Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

Why's the idea of a "black conservative/libertarian" such an oxymoron?

thebluefood

By thebluefood
in The Tailgate

Recommended Posts

thebluefood

thebluefood

Posted
  • Author
Posted
The reason that black people, like Jews, immigrants, and other oppressed minorities, are Democrats is because they have realized that they need a strong federal government to protect them. When the descendants of slaves in America relied on local government and individual liberty, they lived under Jim Crow and segregation. They were only liberated by the massive (and maybe unconstitutional) intrusion of the federal government in Brown v. Board, the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, and other "big government" actions. Immigrants today face the same choice between local governments that seek to discriminate against them and a federal government trying to give them amnesty. Why would these minority groups choose small government when small government has consistently failed them?

Because at some point, we're going to go too far and at that point, we'll all be at risk at having the rug pulled from under us.

I don't trust people in authority (which some exceptions), especially politicians. They can easily be lulling us into a sense of complacency. Soon, more and more people will be looking to the government for everything; not just for its natural function, but for housing, clothing, food, and even luxury items.

Blacks in this country have made tremendous advances and we've contributed so much to our nation; but, to me, all of it stemmed from that spark of individual drive. What incentive will we have for that if the government is providing for us?

I won't disagree with you that some of those big government measures were very much needed; but we cannot let our guard down for a moment. If history has taught me something, it's that a government big enough to give you everything can take it all back in an instant.

Besides, if this country was ever really dedicated to libertarian values, slavery never would have been an issue since (with my understanding of it) it contradicts the belief that all men are naturally endowed with the rights to life, liberty, and property. Slaves are fortunate if they have one.

All I'm saying is that I'm not comfortable with putting my trust in people, including politicians. They can talk a great game, but their record is spotty when it's time to deliver.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DjTj

DjTj

Posted
Posted
Because at some point, we're going to go too far and at that point, we'll all be at risk at having the rug pulled from under us.
I think that's a fair concern, but I don't think most black people have gotten there yet. Most black people still believe that the government can help them achieve greater equality.

It is a process ... There was a time when almost all Catholics were Democrats because they were facing discrimination from Protestants. In the early history of the country, Southerners leaned Democrat because they felt oppressed by elitist Northerners. These groups eventually became more Republican as they gained more of their own power and were able to take care of themselves without government help.

I don't trust people in authority (which some exceptions), especially politicians. They can easily be lulling us into a sense of complacency. Soon, more and more people will be looking to the government for everything; not just for its natural function, but for housing, clothing, food, and even luxury items.
I think that's a strawman that is not really based in reality. But if you think that way, you're probably a Republican.
Blacks in this country have made tremendous advances and we've contributed so much to our nation; but, to me, all of it stemmed from that spark of individual drive. What incentive will we have for that if the government is providing for us?
Did individual drive lead the Civil Rights movement? To me, the successes in black history have largely been collectivist in nature. It was the ability to organize and cooperate that helped blacks break free of segregation. Individual action was not enough.
I won't disagree with you that some of those big government measures were very much needed; but we cannot let our guard down for a moment. If history has taught me something, it's that a government big enough to give you everything can take it all back in an instant.
Actually, Gerald Ford taught you that. I don't know exactly what historical examples you're thinking of where government tried to give people everything and then took it away.
Besides, if this country was ever really dedicated to libertarian values, slavery never would have been an issue since (with my understanding of it) it contradicts the belief that all men are naturally endowed with the rights to life, liberty, and property. Slaves are fortunate if they have one.
The most libertarian founders were slaveowners. It was really pretty easy when slaves were not considered men.
All I'm saying is that I'm not comfortable with putting my trust in people, including politicians. They can talk a great game, but their record is spotty when it's time to deliver.
Sure, and that's why you're a Republican. But the majority of blacks are not, and it's not necessarily because they trust politicians, but they trust a system where the government strongly enforces rules directed to fairness over one where individuals may be free to discriminate.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
nonniey

nonniey

Posted
Posted
And what happened to many of those Democrats (Dixiecrats)?

After the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was passed many of them they became Republicans.

I think you might be getting too caught up in labels without looking a little deeper.

Rather than look at the party title, look more into ideology.

Thats what I did.:2cents:

Bluefood has essentially got it right though. If you really delve into the ideology of the two parties you'll see the basic philosophy for the parties never really changed. The democrats believe in generally treating people according to their circumstances while the Republicans generally oppose treating people this way (I say generally because you'll find exceptions from time to time in specific policies but for the most part they go with those philosophies). An example is affirmative action philosphically the Democrats are supportive, while Republicans oppose it (of course slavery is another example).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
nonniey

nonniey

Posted
Posted
It's been alluded to already, but I think it's largely a legacy of the Civil Rights movement and what happened in the 1960's and 70's. There was a pretty clear line drawn in this country on the basis of freedom for all versus separate, but equal. The Republicans were on the Separate, but Equal side.

Race isn't as clear an issue these days thankfully and that means you can afford to look at ideologies for different reasons. You can look at their foreign policies, their economic policies, their environmental policies, etc and figure out which makes the better fit. For what it's worth, I don't think that conservatives are more racist than liberals or Repubs moreso than Dems. Each party has its own claim to ignorants. My problem with modern Conservative practice over the last ten years is two fold... it doesn't work and it's destructive.

Can you think of many things that the Bush Administration did with a Republican majority in Congress and a Conservative leaning Supreme Court did right? Did they balance the budget? Did they strengthen the economy? Did they defend our nation? Did they improve our schools? Did they stop abuse and corruption? Did they take care of our vets, first responders, soldiers, marines, sailors and others who have volunteered for this country? etc. etc. etc.

You can make an argument that they did defend the country or at least tried to. In the rest they failed and for the most part Conservatives cheered them on as they were failing and called anyone who disagreed or challenged them anti-American traitors.

I call utter and total BfS on your take of which side the Republicans were on. There was only only group that was on the side of seperate but equal and they were Democrats. Again it all comes down to the basic philosophy of treating people according to their circumstances or opposition to treating them that way. The reason the southern Democratics were democrats was because the Democratic party's philosophy of treating people according to their circumstance allows for such things as seperate but equal (as well as slavery). The reason many of them switched was due to opposition to the government policies designed rectify (such as affirmative action) what they as Democrats had previously implemented. These policies tie in with the basic philosophy of the Democratic party (treat people according to their circumstances).

Morally speaking the Republican philosophy is superior, which is why I'm a Republican.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DjTj

DjTj

Posted
Posted
I call utter and total BfS on your take of which side the Republicans were on. There was only only group that was on the side of seperate but equal and they were Democrats. Again it all comes down to the basic philosophy of treating people according to their circumstances or opposition to treating them that way. The reason the southern Democratics were democrats was because the Democratic party's philosophy of treating people according to their circumstance allows for such things as seperate but equal (as well as slavery). The reason many of them switched was due to opposition to the government policies designed rectify (such as affirmative action) what they as Democrats had previously implemented. These policies tie in with the basic philosophy of the Democratic party (treat people according to their circumstances).

Morally speaking the Republican philosophy is superior, which is why I'm a Republican.

If the Republican philosophy is to treat people equally, why are Republicans staunchly opposed to gay marriage? Why are Republicans so dedicated to preventing immigrants from becoming citizens? Why are Republicans in favor of racial profiling in airport security?

Sorry, but the Republicans picked up all of the bigot Dixiecrats during the Civil Rights movement. Any "moral superiority" that may have existed in Lincoln's time does not exist anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
thebluefood

thebluefood

Posted
  • Author
Posted
I call utter and total BfS on your take of which side the Republicans were on. There was only only group that was on the side of seperate but equal and they were Democrats. Again it all comes down to the basic philosophy of treating people according to their circumstances or opposition to treating them that way. The reason the southern Democratics were democrats was because the Democratic party's philosophy of treating people according to their circumstance allows for such things as seperate but equal (as well as slavery). The reason many of them switched was due to opposition to the government policies designed rectify (such as affirmative action) what they as Democrats had previously implemented. These policies tie in with the basic philosophy of the Democratic party (treat people according to their circumstances).

Morally speaking the Republican philosophy is superior, which is why I'm a Republican.

Now, see, I can't go along with this. I'm not talking about moral superiority here. I think both parties are full of crap and have their share of weasels. That's why I'm a libertarian. Let's not get too far ahead of ourselves and make Republicans out to be saints.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Burgold

Burgold

Posted
Posted

Not to mention... the history of the Civil Rights era just doesn't jibe with his revision. It ain't BS. It's the way it was. That doesn't mean that every Republican was racist or believed in separate, but equal... but during the 60's & 70's when the Civil Rights era was at its hottest that's the side the Republican Party officially chose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Baculus

Baculus

Posted
Posted
I call utter and total BfS on your take of which side the Republicans were on. There was only only group that was on the side of seperate but equal and they were Democrats. Again it all comes down to the basic philosophy of treating people according to their circumstances or opposition to treating them that way. The reason the southern Democratics were democrats was because the Democratic party's philosophy of treating people according to their circumstance allows for such things as seperate but equal (as well as slavery). The reason many of them switched was due to opposition to the government policies designed rectify (such as affirmative action) what they as Democrats had previously implemented. These policies tie in with the basic philosophy of the Democratic party (treat people according to their circumstances).

The fact that the Republican party accepted many of these disillusioned Dixiecrats that you just condemned into their party flies in defiance of your assertions.

In this day and age, who do you think sounds like the Dixiecrats, who believed in states' rights, were socially conservative, OPPOSED affirmative action, railed against immigrants and religious undesirables, and hated communists and liberals?

More to the point, as defined by Wiki: "[The Dixiecrats] originated as a breakaway faction of the Democratic Party in 1948, determined to protect what they portrayed as the Southern way of life beset by an oppressive federal government."

Here is the most telling tidbit: "Finally, the Dixiecrats, especially Strom Thurmond (Senator from 1954 to 2003) initiated a national political dialog on the dangers of an expansive federal government that threatened 'local control.' This theme was picked up by southern Republicans, who became a major element in the national GOP by the 1990s."

That is the same operational theme of today. BTW, who are some of the leading figures in the GOP and where do they come from?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixiecrat

Huh. So, does THAT sound like the modern Democratic or GOP philosophy?

I mean, really . . . Isn't it stunning that many of the Democratic Southern strongholds are now Republican (which is why some fear that it is becoming a sectional party, much like the Dixiecrats).

It's always strange when conservatives say, "Oh yeah, well what about those racist Southern Democrats?" when the party they usually support, the GOP, actually campaigned to get these people into their ranks. That being said, it doesn't take a ton of research to see that those Democrats which you disavowed are the fore-bearers of the modern Republican party (especially with the recent rise of right-wing populism). Either you don't realize it, or you're ignoring historical reality just so you can rail against the opposition.

Morally speaking the Republican philosophy is superior, which is why I'm a Republican.

And WHAT is this morally superior Republican philosophy? I would sure love to hear that, because I have my hammer and chisel ready and waiting.

---------- Post added December-19th-2010 at 02:50 AM ----------

Not to mention... the history of the Civil Rights era just doesn't jibe with his revision. It ain't BS. It's the way it was. That doesn't mean that every Republican was racist or believed in separate, but equal... but during the 60's & 70's when the Civil Rights era was at its hottest that's the side the Republican Party officially chose.

And not only that, but the liberal standard bearers of the GOP who were interested in civil rights are virtually non-existent, especially since they are now condemned as "RINOs." As a result, the NE liberal Republicans have been decimated as a group.

The GOP is not a Big Tent at this point in time: It's base has shrunk, descriptive wise, to a homogeneous group of people. This may be OK while you can rile up the conservative base and fear-monger political independents into votes, but it isn't sustainable as the face of the nation changes and expands.

---------- Post added December-19th-2010 at 03:13 AM ----------

You bring up good points, Baculus; and believe it or not, we're actually on the same page on a lot of things. My main concern is with the government and their involvement in the affairs of the people. I'm a firm believer in universal liberty; that it's not legislation that gets things going, but the efforts of individuals. It's that spark of ambition that makes things tick. Too much government intrusion, no matter how good the intentions, can stifle that ambition and can slow a nation down.

I am responding to this last paragraph since we don't seem to be terribly apart on some issues. It really comes down to mechanics: How does one enact change, positively affect society, one's own lot in life, their community, etc. For me, again, it comes down to efforts by individuals, the collective (community), and finally the government to legislatively cause change. (Burke would call these the "Little Platoons.") Even if you are a libertarian, that probably means that you accept at least a "watchman" form of governance based on rule of law and legislative bodies of some sort.

Let's use Rosa Parks as an example in our discussion. Her personal action in 1955 helped to inspire a group effort to oppose Jim Crow and segregationist laws in the South. This eventually led to marches, inspiring speeches, the deaths of (liberal) civil rights workers, freedom riders and boycotts, and strong personalities such as MLK and MalcomX, all of which eventually coalesced into the '64 and '65 acts. Now, you probably know all of this, but I wanted to show that society structurally operates on many levels, from an iron-willed woman, to a march of hundreds of thousands.

The self --> the group --> the Supra-group. In anthropological terms, it is similar to the evolution of society from bands, to chiefdoms, to the state.

Even if one believes in an atomistic individualism, atoms often form together into a greater union of a whole.

Individual action is important, but combine that with a bunch of like-minded people with a collective willpower . . well, you saw the rise of the Tea Party movement, many of whom are self-professed individualists, so solidarity and collective-political-will can be quite potent, and very American at that.

Otherwise, you're an anarchist who rejects the state and the idea of political parties, period, which is another discussion unto itself.

---------- Post added December-19th-2010 at 03:15 AM ----------

D'oh. All my posts became one mash-up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Seabee1973

Seabee1973

Posted
Posted
If the Republican philosophy is to treat people equally, why are Republicans staunchly opposed to gay marriage? Why are Republicans so dedicated to preventing immigrants from becoming citizens? Why are Republicans in favor of racial profiling in airport security?

Sorry, but the Republicans picked up all of the bigot Dixiecrats during the Civil Rights movement. Any "moral superiority" that may have existed in Lincoln's time does not exist anymore.

Because we are not pandering to voters by creating something that is not there. All humans should be treated as equal as humans not by some class to create votes for a certain party. Not all dixiecrats went to the republican party some stayed in the democrat party even including Robert Byrd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Baculus

Baculus

Posted
Posted
Because we are not pandering to voters by creating something that is not there. All humans should be treated as equal as humans not by some class to create votes for a certain party.

By "we," do you mean the GOP?

The GOP have done nothing but pander to conservatives, their fears and anger, for the last two years. Before that, the GOP have pandered to many other potential voters: The Dixiecrats, the Religious Right, libertarians, etc. Why do you think the GOP are suddenly opposing legislation that they helped to sponsor or that they once supported? From cap and trade, to mandatory heath insurance coverage, to the DREAM act, the GOP have flip-flipped on some of their former supposed causes. And it isn't because they "saw the light," either.

If Democrats are pandering to blacks and minorities, then the GOP are certainly pandering to whites on the Right.

Not all dixiecrats went to the republican party some stayed in the democrat party even including Robert Byrd.

Byrd stayed in the party and reformed his views. He had to do so, because his racist, segregationist sentiments did not represent the Democratic party as a whole and was odds with welfare liberalism, which strove to create both economic and social equality. Whatever you want to say about the Democrats and their racialist Southern Democratic past -- it's in the past for the party. That doesn't seem to be the case with the GOP, who appear to be going backwards in time, pining for the "good old days" before those mean federalists told the states what to do. This is why the GOP are glomming into people, like Beck and Limbaugh, that use dog whistle racial tactics to fire up their base.

Look at the distortions that were used to oppose the Dream Act, with Glenn Beck, the same person that said Obama hates "white people," telling his audience that whites in this country would be "toast" if the DREAM Act were passed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Seabee1973

Seabee1973

Posted
Posted
Uh, no. Byrd opposed his own party when he opposed the legislation in '64 and '65. The legislation that Democrat presidents pushed through Congress.

You really like giving shallow, one-line responses, don't cha?

Actually do a little research it was republicans that authored the bills. Democrats had enough votes to pass it without help from republicans but couldnt muster the votes it was republicans that authered and got it passed. Byrd never changed his colors neither did Fullbright, Gore and Wallace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Burgold

Burgold

Posted
Posted
Why are some people convinced their political beliefs are special? That's the better question.

No one wants to see themselves as the "bad guy" Therefore, if they've chosen sides they must be the good guy and the other guy must be the villain. Truth is, Lex Luthor, Dr. Doom, Gengis Khan... all Republicans.

Ghandi, Superman, Spider-Man all liberals and Democrats.

Is it enough to draw a conclusion about who the good guys and bad guys are? :whoknows:

As for the last forty years, been a heck of a lot more Republican Administrations in charge than Democratic ones. And the direction the United States has been going in except for the Clinton oasis???

Again, not saying it's conclusive... just pointing stuff out

So what's the over/under on who thinks this is a wholly serious thread when it was written with tongue firmly in cheek.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hubbs

Hubbs

Posted
Posted
No one wants to see themselves as the "bad guy" Therefore, if they've chosen sides they must be the good guy and the other guy must be the villain. Truth is, Lex Luthor, Dr. Doom, Gengis Khan... all Republicans.

Ghandi, Superman, Spider-Man all liberals and Democrats.

Is it enough to draw a conclusion about who the good guys and bad guys are? :whoknows:

Is this serious?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...