Alarming News: I like Morgan Freeberg. A lot.
American Digest: And I like this from "The Blog That Nobody Reads", because it is -- mostly -- about me. What can I say? I'm on an ego trip today. It won't last.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: We were following a trackback and thinking "hmmm... this is a bloody excellent post!", and then we realized that it was just part III of, well, three...Damn. I wish I'd written those.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: ...I just remembered that I found a new blog a short while ago, House of Eratosthenes, that I really like. I like his common sense approach and his curiosity when it comes to why people believe what they believe rather than just what they believe.
Brutally Honest: Morgan Freeberg is brilliant.
Dr. Melissa Clouthier: Morgan Freeberg at House of Eratosthenes (pftthats a mouthful) honors big boned women in skimpy clothing. The picture there is priceless--keep scrolling down.
Exile in Portales: Via Gerard: Morgan Freeberg, a guy with a lot to say. And he speaks The Truth...and it's fascinating stuff. Worth a read, or three. Or six.
Just Muttering: Two nice pieces at House of Eratosthenes, one about a perhaps unintended effect of the Enron mess, and one on the Gore-y environ-movie.
Mein Blogovault: Make "the Blog that No One Reads" one of your daily reads.
The Virginian: I know this post will offend some people, but the author makes some good points.
Poetic Justice: Cletus! Ah gots a laiv one fer yew...
We hear this party-switching myth so often, but nobody ever has a clear point or example in history for where it occurs. Ever since the birth of the Republican party in 1854, Republicans were strong supporters of abolition. Meanwhile, Democrats had KKK members in Congress, and Al Gore’s father not only voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but gave quite a lengthy filibuster. Republicans championed the Constitutional amendments ending slavery, giving African-Americans the right to vote, as well as securing that right. Civil Rights legislation as well as anti-lynching laws, and anti-poll taxes were pushed through by Republicans to ensure this, while Democrats fought them tooth and nail.
The closest I’ve gotten to an answer, in regards to the switch, was the Civil Rights “hero” Lyndon B. Johnson championing the “bi-partisan support” of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I used quotations because I’m being incredibly sarcastic.
“These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this, we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don’t move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there’ll be no way of stopping them, we’ll lose the filibuster and there’ll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It’ll be Reconstruction all over again.”-LBJ
:
Once African-Americans were free of slavery and had legitimate voting power, (both thanks to Republicans) then and only then were Democrats forced into supporting Civil Rights legislation. It was all a charade for votes. Beyond this point, what significant events happened that showcased any sort of structural attitude change in either party?
Hat tip to fellow blogger and comment-poster CylarZ.
Related: The Party of Racism is Not What Most People Think.
What’s been consistent throughout it all, is the fascination with castes. These people we nowadays call “liberals” are overly fond of pigeonholing people, and bestowing them with privileges and obligations to remain in their designated spaces: These people belong here, those people belong there. It’s a pretty consistent pattern. By the time we see conservatives accusing liberals of racism, there’s nearly always some tip-off about the way the liberal thinks about people. The quote from LBJ is a decent example, although there are many others. Contrast that to when liberals accuse conservatives of racism. The “joke” going around is that this is almost like a facial-tic, just a word they use when they know they’re losing an argument, and it isn’t really that much of a joke.
There was no “switch,” but there’s certainly been a decline, and we’re now at the point where you’re an extremist, reactionary, right-wing conservative if you’ve reached the quite natural conclusion that you’re tired of all the specialty-audience campaigning, tired of the race card, tired of the hyphenated-American nonsense and just want to see people as what they are, people. Our culture has accepted as a mainstream-moderate viewpoint, the half-century-old hamster-wheel chicanery of “Come a long way but we still have such a long way to go.” But, not permanently. The fatigue with all the people-in-boxes politicking is bound fester over time, and the hamster-wheel gullibility must have some sort of half-life. You can’t culturally oblige people to not-get-sick of something, endlessly. It falls under the Herbert Stein rule.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
The Democratic Party of FDR was a coalition of liberals, labor, and conservative southern whites. This began to fracture when Truman integrated the military, prompting southern whites to leave the party to form the short-lived Dixiecrats, nearly costing Truman the election. The Democratic Party would eventually be pulled apart by the ensuing struggle for civil rights.
White southerners migrated from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party after the civil rights era. This was aided by a conscious “Southern Strategy” by the Republican Party. Meanwhile, blacks migrated from the Republican Party to the Democratic Party slowly over the twentieth century, but fled the Republican Party en masse when the 1964 Republican presidential candidate came out against the civil rights acts.
“I feel that the prospect of Senator Goldwater being president of the United States so threatens the health, morality and survival of our nation that I can not in good conscience fail to take a stand against what he represents” — Martin Luther King Jr.
- Zachriel | 05/13/2014 @ 14:38White southerners migrated from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party after the civil rights era. This was aided by a conscious “Southern Strategy” by the Republican Party.
That’s a myth too.
- mkfreeberg | 05/13/2014 @ 18:27Not only is it a myth, it’s a stupid one. For the parties to “switch”, Civil Rights Republicans would have had to move to the Democrat party. Name some, Zachriel!
- Robert Mitchell Jr. | 05/13/2014 @ 20:31mkfreeberg: That’s a myth too.
That’s hilarious. The Southern Strategy isn’t a secret.
Lee Atwater, Reagan campaign advisor: You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger” — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is blacks get hurt worse than whites.
Zachriel: White southerners migrated from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party after the civil rights era.
Robert Mitchell Jr: For the parties to “switch”, Civil Rights Republicans would have had to move to the Democrat party.
Southern whites generally weren’t Civil Rights Republicans. However, there used to be moderate liberals in the Republican Party, but that is no longer the case. And don’t forget that blacks rejected the Republican Party in 1964.
- Zachriel | 05/14/2014 @ 04:01Republican percentage of House seats.
- Zachriel | 05/14/2014 @ 04:06http://mattsmaps.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/republican_percentage_of_house_seats.jpg
Black voter party identificiation.
- Zachriel | 05/14/2014 @ 04:06http://origin.factcheck.org/Images/image/2008/ask_factcheck_images/april2008/BlackVote/Black_Party_ID(7).jpg
Electoral vote, 1964
- Zachriel | 05/14/2014 @ 04:07http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/ce/ElectoralCollege1964.svg/1020px-ElectoralCollege1964.svg.png
Black party identification
- Zachriel | 05/14/2014 @ 04:07However, many Republicans recognize the need to respond to demographic changes occurring in the U.S. George Bush made an effort to reach out to the Latino community. However, that message of inclusion gets undercut by accommodation with more extreme elements in the party, which often come to the fore in the immigration debate.
- Zachriel | 05/14/2014 @ 04:44That’s hilarious. The Southern Strategy isn’t a secret.
Actually, I said “myth.”
However, many Republicans recognize the need to respond to demographic changes occurring in the U.S. George Bush made an effort to reach out to the Latino community. However, that message of inclusion gets undercut by accommodation with more extreme elements in the party, which often come to the fore in the immigration debate.
How is the “immigration debate” related to racism? Illegal immigrants can belong to any race, can’t they?
I’ll have to add a chapter called “If you don’t support OUR solutions, you must be in favor of the problem” to Make Bigger Mistakes, More Often, and Without Any Doubts: The Zachriel Weltanschauung.
- mkfreeberg | 05/14/2014 @ 05:23mkfreeberg: Actually, I said “myth.”
Reagan’s campaign adviser said it was a real strategy. Also, Nixon.
http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/6ads8g/guess-who-s-coming-to-howard
mkfreeberg: How is the “immigration debate” related to racism?
Because when the debate about immigration heats up, many Republicans devolve into xenophobia and spout stereotypes.
- Zachriel | 05/14/2014 @ 08:22First of all, TWEEEEEEEEET – two minutes, re-litigating prior threads. And with the same busted information as last time, too, which is particularly pathetic.
Second of all…. this statement: “However, there used to be moderate liberals in the Republican Party, but that is no longer the case. “ is incorrect, to put it mildly. There are far more moderate liberal Republicans than there are even mildly conservative Democrats. It’s always easier to find a few squishy marshmallows to cross over to the Left and vote for the monolithic Democrat bloc. It’s amazingly hard to find Dems willing to buck their party. For example, there’s not a single pro-life Democrat left – the official party platform is that you must be pro-choice, now – but there are a fair number of pro-choice Republicans. Pro immigration enforcement Dems? Heh. Pro amnesty Republicans? Yeah, enough of those. And you can go down the list and get the same results.
- nightfly | 05/14/2014 @ 10:50nightfly: For example, there’s not a single pro-life Democrat left
Incorrect. (Ironically, it was pro-life groups that have helped force out many pro-life Democrats.)
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/nj/Christie_Looking_for_a_pro-life_Democrat_factcheck.html
nightfly: Pro immigration enforcement Dems?
deportations have risen sharply under Obama.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/03/11/americans-split-on-deportations-as-latinos-press-obama-on-issue/
nightfly: There are far more moderate liberal Republicans than there are even mildly conservative Democrats.
Generally, Republicans have moved farther to the political right than Democrats have to the political left. Regardless, overall polarization has increased substantially.
http://voteview.com/images/House_means_2013.png
Can you name some liberal Republicans?
- Zachriel | 05/14/2014 @ 14:24nightfly: For example, there’s not a single pro-life Democrat left
Incorrect. (Ironically, it was pro-life groups that have helped force out many pro-life Democrats.)
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/nj/Christie_Looking_for_a_pro-life_Democrat_factcheck.html
- Zachriel | 05/15/2014 @ 05:58nightfly: Pro immigration enforcement Dems?
deportations have risen sharply under Obama.
- Zachriel | 05/15/2014 @ 05:59http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/03/11/americans-split-on-deportations-as-latinos-press-obama-on-issue/
nightfly: There are far more moderate liberal Republicans than there are even mildly conservative Democrats.
Generally, Republicans have moved farther to the political right than Democrats have to the political left. Regardless, overall polarization has increased substantially.
http://voteview.com/images/House_means_2013.png
Can you name some liberal Republicans?
- Zachriel | 05/15/2014 @ 05:59Can you name some liberal Republicans?
It’s impossible to infer anything from y’all’s fancy graph before we know how “liberal” and “conservative” are being defined in making the graph. The last four words of that sentence are important — we already know y’all’s definition of those words, we’d need to know how they’re understood by whoever plotted the lines.
So the relevant question would be more something like: What, lately, is so extremely conservative about what the Republicans like Orrin Hatch, Lindsey Graham, John McCain and Mitch McConnell have been doing? I think I can safely speak for most Americans in saying, there’s nothing ideologically extreme about saying “spend less money” or “make it easier to start businesses and see what it does for our economy.”
Southerners started migrating to the Republican party long before the 1960’s.
- mkfreeberg | 05/15/2014 @ 06:55mkfreeberg: It’s impossible to infer anything from y’all’s fancy graph before we know how “liberal” and “conservative” are being defined in making the graph.
http://voteview.com/dwnominate.asp
mkfreeberg: What, lately, is so extremely conservative about what the Republicans like Orrin Hatch, Lindsey Graham, John McCain and Mitch McConnell have been doing?
Responding to an energized right wing of the Republican Party.
mkfreeberg: Southerners started migrating to the Republican party long before the 1960′s.
Yes, for instance, there was large opposition to Truman’s integration of the military, which caused him to lose a lot of votes in 1948.
- Zachriel | 05/15/2014 @ 08:26mkfreeberg: What, lately, is so extremely conservative about what the Republicans like Orrin Hatch, Lindsey Graham, John McCain and Mitch McConnell have been doing?
Z: Responding to an energized right wing of the Republican Party.
Wait, so merely ANSWERING someone makes you a member of their group? This is ridiculous even for you lot. The answer has often been “get bent” and the establishment GOP has been slow to support more fiscally-conservative candidates.
In re: amnesty and Democrats… have deportations risen because immigration has also risen? Is the ratio of deportees-to-illegals greater now than before? If so, does that prove a pro-enforcement position when the entire party is actively seeking an amnesty and Obama’s speeches on the topic urge amnesty?
Further, are the increase in depositions partially due to more lax law enforcement standards? (IOW, are these individuals being sent home rather than to jail for crimes committed? Because there are a substantial number of those simply being turned loose onto the streets who thus avoid both deportation and prison.)
And again, the official position of the Democratic Party as expressed in their platform is pro-choice. This merely makes official and obvious their long-standing practice in this regard, and over time those who disagreed have been expelled or compromised. I could dispute the status of the few holdouts you discovered – simply not liking abortion isn’t enough to make one a pro-life politician or pro-life voter when one’s votes say otherwise. Supporting people who make a fetish of abortion on demand, for any reason, on the spurious grounds that they take better care of the babies that manage to survive the purge is hardly a pro-life position no matter what Sister Simone likes to tell herself. Hence, as has been observed before, we have another example of the trend for the Left to get more intensely Left, embracing their extremes while the Right keeps them off in the distance. Even those who try to remain afloat to swim against such a tide find themselves carried well out to sea. To claim that the Right is similarly getting more ideologically strict is akin to claiming that those who made it out of the water are “more extremely dry than before”. It only looks that way to the specks way off on the horizon – the shoreline is fairly stable but as far as those still in the drink are concerned, the beach may as well be the mountains or the plains. It’s all land, so whatever.
- nightfly | 05/15/2014 @ 09:55nightfly: Wait, so merely ANSWERING someone makes you a member of their group?
Huh? Not only have more conservative Republicans been recently elected, but moderate Republicans have voted more conservative to fend off challenges from their right, in particular, an energized Tea Party. This is a very typical political dynamic in a two-party system.
nightfly: have deportations risen because immigration has also risen?
Illegal immigration has dropped.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/12/06/new-data-shows-clear-and-sustained-drop-in-illegal-immigration/
nightfly: And again, the official position of the Democratic Party as expressed in their platform is pro-choice.
Yes, however, contrary to what you said above, there are some pro-life Democrats.
nightfly: Hence, as has been observed before, we have another example of the trend for the Left to get more intensely Left, embracing their extremes while the Right keeps them off in the distance.
You haven’t made that case. Rather, you draw the middle far to the right of where most Americans would place the middle.
We provided contrary evidence above. Generally, Republicans have moved farther to the political right than Democrats have to the political left. Regardless, overall polarization has increased substantially.
http://voteview.com/images/House_means_2013.png
Can you name some liberal Republicans? They probably exist, but they are presumably rather rare.
- Zachriel | 05/15/2014 @ 10:21Post in the moderation queue please.
- Zachriel | 05/15/2014 @ 10:21It makes much better sense to say: The democrats tried to appeal to the southerners, through their candidate George Wallace, on a segregation platform (” I say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever”). This is consistent with the way we see them behave today: Class class class, everything identifiable about people is in their class, the individual means nothing, everyone needs to stay in their respective place.
It didn’t pan out for them. They overestimated how much race means to the average Alabamian…which is another thing we see them doing today, the democrats’ mental image of a southerner is no more complex or nuanced than a cartoon caricature. But the reaction from the South was “What the [expletive] is wrong with you??” So they suffered defeat…
…after which, the democrats did yet a third thing we see them doing consistently today: Blame all of their electoral defeats on conservatives engaging in some imaginary shenanigans. This is where democrats learned the lesson that Civil Rights is the way to win elections. But, they never took it to heart. They simply cannot comprehend equal opportunity. So it’s been special set-asides ever since. That’s the only reform they understand.
The tradition continues today. You can’t criticize Barack Obama, to a democrat, for doing a bad job. To them, that must mean you’re being a racist. They simply don’t understand performance or non-performance on the job. They think of humans as gnats, so they don’t understand human effort any better than they understand gnat-effort.
This explanation makes much better sense than any codswallop about parties flip-flopping, because it insinuates that people have behaved consistently. Which is something people of all ideological persuasions are known for doing. They don’t flip-flop; they follow through.
- mkfreeberg | 05/15/2014 @ 18:59mkfreeberg: The democrats tried to appeal to the southerners, through their candidate George Wallace, on a segregation platform (” I say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever”).
George Wallace was a Democrat who hated liberals.
mkfreeberg: This is consistent with the way we see them behave today: Class class class, everything identifiable about people is in their class, the individual means nothing, everyone needs to stay in their respective place.
The history is that the Democratic Party repudiated its segregationist past, while Wallace ran for president as an independent in 1968.
mkfreeberg: They overestimated how much race means to the average Alabamian…
Huh? That’s just crazy talk. Wallace won reelection as governor of Alabama in 1970 on the slogan “Do you want the black bloc electing your governor?”
mkfreeberg: Blame all of their electoral defeats on conservatives engaging in some imaginary shenanigans.
It’s not imaginary.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy
mkfreeberg: You can’t criticize Barack Obama, to a democrat, for doing a bad job.
Of course you can. You may have done it yourself.
- Zachriel | 05/16/2014 @ 03:15It’s not imaginary.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy
It’s not imaginary because it’s on Wikipedia? ++snort++ Now who’s talking “crazy talk”?
I’ll have to add a chapter on “When it’s challenged, just go back to describing it for the very first time, all over again” to Make Bigger Mistakes, More Often, and Without Any Doubts: The Zachriel Weltanschauung.
- mkfreeberg | 05/16/2014 @ 04:48New York Times, those rascally, mean conservative straight white male Republicans…
Today, every time liberals lose an election they blame it on racism. No exceptions. It’s like a junkyard dog barking.
But with this one particular claim about racism where liberals lost an election, they’re supposed to all of a sudden know what they’re talking about, because of something Lee Atwater said. Really, though, it’s just more barking.
- mkfreeberg | 05/16/2014 @ 04:52There’s an easy way to explain the difference between the two parties.
Democrats are, and have always been, the party of group tights.
Republicans are, and have been, the party of individual rights.
Group rights are not in the constitution.
If you see yourself first and foremost as a member of a group, you naturally drift towards Dems. If you see yourself first and foremost as you, you drift towards Republicans.
I’ve been amongst groups of white Dems who assumed I was one of them as they talked. (Union meetings) With no minorities around, the racism that spews out of their mouths is pretty disgusting.
As a tell, all the Black Republicans in the house in modern times have come from majority white districts. Every black Democrat member of Congress comes from a majority black district. White Dems don’t nominate and vote for Blacks to represent them at the house level because they are not part of their group.
- gospace | 05/16/2014 @ 09:06mkfreeberg: It’s not imaginary because it’s on Wikipedia?
No, it’s not imaginary because it was a real strategy avowed by campaign strategists.
Being a racist has nothing to do with implementing the Southern Strategy. It targets racists and those uncomfortable with the rapid social changes brought about by the civil rights movement.
The code words are meant to signal to racists that the candidate will look after their interests.
Strawman. No one claims the change happened overnight. Rather, Republicans chipped away at Democratic support among southern whites.
In any case, we quoted a Reagan campaign strategist above. Now we’ll quote a Nixon campaign strategist.
Kevin Phillips: Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That’s where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats.
The Southern Strategy was no myth. It was a conscious and explicit effort on the part of Republicans to appeal to Negrophobe whites.
mkfreeberg: Group rights are not in the constitution.
First Amendment.
mkfreeberg: As a tell, all the Black Republicans in the house in modern times have come from majority white districts. Every black Democrat member of Congress comes from a majority black district. </i.
In the last decade or so, Republicans have been trying to mend fences with minorities, the demographic trends are clear, but they often undercut their own attempts.
- Zachriel | 05/16/2014 @ 10:36Z, you didn’t provide any evidence. You repeated stuff you’d repeated a dozen times, that had been substantially shredded in reply. That’s not new evidence. It no longer counts. And as I said (and you apparently ignored), if a “pro-life” Democrat supporting the party of abortion on demand, their bona-fides are in serious doubt. That is what the words “there are no pro-life Democrats” means – it means that to remain a voter of or active politician in the Democratic Party of 2014 in the USA, one must compromise one’s pro-life position to an unconsciable degree. This is precisely what Casey Jr, Manchin, and Sister Sophie have done.
A-yep. Though hey, I’ll give him this much, illegal immigration has, apparently, actually dropped. It’s still a stretch to credit Obama for it, inasmuch as it doesn’t change the amnesty talk, or the cries of racism from the Left if one wants the border enforced, or the Squishy Marshmallows of the “ever more extreme GOP” going along with the DREAM Act and all, but this actual thing is actually happening in fact. Baby steps.
- nightfly | 05/16/2014 @ 10:44mkfreeberg: Group rights are not in the constitution.
Z: First Amendment.
You are full of baloney. By your argument, you are allowed as a collective to speak your minds, but Morgan – the actual owner and proprietor of this blog – is not because he posts alone. We are endowed by our Creator with inalienable rights – not as a group called “humanity” or “body politic” but as individuals who then form a body politic to conduct certain affairs in common.
“Group rights” can mean one of two things:
1. Rights possessed by all the individual members of the group,
2. Rights only possessed by a quorum of the members.
If 1, then of course we’re only talking about individual rights. If 2, then we are talking about something that is superior to any individual’s right, and to which said individual must yield if the quorum goes against him. In that case I would argue that we are not talking about a right any longer, but a power – one that is granted by those who have rights, and which can be exercised under certain conditions only.
To call the First Amendment a “power” thus granted by those who have rights is totalitarian bunkum. It defeats the whole purpose of having a Constitution, written by the people, that predates the government which was formed under it. It also nicely contradicts itself, because of course the Constitution only has force if it is written by people who had the intrinsic right to do so. The First Amendment makes sense only as an expression of that right to speak freely, to follow one’s individual conscience and faith, and to criticize the acts of the government they’ve formed without fear of official reprisal.
- nightfly | 05/16/2014 @ 11:04nightfly: Z, you didn’t provide any evidence.
Sure we have. You indicated Democrats weren’t enforcing immigration law. We provided evidence that deportations have risen even as immigration has fallen. You said there were no pro-life Democrats, and we provided evidence of pro-life Democrats. And we provided evidence that Republicans have moved to the right, and that the partisan gap is wider now than in recent history.
nightfly: And as I said (and you apparently ignored), if a “pro-life” Democrat supporting the party of abortion on demand, their bona-fides are in serious doubt.
Simply defining someone who is a Democrat as not pro-life even if they are pro-life is not an argument.
- Zachriel | 05/16/2014 @ 11:05mkfreeberg: Group rights are not in the constitution.
Zachriel: First Amendment
nightfly: We are endowed by our Creator with inalienable rights – not as a group called “humanity” or “body politic” but as individuals who then form a body politic to conduct certain affairs in common.
Have you read the First Amendment? People have the right to peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. That’s means they can come together as a group.
- Zachriel | 05/16/2014 @ 11:15http://www.jtsa.edu/Images/general/Communicatons/MLK/AP650321022.jpg
You indicated Democrats weren’t enforcing immigration law.
NO – I said, and I quote, “PRO immigration-enforcement Democrats” – not “are the enforcing the law” but “do they want to, or do they favor general amnesty?” And the answer is, they favor the amnesty. So they kick out some illegals… and release others (often violent felons) to the streets rather than deport them, and make speech after speech about not deporting anyone ever again because It’s Mean and You’re Mean.
Simply defining someone who is a Democrat as not pro-life even if they are pro-life is not an argument.
Even when it is the Democrat’s own definition? Yes it’s an argument, and simply saying it isn’t one doesn’t come close to a rebuttal. You may consider looking at what they insist is the prerequisite for membership, and then look at what people who disagree with that prerequisite do, in fact, when their disagreement with the official party position comes down to a choice of action. That’s what I did with your examples and lo and behold – the choice was made in favor of abortion/Democrat principles, and against life.
Have you read the First Amendment?
Much more clearly than you have. Plus, I daresay I’m rather better at thinking logically. So, let’s take your “they can come together as a group” statement. What is a they? It can clearly only mean a group of individuals. If none of the persons within the group has the right to be there, then there is no group to be spoken of – I can come up to each of those persons and say, “The group has the right to be here, but you do not – off you go,” and haul each away in turn, until your peaceable assembly is an empty square.
Rights are individual – there is no other kind to be had.
- nightfly | 05/16/2014 @ 12:28nightfly: NO – I said, and I quote, “PRO immigration-enforcement Democrats”
What you said was “Pro immigration enforcement Dems? Heh.” That means you don’t think there are any pro-immigration enforcement Democrats. We pointed out that President Obama, a Democrat, has increased deportations even while immigration has decreased. That’s called an instance, and it only takes one to contradict your claim.
nightfly: Even when it is the Democrat’s own definition?
A party platform is not a definition of Democrat, nor a requirement for joining the Democratic Party. The Republican Party platform is pro-life, but that doesn’t mean there are no pro-choice Republicans.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/republicans-approve-platform-with-strict-anti-abortion-language/
nightfly: It can clearly only mean a group of individuals.
To form a group, and not merely a collection of individuals, a political party being an example.
- Zachriel | 05/16/2014 @ 12:42That means you don’t think there are any pro-immigration enforcement Democrats. … That’s called an instance, and it only takes one to contradict your claim.
Great googly moogly is every single one of you this dense, or is this on purpose? They agitate constantly for amnesty and fail to enforce immigration laws all the time – oh look, yet another example.
A single instance – deportations up while Obama has been in office – is a mere fleaspeck in the ocean of contrary behavior. It “contradicts my claim” of Democrats being pro-amnesty and in favor of no border controls…. well how, exactly? That’s like saying a man with fifty points on his license actually does respect the traffic laws because he’s never actually ran a red light – so ignore the speeding, tailgating, illegal turns, and expired tags and insurance. The man stops for traffic lights!
You can’t possibly be this dumb. You wouldn’t be able to type without pausing to chew on the keyboard like bored toddlers.
nightfly: It can clearly only mean a group of individuals.
Z: To form a group, and not merely a collection of individuals, a political party being an example.
My. Lord. A collection of individuals is all a group is. If the individuals in the group do not have rights, the group itself has none. The group itself does not exist unless individuals are free to join it. Are you just waiting for one of the others to get back to the coffeeshop to answer this one? Too hard for Cuttle-A and Cuttle-E to handle, so you have to call in the Consonants?
Begone, Squirty.
- nightfly | 05/16/2014 @ 14:04nightfly: They agitate constantly for amnesty and fail to enforce immigration laws all the time
Yes, and apparently so did the last Republican administration which deported fewer, and also pushed immigration reform.
nightfly: It “contradicts my claim” of Democrats being pro-amnesty and in favor of no border controls
Your claim was that Democrats were not for immigration enforcement. The evidence indicates that the current Democratic administration is enforcing immigration law more strictly than the last Republican administration.,
nightfly: A collection of individuals is all a group is.
A group can have characteristics independent of individuals within the group. The people may change, while the group continues. As pointed out above, the Republican Party can take a pro-life position even though not all of its members are pro-life. Furthermore, a group can be politically more powerful than the people individually.
nightfly: If the individuals in the group do not have rights, the group itself has none.
Sure. The right to assemble is a natural human right, nevertheless, the group itself has an independent existence.
- Zachriel | 05/16/2014 @ 14:19Code words. Nixon used code words? Republicans use code words? Damn, I didn’t know. I’ve been a registered Republican since first registering to vote in 1973, and I’ve never received my list of code words so I know what the politicians are talking about. Anybody know where I can get the newest rdition of these mysterious codewords? It is obvious they’re not doing a very good job of disseminating them if I don’t know what they are. Someone out there must have a list to share with us Republicans! After all, seems like every liberal Democrat has the list that Republican leaders use, but us Republicans don’t. I need a copy. Will one of you liberal Dems send me one?
- gospace | 05/16/2014 @ 14:39gospace: Nixon used code words? Republicans use code words?
Kevin Phillips, Nixon campaign advisor: Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That’s where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats.
Lee Atwater, Reagan campaign advisor: You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger” — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is blacks get hurt worse than whites.
The Southern Strategy was no myth. It was a conscious and explicit effort on the part of Republicans to appeal to Negrophobe whites.
- Zachriel | 05/16/2014 @ 14:42I’m not sure why we should accord more weight to these anecdotes of bigoted Republican campaign advisers, than to the stories of LBJ and Robert Byrd peeling off (the latter of whom was captured on live television).
But that’s just frosting on the cake. The point gospace made about individual versus group identities is going to find resonance in the memory of any thinking person who’s paid attention to anything political over the last, oh, fifty years or so. And as those observations have borne out — there is something bigoted about believing basic human rights come from group membership.
- mkfreeberg | 05/16/2014 @ 19:12mkfreeberg: I’m not sure why we should accord more weight to these anecdotes of bigoted Republican campaign advisers, than to the stories of LBJ and Robert Byrd peeling off (the latter of whom was captured on live television).
It’s not clear the campaign advisers were bigoted. They provoked racial division for political advantage. That may just indicate dire cynicism, not bigotry.
As for LBJ and Robert Byrd, they have many times expressed racist positions. They apparently changed. LBJ was crucial in the fight over civil rights legislation, and recognized that there would be a heavy political price to pay.
- Zachriel | 05/17/2014 @ 05:02mkfreeberg: And as those observations have borne out — there is something bigoted about believing basic human rights come from group membership.
That is not our position. Rights come from the individual, but people have the right to peaceably assemble.
- Zachriel | 05/17/2014 @ 05:04It’s not clear the campaign advisers were bigoted. They provoked racial division for political advantage. That may just indicate dire cynicism, not bigotry.
Not clear? Or not convenient to the myth?
Robert Mitchell points out that this is a “stupid” myth. What’s particularly idiotic about it is, it treats the exploitation of one party’s weakness by the opposing party, as an exceptional event.
Not only is this the rule rather than the exception, it happens every day on both sides. The democrats said “segregation now, segregation forever!!” and it didn’t play well. The Republicans took the position that if we’re going to get past the days of segregation, the thing to do would be to — go ahead and get past it.
The democrats, realizing they screwed the pooch, doubled-down and started accusing Republicans of racism every time the Republicans wouldn’t go along with pigeonholing people. They have NEVER stopped doing this. Everyone is supposed to stay in their own special space according to group identity, or else. Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.
As for LBJ and Robert Byrd, they have many times expressed racist positions. They apparently changed…
That’s not so clear. Neither one of them lived to see the day of a race-neutral, race-blind society. It isn’t clear that they would have willingly lived to see that if they reached a thousand years. It isn’t clear that any impassioned democrat even wants to see that. All people in their proper boxes.
Segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.
- mkfreeberg | 05/17/2014 @ 05:10mkfreeberg: Not clear? Or not convenient to the myth?
One doesn’t have to be a bigot to use bigotry for political advantage. But it doesn’t change the underlying point. Republicans implemented a Southern Strategy that provoked racial divisions for political division. We know this because people of authority in the campaigns said this is what they did.
- Zachriel | 05/17/2014 @ 05:18Republicans implemented a Southern Strategy that provoked racial divisions for political division.
Republicans exploited a democrat mistake. And the democrat mistake was to appeal to the prejudices of white southerners. The democrats responded by projecting their faults onto the opposition…just like they do today.
Evidently, they just can’t understand the simple concept of “I don’t care, let’s just get past this.” That’s part of what makes civilization endure, people getting past things.
- mkfreeberg | 05/17/2014 @ 05:23mkfreeberg: Republicans exploited a democrat mistake.
The head of the RNC apologized in 2005 for exploiting racial divisions for partisan gain.
Ken Mehlman, chair of the Republican National Committee: Some Republicans gave up on winning the African American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization. I am here today as the Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong.
- Zachriel | 05/17/2014 @ 05:30It would be nice if democrats apologized for “benefit[ing] politically from racial polarization.”
- mkfreeberg | 05/17/2014 @ 05:33mkfreeberg: It would be nice if democrats apologized for “benefit[ing] politically from racial polarization.”
Sure, the Democratic Party should apologize. Many individual Democrats have apologized. Some state Democratic parties have apologized. The Senate recently apologized. Is that what you’d like to see?
In any case, we’ve provided ample evidence of the Southern Strategy.
- Zachriel | 05/17/2014 @ 05:44In any case, we’ve provided ample evidence of the Southern Strategy.
Y’all are entitled to y’all’s opinion, however wrong it may be.
A Republican apologized to the NAACP for his party not trying harder to reach out to the black vote. That proves this?
Think y’all lost track of what it is y’all were trying to prove. Thus far, all of the evidence has supported, or at least been compatible with, my summary: The democrats were for pigeonholing people, they still are, the Republicans were opposed to doing things this way and they still are.
And democrats see any opposition to this pigeonholing, as some sort of racism. Partly because it is not in their capacity to understand equal treatment; partly because of psychological projection; partly because it is politically expedient for them to call the other guys racists.
But Republicans apologizing doesn’t prove much of anything at all. It’s hard to swing a dead cat around without hitting a Republican apologizing for something.
- mkfreeberg | 05/17/2014 @ 05:51mkfreeberg: A Republican apologized to the NAACP for his party not trying harder to reach out to the black vote.
The chair of the RNC apologized for Republicans “looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization”. We also provided quotes from campaign advisers on the Nixon and Reagan campaigns explaining exactly how the Southern Strategy worked.
- Zachriel | 05/17/2014 @ 05:58http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy
The chair of the RNC apologized for Republicans “looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization”. We also provided quotes from campaign advisers on the Nixon and Reagan campaigns explaining exactly how the Southern Strategy worked.
What y’all have offered, is opinions.
We see today that whenever democrats lose elections, they blame someone else. There aren’t any exceptions to this today; evidently, there were no exceptions to it 40-50 years ago. They were dumb, they lost votes — must be racism. They didn’t consider any other possibility, just as, in the same circumstances, they’ll never consider any other possibility today.
If a democrat tries to make an issue out of race and the voters are just plain fed up with the whole issue, they’ll vote for someone else. In disgust.
And then the democrat will call those voters racists.
- mkfreeberg | 05/17/2014 @ 06:12mkfreeberg: What y’all have offered, is opinions.
Um, the statements of campaign advisers are not opinions, but reporting of internal deliberations within the campaigns.
- Zachriel | 05/17/2014 @ 06:18Um, the statements of campaign advisers are not opinions, but reporting of internal deliberations within the campaigns.
The statements I saw behind the Wikipedia link were opinionated.
Although I can certainly understand they might not look that way to someone who really, really, really wanted them to be true.
- mkfreeberg | 05/17/2014 @ 06:20mkfreeberg: The statements I saw behind the Wikipedia link were opinionated.
We provided authoritative evidence, campaign advisers for Nixon and Reagan, as well as the chair of the Republican National Committee.
- Zachriel | 05/17/2014 @ 06:26We provided authoritative evidence, campaign advisers for Nixon and Reagan, as well as the chair of the Republican National Committee.
We’re having an “Inigo Montoya moment” with the phrase “authoritative evidence.”
That is not pixie-dust that makes opinionated things non-opinionated.
Steve Schmidt has a lot of authority in saying what happened in John McCain’s campaign. Sarah Palin has a lot of authority in describing these events, too. They’re both sane people, it can be credibly assumed…and yet, they disagree about a great many things.
I’m afraid y’all are once again advancing an argument for casual thinkers, who hear “experts say” and suddenly tune out, ready to make no decision whatsoever besides what someone else tells them. Do y’all have an argument prepared for the consumption of those who actually think critically? That would be the one to use here.
- mkfreeberg | 05/17/2014 @ 06:36mkfreeberg: We’re having an “Inigo Montoya moment” with the phrase “authoritative evidence.”
When campaign advisers for the Nixon and Reagan campaigns say they engaged in race-baiting, when the chair of the RNC says they engaged in race-baiting, it takes more than handwaving to discount this evidence. Did you want more evidence? Or are you simply going to wave your hands some more?
- Zachriel | 05/17/2014 @ 06:47When campaign advisers for the Nixon and Reagan campaigns say they engaged in race-baiting, when the chair of the RNC says they engaged in race-baiting, it takes more than handwaving to discount this evidence. Did you want more evidence? Or are you simply going to wave your hands some more?
I provided a good example of sane, rational people participating in the same campaign, and coming away with different (opinionated) views of the events that took place.
And it only takes one example to defeat y’all’s argument. Odd that y’all would use the term “hand waving” to describe someone else using a maneuver y’all have used y’all’selves, many times.
Zachriel #1 forgot to read what Zachriel #2 wrote? Yet again?
- mkfreeberg | 05/17/2014 @ 07:01mkfreeberg: And it only takes one example to defeat y’all’s argument.
Quite the opposite. If one area of the campaign engaged in race-baiting, then the campaign engaged in race-baiting. It’s especially damning if others pretended it wasn’t happening even though it was.
- Zachriel | 05/17/2014 @ 07:08If one area of the campaign engaged in race-baiting, then the campaign engaged in race-baiting.
Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever!!
- mkfreeberg | 05/18/2014 @ 12:29mkfreeberg: Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever!!
That wasn’t the Southern Strategy. Rather, it was to tap into Negrophobia for electoral advantage.
- Zachriel | 05/18/2014 @ 12:32That wasn’t the Southern Strategy. Rather, it was to tap into Negrophobia for electoral advantage.
Yeah, and democrats lost the 2004 election because Republicans tampered with the voting machines. Someone has always been engaging in shenanigans, each and every single time they lost. It has never been because the public figured out how much their policies suck.
- mkfreeberg | 05/18/2014 @ 14:56mkfreeberg: Yeah, and democrats lost the 2004 election because Republicans tampered with the voting machines.
Not sure why you would say that.
mkfreeberg: Someone has always been engaging in shenanigans
Sure. We are discussing a particularly corrosive example, the Southern Strategy.
- Zachriel | 05/18/2014 @ 18:57So the pattern is complete. Liberals simply won’t entertain the possibility that they ever lost an election because they deserved to lose it. Just as they won’t entertain the possibility that they might lose one in the future. Ever.
That’s all the Southern Strategy ever really was. Projection.
- mkfreeberg | 05/19/2014 @ 04:43mkfreeberg: That’s all the Southern Strategy ever really was. Projection.
Obviously not. We provided statements from campaign advisers with the Nixon and Reagan campaigns, as well as the chair of the RNC apologizing for the party’s attempts to benefit politically from racial polarization.
- Zachriel | 05/19/2014 @ 05:16Obviously…
Liberals, today, consider it “obvious” that the Republicans somehow entered into an agreement with Diebold to manipulate the voting machines in Ohio. They simply cannot fathom that John F. Kerry left something to be desired as a candidate.
Evidently, that horse-blinder-vision of theirs has been going on for close to fifty years, if not more.
- mkfreeberg | 05/19/2014 @ 05:43,b>mkfreeberg: Liberals, today, consider it “obvious” that the Republicans somehow entered into an agreement with Diebold to manipulate the voting machines in Ohio.
Don’t know if the evidence supports such a conclusion, and certainly not all liberals held that view.
In any case, your claim that the Southern Strategy was myth is contrary to the evidence.
- Zachriel | 05/19/2014 @ 06:01M: Liberals, today, consider it “obvious” that the Republicans somehow entered into an agreement with Diebold to manipulate the voting machines in Ohio.
Z: Don’t know if the evidence supports such a conclusion, and certainly not all liberals held that view.
In any case, your claim that the Southern Strategy was myth is contrary to the evidence.
Y’all have a persistent habit of mistaking “our belief” for “the evidence.”
That’s a great way to evaluate a vast abundance of real evidence, without learning anything from it. I should add a chapter on that to Make Bigger Mistakes, More Often, and Without Any Doubts: The Zachriel Weltanschauung.
- mkfreeberg | 05/19/2014 @ 06:11mkfreeberg: Y’all have a persistent habit of mistaking “our belief” for “the evidence.”
We provided statements from campaign advisers with the Nixon and Reagan campaigns, as well as the chair of the RNC apologizing for the party’s attempts to benefit politically from racial polarization. That’s called evidence.
- Zachriel | 05/19/2014 @ 06:22We provided statements from campaign advisers with the Nixon and Reagan campaigns, as well as the chair of the RNC apologizing for the party’s attempts to benefit politically from racial polarization. That’s called evidence.
And, I addressed it. Political parties exploiting weaknesses of their opposition is a rule, not an exception.
The democrats alienated voters, they lost elections, they contrived elaborate mythologies about their failures having something to do with racial prejudice of which THEY had been guilty. Which is exactly what they did now.
Y’all’s “evidence” has been soundly addressed.
By the way. What kind of political movement finds it a most effective way to slander their opposition, by way of proffering a rumor of “they are really us, and we are really them?” That doesn’t speak well for democrats!
- mkfreeberg | 05/25/2014 @ 21:51mkfreeberg: Political parties exploiting weaknesses of their opposition is a rule, not an exception.
Sure. So you grant the point. Republicans tried to benefit politically from racial polarization in the aftermath of the civil rights struggles. That might explain why minorities so distrust the Republican Party.
- Zachriel | 05/26/2014 @ 05:37Republicans tried to benefit politically from racial polarization in the aftermath of the civil rights struggles.
They tried to benefit from the democrats doing things stupidly. “Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever!!” They tried, and they succeeded.
Then, just like in 2004 and 2010, having been spanked, the democrats blamed their defeats on shenanigans with the voting system and on racism. Because when you get right down to it, being a democrat means never having to admit you were ever wrong about anything.
- mkfreeberg | 05/27/2014 @ 03:55mkfreeberg: Then, just like in 2004 and 2010, having been spanked, the democrats blamed their defeats on shenanigans with the voting system and on racism.
The evidence we provided was not from Democratic accusations, but from statements made by campaign advisers in the Nixon and Reagan campaigns, and the chair of the RNC.
- Zachriel | 05/27/2014 @ 05:07The evidence we provided was not from Democratic accusations, but from statements made by campaign advisers in the Nixon and Reagan campaigns, and the chair of the RNC.
The “evidence” y’all provided, was these “statements.” It does not rely on anything else, and it supports very little.
- mkfreeberg | 05/28/2014 @ 03:09mkfreeberg: it supports very little.
Campaign advisers from the Nixon and Reagan campaigns, and the chair of the RNC. That’s not nothing.
- Zachriel | 05/28/2014 @ 05:40Campaign advisers from the Nixon and Reagan campaigns, and the chair of the RNC. That’s not nothing.
True. But it’s pretty close.
- mkfreeberg | 05/28/2014 @ 17:25mkfreeberg: True.
Campaign advisers to Nixon and Reagan, and the chair of the RNC are hardly “pretty close to nothing”. The Southern Strategy is why even conservative blacks rarely vote Republican, but white southerners largely do.
- Zachriel | 05/29/2014 @ 05:30The Southern Strategy is why even conservative blacks rarely vote Republican, but white southerners largely do.
Yes. Propaganda can be effective, even when there isn’t much truth to it. That’s a pity, we can check Detroit to see how much lefty policies “help” the black community.
- mkfreeberg | 05/29/2014 @ 17:57mkfreeberg: Propaganda can be effective, even when there isn’t much truth to it.
It worked for the Republicans. But it has now isolated them demographically, and they are having troubles convincing minorities of their sincerity.
- Zachriel | 05/29/2014 @ 17:58It worked for the Republicans.
The democrats blew it, in other words.
Then, they blamed racism, after they blew it. Just like they do today.
Every. Single. Time.
- mkfreeberg | 05/29/2014 @ 18:14mkfreeberg: The democrats blew it, in other words.
The Democratic Party was complicit in generations of oppression, but they repudiated that past. The Republicans then made a conscious effort to use racial polarization for partisan benefit. There are a lot of conservative minorities that would vote Republican, but the Republicans always seem to take actions that cause these voters to distrust them.
- Zachriel | 05/29/2014 @ 18:19The Democratic Party was complicit in generations of oppression, but they repudiated that past.
++snort++ Like LBJ repudiated racism and Bill Clinton repudiated having sex with women outside of his marriage. Yeah, they always mean what they say, those democrats.
- mkfreeberg | 05/29/2014 @ 18:27mkfreeberg: Like LBJ repudiated racism
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKDVNSpsBZE
- Zachriel | 05/29/2014 @ 18:31“Those negroes, they’re getting uppity…”
- mkfreeberg | 05/29/2014 @ 18:33mkfreeberg: “Those negroes, they’re getting uppity…”
Change is hard. You do understand the context of that comment? He’s trying to convince southern whites to vote for civil rights legislation.
- Zachriel | 05/29/2014 @ 18:47Change is hard. You do understand the context of that comment? He’s trying to convince southern whites to vote for civil rights legislation.
So when democrats appeal to bigotry and prejudice, it’s for change, but it’s called “Southern Strategy” when Republicans do it. Uh huh.
- mkfreeberg | 05/30/2014 @ 05:04mkfreeberg: So when democrats appeal to bigotry and prejudice, it’s for change,
If you’re referring to conservative southern Democrats who supported segregation, then it wasn’t “for change”, but for preserving what they saw as the natural order of white supremacy.
- Zachriel | 05/30/2014 @ 07:35If you’re referring to conservative southern Democrats who supported segregation, then it wasn’t “for change”, but for preserving what they saw as the natural order of white supremacy.
The conservative view of “all men are created equal” is that the words mean exactly what they say. Just like the conservative view of “right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” is that the words mean exactly what they say. Just like the conservative view of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” is that the words mean exactly what they say. Just like the conservative view of “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” is that the words mean exactly what they say. Just like the conservative view, today, of “equal protection under the law” is that the words mean exactly what they say.
In the antebellum era, just like in the here-and-now, it has been our liberals/progressives/segregationists/moral-relativists who have been cooking up new, improved, “nuanced” ways to interpret these plain written standards, guidelines and foundations. They can’t even be named with any consistency, they keep changing their label every time the public catches on to what they’re trying to do. They can’t be trusted to define what conservatism is, or what equality is, or what freedom is, or what government is. They’re too “liberal” to use such words with any actual meaning.
Throughout all of America’s history, it has been a conservative idea that words mean what they say. It has also been a conservative idea that people should enjoy rights at the individual level, and enjoy equal opportunity. It’s our liberals who try to poke holes in all these plain and simple concepts, try to warp it, twist it around, find loopholes, debate the meaning of “is.” None of that has changed. Ever.
- mkfreeberg | 05/31/2014 @ 16:55mkfreeberg: The conservative view of “all men are created equal” is that the words mean exactly what they say.
That was a radical notion when first proposed. Most people thought one’s duty was to the established order, and that government by the people was inherently unstable, would inevitably devolve into anarchy, then tyranny. Today, some sort of equality is accepted as the basis for nearly all governments, at least in principle.
As for southern Democrats supporting segregation, they were called conservatives then, and they are called conservatives now (outside the echo chamber, that is). Did you want references? The first is a current scholarly reference, the second contemporaneous with passage of the Civil Rights Act.
University of Houston: “Roosevelt feared that conservative southern Democrats, who had seniority in Congress and controlled many committee chairmanships, would block his bills if he tried to fight them on the race question.”
George Wallace: With this assassin’s knife and a blackjack in the hand of the Federal force-cult, the left-wing liberals will try to force us back into bondage… The liberal left-wingers have passed it. Now let them employ some pinknik social engineers in Washington, D.C., To figure out what to do with it… Newspapers which are run and operated by left-wing liberals, Communist sympathizers, and members of the Americans for Democratic Action and other Communist front organizations with high sounding names.
- Zachriel | 05/31/2014 @ 18:31Did you want references?
What do I care what others think of it?
Reading words, and relying on the words to mean exactly what they say, is conservative. Reading other things into them that contradict the plain meaning of them, is progressive/liberal/new-age/relative-moral/mushy/messy/sloppy. That’s just the way it is.
At the time slavery was an institution in this country, it had a founding document that declared all men were created equal, and endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights, that among these rights were life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Those who supported the institution reconciled this obvious conflict with tortured arguments that words do not mean what they plainly say, and some people shouldn’t count as people. Just like liberals do today. With pretty much every argument they make about anything.
- mkfreeberg | 06/01/2014 @ 07:51mkfreeberg: What do I care what others think of it?
Um, because words are defined by usage. Seriously, the fact that nearly everyone over generations uses a word a certain way doesn’t mean anything to you? That’s not conservative, but right wing wackoism.
mkfreeberg: Reading words, and relying on the words to mean exactly what they say, is conservative.
Conservatives prefer to use conventional meanings.
- Zachriel | 06/01/2014 @ 09:19…because words are defined by usage.
By usage, or by the dictionary?
Now I’m confused. Y’all have “won” arguments, by citing both. It seems y’all change y’all’s mind about which source definitively settles the question about what something means, based on expediency.
But anyway, the “general usage” thing, as I’ve shown, just doesn’t work. Suppose we could define “conservative” and “liberal” that way, and slaveowners were conservative. It creates an unworkable contradiction, because “slaves aren’t people, and that means they do not enjoy these basic human rights” becomes a conservative argument. Fast forward to today, we see pro-aborts making the same argument about unborn babies — exactly the same argument — and “usage” would acknowledge these are liberals making a conservative argument.
When we have to pretend opposites are identical in order to declare y’all’s side victorious, that means…well, y’all have already lost, y’all just don’t know it. And I’ve seen that happen around these parts many, many times. But, “usage.” “Nearly everyone over generation uses a word a certain way.” Y’all can’t even consider the possibility that “nearly everyone” has been wrong? The only way to react to such a generational mistake is to double down? Well, that would be good for the liberals, I suppose. How convenient.
- mkfreeberg | 06/02/2014 @ 04:02mkfreeberg: By usage, or by the dictionary?
A dictionary is the publication of research into word usage. The field is called practical lexicography.
mkfreeberg: It seems y’all change y’all’s mind about which source definitively settles the question about what something means, based on expediency.
Expert opinions can be wrong, though dictionaries are generally reliable, except with regards to modern slang, and sometimes technical terminology.
mkfreeberg: Suppose we could define “conservative” and “liberal” that way, and slaveowners were conservative.
Yes, slaveowners were conservative. They wanted to preserve their peculiar institution.
mkfreeberg: It creates an unworkable contradiction, because “slaves aren’t people, and that means they do not enjoy these basic human rights” becomes a conservative argument.
That’s right. Before the American Revolution, the conservative view was monarchist. After the American Revolution, conservatives wanted the reserved the right to vote for only property owning white males.
Over time, the political center has moved.
mkfreeberg: Fast forward to today, we see pro-aborts making the same argument about unborn babies — exactly the same argument — and “usage” would acknowledge these are liberals making a conservative argument.
The conservative position is to return to the legal status before Roe. Some even want to return to the legal status before Griswold. That’s why they’re called conservatives.
mkfreeberg: When we have to pretend opposites are identical …
No, it’s because you want to shoehorn your views into the definition. Liberals advocate increased liberty and equality. That means they want change. Conservative means to conserve traditional institutions or ways of life, or return to a previous social hierarchy.
- Zachriel | 06/02/2014 @ 05:49Yes, slaveowners were conservative. They wanted to preserve their peculiar institution.
By that logic, it is conservatives who want to preserve the Department of Education. Newt Gingrich must be some sort of liberal for wanting to abolish it.
The conservative position is to return to the legal status before Roe.
What unites conservatives on the abortion issue, and defines them as conservatives, is that they seek to conserve life. They understand that if we’re all equal in the eyes of God, and our society can freely take rights away from one group of people, there’s nothing protecting the rest of us. That was the conservative view of the abolitionists as well, they were acting to conserve the vision of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The slaveowner-sympathizing liberals, then as well as now, provided a rebuttal in the form of “But we’ve always gotten away with this illogical loophole, so we should be allowed to keep getting away with it.” Pretty much the same y’all are making with the “we got the dictionaries to agree so you should agree too” argument.
The whole formulation of “conservatives are for the glorious past and liberals are for the enlightened future,” I suppose we call it, doesn’t work because it can’t work. It is bound to fail every time we have a policy on which Republicans and democrats reverse each other as they come into power. Obama reverses Bush, Bush reverses Clinton, Clinton reverses Reagan. In such a situation, y’all’s definition makes conservatives AND liberals out of everybody, which is to say it removes the beneficial property of definition.
Liberals advocate increased liberty and equality. That means they want change.
Not much “increased liberty and equality” for the unborn baby getting sucked out of the womb, as any conservative would be happy to explain to y’all. If only they were asked.
- mkfreeberg | 06/02/2014 @ 17:49mkfreeberg: By that logic, it is conservatives who want to preserve the Department of Education.
No. The expansion of the federal government was a liberal program to create a more equal society. Conservatives want to roll back these programs to return to what they see as a better society.
mkfreeberg: What unites conservatives on the abortion issue, and defines them as conservatives, is that they seek to conserve life.
Conservatives want to roll back laws concerning reproductive freedom and return to what they see as a better society.
mkfreeberg: That was the conservative view of the abolitionists as well, they were acting to conserve the vision of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Good point. Abolitionists were not seen as conservatives, but radicals, as in Radical Republicans who were opposed by more moderate or conservative factions.
mkfreeberg: Not much “increased liberty and equality” for the unborn baby getting sucked out of the womb, as any conservative would be happy to explain to y’all. If only they were asked.
Just to clarify, so you would be against abortion even in cases of incest, rape, or the health and life of the mother?
- Zachriel | 06/02/2014 @ 17:56mkfreeberg: It is bound to fail every time we have a policy on which Republicans and democrats reverse each other as they come into power.
That’s just silly. Something doesn’t become a cherished institution or tradition overnight. Conservatives seek to protect long-standing institutions such as family and church against the encroachment of immoderate modernity.
- Zachriel | 06/02/2014 @ 18:01The expansion of the federal government was a liberal program to create a more equal society. Conservatives want to roll back these programs to return to what they see as a better society.
So by THAT logic, conservatives are liberals when they create new programs, school voucher programs for example, to create a more equal society.
- mkfreeberg | 06/02/2014 @ 18:22mkfreeberg: So by THAT logic, conservatives are liberals when they create new programs, school voucher programs for example, to create a more equal society.
School voucher programs were used in the 1960s to perpetuate segregation in the U.S., and were a way to undermine public education, one of the great social equalizers. Conservatives want to return more control of education to families, even if that means a less equal society.
- Zachriel | 06/03/2014 @ 04:24School voucher programs were used in the 1960s to perpetuate segregation in the U.S., and were a way to undermine public education, one of the great social equalizers.
That would be propaganda from the liberal echo chamber — seeking to preserve the “institution” of public education, thereby fulfilling the definition y’all are offering of “conservative.” Again illustrating that the definition is unworkable.
- mkfreeberg | 06/03/2014 @ 05:26mkfreeberg: That would be propaganda from the liberal echo chamber …
Are you denying that vouchers were used to perpetuate segregation in the U.S. in the 1960s?
mkfreeberg: eeking to preserve the “institution” of public education, thereby fulfilling the definition y’all are offering of “conservative.”
Conservatives want to return more control of education to families, even if that means a less equal society. Families are a much more ancient tradition than public schools, which are clearly egalitarian in nature.
- Zachriel | 06/03/2014 @ 05:32Are you denying that vouchers were used to perpetuate segregation in the U.S. in the 1960s?
Another bunny trail. Zachriel forfeits again, calling for a change of subject.
Y’all’s logic has been rent asunder. Going by y’all’s logic, conservatives who call for vouchers would be liberals, and this demonstrates that the logic doesn’t work.
If y’all can’t follow along, that doesn’t mean anything. Y’all are anonymous. What does it matter if anonymous people can’t follow a simple point?
- mkfreeberg | 06/04/2014 @ 05:03mkfreeberg: Another bunny trail. Zachriel forfeits again, calling for a change of subject.
Huh?
Zachriel: School voucher programs were used in the 1960s to perpetuate segregation in the U.S., and were a way to undermine public education, one of the great social equalizers.
mkfreeberg: That would be propaganda from the liberal echo chamber — seeking to preserve the “institution” of public education, thereby fulfilling the definition y’all are offering of “conservative.”
We want to know which clause you are referring to. That vouchers were used to perpetuate segregation or that public education is considered a social equalizer?
mkfreeberg: Going by y’all’s logic, conservatives who call for vouchers would be liberals, and this demonstrates that the logic doesn’t work.
Public education is an equalizer, a progressive reform. Conservatives in the 1960s used vouchers to undermine integration. Today, conservatives want to undo progressive reform, and return more power over education to parents, even if it means greater inequality. This isn’t rocket engineering.
- Zachriel | 06/04/2014 @ 05:50mkfreeberg: When I note that the slavery issue was polarized exactly the same way, somehow y’all have a problem with that.
Lincoln was considered the conservative within the Republican Party, in opposition to Abolitionists.
So, let’s consider cases.
French Revolution, conservatives want to preserve the prerogatives of the monarchy, liberals advocated for a constitutional monarchy, radical leftists fought for a a Republic.
American Revolution, Conservative Tories opposed the revolution.
Civil War era, Abolitionists opposed by conservatives.
Progressive era, conservatives opposed women’s suffrage, integration, birth control, government mandates concerning inspection of food and drugs, social safety net, labor laws concerning children, workplace safety, and hours.
Post-Nixon, conservatives attempt to roll back reforms of the progressive era.
- Zachriel | 06/04/2014 @ 05:51Y’all’s formulation does not work because it would mean a liberal argument today, “those people in that class do not enjoy the basic rights that apply to all people, because we refuse to recognize them as people,” was a conservative argument in the antebellum era.
That is significant. In the Americas, as well as in Europe, political arguments in modern times have always come down to a debate about privilege: Is it proper to bestow special privileges and special burdens on targeted classes of people. Here the targeting tends to be about race, nowadays more about sexual preference, whereas in Europe the targeting is more about birthright.
To ignore this is to ignore most of what has been going on with politics, and pretty much every hour since Louis XVI got his head chopped off, while attempting to define things about politics. Liberals came up with fancy loopholes whereby The South could continue to practice slavery in a country dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal; liberals opposed abolition; liberals supported the Eugenics movement; liberals supported re-enslaving African Americans with a dragnet of perpetual-dependency social programs. And then — they created confusion by renaming themselves, after each time they produced poor results, several times.
They look to the future, because they cannot afford to ponder the lessons of the past. If we’re going to define things to alleviate or prevent confusion, we first have to start with opposing and counteracting the efforts of liberals. Especially with regard to history. They don’t care about it enough to comment about it.
- mkfreeberg | 06/06/2014 @ 05:53mkfreeberg: Y’all’s formulation does not work because it would mean a liberal argument today, “those people in that class do not enjoy the basic rights that apply to all people, because we refuse to recognize them as people,” was a conservative argument in the antebellum era.
The argument is based on the autonomy of women to make their own reproductive choices.
Now, please try to respond to the argument. Start with this:
Why would those opposed to abolition, such as Lincoln in 1860, be considered conservatives, in opposition to abolitionists.
- Zachriel | 06/06/2014 @ 10:43The argument is based on the autonomy of women to make their own reproductive choices.
Just as, the pro-slavery argument was based on the autonomy of slaveowners to make their own choices…about their property. See, the argument hasn’t changed after all these years. It would be silly to claim it was conservative then, and is liberal now. Silly to the point of being unsupportable.
- mkfreeberg | 06/06/2014 @ 21:46mkfreeberg: Just as, the pro-slavery argument was based on the autonomy of slaveowners to make their own choices…about their property.
Yes, we understand the analogy. Do you consider every zygote a citizen with equal rights?
By the way, you may have missed this question. Based on your understanding of the term, why would those opposed to abolition, such as Lincoln in 1860, be considered conservatives, in opposition to abolitionists?
- Zachriel | 06/07/2014 @ 05:01Yes, we understand the analogy. Do you consider every zygote a citizen with equal rights?
By the way, you may have missed this question…
Double-sidestepping. Try to keep y’all’s minds on the subject at hand:
It simply doesn’t work to say pro-lifers today are conservative and pro-aborts are liberals, and at the same time, slaverholders and their defenders were conservatives and the abolitionists were liberals. Such an ideological definition is untenable, because it forces the arguments to change positions with each other in the interim.
The political pro-slavery movement, like today’s political pro-abortion movement, relied on cowardice. BOTH of these are confronted with a two-pronged protest: “It is immoral to treat people this way (moral judgment) AND unborns/slaves are people (intellectual recognition).” In response, pro-slaveholders and pro-aborts reply with: “We punt on your moral judgment, since it would be so difficult for us to challenge it; but we refuse to recognize that class of people as people.” As such, both movements made a practice out of accepting the opposition’s moral code, or at least leaving it unchallenged, while at the same time insisting on autocratic and unchallenged dictatorial rule in determining what is recognized as what. Both movements have said, essentially, “We accept your moral absolute, but refuse to recognize how it could be most logically applied, because that would inconvenience us.”
As such, both have taken the position of: “The financial comfort of our people-class, depends on the definition of that other people-class as un-people. And we’re completely cool with that.”
Y’all’s definition of “conservative” and “liberal” would insist that, before we can assess whether such a polarizing, and fragile, ideology is conservative or liberal, we first have to determine which century is being discussed. It refuses to recognize that there can be any attrition in the issues being advocated by such an ideology, while at the same time, relying completely on this. That makes it untenable. That’s one of several rational arguments why y’all’s definitions simply don’t work.
Y’all were saying something about “how most people use” terms, now? So…what?
- mkfreeberg | 06/07/2014 @ 10:15Do you consider every zygote a citizen with equal rights?
- Zachriel | 06/07/2014 @ 12:39Do you consider every zygote a citizen with equal rights?
If I do, and the argument of the slaveowners is identical to the argument of today’s pro-abort liberals, then the argument of slaveowners remains identical to the argument of today’s pro-abort liberals. If I do not, and the argument of the slaveowners is identical to the argument of today’s pro-abort liberals, then the argument of slaveowners remains identical to the argument of today’s pro-abort liberals.
I dismiss y’all’s question due to irrelevance.
- mkfreeberg | 06/07/2014 @ 19:43Do you consider that your pet rock is a citizen with equal rights?
If I do, and the argument of the slaveowners is identical.
If I don’t, and the argument of the slaveowners is identical.
The difference is whether you think slaveowners are right that blacks shouldn’t be considered citizens with equal rights. If they are right, then their argument is
mkfreeberg: I dismiss y’all’s question due to irrelevance.
You introduced the comparison, and our question concerns the soundness of your argument.
- Zachriel | 06/08/2014 @ 05:24Do you consider that your pet rock is a citizen with equal rights?
If I do, then the argument of the slaveowners is identical.
If I don’t, then the argument of the slaveowners is identical.
The difference is whether you think slaveowners are right that blacks shouldn’t be considered citizens with equal rights.
mkfreeberg: I dismiss y’all’s question due to irrelevance.
You introduced the comparison, and our question concerns the soundness of your argument.
- Zachriel | 06/08/2014 @ 05:26You introduced the comparison, and our question concerns the soundness of your argument.
It may concern the soundness of the argument, but it doesn’t address it.
I’ve shown that y’all’s labeling of “conservative” and “liberal” simply doesn’t work, especially when one considers the history of America, and the ideological struggles our country has endured.
- mkfreeberg | 06/08/2014 @ 06:05mkfreeberg: I’ve shown that y’all’s labeling of “conservative” and “liberal” simply doesn’t work, especially when one considers the history of America, and the ideological struggles our country has endured.
No, you haven’t. You rarely even refer to the history of America. While we have responded to your examples, you have ignored ours.
mkfreeberg: It may concern the soundness of the argument, but it doesn’t address it.
Ha, ha! Seriously, now.
- Zachriel | 06/08/2014 @ 06:29No, you haven’t.
I’m aware of the narrative. “We asked a question and you haven’t answered” or “you haven’t provided any evidence.” It’s the perpetual wailing dirge of liberals who lose arguments.
But yes, I have shown y’all’s definitions simply don’t work. They are unsustainable and untenable.
- mkfreeberg | 06/09/2014 @ 17:45mkfreeberg: I’m aware of the narrative. “We asked a question and you haven’t answered”
Let’s see if it is merely narrative, or has substance, shall we?
mkfreeberg: But yes, I have shown y’all’s definitions simply don’t work.
You’ve provided one example to which we responded, while you have ignored our multiple citations to scholarly and conventional use past and present, as well as our questions about apparent problems with your position.
Concerning your understanding of the term conservative, why would those opposed to abolition, such as Lincoln in 1860, be considered conservatives, in opposition to abolitionists?
- Zachriel | 06/10/2014 @ 05:16You’ve provided one example to which we responded, while you have ignored our multiple citations to scholarly and conventional use…
Oh. Y’all responded. Well, that fixes everything! How millennial.
In the end, y’all’s definitions simply do not work, because they would insist that the same tortured argument of “those people aren’t really people,” which is liberal now, was conservative 150 years ago. It really doesn’t matter if y’all don’t get it or if y’all have “responded.” Responses don’t change reality.
- mkfreeberg | 06/10/2014 @ 05:28Notably, you again neglected to explain how *your* use of “conservative” works in the example provided. Concerning your understanding of the term conservative, why would those opposed to abolition, such as Lincoln in 1860, be considered conservatives, in opposition to abolitionists?
mkfreeberg: In the end, y’all’s definitions simply do not work, because they would insist that the same tortured argument of “those people aren’t really people,” which is liberal now, was conservative 150 years ago.
As you are referring to the abortion issue, we’ll ask again. Do you think the government should have to power to force women to carry a baby to term even if it was rape, incest, a threat to the mother, or the fetus is doomed?
- Zachriel | 06/10/2014 @ 05:37Do you think the government should have to power to force women to carry a baby to term even if it was rape, incest, a threat to the mother, or the fetus is doomed?
Think of it as — a wedding cake baker discriminating against gay people. Except with babies getting murdered.
- mkfreeberg | 06/10/2014 @ 19:21mkfreeberg: Think of it as — a wedding cake baker discriminating against gay people. Except with babies getting murdered.
So to be clear, you think the government should have to power to force women to carry a baby to term even if it was rape, incest, a threat to the mother, or the fetus is doomed?
- Zachriel | 06/11/2014 @ 04:48So to be clear, you think the government should have to power to force women to carry a baby to term even if it was rape, incest, a threat to the mother, or the fetus is doomed?
If government has any authority to make laws at all, its very first priority should be to protect the innocent from harm. Do y’all disagree with this?
- mkfreeberg | 06/11/2014 @ 19:40mkfreeberg: If government has any authority to make laws at all, its very first priority should be to protect the innocent from harm. Do y’all disagree with this?
Sure.
Now, can you answer the question. Do you think the government should have to power to force women to carry a baby to term even if it was rape, incest, a threat to the mother, or the fetus is doomed?
- Zachriel | 06/12/2014 @ 04:44Now, can you answer the question. Do you think the government should have to power to force women to carry a baby to term even if it was rape, incest, a threat to the mother, or the fetus is doomed?
Let’s see how y’all answered my question:
M: Do y’all disagree with this?
Z: Sure.
Clear as mud.
“Sure.” There, that answer’s y’all’s question, to y’all’s standards too. Now, be sure and interpret it correctly, and don’t ascribe any positions to me that I do not hold. I’ll be watching.
- mkfreeberg | 06/14/2014 @ 05:16mkfreeberg: Clear as mud.
Sorry. We agree government has a duty to protect the innocent. Now, can you answer the question. Do you think the government should have to power to force women to carry a baby to term even if it was rape, incest, a threat to the mother, or the fetus is doomed?
- Zachriel | 06/14/2014 @ 05:49Do you think the government should have to power to force women to carry a baby to term even if it was rape, incest, a threat to the mother, or the fetus is doomed?
What I think? How is that relevant?
What would be relevant is: Our government’s authority is limited, in fact, there is a constitutional amendment process available to us if we think the current limits on its power are not sufficient. Are y’all saying we should go through that process so that such a limit can be properly applied? If so, then I agree with that.
Should such an effort succeed, it would be irrelevant if I were to think it should not have. Should such an effort fail, it would be irrelevant if I were to think it should have succeeded. In either case, what I think is irrelevant.
Do y’all think such an amendment process should be pursued for the limits y’all have defined here?
- mkfreeberg | 09/27/2014 @ 02:13