Myself, I’d say that racism is inherently conservative.
I don’t think you get to define liberalism all by your lonesome. Sorry.
Oh please, educate me - since you wish to define liberalism all by your lonesome, it seems you wish to define conservatism as well - and in terms that most suit your argument.
I said above that contemporary liberalism defined itself in terms of racial nondiscrimination - but it is clear that this isn’t the sole definition of liberalism, and is a relatively recent political development. So yeah, you have to account for the fact that Fulbright, and Faubus, and the biggie, Woodrow Wilson, were liberals - and that their racism wasn’t an anomolous part of their progressive politics. Indeed, it fit into their worldview quite well.
There’s a difference between avoiding being defined by history and conveniently forgetting it - and I think you’re pretty close to the latter.
That was Eisenhower and the 101st Airborne.
What I said above about forgetting history - well, that certainly was inconvenient for you.
Eisenhower sent the 101st Airborne in for the Little Rock Nine in opposition to Faubus. JFK was involved when the National Guard had to help Vivian Malone and James Hood enroll at the University of Alabama, in opposition to Wallace.
Well, in fairness, maximum liberty for all is basically the cornerstone of liberalism. You don’t have to take our word for it; read Mill’s On Liberty, the classic statement of classical liberalism. And restricting people’s opportunities and rights on the basis of their race is prima facie incompatible with that.
Now of course, people’s prejudices will affect how they apply a principle–Mill, for example, said some pretty imperialistic things in On Liberty–but civil rights does seem to be a basic liberal principle, even if not all liberals abided by it.
ETA–I’m wondering (and I’m really wondering; I’m not just being bitchy) if there is a similar civil rights or liberty principle which is fundamental to conservatism.
Both conservatives and liberals recognize the malignant nature of racial injustice. We differ primarily in what we are willing to do about it.
Take Barry Goldwater as example, a man I respected enormously. When he says he voted and worked against the Voting Rights Act because of a principled, states-rights and constitutional objectiion, I believe him. It is a measure of my respect for him that I do, I doubt would afford any such credibility to any of the others.
But civil rights needed doing, it was not just a serious issue, it was a mortal issue, it was urgent. In the words of Dick Gregory “Get your foot off my grandmother’s neck! Now, goddamit, not one toe at a time!”
Now the principle of state’s rights may have a lot to say for it, and, Lord knows, its been said. But Goldwater, conservative, would not bend that principle for the sake of an urgent social cause. Perhaps that’s admirable, for some, for me it exalts abstract principle above human need, its idealism’s ugly sister. A liberal is willing, nay, even eager to take the risk, to move ahead, the conservative distrusts the future, the liberal accepts it and the radical demands it.
Um - Mill is considered a father of classical liberalism, as you noted. But this tradition is represented in the United States by conservatives, especially where the economy is concerned.
American liberals these days are influenced more by the progressive tradition.
Really? I always thought it was the other way around. 
(Seriously, when was the last time a pro-life activist was shot by an abortion doctor?)
As to tolerant behavior among liberals, I’ve spent most of my adult life in very liberal areas of the country (see People’s Republic of Cambridge) and I haven’t noticed any general antipathy towards the free expression of conservative views. The views themselves may be disliked, and individuals holding those views may not be all that popular, but most liberals I’ve run into are willing to at least listen (up to a point - see RTFirefly’s post).
Socially conservative arguments do tend to get pretty short shrift around here, partly because a lot of us disagree with them, but partly because the most visible argumentors for socially conservative positions in our neck of the woods tend to fall into a couple of camps (I’ll use the human embryonic stem cell [hES, for brevity] research debate as a source of examples, since I’ve been close to the issue):
-
The “There Can Be No Argument” position. Often backed up by a reference to the Bible or other Incontrovertible Truth ™. Example: the guy who got up at a university-sponsored “town hall” meeting and declared firmly that hES research was wrong, full stop, and that even suggesting that there was anything to debate proved that we scientists were all moral cripples.
-
Framing the debate solely in terms that have no traction with the other side. Example: A very nice but very determined lady at a (different) public forum on hES research who insisted that the key point that would make or break the debate was when in development the embryo acquired its soul (if that happened after the blastocyst stage, we were fine, but if it happened before, we were evil evil evil). Discussions of the potential for public benefit versus degrading the value of human life and so forth were all fine and good, but not until we could say definitively that the embryo being destroyed was soul-less (how she expected anyone to determine this I don’t know).
-
Being either F***ing Nuts or Just Plain Dumb. Example: The not-so-nice but equally determined lady at the same forum who buttonholed the biologist contingent after the event and demanded to know how we could look those “little babies” in the eyes as they screamed and writhed as we tore off their arms and legs, and refused utterly to be persuaded (despite photographic evidence to the contrary) that blastocyst-stage embryos are pin-sized clumps of cells that have no eyes, arms or legs and are incapable of screaming or writhing… (I’m assuming she saw the “Silent Scream” video at an impressionable age and didn’t grasp the abortion/hES difference).
(I would like to point out that these three people, although representative of identifiable minority camps, are by-and-large exceptions: most of the people who spoke or asked questions in the forums mentioned were perfectly reasonable and focused on the issues on their own merit, regardless of their overall pro or con or just-looking-for-information position.)
Now I’m sure there are people arguing for socially liberal positions that are just as bad, but around here, at least, the social conservatives that get the soundbite on the evening news tend to be frothing-at-the-mouth extremists rather than reasoned, logical debaters. Which is just as much an indictment of the media as it is of conservatives, but it doesn’t give us a very good impression of their side.
JRB
“The ends justify the means?”
:dubious:
I would say rather that modern liberalism is a legitimate intellectual successor to classical liberty in that the primary focus is on liberty. But whereas classical liberalism focused on negative liberty (freedom from coercion), modern liberalism recognized that without positive liberty (the means to act to achieve one’s ends), negative liberty is basically without value. (I think even Mill was coming to this realization later in his life; I can probably dig up a quote tomorrow.) So I would argue that modern liberalism is still very much centered on the promotion of liberty–but the promotion of positive and negative liberty, not just negative liberty as was/is the case with classical liberalism.
In this instance? Most assuredly. Set aside a polite fiction of political science in order to advance the human cause? In one second flat.
It’s the motto of consequentialism. In the words of the great non-consequentialist John Rawls, “All ethical doctrines worth our attention take consequences into account in judging rightness. One which did not would simply be irrational, crazy.” (A Theory of Justice, p. 30)
So if we were to use federal power to, say, force Berkeley to keep a Marine recruiting office downtown, would you have many objections to that? I mean, you favored intrusions in local affairs for other matters.
The only seems to work if you have an account at Salon (a paid account, it seems)
Not to presume to answer for elucidator, but it would depend on the importance you placed on having a Marine recruiting office located in Berkeley (compared to, say, the importance of allowing blacks to attend public schools and universities, a case in which the end was important enough to justify federal intervention). Just because the end sometimes justifies the means doesn’t mean that the end always justifies the means. I don’t have an opinion on how important it is to have a Marine recruiting office in Berkeley; I would have to hear the arguments on both sides.
Well, the whole point was that intrusions were permissible when they achieved an overarching good. If one feels that keeping the Marine recruiting office downtown is such a good, then the federal intrusion would be justified; otherwise not.
{deleted, thunder stolen}
However, any evidence of this *Jebus-like love in a liberal is a sign of weakness. Otherwise, it’s unfair, dammit, like kicking a bully in the balls when he’s choking you.
*Can I say ‘Jebus’?
Mr. Moto, I would like to clarify some of your points please.
You are not saying that tolerance is always the appropriate approach are you?
And you are not claiming that all liberals claim to be tolerant all of the time, right?
Do you think that in general Marines get everything the recruiters promise?
Thanks.
By today’s standards Ike was a liberal. When I was just a wee lad, there were such things as liberal Republicans, odd as it seems today. Wallace, btw, was in JFKs time. Or did Ike get James Meredith into Ole Miss?