By Jefferson Smith
Todays conservatives might concede some of them grudgingly that its good that democracy eventually won out over absolute monarchs and landed aristocracies. But thats as far as we can go: Theres no need, and no justification, for further reforms aimed, for instance, at limiting the disproportionate power of a wealthy few. And yes, its good that laws against interracial marriage were eventually struck down; even most conservatives now agree that marriage between people of different races isnt unnatural or un-biblical.
But theres no extending that point to todays arguments over same-sex marriage that is unnatural and un-biblical, and it must be forbidden by law. The progressive project was essential, once, but now its over. In fact its even gone too far and now needs to be rolled back.
Conservatives are forever insisting that further reforms will cause chaos, even while (silently) conceding the wisdom of reforms already achieved.
Those who opposed desegregation would have agreed (one hopes) that outright slavery was an evil that earlier reformers had been right to condemn. Thus far, OK, but no further, has been the essential conservative position. Then we go further, and conservatives of the next generation say, OK, yes, that was a good development too. But no further! And so on. Why, its fair to ask, should we believe that this time conservatives finally have it right that the limits theyre always wrongly claiming weve reached have, at last, actually been reached?
In embracing existing hierarchies and disparaging most proposals for change, conservatives like to think theyve accepted the fact that life isnt fair. Some people have more advantages than others? Some people get lucky breaks that others dont? So be it. Progressives insistence on making things fairer is mostly just utopian scheming, notwithstanding the many times in the past when theyve actually succeeded.
But this self-image is a delusion. In truth its conservatives who are assuming that life is fair. Their view isnt just that some injustices cant be fixed, its that many of those conditions arent injustices at all. Some people deserve greater privilege than others. They earn it, either through some kind of effort on their part or simply by virtue of their better character. And by the same token there are people of lesser industry, ingenuity or character who deserve to find themselves holding the short end of the stick. As long as thats the reason it happens, its fine if the so-called outcomes that different people experience are different.
It wasnt so long ago that phrases like the best people and ones betters were in common use, as was language that marked a select few as people of rank or quality. What these terms referred to was frankly unearned privilege. Shakespeare, for example, like everyone in his day, often used them as synonyms for lords, ladies and other titled aristocrats, people whose quality was established the moment they were born into one of the better families. Even where formal titles were later abandoned, as in the U.S., terms like these continued to function as, basically, euphemisms for wealth.
Over time, reforms for which progressives can take credit (and which conservatives, as always, resisted) have weakened the links between birth, wealth and perceived quality. But progressive success at discrediting the old notion of social ranks has had the ironic effect of making the class barriers that do remain harder to see. It gave life to a new conservative myth the classless society in which those barriers have supposedly disappeared altogether, and those who are determined enough can now achieve whatever they want. Which means that if they dont, then the fault lies with them, not the system.
The six pillars of conservative unwisdom weve just reviewed seem to be operating in every age. We find remarkably similar versions of them in periods which, because the world has changed and moved on to new issues, are otherwise very different. (Another set of six canons, not the same as but overlapping with these, is the very definition of conservatism, according to one of its own gurus, Russell Kirk.) Once the conservative ideas current in any given period are discredited and abandoned, conservatives of the next era simply build a new structure on the same old supports.
For centuries now theyve been serving themselves and the rest of us poorly by spurning scientific evidence in favor of biblical revelation, insisting that certain social arrangements are natural or God-given and mustnt be changed, putting their faith in the powers-that-be of the moment and assuming that these would and should continue in power, reacting with hostility to efforts to extend rights to groups that previously lacked them, and warning with utter confidence that reform efforts would wreck society instead of making it better. And yet, to paraphrase one of their heroes, Ronald Reagan: Here they go again. However badly these impulses have failed them as guides to the situations and controversies of the past, conservatives are always arguing anew that theyre just whats needed to meet the challenges of the present
Once in a great while a conservative acknowledges that his side got some great issue wrong. Pope John Paul II apologized for several of his churchs most notorious mistakes, including the Galileo fiasco as well as much more serious crimes against Jews, women and many other groups. (He drew the line at gays and lesbians, leaving that inevitable apology for some future pope.) Newt Gingrich, when he took over the Speakership of the U.S. House in 1995, told his colleagues the following:
No Republican here should kid themselves about it. The greatest leaders in fighting for an integrated America in the 20th century were in the Democratic Party. The fact is, it was the liberal wing of the Democratic Party that ended segregation. The fact is that it was Franklin Delano Roosevelt who gave hope to a nation that was in distress and could have slid into dictatorship. Every Republican has much to learn from studying what the Democrats did right.
Because other examples are less well-remembered than Galileos, its easy to see his as an isolated case and to imagine that progress is usually widely applauded. In fact, though, virtually every development of the last few hundred years that increased knowledge, improved society or made peoples lives better was met in its time with furious conservative resistance.
Have you no rudimentary abilities of rationalization ? Did you think that by seizing the introspections of the former congressman it could somehow cause you to appear perceptive ? Are you aware that Jefferson Smith has remained bitter due to his failure and loss in his attempt to become mayor of Portland ? A race he lost to Charlie Hales who was once a republican but became a democrat. If it is your desire to cast disparagement upon the entire population of individuals who practice conservatism, try forming an argument by using an
inceptive approach. Maybe then you will give us reason to consider you a viable determinant.
Nickolai wrote:
By Jefferson Smith
Todays conservatives might concede some of them grudgingly that its good that democracy eventually won out over absolute monarchs and landed aristocracies. But thats as far as we can go: Theres no need, and no justification, for further reforms aimed, for instance, at limiting the disproportionate power of a wealthy few. And yes, its good that laws against interracial marriage were eventually struck down; even most conservatives now agree that marriage between people of different races isnt unnatural or un-biblical.
But theres no extending that point to todays arguments over same-sex marriage that is unnatural and un-biblical, and it must be forbidden by law. The progressive project was essential, once, but now its over. In fact its even gone too far and now needs to be rolled back.
Conservatives are forever insisting that further reforms will cause chaos, even while (silently) conceding the wisdom of reforms already achieved.
Those who opposed desegregation would have agreed (one hopes) that outright slavery was an evil that earlier reformers had been right to condemn. Thus far, OK, but no further, has been the essential conservative position. Then we go further, and conservatives of the next generation say, OK, yes, that was a good development too. But no further! And so on. Why, its fair to ask, should we believe that this time conservatives finally have it right that the limits theyre always wrongly claiming weve reached have, at last, actually been reached?
In embracing existing hierarchies and disparaging most proposals for change, conservatives like to think theyve accepted the fact that life isnt fair. Some people have more advantages than others? Some people get lucky breaks that others dont? So be it. Progressives insistence on making things fairer is mostly just utopian scheming, notwithstanding the many times in the past when theyve actually succeeded.
But this self-image is a delusion. In truth its conservatives who are assuming that life is fair. Their view isnt just that some injustices cant be fixed, its that many of those conditions arent injustices at all. Some people deserve greater privilege than others. They earn it, either through some kind of effort on their part or simply by virtue of their better character. And by the same token there are people of lesser industry, ingenuity or character who deserve to find themselves holding the short end of the stick. As long as thats the reason it happens, its fine if the so-called outcomes that different people experience are different.
It wasnt so long ago that phrases like the best people and ones betters were in common use, as was language that marked a select few as people of rank or quality. What these terms referred to was frankly unearned privilege. Shakespeare, for example, like everyone in his day, often used them as synonyms for lords, ladies and other titled aristocrats, people whose quality was established the moment they were born into one of the better families. Even where formal titles were later abandoned, as in the U.S., terms like these continued to function as, basically, euphemisms for wealth.
Over time, reforms for which progressives can take credit (and which conservatives, as always, resisted) have weakened the links between birth, wealth and perceived quality. But progressive success at discrediting the old notion of social ranks has had the ironic effect of making the class barriers that do remain harder to see. It gave life to a new conservative myth the classless society in which those barriers have supposedly disappeared altogether, and those who are determined enough can now achieve whatever they want. Which means that if they dont, then the fault lies with them, not the system.
The six pillars of conservative unwisdom weve just reviewed seem to be operating in every age. We find remarkably similar versions of them in periods which, because the world has changed and moved on to new issues, are otherwise very different. (Another set of six canons, not the same as but overlapping with these, is the very definition of conservatism, according to one of its own gurus, Russell Kirk.) Once the conservative ideas current in any given period are discredited and abandoned, conservatives of the next era simply build a new structure on the same old supports.
For centuries now theyve been serving themselves and the rest of us poorly by spurning scientific evidence in favor of biblical revelation, insisting that certain social arrangements are natural or God-given and mustnt be changed, putting their faith in the powers-that-be of the moment and assuming that these would and should continue in power, reacting with hostility to efforts to extend rights to groups that previously lacked them, and warning with utter confidence that reform efforts would wreck society instead of making it better. And yet, to paraphrase one of their heroes, Ronald Reagan: Here they go again. However badly these impulses have failed them as guides to the situations and controversies of the past, conservatives are always arguing anew that theyre just whats needed to meet the challenges of the present
Once in a great while a conservative acknowledges that his side got some great issue wrong. Pope John Paul II apologized for several of his churchs most notorious mistakes, including the Galileo fiasco as well as much more serious crimes against Jews, women and many other groups. (He drew the line at gays and lesbians, leaving that inevitable apology for some future pope.) Newt Gingrich, when he took over the Speakership of the U.S. House in 1995, told his colleagues the following:
No Republican here should kid themselves about it. The greatest leaders in fighting for an integrated America in the 20th century were in the Democratic Party. The fact is, it was the liberal wing of the Democratic Party that ended segregation. The fact is that it was Franklin Delano Roosevelt who gave hope to a nation that was in distress and could have slid into dictatorship. Every Republican has much to learn from studying what the Democrats did right.
Because other examples are less well-remembered than Galileos, its easy to see his as an isolated case and to imagine that progress is usually widely applauded. In fact, though, virtually every development of the last few hundred years that increased knowledge, improved society or made peoples lives better was met in its time with furious conservative resistance.
By Jefferson Smith br br Todays conservatives m... (
show quote)
Nickolai wrote:
By Jefferson Smith
Todays conservatives might concede some of them grudgingly that its good that democracy eventually won out over absolute monarchs and landed aristocracies. But thats as far as we can go: Theres no need, and no justification, for further reforms aimed, for instance, at limiting the disproportionate power of a wealthy few. And yes, its good that laws against interracial marriage were eventually struck down; even most conservatives now agree that marriage between people of different races isnt unnatural or un-biblical.
But theres no extending that point to todays arguments over same-sex marriage that is unnatural and un-biblical, and it must be forbidden by law. The progressive project was essential, once, but now its over. In fact its even gone too far and now needs to be rolled back.
Conservatives are forever insisting that further reforms will cause chaos, even while (silently) conceding the wisdom of reforms already achieved.
Those who opposed desegregation would have agreed (one hopes) that outright slavery was an evil that earlier reformers had been right to condemn. Thus far, OK, but no further, has been the essential conservative position. Then we go further, and conservatives of the next generation say, OK, yes, that was a good development too. But no further! And so on. Why, its fair to ask, should we believe that this time conservatives finally have it right that the limits theyre always wrongly claiming weve reached have, at last, actually been reached?
In embracing existing hierarchies and disparaging most proposals for change, conservatives like to think theyve accepted the fact that life isnt fair. Some people have more advantages than others? Some people get lucky breaks that others dont? So be it. Progressives insistence on making things fairer is mostly just utopian scheming, notwithstanding the many times in the past when theyve actually succeeded.
But this self-image is a delusion. In truth its conservatives who are assuming that life is fair. Their view isnt just that some injustices cant be fixed, its that many of those conditions arent injustices at all. Some people deserve greater privilege than others. They earn it, either through some kind of effort on their part or simply by virtue of their better character. And by the same token there are people of lesser industry, ingenuity or character who deserve to find themselves holding the short end of the stick. As long as thats the reason it happens, its fine if the so-called outcomes that different people experience are different.
It wasnt so long ago that phrases like the best people and ones betters were in common use, as was language that marked a select few as people of rank or quality. What these terms referred to was frankly unearned privilege. Shakespeare, for example, like everyone in his day, often used them as synonyms for lords, ladies and other titled aristocrats, people whose quality was established the moment they were born into one of the better families. Even where formal titles were later abandoned, as in the U.S., terms like these continued to function as, basically, euphemisms for wealth.
Over time, reforms for which progressives can take credit (and which conservatives, as always, resisted) have weakened the links between birth, wealth and perceived quality. But progressive success at discrediting the old notion of social ranks has had the ironic effect of making the class barriers that do remain harder to see. It gave life to a new conservative myth the classless society in which those barriers have supposedly disappeared altogether, and those who are determined enough can now achieve whatever they want. Which means that if they dont, then the fault lies with them, not the system.
The six pillars of conservative unwisdom weve just reviewed seem to be operating in every age. We find remarkably similar versions of them in periods which, because the world has changed and moved on to new issues, are otherwise very different. (Another set of six canons, not the same as but overlapping with these, is the very definition of conservatism, according to one of its own gurus, Russell Kirk.) Once the conservative ideas current in any given period are discredited and abandoned, conservatives of the next era simply build a new structure on the same old supports.
For centuries now theyve been serving themselves and the rest of us poorly by spurning scientific evidence in favor of biblical revelation, insisting that certain social arrangements are natural or God-given and mustnt be changed, putting their faith in the powers-that-be of the moment and assuming that these would and should continue in power, reacting with hostility to efforts to extend rights to groups that previously lacked them, and warning with utter confidence that reform efforts would wreck society instead of making it better. And yet, to paraphrase one of their heroes, Ronald Reagan: Here they go again. However badly these impulses have failed them as guides to the situations and controversies of the past, conservatives are always arguing anew that theyre just whats needed to meet the challenges of the present
Once in a great while a conservative acknowledges that his side got some great issue wrong. Pope John Paul II apologized for several of his churchs most notorious mistakes, including the Galileo fiasco as well as much more serious crimes against Jews, women and many other groups. (He drew the line at gays and lesbians, leaving that inevitable apology for some future pope.) Newt Gingrich, when he took over the Speakership of the U.S. House in 1995, told his colleagues the following:
No Republican here should kid themselves about it. The greatest leaders in fighting for an integrated America in the 20th century were in the Democratic Party. The fact is, it was the liberal wing of the Democratic Party that ended segregation. The fact is that it was Franklin Delano Roosevelt who gave hope to a nation that was in distress and could have slid into dictatorship. Every Republican has much to learn from studying what the Democrats did right.
Because other examples are less well-remembered than Galileos, its easy to see his as an isolated case and to imagine that progress is usually widely applauded. In fact, though, virtually every development of the last few hundred years that increased knowledge, improved society or made peoples lives better was met in its time with furious conservative resistance.
By Jefferson Smith br br Todays conservatives m... (
show quote)
******
Nickolai,
Another great post. Lots of insight into the conservative brain and heart (or lack thereof) by Jefferson Smith.
:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
Apatoo Nee Nee. brátt munt þú brenna þér níðingsverk illi andinn.
Brian Devon wrote:
******
Nickolai,
Another great post. Lots of insight into the conservative brain and heart (or lack thereof) by Jefferson Smith.
:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
Nickolai wrote:
By Jefferson Smith
Todays conservatives might concede some of them grudgingly that its good that democracy eventually won out over absolute monarchs and landed aristocracies. But thats as far as we can go: Theres no need, and no justification, for further reforms aimed, for instance, at limiting the disproportionate power of a wealthy few. And yes, its good that laws against interracial marriage were eventually struck down; even most conservatives now agree that marriage between people of different races isnt unnatural or un-biblical.
But theres no extending that point to todays arguments over same-sex marriage that is unnatural and un-biblical, and it must be forbidden by law. The progressive project was essential, once, but now its over. In fact its even gone too far and now needs to be rolled back.
Conservatives are forever insisting that further reforms will cause chaos, even while (silently) conceding the wisdom of reforms already achieved.
Those who opposed desegregation would have agreed (one hopes) that outright slavery was an evil that earlier reformers had been right to condemn. Thus far, OK, but no further, has been the essential conservative position. Then we go further, and conservatives of the next generation say, OK, yes, that was a good development too. But no further! And so on. Why, its fair to ask, should we believe that this time conservatives finally have it right that the limits theyre always wrongly claiming weve reached have, at last, actually been reached?
In embracing existing hierarchies and disparaging most proposals for change, conservatives like to think theyve accepted the fact that life isnt fair. Some people have more advantages than others? Some people get lucky breaks that others dont? So be it. Progressives insistence on making things fairer is mostly just utopian scheming, notwithstanding the many times in the past when theyve actually succeeded.
But this self-image is a delusion. In truth its conservatives who are assuming that life is fair. Their view isnt just that some injustices cant be fixed, its that many of those conditions arent injustices at all. Some people deserve greater privilege than others. They earn it, either through some kind of effort on their part or simply by virtue of their better character. And by the same token there are people of lesser industry, ingenuity or character who deserve to find themselves holding the short end of the stick. As long as thats the reason it happens, its fine if the so-called outcomes that different people experience are different.
It wasnt so long ago that phrases like the best people and ones betters were in common use, as was language that marked a select few as people of rank or quality. What these terms referred to was frankly unearned privilege. Shakespeare, for example, like everyone in his day, often used them as synonyms for lords, ladies and other titled aristocrats, people whose quality was established the moment they were born into one of the better families. Even where formal titles were later abandoned, as in the U.S., terms like these continued to function as, basically, euphemisms for wealth.
Over time, reforms for which progressives can take credit (and which conservatives, as always, resisted) have weakened the links between birth, wealth and perceived quality. But progressive success at discrediting the old notion of social ranks has had the ironic effect of making the class barriers that do remain harder to see. It gave life to a new conservative myth the classless society in which those barriers have supposedly disappeared altogether, and those who are determined enough can now achieve whatever they want. Which means that if they dont, then the fault lies with them, not the system.
The six pillars of conservative unwisdom weve just reviewed seem to be operating in every age. We find remarkably similar versions of them in periods which, because the world has changed and moved on to new issues, are otherwise very different. (Another set of six canons, not the same as but overlapping with these, is the very definition of conservatism, according to one of its own gurus, Russell Kirk.) Once the conservative ideas current in any given period are discredited and abandoned, conservatives of the next era simply build a new structure on the same old supports.
For centuries now theyve been serving themselves and the rest of us poorly by spurning scientific evidence in favor of biblical revelation, insisting that certain social arrangements are natural or God-given and mustnt be changed, putting their faith in the powers-that-be of the moment and assuming that these would and should continue in power, reacting with hostility to efforts to extend rights to groups that previously lacked them, and warning with utter confidence that reform efforts would wreck society instead of making it better. And yet, to paraphrase one of their heroes, Ronald Reagan: Here they go again. However badly these impulses have failed them as guides to the situations and controversies of the past, conservatives are always arguing anew that theyre just whats needed to meet the challenges of the present
Once in a great while a conservative acknowledges that his side got some great issue wrong. Pope John Paul II apologized for several of his churchs most notorious mistakes, including the Galileo fiasco as well as much more serious crimes against Jews, women and many other groups. (He drew the line at gays and lesbians, leaving that inevitable apology for some future pope.) Newt Gingrich, when he took over the Speakership of the U.S. House in 1995, told his colleagues the following:
No Republican here should kid themselves about it. The greatest leaders in fighting for an integrated America in the 20th century were in the Democratic Party. The fact is, it was the liberal wing of the Democratic Party that ended segregation. The fact is that it was Franklin Delano Roosevelt who gave hope to a nation that was in distress and could have slid into dictatorship. Every Republican has much to learn from studying what the Democrats did right.
Because other examples are less well-remembered than Galileos, its easy to see his as an isolated case and to imagine that progress is usually widely applauded. In fact, though, virtually every development of the last few hundred years that increased knowledge, improved society or made peoples lives better was met in its time with furious conservative resistance.
By Jefferson Smith br br Todays conservatives m... (
show quote)
Interesting, to say the least. May explain a few things.
Nickolai wrote:
By Jefferson Smith
Todays conservatives might concede some of them grudgingly that its good that democracy eventually won out over absolute monarchs and landed aristocracies. But thats as far as we can go: Theres no need, and no justification, for further reforms aimed, for instance, at limiting the disproportionate power of a wealthy few. And yes, its good that laws against interracial marriage were eventually struck down; even most conservatives now agree that marriage between people of different races isnt unnatural or un-biblical.
But theres no extending that point to todays arguments over same-sex marriage that is unnatural and un-biblical, and it must be forbidden by law. The progressive project was essential, once, but now its over. In fact its even gone too far and now needs to be rolled back.
Conservatives are forever insisting that further reforms will cause chaos, even while (silently) conceding the wisdom of reforms already achieved.
Those who opposed desegregation would have agreed (one hopes) that outright slavery was an evil that earlier reformers had been right to condemn. Thus far, OK, but no further, has been the essential conservative position. Then we go further, and conservatives of the next generation say, OK, yes, that was a good development too. But no further! And so on. Why, its fair to ask, should we believe that this time conservatives finally have it right that the limits theyre always wrongly claiming weve reached have, at last, actually been reached?
In embracing existing hierarchies and disparaging most proposals for change, conservatives like to think theyve accepted the fact that life isnt fair. Some people have more advantages than others? Some people get lucky breaks that others dont? So be it. Progressives insistence on making things fairer is mostly just utopian scheming, notwithstanding the many times in the past when theyve actually succeeded.
But this self-image is a delusion. In truth its conservatives who are assuming that life is fair. Their view isnt just that some injustices cant be fixed, its that many of those conditions arent injustices at all. Some people deserve greater privilege than others. They earn it, either through some kind of effort on their part or simply by virtue of their better character. And by the same token there are people of lesser industry, ingenuity or character who deserve to find themselves holding the short end of the stick. As long as thats the reason it happens, its fine if the so-called outcomes that different people experience are different.
It wasnt so long ago that phrases like the best people and ones betters were in common use, as was language that marked a select few as people of rank or quality. What these terms referred to was frankly unearned privilege. Shakespeare, for example, like everyone in his day, often used them as synonyms for lords, ladies and other titled aristocrats, people whose quality was established the moment they were born into one of the better families. Even where formal titles were later abandoned, as in the U.S., terms like these continued to function as, basically, euphemisms for wealth.
Over time, reforms for which progressives can take credit (and which conservatives, as always, resisted) have weakened the links between birth, wealth and perceived quality. But progressive success at discrediting the old notion of social ranks has had the ironic effect of making the class barriers that do remain harder to see. It gave life to a new conservative myth the classless society in which those barriers have supposedly disappeared altogether, and those who are determined enough can now achieve whatever they want. Which means that if they dont, then the fault lies with them, not the system.
The six pillars of conservative unwisdom weve just reviewed seem to be operating in every age. We find remarkably similar versions of them in periods which, because the world has changed and moved on to new issues, are otherwise very different. (Another set of six canons, not the same as but overlapping with these, is the very definition of conservatism, according to one of its own gurus, Russell Kirk.) Once the conservative ideas current in any given period are discredited and abandoned, conservatives of the next era simply build a new structure on the same old supports.
For centuries now theyve been serving themselves and the rest of us poorly by spurning scientific evidence in favor of biblical revelation, insisting that certain social arrangements are natural or God-given and mustnt be changed, putting their faith in the powers-that-be of the moment and assuming that these would and should continue in power, reacting with hostility to efforts to extend rights to groups that previously lacked them, and warning with utter confidence that reform efforts would wreck society instead of making it better. And yet, to paraphrase one of their heroes, Ronald Reagan: Here they go again. However badly these impulses have failed them as guides to the situations and controversies of the past, conservatives are always arguing anew that theyre just whats needed to meet the challenges of the present
Once in a great while a conservative acknowledges that his side got some great issue wrong. Pope John Paul II apologized for several of his churchs most notorious mistakes, including the Galileo fiasco as well as much more serious crimes against Jews, women and many other groups. (He drew the line at gays and lesbians, leaving that inevitable apology for some future pope.) Newt Gingrich, when he took over the Speakership of the U.S. House in 1995, told his colleagues the following:
No Republican here should kid themselves about it. The greatest leaders in fighting for an integrated America in the 20th century were in the Democratic Party. The fact is, it was the liberal wing of the Democratic Party that ended segregation. The fact is that it was Franklin Delano Roosevelt who gave hope to a nation that was in distress and could have slid into dictatorship. Every Republican has much to learn from studying what the Democrats did right.
Because other examples are less well-remembered than Galileos, its easy to see his as an isolated case and to imagine that progress is usually widely applauded. In fact, though, virtually every development of the last few hundred years that increased knowledge, improved society or made peoples lives better was met in its time with furious conservative resistance.
By Jefferson Smith br br Todays conservatives m... (
show quote)
Copy and paste from
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=A0SO8z10T0tTNncAa8RXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEwYmc4cDJjBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMwRjb2xvA2dxMQR2dGlkAzIzNF8x?qid=20120315182125AAuKhFx"Republicans Passed the 1957 Civil Rights Act
During the five terms of the FDR and Truman presidencies, the Democrats did not propose any civil rights legislation. President Eisenhower, in contrast, asked his Attorney General to write the first federal civil rights legislation since the Republican Partys 1875 Civil Rights Act.
"Many Democrats in the Senate filibustered the bill, but strong Republican support ensured passage. The new law established a Civil Rights Division within the Justice Department and authorized the Attorney General to request injunctions against any attempt to deny someones right to vote. The GOP improved upon this landmark legislation with the 1960 Civil Rights Act.
"Republicans Ended Racial Segregation in Little Rock
Just a few days after passage of the GOPs 1957 Civil Rights Act, the Democrat governor of Arkansas ordered the National Guard to prevent the court-ordered racial integration of a public high school in Little Rock. Republican President Dwight Eisenhower refused to tolerate defiance of the federal judiciary. Under a plan suggested by his attorney general, the President placed the governors soldiers under federal control and ordered federal troops to the state, where they escorted African-American children to school.
"Republicans were unfazed by the many Democrats, including John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, who criticized President Eisenhower for the action he took to uphold civil rights.
1964 Civil Rights Act;
"The Congressional Quarterly of June 26, 1964 recorded that in the
Senate, only 69 percent of Democrats (46 for, 21 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act as compared to 82 percent of Republicans (27 for, 6 against). All southern Democratic senators voted against the act. [...] In the House of Representatives, 61 percent of Democrats (152 for, 96 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act; 92 of the 103 Southern Democrats voted against it. Among Republicans, 80 percent (138 for, 34 against) voted for it."
You sound like a broken record.
Nickolai wrote:
By Jefferson Smith
Todays conservatives might concede some of them grudgingly that its good that democracy eventually won out over absolute monarchs and landed aristocracies. But thats as far as we can go: Theres no need, and no justification, for further reforms aimed, for instance, at limiting the disproportionate power of a wealthy few. And yes, its good that laws against interracial marriage were eventually struck down; even most conservatives now agree that marriage between people of different races isnt unnatural or un-biblical.
But theres no extending that point to todays arguments over same-sex marriage that is unnatural and un-biblical, and it must be forbidden by law. The progressive project was essential, once, but now its over. In fact its even gone too far and now needs to be rolled back.
Conservatives are forever insisting that further reforms will cause chaos, even while (silently) conceding the wisdom of reforms already achieved.
Those who opposed desegregation would have agreed (one hopes) that outright slavery was an evil that earlier reformers had been right to condemn. Thus far, OK, but no further, has been the essential conservative position. Then we go further, and conservatives of the next generation say, OK, yes, that was a good development too. But no further! And so on. Why, its fair to ask, should we believe that this time conservatives finally have it right that the limits theyre always wrongly claiming weve reached have, at last, actually been reached?
In embracing existing hierarchies and disparaging most proposals for change, conservatives like to think theyve accepted the fact that life isnt fair. Some people have more advantages than others? Some people get lucky breaks that others dont? So be it. Progressives insistence on making things fairer is mostly just utopian scheming, notwithstanding the many times in the past when theyve actually succeeded.
But this self-image is a delusion. In truth its conservatives who are assuming that life is fair. Their view isnt just that some injustices cant be fixed, its that many of those conditions arent injustices at all. Some people deserve greater privilege than others. They earn it, either through some kind of effort on their part or simply by virtue of their better character. And by the same token there are people of lesser industry, ingenuity or character who deserve to find themselves holding the short end of the stick. As long as thats the reason it happens, its fine if the so-called outcomes that different people experience are different.
It wasnt so long ago that phrases like the best people and ones betters were in common use, as was language that marked a select few as people of rank or quality. What these terms referred to was frankly unearned privilege. Shakespeare, for example, like everyone in his day, often used them as synonyms for lords, ladies and other titled aristocrats, people whose quality was established the moment they were born into one of the better families. Even where formal titles were later abandoned, as in the U.S., terms like these continued to function as, basically, euphemisms for wealth.
Over time, reforms for which progressives can take credit (and which conservatives, as always, resisted) have weakened the links between birth, wealth and perceived quality. But progressive success at discrediting the old notion of social ranks has had the ironic effect of making the class barriers that do remain harder to see. It gave life to a new conservative myth the classless society in which those barriers have supposedly disappeared altogether, and those who are determined enough can now achieve whatever they want. Which means that if they dont, then the fault lies with them, not the system.
The six pillars of conservative unwisdom weve just reviewed seem to be operating in every age. We find remarkably similar versions of them in periods which, because the world has changed and moved on to new issues, are otherwise very different. (Another set of six canons, not the same as but overlapping with these, is the very definition of conservatism, according to one of its own gurus, Russell Kirk.) Once the conservative ideas current in any given period are discredited and abandoned, conservatives of the next era simply build a new structure on the same old supports.
For centuries now theyve been serving themselves and the rest of us poorly by spurning scientific evidence in favor of biblical revelation, insisting that certain social arrangements are natural or God-given and mustnt be changed, putting their faith in the powers-that-be of the moment and assuming that these would and should continue in power, reacting with hostility to efforts to extend rights to groups that previously lacked them, and warning with utter confidence that reform efforts would wreck society instead of making it better. And yet, to paraphrase one of their heroes, Ronald Reagan: Here they go again. However badly these impulses have failed them as guides to the situations and controversies of the past, conservatives are always arguing anew that theyre just whats needed to meet the challenges of the present
Once in a great while a conservative acknowledges that his side got some great issue wrong. Pope John Paul II apologized for several of his churchs most notorious mistakes, including the Galileo fiasco as well as much more serious crimes against Jews, women and many other groups. (He drew the line at gays and lesbians, leaving that inevitable apology for some future pope.) Newt Gingrich, when he took over the Speakership of the U.S. House in 1995, told his colleagues the following:
No Republican here should kid themselves about it. The greatest leaders in fighting for an integrated America in the 20th century were in the Democratic Party. The fact is, it was the liberal wing of the Democratic Party that ended segregation. The fact is that it was Franklin Delano Roosevelt who gave hope to a nation that was in distress and could have slid into dictatorship. Every Republican has much to learn from studying what the Democrats did right.
Because other examples are less well-remembered than Galileos, its easy to see his as an isolated case and to imagine that progress is usually widely applauded. In fact, though, virtually every development of the last few hundred years that increased knowledge, improved society or made peoples lives better was met in its time with furious conservative resistance.
By Jefferson Smith br br Todays conservatives m... (
show quote)
Wolf counselor wrote:
Have you no rudimentary abilities of rationalization ? Did you think that by seizing the introspections of the former congressman it could somehow cause you to appear perceptive ? Are you aware that Jefferson Smith has remained bitter due to his failure and loss in his attempt to become mayor of Portland ? A race he lost to Charlie Hales who was once a republican but became a democrat. If it is your desire to cast disparagement upon the entire population of individuals who practice conservatism, try forming an argument by using an
inceptive approach. Maybe then you will give us reason to consider you a viable determinant.
Have you no rudimentary abilities of rationalizati... (
show quote)
Yep! Jefferson Smith, Just another liberal parasite (born June 29, 1973) is an Oregon Democratic politician, founder of
the Bus Project and a former member of the Oregon House of Representatives.
The Bus Project is a volunteer-driven, non-profit organization that engages young people in progressive politics and catalyzes action around progressive issues within the U.S. state of Oregon. The Oregon Bus Projects mission is to drive Oregon to be a progressive model for the nation. Founded in 2001, the Bus Project has mobilized thousands of volunteers and activists around the state of Oregon.
rumitoid wrote:
Copy and paste from
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=A0SO8z10T0tTNncAa8RXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEwYmc4cDJjBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMwRjb2xvA2dxMQR2dGlkAzIzNF8x?qid=20120315182125AAuKhFx"Republicans Passed the 1957 Civil Rights Act
During the five terms of the FDR and Truman presidencies, the Democrats did not propose any civil rights legislation. President Eisenhower, in contrast, asked his Attorney General to write the first federal civil rights legislation since the Republican Partys 1875 Civil Rights Act.
"Many Democrats in the Senate filibustered the bill, but strong Republican support ensured passage. The new law established a Civil Rights Division within the Justice Department and authorized the Attorney General to request injunctions against any attempt to deny someones right to vote. The GOP improved upon this landmark legislation with the 1960 Civil Rights Act.
"Republicans Ended Racial Segregation in Little Rock
Just a few days after passage of the GOPs 1957 Civil Rights Act, the Democrat governor of Arkansas ordered the National Guard to prevent the court-ordered racial integration of a public high school in Little Rock. Republican President Dwight Eisenhower refused to tolerate defiance of the federal judiciary. Under a plan suggested by his attorney general, the President placed the governors soldiers under federal control and ordered federal troops to the state, where they escorted African-American children to school.
"Republicans were unfazed by the many Democrats, including John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, who criticized President Eisenhower for the action he took to uphold civil rights.
1964 Civil Rights Act;
"The Congressional Quarterly of June 26, 1964 recorded that in the
Senate, only 69 percent of Democrats (46 for, 21 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act as compared to 82 percent of Republicans (27 for, 6 against). All southern Democratic senators voted against the act. [...] In the House of Representatives, 61 percent of Democrats (152 for, 96 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act; 92 of the 103 Southern Democrats voted against it. Among Republicans, 80 percent (138 for, 34 against) voted for it."
Copy and paste from
https://answers.yahoo.com/ques... (
show quote)
I can sum up Nicks diatribe with two simple quotes from Ronald Reagan.1) "It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that arent so." 2) "If you are explaining.....you are losing." Nick is a "New World Order" plant here so just keep putting the facts to paper....liberals hate that!
I'm sorry your gay and feel you must prove homosexual marriage is ok. God said you shall not lay with man as with woman, it is an abomination unto the LORD. But let all the gays and LBGTJKLMNO people keep it up. Why do you think this country is falling apart? GOD has removed HIS hand from us. Look at every country through the ages that poked a finger in GODS eye. They are in poverty.
MajorAhrens wrote:
I'm sorry your gay and feel you must prove homosexual marriage is ok. God said you shall not lay with man as with woman, it is an abomination unto the LORD. But let all the gays and LBGTJKLMNO people keep it up. Why do you think this country is falling apart? GOD has removed HIS hand from us. Look at every country through the ages that poked a finger in GODS eye. They are in poverty.
You got it right majorAhrens: The perverts dont believe in God but
they do worship the earth. Therefore the enviromentalist were
born. Most of them are perverts. God is not going to put up with their pervert trash forever.
OldSchool
Loc: Moving to the Red State of Utah soon!
Nickolai wrote:
By Jefferson Smith
Todays conservatives might concede some of them grudgingly that its good that democracy eventually won out over absolute monarchs and landed aristocracies. But thats as far as we can go: Theres no need, and no justification, for further reforms aimed, for instance, at limiting the disproportionate power of a wealthy few. And yes, its good that laws against interracial marriage were eventually struck down; even most conservatives now agree that marriage between people of different races isnt unnatural or un-biblical.
But theres no extending that point to todays arguments over same-sex marriage that is unnatural and un-biblical, and it must be forbidden by law. The progressive project was essential, once, but now its over. In fact its even gone too far and now needs to be rolled back.
Conservatives are forever insisting that further reforms will cause chaos, even while (silently) conceding the wisdom of reforms already achieved.
Those who opposed desegregation would have agreed (one hopes) that outright slavery was an evil that earlier reformers had been right to condemn. Thus far, OK, but no further, has been the essential conservative position. Then we go further, and conservatives of the next generation say, OK, yes, that was a good development too. But no further! And so on. Why, its fair to ask, should we believe that this time conservatives finally have it right that the limits theyre always wrongly claiming weve reached have, at last, actually been reached?
In embracing existing hierarchies and disparaging most proposals for change, conservatives like to think theyve accepted the fact that life isnt fair. Some people have more advantages than others? Some people get lucky breaks that others dont? So be it. Progressives insistence on making things fairer is mostly just utopian scheming, notwithstanding the many times in the past when theyve actually succeeded.
But this self-image is a delusion. In truth its conservatives who are assuming that life is fair. Their view isnt just that some injustices cant be fixed, its that many of those conditions arent injustices at all. Some people deserve greater privilege than others. They earn it, either through some kind of effort on their part or simply by virtue of their better character. And by the same token there are people of lesser industry, ingenuity or character who deserve to find themselves holding the short end of the stick. As long as thats the reason it happens, its fine if the so-called outcomes that different people experience are different.
It wasnt so long ago that phrases like the best people and ones betters were in common use, as was language that marked a select few as people of rank or quality. What these terms referred to was frankly unearned privilege. Shakespeare, for example, like everyone in his day, often used them as synonyms for lords, ladies and other titled aristocrats, people whose quality was established the moment they were born into one of the better families. Even where formal titles were later abandoned, as in the U.S., terms like these continued to function as, basically, euphemisms for wealth.
Over time, reforms for which progressives can take credit (and which conservatives, as always, resisted) have weakened the links between birth, wealth and perceived quality. But progressive success at discrediting the old notion of social ranks has had the ironic effect of making the class barriers that do remain harder to see. It gave life to a new conservative myth the classless society in which those barriers have supposedly disappeared altogether, and those who are determined enough can now achieve whatever they want. Which means that if they dont, then the fault lies with them, not the system.
The six pillars of conservative unwisdom weve just reviewed seem to be operating in every age. We find remarkably similar versions of them in periods which, because the world has changed and moved on to new issues, are otherwise very different. (Another set of six canons, not the same as but overlapping with these, is the very definition of conservatism, according to one of its own gurus, Russell Kirk.) Once the conservative ideas current in any given period are discredited and abandoned, conservatives of the next era simply build a new structure on the same old supports.
For centuries now theyve been serving themselves and the rest of us poorly by spurning scientific evidence in favor of biblical revelation, insisting that certain social arrangements are natural or God-given and mustnt be changed, putting their faith in the powers-that-be of the moment and assuming that these would and should continue in power, reacting with hostility to efforts to extend rights to groups that previously lacked them, and warning with utter confidence that reform efforts would wreck society instead of making it better. And yet, to paraphrase one of their heroes, Ronald Reagan: Here they go again. However badly these impulses have failed them as guides to the situations and controversies of the past, conservatives are always arguing anew that theyre just whats needed to meet the challenges of the present
Once in a great while a conservative acknowledges that his side got some great issue wrong. Pope John Paul II apologized for several of his churchs most notorious mistakes, including the Galileo fiasco as well as much more serious crimes against Jews, women and many other groups. (He drew the line at gays and lesbians, leaving that inevitable apology for some future pope.) Newt Gingrich, when he took over the Speakership of the U.S. House in 1995, told his colleagues the following:
No Republican here should kid themselves about it. The greatest leaders in fighting for an integrated America in the 20th century were in the Democratic Party. The fact is, it was the liberal wing of the Democratic Party that ended segregation. The fact is that it was Franklin Delano Roosevelt who gave hope to a nation that was in distress and could have slid into dictatorship. Every Republican has much to learn from studying what the Democrats did right.
Because other examples are less well-remembered than Galileos, its easy to see his as an isolated case and to imagine that progress is usually widely applauded. In fact, though, virtually every development of the last few hundred years that increased knowledge, improved society or made peoples lives better was met in its time with furious conservative resistance.
By Jefferson Smith br br Todays conservatives m... (
show quote)
Blah...blah...blah...zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Typical libtard distortions and just plain bullshit, but then you brain-washed libtards love bullshit!
Wolf counselor wrote:
Have you no rudimentary abilities of rationalization ? Did you think that by seizing the introspections of the former congressman it could somehow cause you to appear perceptive ? Are you aware that Jefferson Smith has remained bitter due to his failure and loss in his attempt to become mayor of Portland ? A race he lost to Charlie Hales who was once a republican but became a democrat. If it is your desire to cast disparagement upon the entire population of individuals who practice conservatism, try forming an argument by using an
inceptive approach. Maybe then you will give us reason to consider you a viable determinant.
Have you no rudimentary abilities of rationalizati... (
show quote)
You may true an discredit Mr. Smith for being a liberal but every word so this piece is the truth as I see It and there is much more to this piece I clipped only some pertinent portions of his essay. I doesn't matter the he lost his seat in the house, So did Allen Keys and Joe Walsh, What matters is his words, Every liberal should appreciate his words for they so true. And He gained his education from a fine University with a solid liberal reputation. If he were my son I would be very proud of him. He obviously has a good head on his shoulders and has learned his lessons well Viva La Jefferson Smith The American conservative movement is facing a crises they belive if they could move further to the right they could begin winning national elections again. I'm afraid they are going to be in for a suprised While they will continue to gerrymander districts in red states and win seates in the House It will be increasingly difficult to win from a broad enough coalition to win to oval office and hopefully the Senate.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
