Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That is a good question. The farther back the state of affairs you want to revert to is, the more "conservative" that desire is. Eleven years ago is recent history. 100 or 150 years ago is not recent history. Eleven years ago is such recent history, that any desire to go back there would certainly not necessarily be a "conservative" yearning. 100 or 150 years ago would. I suppose if you're talking about, say, 40-70 years ago, that might be a gray area.
That said, if a policy (such as segregation) started 150 years ago but still existed somewhere 50 years ago, a desire to revert back to it would definitely be conservative, because the date in which it started would be the crucial factor.
Let's go back to 150 years ago. Slavery was over, but the southern governments were seeking to conserve the old racist social order. This is why Jim Crow became the policy of the South. It was, for those times, the conservative response to slavery being over and the fear of Black people having the same rights as anyone else.
The South having a lower life expectancy than anywhere else in America is not much of a coincidence. The South has long been a region that has lagged behind the rest of the country. The South in its antebellum time was built off of a plantation economy, a slave economy. It was a region with a few people on the top, and many, many people living poorly (outside of the slaves of course). The planter class, the elite among the White population, lived quite nicely. The elegant mansions, large plantations, the "southern way of life", it was lived by the elites. Some middle class slave owners had fewer slaves. Much of the population, however, was poor. Living a life of poverty and hardship didn't make for a high life expectancy. High infantile death rates. The South has long had a high murder rate. Problems like malaria, yellow fever, encephalitis, hookworm, pellagra, illness that have afflicted people in the South.
Most of the states with the lowest life expectancy are in the South. This has been an issue going back to antebellum days.
Let's go back to 150 years ago. Slavery was over, but the southern governments were seeking to conserve the old racist social order. This is why Jim Crow became the policy of the South. It was, for those times, the conservative response to slavery being over and the fear of Black people having the same rights as anyone else.
Yup. As I said, it was an effort to preserve a social order going back at least a couple centuries. That kind of desire to maintain an ancient social order is inherently conservative. Those who sought to maintain that order (Southern democrats of the time) were, in turn, conservatives.
Yup. As I said, it was an effort to preserve a social order going back at least a couple centuries. That kind of desire to maintain an ancient social order is inherently conservative. Those who sought to maintain that order (Southern democrats of the time) were, in turn, conservatives.
And for those who claim "liberals are the real racists", the term "conservative" needs to be understood as it is. Conservative means "to conserve". One is trying to keep something in place. But what is it that is being kept in place? For the South, it was a very racist social order of the time. I agree with you that this makes southern Democrats conservatives of their time. This also shows that conservative and Republican weren't always synonymous.
Let's go back to 150 years ago. Slavery was over, but the southern governments were seeking to conserve the old racist social order. This is why Jim Crow became the policy of the South. It was, for those times, the conservative response to slavery being over and the fear of Black people having the same rights as anyone else.
Funny thing, the anti-slavery Republicans of the civil-war and post-civil war era were labeled 'liberals.' But politically they were close to today's libertarians. They favored small government and open commerce. They opposed the massive 'infrastructure' spending schemes of the day (mainly having to do with rail).
Those who wanted to maintain white supremacy were indeed labeled as 'conservative,' and were mostly Democrats. Fast forward to around 1980 and the labels were exactly reversed--conservatives favored small gov't and individualism, and 'liberals' favored the reverse, at least as the terms are now used in common political parlance. This is documented in The Republic for which it stands by Stanford historian Richard White, which covers the post-war to about 1900 US history.
OP loves to play disingenuous semantic games by constantly shifting definitions of 'liberal' and 'conservative.'
I believe Warren proposed the CFPB starting in 2008, 11 years ago. What are the time limits that define whether going back is "conservative" or not? Again, if we use words that we can't define, we literally don't know what we're talking about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Bond 007
That is a good question. The farther back the state of affairs you want to revert to is, the more "conservative" that desire is. Eleven years ago is recent history. 100 or 150 years ago is not recent history. Eleven years ago is such recent history, that any desire to go back there would certainly not necessarily be a "conservative" yearning. 100 or 150 years ago would. I suppose if you're talking about, say, 40-70 years ago, that might be a gray area.
That said, if a policy (such as segregation) started 150 years ago but still existed somewhere 50 years ago, a desire to revert back to it would definitely be conservative, because the date in which it started would be the crucial factor.
It's a good question which unfortunately you do not answer. If 'conservatism' is defined as reversion to old ideas, what are the time limits?
Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are self-described 'socialists,' which is an idea dating back at least to the late 19th-early 20th century. It was largely discarded in the late 20th century. They want to bring it back. Are Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez therefore 'conservatives?'
And for those who claim "liberals are the real racists", the term "conservative" needs to be understood as it is. Conservative means "to conserve". One is trying to keep something in place. But what is it that is being kept in place? For the South, it was a very racist social order of the time. I agree with you that this makes southern Democrats conservatives of their time. This also shows that conservative and Republican weren't always synonymous.
'Conservative,' as now used in common political parlance has come to mean limited government and individualism, as opposed to 'liberal, which refers to government expansion and collectivism.
Don't fall into OP's trap of semantic shell games!
That's because all older people LEAVE to retire in states that offer fewer taxes, more freedom and better weather.
Do you realize that has nothing do with life expectancy? So yes, old people that move to red states die sooner... at least that is one bit of logic that can be deduced from your argument.
Why do I have to repeat what I already said in post 230 again? Just because you want to continue to live in your fantasy that the Southern democrats back then were liberals?
I have already shown that they were.
Robert Byrd (D, WV)was a tax-and-spend guy before leaving the KKK, and he remained so until he died in office. J. William Fulbright (D,AR)was most famous for advocacy of federal funding of higher ed. Sam Ervin (D, NC) was a liberal hero both for fighting Sen. Joe McCarthy and Pres. Richard Nixon. John Sparkman (D, AL) was VP choice of noted liberal Adlai Stevenson in 1952. Richard Russell (D, GA) was LBJ's point man in the senate for the 'Great Society' legislation. All of these men were devout Southern segregationist Democrats.
What you call my 'fantasy' is in reality your abject denial and phantasmagoria. You've been suckered by fake history. Then again, who knows what your definition of 'liberal' is today. You have no fixed definition for 'conservative,' and so presumably have none for 'liberal' either.
Robert Byrd (D, WV)was a tax-and-spend guy before leaving the KKK, and he remained so until he died in office. J. William Fulbright (D,AR)was most famous for advocacy of federal funding of higher ed. Sam Ervin (D, NC) was a liberal hero both for fighting Sen. Joe McCarthy and Pres. Richard Nixon. John Sparkman (D, AL) was VP choice of noted liberal Adlai Stevenson in 1952. Richard Russell (D, GA) was LBJ's point man in the senate for the 'Great Society' legislation. All of these men were devout Southern segregationist Democrats.
What you call my 'fantasy' is in reality your abject denial and phantasmagoria. You've been suckered by fake history.
You are possibly the only person in the world who thinks Southern democrats prior to about 1970 were liberal (and BTW, the reason a liberal like Adlai Stevenson would pick a Southerner for his VP would be to balance the ticket and add a conservative VP to balance the liberal POTUS candidate. I literally can't believe I have to explain that as well! ). And since democrats before that time dominated Southern politics, by default you think Southerners in general were liberal, completely contrary to every indication of American history. It is completely your own fantasy. I've demonstrated a million times so far that they (the multitudes of voting Southern democrats, not your cherry-picked individual politicians) LEFT the democrats because the democrats became TOO LIBERAL. It's unbelievable I even have to say that! I mean, you yourself said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by travis t
30-50 years ago, the South was solidly blue. It did not become solidly red until 1994.
So, if the South was solidly blue back then, by your completely counter-historical perspective, the South was solidly liberal back then. Which, once again, completely contradicts every known fact of American history.
Quote:
Originally Posted by travis t
Then again, who knows what your definition of 'liberal' is today. You have no fixed definition for 'conservative,' and so presumably have none for 'liberal' either.
At this point you're just flat-out lying because I already gave a dictionary definition that I agreed with:
: disposition in politics to preserve what is established
: a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change
: the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to change
-- Segregationists wanted to preserve the cultural/institutional status quo of Southern segregation, a practice which went back to the Civil War (and prior to the Civil War, existed in an even stronger form in the institution of slavery). Eliminating segregation would eliminate this hundreds-years-old arrangement. This is why segregation was a conservative policy, and those wanting to preserve segregation were conservatives: They were seeking to preserve a hundreds-year-old societal arrangement.
-- The Somali Islamists are actually not much different. Islamic society in the Middle East for centuries had consisted of state governments run by theocracies, at least until modern times. Those promoting Islamic theocracies in the Middle East, thus, are also conservatives, because they want to return to an ancient form of government.
-- As for the limited government thing, that, too, is a conservative issue (in a US context, of course) because conservatives feel that limited government was how the US started out. Thus, the Reagan or Ted Cruz flavors of conservatism were also, well, conservative. It is a desire to preserve (or return to) a form of government from times in the past.
It appears you're too lazy to read the definition I gave because it gives you an excuse to claim that I keep changing my definition of "conservative" - even though I've only given one definition!
Last edited by James Bond 007; 04-25-2019 at 07:42 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
). And since democrats before that time dominated Southern politics, by default you think Southerners in general were liberal, completely contrary to every indication of American history. It is completely your own fantasy. I've demonstrated a million times so far that they (the multitudes of voting Southern democrats, not your cherry-picked individual politicians) LEFT the democrats because the democrats became TOO LIBERAL. It's unbelievable I even have to say that! 
