4 ms·

1) Do you think the modern Democratic Party has more or less conservatives then it did in the ‘60’s? Do you think there are more or fewer liberals? 2) Do you t

1) Do you think the modern Democratic Party has more or less conservatives then it did in the ‘60’s? Do you think there are more or fewer liberals? 2) Do you think the modern Republican Party has more or less conservatives then it did in the ‘60’s? Do you think there are more or fewer liberals? 3) Do you think conservatives voted for or against the civil rights bill? Do you think conservative ideology has distinct preferences against civil rights? 4) Do you think liberals voted for or against the civil rights bill? Do you think liberal ideology has distinct preferences against civil rights? I find a lot of people are able to get away with a lot of political sophistry because they can skillfully abuse peoples lack of historical and political knowledge. I find this problem is especially pernicious regarding the civil rights act, because this was right around the time that the political parties were undergoing major changes in their makeup, so people concern trolling are often able to ambiguate ideology, political affiliation and the structures of political parties in such a way as to push the deceptive and deceitful lie that liberals are or were pro-slavery. I find a lot of those tactics being used in your arguments, so as an exercise I like to help people disambiguate facts from cleverly positioned lies and see if their claims still hold up. I suspect your argument is weak and based on conflating political ideology with political affiliation.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
mythrwy 9y ago
You appear to be reading things into my argument that aren't there, I suspect as a result of ideological blindness. Might I suggest you broaden your perspective just a bit beyond simple "liberal" and "conservative"? Because the real world is much more complex and so is my take on it. I object to mythological re-interpretations of events, that's all. No attempt to equate modern Democrats with slavery or segregationists is made. It doesn't matter what old Democrats did, the platform is what it is now. I don't believe, nor do I suggest otherwise. Please don't fall into the trap of thinking "this person doesn't agree 100% with X therefore they are by default Y". It leads to long posts which boil down to "ya, well you are a liar and a troll". Which isn't accurate and it's offensive. The antidote is perspective and nuance. Something unfortunately political ideologies tend to discourage.
- travmatt 9y ago
  I’m sorry but I can’t discuss politics with people that refuse to answer basic questions about the past and what they believe regarding it without ducking and obfuscation. To me it’s always a sign of concern trolling, especially when the argument then devolves into arguments that really just center around calling others ideologically blinded and calls for perspective and nuance - which you are curiously advocating for by dumping out of context figures and refusing to give context about. For others that are interested, the liberal and conservative blocs were the predominant factions of both parties that played pivotal roles in civil rights era legislation. Specifically, the ‘64 bill was passed by factions of mainly northern democratic liberals and liberal republicans - many republicans actually played crucial roles in captaining the legislation through congress and surviving quorum calls organized by the opposing conservative southern and midwestern factions. Looking at the civil rights issue through the perspectives of liberal v conservative is also interesting for other reasons as well. LBJ in many ways was a pseudo-conservative, who by dint of his firmly conservative credentials was able to position himself to be mentored by and ultimately betray his mentor, the leader of the conservative faction and the strongest force for segregation in America - the senator Richard Russell. In the larger tapestry of American history, Russell was also a new dealer, which in many ways was a deal in which conservatives accepted the progressive safety net in exchange for entrenching the socioeconomic subjugation of minorities through carve-outs to their eligibility to receive aforementioned benefits. This is the thesis behind Ira Katznelson’s ‘Fear Itself’. Additionally, America has been undergoing a political realignment in which party and ideology are increasingly correlated - there are fewer liberal Republicans and fewer conservative Democrats, which in turn has led to greater political polarization and the greater political paralysis we see today. Understanding the drivers of the realignment between conservatives and liberals is crucial to understanding American politics today.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

mythrwy 9y ago

You appear to be reading things into my argument that aren't there, I suspect as a result of ideological blindness. Might I suggest you broaden your perspective just a bit beyond simple "liberal" and "conservative"? Because the real world is much more complex and so is my take on it. I object to mythological re-interpretations of events, that's all. No attempt to equate modern Democrats with slavery or segregationists is made. It doesn't matter what old Democrats did, the platform is what it is now. I don't believe, nor do I suggest otherwise. Please don't fall into the trap of thinking "this person doesn't agree 100% with X therefore they are by default Y". It leads to long posts which boil down to "ya, well you are a liar and a troll". Which isn't accurate and it's offensive. The antidote is perspective and nuance. Something unfortunately political ideologies tend to discourage.

travmatt 9y ago
I’m sorry but I can’t discuss politics with people that refuse to answer basic questions about the past and what they believe regarding it without ducking and obfuscation. To me it’s always a sign of concern trolling, especially when the argument then devolves into arguments that really just center around calling others ideologically blinded and calls for perspective and nuance - which you are curiously advocating for by dumping out of context figures and refusing to give context about. For others that are interested, the liberal and conservative blocs were the predominant factions of both parties that played pivotal roles in civil rights era legislation. Specifically, the ‘64 bill was passed by factions of mainly northern democratic liberals and liberal republicans - many republicans actually played crucial roles in captaining the legislation through congress and surviving quorum calls organized by the opposing conservative southern and midwestern factions. Looking at the civil rights issue through the perspectives of liberal v conservative is also interesting for other reasons as well. LBJ in many ways was a pseudo-conservative, who by dint of his firmly conservative credentials was able to position himself to be mentored by and ultimately betray his mentor, the leader of the conservative faction and the strongest force for segregation in America - the senator Richard Russell. In the larger tapestry of American history, Russell was also a new dealer, which in many ways was a deal in which conservatives accepted the progressive safety net in exchange for entrenching the socioeconomic subjugation of minorities through carve-outs to their eligibility to receive aforementioned benefits. This is the thesis behind Ira Katznelson’s ‘Fear Itself’. Additionally, America has been undergoing a political realignment in which party and ideology are increasingly correlated - there are fewer liberal Republicans and fewer conservative Democrats, which in turn has led to greater political polarization and the greater political paralysis we see today. Understanding the drivers of the realignment between conservatives and liberals is crucial to understanding American politics today.