Conservatism Does Not Equal Racism

[Craig Lamson]

You made a very silly statement. "However, it is accurate to say that in a historical sense, all racists are conservatives. " Whats even more troubling is that this statement is coming from an educator.

John introduced the concept of conservative and liberal AS IT APPLIED to US politics in the 60's cival rights era. So it seems to me this is not being viewed through a socialist european lens but rather the lens of US politics in the 60's (and today if you consider Gratz into the picture).

That aside, there is no way in this world that John can support his statement about all racists bring conservatives.

As you have made reference to my status as an educator” let me first provide my academic credentials. I have taught American history for over 25 years. I am also the author of the book "Race Relations in the United States" (1988) and the creator of the "Encyclopaedia of the American Civil Rights Movement":

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAcivilrights.htm

We will also need to define what we mean by the term “conservative”. The term comes from the Latin word “servare” which meant to “keep and preserve”. The word was first used in a political sense by J. Wilson Croker in 1830. The word still retains the meaning that it did in the 19th century. That is, to describe a political ideology is that is “resistant to change” or “opposed to liberal reforms”.

The political liberal comes from the Latin word “liber” which meant freedom. In Europe in the 18th century the word liberal began to mean “tolerance” and “lack of prejudice”. Later the term “liberal” was used to describe a political party (in the same way that “conservative” was used by those on the right of the political spectrum). Starting from the 19th century, conservative political parties became defenders of the “status quo” whereas liberals were in favour of reform.

Now let us look at the struggle for civil rights in the United States. The beginning of the modern movement can be dated to the formation of National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) in 1909.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAnaacp.htm

The NAACP was established by Mary White Ovington, a journalist working for the New York Post. This was as a response to reading an article by William English Walling, entitled "Race War in the North", that described the atrocities being carried out against African-Americans. Walling ended the article by calling for "a powerful body of citizens to come to their aid".

Both Ovington and Walling were both members of the American Socialist Party. However, early supporters included members of the Republican and Democratic parties. In all cases, they identified with the “liberal” or “left” wing of the party. This is understandable as the leadership of the two main political parties were opposed to the NAACP campaign for equal rights.

The NAACP campaigned against what was known as “Jim Crow” laws. After the American Civil War most states in the South passed anti-African American legislation. This included laws that discriminated against African Americans with concern to attendance in public schools and the use of facilities such as restaurants, theaters, hotels, cinemas and public baths. Trains and buses were also segregated and in many states marriage between whites and African American people was illegal.

It was these “Jim Crow” laws that inspired Hitler. He claimed that the legislation used against Jews in Nazi Germany was based on those used against blacks in America. He concluded from this that the United States would never go to war against Germany on the grounds of racism. Hitler was of course right about this. It took the bombing of Pearl Harbor for the Americans to get involved in the war.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAjimcrow.htm

The NAACP also fought a long campaign against lynching. In 1919 it published Thirty Years of Lynching in the United States: 1889-1918. The NAACP also paid for large adverts in major newspapers presenting the facts about lynching. To show that the members of the organization would not be intimidated, it held its 1920 annual conference in Atlanta, considered at the time to be one of the most active Ku Klux Klan areas in America.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAlynching.htm

The term lynching probably derived from the name Charles Lynch (1736-96), a justice of the peace who administered rough justice in Virginia. Lynching was originally a system of punishment used by whites against African American slaves. However, whites who protested against this were also in danger of being lynched. On 7th November, 1837, Elijah Parish Lovejoy, the editor of the Alton Observer, was killed by a white mob after he had published articles criticizing lynching and advocating the abolition of slavery.

After the establishment of the Ku Klux Klan in 1867 the number of lynching of African American increased dramatically. The main objective of the KKK was to maintain white supremacy in the South, which they felt was under threat after their defeat in the Civil War. It has been estimated that between 1880 and 1920, an average of two African Americans a week were lynched in the United States.

In 1884 Ida Wells, editor of Free Speech, a small newspaper in Memphis, carried out an investigation into lynching. She discovered during a short period 728 black men and women had been lynched by white mobs. Of these deaths, two-thirds were for small offences such as public drunkenness and shoplifting.

George Henry White, the last former slave to serve in Congress and the only African American in the House of Representatives, proposed a bill in January, 1901 that would have made lynching of American citizens a federal crime. He argued that any person participating actively in or acting as an accessory in a lynching should be convicted of treason. White pointed out that lynching was being used by white mobs in the Deep South to terrorize African Americans. He illustrated this by showing that of the 109 people lynched in 1899, 87 were African Americans. Despite White's passionate plea, the bill was easily defeated.

There was a decline in lynching during the First World War but more than seventy blacks were murdered in this way in the year after the war ended. Ten black soldiers, several still in their army uniforms, were amongst those lynched. Between 1919 and 1922, a further 239 blacks were lynched by white mobs and many more were killed by individual acts of violence and unrecorded lynchings. In none of these cases was a white person punished for these crimes. Several trade unionists were also lynched. This included two members of the Industrial Workers of the World, Frank Little (1917) and Wesley Everest (1919).

Dr. Arthur Raper was commissioned in 1930 to produce a report on lynching. He discovered that "3,724 people were lynched in the United States from 1889 through to 1930. Over four-fifths of these were Negroes, less than one-sixth of whom were accused of rape. Practically all of the lynchers were native whites. The fact that a number of the victims were tortured, mutilated, dragged, or burned suggests the presence of sadistic tendencies among the lynchers. Of the tens of thousands of lynchers and onlookers, only 49 were indicted and only 4 have been sentenced."

The NAACP hoped that the election of Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1932 would bring an end to lynching. Two African American campaigners against lynching, Mary McLeod Bethune and Walter Francis White, had been actively involved in helping Roosevelt to obtain victory. The president's wife, Eleanor Roosevelt, had also been a long-time opponent of lynching.

Robert F. Wagner (Democrat) and Edward Costigan (Republican) agreed to draft a bill that would punish the crime of lynching. In 1935 attempts were made to persuade Roosevelt to support the Costigan-Wagner bill. However, Roosevelt refused to speak out in favour of the bill that would punish sheriffs who failed to protect their prisoners from lynch mobs. He argued that the white voters in the South would never forgive him if he supported the bill and he would therefore lose the next election.

The Costian-Wagner Act received support from liberal members of both parties, however, the conservatives in Congress were in the majority and the legislation was easily defeated. You can now see why Hitler did not fear being criticized by American politicians.

The NAACP continued in its struggle against Jim Crow laws and lynching. It was joined in the struggle against this tyranny by left-wing political parties such as the American Socialist Party, American Labor Party and the American Communist Party. However, the two mainstream political parties refused to adopt policies against this racist ideology.

The 1940s saw important developments in the struggle for civil rights. In 1941 Philip Randolph and Baynard Rustin began to organize a march to Washington to protest against discrimination in the defense industries. In May, 1941, Randolph issued a "Call to Negro America to March on Washington for Jobs and Equal Participation in National Defense on July, 1, 1941". By June estimates of the number of people expecting to participate reached 100,000. Roosevelt attempted to persuade Randolph and Rustin call off the demonstration. When this failed, Roosevelt issued Executive Order 8802 barring discrimination in defence industries and federal bureaus (the Fair Employment Act). As a result of this action Randolph called off his proposed march.

In 1942 three members of the Fellowship of Reconciliation (FOR), George Houser, James Farmer and Berniece Fisher established the Congress on Racial Equality (CORE). Members of CORE had been deeply influenced by the teachings of Mahatma Gandhi and the nonviolent civil disobedience campaign that he used successfully against British rule in India. The students became convinced that the same methods could be employed by African Americans to obtain civil rights in America.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAfor.htm

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAcore.htm

In early 1947, the Congress on Racial Equality announced plans to send eight white and eight black men into the Deep South to test the Supreme Court ruling that declared segregation in interstate travel unconstitutional. Organized by George Houser and Bayard Rustin, the Journey of Reconciliation was to be a two week pilgrimage through Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee and Kentucky.

The Journey of Reconciliation began on 9th April, 1947. The team included George Houser, Bayard Rustin, James Peck, Igal Roodenko, Nathan Wright, Conrad Lynn, Wallace Nelson, Andrew Johnson, Eugene Stanley, Dennis Banks, William Worthy, Louis Adams, Joseph Felmet, Worth Randle and Homer Jack.

Members of the Journey of Reconciliation team were arrested several times. In North Carolina, two of the African Americans, Bayard Rustin and Andrew Johnson, were found guilty of violating the state's Jim Crow bus statute and were sentenced to thirty days on a chain gang. However, Judge Henry Whitfield made it clear he found that behaviour of the white men even more objectionable. He told Igal Roodenko and Joseph Felmet: "It's about time you Jews from New York learned that you can't come down her bringing your niggers with you to upset the customs of the South. Just to teach you a lesson, I gave your black boys thirty days, and I give you ninety."

The Journey of Reconciliation was the start of a long campaign of direct action by the Congress on Racial Equality. It was followed by the formation of organizations such as the The American for Democratic Action (ADA), Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) and Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC).

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAada.htm

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAsclc.htm

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAsncc.htm

As we now know, it was because of the efforts of these organizations that eventually brought an end to Jim Crow laws and lynchings (although a large number of white and black civil rights activists were murdered while working for equality in the southern states).

In all my research of the civil rights movement in the United States I have studied the lives of hundreds of brave men and women who risked their own well-being in order to overcome injustice. I found plenty of liberals, socialists, communists and others of various left-wing views. However, I have yet to discover one who could be described as a conservative. After all, they were all too busy defending the status quo.

Why the huge post to cover your main failing...a statement that can't be supported..ie all racists are conservative. Regardless of your lenghtly credentials this is a statement thats over the top John.

Edited February 20, 2006 by Craig Lamson

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

Why the huge post to cover your main failing...a statement that can't be supported..ie all racists are conservative. Regardless of your lenghtly credentials this is a statement thats over the top John.

Craig, if John posted his CV, it was due to your prior statement about his observation that racists were conservatives: "Whats even more troubling is that this statement is coming from an educator." That seemed to be a slam against his academic credentials, so he itemized them for you. It doesn't seem an unreasonable response, to my mind at least.

As for the size of John's post, it was lengthy for a reason. It offered up, among many other things, the linguistic origins for coining the terms "conservative" and "liberal." The former applies to those who would uphold the status quo, even if that status quo included laws based upon racial bias; the latter applies to those who would alter the status quo in order to achieve a legal equality for all citizens, irrespective of race, religion or gender. Clearly, there is sufficient difference between them that some are drawn to the one, while some are compelled toward the other. If they were interchangeable, there'd be little incentive to choose between them.

Where this gets sticky, I think, is in terms of applying those philosophies to real-life situations. I would presume, for example and perhaps incorrectly, that you self-identify as a "conservative" and therefore get irritated at the suggestion that racists are, by definition, "conservative." [Not, one notes, that all "conservatives" are racist. That would be an untrue and indefensible position.]

Presumably, you are suggesting that "liberals" can nevertheless be racist. That is also true, but what it really points out clearly is that those who self-identify as being "liberal" - but who do harbour racism in their souls - are not true to their own philosophy.

To make the situation even muddier in terms of your own nation's history, both Republican and Democratic parties have historically pandered to the racist constituency when it suited their own political goals. Hence, Stephen Turner's observation that, from a non-US point of view the parties seem less distinct than they do to US citizens; that, while the Democratic party may have espoused racial equality, individual members of that party [Dixiecrats, Boll-Weevil Democrats, et al], continued to militate against racial equality, despite being members of the party that considered itself a champion of human rights. This illustrates only the disparity between what one claims to be, and what one is, in truth. [it is equally true that a good, conservative Republican could nevertheless stand four-square against segregation and legal discrimination against minority rights.]

In its most stark terms, if one were to poll the crowd gathered at a lynching of a black citizen in the previous century, those who self-identified as being "conservatives" would at least have the distinction of telling the truth about their political philosophy; those attendees who self-identified as being "liberal" would mark themselves as being liars, and untrue to their own stated ethos. By definition, a "liberal" would never attend such an event, or would have used all means - legal and otherwise - to prevent that sad occasion from coming to pass.

Unfortunately, there is no shortage of hypocricy in politics, just as is true of religion. The Bible stipulates that "Thou shalt not kill." It is not a hint, or a friendly suggestion, but a Commandment. Nevertheless, there are any number of people who self-identify as good, God-fearing Christians, yet demand the death penalty, or see nothing wrong in waging pointless wars, killing in the name of peace. [Rather like fornicating in the purported furtherance of chastity.] It is not the ideal [The Bible] that is at fault, but those who claim to seek the ideal, yet fall far short.

If you really want to identify a true "liberal," don't watch his lips or listen to his words. Watch his deeds, for it is "by their fruits, ye shall know them."

[Royce Bierma]

Why the huge post to cover your main failing...a statement that can't be supported..ie all racists are conservative. Regardless of your lenghtly credentials this is a statement thats over the top John.

Craig, if John posted his CV, it was due to your prior statement about his observation that racists were conservatives: "Whats even more troubling is that this statement is coming from an educator." That seemed to be a slam against his academic credentials, so he itemized them for you. It doesn't seem an unreasonable response, to my mind at least.

As for the size of John's post, it was lengthy for a reason. It offered up, among many other things, the linguistic origins for coining the terms "conservative" and "liberal." The former applies to those who would uphold the status quo, even if that status quo included laws based upon racial bias; the latter applies to those who would alter the status quo in order to achieve a legal equality for all citizens, irrespective of race, religion or gender. Clearly, there is sufficient difference between them that some are drawn to the one, while some are compelled toward the other. If they were interchangeable, there'd be little incentive to choose between them.

Where this gets sticky, I think, is in terms of applying those philosophies to real-life situations. I would presume, for example and perhaps incorrectly, that you self-identify as a "conservative" and therefore get irritated at the suggestion that racists are, by definition, "conservative." [Not, one notes, that all "conservatives" are racist. That would be an untrue and indefensible position.]

Presumably, you are suggesting that "liberals" can nevertheless be racist. That is also true, but what it really points out clearly is that those who self-identify as being "liberal" - but who do harbour racism in their souls - are not true to their own philosophy.

To make the situation even muddier in terms of your own nation's history, both Republican and Democratic parties have historically pandered to the racist constituency when it suited their own political goals. Hence, Stephen Turner's observation that, from a non-US point of view the parties seem less distinct than they do to US citizens; that, while the Democratic party may have espoused racial equality, individual members of that party [Dixiecrats, Boll-Weevil Democrats, et al], continued to militate against racial equality, despite being members of the party that considered itself a champion of human rights. This illustrates only the disparity between what one claims to be, and what one is, in truth. [it is equally true that a good, conservative Republican could nevertheless stand four-square against segregation and legal discrimination against minority rights.]

In its most stark terms, if one were to poll the crowd gathered at a lynching of a black citizen in the previous century, those who self-identified as being "conservatives" would at least have the distinction of telling the truth about their political philosophy; those attendees who self-identified as being "liberal" would mark themselves as being liars, and untrue to their own stated ethos. By definition, a "liberal" would never attend such an event, or would have used all means - legal and otherwise - to prevent that sad occasion from coming to pass.

Unfortunately, there is no shortage of hypocricy in politics, just as is true of religion. The Bible stipulates that "Thou shalt not kill." It is not a hint, or a friendly suggestion, but a Commandment. Nevertheless, there are any number of people who self-identify as good, God-fearing Christians, yet demand the death penalty, or see nothing wrong in waging pointless wars, killing in the name of peace. [Rather like fornicating in the purported furtherance of chastity.] It is not the ideal [The Bible] that is at fault, but those who claim to seek the ideal, yet fall far short.

If you really want to identify a true "liberal," don't watch his lips or listen to his words. Watch his deeds, for it is "by their fruits, ye shall know them."

Robert, just a minor correction here. The commandment, "Thou shalt not kill", in the original Hebrew language means "Thou shalt not murder" Therefore, the Bible makes a distinction between murder and killing, a valid one. Also, there is nothing in being conservative that wouldn't also make them be untrue to their identity, if and when they are racist. The majority of conservatives in the early sixties would have rightly deplored a lynching, and would not have attended such an event. "If one were to poll the crowd gathering at a lynching in the past century, those who self-identified as conservatives would at least have the distinction of telling the truth about their political philosophy." Nonsense, Robert. You're setting a scene in the deep South and then from that extrapolating that conservatives by attending such an event as though it were some spectator sort, were being true to their philosophy. Who says the essence of conservatism has anything to do with racism? That's a planted assumption you make in your definition. It's way off the mark and contradicted by the lives of many genuine conservatives. You must think of the Ku Klux Klan as an arm of conservatism. It just wasn't the case then, and isn't now. I could point to the thuggish behavior of the Black Panther Party in the sixties, and then suggest that this is true to the self-definition of liberalism, but that too would be unfair.

Roy Bierma

[Guest Stephen Turner]

[you really want to identify a true "liberal," don't watch his lips or listen to his words. Watch his deeds, for it is "by their fruits, ye shall know them."[/color]

. I could point to the thuggish behavior of the Black Panther Party in the sixtiesthis is true to the self-definition of liberalism, but that too would be unfair.

Roy Bierma

Yes it would, it would also be taking a complex scenario, and simplyfing it beyond reason.

[Craig Lamson]

Why the huge post to cover your main failing...a statement that can't be supported..ie all racists are conservative. Regardless of your lenghtly credentials this is a statement thats over the top John.

Craig, if John posted his CV, it was due to your prior statement about his observation that racists were conservatives: "Whats even more troubling is that this statement is coming from an educator." That seemed to be a slam against his academic credentials, so he itemized them for you. It doesn't seem an unreasonable response, to my mind at least.

As for the size of John's post, it was lengthy for a reason. It offered up, among many other things, the linguistic origins for coining the terms "conservative" and "liberal." The former applies to those who would uphold the status quo, even if that status quo included laws based upon racial bias; the latter applies to those who would alter the status quo in order to achieve a legal equality for all citizens, irrespective of race, religion or gender. Clearly, there is sufficient difference between them that some are drawn to the one, while some are compelled toward the other. If they were interchangeable, there'd be little incentive to choose between them.

Where this gets sticky, I think, is in terms of applying those philosophies to real-life situations. I would presume, for example and perhaps incorrectly, that you self-identify as a "conservative" and therefore get irritated at the suggestion that racists are, by definition, "conservative." [Not, one notes, that all "conservatives" are racist. That would be an untrue and indefensible position.]

Presumably, you are suggesting that "liberals" can nevertheless be racist. That is also true, but what it really points out clearly is that those who self-identify as being "liberal" - but who do harbour racism in their souls - are not true to their own philosophy.

To make the situation even muddier in terms of your own nation's history, both Republican and Democratic parties have historically pandered to the racist constituency when it suited their own political goals. Hence, Stephen Turner's observation that, from a non-US point of view the parties seem less distinct than they do to US citizens; that, while the Democratic party may have espoused racial equality, individual members of that party [Dixiecrats, Boll-Weevil Democrats, et al], continued to militate against racial equality, despite being members of the party that considered itself a champion of human rights. This illustrates only the disparity between what one claims to be, and what one is, in truth. [it is equally true that a good, conservative Republican could nevertheless stand four-square against segregation and legal discrimination against minority rights.]

In its most stark terms, if one were to poll the crowd gathered at a lynching of a black citizen in the previous century, those who self-identified as being "conservatives" would at least have the distinction of telling the truth about their political philosophy; those attendees who self-identified as being "liberal" would mark themselves as being liars, and untrue to their own stated ethos. By definition, a "liberal" would never attend such an event, or would have used all means - legal and otherwise - to prevent that sad occasion from coming to pass.

Unfortunately, there is no shortage of hypocricy in politics, just as is true of religion. The Bible stipulates that "Thou shalt not kill." It is not a hint, or a friendly suggestion, but a Commandment. Nevertheless, there are any number of people who self-identify as good, God-fearing Christians, yet demand the death penalty, or see nothing wrong in waging pointless wars, killing in the name of peace. [Rather like fornicating in the purported furtherance of chastity.] It is not the ideal [The Bible] that is at fault, but those who claim to seek the ideal, yet fall far short.

If you really want to identify a true "liberal," don't watch his lips or listen to his words. Watch his deeds, for it is "by their fruits, ye shall know them."

I was well aware of Johns's CV prior to his posting of it. And quite frank it only makes his statement even more silly.

You have touched on the very basis if the problem here and that is the use of labels. Being conservative or liberal is situational. Its not uncommon for a "liberal" to be quite "conservative" based on the situation. And the opposite is also true. For example, using Johns defination of conservative and liberal, we have to say the the liberal NEA in the US is conservative because they oppose school vouchers while the conservative segments of US society who favor vouchers are liberal.

Making a blanket statement as John did was indeed silly because it was based on a broad label. The problem is compounded when the statement is made by an educator who should know better.

Edited February 20, 2006 by Craig Lamson

[Tim Carroll]

You have touched on the very basis if the problem here and that is the use of labels. Being conservative or liberal is situational. Its not uncommon for a "liberal" to be quite "conservative" based on the situation. And the opposite is also true. For example, using Johns defination of conservative and liberal, we have to say the the liberal NEA in the US is conservative because they oppose school vouchers while the conservative segments of US society who favor vouchers are liberal.

The example betrays the point. Conservatives favor school vouchers because they view education itself as a social program which should be either limited, cut back or done away with. Vouchers are a slippery slope toward that end. The labels liberal and conservative generally hold up. A better example of a situational conservatism would be when the belief in balanced budgets is thrown out the window like so much trash when the pretense of war can promote massive military industrial expenditures. John Simkin is correct in his statement that while not all conservatives are racists, all racists are conservatives.

T.C.

[Craig Lamson]

You have touched on the very basis if the problem here and that is the use of labels. Being conservative or liberal is situational. Its not uncommon for a "liberal" to be quite "conservative" based on the situation. And the opposite is also true. For example, using Johns defination of conservative and liberal, we have to say the the liberal NEA in the US is conservative because they oppose school vouchers while the conservative segments of US society who favor vouchers are liberal.

The example betrays the point. Conservatives favor school vouchers because they view education itself as a social program which should be either limited, cut back or done away with. Vouchers are a slippery slope toward that end. The labels liberal and conservative generally hold up. A better example of a situational conservatism would be when the belief in balanced budgets is thrown out the window like so much trash when the pretense of war can promote massive military industrial expenditures. John Simkin is correct in his statement that while not all conservatives are racists, all racists are conservatives.

T.C.

"Conservatives favor school vouchers because they view education itself as a social program which should be either limited, cut back or done away with"

Oh please...tell me that you made this statement in jest.

So, you and John are telling me that there have never been or will never be, racists who are socialists, communists or liberals? If thats the case I've some prime swamp land for sale ...

[John Simkin]

So, you and John are telling me that there have never been or will never be, racists who are socialists, communists or liberals? If thats the case I've some prime swamp land for sale ...

That is another issue altogether. Sure there are people who call themselves "socialist", "communists" and "liberals" who are racist.

I am still waiting for you to name somebody who was a "conservative" who took a leading role in the civil rights movement.

[Guest Stephen Turner]

interesting, I have known many people who not only described themselves as Socialists, but more importantly, acted like it to. These people could be accused of many things, Some where self important, short tempered, loud. but I can say, hand on heart, none were racist. On the other hand many trade unionists of my acquaintance some in positions of authority, have been both racist, and sexist.

[Shanet Clark]

Structural economic prejudices are and were endemic in

everyday banking, shopping, housing and opportunities

for blacks in the US

If Scalia and Alito were around in the Cold War we would have no civil rights, just redlined "white" areas

and If Bush? Cheney? and Rumsfeld? were around in the Cold War, then

you know

we would all be /dead?

[Craig Lamson]

So, you and John are telling me that there have never been or will never be, racists who are socialists, communists or liberals? If thats the case I've some prime swamp land for sale ...

That is another issue altogether. Sure there are people who call themselves "socialist", "communists" and "liberals" who are racist.

I am still waiting for you to name somebody who was a "conservative" who took a leading role in the civil rights movement.

I already did...the members of the republican party in both the house and the senate who voted to make the civil rights act a law of the land. It seems to me they played the most important role of all. Unless you consider them liberals.

You are still dodging the point John.

How about this one. Is Tim Carroll a liberal? Is Tim Carroll a racist?

Edited February 20, 2006 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

You have touched on the very basis if the problem here and that is the use of labels. Being conservative or liberal is situational. Its not uncommon for a "liberal" to be quite "conservative" based on the situation. And the opposite is also true. For example, using Johns defination of conservative and liberal, we have to say the the liberal NEA in the US is conservative because they oppose school vouchers while the conservative segments of US society who favor vouchers are liberal.

The example betrays the point. Conservatives favor school vouchers because they view education itself as a social program which should be either limited, cut back or done away with. Vouchers are a slippery slope toward that end. The labels liberal and conservative generally hold up. A better example of a situational conservatism would be when the belief in balanced budgets is thrown out the window like so much trash when the pretense of war can promote massive military industrial expenditures. John Simkin is correct in his statement that while not all conservatives are racists, all racists are conservatives.

T.C.

Just so I know exactly where you stand.

Are you a liberal, socialist or a conservative?

Do you support school vouchers?

[Tim Carroll]

If Scalia and Alito were around in the Cold War we would have no civil rights, just redlined "white" areas....

Liberals in America, especially at more local levels, have taken to using the less loaded word: "progressive." A general model of liberalism would involve social tolerance and economic progress for the disenfranchised, while conservativism relates to maintenance of the status quo. In the case of this extemist breed of conservatives known as Neo Cons (neo Conservatives), I think of them as Neo Confederates. They don't just seek to maintain the status quo, they actually seek to roll back the clock to antebellum days by undoing Social Security and Public Education. They oppose a liveable minimum wage, socialized medicine and generally opportunity for all. Their policies widen the gap between haves and have-nots. They claim to be against big government yet always seek to expand governmental authority. They claim to be against taxes while enabling predatory corporate policies that raise the cost of life's essentials. Refusing to recognize education as a social necessity, as fundamental as infrastructure and law enforcement, they hypocritically promote school vouchers in the name of freedom of choice. This is analogous to disaster relief workers handing out vouchers for Evian to people who choose or don't need the regular water.

T.C.

[Craig Lamson]

If Scalia and Alito were around in the Cold War we would have no civil rights, just redlined "white" areas....

Liberals in America, especially at more local levels, have taken to using the less loaded word: "progressive." A general model of liberalism would involve social tolerance and economic progress for the disenfranchised, while conservativism relates to maintenance of the status quo. In the case of this extemist breed of conservatives known as Neo Cons (neo Conservatives), I think of them as Neo Confederates. They don't just seek to maintain the status quo, they actually seek to roll back the clock to antebellum days by undoing Social Security and Public Education. They oppose a liveable minimum wage, socialized medicine and generally opportunity for all. Their policies widen the gap between haves and have-nots. They claim to be against big government yet always seek to expand governmental authority. They claim to be against taxes while enabling predatory corporate policies that raise the cost of life's essentials. Refusing to recognize education as a social necessity, as fundamental as infrastructure and law enforcement, they hypocritically promote school vouchers in the name of freedom of choice. This is analogous to disaster relief workers handing out vouchers for Evian to people who choose or don't need the regular water.

T.C.

Good grief Tim, at least you could define neo-conservative properly.

But since you not answered my questions lets use your reply to Shanet instead to deal with your position on school vouchers. I think its pretty clear.

Your post shows you both a liberal and a racist. You are a racist because your stance denies poor black families the chance to choose the school of thier choice for their children. You are forcing them to send their children to lesser schools while those wth means have the choice of where to send their children. How nice of you to decide for these families how their childern will be educated. Too bad its a racist position. And from a liberal...or is that progressive now...impossible because all racists are conservative? Or are you really a situational conservative because you want to maintain the status quo? Its all just so confuing...trying to find that perfect broad label to fit.

And actually Tim its more like giving people vouchers for clean bottled water instead of forcing them to drink from a muddy creek.

[Tim Carroll]

Your post shows you both a liberal and a racist. You are a racist because your stance denies poor black families the chance to choose the school of thier choice for their children.

I'm a racist because I oppose school vouchers? For the record, my post made no mention of race. But since twisting the race issue is clearly Mr. Lamson's agenda, here's the NAACP's position on vouchers:

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) said today the Supreme Court decision upholding the use of taxpayer-paid school vouchers to send children to private schools will eventually leave public schools systems in dire straits. Kweisi Mfume, NAACP President & CEO, said:

"The congress and state legislatures should act immediately to counteract the court's decision. The NAACP opposes the use of taxpayer dollars to pay for school vouchers because it will mean fewer dollars for public schools where most Americans are educated. School voucher programs siphon scarce tax money away from struggling public schools. Education must be a fundamental guarantee for each child. This decision does nothing but further undercut the concept of universal quality public education, which has provided a means of upward economic and social mobility to generations of working-class families. Siphoning off funds meant for public education will, dollar-for-dollar, make it that much more difficult for public school systems--already falling behind the curve--to keep pace in their desperate efforts to modernize and become more efficient. Vouchers are a bandage not a cure. They don't solve the problems or the needs of public schools or the students who attend them. It's a matter of robbing Peter to pay Paul. This 5-4 Supreme Court decision legitimizes a concept of Robin Hood in reverse and says, 'it's ok to take more money from poor school systems.' In the end, it treats the symptoms, but offers no cure."

In a resolution approved two years ago, the NAACP Board of Directors voted its unqualified support of public education and denounced the use of public funds to support non-public school "choices."

T.C.

Edited February 20, 2006 by Tim Carroll