Let me help you out - there were civil rights movements before Jackie Robinson picked up a baseball bat, or Tuskeegee Airmen climbed into plane cockpits.
Ever see one of those nature shows, you see the octupus getting nibbled on by the shark, and its squirts an inky jet of obscurity to make its escape? Don’t know why I thought of that just now…
And with this, we’re so far afield of the OP, and talking past each other so much, that I don’t know how much further we can go here.
I’ll happily answer any questions posed here, but I’m turning my attentions to threads that haven’t gone off the rails. Maybe I can wreck them next.
What you’ve demonstrated is that if you go back at least 150 years, and don’t bother with whether the person had much to do with civil rights (as the term is commonly understood), and don’t bother with whether that person can particularly be claimed to have been a conservative, you can come up with a list of SEVEN conservative civil rights leaders.
Underwhelming, to say the least.
And what you’ve demonstrated is waiting until someone announces that he is leaving a thread, and then taking a cheap shot so you can feel you had the last word.
I’m doing the same. Knock yourself out.
Regards,
Shodan
I haven’t demonstrated that at all.
You wanted conservatives who participated in the civil rights movement as that term is commonly understood? Understood by whom? Where? For what group? Civil rights don’t refer just to black people, you know.
So I looked at conservatives who worked for civil rights, not ones who were members of particular organizations - and I picked ones who actually had an impact.
I know you proclaim that you have left the thread, but I also know that you’ll read this anyway. So, I’m going to ask in what sense I “waited” for anything? I posted twice about his list before he said that he was going to respond only to questions. What a pointless post you’ve left on.
I will help (off the top of my head, no Googling):
Charlton Heston - Marched
Ike - sent the troops in to enforce desgregation
The Civil Rights bill of '64 had significant Republican support
Sure I do. Re-evaluating the meaning of terms (along with social mores, etc.) is one of the liberties that liberalism has to offer.
I certainly don’t define liberaism as “what liberals do”. That’s putting the cart before the horse.
Conservatives certainly define liberalism to suit themselves. They went from defining liberalism as “permissive”, to “more government, less freedom”, to “hating America”.
Racism is a traditional value! It was a prevailing social more for much of our history . God separated the races. Segregation now, segregation forever, because that’s the way things ought to be.
It’s liberal to judge people by the contents of their character. Liberalism opens the door for the complex analysis to begin. Conservatism keeps the door closed by the certitude of orthodoxy. And just as it’s conservatie to judge people by the color of their skin, it’s conservative to judge the Bible by it’s cover.
At least an honest effort!
Charlton was a political liberal at the time. Such apostasy is not that uncommon, witness Ben Stein, Ronald Reagan, and our own Sarahfeena.
Eisenhower is a different matter, I don’t think there is anything all that definitive about his views on civil rights, he certainly wasn’t a leader. His use of troops was more a matter of keeping order than improving the nature of that order.
Yes, the bill had significant Republican support, not the least element of which was the certain knowledge that the Dems were committing political seppuku and handing up the South on a silver platter for a generation to come. There appears to have been some sincere support from Republicans (Nelson Rockefeller can, I believe, the counted amongst them…) but by no stretch of the imagination could he be said to be a “leader” of the movement.
Both the Dems and the Pubbies should be embarassed that the earliest and most vocal advocate of civil rights, in terms of political parties, was the Communist Party.
Exactly where did I disown Fulbright? Back in the '50s, especially in the South but in the North also, racial politics are not what they are today. I’m tolerant of people who were basically liberals who grew up in a racist society, and had it imprinted on them. I’m tolerant of Robert Byrd for the same reason. He finally came around, voting for civil rights legislation during the Nixon Administration. Cite.
Ike was solicited by both the Democrats and Republicans for a presidential run, so his politics were not very extreme in either direction. I think you have an overly simplistic view of the period. LBJ, who did more in getting civil rights legislation passed than anyone, was racist also, for instance.
Some of the people you mentioned, like Wallace, weren’t liberals but populists. Huey Long was another example. Racism and populism went hand in hand back then.
In any case, I’m not sure what conservatism meant back then. (And in the '60s I was a conservative, even working on campaigns for the Conservative Part of NY in '66 and '68.) This was before Buckley and Goldwater defined it. Modern conservatism is a lot different from that of Taft.
Interesting bit on Republicans and the Civil Rights Bill of '64:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.aspx?GUID={9C024F95-4ECE-424A-B5B7-0DAA3E049189}
I posted the above before reading the rest of the thread, especially the part where Moto decided to stop digging.
Back on track, the Republicans in Congress have decided to try to punish Berkeley by withholding money for the school lunch program. Nice guys.
Republicans are removing line item bits for Berkeley, not ending all programs. The bill is also designed to take that exact amount of set-aside money and give it to the Marines.
Given that the Berkeley cops would not even unblock the doors so that recruits could come in, I support the Feds on this one.
A bit fuzzy there, Al. Are they, or are they not, removing money for school lunch programs? And the Berkely cops wouldn’t unlock the doors? Isn’t a recruiting center more of a federal thing, wouldn’t US Marshalls be the appropriate agents? Perhaps they were stymied by the weeping, bereft crowds of Berzerkly youth clamoring to join the Marine Corps?
Doesn’t seem to be the regular school lunch program - just a special earmark for organic lunches cooked by Chez Panisse.
Now, while I might be sympathetic to arguments that this sort of thing ought not be caught in the middle of a fight between Berkeley and the Marine Corps, I also wonder why I’m paying for Chez Panisse lunches for crumbcrunchers in one of the wealthiest parts of the country.
You’ll get no sympathy from me here.
They are removing an earmark for a donation to the Chez Panisse foundation.
What happened (as I watched on TV), was a young man trying to enter the station and being physically stopped by the Pink Panthers. When asked about the fact that he was not being allowed in, the Berkeley Cop’s response was, “We are staying neutral.”
Here is a video: http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=41464&comments=1
Now, the Marines could have easily come outside, cracked some skulls, etc. This, however, would not be good PR. It would be nice if the cops did their job, however.
Won’t somebody pleeeeease think of the Marines!
I was actually thinking of the law and civil rights. This is a nice anecdote to show the supposed tolerance of liberals.
Protest at an abortion clinic - not tolerated.
Block access to a recruiting station - tolerated.
Well, if you think that Berkeley is representative of liberals in general, then go ahead and make that inference.