It appears that modern conservatism, built on ideas of ideas from William F Buckley, Ronald Reagan, Barry Goldwater, Leo Strauss, Russell Kirk, Joseph McCarthy and the like...formed those ideas as a result of the civil rights movement, or rather, their opposition to the civil rights movement. Reagan readily admitted that he, and many others, moved from being Southern Democrats to Republicans during the civil rights movement. The ranks swelled and the GOP became the party we know during and as a result of the civil rights movement, so....now that we recognize, or at least most of us, that racism and the sexism that dominated our past was a bad thing...wouldn't that make the foundation of the party fundamentally bad?
The party has always favored (from the 50's incarnation on)an idea that is was "us" against "them", and "them" are bad. In the 50's it was Communists, blacks (as they were very much against desegregation and reformed voting rights), woman's rights (Phyllis Schaffly, Helms, James Dobson, all of them were outspoken against woman's rights laws in the 70s), Mexicans from the 20s on, but more during the 80s on, homosexuals, Muslims, etc. So, is the basis of the conservative motivation rooted in bigotry and nothing more? Thoughts?
Let me point out the flaws in your "thinking" here:
1. "now that we recognize, or at least most of us, that racism and the sexism that dominated our past was a bad thing...wouldn't that make the foundation of the party fundamentally bad?"
/\ using the poster's "logic" as quoted above, one could then assume that the Democratic party . . . .opposed to such "conservative" ideals, and busy smoking grass and dropping LSD. . . .is the party of hallucinations, make believe ideals, and psychedelic economics.
Hey, I hate the unofficial two party system, I'd get pissed off if someone called me a "democrat," or a "republican."
I'm just trying to be helpful here by pointing out what I see as a flaw in your thought process.
But the Democratic party, or the modern party, was formed during the Great Depression as a result of Roosevelt, not during the 60s. Still though, I don't get your logic.
"/\ using the poster's "logic" as quoted above, one could then assume that the Democratic party . . . .opposed to such "conservative" ideals, and busy smoking grass and dropping LSD. . . .is the party of hallucinations, make believe ideals, and psychedelic economics."
What ideals? You didn't list any ideals, yet used the word "such." You are making a reference without including the reference, unless the premise of the question, bigotry and racism, are the referred to ideals, in which case, yes, Democrats are opposed to those.
Busy smoking grass? That is pretty much out of nowhere, as again, the modern Democratic party was formed during the Depression, not during the 60s. The modern Republican party's ideals were formed during the 60s, as a result of the civil rights revolution and yes, the hippies, who challenged the status quo.
Make believe ideals? Well, you might not like to be called anything in particular, but you ARE a conservative and just showed your spots with statements like that one.
Psychedelic economics? That is just lazy dude. Fail.
SO, what exactly do you mean?
Wow. Spewing disgusting crap that bubbles up in the putrid, festering pustule you call a brain has finally offended me. I never thought it could happen but I have finally been offended rather than amused at the insanity that liberals call ideas.
Foul, fetid, flatulent....ARG!
Save you the time... an example of a pustule (sp?) is a Pimple, in this context, a raging ready to burst Pimple, one that will spurt out its foul contents with just the slightest well-placed pressure .......
That is seriously all you could come up with? Again, in the end...the difference between us is that conservatives never grew up mentally beyond 13. Do you want to just call me a dummyhead, take your ball and go home? What a joke.
I believe it is a lot more...many of them from the past that you say framed conservatism or the GOP, are just another group in history that tries to do the correct things in life.
If you study conservative history in many recent books, I still see them not quite getting it correct...than again...liberals are not what the history of liberalism was either, and they don't have it correct yet, as well.
Until people genuinely read a broad spectrum of the views of the "other side" no one is going to "get it"!
We are to learn from history, not repeat it. we are to create what is better than what we had...or rather, find what hasn't been found yet! And as the human race, we will not find it until we start genuinely looking at each other and sincerely wanting to understand, and find the common ground for living.
Now, to me, as far as being labeled or labeling myself as conservative or liberal, I don't, becuase of the very nature of what it is I see that needs to be done.
Divided we fall, united we stand. It is all about understanding who and what God is, and how as humanity we fit in with the "model"! or rather what has been defined as the model! which in many cases on all sides of the spectrum, God is not what and who they think God is.
So, it seems really obvious, that that is the first and foremost point to come to terms on...
as well as stop painting the other as evil or wrong...we just think differently...and that is what needs to be accepted and understood and dealt with to find common ground.
Oh, to answer your question...everyone is a bigot, to some degree or another
What a leading question!
I assume you're just bypassing coming right out and accusing conservatives of bigotry, and instead are actually trying to get some backing for your dislike of conservatism.
Sorry, but the end result is the same as if you'd just done the former.
There you go again, as Reagan would say. You realize, of course, that the GOP SUPPORTED civil rights, while the Democrats OPPOSED IT.
Go learn some real history, dufus.
Well yeah, when you spell it out like that, it sure does look that way, don't it?
Of course, none of the groups you mentioned are exactly champions of "family values" are they?
I can see a case being made 'Conservatives' being raging liberals.
They Repubs stay in office by convincing enough people that they are the only party that will protect the country from who ever they decide the bad people are. They cant survive with out some group to hate, to fear, and to distract their faithful with.
As long as the majority of repub faithful are busy fighting the problem group de jour, (served up by Chef Beck) or the antichrist like democrats, they have free reign to pass the laws the lobbyists pay them to.
Repubs across this country are inviting business owners to come help write the laws they have to obey. Now do you suppose thier first priority is the voters who elected them to write the laws to help this country? Why dont the repubs invite joe blow and joe the plumber to help write the laws that protect the American people from the businesses that are permitted to operate in this country? One reason is the lack of common sense most faux news viewers have been blessed with. Not really that good an idea on second thought. The latest group to be hated is NPR and Public TV. Both of these organizations had the audacity to actual present un biased journalism on occasion and you know how the repubs dislike the truth.
The current action I noticed is the repub haven of Arizona trying to force hospitals to ask for citizenship papers before treating mexicans. They are to refuse them help if they cant provide it. The claim is that the illegal immigrants are costing us millions of dollars every year, and you know how financially responsible the repubs pretend to be. A real burden on healthcare is obesity and that will reach 200 billion dollars a year this year or next. When presented with a program to reduce childhood obesity and actually reduce the drain on medical services, they chose to claim being fat is their right, tuff luck for the hated mexicans. They claim to hate entitlement programs and yet the majority of their actions forces more people to rely on these programs. It's one way to keep themselves supplied with people to blame their problems on.
Sry for the rant,
There is a difference between an individual with conservative values and the republican party.
Not all conservatives are republican, but then labelling and putting people into groups is what liberals do best, Right?
How hilarious! Did you not get that you attacked him for generalizing only to immediately generalize yourself?
Well said, or rather demonstrated ............. the topic is quite a soft serve of shit, IMO ............. it is so nice that Obama's admin. has made some 'bad' words politically correct....... and yes, psychedelic (sp?) economics, referred to in a prior post, is quite the blind Democratic state.
Wow. This thread is even more off-the-wall than political threads usually are.
If I managed to become very high-profile and get a lot of people to support me in a move to become, say, "official spokesperson of the Lisa-and-friends group"; I could make it public that I like pizza. Somewhere down the line someone could then say, "That Lisa-and-friends group was built on the ideas of Lisa - like the idea of liking pizza." The "idea of liking pizza" wouldn't be mine. That "idea" has been around for quite some time, and long before I ever arrived on the scene.
Some freaks and extremists in my "Lisa group" (and most groups, Liberals included, have their freaks and extremists) could then go out and do their own thing, spread their own ideas, and find some people who liked their ideas. If those freaks and extremists went out and started this own little sub-groups with their own ideas, they wouldn't particularly represent the "main" "Lisa group", although they'd have some ideas that were shared with it.
With the exception of Reagan, who was thought well of by people who weren't necessarily Conservatives; but whose popularity was always, necessarily, tied to his Conservatism and was often more tied to his political skills and personal way of doing some things; there are a lot of extremist, freaks, among the names you mentioned. That aside, the beliefs and character of "regular" Conservatives (who aren't particularly represented by some of the off-the-wallers and embarrassments that are out there today, claiming to represent all Conservatives) are not, in the vast majority of cases (I'd guess) rooted in bigotry - or in a sharing of some of those beliefs of those people who may, in fact, be/have been bigots.
A lot of the most well known (and, yes, most vocal) Conservatives either don't represent the thinking of "regular" Conservatives; or else may share some "stands" on some issues, but for different reasons. In fairness to even some of those off-the-wall Conservatives, even some of their ideas are often interpreted as rooted in bigotry when, in fact, they're rooted in something that has nothing to do with the name/face of one group or another, but everything to do with what many in that group do (for example, in the case of Mexican illegals; it's not necessarily about the nationality of the people, or even about having anything against them, personally. It's about the consequences such huge numbers of people coming over the border illegally have on things like government services).
Not wanting the government more in people's lives than it absolutely has to be has been around since the country began (and before). It's one of those "likes pizza" ideas that wasn't invented by people who showed up decades after the idea, itself, did. It's the same for a lot of reasonable, Conservative, ideas/philosophies that are rooted in concepts that have nothing to do with anything even close to bigotry.
Nobody with well reasoned and reasonable thinking believes that all the individuals under the label of any group "all think alike"; and most people with half-way sensible thinking realize that every individual in any group doesn't necessarily agree with everything the most vocal or prominent associated with that group believes.
So, no. The basis for Conservatism (at least for "regular people" is not rooted in, and doesn't have anything to do with, bigotry. Granted, among the wide variety of Conservative-thinking people there are some who are bigots. Sometimes, too, what look bigotry really isn't. It's just something that looks like it, because some people can't grasp the real roots and scope of one particular issue or another.
People who "have a clue" know that there are all kinds of "regular" Conservatives who are every bit as caring, compassionate, respectful, and altruistic as a lot of non-Conservatives are. A lot of times, it's basically a matter of wanting to accomplish the same kinds of things - but differing ideas on how to accomplish them. Other times, of course, the differences between the groups stem from not wanting to accomplish the same things. Either way, there's bigotry, nastiness, and ingnorance in the off-the-wallers of both groups.
Hope that clears things up, because as someone who "has Conservative leanings", I'm sick of seeing the widespread, misguided, ideas about "what all Conservatives are like". (And, by the way, a lot of Conservatives are equally ill informed/misguided about "what all Liberals are like".)
Great response. I wanted to generate people's takes on various ideas, not that I particularly promote all of those ideas. I posted about closing NASA too that night to see what people would respond with. However, I tend to lean towards believing this more than closing NASA. There are things I really want to know, even though I was a conservative at one point, Sec and then VP of NT College Republicans, going to Lincoln Day dinners, etc. I changed upon learning more and getting more informed, but I know that was an individual case. I want to know what actually makes a conservative think the way they do, honestly. I hear they want smaller government always, but name one conservative President or Congress who has shrunk government while in office over the last 100 years. There isn't one. The two modern day conservative leaders actually tripled the size of government while in office (Bush Jr and Reagan). A less invasive government? But they want the government to monitor every single pregnancy to full term. One can't be more invasive than that. Tax cuts? Reagan raised taxes 3 times after he lowered them massively at the beginning of his first term. Strong on defense? We all are. However, we spent more than the next 17 countries combined on the list of defense spending, while our main enemy right now fights us with box knives and a Radio shack gift card. Strong on religion? No, not really. Most religions promote helping the poor, not existing in extreme vanity and wealth, etc. The only things that liberals would favor that differs from Christian dogma is supporting abortion rights and homosexual rights. However, do you wear blended fabrics? That is listed as a sin on par with being homosexual in DEUT. So, I don't really don't get it.
It is quite a list.
And no, you won't find a similar depth and breadth of bigotry on the right. Bigotry was the foundation of the Democrat Party and bigotry remains its main currency.
This isn't opinion, this is fact. Look at these facts:
http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/oped/o … acism.html
Author Mackubin “Mac” Owens is Editor of Orbis, FPRI’s quarterly journal of international affairs, and Senior Fellow at its Program on National Security. In addition, he is Associate Dean of Academics for Electives and Directed Research and Professor of National Security Affairs at the Naval War College in Newport, Rhode Island. From 1990-97, Dr. Owens was Editor-in-Chief of the quarterly defense journal Strategic Review and Adjunct Professor of International Relations at Boston University; . He served as a Marine infantry platoon commander in Vietnam (1968-69) where he was twice wounded and awarded the Silver Star medal. He retired from the Marine Corps Reserve as a Colonel in 1994. Dr. Owens earned his Ph.D. from the University of Dallas, his M.A. in economics from Oklahoma University and his B.A. from the University of California, Santa Barbara.
Dr. Owens is a contributing editor to National Review Online. His articles on national security issues have appeared in publications including International Security, Orbis, Armed Forces Journal, Joint Force Quarterly, The Public Interest, The Weekly Standard, Defence Analysis, US Naval Institute Proceedings, Marine Corps Gazette, Comparative Strategy, National Review, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Jerusalem Post, St. Louis Lawyer, the Washington Times, and the Wall Street Journal. He is co-editor of the textbook Strategy and Force Planning, now in its fourth edition, and author of the FPRI monograph, Abraham Lincoln: Leadership and Democratic Statesmanship in Wartime (2009) He is currently at work writing two books on American civil-military relations.
I don't think a conversation about bigotry in the political parties can be had without looking at the facts of history.
Bigotry is definitely not the basis for conservatism as bigotry does not have any affiliation. Conservatives strive to maintain the status quo. Liberals work to change it. Bill Buckley was an insipid conservative long before the civil rights movement. Ronald Reagan might have converted during the civil rights movement, but he was a conservative long before he switched parties. George Wallace was a conservative Democrat and an outspoken bigot. Whether Huey Long was a liberal or conservative Democrat can be argued, however, the fact that he was a bigot can not be diputed. Southern Democrats, due to their demographics, had an excessively large number of bigots who also qualified as liberals.
I believe you will find as many bigots amongst liberals as you will withing the conservative ranks. I will venture to make one OPINION. Rich bigots are conservatives and poor bigots are liberals.
Poor whites tend to separate and, therefore elevate themselves above, blacks by race. This is because their shared socioeconomic experience doesn't lend itself to separation by any other means.
For the wealthy it isn't race it is family heritage, wealth, school ties, own profession. These are factors typically separated from race.
It is a common human experience to seek to separate and elevate one's tribe above all others. Nothing new there.
Not sure if I posted that because of the absurdity of the racial attitude in the episode or because Nichelle Nichols is stellar.
by Charles James5 years ago
I am not an American, but what goes on in the USA is important to the world.Lincoln was a Republican and freed the slaves. One would expect black Americans to generally vote Republican. But they don't.How did this come...
by Credence22 years ago
To the hard core GOP type conservative/rightwinger: you're ridiculous, yes ridiculous in a Col. Klink, Stalag 13 kind of way.The GOP, hoping to get the youth vote, are attempting to pit the Baby Boomer Generation...
by My Esoteric3 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...
by Onusonus3 years ago
This is an actual plaque hanging at Northeastern Illinois University in Chicago. The excuses given from the Liberals who made this are a wide stretch of the imagination.
by ptosis2 weeks ago
The "million-dollar question" about the Facebook ads centered on how the Russians knew whom to target. How did the Russians knew where to direct their ads? The Russian bought Facebook ads to amplify political...
by AnnCee6 years ago
According to the New York Times:In the process many have formed some unusual bonds that reflect the singularly nonideological character of the Egyptian youth revolt, which encompasses liberals, socialists and members of...
Copyright © 2017 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.