Conservatives and Racism

[longknife]

Bet you didn't know that, did you?


And then comes this:

Oh my goodness. How can that be?


So, while Liberals rant and rave about it, conservative are DOING something about it. We don't care what your color is – only how you assimilate with and produce something beneficial for society.


Read the story @ Race A Conservative View RedState

 

[Pogo]

Didn't "know" what? All you've got is a graphic. What's your point? Can you articulate it? Or are you afraid to?

What do these images of a century and a half ago have to do with "what conservatives are dong" -- or what anybody is doing?

I recommend coffee, dood.

 

[AquaAthena]

“Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe.”
― Frederick Douglass

 

[longknife]

I posted this to show how the GOP has always been inclusive of blacks. Some of the finest minds of this current era are conservative blacks who sorrow for what has been handed to their brethren by liberals.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Conservatives and Racism

Conservative dogma does not sanction racism. However racists tend to identify as conservative, tend to vote republican, and feel comfortable among conservatives.


This doesn't mean, of course, that conservatives are racist, but it is incumbent upon conservatives to examine rightist dogma to discover why their political philosophy is indeed attractive to racists.

 

[norwegen]

I posted this to show how the GOP has always been inclusive of blacks. Some of the finest minds of this current era are conservative blacks who sorrow for what has been handed to their brethren by liberals.

True enough. Frederick Douglas, Kelso Bruce, and Hiram Revels carried the mantle of republicanism as the Whigs and abolitionists fashioned it. I see some semblance of that mantle still in the Republican Party and hope against hope that the party's roots do not completely erode away.

One thing is certain, though, and that is that the Democratic Party takes up not even a semblance of American's republican polity.

Conservatism is the position of the patriotic and thinking American, black and white.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Conservatives and Racism

Conservative dogma does not sanction racism. However racists tend to identify as conservative, tend to vote republican, and feel comfortable among conservatives.

The largest racist group in the United States is the National Socialist Movement.

Even the hate site, SPLC, acknowledges that these groups are overflowing with leftist policy positions. The only reason that they're labeled far right is because of their focus on race. Ironic, isn't it, that race-obsessed liberals proclaim that white race-obsessed groups are far-right and don't belong on the left, even when their policies all focus on nutty things that liberals love, like universal healthcare (but only for whites) and other socialist garbage (but only for whites):

Porrazzo’s first run at leading the group came in the 1990s, and he continued as leader until 2002, when Lynch took over. Under Porrazzo, the AF moved to Arkansas and became one of the only American radical-right groups to espouse the Third Position, which is far more common among groups on the European racist right. The Third Position is a brand of neofascism that advocates racial separatism and a racially based socialism that is opposed to both capitalism and communism.

Porrazzo took Third Positionism seriously, even holding that opposition to capitalism was more important than white separatism. In an interview posted online in 1999, Porrazzo said: “We actually see more in common, ideologically, with groups like Nation of Islam, the New Black Panther Party or Aztlan than with the reactionaries like the Hollywood-style nazis or the Klan.” During this period, the AF also joined the Liaison Committee for Revolutionary Nationalism, an umbrella organization of Third Positionist groups.​

Hint: When neonazis continually stress the socialist aspect of their ideology, you may want to pay attention to that.

You are such a moron, it's unbelievable.

 

[Pogo]

I posted this to show how the GOP has always been inclusive of blacks. Some of the finest minds of this current era are conservative blacks who sorrow for what has been handed to their brethren by liberals.

Hate to burst your bubble but Liberals invented the concept "all men are created equal", so ... no cigar there.

It's always tempting to look at our world and assume things (and people, and parties, and politics) have always been the way they are right now. After all, that's all we can see. But the idea that any political party that doesn't fizzle out in a generation "has always" stood for the same thing just doesn't square with history. Political parties exist for one reason, and that is to acquire power. What kind of ideology it follows to get that power can and does shift with time and even with space within time.

The RP for example started out as abolitionist, not "conservative". The conservatives of the time and place alluded to in your images who opposed them were Democrats (they could hardly be anything else, as the RP effectively didn't exist there). Yet even the DP was for generations caught in a tension between its conservative and modernist wings. For a century it represented two different kinds of ideology depending on what part of the country you were standing in, with each faction turning a blind eye to the other. You and I are old enough to remember this; we had Democrats in Alabama who had nothing ideologically in common with Democrats in Massachusetts – yet it was the same party in name. Republicans of those two states meanwhile were much more on the same page, even if they were scarce as hen's teeth in the South.

Side note: My read is that there was then, in effect, less national division between the two parties as a whole, and more national division by geographical/cultural region. The divisions we see today by party, such as on this message board, would have looked quite strange to the America of 1950; their divisions were more cultural (regional) and less political.​

As far back as 1860, the intraparty infighting of that bipolar DP caused a mass walkout at its national convention, which then disintegrated and split off rival candidates which ensured that in the 1860 Presidential election neither the Democratic nor the Republican candidate won the South. Once that election was counted the secessions and Civil War began.

A similar walkout/split would occur 88 years later with Strom Thurmond's "Dixiecrat" presidential run, the one Trent Lott referred to at the infamous 100th birthday speech. Thurmond would again lead yet another split in 1964 when he bolted to the Republican Party, an act theretofore unthinkable in the South, and began the mass migration in that region from the DP to the RP. Same conservative people, simply residing in a different party. But obviously a bipolar party carries occasional costs.

That's a significant date.

The RP for its part was only too happy to welcome Thurmond and the new blood, as it meant votes (exactly the same reason the DP had courted it, i.e. opportunism), and as noted at the beginning, that's what a political party is all about -- getting votes. When it comes down to a choice between votes or ideology, the votes will win that contest almost every time. The single exception to that I can think of was LBJ and the CRA of 1964, which led to the mass migration starting with Thurmond noted above. The microcosm of that would be the candidate who tries to pander to his fringe but eventually has to disown those who veer too far, such as a David Duke.

That DP-to-RP Southern migration, infusing a new right and far-right element into the greater RP, inevitably moved what had been a rational centrist party, much further to the right, particularly after opportunists like Jerry Falwell contrived a relationship with religion, an arranged marriage (religion+politics) that had never before existed. These dynamics bubbling in the RP not only moved that party rightward but the gravitational pull of that social shift moved the DP in that direction too, which is kind of how we as a nation ended up in the center-right political position we have now.

Pertinent to this thread, the end result of all this is that today these social conservatives are collected under the RP umbrella, rather than being split between the parties. It might be argued that this concentration (two parties, each with its own personality, rather than two personalities within a single party) has served to both unite us more regionally and divide us more politically, but that's just me thinking out loud.


So in summary, any party IMO will be led ideologically by the maxim, "follow the votes".
"Our party is for the nativists!
Oh, you're immigrants?
Well we need your votes, so... our party is for the immigrants!"
-- Whatever sells. Parties are not fixed in their ideology. They go where the votes are. And they'll talk out of both sides of the party mouth as far as they can get away with it.

In effect both of these parties have had to deal with (read: turned a blind eye to) two factions that are perpetually at ideological odds with each other. The DP before 1964; and the RP after. Each of these factions tolerated/tolerates the other for the greater goal of vote power, even if it is at times an uneasy truce. Probably the most important distinction between the old and new models is the addition of religion-as-politics to shore up and solidify rhetorical territory. Unfortunately that element has also led us to a greater polarization.

The bottom line is that a political party -- any political party -- shifts with the political winds. A politician trafficking in the euphemism "states' rights" in 1960 was almost certainly a Democrat; the same politician hawking that phrase in 2000 was almost certainly a Republican. The people don't change; the parties do.

Sorry -- I get longwinded. Somewhere in there I think I was on topic...

 

[Agit8r]

I posted this to show how the GOP has always been inclusive of blacks. Some of the finest minds of this current era are conservative blacks who sorrow for what has been handed to their brethren by liberals.

What you forgot to mention--and probably even to consider--is that the GOP was not a conservative party in the 19th Century.

 

[Pogo]

I posted this to show how the GOP has always been inclusive of blacks. Some of the finest minds of this current era are conservative blacks who sorrow for what has been handed to their brethren by liberals.

What you forgot to mention--and probably even to consider--is that the GOP was not a conservative party in the 19th Century.

Worthy point. I run that quote in my sigline sometimes. In full it goes:

Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. -- Abraham Lincoln

​

Another good illustration of how parties change partners as they dance.

 

[Youch]

Conservatives and Racism

Conservative dogma does not sanction racism. However racists tend to identify as conservative, tend to vote republican, and feel comfortable among conservatives.


This doesn't mean, of course, that conservatives are racist, but it is incumbent upon conservatives to examine rightist dogma to discover why their political philosophy is indeed attractive to racists.

No, some open racists identify with, or are driven by certain religions, and those tend to affiliate with political republicans. That is different than political conservatives.

The real racists, however, throughout our history, have been the intolerant liberal....all the way. Wanna debate the facts?

Let's discuss this, Jones!!! Please. Cuz your OP and topic title disgust me on several levels, all easily debunked...

 

[Agit8r]

I posted this to show how the GOP has always been inclusive of blacks. Some of the finest minds of this current era are conservative blacks who sorrow for what has been handed to their brethren by liberals.

What you forgot to mention--and probably even to consider--is that the GOP was not a conservative party in the 19th Century.

Worthy point. I run that quote in my sigline sometimes. In full it goes:

Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. -- Abraham Lincoln

​

Another good illustration of how parties change partners as they dance.

Heck, it wasn't conservative in the early 20th Century either:

 

[Pogo]

Conservatives and Racism

Conservative dogma does not sanction racism. However racists tend to identify as conservative, tend to vote republican, and feel comfortable among conservatives.


This doesn't mean, of course, that conservatives are racist, but it is incumbent upon conservatives to examine rightist dogma to discover why their political philosophy is indeed attractive to racists.

No, some open racists identify with, or are driven by certain religions, and those tend to affiliate with political republicans. That is different than political conservatives.

The real racists, however, throughout our history, have been the intolerant liberal....all the way. Wanna debate the facts?

Let's discuss this, Jones!!! Please. Cuz your OP and topic title disgust me on several levels, all easily debunked...

CCJ isn't the OP here. I think you tend to speed-read.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Heck, it wasn't conservative in the early 20th Century either:

Keep in mind that what we today now as progressives didn't have a constituency back in the old days. Back then those who thought like modern-day progressives were locked up in mental wards.

 

[Youch]

Conservatives and Racism

Conservative dogma does not sanction racism. However racists tend to identify as conservative, tend to vote republican, and feel comfortable among conservatives.


This doesn't mean, of course, that conservatives are racist, but it is incumbent upon conservatives to examine rightist dogma to discover why their political philosophy is indeed attractive to racists.

No, some open racists identify with, or are driven by certain religions, and those tend to affiliate with political republicans. That is different than political conservatives.

The real racists, however, throughout our history, have been the intolerant liberal....all the way. Wanna debate the facts?

Let's discuss this, Jones!!! Please. Cuz your OP and topic title disgust me on several levels, all easily debunked...

CCJ isn't the OP here. I think you tend to speed-read.

Our, not your.

But the fact that you avoided the issues is obvious.

 

[guno]

Conservatives and Racism

Conservative dogma does not sanction racism. However racists tend to identify as conservative, tend to vote republican, and feel comfortable among conservatives.


This doesn't mean, of course, that conservatives are racist, but it is incumbent upon conservatives to examine rightist dogma to discover why their political philosophy is indeed attractive to racists.

No, some open racists identify with, or are driven by certain religions, and those tend to affiliate with political republicans. That is different than political conservatives.

The real racists, however, throughout our history, have been the intolerant liberal....all the way. Wanna debate the facts?

Let's discuss this, Jones!!! Please. Cuz your OP and topic title disgust me on several levels, all easily debunked...

And that is why your white christian party has so man minorities? not may minorities have anything to do with you racist mutants except the tokens you put out front once an a while

 

[Youch]

Conservatives and Racism

Conservative dogma does not sanction racism. However racists tend to identify as conservative, tend to vote republican, and feel comfortable among conservatives.


This doesn't mean, of course, that conservatives are racist, but it is incumbent upon conservatives to examine rightist dogma to discover why their political philosophy is indeed attractive to racists.

No, some open racists identify with, or are driven by certain religions, and those tend to affiliate with political republicans. That is different than political conservatives.

The real racists, however, throughout our history, have been the intolerant liberal....all the way. Wanna debate the facts?

Let's discuss this, Jones!!! Please. Cuz your OP and topic title disgust me on several levels, all easily debunked...

And that is why your white christian party has so man minorities? not may minorities have anything to do with you racist mutants except the tokens you put out front once an a while

Maleducated bigots bent on destroying the country are not good mouthpieces for the liberal movement. Why? Because they 1) can't read with the intent to understand, and 2) betray their ignorance any time a person of color dares to stray off the liberal plantation. Shall we continue? What a dickhead.....paints conservatives as racists without a scintilla of evidence. Not worthy of debate, this girl....

 

[Jroc]

I posted this to show how the GOP has always been inclusive of blacks. Some of the finest minds of this current era are conservative blacks who sorrow for what has been handed to their brethren by liberals.

What you forgot to mention--and probably even to consider--is that the GOP was not a conservative party in the 19th Century.

It's always nice to keep quotes in context...

Those who actually study Lincoln’s thoughts and speeches know that, in his words, he “never had a feeling politically that did not spring from the sentiments embodied in the Declaration of Independence.” He loved and admired “the sentiments of those old-time men,” our Founding Fathers. He was dedicated to their principles – equal rights under the law, economic liberty, and a fidelity to the Constitution, our fundamental law.

Lincoln was, in short, a statesman who was guided by the principles of our Founding, and therefore he is a model of conservative leadership today. He believed in natural rights, not the expansive definition of positive rights, without any grounding in nature, advanced by today’s Left. He believed in equality before the law, but he also noted that the Declaration of Independence “does not declare that all men are equal in their attainments or social position.” He respected and followed the text of the Constitution, rather than interpreting it as a “living” and evolving document or simply scrapping it altogether.

He believed in economic freedom, particularly the opportunity to work for a wage. He did not think that the market economy took advantage of those who worked for wages, but rather believed that economic freedom was a ticket to upward mobility for the individual and prosperity for society. He was fond of saying that, in a country with economic freedom, those who begin “poor, as most do in the race of life, free society is such that he knows he can better his condition.” In a free society, a citizen can “look forward and hope to be a hired laborer this year and the next, work for himself afterward, and finally to hire men to work for him! That is the true system.”

Are these the words of a Progressive? Do Progressives defend the principles of natural rights, equality before the law, constitutionalism, and economic freedom?

Lincoln s Conservative Vision

 

[Pogo]

That's not "keeping in context" -- that's burying under a lot of latter-day blog fluff.

 

[Jroc]

That's not "keeping in context" -- that's burying under a lot of latter-day blog fluff.

Lincolns quotes are in red..... that stuff