They’d have to travel a few more miles. If they couldn’t, they’d make a hell of a bunch of Marines. Not that there is any indication that the Berkeley City Government would stand in the recruiting station door or anything.
Berkeley ain’t what it used to be. We took the son of a friend there one day a few years ago and ran into a riot. They burned a car in the street. It turned out the organizers had bought the car to burn. A store window got broken - the organizers were terribly apologetic and paid for it. It’s almost a theme park these days.
Wallace was in JFK’s time, but over in Alabama. When JFK got James Meredith into Ole Miss, it was Governor Ross Barnett who provided the main opposition.
So, a law outlawing abortion clinics within the city limits of Salt Lake City is perfectly acceptable. So the women have to drive a few more miles - so what?
I think it is a problem to talk about this using “today’s standards”. Liberals in the 1950s had nothing but contempt for Eisenhower, and liberals like you today want to disown Fulbright - even though his liberal credentials weren’t much in question back in the day.
Ike was a moderate conservative, and Senator William Fulbright was a liberal internationalist, a strong supporter of the UN, a critic of the Vietnam War, and a segregationist. Say what you will about him - he wasn’t a conservative.
I think you ought to come to terms with this history and not deny it.
By the way, still waiting for that Top Ten list of conservatives in the forefront of the Civil Rights movement. I mean, you seem to have the names of Dems who were insufficiently progressive at your very fingertips, surely you can rattle off the names of conservatives who were leading the charge for full equality.
You know, to help us come to terms with history, and not deny it.
You weren’t around in the 1950s, so anything you know about the attitudes of liberals generally towards Ike would have come from sources other than personal experience. Please to cite them if you wish to make a stronger claim than the modified version I’ve produced.
As I’ve already pointed out, that’s exactly what the Dems did back in the 1960s - came to terms with their past (and present), and changed. They faced down the racists within the party and made a commitment to being the party of civil rights. The racists either retired, concealed their racism, or went over to the [del]dark side[/del] GOP, which (as I’ve pointed out) gladly took them in.
And while the GOP became less overtly racist over time, they simply changed tactics, as Lee Atwater pointed out:
Kinda like St. Ronald Reagan kicking off his 1980 Presidential campaign in Philadelphia, MS. That particular dog whistle’s high-pitched, but it’s still in the audible range for most people.
Anyway, I’m waiting for the GOP to come to terms with its racist past - and present. There’s plenty of anti-brown-people sentiment in the GOP these days, whether the brown people were born in Mexico or the Middle East.
Whether or not it is acceptable is a valid question, but it has nothing to do with tolerance. If you believe that abortion is a fundamental right then such an action is an infringement of such fundamental right. Tolerance is irrelevant to the matter. It is exactly the same as the marine recruiter situation. Such a banning might be beyond the powers of a city council, but it has nothing to do with tolerance.
Abraham Lincoln
Ulysses S. Grant (cracked down hard on the Klan, supported civil rights for blacks)
Dwight D. Eisenhower (sent the 101st Airborne to Little Rock, proposed the Civil Rights Act of 1957)
Everett Dirksen - without him those aforementioned Civil Rights bills wouldn’t have passed.
Frederick Douglass (his realization that the Constitution was at heart an anti-slavery document was both fundamentally conservative and key to eventual victory in his cause.)
Booker T. Washington (Republican, fundamentally conservative in his approach, but not afraid to push boundaries if he could - he funded many court challenges to segregation.)
Charles Colson (tireless advocate of prison reform)
Really? Well, I wonder what you hear when you understand that Reagan was speaking at the Neshoba County Fair, and when Dukakis spoke at the same event in 1988, He toned down the civil-rights rhetoric considerably.
Seems to me you’re going after Reagan for campaigning, and ignoring similar sins by Dukakis. Now, I’ll guess that you didn’t know that Dukakis campaigned there - but maybe you ought to wonder why that isn’t commonly known.
Sometimes these little political legends are just that - legends. And while Reagan probably should have mentioned civil rights more forcefully in Mississippi in 1980, that can be said of Dukakis in 1988 as well.
Of course it does - don’t be absurd. Trying to exile someone who is doing something legal but with which you disagree is exactly the opposite of tolerance.
This is like arguing that the KKK running voter registration workers out of town has nothing to do with tolerance. Tolerance means respecting other people’s opinions, even if you disagree with them.
People’s views tend to be a mixture of liberal and conservative positions (and even that’s an over-simplification). That’s why I prefer to talk about conservatism and liberalism rather than “conservatives” and “liberals”.
Being liberal means that you don’t have to be a follower of a past movement or leader or political party. You learn lessons from history, but you don’t have to take responsibility for it or be dictated to by it.
You’re defining racism as a conservative trait - I don’t think that’s necessarily true, and there certainly have been lots of liberals (and leftists) who were and are racists.
Let me help you out here. The cognomen “Civil Rights movement” is commonly understood as a relatively modern phenomenon, going back to Sargon of Akkad is not really in the scope of things here. I mean, Abe Lincoln? You’re yanking my chain, right?
I was going to go through that list and figure out the average length of time between the death of each of those people and, say, 1960 or so, but I figured, “Why bother?”
