judge Mark Walker wrote. "It is unexplainable on grounds other than age because it bears so heavily on younger voters than on all other voters.""
8 - "The pattern is clear. Republicans from the Northeast to the Southwest -- and, of course, the Deep South -- are trying to game the upcoming elections by targeting black, Latino, young and low-income voters, who traditionally lean Democratic."
So, is systemic discrimination "Fake News"/
Not sure why you didn't include areas and events showing Democrats trying to disenfranchise Republican voters - you know, in the interests of balance and fairness and to keep you from looking like a whiny Democrat interested only in party politics. But in any case:
1. A circle 12 miles in radius (larger than Randolph County) with just one polling place gives a maximum distance of 12 miles to the poll. Two of them (as proposed) will cut that nearly in half. Six miles is not an unreasonable distance and I'd be willing to bet a large amount that less than 5% of the US territory is within 10 miles of a voting booth. But in any case, absentee voting is always possible: if Democrats feel their constituents are incapable of using a mailbox then perhaps they can send volunteers to "assist" them in choosing the "right" vote and mail it for them.
2. As LTL pointed out, tears from Democrats complaining of evil Republicans are a dime a dozen, and claims of unspecified evils aren't worth even that.
3. See #2
4. Isn't that kind of the reverse of closing polls (#1)? Keeping them open means less money for the early/absentee ballots, acerbating the #1 problem? Can't have it both ways...
5. While I like the idea, and assume it will catch both D's and R's voting illegally, you didn't post any of the reasoning behind the refusal - reasoning which could be important. Is privacy a concern (names and DL #'s available to everyone)? Safety (stalkers, etc.)? Cost? Usefulness? I'd like to see more on the thinking behind it.
6. While it might be nice to have that vast pot of liberal college students voting twice (in the college town and at their declared address), it seems reasonable to curtail their voting in a location that is NOT their permanent address. Again, absentee ballots are readily available.
7. Another ridiculous judicial opinion, isn't it? Everyone can vote early, by mail...except college students. Apparently they are too stupid to do so.
8. See #2
I will read "Not sure why you didn't include areas and events showing Democrats trying to disenfranchise Republican voters " as "Not sure why you didn't include areas and events showing liberals trying to disenfranchise conservative voters". That way we can discuss time periods beyond this generation.
I don't include events showing liberals trying to suppress conservative voters because there is no history of it every happening beyond an anecdotal scale. There is no pattern throughout the course of American history where liberals tried to disenfranchise conservatives. The liberal agenda has Always been to expand suffrage, not limit it.
Again, it isn't that absentee ballots are a fine way to vote, I do it often; it's the fact that the normal way of voting is cut off to them. By doing so, that, by definition, limits their ability to vote. BTW, Randolph county looks to be 25 miles by 30 miles; which again isn't the point. Randolph county had multiple voting places for a reason and it makes no difference what that reason was. By knocking them down to 1 voting place (which they ended up not doing) for a 750 mile square area can do nothing BUT limit the ability to vote. Even if it is one person, that is too many for an arbitrary decision to deny the right to vote.
Ha ha ha ha ha You have got to be kidding! Accused of bringing in illegals to vote, accused of changing lines to ensure Democratic winners and yes, accused of "disenfranchising" Republican voters. But of course it is liberals doing it so it never happened, did it? Not even the accusation. (Yes, I know I'm going beyond simple disenfranchising to include other voter fraud, but I'm sure it could be easily included; that WAS the intent after all - to indicate Republican malfeasance).
Wow! How things change. First it was a reduction to two, not one, voting places and it was 431 sq. miles, not 750.
Did you forget to address that the vast majority of locations in the country travel further than the maximum that would be required in Randolph County? Or did you just not want to?
I asked for the reasoning, but all you've provided is that it was "arbitrary" - something both you and I know to be totally false. If nothing else it was to save money, which is not arbitrary. Try again?
As to "tears", if you are talking about Ds and Rs, then you might or might not have a point. BUT, if you are talking about liberals and conservatives, then you and LTL are, in my opinion, wrong. The whole history of America has been liberals trying to overcome the conservative's continuous efforts to limit individual liberty. From the fight against slavery, a conservative condoned institution, to woman's right to vote which was opposed universally by conservatives, to the Civil Rights Act, also uniformly opposed by conservatives, as was their opposition to the Voting Rights Act.
Now conservatives are trying to move America back to the late 1800s when the conservative Supreme Court gutted the laws that implemented the 14th and 15th amendments.
"The whole history of America has been liberals trying to overcome the conservative's continuous efforts to limit individual liberty."
You mean like the liberty to keep their paycheck instead of having it given to someone else in entitlements? The liberty to choose what your bakery store will produce and who will buy it? The liberty to use a bathroom in peace, without the opposite sex intruding on your quiet time? The liberty to do with your land as you wish?
Personally I don't see either party as being particularly concerned over personal liberties. One demands you serve their god, the other demands you serve their ideology and morality.
1. Reading am article of the county, it said the polling places in question A. are not compliant with the ADA. It also states B. residents who cannot get to the polling stations which are can vote absentee. If A and B are true, then your claim is false.
2. That's a broad claim you fail to back up with specifics. Please provide in order to justify the claim.
3. See 2.
4. Polls should afford the opportunity to vote after work. If voting at the polls is limited to the day of the election then this is a mystery. Not being able to find an article on your claim leaves this a mystery.
5. Knowing how incredibly slow our county is at updating anything, I'm not surprised. But, a quick Google search afforded me ample information on how a citizen can quickly update their voter registration information.
6. I don't think transient college students should have a say in local elections. Unless they are permanent residents. Again, they can vote absentee, in the state they claim residence in. I moved to a new state 1 year ago. I haven't voted because I understand that I don't understand local needs yet. There is a big push for a major investment in public transportation. It would raise local tax rates, considerably. I have no right to impose my opinion, yet.
7. I'd agree on this. If students are allowed to vote, whether residents, or not, hours should be convenient to them.
8. Again, a broad claim. Unless it is your contention that the groups mentioned are incapable of either updating their information or incapable of filling out an absentee ballot. Both ideas, I find reprehensible and insulting to adults.
1. If the ADA thing were true, then the answer is fix the polling place, not close it down. And why should someone be forced to vote absentee because the conservatives don't want to afford them a place to vote.
2. All I need to point to is the numerous successful challenges to conservative legislatures trying to suppress voting of minorities.
4. Here is what I got when I googled it - https://slate.com/news-and-politics/201 … rnout.html
5. What would be a good reason, other than trying to suppress minority voting is there for the person responsible for fair elections in a state refusing to help people vote?
6. "...a change from prior laws allowing students to vote freely while living in the state." - are you saying the NH legislature doesn't have a right to let students vote while residing in their state?
8. I am sure they are capable, but why, other than to suppress their vote, would these laws be passed to make it more difficult to vote, not easier?
Fixing polling stations may take too much time to be open on the next election day or be cost prohibitive to upgrade. I don't know the specific circumstances but absentee voting isn't rocket science. I did it while in the military.
I don't know that 'successful challenges to Republicans attempting to suppress' is a fair statement. I would think a fairer statement would be that proposed changes were shown to have a possible negative effect on certain portions of the voting population and were stopped.
I lived in a state where the Democratic governor threw a hissy fit and closed DMVs in Republican majority areas. Political stunts are not limited to one party.
The title of the article in the link makes it clear, from the outset, the writer is biased. Provide a less biased link for review.
One reason to not automatically update the voter registration every time a person changes their license could easily be not having the resources to do it. Everyone I know understands if they move they must register in their new county or city. Again. Not rocket science. The government is not required to hunt down citizens to vote. If a citizen is not interested in ensuring they are properly registered they make it clear they aren't interested in voting. Registering to vote is a privilege open to all. It isn't a right if you don't take advantage of the privilege.
New Hampshire has every right to let kids vote as residents. If they are residents. My concern is that a large university can turn out votes which can cause higher taxes and permanent change to localities which will not affect a transient student. I can certainly understand a locality being fearful of a bunch of college kids voting without having to take responsibility for the outcome. Maybe the better solution would be let them vote on national issues, but not state or local ones.
I don't agree with the idea that we should bend over backwards to find more voters. Apathy should not be rewarded.
"Provide a less biased link for review."
Or one that isn't just Democratic claims, but Republican ones as well. Might say something about party politics and voting interference by a whole lot of people.
And I vote absentee most of the time, but that isn't the point, is it? I won't begin to try to figure out the obstacles old people, poor people, black people have in trying to vote.
What I do know is the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act were designed to suppress systematic discrimination against blacks in both society and the voting booth. Nobody but the hard right disagrees this was endemic in American society and a real problem.
Blacks only had a fair opportunity to vote only until U.S. Grant (I think) came to office and ended reconstruction. Between that and a conservative Supreme Court bent on undoing the the 14th and 15th amendments, blacks (and now poor whites) were back to being slaves except in name only.
They finally had enough beginning after WW II and their struggles ended in many being killed (Lynched) but they did reach their goal in 1964.
What I do know that as soon as conservative Chief Justice Roberts gutted the 1965 voting rights act, EVERY state led by conservatives began putting barriers in place again those measures designed to suppress the votes of those who would most likely vote Democratic.
What [u]I do know]/u] is that beginning with the conservative Rehnquist Court, that the Supreme Court have been chipping away at the foundation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
It seems, though, that your "barrier" is that no one shows up at their door with a ballot. That students can only vote in their declared state of residence.
These things aren't "barriers" to black voters; they are small requirements for everyone. They know no color and they are not huge obstacles that prevent voting.
Easier to keep my own self Government system, and be decent to others.
This thread , Liberal hogwash ;
I'll say one thing ,we've finally reached a point in America where everyone is fully aware that liberals transformative politics have evolved to a point where OUTRIGHT LYING about anything politically motivated is the new norm . Need some defining "truth" to sway your party's powers in the local , state or federal media elections or new courts of media trials , create one !
Create a lie and when questioned about its origin THEN liberals demand "proof " of the actual accusation against these falsehoods . Basic Alinsky 101 , what a sickeningly sweet realization for conservatives to finally "get it " that the left has no known moral low-ground , be that women's rights , minority issues , race relations, elections , whatever the cause , just lie and let the world prove you wrong .
I'd like to see there be an IQ test requirement for voting rights. That would be the most effective way to eliminate democrats from voting. But photo IDs should absolutely be mandatory, regardless of the rest.
IQ test? Be careful what you wish for as you may be surprised by the outcome/results.
No, I would not be surprised at all. I know for a fact such a thing would eliminate huge numbers of left wing voters.
I'd also like for there to be an IQ test for participation in these forums. I'm certain a lot of left wing persons would be eliminated here too. It would be a big improvement.
I would say the same, but from the opposite direction, but I won't because the progressive thinker is not threatened by a wide variety ideas unlike the Rightwinger, whom you seem to represent quite well.
But again we can wish and dream, but know that NONEof that is allowed or will ever happen.... who would dare?
You rightwingers will just take your lickin in November and will learn to like it, maybe even crave it.
Going to be a v.e.r.y interesting election, isn't it? With both sides screaming to high heaven of malfeasance and criminal behavior. Think we'll see a few dozen, or hundred, more winners accused of sexual crimes?
"I know for a fact such a thing would eliminate huge numbers of ,far left wing voters. "
I actually wouldn't doubt that. Any more than I would doubt that it would eliminate large numbers of far right wing voters; probably a good thing in both cases.
You might be surprised to know (I was) that there is a very LOOSE positive correlation between higher IQ and the extremes than with us dummy's in the center. But, by-and-large, there is no discernible correlation between IQ and where you fall on the political spectrum.
Having said that, there is a clear difference between conservative and liberals in how much education they receive.
Interesting. Maybe that's the time their brain goes on break from being overworked!
Yep - liberals have a strong tendency towards more formal education. Dumb as a pile of rocks when it comes to practical matters, but well educated.
And yet they're always whining that "Colleges aren't liberal - prove it!" - the same colleges that instilled the knowledge...and attitudes...into those impressionable minds.Seems to me that it's case closed - colleges and universities are, on the whole, far more liberal than conservative and that "liberalness" is imprinted onto young, impressionable minds along with the rest of it.
Wilderness, how are unlettered people better qualified than formally educated people? Conservatives always seem to believe that education is a liability.
Liberalism means the ability to question and open oneself to inquiry about everything. Isn't that the kind of thinking that you would prefer? Why do conservatives always believe that adult people are unable of doing their own thinking, so their being indoctrinated?
I think the better definition of liberalism, by current trends, is to make up definitions for words. Nowhere does liberalism mean what you claim it does.
Why don't you tell us what "your" definition is, or do you agree with the so called liberal doctrination of higher education? Obviously, Wilderness has a definition and can define it, and I counter it. Can you do as well?
I don't make up definitions for words Credence. I simply use the standard agreed upon definitions. You can look it up. As a matter of fact, maybe you should look it up.
I do think that colleges and universities do not present a diverse range of ideas. They are pushing liberal ideas and agendas. I think, the better course, would be for each institute of higher learning to stand firmly behind the idea of presenting the widest range of ideas possible to better help our young adults learn how to think critically.
I watched a thing with Jordan Peterson the other day. Fascinating man. He said, in his clinical work, he could always tell when someone was parroting something they had been fed and when the thoughts and ideas they presented were from the result of their own thinking. He said the main indicator was how incredibly interesting they became, when they were sharing their own thoughts. It was so true.
These kids that are being spoon fed liberalism are not thinking. They are becoming a mob with a mob mentality. White kids screaming in the faces of people of color, members of the LGBT community, immigrants, etc. that they are racist. Because they don't agree with some political stance these kids are pushing. If you consider that intelligent discourse; maybe we should redefine the word liberal. To mean non thinking goose stepping zombie.
A tenet of Liberalism in its definition is tolerance, so what does it take to be open to a variety of views? Conservatism is certainly not generally associated with tolerance,
You certain have your fixed attitudes and values that are no more than your opinion. Sorry, I can't buy into it. The standard stuff I always hear from the right, i.e. The press is against us, Europe is against us, etc...
I guess if you attended BoB Jones university, then you would get an education approved by conservatives.
See, there's the problem. You demand a liberal agenda. I want open discussion and exploration of all ideas. I would say, by your definitions, you are the conservative and I'm the liberal.
That intesting, I am not convinced that all conservatives points of view are being shut down and not examined as part of a student's inquiry within institutions of higher learning. Students are progressive thinking s and will tend to embrace progressive ideas, no one is brainwashing them. I am no longer a student, and I often times share their perspectives on things and I am neither a student nor "indoctrinated". My attitudes and values come from a combination of education and on the ground experience. So, I am not so quick to rule out the reasoning of college students because they don't fit my ideological mindset. I demand an agenda of open inquiry, it is only conservatives that accuse institutions of leading students down the lefty primrose path.
As an example, when I was in school, the conservatives, where they were to be found on campus, supported Nixon and the War, Peace with honor. Who is being indoctrinated? The "war" had no support from virtually every quarter except the hard right. We did not need instructors to "indoctrinate" us to believe this glaring fact.
Students are not progressive or liberal as much as they are desirous of showing their independence from their parents. Contrary, at times, for the sake of being contrary.
Kids are easily herded. Few have the ability, or the interest, to think independently; without encouragement.
I still say, if Antifa is indicative of the liberal activist, they are goose stepping morons.
That is exactly why Bernie Sanders constantly targets the 19 year old average listener !
But, in spite of that I would not change the 18 year old right to the franchise. I am as old as the hills and still quite liberal, and became more liberal rather than less with age. So, it is for folly to always assume youth are saddled with a lack of independent thinking ability, just because they are younger. You know, that is what the conservatives always fall back on to explain the blacks' ( don't they call it the Democratic Plantation?) firm alliance with the Democratic Party, that somehow we are all being misled or duped? I doubt it.
I can certainly see why, through your comments, you stand behind the Democratic party. I've also seen your comments calling other blacks who don't uncle Toms.
It's all relative. You are as much stuck in your beliefs as anyone else. To say different is deluding yourself.
"It's all relative. You are as much stuck in your beliefs as anyone else. To say different is deluding yourself"
Same as your loyalty to the right, in other words, I wont delude myself if you don't......
I think you and I are of an age where we have seen enough of the world to have fairly firmly held opinions, born of experience and observation. I would sincerely hope we are compassionate enough to change our views when we clearly find them lacking a fair amount of inclusiveness.
That's my main problem with the left today. They don't leave room for the younger generation to see all sides or take into account young voices have a right to be heard, but have no experience, so must be put into that perspective.
I have pie in the sky ideals, yet understand the reason some druthers cannot happen. I understand that, if I want to remain in a free and civil society, I have to respect others right to alternative views. I understand that my views are not always 'right', they are the product of my experience and that the experience of others should be afforded the same respect at the outset, but must pass the test of honesty and reason in order to be worthy of further inquiry.
I don't see this courtesy in current liberal ideology,
Yes, I would like to think that the learning process is lifelong and we can and do change direction in the face of compelling evidence.
I don't believe that students are given enough credit, this idea of a blank slate that is molded by professors at the University level is not supported. There are plenty of conservatives running around as they are not an endangered species. We are in an information age, in a time like never before where inquiry can made of virtually anything, everybody can do their own thinking and come to their own conclusions. I would expect all adults persons to avail themselves of this ability to investigate to their satisfaction.
Our ideas and how we get there are still different. We agree about the respecting alternative views and I also have to respect that adult people have the ability to form them without being considered indoctrinated or naïve. They have been given the vote in the 26th Amendment where the nation obviously believe that the 18 year old have the appropriate capacity to research and find the truth for themselves.
It just appears that 'everything' is liberal, is there a reason for that? There are many more reasons that the GOP and conservative concepts do not do well with many beyond the fact that the receptors are young people.
I sure would like to see the studies you base those opinions on, you know studies that consider large populations of students so that a reasonable conclusion, if any, can be drawn. The null hypotheses would be:
1. Kids in college, as a whole, are being spoon-fed liberalism (the idea America is based on).
2. College students have a "mob mentality".
3. College white kids are screaming in the faces of color, members of the LGBT community, immigrants, etc. that they are racist.
The accepted definition of "a liberal" is “a person who believes that government should be active in supporting social and political change." - Merriam Webster
The accepted definition of "liberalism" is "a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties specifically : such a philosophy that considers government as a crucial instrument for amelioration of social inequities (such as those involving race, gender, or class)
1. Kids in college, as a whole, are being spoon-fed liberalism (the idea America is based on)."
For sure. That's why the founding fathers, when writing our constitution, included 100 different forms to give away to everyone. It's why we've always had "free healthcare". It's why govt. collects 50% of our income in taxes.
Because the country was founded on the liberal concept of modern day socialism.
The accepted definition of "liberalism" is "a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties specifically"
You can't have typed that with a straight face.
Liberal philosophy is the autonomy of the individual...as they assume half the country cannot support itself?!?! It is the essential goodness of the human race...as it feels it has to control the smallest details because people are so evil in their treatment of others. It has to have come straight from the Democratic party, for no one else would ever make such an idiotic statement.
When people try to equate "liberalism" with "socialism" I always have to ask that person to define what they mean by socialism. Once they look up the definition, they finally see how wrong they are.
So, Wilderness, what is Your definition?
And No, definitions of conservatism, liberalism, and socialism have not changed over time. They are the same as they were in the days of the Enlightenment.
I didn't type that with straight-face or otherwise. I cut and pasted it from Merriam-Webster; I thought I had provided that reference. And every other reference I look at gives a similar answer. For example:
Brittanica: Liberalism, political doctrine that takes protecting and enhancing the freedom of the individual to be the central problem of politics. Liberals typically believe that government is necessary to protect individuals from being harmed by others, but they also recognize that government itself can pose a threat to liberty.
Wikipedia: Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on liberty and equality. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but they generally support civil rights, democracy, secularism, gender and race equality, internationalism and the freedoms of speech, the press, religion and markets.
Oxford Research: Liberalism in politics is associated with nonauthoritarianism, the rule of law, constitutional government with limited powers, and the guarantee of civil and political liberties. A liberal society is tolerant of different religious, philosophical, and ethical doctrines and allows individuals to freely form and express their conscientious convictions and opinions on all matters and live according to their chosen purposes and life paths. In economic terms, liberalism is associated with an unplanned economy with free and competitive markets, as well as private ownership and control of productive resources.
Stanford: This might help you as well - https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberalism/
Facts and Myths: FACT - Politically, liberalism is the ideology of concepts like tolerance, the use of reason, the freedom of thought, speech, association, and worship (individual liberty), legal rights, at least basic civil liberties and rights, and an appreciation for the spirit of mixed-democracy, term limits, checks and balances, and a separation of governmental powers.
Does this make sense to you?
Great post My Esoteric, I especially appreciated the Stanford link.
And I learned something ... in the context of today's political discussion, any labeling of "Liberal" must include the "New" - "New Liberalism," else the one doing the labeling is making an assumption that the "new" is understood. Which I do not think is a common understanding.
From your definitions, and that Stanford link, I think many "Conservatives would be shocked to know they are actually advocating "Liberal" beliefs.
Alas, I still couldn't find a home; Classic Liberalism, Positive Liberalism, Negative Liberalism, and even Libertarian Liberalism - all left holes in my box. I am forever to be just a 'Purple' I suppose. ;-)
GA, I am glad you liked my offerings. I will give you the benefit of several lectures I have listened to on this subject and it boils down to this:
The basic tenets (as listed above) of liberalism are constants. There are two basic variants of liberalism, minimal-state and active-state liberalism (terms used by the professor). The difference between the two is how much the state gets involved in protecting the rights of its citizens and in providing for the general Welfare.
Both types of liberals existed at our founding. Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, and Alexander Hamilton are examples of active-state liberals while James Madison (after the Constitution was ratified) and Thomas Jefferson represent minimal-state liberals.
Nevertheless, in all five cases, each man was a liberal by the definition of their period and by today's accepted definitions.
Obvious, your term of "New" liberal (although it isn't really new) refers to active-state liberals. While those prone to libertarian views are your minimal-state liberals. This the way it has always been and this is the way it always will be.
What things are active-state liberals responsible for? I have offered this list many times.
- Amendments 1 through 9
- The 13th Amendment
- The 14th Amendment
- The 15th Amendment
- The 19th Amendment
- The 24th Amendment
- The 26th Amendment
- The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (to repair the conservative destruction of the 14th Amendment)
- The Voting Rights Act of 1965 (to repair the conservative destruction of the 15th Amendment)
And this is only some of the accomplishments of active-state liberals.
(BTW, paved roads in Philadelphia, paid for by taxes, was another active-state liberal proposition of Benjamin Franklin.)
(- The 18th Amendment was the darling of social conservatives, btw)
Yes, some conservatives like Paul Ryan would be shocked, but the truth is, most of his ideology follows the liberal line vice a true conservative one. Who are real conservatives that you might know?
- Edmund Burke (the father of conservatism)
- Russell Kirk who codified, as it were, the Burkian conservative philosophy
- William F. Buckley Jr. who provided an academic foundation to conservatism
- Vice President Calhoon
- Governor George Wallace
- Chief Justice Roger Taney (and the other Justices who voted for Dred Scott
- Chief Justice Melvin Fuller (and the other Justices who voted for "Separate but Equal"
- Most of the southern Democrats who voted against the Civil and Voting RIghts Acts.
You get the idea.
Where would you put the 18th and 21st amendments? Was the 18th "providing for the general welfare" through govt. control and thus active liberal? Was it an obvious ploy to promote old religious beliefs and thus conservative?
And then what about the 21st? Conservative because it was about personal liberties or perhaps minimal state liberal?
I already assigned the 18th to social conservatives and I hadn't researched the 21st to determine what the driving force behind the repeal was. I suspect it was more business related, but that is just a guess.
I believe if you research Russell's 10 Principles of Conservatives, you will not find that "personal" liberties are high on his list of concerns. My take away from reading them many times is that a conservatives major tenets are 1) preserving the status quo as much as possible and 2) preserving a stable social structure.
According to Russell, conservatives do not believe in equal rights during one's lifetime. Nor do they believe in egalitarianism, meritocracy, and, amazingly, meliorism. Those are specifically opposed in the Principles. (Well, maybe meritocracy isn't mentioned, but it is implied.)
Sorry - I missed your mention of the 18th (prohibition). But how do you assign it to conservatives - conservatives that have been making and consuming alcohol for many generations now wanting a change? That doesn't seem to follow with either the status quo OR a stable social structure.
The 21st (repeal of prohibition) I would have put down to the people rearing up on their hind legs and saying "Oh no, you don't!". Prohibition never did work, of course, and caused endless crime and violence which people became tired of. And of course they wanted their booze! So I'm not sure it could be attributed to either liberals OR conservatives but a truly "bi-partisan" effort of the people themselves rather than government.
No, I don't see conservatives supporting equal rights, and that transfers to not liking meritocracy quite well. Mostly they just want left alone to make their own choices as much as possible. Except that they will also make religious choices for everyone else as well...which would be my reasoning for conservatives bringing in the 18th amendment.
Specifically Social Conservatives. This sentence from a Wikipedia article sort of summarizes it: "his heavily prohibitionist wave attracted a diverse coalition: doctors, pastors, and eugenicists; Klansmen and liberal internationalists; business leaders and labor radicals; conservative evangelicals and liberal theologians."
Note that "liberal theologians" do not equate to political liberals. AND, I have no idea why they included "liberal internationalist" as my quick research on this term doesn't seem to lend itself to the restriction of personal liberty contained in the 18th Amendment.
Note also, that "progressivism" isn't limited to political liberals, conservatives have their version of it as well and that is what is in play here. TRUE liberals would never tell a person they can't drink, let alone pass a Constitutional amendment about it. On the other hand, a progressive conservative would; just as they want to ban a woman's right to choose, prostitution, and a whole list of individual activities which they find morally abhorrent.
Where a true liberal would act is to pass laws protecting other living human beings from the harm those engaging in these activities might cause, but not ban the practice outright.
When you say "Mostly they just want left alone to make their own choices as much as possible." you are not describing a real conservative. Instead, you are describing a liberal, probably a minimal-state liberal.
You, personally, probably find slavery abhorrent; any liberal would. A real conservative may or may not because the institution of slavery can (and did) fit in with their belief in a natural order of society. Russell declares that in order to have a well run society, there must be a stratification of society.
One of those stratifications is the degree of personal liberty a given class has. And that is where accepting slavery as being part of the normal organization of a society.
And what do you base that amazing conclusion? Many so-called conservatives simply aren't, but they think that is a good label to use it wrongly. Most people who are true conservatives have no issue with slavery and other forms of limiting individual liberties; there philosophy simply doesn't find it abhorrent. In fact, conservative philosophy specifically thinks that there is a certain hierarchy in life; that there is a natural order of haves and have nots and slavery fits into that natural order.
Liberals, on the other hand, specifically reject that notion of a "natural" order. Liberals specifically agree that women should have the right to vote. Conservatives fought tooth and nail against it, arresting protesting women left and right.
The truth is, if you believe women should have a right to vote and that slavery isn't an abomination (as examples), then you are a liberal - period. You may be a minimal-state liberal who doesn't think gov't should actively help its citizens, but you are still a liberal.
And HOW, right-wing Todd do you know that for a "Fact"?
Do you really put the agenda of the far left (or far right) as something an intelligent person would put up with? Irrational, doomed to almost immediate failure, very obviously bad for everyone involved, etc. - can that be the plan of an "intelligent" person?
Nearly every modern leftist argument = hysteria > facts
"I don't believe that students are given enough credit.......... ", they sure are NOT given enough credit by liberals at all , Why indoctrination works better than offering a real balanced education consisting of reality and not lies , bias and a media that promotes ONE half of the conversation is beyond most of us .
I would think liberals would want more of a balanced education for their children than basically one half of history , one half of a truth , one half of the democratic understanding of our governing body. But apparently they'd rather their children learned to reason throughout their entire lives based on hypocrisy , bias , hatred , nazi-like activism , character assassination rather than normalised human relating .
Want to end the "Stopping of Minority Voting ? Educate the young voters instead of indoctrinating them to liberal bias .Teach them truth and deductive reasoning instead of ensuring they only assume a position of voter apathy , There is NO voter suppression in America , as with all voters , potential minority voters just don't care enough to "do the homework "required .
The liberal party in America actually has little weight in their claim that they are the more "progressive " party . I believe in fact that we can safely say that more of their ideological body weight is made up of political obstructionism . The claim of progressiveness in their party has virtually shifted in the last two decades .
Let's face it , there never was any progressiveness in socialism , at least any that was politically constructive. How can a party consider themselves progressive when they have become the party of and for bigger government across the board , local state or federal ? We all know that the whole concept of government becomes mired down in unproductivity the moment it is formed .
Like others on your side, you appear to have no idea what socialism really means. You conflate terms that are unrelated, for example "progressivism" is somehow related to the "size of gov't". It isn't. Progressivism is a philosophy that wants to move humanity from a worse place (say women can't vote) to a better place (now they can vote).
The size of gov't is a physical thing. Some people believe there should be no gov't at all and others who think the size of gov't should be unlimited (fortunately, there are very few of either). Most people think gov't needs to be big enough to fulfill the promises contained in the Preamble to the Constitution.
As to this amorphous term "limited government", it is meaningless. It is meaningless because it is a term simply flung around with no explanation as to what it means. To take it to your extreme, we need to disband our standing army since they are part of government. Is that what you think "limited government" is? If not, they you are not like those who believed in limited gov't in say, 1900. Why, because in 1900 the idea of a standing army was abhorrent to most Americans.
You create a fictional "main" party called the Liberal Party, which of course doesn't exist. Today, the party that embraces liberalism are the Democrats. In 1910, the liberal party were the Republicans. Neither are socialist, btw.
In case you don't know, true socialism is an economic and social philosophy that believes humanity is better served if the people (generally representative by a government) own the means of production and distribution. It is the opposite of liberalism which believes the opposite. Instead, socialism, like its cousin conservatism, is an authoritarian form of gov't. Just so you know..
"Like others on your side, you appear to have no idea what socialism really means. You conflate terms that are unrelated, for example "progressivism" is somehow related to the "size of gov't"."
Esoteric, perhaps you need to move into 21st century America, and stop pulling definitions from 200 years ago. Today's "socialism" primarily concerns itself with entitlements - giving one person's wealth to another - rather than ownership of production. And "progressives", regardless of what they are proposing, always insist that additional govt. control and size will be necessary for their plan. Unlimited govt., in other words, for utopia will never be achieved and that will always mean more government in the effort to reach it.
Wilderness, I would offer you not use your made up definitions and stick to those that are backed by authorities in the field.
Of course that is possible. But we all know the meaning of words change, that new words come into being and so forth. None of which those "authorities" recognize...until long after it happens.
Look around these forums, this microcosm of political discussion by non-politicians. See what they use the term "socialism" to refer to. Then complain that I don't use the word in the most commonly (in this environment) used sense.
Please note this, from Mirriam Webster, where democratic socialism is mentioned:
Socialism vs. Social Democracy: Usage Guide
In the many years since socialism entered English around 1830, it has acquired several different meanings. It refers to a system of social organization in which private property and the distribution of income are subject to social control, but the conception of that control has varied, and the term has been interpreted in widely diverging ways, ranging from statist to libertarian, from Marxist to liberal. In the modern era, "pure" socialism has been seen only rarely and usually briefly in a few Communist regimes. Far more common are systems of social democracy, now often referred to as democratic socialism, in which extensive state regulation, with limited state ownership, has been employed by democratically elected governments (as in Sweden and Denmark) in the belief that it produces a fair distribution of income without impairing economic growth.
It is quite close to what I said.
by alian346 6 years ago
How can low percentage turnouts in important elections be improved?Recently in the UK we had local council elections and the turnout was very low - only about 1 in 3 voted. Is this the same in your country? If so, how can it be improved?
by G. Diane Nelson Trotter 23 months ago
Some people say President Obama told illegal aliens they can vote. It is reported that 3,000,000 did just that in California. What about Arizona? What about Florida? How can that happen? The Governor of North Carolina is suspicious about the vote that took him out of...
by My Esoteric 16 months ago
The Ds lost their fourth special election. Some say those are Big Wins for Rs and Disaster for Ds. Other optimistic souls say each was a Win for Ds because they were close. While I tend to agree with the last statement, I won't go so far as calling it a win. Instead, I call...
by Judy Specht 6 years ago
Why don't I have to show an ID to vote for president or anyone else?I have to show an ID to any policeman that asks, to get a prescription,see the doctor, get my blood drawn, board an air plane, get my taxes done, write a check, accept a job, withdraw money at the bank and sometimes when I use a...
by Renee' D. Campbell 6 years ago
For the voters: What do you think about people passing out election literature as you stand in line?I think it's annoying - And then they ask you questions and will not walk away, and let you vote in peace.
by ahorseback 4 months ago
Absolute political paranoia has somehow evolved into the very DNA of the democratic Party? How long can the democratic party be so stagnant in social advancements , the naysaying of cultural advancements is so damning as to demonstrably show democratic party as...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|