Talk:Conservatism in the United States/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

Ongoing discussion

This discussion, which has occupied so much time and effort, is over the question of whether the following two sentences should or should not be in the lead.

"The recent movement is based in the Republican Party, but during the era of segregation, before 1965, many Southern Democrats were conservatives, and they played a central role in the Conservative Coalition that largely controlled domestic legislation in Congress from 1937 to 1963. The Southern white conservatives moved from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party (GOP) at the presidential level in the 1960s, and at the state and local level after 1990."

This was considered unfair to conservatives, and two additional sentences were added, so the lead now reads:

"The recent movement is based in the Republican Party, but during the era of segregation, before 1965, many Southern Democrats were conservatives. Southern Congressmen were a key part of the Conservative Coalition that largely controlled domestic legislation in Congress from 1937 to 1963. Southern Democrats fended off the Republican Party (GOP) by arguing that only they could defend segregation because the Republican Party nationally was committed to integration. That argument collapsed when Congress banned segregation in 1964. This provided an opportunity for Republicans to appeal to conservative Southerners on the basis that the GOP was the more conservative party on a wide range of social and economic issues, as well as being hawkish on foreign policy when the antiwar forces gained strength in the Democratic party. Southern white conservatives moved from the Democratic Party to the GOP at the presidential level in the 1960s, and at the state and local level after 1990."

Note that the claim in the second two sentences, by the same people who are demanding extraordinary evidence for the first two sentences, has no references at all.

At first, the argument against the first two sentences was based on a claim that "the civil rights movement was important for liberals; it was not especially important for conservatives". That claim seems to have been dropped, and the person who made the claim has said, "I agree with you on substance." Next, the argument against the two sentences was based on the claim that there is no "legitimate reason for emphasizing segregation in the lede over the other salient issues and events in American history, including many that actually do relate directly to the conservative/liberal divide." I have provided a great deal of evidence that segregation does relate directly to the conservative/liberal divide. Now the argument against the two sentences is "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.." And this, of course, is the key question. Is American conservatism primarily about economics, not about social questions such as segregation. But if conservatism is primarily about economics, then why are school prayer, same-sex marriage, and abortion mentioned in the lead?

In looking for an answer, I came across the following in a local paper, The Kingsport Times, dated August 15, 1956. "The platform used to be, and is supposed to be, a solid, forthright declaration of principles and definite promises. That was before the words "liberal" and "conservative" took on their present significance, when a Republican was a Republican and a Democrat was a Democrat." In other words, this present argument has been going on for at least sixty years and bids fair to go on another sixty.

I have offered a great deal of evidence for the two sentences in question. No evidence what-so-ever has been provided for the other two sentences. Rick Norwood (talk) 01:52, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, however as shown by the elegant rebuttals of Rjensen and VictorD7 above, just because the sources are presented, does not mean they mean what Rick Norwood says they mean. Also as stated above by Srnec, VictorD7, and myself, the mention in the lead of segregation is given undue weight especially given that it is only briefly touched upon within the article (and only because Rjensen had moved the content that has been the subject of ongoing discussion, after consensus had been reached of active editors at the time) before it was boldly re-added to the lead by Rick Norwood.

I have offered a compromise that allows the POV which Rick Norwood and Abierma3 appear to support in the article, in a perception section, which would provide for attributed opinions of the subject, and so far this compromise appears to have fallen on deaf ears.

The compromise allows for segregation to be removed from the lead section, and yet the opinion that segregation is supported by conservatism due to its "inherent racism" to be included in the body of the article (along with other verified due weight opinions).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:04, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

And so we come full circle. The claim that civil rights is unimportant was the first one I refuted. Rjensen said, "I agree with you on substance." on that claim. But the claim is back, with the bald assertion that it has been rebutted and that the rebuttals are "elegant". But Wikipedia depends on evidence, not on bald assertion. Also, the people who object to the two sentences in question keep changing the subject, and assert that I said things I never said, such as that conservatism has "inherent racism". When words are put in quotes, it usually means they are a quotation. Not in this case. I never said that and neither did anyone else on this page. More to the point, though, is the repeated refusal to address the two disputed sentences directly. I have provided a great deal of evidence that the sentences are both important and true. It is time for the people who dispute the sentences to provide a source that says either that they are either unimportant or untrue. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:30, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

The civil rights Movement was important in American history indeed yes. It was not especially important for the American conservatives. It is not true that conservatives supported segregation or opposed civil rights laws. It is true that white Southerners supported segregation And opposed civil rights laws. As for liberals, they supported segregation when they were in power in the 1930s. Liberals briefly supported civil rights in 1948 (see Truman versus Thurmond). By 1952, liberals were again silent on the issue. Adlai Stevenson picked a southern segregationist (John Sparkman of Alabama) as his running mate in 1952, and Stevenson went to Richmond Virginia where he praised the Confederate Constitution in a campaign address. The change for liberals came around 1963, when they at long last began to support civil rights movement. Rjensen (talk) 14:10, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I've provided evidence that even conservatives writers understand civil rights as a liberal movement. You've offered examples of liberals who did what was expedient. We can go around like this forever. Please provide evidence that the two sentences in question are either unimportant or untrue. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:26, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Rick, sources have been provided to show that "before 1965, many Southern Democrats were conservatives" and "the Conservative Coalition ... largely controlled domestic legislation in Congress from 1937 to 1963" are misleading at best. Segregation played no role in the Conservative Coalition, as is easily verified. Robert Taft was well ahead of the average liberal Democrat on segregation in the 1940s. Srnec (talk) 14:40, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

That "the Conservative Coalition ... largely controlled domestic legislation in Congress from 1937 to 1963" and that "before 1965, many Southern Democrats were conservatives" have been confirmed by multiple reliable sources. I have seen essentially no direct quotes from counter-sources that say otherwise, just red-herring arguments attempting to refute some other point besides what is actually being debated (i.e. no one has denied there were some southern New Deal liberals, and the fact that they did exist does not mean the Conservative Coaltion wasn't real) or at best interpreting sources out of context to support a personal POV (i.e. declaring what a reliable source calls a conservative is not "true conservatism" with no evidence to back it up) and self-proclaiming the argument as "elegant." In light of this, I say we start two new sections, one for each side of the debate, and only post direct quotes from reliable sources that are relevant to the actual sentences in the lead being discussed. After we have all the evidence compiled, then we can discuss it and determine proper weight for both arguments based on sources. I believe this would help us come to a new consensus on the lead and prevent us from continuing to debate in circles. Abierma3 (talk) 16:37, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Srnec: "Sources have been provided" is like "mistakes were made". Let's take the claims one at a time. "before 1965, many Southern Democrats were conservatives". To use a source introduced by Rjensen: "Limiting Liberalism: The Southern Veto in Congress, 1933-1950", Ira Katznelson; Kim Geiger; Daniel Kryder, Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 108, No. 2. (Summer, 1993), p 296, writing about the conservative coalition: "But with their resistance to civil rights, southerners perpetuated a “progressive” coalition that was inherently racist...". If, in every area except labor unions and segregation the coalition was progressive, why was it called the "conservative coalition"? Srnec mentions Taft. His major interest was the other conservative issue that kept the coalition together, opposition to labor unions. Another reference: "From Jim Crow to Civil Rights: the Supreme Court and the Struggle for Racial Equality", Michael J. Klarman, "p. 4, "the challenge posed by Populism also impelled conservatives to invoke the threat of "Negro domination". Turning to: "The Conservative Coalition ... largely controlled domestic legislation in Congress from 1937 to 1963". In this case I find sources that argue both ways about the influence of the Conservative Coalition, and so have no objection to putting a period after "Coalition" and omitting the rest of that sentence. If the sources that argue that the coalition's power in congress was limited are correct, then the Wikipedia article on the subject needs to be rewritten. On the assertion that "Segregation played no role in the Conservative Coalition" I've already cited Katznelson. Here is another citation. "The Bill of the Century: The Epic Battle for the Civil Rights Act", Clay Risen, p. 14 (on the Civil Rights Act of 1957) "Even before the bill passed the New York Times predicted that its passage would "result in a more or less permanent coalition of Republican and Democratic liberals to act as a slight counterbalance to the conservative coalition." I have provided substantial evidence that the sentences are both important and true. I have agreed to shorten one of the sentences since the power of the conservative coalition is debatable. Rick Norwood (talk) 16:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Five responses: 1) Katznelson 1992 Is saying that the "progressive" coalition equals = New Deal = racist. That is, the New Deal liberals in 1930s supported segregation and did not endorse civil rights. 2) Klarman is about the Southern response to populism in the 1890s, which is long long before the civil rights movement. 3) there was almost no significant liberal legislation between 1937 & 1963. Conservative coalition usually gets credit/blame for this. 4) Katznelson shows that the Northern Republicans strongly Supported civil rights and the southern Democrats strongly opposed civil rights. He says that the conservative coalition focused primarily on labor issues (Taft Hartley for example). Indeed labor issues have always been the centerpiece of a great deal of conservative politics-- Wisconsin Governor Walker's presidential campaign in 2015 is a good example of that. 5) A newspaper prediction from 1957??? in fact no such liberal coalition formed--there was no civil rights legislation between 1957 and 1964. (And some of those liberal Republicans, like John Lindsay, just quit the GOP and switched over to the Democrats). In 1964, the key player in passing the civil rights law outlawing segregation was Senator Everett McKinley Dirksen, the conservative Republican from Illinois, who brought on board the majority of Republican conservatives to stop the southern filibuster. Rjensen (talk) 17:04, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with Rick Norwood that the sentence on Conservative Coalition should be shortened. I might agree, but I think the sources on both sides should be properly weighed instead of just shortening because it's "debatable."

Rjensen, 3) Moot point. Jenkins and Monroe source says, "The conventional wisdom in both journalistic and academic accounts is that this 'conservative coalition' acted as a barrier to many liberal policy initiatives...," thereby the coalition "influenced the course of policymaking." Please provide actual sources that says the Conservative Coalition was not responsible for blocking these. 5) I'm lost here, I think I agree with you that many southern Democrats jumped ship to the Republican party after civil rights was no longer an issue, but not sure what you are asserting with this point. This also happened in 1994 when Jimmy Hayes and Billy Tauzin from Louisiana, Mike Parker from Mississippi, Greg Laughlin from Texas, and Nathan Deal from Georgia all switched to the Republican party in addition to electoral gains, giving Republicans significant influence over national policymaking for the first time since the end of the Conservative Coalition. Abierma3 (talk) 17:28, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I enjoy rational discussion, but all semblance of rationality has been lost in the arguments against what every single major reference I've looked at says. Rjensen, an editor who I respect, says "1) Katznelson 1992 Is saying that the "progressive" coalition equals = New Deal = racist." This is trivially false. You can "prove" anything by taking words out of context. What Katznelson says is "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 conservative coalition was conservative only in their resistance to civil rights and to labor unions, but in their resistance to civil rights they were inherently racist. That's why the word "progressive" is in quotation marks, and why the coalition is called conservative. 2) The point about Klarman is that he uses the word conservative to describe those who invoked the threat of "Negro domination". It is yet another example of how the word conservative was used. 3) "there was almost no significant liberal legislation between 1937 & 1963. Conservative coalition usually gets credit/blame for this." I'll content myself with mentioning the Civil Rights Act of 1957. As I've already pointed out, conservative Patrick Buchanan said "the Civil Rights movement was liberalism finest hour" 4) "Katznelson shows that the Northern Republicans strongly zupported civil rights and the southern Democrats strongly opposed civil rights." Bait and switch. I have already provided ample evidence that the Northern Republicans who supported civil rights were liberal and the Southern Democrats who opposed civil rights were conservative." "He says that the conservative coalition focused primarily on labor issues" No, see above. The conservative coalition was progressive except on two issues, labor and civil rights, and because of its stance on those two issues, it was called conservative rather than progressive. 5) The point, the only point, of the newspaper from 1957 was to show how long this argument has been going on. I fully expect that, if I live to be 100, then in 2043 I'll be editing this page to stop conservatives from claiming that it was they who supported gay marriage and the liberals who opposed it. Rick Norwood (talk) 18:50, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

The conservative coalition did not appear on a day-to-day basis. It only took place on a fraction of the Congressional votes. According to the definitions used by all the scholars, the conservative coalition existed ONLY in situations where a majority of the Republicans, voted alongside a majority of southern Democrats, against a majority of northern Democrat. This never happened on a civil rights bill. That's because Republicans SUPPORTED Civil rights at the 80+ percent level. Rjensen (talk) 19:01, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Rjensen, are you arguing that something can only be considered "conservatism" if the Republican party at the time supports it? Abierma3 (talk) 19:26, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Not quite. If the bill is opposed by Republicans and supported by Northern Democrats, then it is very likely "liberal." If it is supported by Republicans and opposed by Northern Democrats, then it is very likely "conservative." a) The written evidence we have identifies all the Republicans and Democrats very accurately. b) but the evidence is extremely vague on who was a liberal and conservative. c) opposition to the New Deal is a main defining feature of modern conservatism, say all the RS. d) the great majority of Republicans in Congress opposed the New Deal. e) Liberal Republicans did exist, but they were weak in Congress and much stronger and state governments and states like New York, New Jersey, California, Massachusetts, Connecticut. They are most famous for their governors, like Tom Dewey, Nelson Rockefeller, Earl Warren etc f) if Republicans voted 80 percent yes on bill XYZ and Congress, I will conclude that the majority of conservative Republicans voted yes. In the 1957 Civil rights bill, Republicans in the House voted 90 percent in favor (168 yea, 19 nay). That's very strong evidence. Rick says that 1957 civil rights bill was "liberal" And I think he's wrong. it was Eisenhower's bill and it had strong support from both liberal Republicans (Like Attorney General Brownell), moderate Republicans like Eisenhower, and conservative Republicans like Joe Martin who was the spokesman for the bill in the House. (Martin'a biography is entitled Compassionate Conservative: A Political Biography of Joseph W. Martin, Jr) Rjensen (talk) 19:45, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Rick has a reading comprehension problem. The source is not describing the conservative coalition as "progressive". It is describing the Democratic coalition as "progressive". Republicans never joined southern Democrats in opposing civil rights bills. Rick will probably be shocked to learn that on economic issues, American conservatives were also liberal. They still are. Srnec (talk) 20:23, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Srnec, please refrain from personal attacks. They will not help us reach a new consensus on the issue at hand. Abierma3 (talk) 20:36, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

But Srnec is correct that Rick Norwood is misunderstanding (a good faith explanation) and blatantly misrepresenting the Katznelson source. The "progressive coalition" in that quote is the "liberal coalition" among Democrats (South and Nonsouth) being discussed. It is not the cross party conservative coalition described elsewhere. VictorD7 (talk) 21:16, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of what "coalition" means. Your posts imply a vision of someone belonging to a "conservative coalition" is if they're locked into a box and can't simultaneously belong to others. But coalitions can be issue specific. Katznelson identifies three salient coalitions, a pro civil rights one between Republicans and Nonsouthern Democrats, a "liberal coalition joining nonsouthern and southern Democrats on welfare state, fiscal, regulatory, and planning issues", and a conservative coalition focusing only on labor issues. He says the liberal coalition was by far the strongest alliance. In other words, just because a Democrat crossed lines to join the conservative coalition on labor issues doesn't mean he was a conservative on balance. As you said yourself, we shouldn't assume that someone "who is liberal on one issue is liberal on all issues". Well, don't you think that also holds true for someone who is conservative on one or two issues? Even if we accept your premise that segregation was an inherently "conservative" position (which I don't), if segregationists were overwhelmingly liberal on other issues (aside from labor law), as Katznelson has demonstrated, then it would be problematic to simply label them "conservatives" wouldn't it? After all, people held "conservative" positions on all sorts of important US issues stretching back to the 18th Century, but these aren't being singled out for special emphasis in the lede.

Speaking of mischaracterizing others' comments and changing the subject, no one has claimed "that civil rights is unimportant" (classic straw man, and a big waste of time and space here), and no one claimed that conservatism has nothing to do with "social issues" like "school prayer", marriage, "abortion", and gun control (for that matter). I just said it has nothing to do with segregation. Ample source evidence has been provided proving that segregation cut across conservative/liberal lines, and indeed that most Southern Democrats were to the left of most Republicans. No evidence has been provided that segregation was somehow more important to the conservative/liberal divide than these other issues (it was important to the party divide since Republicans opposed it, but that's not the same thing, and that explanation is best left down in the body), or that it merits its special emphasis in the lede. Also, the argument for moving the segment is based on an undue emphasis its presence in the lede creates, and the argument for expanding it was to improve clarity and avoid misleading readers. It being "unfair to conservatives" is your wording.

If you're serious about wanting to discuss the sentences, our focus should be on the conservative coalition, not civil rights. As Katznelson shows, the conservative coalition was a single issue alliance focused on labor law, not civil rights. The question is whether this labor law coalition justifies the several lines of text stemming from and including the "conservative coalition" mention, especially since the labor issue isn't even mentioned. I'd argue that conservative support for anti-lynching laws, civil rights, and freeing the slaves (the article has a big section on Abraham Lincoln describing himself as a "conservative"; debatable connection to the modern conservative movement but no more so than other historical uses of the words, including the "conservative coalition" of the early to mid 20th Century) are all more important to the history of conservativism than a temporary cross party labor law coalition (not that I think those things need to be in the lede either), and certainly low taxation, free market economics, and several other issues that are mentioned but not expounded on at length are more important to the subject.

What's really pertinent in the coalition mention is that it establishes that conservatives haven't always been limited to the Republican party. That's true, but the coalition topic is complex, as is the issue of whether most of its Southern members were actually conservatives rather than liberals who were conservative on one issue. Furthermore, limiting our emphasis to "segregation era Democrats" ignores conservative forerunners in other parties earlier in American history, antecedents that receive extensive coverage in the article body. There are plenty of more concise ways we can make the broad point about conservative ties to other parties rather than zeroing in on just one problematic example.

As we've established, the purpose of a lede is to summarize the article, with an emphasis on defining the subject for readers. The "conservative coalition" receives only brief coverage in the article compared to many other topics. The "Conservative coalition forms" section only contains 62 words. The 1920s section contains 117 words. The Gilded Age section contains 413 words. The Liberty League section contains 131 words. The aforementioned Abraham Lincoln section has 484 words. None of those other topics receive any mention in the lede. The lede segment in question, also now (appropriately) appearing under the 1960s section, consists of 157 words, more than twice the original section dedicated to the conservative coalition. Even the earlier, shorter version lede segment you quote consists of 73 words, more than the conservative coalition section. The answer to this out of whack emphasis isn't to radically bloat the lede by covering all the other stuff, it's to eliminate the segment in question as it now sits in the body where it belongs. EDIT CONFLICT - I typed this before seeing the most recent posts, so I see others have made some of the same points. VictorD7 (talk) 21:02, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

VictorD7: I've read over the paragraph by Katznelson carefully several times, and I understand your confusion. But if the coalition the paragraph is talking about is the progressive coalition, why would the paragraph begin "The conservative coalition..." and why would the word "progressive" be in quotation marks? But, in any case, thanks to Rjensen's excellent ongoing edit of this article, there is no need to rely on Katznelson. Now in the article we can read about the coalition "Its most prominent leaders were Senator Robert A. Taft (R-OH) and Senator Richard Russell (D-GA)." And about Senator Richard Russell: "He was for decades a leader of Southern opposition to the civil rights movement." So, that settles that question. I agree with everything you say in the rest of your paragraph. With the next paragraph there are serious problems. The statements of mine you quote are in response to one thing Rjensen wrote and one thing you wrote. Here is what Rjensen said. "the civil rights movement was important for liberals; it was not especially important for conservatives." I think he now agrees that the civil rights movement was important to conservatives but at the time, he denied it was important to conservatives which is why I had to establish the contrary. I'm glad we all agree about that, now. You wrote: "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.." No mention of social issues. Therefore it seemed necessary to establish that social conservatives are a major part of conservatism. I'm glad you agree. In your next paragraph, you claim the conservative coalition was a single issue coalition. No, it had two leaders. Labor unions were the issue important to Taft, fighting against civil rights the issue important to Russell. The conservative coalition fought for both causes. You suggest that conservatives supported anti-lynching laws. Most Republicans supported anti-lynch laws, the conservative coalition successfully opposed them. "Most Republicans supported antilynching laws but enough opposition existed for the conservative coalition to block most proposals." The Roots of Modern Conservatism", Michael D. Bowen. Rick Norwood (talk) 23:17, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

The civil rights movement was not an important issue for conservatives in the sense that they supported civil rights but did make it a priority for activism. Rick says a) " Labor unions were the issue important to Taft, fighting against civil rights the issue important to Russell." followed by b) "The conservative coalition fought for both causes." A is true and B is false. Taft and Russell were on opposite sides on civil rights. Think of this metaphor: the coalition only operated on Fridays and the rest of the week Taft and Russell did not agree. The GOP always voted for federal anti-lynching laws. The Dyer bill was 1922 and was killed by a southern Dem filibuster. The Wagner anti-lynching bills died in 1935 & 1938 likewise & because FDR refused to support them. the conservative coalition did NOT operate because the two groups making it up disagreed sharply. Rjensen (talk) 00:24, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Rick, the confusion is yours, and there's no excuse for its persistence. The entire article (please read it) is about how there were 3 different coalitions, and each is repeatedly identified in makeup and issue stance. For example, "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." That is explicit and clear. The paragraph in question that you and I both quote above starts by mentioning the conservative coalition to point out that it only applied to the single issue of labor law, and then transitions into describing the liberal coalition among Democrats by saying that, "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". It states they rejected conservative Republican positions and indeed joined their Nonsouthern (Democratic) colleagues in supporting much of the social democratic agenda. The article uses "progressive" and "liberal" almost interchangeably, as do most people in modern American discourse. Hopefully this is clear now, because misrepresenting sources is extremely disruptive.

Rjensen has already corrected your mischaracterization of his new material, so Katznelson is indeed still very relevant. The 3 coalitions overlapped, so segregationist Southern Democrats would join with Nonsouthern Democrats in a liberal coalition on most issues, and with conservative Republicans on labor law. They would oppose both on civil rights, but held enough sway in Congress and the national party leadership to do so successfully for decades. As for cleanup, Rjensen didn't deny that "civil rights was important" (sans contextual qualifiers), which was the argument you set up to attack, complete with an entire section you started with reference quotes that didn't even mention conservatives (one was a single sentence simply calling civil rights "heroic"). As for my sentence on issues pertinent to conservatives, aside from the fact that things like "support for Constitutional/republican process" transcend economic issues, the "etc." I added should have made it clear that my short list of examples wasn't claiming to be comprehensive. Just because conservatism involves social issues doesn't mean it involves segregation.

As for lynching, most Republicans were conservative (look at their overwhelming united opposition to the Democrats' economic agenda in Katznelson's charts). Conservative Republican President Calvin Coolidge pushed anti-lynching laws in the 1920s in the same speeches where he called for huge tax and spending cuts. You quote a single sentence from Bowen's book. That section is about a specific time (the late 1940s; frankly lynching was already ending as a phenomenon by that point anyway, with 1947 seeing 1 black victim, and 1948 a total of 2, 1 white and 1 black), and he adds that, "Taft had voted for anti-lynching bills in earlier sessions, but in 1947 did not exercise the leadership necessary to bring the legislation to the floor." After Truman's renewed call for legislation in 1948…"One month later, the judiciary committees of both houses favorably reported a new bill that made lynching a federal crime and included a strict punishment for offenders. The leadership, however, did not make the bill a priority for fear of a Democratic filibuster. While the conservative Republicans did not actively oppose the bill as their southern Democratic counterparts did, they did not aggressively promote the legislation, viewing the subject mostly as a local matter outside the jurisdiction of the federal government even though they had previously supported it. Their strict interpretation of the constitution and belief in federalism prevented decisive action on antilynching legislation." Bowen adds, "The Washington Post, not a typical voice for conservatism, claimed that the enforcement provision was “so repugnant to the democratic principles as to make the bill unpalatable to thousands who are devoted to civil rights in the North as well as the South." So the sentence you quote, which in fairness was taken out of context, was sloppiness on Bowen's part that's contradicted by his more specific, nuanced commentary in the following paragraphs. The legislation wasn't blocked by the conservative coalition, but by Southern Democrats, with conservative Republicans just not aggressively pushing it. They were hardly the only ones, as his Washington Post quote illustrates. What Bowen actually establishes is that Taft, the man you identify as the Republican leader of the conservative coalition, along with other conservatives, had a history of supporting anti-lynching laws. They wouldn't necessarily prioritize them, especially if they thought a bill was constitutionally flawed and/or Democrats had enough strength to filibuster it anyway, but they would support them, and had no discernible love for racial segregation. The following section even goes on to describe their fight against poll taxes. That supports everything Rjensen said. VictorD7 (talk) 04:29, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Rjensen: Was there supposed to be a "not" in your first sentence? I've already provided a reference about your second assertion: ""Most Republicans supported antilynching laws but enough opposition existed for the conservative coalition to block most proposals." The Roots of Modern Conservatism", Michael D. Bowen."

VictorD7: The section showing that civil rights was important was designed to show just that. The section that shows that some conservatives were strongly involved in opposing civil rights comes later. Here is one citation: 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." Then you chase after red herrings, confusing "conservative" with "Republican" once again. The conservative coalition included both Republicans and Southern Democrats. The reference is clear. You assert it is "sloppy" but provide no evidence for that characterization.

I have done my job. I've provided ample evidence. Let me add that it was not a case of picking and choosing on my part: all of the evidence I found supported the importance and truth of the two sentences in question, and I could easily have provided many more citations. The only exceptions I found were 1) one rather convincing paper that suggested that the conservative coalition was not as powerful as other writers claim and 2) a number of books written in the 21st century by conservative authors trying to assert that during civil rights the conservatives supported civil right and the liberals opposed them. I've provided plenty of evidence that this is not true, and I note that there are several recent articles discussing this attempt by conservatives to rewrite history. I have not cited them because it would take us too far afield. Unless you an provide actual citations for your point of view, as I have done supporting both the truth and importance of the two sentences in question, it is time to move on.

Rick Norwood (talk) 11:54, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

RJ: I think Bowen was being sloppy. the legislation did not come to a vote. No I do not think you have "ample evidence" Bowen for example repeatedly says that the conservative Republicans favored civil rights. What is missing right now from Rick is the statement he would like to see in the lede & what cites he would use to support it. Rjensen (talk) 12:03, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I could nitpick but would rather move on. Again let me mention how much I like your current edit. I'll start a new section on the lead (note Wikipedia spelling, I too used lede until the difference was pointed out to me). Rick Norwood (talk) 12:12, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Rick Norwood, I don't see how we can proceed with a productive, rational discussion unless you retract your false claim about the Katznelson passage you quoted. If we can't even agree on the basic fact that the source is talking about the liberal Democratic coalition in the passage where it does so (even explicitly calling it a "progressive" coalition between Southern Democrats and their Nonsouthern partisan "colleagues") then there's little point in just dumping new sources on the page. Quantity means nothing without accurate interpretation. I even showed with expansive quotes that your previous Bowen source you had quoted a single sentence from actually undermined your position, explicitly stating that Taft and other conservative Republicans had a history of supporting civil rights legislation. They might not have always prioritized it, especially if it was constitutionally flawed, but they supported it (supporting Rjensen's commentary on both points). On a related point, I know your section was designed to point out that "civil rights" was "important" (in general). My point is that no one had ever disputed that, so it was a straw man. Neither that section nor anything else you've posted did anything to advance your claim that segregation was a conservative/liberal issue in the primary way in which this article uses the words (even your latest quote uses the qualifier "racially conservative", indicating that he's just flippantly defining racial hostility as "conservative" a priori on that peculiar issue rather than tying it into a broader, actual conservative ideology like the one this article's about). And we're using "Republicans" as a practical proxy for conservatives at times given the overwhelming overlap involved, as underscored by the numbers in Katznelson's chart. We've also cited specific conservative Republicans from Taft on down supporting and certainly not opposing civil rights, and liberals supporting segregation.

The "southern strategy" reference is about 1972, after segregation was a dead issue, and even it just spoke of a balancing act, so that hardly supports any pertinent claim you're making here. That said, you dismiss "21st Century" "conservative authors" but have no problem quoting from a young 21st Century leftist author who repeats the "southern strategy" myth, a piece of Democratic propaganda that took a few grains of truth about trying to appeal to Southern whites on issues other than race, distorted them, and hyped them up into something they weren't. I'll indulge this tangent enough to point out that the DNC narrative of the "southern strategy", which is usually based on an out of context quote about Democrats from Lee Atwater (from an interview where he's actually talking about how race had faded as an issue and been eclipsed by what he called "real" issues like economics and national defense, and at one point boasted that his would be the first Southern generation to be without prejudice) or commentary from a disgruntled ex staffer named Kevin Philips (a racial cynic the left hyped into a minor celebrity, ignoring the fact that in interviews he complains about Nixon largely ignoring his advice) has been thoroughly debunked by more serious analysis of the evidence (e.g. The Myth of ‘the Southern Strategy’, NY Times piece by Clay Risen, no conservative, favorably covering a book by political scientists; WashPo piece by political scientist Gerard Alexander; Misunderstanding the Southern Realignment, an article by Sean Trende, political scientist and the senior elections analyst for Real Clear Politics, with colored historical ideological maps worth checking out about halfway down; even this well written blog is worth reading for extensive quotes from scholars). Even if there had been the type and scale of "southern strategy" Democrats claim (Nixon actually supported the Civil Rights Act and its predecessors, as most Republicans did, publicly condemned racial bigotry and racial demagogues throughout his career, instituted affirmative action, and presided over the majority of school integration), it would have had little to do with the Southern realignment toward Republicans, which was a very gradual process that started in the 1920s, wasn't completed until the 21st Century, and was mostly driven by the Southern economic boom (more middle class and suburban voters to vote Republican) and the increasingly left wing Democratic stance on economics and national defense alienating people. If it picked up some steam in the late 20th Century, it was because the loss of the segregation issue meant there was no longer any reason for conservative voters to stay in the Democratic party, though most old segregationist Democratic politicians, who tended to be liberal, remained Democrats their entire careers.

We've done our job in providing ample proof that segregation support cut across conservative/liberal lines as the terms are used in this article. That's established. The nature and scope of the "conservative coalition", along with the "liberal coalition" and "civil rights" coalition (which included many conservatives), have also been clarified with precision, further undermining the argument for keeping the segment in the lede (BTW, I've seen both spellings used; it's not relevant; I agree that a Wiki lead isn't exactly the same as a journalistic lead). And I've pointed out how the lede fails to accomplish its task of summarizing the article by giving such skewed coverage to a topic given only slim coverage in the body. Simply repeating the line about civil rights "being important" isn't an adequate counterargument. Editor sentiment appears to be 5-2 against you on this, so, if the discussion really is done, it's time to end the filibuster. VictorD7 (talk) 23:00, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I retract my claims about the Katznelson passage. It is ambiguous and should not be used, especially since other passages establish the two disputed sentences more clearly and distinctly. Also, I did not cite the 21st century books but only mention them in passing. However, in your second paragraph, you claim once again that segregation support cut across conservative/liberal lines. I've provided ample evidence to the contrary, including evidence from major conservative authors. I don't know where you get the 5-2 number, but since Wikipedia isn't about a vote it doesn't matter. Wikipedia is about sources. I've provided sources. You have not. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:41, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for retracting your claims, but many sources have been provided (including Katznelson and Rae) showing that segregation cut across conservative/liberal lines. I even quoted from your own Bowen source just above establishing that fact, and you still haven't really addressed the argument about the lead segment being given undue emphasis given how little a role it plays in the article body. That said, if an editor removes the segment, is it your intention to edit war against what you consider to be a false consensus? VictorD7 (talk) 19:58, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

You have not cited any source that says liberals supported segregation. You cited a source that said liberals did not think the battle against segregation could be won. You cited someone who was liberal on labor unions but conservative on segregation. Those do not support your claim. In contrast, we have the clear statement by conservative writer Patrick Buchanan: "In retrospect, the Civil Rights movement was liberalism finest hour," Nothing ambiguous there. And that is one quote of many that call the civil rights movement liberal. You've nit-picked a few of those quotes, but most of them you've just ignored. On the conservative side, the conservatives were in (at least) two camps, and the conservative coalition is a good example. For Taft, fighting unions was the important issue, for Russell, it was supporting segregation. You have yet to cite even one conservative who said, "I support civil rights." I will revert any edit to any Wikipedia article that ignores the evidence. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:40, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

New Deal & Segregation: 1) "New Deal programs in the South routinely discriminated against blacks and perpetuated segregation. " Anthony Badger 2011; 2) "New Deal housing programs also reenforced segregation in the South." Roger Biles 2015; 3) "AFRICAN-AMERICANS AND THE NEW DEAL: Segregation remained the rule, and race relations remained tense throughout the 1930s." William O. Kellogg - 2010. 4) "Emblematic New Deal institutions, including the Civilian Conservation Core and the Tennessee Valley Authority were directed by explicit racists who limited black participation." Ira Katznelson - 2013; 5) "Without denying the injustices of segregation, Roosevelt nevertheless subordinated progress in race relations to the more pressing task of economic recovery. Cultivating Southern Democrats whose votes he needed for recovery measures, he refused to support even the most elemental commands for racial justice embodied in anti-lynching laws." Bryan-Paul Frost, ‎Jeffrey Sikkenga - 2003; 6) "Although liberals responded to particularly egregious examples of segregation like that against Marian Anderson, even the most prominent racial liberals in the New Deal did not dare to criticize Jim Crow generally. As Harold Ickes confided...'I have never dissipated my strength against the particular stone wall of segregation.'" Philip A. Klinkner, ‎Rogers M. Smith - 2002; 7) "In fact, most New Deal programs continued to impose segregation and discrimination as government policy." Gary A. Donaldson - 2015. Rjensen (talk) 13:30, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, New Deal programs in the South were racially segregated, because otherwise the programs would have been impossible. Still no source from the Civil Rights era or earlier quoting a notable liberal saying "I support segregation." Still no source by a notable conservative saying "I oppose segregation". CCC and TVA directors. What were their names, who appointed them, did they call themselves liberal, what did they say about race? Citation 5 confirms my point about people who did not deny that segregation was unjust sometimes went along with it out of political expediency. Citation 6 confirms my point that liberals who opposed segregation sometimes went along with it because they saw it as a battle they could not win. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:47, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

yes the new deal was segregated in the new dealers like it that way-- not one objected. Rick wants some conservative leaders opposed to segregation: 1) Herbert Hoover: "He opposed segregation and lynching on principle." Glen Jeansonne - 2012; 2) Robert Taft re draft law (1947) "I certainly believe that it should contain a provision which removes all segregation, treating whites and negroes alike during the training period." [TAFT PAPERS 3:365]; 3) Regarding civil rights Bill of 1964: "the Republican leadership, including McCulloch and Minority Leader Halleck were now tied to the bill" Robert D. Loevy - 1997; 4) Congressman Joe Martin (GOP minority leader in 1957) "proudly announced a majority of Republicans... would support the [civil rights] Bill as reported. Moreover, at a meeting with officials of the Washington bureau of the NAACP, he pledged to work for prompt passage without crippling amendments" James Joseph Kenneally - 2003. Rjensen (talk) 16:30, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Once again, you confuse Republicans and conservatives. 1) Herbert Hoover "The Live of Herbert Hoover" by Glen Jeansonne, "Hoover had little chance for the Republican nomination because the conservatives and the professional politicians opposed him." 2) Robert A. Taft. Encyclopedia Britannica "Taft was generally regarded as a conservative in American politics. In recognition of his leadership of the more conservative party he was nicknamed "Mr. Republican" by the American press. But even in the field of social-welfare legislation, he was not inflexibly wedded either to the status quo or to his former position. He was an original sponsor of legislation providing for public housing for low-income groups. He sponsored legislation authorizing federal aid to state governments for the improvement of medical care and education and of the living standards of the aged." 3) The story of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is complicated. McCulloch and Halleck agreed to vote in favor of a weakened bill. But in the same paragraph as the sentence you quote above, you must have read "It vindicates the fight by the Democratic and Republican liberals for a stronger measure." These very explicit, very clear statements that civil rights was seen as a liberal cause, opposed by conservatives, are so nearly universal that they are hard to avoid. 4) Joe Martin. Martin was conservative on some issues, liberal on others. He was a close friend of Lyndon Johnson's mentor Sam Rayburn. I was not able to find a copy of "My First Fifty Years in Politics". The Wikipedia article calls him a "moderate Republican" and "compassionate conservative". Do you have a citation that calls his support of civil rights conservative? Rick Norwood (talk) 21:32, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Rick-- you asked for statements that identify specific conservatives as Opponents of segregation. I provided them. Now you're complaining about something else or other. Yes, Hoover, Taft, Martin & Halleck were the leading Republican conservatives in their day, and they all strongly opposed segregation. They opposed segregation much more than did Franklin Roosevelt or any of his new dealers...And much more than LBJ or John or Robert Kennedy did in the 1950s. And let's not forget Senator Dirksen who proved to be the critical deciding factor in the passage of the 1964 civil rights law. Geoffrey Kabaservice - 2012 - ‎says "Dirksen also recognized that southern segregation shamed the nation....When 27 of the Senate's 33 Republican members voted with Dirksen to end the filibuster on June 10, it was “the most meaningful triumph of his career,” --Dirksen delivered over 80% of Republicans On this decisive vote. Rjensen (talk) 21:58, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I asked for conservatives, you gave me Republicans, and ignored statements in the very books you cited on the same page as the passages you quoted. Neither you nor anyone else has found one single statement made during or shortly after the Civil Rights era that say "conservatives support civil rights" or "civil rights is a conservative issue". And yet, following up your own quote above, I came upon ""It vindicates the fight by the Democratic and Republican liberals for a stronger measure." That is a very clear statement that civil rights was a liberal issue. But, like all such clear statements, you ignore it even when it appears in your own source. Rick Norwood (talk) 22:17, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Rick-- I will agree that after 1963, Northern liberals were much more energetic in supporting Civil rights the more northern conservatives. a) however northern conservatives did support civil rights at the 80 percent level in the 1960s. b) before the 1960s, northern conservatives were usually more supportive of civil rights and were northern liberals. (in 1948 Liberals were more supportive. But in 1940, 1944, 1952, conservatives were more supportive as shown by the national platforms.) It is not true, in my opinion, the most northern conservatives opposed civil rights or supported segregation. I believe that Goldwater in 1964 was the first example of any importance--Before 1964, he was much more supportive of civil rights for blacks and Native Americans than were Democrats in Arizona. Rjensen (talk) 22:28, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

You keep saying this, but you don't provide any evidence. You supply examples of liberal Republicans, but you know that is not the same thing. Civil rights is liberal by definition. Liberals by definition believe in equality, conservatives by definition support the status quo. Civil rights is liberal by usage: even conservative writers use "liberal" to describe the civil rights movement and "conservative" to describe opposition to civil rights. I have offered many examples that were easy to find. Every source I've looked at from the 20th century uses the words that way. You have offered examples of liberal Republicans and timid Democrats. Don't you think it is time to move on? Rick Norwood (talk) 11:39, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

This is the problem, Rick. You are taking a general definition—"liberals believe in equality, conservatives support the status quo"—and trying to apply it to specific cases. That's original research. That's now how it works. In fact, many examples of conservative Republicans have been provided. There is no doubt that it is a liberal thing to support civil rights for minorities, but it is also completely characteristic of American conservatives in the Jim Crow era. Srnec (talk) 18:34, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Rick, you keep falsely claiming that no examples have been provided of liberals supporting segregation, when examples of liberals not only supporting it but implementing and/or filibustering to protect it have been cited from Woodrow Wilson to William Fulbright. Conversely, numerous examples of conservatives opposing segregation have been provided, including Taft, the guy you cited as the conservatives coalition's leader earlier. And you keep bringing up this one off Buchanan quote where he doesn't even say that civil rights was a liberal/conservative issue, deny that many liberals supported segregation, or indeed mention conservativism at all. Logically he could think it was conservatism's finest hour too. The truth is he was just praising a certain type of Nonsouthern liberal. That's way too flimsy a foundation to support your argument. And if you're just claiming segregation is "conservative" by definition, we're left with conflicting usages, since we have a source firmly establishing that most Southern Democrat congressmen were both segregationist and liberal. We'd have a situation where most of the "conservatives" on that one issue were Southern Democrats, but Southern Democrats were still liberals overall. The practice of attaching "conservative" to segregation by definition doesn't mesh with the ideological usage of the word that is this article's primary focus.

Alright though. I won't remove the paragraph from the lede if you're that committed to keeping it in. Whenever one or two editors are committed to edit warring against a strong majority in favor of their preferred version, don't suffer consequences, and the majority editors aren't willing to revert, then the minority gets its way, not unlike the Democratic filibusters of old. Maybe the placement issue will be revisited in the future. However, I will insist on making a tweak to the segment that includes adding the Katznelson source. Scope and placement aside, the segment must be clear and accurate. VictorD7 (talk) 19:16, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

We are defining political conservatism primarily as opposition to the New Deal. The New Deal promoted segregation with new large segregated operations (CCC, WPA), so the opponents explicitly denounced segregation and abolished those agencies when they could. FDR refused to support anti-lynching laws so the conservatives like Taft emphasized that. FDR put a klansman (Hugo Black) on the Supreme Court so the conservatives attacked that. Rick ignores or denies all that evidence. Rjensen (talk) 22:50, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

As I've pointed out, there is a difference between saying "liberals support segregation" and saying "some people who are liberals on some issues support segregation" or saying "some liberals went along with segregation because of political expediency". You have not found anything as clear as "It vindicates the fight by the Democratic and Republican liberals for a stronger measure." and "In retrospect, the Civil Rights movement was liberalism finest hour," I am not edit warring. I am providing evidence. However, if you are willing to move on, so am I. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:13, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Again, neither of your brief snippets is "clear" if you're trying to argue that segregation was a conservative/liberal issue, while ample proof has been provided showing that it was instead a regional issue, that conservative Republicans supported civil rights, and that Southern Democrats were liberals on most (not just some) issues. But I'm willing to move on from this issue from now. VictorD7 (talk) 19:36, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

In American politics (esp 1930s-40s-50s) the definition of liberal = supporter of New Deal; conservative = opponent of New Deal. Rick is wrong in saying the definition at that time involved civil rights or segregation. Most "conservatives/ anti-New Deal" opposed segregation and favored civil rights. and (except in 1948) most liberals supported segregation. The New Deal created very large new segregated agencies & kept the military segregated in WW2. Stevenson praised the Confederacy & ran with a segregationist VP candidate. Rick has not found any white liberals before 1948 who attacked segregation. Rjensen (talk) 19:56, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

The lead

"The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects. It is not a news-style lede."

Currently, the lead begins not with a definition or a summary but with a quotation. While I am willing to suggest a neutral first line, which should probably begin "Conservatism in the United States is ... ", I would much rather Rjensen or some other editor picked the quote from any reliable neutral source. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:22, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

that's a totally new topic. The quote by a leading specialist is the best succinct one I have seen to define the issue. Rjensen (talk) 12:54, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I have not seen any other leads that begin with a quote. I'll find a statement from a reliable source if you do not want to, but I would rather you did. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:44, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, quote is gone. Rjensen (talk) 20:17, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Looks good. Rick Norwood (talk) 21:59, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

"Defense of European civilization" sounds like what the USA did in 1917 and 1944, not a tenet of conservatism. Srnec (talk) 22:26, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

ref is to their resisting the attacks from the left on "dead white Europeans" . Rjensen (talk) 22:56, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I also understood the "defense of European civilization" to mean, generally, resistance to multiculturalism. There is one thing I would like to see change, though I will not be the one to change it. The lead now says that conservatives support "freedom". I would change that to a statement that conservatives support "economic freedom", which fits better with the rest of the sentence. Otherwise, we have Wikipedia saying that liberals in the US support freedom and conservatives in the US support freedom; as Rjensen pointed out, almost everybody in the US supports freedom. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:46, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

lede does not use "freedom" but "liberty" in an economic context: "Liberty" is a core value, with the conservative version focused on strengthening the free market, and opposition to high taxes and government or labor union encroachment on the entrepreneur. Rjensen (talk) 12:14, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Besides, conservative support for liberty transcends economic issues, and includes things like opposition to gun control and expansive eminent domain, and opposition to other attempts to regulate daily life from smoking bans to bans on buying/selling cats and dogs to sugar taxes to infringements on religious freedom. Though just about anything could be considered an economic issue at least tangentially. Most people aren't pure in this regard, but to the extent that many conservatives have supported things like prohibitions on drugs, prostitution, and gambling, so have liberals. The left gave us heavy federal food and drug regulation in the first place after the muckraking works of socialist Upton Sinclair, and liberals and conservatives have largely been united in areas like that over the years. But conservatives value personal liberty from government encroachment much more highly than liberals do, which is why Reagan once said that libertarianism is the heart of the conservative movement, and why Cato Institute analysis (among others) has shown that libertarians overwhelmingly vote Republican. I'll add that conservatives also strongly support equality, which is emphasized in the modern liberalism article, though it's equality under law rather than economic result through government intervention, viewing the latter as antithetical to freedom (as Madison and most founding fathers did). So liberals support equality with fewer qualifications than conservatives do, while conservatives support freedom with fewer qualifications than liberals do.

On "European civilization" referring to the multiculturalism debate, I think that's part of it in the broad sense (the aforementioned postmodernist, group identity driven attacks on "dead white males" is part of that broader issue), though narrower aspects of the melting pot/assimilation versus multicultural debate apply to European nations too. The former dynamic used to hold more sway, which is a big reason we don't have to listen to "push 2 for German" despite there being more Americans of German descent than any other nationality, and far more than Hispanics combined. VictorD7 (talk) 19:44, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I generally agree with VictorD7's analysis....but not everything can fit into the lede....as for pure food & drug laws, the conservative business community demanded those then and now to stop dangerous fly-by-night competitors who sold dangerous foods & wothless medicines that were dangerous. (Compare a few years back re poisonous Chinese pet foods.) Rjensen (talk) 21:12, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Along with consumer groups (both conservative and liberal) and those regulatory liberals who almost invariably support establishing greater government authority over business. I wasn't proposing a lede inclusion. I just didn't want conservative "liberty" to be pigeonholed into something less than it is. I'm fine with the current opening paragraph. And I just mentioned the European/assimilation stuff as an aside, since the issue had been raised. VictorD7 (talk) 21:35, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Rjensen, I'm not sure I agree with the location of your most recent edit. The sentence seems out of place, especially since socialism hadn't been mentioned. An exploration of conservative views on what constitutes socialism would fit better in an area of the body where socialism is being discussed rather than the opening paragraph defining conservatism itself. VictorD7 (talk) 23:20, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes I agree there's an issue here. Conservatives spend a great deal of time attacking what they call "socialism". So I think it is one of their defining issues since the 1890s & fits the lede. But we should tell readers that it does not what the left calls socialism (It does not involve ownership of businesses, it just means government activism). So I will try "Conservatives spend much of their political energy attacking "socialism," by which they mean unnecessary expansion of government power." Rjensen (talk) 00:44, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the article should include conservative opposition to socialism, but the first paragraph--especially before we even get to the core liberty principle sentence--isn't the place for this sentence. Simply mentioning "opposition to socialism" would be one thing, but such a statement gets into a tangential definitional issue when we're supposed to be giving a topline introduction of conservatism itself, and belies the complexity of that definitional issue. It's not simply a case of conservatives making up their own definition of "socialism". There are disagreements on the left about precisely what constitutes "socialism", and indeed there have been numerous variations (both Marxist and non Marxist) over the centuries. That's how we get Tony Blair and other left wing leaders in recent decades defining "socialism" in terms other than traditional government ownership of industry, and indeed embracing the privatization trend in Europe to varying degrees since the Cold War's end. According to A Dictionary of Conservative and Libertarian Thought (Routledge; Intro page xi; a book whose authors include a lot of British scholars): "In the United States, and to a lesser extent in Britain, the term ‘liberal’ has come to refer only to the revisionist or social democratic wing of the liberal tradition. Moreover, because of the stigma which attaches to the term ‘socialist’ in that country, many Americans pass under the name of ‘liberal’ who would be described as socialists in any other country. In Europe outside Britain the word ‘liberal’ retains its old meaning and refers primarily to what political scientists call ‘classical liberalism’. Consequently the word ‘conservative’ has taken on a portmanteau quality in America and now refers both to people who would be described as conservatives in any language and to others who would in any European country other than Britain be labelled as liberals." I posted that a while back on another talk page (among several other sources establishing the variant meanings of words like "conservative" and "liberal") even before its accuracy was re-confirmed by Bernie Sanders, a self described "socialist", gaining so much traction among the liberal base in the Democratic primary. There is also disagreement on precisely what "ownership" means, with many arguing that expansive government control through regulation is a form of ownership. Furthermore, conservatives are also frequently condemning policies for moving the country in the direction of socialism, rather than necessarily stating that a particular policy, by itself, is socialism per se. The bottom line is that this definition discussion is far more complex than we can fairly treat it in the opening lead paragraph, and is off topic since we're supposed to be defining conservatism itself in that paragraph. VictorD7 (talk) 20:15, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

VictorD7, while it is true Upton Sinclair was a socialist, the objective of The Jungle was to describe the conditions of working people rather than to demonstrate the need for food regulation. Teddy Roosevelt, who brought us regulation, was a conservative, according to the historians we are using in the article. Opposition to big government is not an enduring theme of U.S. conservatism, but more recent in origin. TFD (talk) 12:39, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Socialists supported both, TFD, and have consistently championed increased government regulation of business throughout history. TR is usually identified as a liberal Republican, though he held both conservative and liberal views, and was generally to the right of where many Democrats of the time were. Opposition to big government has always been an enduring theme of US conservatism as the word is primarily used in this article, and is a traditional American principle stretching back to the Revolution and before. VictorD7 (talk) 20:15, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

None of that is true and the article traces conservatism to Hamilton and Lincoln. And all the writers who believe conservatism existed before the 1930s include TR. As the 1908 Republican platform read, "the Democratic party of to-day believes in Government ownership, while the Republican party believes in Government regulation." TFD (talk) 21:19, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Everything I said was true and TR is also the first individual cited in the Modern liberalism in the United States article. As I said, there were things about him that both sides like. Your 1908 quote just reinforces what I said about the Democrats being to the left of Republicans back then, as they are now. But socialists have called for, encouraged, and sparked increased regulation over the years. Even the current Socialist Party platform explicitly demands regulatory expansions...."We call for increased health and safety regulation of business, and for increasing the size and enforcement power of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)", "We call for the re-regulation of the communications industry (in particular, the assertion of public ownership rights over radio and television frequencies", "In the meantime, we call for reregulation of the banking and insurance industries"....and describes regulation in other places where they don't explicitly use that word. VictorD7 (talk) 21:48, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Teddy Roosevelt was conservative on some issues and liberal on others. His support of labor unions earned him the ire of most conservatives, but they liked "Walk softly and carry a big stick." . Rick Norwood (talk) 13:22, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I think you are incorrectly applying current policies to the past. In any case, Rossiter lists TR as a conservative. Whether one agrees or not, parallels could be drawn with Disraeli or Bismarck who saw society as more important than business and were willing to aid working people in the interests of social harmony. Or, as John Karaagac writes, "Like [Disraeli and Bismarck], Theodore Roosevelt urged this activist statist philosophy from the right of the political spectrum...."[1]] TFD (talk) 15:37, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

As for the word socialism: American conservatives use it a lot and they mean something quite unique--it's unlike what the left says it means. So i think it's useful to put it in the lede rather than puzzling people or repeating it. Rjensen (talk) 23:00, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I tweaked the socialism sentence and moved it to a different part of the lede, to the third paragraph right after the foreign policy sentence. I believe the language now accommodates both those who accept and reject the premise that conservatives' use of the word is all that "unique", and lays a stronger foundation for how the "divergent strands" were brought together into an organized movement in the following sentence. That said, apart from the slight note expansion, the edit is tentative. VictorD7 (talk) 00:43, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

ok but it is uncommon for any American conservative in decades to refer to an active "socialist movement." I did some google searches and turned up near zip. Maybe we can use this 2010 quote from Newt G: "Obama is committed to socialism. I mean socialism in the broad sense. I'm not talking about a particular platform adopted by the International Socialist Movement in the late 19th century. I'm talking about a government-dominated, bureaucratically-controlled, politician-dictated way of life." Rjensen (talk) 02:04, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine with using that quote where you put it, but I do have a problem with the new version of the lede sentence. "Most factions also spend much of their political energy criticizing as "socialism" any unnecessary expansions of government power." It's inaccurate. The addition of "any" makes it worse in my opinion than the original version. Conservatives criticize all sorts of government expansions with words other than "socialism", including but not limited to "bloated bureaucracy", "fascist", "big government", "nanny state", "statist", "liberal" (way more common than "socialist"), "progressive", "left wing" (in all its variations), "tax and spend", "oppressive", "regulatory burden", "confiscatory taxation", etc.. Use of "socialism" tends to be more about the direction in which the country is being pulled, and to describe the ideology (overt or underlying) of radical liberals (the type of people flocking to Bernie Sanders' speeches, for example, or Obama's deep, instinctive hostility to the free market at every turn), more than labeling one specific policy per se "socialist" in a vacuum, much less each and every such government expansion, as the sentence currently implies (even your Gingrich quote is broad rather than referring to a specific policy). And again, it's not just conservatives who use "socialism" in other than it's narrowest possible sense. The socialist movement itself does, as I discuss below. As for conservatives saying "socialist movement", I see that all the time (though it's admittedly a chore to dig through all the leftist material that pops up on google searches). For some examples, starting with Newt himself:

Newt Gingrich (p 55) - "Thus, in order to achieve its historic mission of transforming America, the secular-socialist movement must resort to dishonesty in communicating with the American people."

Ronald Reagan (p 1491) - "No, what we have in mind is that the Marxist-Leninists, and the World Socialist Movement, for that matter, they’ve been ardent missionaries for their beliefs all over the world."

Jonah Goldberg - "Every socialist movement or party that comes to power promises national unity, not international solidarity."

But that's not really the issue. I'd be fine with changing "associated with the socialist movement" in my proposed version to "associated with socialism". As for clarifying that conservatives (like lots of non conservatives) aren't referring strictly just to formal government ownership of industry, our note already does that. The text I suggested reinforces that by describing conservative opposition to government expansion broadly (the true key point here, not which label gets slapped on it; too much emphasis on the latter threatens to obscure the former), and indicating a possible distinction between socialism and policies they perceive as being associated with socialism, but in a way that keeps Wikipedia neutral and avoids committing to a particular pov in the usage/definitional discussion. Is there a specific objection you have to my suggested wording? Is the length the problem? VictorD7 (talk) 20:38, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Newt G is a source for how conservative talk radio uses words. Not, of course, for the dictionary meaning of words. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:52, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I do not think that conservatives necessarily mean something different when they use the term socialism, just that they see it where others may not. They think for example that H. Clinton and Sanders both believe the same thing but that ony Sanders is honest about it. They also have an apocalyptic view that their policies will lead to totalitarianism. Reagan said that the Democrats had adopted the Socialist Party's platform and that Social Security was the beginning of the end of freedom. TFD (talk) 14:15, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

What they do NOT mean is government ownership (like TVA), which is the usual standard dictionary definition. Social Security is not ownership of the means of production. Rjensen (talk) 19:28, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Well they mean formal government ownership too, but self described socialists over the years have talked about a lot more than just the narrow issue of formally owning companies, including economic redistribution ("From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"), the minimum wage, regulatory expansions over business, social security (which many would argue Reagan was right about, especially if they focus on the growing fiscal crunch and/or growing government dependence), etc.. The Socialist Party USA's platform includes extensive commentary supporting the coercive, government planned social security setup. It also includes more modern aspects associated with the socialist movement, like some of the aforementioned postmodern race/sex grievance stuff. VictorD7 (talk) 20:38, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Conservatives very rarely talk about the Socialist party: Newt Gingrich makes that point... They seldom mentioned it in the 1930s when it actually still existed. The Social Security program is a key component of Bismarckian conservatism (1880), and British liberalism (1910). In both cases it was designed to undercut the Socialist party. In the United States, the Socialists did not support Social Security. Likewise regulation of businesses not a socialist activity. Socialism wanted the government to OWN the railroads, utilities, radio etc, not regulate them. Rjensen (talk) 21:21, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I just linked to the Socialist platform supporting social security and regulation now. As for Bismarck, I almost mentioned him in my previous post. Leaders like that "undercut" the radical socialist movement at the time by moving to the left, and implementing welfare states that sought to address many of its complaints (US conservatives are certainly no fans of Bismarck). By now (actually by the early 20th Century) most socialists realize they won't be getting their utopia overnight, if at all (many have abandoned it and even tried to redefined "socialism", like the aforementioned Tony Blair) and are more than willing to support measures that incrementally increase centralized control over society in the mean time.

But most of that is beside the point, Rjensen. You didn't answer my question above about what specific objections you have to my alternative text version. VictorD7 (talk) 02:00, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I had planned on leaving the sentence in while the wording was discussed, but since I'm apparently the only one interested in discussing the wording I deleted it for now. As for the history of socialism discussion, I replied to that below. VictorD7 (talk) 07:40, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

The Socialist Party USA is pretty much irrelevant, and I doubt many conservatives have heard of it. More relevant would be the Socialist Party of America which reached its peak about 100 years ago. And they wanted the working class to take control of government and expropriate the capitalists. The from each slogan btw is not about how socialists would govern, but how people would live after government had been abolished. In the meantime, the slogan was, ""From each according to his ability, to each according to his work." TFD (talk) 22:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

And, as I pointed out in my historical commentary on the US talk page, the direct descendants of the fractured old Socialist Party were incorporated into the Democratic Party in the late 20th Century. Discussing what supposedly happens after government is abolished is silly since socialists are very stridently making political demands of government now, including various robust income redistribution schemes. Also, I suspect conservatives are much better informed than you believe. They're disproportionately likely to be political junkies. VictorD7 (talk) 02:00, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

It is not true that " the direct descendants of the fractured old Socialist Party were incorporated into the Democratic Party in the late 20th Century" -- who could you possibly mean? The old left vanished without a trace when the new left arrived on the scene. Socialist parties in US were dead by 1920s as a serious force. The farmer-labor parties existed in 1930s, but they collapsed by 1940. The conservatives use "socialism" to talk about the bailout of banks & GM in 2008 (by Bush-Paulson, Bernanke and Obama), which has (almost) all been sold off & ended. Real socialism = govt ownership & union control is pretty dead in Europe and USA, but "socialism" as Gingrich defined it is what conservatives in US oppose. American Unions are weaker today than at any time since 1920s. Rjensen (talk) 02:15, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

It most certainly is true. The Socialist Party of America, dominated first by Eugene Debbs, then Norman Thomas (its presidential nominee through 1948), was led in the mid to late 20th Century by men like Michael Harrington (the socialist widely credited with coining the ridiculously overused term "neoconservative" as an epithet), Bayard Rustin, and Penn Kemble. It stopped fielding its own presidential candidates after 1956 due to a combination of recent events having strengthened Americans' traditional aversion to socialism and the major parties, particularly the Democrats, successfully co-opting enough of its most appealing issues that voters who once favored the SP increasingly voted Democrat instead. But it continued to exist, write, agitate, and hold conventions. Its members were also increasingly active within the Democratic Party. In fact as early as 1936 a minority "Old Guard" faction had split over concerns that the young members Thomas had allied himself with were too militant and disturbingly pro-Soviet, endorsing FDR instead (the groups reunited in the 1950s).

In 1972 the party formalized its support of the Democratic Party, endorsing McGovern (here's a NY Times article about it: [2]), changing its name to the Social Democrats, USA to reflect the fact that it was no longer fielding candidates, and pledging to work within the Democratic party for its goals. The party soon split when Harrington and a sizable minority faction left after complaining that its members hadn't done enough to support McGovern, but both groups continued to work within the Democratic Party and support Democratic candidates. Harrington's group, the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee, championed the "New Politics" of middle class leftist activism famously employed in McGovern's campaign that SD, USA, preferring the old school labor union tactics, was uncomfortable with, even as it endorsed McGovern. The DSOC soon merged with the New American Movement, the successor group to the SDS, the radical 1960s Marxist group Harrington had a hand in helping found (before a falling out had caused it to splinter), forming the Democratic Socialists of America. The DSA still exists, and is a member of the Socialist International. It endorsed Kerry, Obama, and recently Bernie Sanders.

Tom Hayden, drafter of the Port Huron Statement and major SDS leader, visited North Vietnam (was married to Jane Fonda for a while) and played a huge role, along with other SDS members, in the violent protests outside the 1968 Democratic Convention (the SDS also spawned the terroristic Weather Underground). A few years later he was running for political office as a Democrat, his first of several campaigns. As late as 2000 he held office in the CA state legislature. He still sits on the advisory board of Progressive Democrats of America, a group founded by Howard Dean and others that's dedicated to pulling the party to the left. Some astute commentators have observed that essentially those protesting outside the Democratic convention in 68 had moved inside and gone a long way toward taking the party over by 72.

SD, USA, the most direct descendant of the old Socialist Party of America, endorsed Carter in 1976 and later Democratic candidates. Its last real leader, Penn Kemble, became a speech writer for Democratic Senator Daniel Moynihan and actually served in the Clinton administration as head of the U.S. Information Agency. When he died in 2005 the group essentially ceased independent activity, though recently some former members have moved to resurrect it. Even the current SD, USA's website, which traces the group's history back to 1898, reiterates the organization's commitment to work within the Democratic Party: "6. A strategy , in general, to work within the Democratic Party, along with the labor movement and other progressive constituencies." As I said, the descendants of the old Socialist Party have long since been incorporated into the Democratic Party. VictorD7 (talk) 07:40, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Although some ex-Socialists joined the Reagan, Clinton and Bush administrations, they were by that time not left-wing in any sense. The only continuity was anti-Communism. Bayard Rustin and Penn Kemble for example are considered neo-conservatives, as are Joshua Muravchik and Midge Decter, who is also mentioned in the NYT article. "Neoconservative" btw meant new to conservatism. Jeanne Kirkpatrick and Linda Chavez became high-ranking members of the Reagan administration. And Tom Hayden was never a member of the Socialist Party. TFD (talk) 15:34, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Tom Hayden was a founding member of SDS, a splinter of a splinter from the Socialist Party, and a group with pro communist sympathies that was more radical than the larger party and is considered historically impactful in its fringe leftist activism. Penn Kemble rejected the "neonconservative" label, remaining a Democrat and running the Social Democrat, USA website until he died. Rustin focused mostly on gay activism in his final years, and is primarily called a "neonconservative" by some because he opposed the Soviet Union, opposed racial quotas, and continued to support Israel as other socialists were turning against it. Like the others, however, he remained a left winger throughout his life. Certainly the groups I cited, the direct organizational descendants of the old Socialist Party of America, continued to call themselves "socialist" when they decided to work within the Democratic Party in the 1970s and beyond. "Neoconservative" means dozens of different, often contradictory things depending on who's using it at the time. The term barely existed in the 20th Century (mostly as an obscure epithet coined by socialist Harrington, "neo" chosen over "new" for the subtle similarity to "Neo-Nazi", and unfortunately defiantly embraced by a few, but not most, of his targets), and blew up for a few years in the 2000s mostly in the anti-Bush blogosphere, also buttressed by 9/11 conspiracy theorists and anti-Semites (mainly in Europe and the Middle East) who essentially used it as a synonym for "Jew". Since Obama took office its use has declined markedly. There is no single, coherent definition that adequately covers all the senses in which it has been commonly used, and, unlike "conservative" and "liberal", which at least refer to a fairly clear constellation of issue divisions in modern America, it serves more to cloud rather that facilitate rational discussion. It's a BS term mostly employed by pseudointellectuals and should be phased out of discourse. We give it way too much emphasis on this page. VictorD7 (talk) 18:15, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

This is the article on conservatism--not on what happened to the New Left after their movement collapsed decades ago. "Neoconservatism" is a a major dimension of conservatism and is not at issue right now. Many ex-leftists became conservatives (including Ronald Reagan and Milton Friedman) Rjensen (talk) 18:43, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

We disagree on whether "neonconservatism" is a major dimension of conservatism not already covered by other terms, but I agree that the tangent should be shelved in this section. VictorD7 (talk) 01:28, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• Bulleted list item