Talk:Conservatism in the United States/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

Evidence that the American civil rights movements was of major importance.

Under this heading, I will limit myself to what my research into the question has uncovered as to whether the American Civil Rights movement was or was not of major importance. If I had found any evidence to the contrary, I would have mentioned it.

"The civil rights movement was a heroic episode in American history." http://www.vahistorical.org/collections-and-resources/virginia-history-explorer/civil-rights-movement-virginia/legacy-civil

"Director of Legal Progress Andrew Blotky said, 'It bears remembering … that the most fundamental rights in our Constitution, from our nation’s founding all the way through to today, are civil rights. They are the most basic, most cherished, most fundamental rights in our democracy, and indeed are the subject of hard-fought battles for their expansion over the last two hundred years.'" https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/civil-liberties/news/2011/11/18/10692/the-enduring-importance-of-civil-rights/

"The civil rights movement deeply affected American society. Among its most important achievements were two major civil rights laws passed by Congress. These laws ensured constitutional rights for African Americans and other minorities. Although these rights were first guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution immediately after the Civil War, they had never been fully enforced. It was only after years of highly publicized civil rights demonstrations, marches, and violence that American political leaders acted to enforce these rights." http://www.crf-usa.org/black-history-month/the-civil-rights-act-of-1964

"The Importance of Civil Rights Litigation: Civil rights litigation has been tremendously important in this country, especially since the 1950s. The injunctions entered in civil rights cases have transformed a huge number of governmental institutions--schools, prisons, mental health facilities, housing authorities, police departments, child welfare agencies, etc. Injunctive cases have closed some institutions and opened others, dominated budget politics, become models for statutory interventions, and generally regulated practices. Thousands of such cases have been filed over the past fifty years and new cases are filed all the time; hundreds, old and new, are ongoing and remain influential." http://www.clearinghouse.net/about.php?s=import

"Considered the basic ingredients for democracy, civil rights protect personal liberty, guarantee equal access to public services and ensure the right to vote. Although originally granted only to a minority, these rights now extend to all citizens of the United States. Access to these rights has transformed the American political process and created a democracy where all of its citizens are guaranteed a voice." http://classroom.synonym.com/civil-rights-affect-democracy-united-states-5468.html

I think five clear references should settle this matter. If five don't, then five hundred would not. If you disagree, please supply references, with citations, and not your personal opinion.

I will next turn to the question of whether Civil Rights were or were not a divide between conservatives and liberals. As before, I will provide any reliable evidence against my assertion if it find any.

Rick Norwood (talk) 19:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Have you found any evidence yet on whether WW2, the Industrial Revolution, and the Homestead Act were important or not? VictorD7 (talk) 19:57, 6 July 2015 (UTC

Rick-- your popular blogs do not meet WP:RS standards. Unsigned items are not worth much (experts sign their work; summer interns do not). An embarrassing example is the last item, classroom.synonym.com, whose author says she is "completing a Bachelor Arts at the University of Oregon with double majors in linguistics and Spanish." You should use google books to find published secondary sources. Rjensen (talk) 20:48, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

But none of my sources are blogs, popular or otherwise. If you like, I'll withdraw the last item, since she doesn't have her degree yet, but even so I've offered four sources, you've offered none. Thank you for the suggestion of google books. I searched google scholar but to most authors the importance of the civil rights movement is so obvious that few see any need to mention it explicitly. Every American history mentions the civil rights movement, of course. But as VictorD7 suggests, it would be hard to find a source that says, in so many words, that the Industrial Revolution is noteworthy. I'll see what google books has to offer. Rick Norwood (talk) 22:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

<INSERT> That wasn't what I suggested. You've totally ignored everything I've said about the purpose of an article lede. VictorD7 (talk) 23:09, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

a) I agree with you on substance. b) I reject all your 5 cites--they do not meet wp:RS. they are anonymous or self-published by little known people or agencies. this is a MAJOR historical topic worked on by hundreds of serious scholars (who publish with university presses and sign their names.) Rjensen (talk) 22:43, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Very well. I am glad you agree with me on substance. And your suggestion of google books proved fruitful. Here are three sources I found there, and I trust we can move on to the question of whether the civil rights movement was a major issue between liberals and conservatives.

"The civil rights movement warrants such extensive examination because it had a profound effect on the modern South and the entire nation." The Civil Rights Movement in America, edited by Charles W. Eagles.

"Brown v. Board of Education is one of the most important decisions in the history of the Supreme Court." Brown v. Board of Education and the Civil Rights Movement, Michael V. Klarman, James Monroe professor of history, University of Virginia.

"The civil rights movement is one of the most significant moments in American history." Essays on the American Civil Rights Movement, John Ditmer, George C. Wright, and W. Marvin Dulaney.

Rick Norwood (talk) 22:50, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

We've already been discussing that all along. For example, please note the source Srnec posted in the above section, and our quotes from it. The "conservative coalition" focused on labor laws, Republicans and northern Democrats generally agreed on Civil Rights, while a "liberal coalition" of Democrats in both the north and south agreed on welfare, fiscal, and regulatory policies, in opposition to the more conservative Republicans. VictorD7 (talk) 23:16, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Read page 292, it seems the authors are considering only labor issues because racial segregation (among others like low wage rates and farming methods) "has roots in" these labor issues, so they are in essence "killing two birds with one stone" by discussing only labor issues (the authors also cite a second source in text to reaffirm this). Now this seems to circle back to the question of whether civil rights issues are important enough to deserve a mention (i.e. would we only mention labor issues and ignore the fact that views on racial segregation (which are arguably more significant historically) "had roots in" these labor issues?). Abierma3 (talk) 00:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Rjensen, it is rather difficult to carry on two conversations in different sections at once, so I will try to consolidate into one. Please see my above post for my comments on the source you referred to in your last post (in the other section). Also keep in mind the Rae source says, "Yet even given that the southern Democrats were not as monolithically on other questions as they were on civil rights, on the economic and social welfare issues of the time a majority of the southern members-reflecting the generally rural and small-town nature of their districts-tended more toward the Republican position. This provided the basis for the so-called conservative coalition of Republicans and southern Democrats that was originally constructed around opposition to Roosevelt's 'court-packing' bill in 1937." If we all agree that the influence the Conservative Coalition enabled conservatives to have is lead-worthy, what is wrong with briefly mentioning both segregation and labor/economic issues to properly explain the Conservative Coalition? Sources support this. Abierma3 (talk) 01:02, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

read page 293 table 3 shows: support for civil rights for blacks was 10% among So Dems, 72% among northern Dems, and 77% among Republicans in 1933-1950. Rjensen (talk) 00:56, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I am not surprised by this, as the Republican party in general was pro-black until at least up to the 1940s. However, it is possible to compromise on issues, and considering the influence the Conservative Coalition gave conservatives, a compromise on this issue certainly would seem possibly (this is me speculating here). Regardless, no one has explained or provided counter-sources as to why the Rae source emphasizes segregation as the basis for the Conservative Coalition. Abierma3 (talk) 01:09, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure precisely what supposedly being "pro-black" entails, but the Republican Party has never been anti-black, and passed and signed the Civil Rights Act of 1957. VictorD7 (talk) 04:25, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

No, Abierma. The study does look at civil rights, as Rjensen documents above, in addition to labor and other issues. It just separates them for precision. We've already quoted the article's conclusions, but they're worth repeating and expanding on here lest any observer reading this who hasn't clicked on the link himself have any doubt what the source's findings are.

(p 286) "…we demonstrate the emergence during the 1940s of three distinctive alliances: a bipartisan civil rights coalition linking nonsouthern Democrats and Republicans; a party-based liberal coalition joining nonsouthern and southern Democrats on welfare state, fiscal, regulatory, and planning issues; and a cross-party conservative coalition coupling southern Democrats and Republicans in the single area of labor policy."

(p 288) "On this basis we are able to identify highly distinctive civil rights, liberal, and conservative coalitions, with the latter limited to the policy domain of labor."

(p 288) "Apart from civil rights and labor questions, we find that southern and nonsouthern Democratic voting behavior was virtually indistinguishable."

(p 292,293) On the issues of planning, regulation, expansive fiscal policies, and welfare state programs…"Not only was there no southern veto, the South voted by large margins to expand the role of the national state in economic affairs and to redress existing patterns of economic distribution in the direction of more equality….Overall they voted on the liberal side in these four categories by a mean percentage yes vote of 75 (a level of support close to the nonsouthern Democratic percentage of 84). By contrast, Republicans opposed these measures just about as strongly as southern Democrats endorsed them. Southern antipathy to national state authority focused very specifically on interventions into the region’s race relations and labor markets. Otherwise, the region’s representatives favored by significant margins virtually all the fiscal, regulatory, planning, and welfare state measures of the New Deal and Fair Deal."

(p 296) "The conservative coalition was issue specific. Aside from labor questions, southern representatives did more than reject conservative Republican positions; they joined their nonsouthern colleagues to support much of the party’s social democratic agenda with a level of enthusiasm appropriate to a poor region with a heritage of opposition to big business and a history of support for regulation and redistribution. But with their resistance to civil rights, southerners perpetuated a “progressive” coalition that was inherently racist...".

The chart numbers mentioned by Rjensen on 293 and other pages are striking, and illustrate the absurdity of trying to make segregation into a "conservative" issue in the conservative/liberal split as the terms are used in modern America and in this article. Out of the three groups--Republicans, Southern Democrats, and Nonsouthern Democrats--Republicans showed the most support for civil rights and overwhelming opposition to the leftist positions on fiscal, planning, regulation, welfare state, and labor policies. Nonsouthern Democrats supported civil rights almost as strongly as Republicans and overwhelmingly supported the leftist positions on all the economic policies. Southern Democrats overwhelmingly opposed civil rights, moderately opposed leftist labor laws, and supported all the other leftist economic positions almost as strongly as Nonsouthern Democrats (within a few points on each category). VictorD7 (talk) 04:25, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

VictorD7, you say I have ignored your view of what belongs in the lead. According to the Wikipedia manual of style, "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects." Therefore, for material in the body of the article to belong in the lead it is necessary to show that it is one of the "most important aspects". That is what I am doing here.

Thank you for your quotes above, all of which make the point that while many Republicans were liberal on the civil rights issue, the conservative coalition was "inherently racist". To summarize your quotes: there were two major issues (and many minor ones) that separated liberals and conservatives: labor unions and integration. Liberals supported both, conservatives opposed both. Liberal republicans, of whom Teddy Roosevelt is a prime example, supported both, and was hated by both conservative businessmen and southern whites (who accused him of wanting his daughter to have sex with a negro!) The Conservative Coalition opposed both. For example, in 1947 the overrode President Truman's veto of the anti-union Taft-Hartley Act. So, being careful not to confuse Republican and conservative, your quotes above say (numbered 1 to 5) 1: non-southern Democrats joined Republicans on civil rights, non-southern Democrats joined southern Democrats on welfare and regulatory issues, southern Democrats joined Republicans on labor issues, this last being the Conservative Coalition. 2: the first group is called the "civil rights" group, the second is called the "liberal" group, and the third is called the "conservative coalition". 3: On issues other than unions and race, most Democrats were in the second group. 4: The pro-regulation, pro-welfare group (the second group) was liberal. On this issue most Republicans were conservative. The issues that united southern Democrats were opposition to unions and opposition to civil rights. 5: The conservative coalition joined with the second group on most issues, but joined with the third group in their resistance to civil rights. They were "inherently racist". I agree with all of these points, by the way, not that my agreement is important. The reference is what is important. One other note: the reference you quote makes an important distinction between liberal and progressive. The conservative coalition was progressive in supporting welfare and government regulation. The second group was liberal in supporting labor unions and civil rights.

Rick Norwood (talk) 12:17, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

So a quote which refers to the "progressive" coalition as inherently racist is taken by you as evidence of a conservative coalition that was inherently racist? You have completely missed the point. If the vast majority of conservatives were Republicans (they were) and the vast majority of Republicans integrationists (they were), it is special pleading to assert that segregation was the conservative position and the Republicans just happened to be liberal in this one respect. Srnec (talk) 13:27, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I believe that Rick Norwood takes the "inherently racist" quote out of context, as it talks about a "progressive" coalition, and not about conservatism in the United States.

Furthermore per WP:LEAD, it is suppose to summary the article. As segregation was not a significant issue supported by conservatism at any point in time, and has received extensive coverage in the article, it should not be in the lead section.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:34, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Srnec and RCLC have already made the most important points. I'll simply add that there is nothing in the source about the conservative coalition opposing civil rights, and I have no idea where you got the bizarre claim about it supposedly supporting welfare and government regulation. That was the "inherently racist" "progressive coalition". Conservatives strongly opposed those things. VictorD7 (talk) 00:03, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Compromise proposal

It is my view, reading the ongoing discussion that there is a verified POV, by those who support modern liberalism, that conservatism in the United States is "inherently racist". While it is a verified POV, IMHO it is not the "truth". IMHO to include this POV in the lead would give that specific POV undue weight given the wide breadth of the article, and other POVs that exist.
Perhaps a section on perception of conservatism by modern liberalism in the United States, as a sub-section of a new section titled perception of conservatism in the united states (which would give a neutral presentation of different POVs regarding the subject of this article), could include this POV.
The verified POV that conservatism in the United States is not racist can also be included in another sub-section. This would meet WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and give due weight in an appropriate part of the article which to include that POV, as well as other POVs that exist.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:46, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

New Deal liberals for segregation

Harold Ickes was a leading New Deal liberal, & president of the Chicago chapter of the NAACP. In 1937 when Senator Josiah Bailey Democrat of North Carolina accused him of trying to break down segregation laws, Ickes wrote him to deny it: "I think it is up to the states to work out their social problems if possible, and while I have always been interested in seeing that the Negro has a square deal, I have never dissipated my strength against the particular stone wall of segregation. I believe that wall will crumble when the Negro has brought himself to a high educational and economic status…. Moreover, while there are no segregation laws in the North, there is segregation in fact and we might as well recognize this." [Harold Ickes, The secret diary of Harold L. Ickes Vol. 2: The inside struggle, 1936-1939 (1954) p 115. see for more David L. Chappell (2009). A Stone of Hope: Prophetic Religion and the Death of Jim Crow. p. 9-11.

A few years later (1943), US Representative Jamie Whitten (D-MS), who would go on to retire in 1995 as the longest serving House member up to that point, articulated his opposition to an anti-poll tax bill (p 298; partially paraphrased by source): "This meddling, Mississippi’s Jamie Whitten cautioned, will "make it much more difficult for us who consider ourselves liberals in the South as we struggle to free the poor people in the South and admit them to the economic life of the region and to a participation in its political processes."" VictorD7 (talk) 04:57, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, liberals worked to free the poor people in the South and admit them to the economic life of the region. In that liberal cause, they sometimes made what they considered necessary compromises. Martin Luther King was also accused of making compromises by the more radical blacks who came after him. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:33, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Whitten, LBJ, and other liberal segregationists were far more enthusiastic in their opposition to civil rights during those decades than the word "compromise" would suggest. VictorD7 (talk) 00:16, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Evidence that during the American civil rights movement, people who supported civil rights were called, and called themselves, liberal, while people who opposed civil rights were called, and called themselves, conservative.

While I have a number of quotes supporting this view, and I have not found any quotes from the time that use the words differently, I think this point has already been made, and we can move on. However, I'm opening this section because of the difficulty, mentioned above, in discussing a subject in multiple sections, especially when those sections have grown very long. If anyone wants more evidence than the evidence already presented, please ask. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:22, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, just because it is the view of Rick Norwood doesn't make it the truth. A majority of active editors have disagreed with this view, and have shown how the source presented to support this view actually do not in the view of a majority of active editors. Therefore, IMHO, there is not a consensus to retain the content which was re-added by Rick Norwood and Abierma3.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:38, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Very well. I will provide additional evidence. But please note that the sources do not have to agree with the majority of active editors. Rather, it is the editors who must supply reliable sources for their views. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:11, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

William Safire, Safire’s Political Dictionary, Oxford University Press, 2008, ISBN978019534061 p. 127 “At the 1924 Democratic convention, liberals who wanted to condemn the Ku Klux Klan for its discrimination against Jews and Catholics as well as Negroes introduced a plant opposing any attempts “To limit the civic rights of any citizen or body of citizens because of religion, birthplace, or racial origin.” The plank was narrowly defeated by Southern Democratic votes…” Note that Safire, a conservative, uses the word "liberal" to describe those who wanted to condemn the Klan.

Mary C. Brennan, "Turning Right in the Sixties", UNC Press, 1995: "Simultaneously, citizens across the country reacted against what they regarded as the 'monolithic conformity of "liberalism"' in culture and education as well as liberal politics and economics by forming local and national groups to combat whichever aspect of liberalism particularly offended or outraged them.(16) On a local level, antiintegrationist, antiblack, anti-Semitic, anti-catholic, antifluoridation, and anticommunist as well as libertarian and free enterprise groups appeared." Note the use of "reacted against ... liberal politics" to describe antiintegrationists. Dr. Brennan also discusses how William F. Buckley, Jr., originally openly racist, changed his views, and understood that for the conservative movement to be successful, it would have to abandon racism.

David Cunningham, "Klansville, USA", Oxford University Press, p. 224 "... in 1972 solely through a top-down "Southern Strategy" that encouraged segregationist interests centered in the Black Belt. By offering a platform centered on color-blind middle-class entitlement Nixon and others successfully balanced the interests of the racially conservative backers of segregation and the more socially moderate but but economically conservative urbanized Sunbelt South." Note the use of the phrase "racially conservative" to describe backers of segregation.

"Debating the 1960s, Liberal, Conservative, and Radical Perspectives", Michael W. Flamm and David Steigerwald, "In 1988, conservative commentator Patrick Buchanan paid liberals a large if belated complement. 'In retrospect, the Civil Rights movement was liberalism finest hour,' he wrote in his memoirs. 'The liberals paid a heavy price for having championed civil rights in the 50s and early 60s.'" Note that a major conservative writer uses the word "liberal" to describe those who fought for civil rights.

"The Making of Martin Luther King and the Civil Rights Movement", Brian Ward, Anthony J. Badger " p. 86 "Folson fought against conservative moves to disfranchise blacks..." Note how conservative is routinely used.

So, here are five examples of how the words "liberal" and "conservative" were in fact used. I have found no examples of the opposite use. Two of these examples quote major conservative writers, William Safire and Patrick Buchanan, using liberal to mean pro-civil rights. My only point here is that this is how the words were in fact used. The word "conservative" was used to describe racists and the word "liberal" was used to describe those who supported the civil rights movement. This usage appeared in books by conservatives as well as in books by liberals.

Rick Norwood (talk) 15:36, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Nice try Rick. keep in mind we're not working on the liberalism article. 1) Safire: does not use "conservative." (this article is about conservatives). 2) Brennan: does not use "conservative." 3) Cunningham is close-- he uses "racially conservative" to include moderates and liberals in the South who did not like blacks. 4) Buchanan does not use "conservative." 5) Bingo--you have one sentence re 1950s but no names are given. the book uses "conservative" only for southerners....it does not mention conservative magazines or commentators or leaders like Buckley or Goldwater or Dirksen. Indeed no Republican gets mentioned except in passing. It also uses "conservative" in the sense of resistance to change--even among liberals (for example conservative establishment in NAACP, p 32, politicians in UK p 208). So you're down to N=0.5 example... I won't attack the author Tony Badger (we did a book together!) but he focuses on Southern conservatives in 1950s who we all agree were 99% anti-civil rights. Meanwhile northern Republicans (mostly conservatives) were heavily in favor of civil rights. Rjensen (talk) 16:05, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The discussion is not about personalities. The same person can be conservative on one issue and liberal on another. I am. You probably are. The purpose of these quotes is given the the header of this section. I gather that you accept that people who support the civil rights movement are called liberal. If you want more examples where the people who oppose the civil rights movement are called conservatives, I'll provide them. But you could easily provide them yourself, since I think you know perfectly well how the words were used at the time. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:44, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

the claim " people who opposed civil rights were called, and called themselves, conservative" is Not true. the people who LED the civil rights movement (1950s and 1960s) were liberals and radicals. Among the general public the white SUPPORTERS included liberals and conservatives in the North. (and very few whites in the south). We have Gallup polls here: in April 1965 Republicans supported civil rights by 72% to 21%, that was an increase from June 1964 when Republicans were 58%-28% in favor). (George Gallup ed. Gallup Poll vol 3 pages 1885, 1933) Rjensen (talk) 20:02, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Rjensen: I respect you and admire your editing, so I'm confused that you keep switching between the word "Republican" and the word "conservative". This article is not about Republicans in the United States. The conservatives in the United States comprise at least four disparate groups: the small government conservatives, the anti-commuinist conservatives, the racist conservatives, and the religious conservatives. None of these could win a national election without the others. William F. Buckley, Jr. realized that he had to bring the groups together for any conservative to be a powerful influence. So, many kinds of conservatives, some of whom are racist. Many white racists, essentially all of whom are conservative. I've never said that when people talk about racists they call them Republicans. I've never said that when people talk about conservatives they mean racist. What is true is that white racists were called, and called themselves, conservatives. Stand by while I gather the evidence. If I can't gather the evidence, then I'm wrong. But let's see what the evidence says. Rick Norwood (talk) 21:09, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

One problem is that we have lots of poll and Congressional data on "Republicans" and much less on "conservatives". But the two groups overlap heavily in the North since 1933. Jonah Goldberg (2009) (a conservative) says "This is not to say that there are no "racist conservatives. But at the philosophical level, liberalism is battling a straw man. This is why liberals must constantly assert that conservatives use code words — because there's nothing obviously racist about conservatism per se." Google books reports 400 hits for "racist conservative" but they don't look very promising for your cause. For example I looked at the first 50 cites on Google and no names are mentioned. Just ghosts. Rjensen (talk) 21:25, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

It seems though that we are using the terms liberal and conservative inconsistently. Buckley, Goldwater and Reagan are mentioned in the lead, and they of course are leaders of modern conservatism, but that narrow definition allows us to exclude the Old Right that preceded them. On the other hand, if we consider conservatism to be the ideology of the establishment, then all the liberal Republicans who accepted the post-war liberal consensus become conservatives too. And if we consider that the U.S. is 99% liberal, then the southern conservative Democrats can be considered liberals. TFD (talk) 22:19, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Here is the result of a few hours research. It was easy to find books that call the opponents of civil rights "conservatives". Here are five:

“Winning While Losing: Civil Rights, the Conservative Movement, and the Presidency from Nixon to Obama” Kenneth Osgood and Derrick E. White, p. 2, “A core ideological disagreement divided black activists on the one hand from many former white allies and conservative opponents on the other.”

“The Fifth Freedom: Jobs, Politics, and Civil Rights in the United States”, Anthony S. Chen, p. 29, “Of course, it was impossible for conservatives to hold civil rights at bay indefinitely.”

“The Civil Rights Movement: Struggle and Resistance”, William T. Martin Riches, p. 110, “Ironically, conservatives attacked Nixon and even Ford because they thought they were too sympathetic to civil rights groups…”

“Fog of War: The Second World War and the Civil Rights Movement”, edited by Kevin M. Kruse and Stephen Tuck, p 127, “Southern conservatives deemed civil rights agitation and federal encroachment to be as dangerous as an Axis invasion.”

“Encyclopedia of American civil rights and liberties, Volume 1”, Otis H. Stephens, “, p. 195 “by and large, conservatives have been far less likely than liberals to support expansion of civil rights and liberties.”

I also found one book that argues that conservatives favored the civil rights movement, “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner Now?: Multicultural Conservatism in America” by Angela D. Dillard, published in 2001.

I think it is a good idea to look at what people said in the 1950s and 1960s. I've ordered a book that has quotes for that era.

Rick Norwood (talk) 22:39, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Rick--no names get mentioned. hypothetical ghosts. Rjensen (talk) 23:46, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

This is not about personalities. It is about how words are used. Words are used the way they are used. Rick Norwood (talk) 00:55, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Rick, self identified "liberals" who supported segregation have already been named and quoted above, mostly just because you had asked for it earlier, but that's not really the issue. The words "conservative" and "liberal" have numerous different definitions in different national/historical/sentence contexts. This article (which actually makes the point I just made by explaining the differences between US "conservatives", whom would be called "liberals" by most of the world--e.g. Europeans calling Reagan a "neoliberal", and the typical European uses of the word) is primarily about the ideology of US conservatism, which is a relatively modern usage of the word. It also contains an historical survey that traces the history of the ideas important to this modern movement. Segregation isn't one of those ideas. It's mentioned in the article body (along with other historical episodes) because it played a role in shaping party politics for a while (by keeping the South in Democratic rather than more conservative Republican hands until the late 20th Century), but because segregation has nothing to do with conservatism in the primary sense in which the word is used in this article it doesn't merit special emphasis in the lede. Most of the history section isn't mentioned in the lede. Only those things crucial to understanding what's now meant by "conservatism" in America (including historical foundations, not necessarily contingent on what terms were used at the time) belong there--opposition to socialism/communism/leftist economics, support for individual liberty, support for constitutional/republican process, etc..

If you're just trying to call segregation "conservative" by definition (essentially a circular argument), we probably won't have a productive discussion. Some sources (usually not particularly good ones) may try to identify segregation as the "conservative" position, but that's usually just in the sense that they were defending the status quo. It doesn't speak to the American conservative ideology focused on here. Hardline communists in eastern Europe are often called "conservative" too. That sort of extremely simplistic description is peculiar to one's stance relative to current events in a specific time and place, and not descriptive of a broader ideology. Even modern liberal Democrats could be called "conservative" in that sense for staunchly defending the mid 20th Century status quo versions of social security and other policies against reforms. In that context people like conservative Republican Paul Ryan are the "liberals". But such usage isn't the purpose of the "Conservatism in the United States" article, and any attempt to conflate these different meanings would be misleading and a disservice to our readers. Rjensen is correct to use "Republican" and "conservative" almost interchangeably in this context because, as the numbers in the above study demonstrate, Republicans were overwhelmingly conservative compared to the Democrats (south and nonsouth) on the issues that are actually pertinent to the term "conservative" as it's used in the American ideological sense of the word. You can't just ignore the fact that Southern Democrats were overwhelmingly liberal on these policies, define their support of segregation as inherently "conservative", and therefore classify them as "conservatives". VictorD7 (talk) 00:57, 8 July 2015 (UTC)