Civil rights and political ideology

"Hierarchical channels"? What does that mean?

 

I'm a bit lost as to what you mean here (I stared at my computer for over a minute just trying to figure it out and I can't), but are saying that governments - with conservative views - only respond to Civil Rights issues when a liberal section of their population rallies for it?

I'm at a loss with "hierarchical channels", and with "bureaucracy".

 

I'd actually say no to that. Conservative governments often don't make changes until they are removed from power, and not until issues gain broad support either. For example, during the Bush-era, only liberals really supporting Same-Sex Marriage. They obviously didn't respond to issues there.

And the Nixon presidency didn't respond to the liberal population that was protesting the Vietnam war and pushing the civil right of "rights to protest".

It has more to do with the youth always being a liberal population, and their viewpoints often becoming the dominant one in a few decades time.

 

Conservatives by definition are against giving rights to new groups of people. Libertarians are more in favor of Civil Rights than a lot of conservatives, either that or they have a Lassez-Faire approach to any civil rights.

 

Yeah, that's not necessarily true. At all.

For some conservatives it is true, but not all.

 

Not true at all. It was the Republicans that freed the slaves...big step in civil rights...throughout the South in the 50's and 60's led largely by Democrats that kept "Jim Crow" alive and turned the dogs and firehoses on protesters.

Not all Conservatives are selfish Neanderthals, but some very vocal ones have given that impression.

This country has a huge problem with immigration, a complicated issue that impinges on our national identity. A population entering a new country is expected historically to blend in as best as possible...taking our language, adopting our customs as generations have before...otherwise you have a situation like you have in London which in some parts is referred to as Londonistan.

Conservatives are by no means necessarily against civil rights, many are for equal pay, marriage equality, welfare of some ilk to protect those who are in need - the distinction perhaps is work for pay if able-bodied...compassionate conservatism.

What most people fail to understand is the difference between a republic, which we have, and a democracy, which we don't and is essentially mob rule. There is very little distintion, between our two parties which is why I think conservative and liberal are more helpful distinctions. There also needs to be a distinction here over social and fiscal issues. Where it gets tricky is where they overlap.

Essentially our goals are the same. It's the paths we take to get there that make the difference.

 

This.

in point of fact. it was the Republicans who made the civil rights act law in the '60's and it was opposed by the Democratic party of the day. same with the Immansapation Proclomation in the 1800's. In Canada it was, i believe, a conservative or Tory appointed govenor of Upper Canada, this was before the war of 1812 who banned slavery in what is now Canada ( this was the first time in the whole of the British Empire, and started the abolishenist movement world wide.)

 

This is disingenuous. I suspect that, being a very intelligent person, you know full well that the Republicans of Lincoln's time and the Democrats of the 1950s are both very different creatures from either today's Republicans or Democrats. The fact of the matter is that racist people are less likely to support Democrats these days, due to the Southern Strategy, which is a crucial fact you're omitting in order to make the claims that you are now.

It doesn't matter what the names of the parties are; it matters what their current perspectives are. Many of the most powerful Republicans currently appeal to the most hateful elements of our society, and they are successful in getting support from them. That strategy is still largely successful, even if it is slightly weakening now. That's just the fact of the matter. And while I understand that all of you folks here are compassionate people, the way your preferred party behaves, I'm afraid, does not reflect your higher values.

 

Then why are you speaking English?

My problem with too many conservatives is that they support progress and change only as far as it benefits them. It's why a lot of young liberals turn conservative; they go well and assume that the troubles they had earlier in life are surmountable by everyone else, not that they were fortunate.

You can't be conservative on gender equality and also be in favour of ending the gender pay-gap. You're can't be pro-gay and be conservative on LGBT issues - conservatism is, at its core and in definition, the prevention of change. Of course, there are pragmatic conservatives and conservatives who believe in change in smaller areas, but the ideology is based on keeping society as it is.

 

Not really. If anything, London is less racially segregated than comparable American cities - London is referred to as Londonistan because it has a large non-white population - nothing more, nothing less. It has nothing to do with immigrants refusing to adopt our customs.

If you visit London and explore the city away from the cliched tourist areas, you will discover that there are no immigrant ghettos here, or ethnic enclaves. They just don't exist.

 

I believe I was misread I did not say that London was segregated, but was referring to those "in some parts" of society refer to London as Londonistan. I refer you to the book by the same name, by Melanie Phillips, which is largely a critique of multiculturalism. That "benign neglect" has led to a potential powder keg of Islamist terrorism. I have lived in London for several years and have found very similar prejudices to those found here in the States.

As to another comment that somehow I should be perhaps speaking one of the naitive Senacan languagues is ridiculous. As an Australian, the same could be said of you. What you're advocating is the Balkanization of our nations and you're looking at history through 21st century eyes rather the perspective of the time. Why for centuries was Latin the universal language? There are perks to being the victors, including the writing of history. Your treatment of the aboriginal peoples of your country is no better than ours.

To add to that I had already admitted that social issuse and fiscal issues do not always follow hand in glove.

Pret Allez - "A touch, a touch. I do declare a touch." If the party today is not the party of yesterday I still embrace it's ideals over that of the liberals. I am not a creature of the party, but rather I am my own person. I acknowledge there are flaws in both parties, but ultimately the people pulling the strings are big money they may be advocating socialism for everyone, but themselves. Even Wall Street supported Obama, because it was in their best interests. I truly respect your opinion and welcome your challenges. When we've crossed swords you've provided much food for thought.

 

No, conservative leaning people never shift to the left. The left tends to shift more towards the center nowadays. The only way to rid such conservatives with logic from a time that doesn't exist anymore is to vote them out. Younger Republicans tend to be more intact with today's times, but most that I know have registered under Libertarian or Independent, so there doesn't seem that there is much hope that it will change for the party any time soon. Many conservatives I know are smart and support gay rights. I also know many who just oppose them because they're anti-anything left. Although, I feel it is not conservatives that are the problem, it is the one's in office.

 

I caution against trying to separate social and economic issues. They are intrinsically linked. Employment discriminiation on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identifty is an economic issue. So is the lack of marriage equality. A town or city with pervasive bigotry, whether racial or sexual, is less likely to attract higher paying jobs for the skilled workforce, because said skilled workforce doesn't want to live in bigoted places.

I hope that you don't think I identifed you with the craven sort who exploits fear and hatred to win votes, and I think I took a few steps to suggest I meant otherwise. My wish, rather, was to point out that previously, the behavior of your preferred party has not been consistent with your values.

I don't have even a moment's doubt of your compassionate-mindedness.

I only hope that Republicans drop appeals to homophobia and transphobia altogether and return to arguing for their economic policies on their own merits alone.

 

Never?

Kind of an overstatement. I can name a few instances off the top of my head of "older" conservatives shifting toward the left.

John McCain, Marco Rubio and other Republicans on immigration, Republican governors allowing the expansion of Medicaid into states (John Kasich being one), and George W. Bush was liberal in a few ways (prescription drug program, No Child Left Behind being two).

 

Never was an exaggeration, of course it had to happen in a few instances. Not many at all though. Most Republicans I hear talk about McCain don't even consider him conservative & dislike him, same for Christie. For the most part, they aren't shifting. I don't even feel it's because of their real views, I feel it is because they feel they will lose popularity.

 

Because they don't know what they're talking about.

Both are conservative, just not Tea Partiers.

 

well what conservative actually means is the keeping the old ways. Technically im a Liberal yet in the classical sense. Conservative probably means something different in Europe (perhaps Fascist?)