|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On June 13 2020 06:50 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2020 06:44 micronesia wrote:On June 13 2020 06:26 Mohdoo wrote:
Today is the anniversary of interracial marriage being legal in the US. Friendly reminder that social conservatism has never once been on the right side of history. They eventually lose every. single. time. I'm sure there have been some pretty wacky ideas from self-proclaimed socially liberal people in the past that never got any traction following a modicum of push-back from social conservatives. It's easy to remember all the cases where social conservatism failed to prevent the future and forget the times when they were actually the voice of reason (since nothing changed). My guess would be that most of the significant social arguments that got a lot of attention eventually went in the direction of social liberals, but I'd be cautious about going too far and saying or implying that all ideas from social liberals should be embraced by default. Certainly. But when we look at: 1. What if black people are humans 2. What if black people should have equal voting 3. What if women are equal to men 4. what if different races should be allowed to marry 5. what if same sex marriage was ok there is one side that fought against every single one of those
Isn't an obvious example here monarchists or tsarists who would point to Jacobin Terror or Kulak exterminations as "the wrong side" of history?
|
On June 13 2020 07:32 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2020 06:50 Mohdoo wrote:On June 13 2020 06:44 micronesia wrote:On June 13 2020 06:26 Mohdoo wrote:
Today is the anniversary of interracial marriage being legal in the US. Friendly reminder that social conservatism has never once been on the right side of history. They eventually lose every. single. time. I'm sure there have been some pretty wacky ideas from self-proclaimed socially liberal people in the past that never got any traction following a modicum of push-back from social conservatives. It's easy to remember all the cases where social conservatism failed to prevent the future and forget the times when they were actually the voice of reason (since nothing changed). My guess would be that most of the significant social arguments that got a lot of attention eventually went in the direction of social liberals, but I'd be cautious about going too far and saying or implying that all ideas from social liberals should be embraced by default. Certainly. But when we look at: 1. What if black people are humans 2. What if black people should have equal voting 3. What if women are equal to men 4. what if different races should be allowed to marry 5. what if same sex marriage was ok there is one side that fought against every single one of those Isn't an obvious example here monarchists or tsarists who would point to Jacobin Terror or Kulak exterminations as "the wrong side" of history?
"in the US" though? Those examples aren't within the United States.
|
On June 13 2020 06:44 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2020 06:26 Mohdoo wrote:
Today is the anniversary of interracial marriage being legal in the US. Friendly reminder that social conservatism has never once been on the right side of history. They eventually lose every. single. time. I'm sure there have been some pretty wacky ideas from self-proclaimed socially liberal people in the past that never got any traction following a modicum of push-back from social conservatives. It's easy to remember all the cases where social conservatism failed to prevent the future and forget the times when they were actually the voice of reason (since nothing changed). My guess would be that most of the significant social arguments that got a lot of attention eventually went in the direction of social liberals, but I'd be cautious about going too far and saying or implying that all ideas from social liberals should be embraced by default.
We're coming up on the anniversary of the end of Robert Byrd's senatorial career. Byrd, a Democratic Senator for 51 years (ending June, 2010) was a former Exalted Cyclops of the Ku Klux Klan and filibustered the 1964 Civil Rights Act long after his disavowal.
This is a thread reminder to not embrace idiotic narratives about "the right side of history" in acts of political signalling. And, strangely enough, the big anti-statue push ignores a leader of the Klansmen, whose name is on courthouses as well as statues.
Woodrow Wilson, Democratic president, who said blacks were an "ignorant and inferior race" and made Birth of a Nation the first movie shown at the White House (Watch it portray radical Republicans pushing for black equality, as it represents blacks as poorly mannered, dumb, predators of white women).
I don't know who the mob is coming for next, though the Gandhi statue in London is a worrying current target, but I know the current trend will not end in anyplace good.
And lest you think the problems of social liberals are ancient, while social conservatives are modern, Joe Biden fought against racial integration in the 1970s, and voted for the crime bill that imprisoned so many young black men (Bernie voted against it) in the 1990s. He is the current Democratic party nominee. So please, drop the partisan talk about relative party culpability, lest people fling it back in your faces.
|
On June 13 2020 08:03 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2020 06:44 micronesia wrote:On June 13 2020 06:26 Mohdoo wrote:
Today is the anniversary of interracial marriage being legal in the US. Friendly reminder that social conservatism has never once been on the right side of history. They eventually lose every. single. time. I'm sure there have been some pretty wacky ideas from self-proclaimed socially liberal people in the past that never got any traction following a modicum of push-back from social conservatives. It's easy to remember all the cases where social conservatism failed to prevent the future and forget the times when they were actually the voice of reason (since nothing changed). My guess would be that most of the significant social arguments that got a lot of attention eventually went in the direction of social liberals, but I'd be cautious about going too far and saying or implying that all ideas from social liberals should be embraced by default. We're coming up on the anniversary of the end of Robert Byrd's senatorial career. Byrd, a Democratic Senator for 51 years (ending June, 2010) was a former Exalted Cyclops of the Ku Klux Klan and filibustered the 1964 Civil Rights Act long after his disavowal. This is a thread reminder to not embrace idiotic narratives about "the right side of history" in acts of political signalling. And, strangely enough, the big anti-statue push ignores a leader of the Klansmen, whose name is on courthouses as well as statues. Woodrow Wilson, Democratic president, who said blacks were an "ignorant and inferior race" and made Birth of a Nation the first movie shown at the White House (Watch it portray radical Republicans pushing for black equality, as it represents blacks as poorly mannered, dumb, predators of white women). I don't know who the mob is coming for next, though the Gandhi statue in London is a worrying current target, but I know the current trend will not end in anyplace good. And lest you think the problems of social liberals are ancient, while social conservatives are modern, Joe Biden fought against racial integration in the 1970s, and voted for the crime bill that imprisoned so many young black men (Bernie voted against it) in the 1990s. He is the current Democratic party nominee. So please, drop the partisan talk about relative party culpability, lest people fling it back in your faces.
I feel like these are whataboutisms. The original assertion was "Friendly reminder that social conservatism has never once been on the right side of history" and your response has been "But what about these Democrats that were also wrong about things?" The counterexamples would need to be social conservative ideals that *were/are* on the right side of history.... not socially liberal anythings.
(There may very well be counterexamples to the assertion, but your statements have not included them so far.)
|
Yeah, I don’t think Mohdoo would say “No Democrat has ever been on the wrong side of history” so that feels like a bit of a non sequitur.
I’m not super familiar with the history here, but isn’t eugenics the classic example if liberals being waaaaay on the wrong side of history? Admittedly I’m not sure it was clean party lines, i.e. plenty of liberals liked it but I’m not sure social conservatives of the day were consistently opposed. The whole exercise of taking modern political labels and projecting them backward seems a little fraught.
Like, was Henry Ford a conservative? A lot of his stuff seemed pretty conservative, but as I understand it he also wanted to overthrow the existing world order and rebuild it according to his his ideals (less Jews and jazz music, mostly), which doesn’t seem very conservative. Certainly not Burkean, anyway.
|
On June 13 2020 08:03 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2020 06:44 micronesia wrote:On June 13 2020 06:26 Mohdoo wrote:
Today is the anniversary of interracial marriage being legal in the US. Friendly reminder that social conservatism has never once been on the right side of history. They eventually lose every. single. time. I'm sure there have been some pretty wacky ideas from self-proclaimed socially liberal people in the past that never got any traction following a modicum of push-back from social conservatives. It's easy to remember all the cases where social conservatism failed to prevent the future and forget the times when they were actually the voice of reason (since nothing changed). My guess would be that most of the significant social arguments that got a lot of attention eventually went in the direction of social liberals, but I'd be cautious about going too far and saying or implying that all ideas from social liberals should be embraced by default. We're coming up on the anniversary of the end of Robert Byrd's senatorial career. Byrd, a Democratic Senator for 51 years (ending June, 2010) was a former Exalted Cyclops of the Ku Klux Klan and filibustered the 1964 Civil Rights Act long after his disavowal. This is a thread reminder to not embrace idiotic narratives about "the right side of history" in acts of political signalling. And, strangely enough, the big anti-statue push ignores a leader of the Klansmen, whose name is on courthouses as well as statues. Woodrow Wilson, Democratic president, who said blacks were an "ignorant and inferior race" and made Birth of a Nation the first movie shown at the White House (Watch it portray radical Republicans pushing for black equality, as it represents blacks as poorly mannered, dumb, predators of white women). I don't know who the mob is coming for next, though the Gandhi statue in London is a worrying current target, but I know the current trend will not end in anyplace good. And lest you think the problems of social liberals are ancient, while social conservatives are modern, Joe Biden fought against racial integration in the 1970s, and voted for the crime bill that imprisoned so many young black men (Bernie voted against it) in the 1990s. He is the current Democratic party nominee. So please, drop the partisan talk about relative party culpability, lest people fling it back in your faces.
There are socially conservative Democrats, which you listed, and of which we were all aware. I never said Republican. I said socially conservative because the problem is the ideology not the party itself. Social conservatism fought and lost every battle I listed.
|
On June 13 2020 08:23 ChristianS wrote:
Yeah, I don’t think Mohdoo would say “No Democrat has ever been on the wrong side of history” so that feels like a bit of a non sequitur.
I’m not super familiar with the history here, but isn’t eugenics the classic example if liberals being waaaaay on the wrong side of history? Admittedly I’m not sure it was clean party lines, i.e. plenty of liberals liked it but I’m not sure social conservatives of the day were consistently opposed. The whole exercise of taking modern political labels and projecting them backward seems a little fraught.
Like, was Henry Ford a conservative? A lot of his stuff seemed pretty conservative, but as I understand it he also wanted to overthrow the existing world order and rebuild it according to his his ideals (less Jews and jazz music, mostly), which doesn’t seem very conservative. Certainly not Burkean, anyway.
According to Wiki, Henry Ford identified as both a Democrat and Republican during different parts of his life. I don't know if his ideas exemplify American social conservatives being ethically correct though.
|
On June 13 2020 08:24 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2020 08:03 Danglars wrote:On June 13 2020 06:44 micronesia wrote:On June 13 2020 06:26 Mohdoo wrote:
Today is the anniversary of interracial marriage being legal in the US. Friendly reminder that social conservatism has never once been on the right side of history. They eventually lose every. single. time. I'm sure there have been some pretty wacky ideas from self-proclaimed socially liberal people in the past that never got any traction following a modicum of push-back from social conservatives. It's easy to remember all the cases where social conservatism failed to prevent the future and forget the times when they were actually the voice of reason (since nothing changed). My guess would be that most of the significant social arguments that got a lot of attention eventually went in the direction of social liberals, but I'd be cautious about going too far and saying or implying that all ideas from social liberals should be embraced by default. We're coming up on the anniversary of the end of Robert Byrd's senatorial career. Byrd, a Democratic Senator for 51 years (ending June, 2010) was a former Exalted Cyclops of the Ku Klux Klan and filibustered the 1964 Civil Rights Act long after his disavowal. This is a thread reminder to not embrace idiotic narratives about "the right side of history" in acts of political signalling. And, strangely enough, the big anti-statue push ignores a leader of the Klansmen, whose name is on courthouses as well as statues. Woodrow Wilson, Democratic president, who said blacks were an "ignorant and inferior race" and made Birth of a Nation the first movie shown at the White House (Watch it portray radical Republicans pushing for black equality, as it represents blacks as poorly mannered, dumb, predators of white women). I don't know who the mob is coming for next, though the Gandhi statue in London is a worrying current target, but I know the current trend will not end in anyplace good. And lest you think the problems of social liberals are ancient, while social conservatives are modern, Joe Biden fought against racial integration in the 1970s, and voted for the crime bill that imprisoned so many young black men (Bernie voted against it) in the 1990s. He is the current Democratic party nominee. So please, drop the partisan talk about relative party culpability, lest people fling it back in your faces. There are socially conservative Democrats, which you listed, and of which we were all aware. I never said Republican. I said socially conservative because the problem is the ideology not the party itself. Social conservatism fought and lost every battle I listed.
I agree with you that it makes more sense to talk about liberal vs. conservative rather than Dem. vs. Rep., especially given the classic party-name-swap situation.
|
On June 13 2020 08:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2020 08:03 Danglars wrote:On June 13 2020 06:44 micronesia wrote:On June 13 2020 06:26 Mohdoo wrote:
Today is the anniversary of interracial marriage being legal in the US. Friendly reminder that social conservatism has never once been on the right side of history. They eventually lose every. single. time. I'm sure there have been some pretty wacky ideas from self-proclaimed socially liberal people in the past that never got any traction following a modicum of push-back from social conservatives. It's easy to remember all the cases where social conservatism failed to prevent the future and forget the times when they were actually the voice of reason (since nothing changed). My guess would be that most of the significant social arguments that got a lot of attention eventually went in the direction of social liberals, but I'd be cautious about going too far and saying or implying that all ideas from social liberals should be embraced by default. We're coming up on the anniversary of the end of Robert Byrd's senatorial career. Byrd, a Democratic Senator for 51 years (ending June, 2010) was a former Exalted Cyclops of the Ku Klux Klan and filibustered the 1964 Civil Rights Act long after his disavowal. This is a thread reminder to not embrace idiotic narratives about "the right side of history" in acts of political signalling. And, strangely enough, the big anti-statue push ignores a leader of the Klansmen, whose name is on courthouses as well as statues. Woodrow Wilson, Democratic president, who said blacks were an "ignorant and inferior race" and made Birth of a Nation the first movie shown at the White House (Watch it portray radical Republicans pushing for black equality, as it represents blacks as poorly mannered, dumb, predators of white women). I don't know who the mob is coming for next, though the Gandhi statue in London is a worrying current target, but I know the current trend will not end in anyplace good. And lest you think the problems of social liberals are ancient, while social conservatives are modern, Joe Biden fought against racial integration in the 1970s, and voted for the crime bill that imprisoned so many young black men (Bernie voted against it) in the 1990s. He is the current Democratic party nominee. So please, drop the partisan talk about relative party culpability, lest people fling it back in your faces. I feel like these are whataboutisms. The original assertion was "Friendly reminder that social conservatism has never once been on the right side of history" and your response has been "But what about these Democrats that were also wrong about things?" The counterexamples would need to be social conservative ideals that *were/are* on the right side of history.... not socially liberal anythings. (There may very well be counterexamples to the assertion, but your statements have not included them so far.)
I've seen too much of the shifting on socially liberal, in terms of "X did this bad thing, so instead of socially liberal being on the wrong side of history, I'm just gonna declare him not socially liberal." Mohdoo is reaching back to fucking 1967. There was no recognizable "socially conservative" position back then, unless you're really stretching conservative to mean anything status quo, and liberal to mean revolting against it. So my argument is against anything going back decades into history to reach a conclusion about "right side of history." The easier examples (and tying this back to the statue junk) Democrats that are immune to wrong side of history, and forgotten in the big culture war push to remove statues of problematic historical figures. So I'm going to say, Democrats whose career spanned this many years still got votes, one is the current Democratic nominee, so be honest and say that Democrats are on the "wrong side of history." Remember, he cited no specific Republicans to justify the generalizations, only connected social conservatism to opposition to interracial marriage.
The stupid end to these kind of conversations, mostly applied to Trump supporters, is you have to be a little bit in favor of mass incarceration to vote Biden, and at least partly turn a blind eye to school segregation to vote Biden. Secondly, don't pretend definitions of what's socially conservative or socially liberal that can stretch back 50 years and not morph. That one's point's just as valid for political parties as it is for subpolitical ideological movements: social conservatism, progressive movement, left social liberalism, etc. Goldwater had no opposition to intermarriage, and he was an early conservative that courted social conservatives.
The more recent example was probably Obama. He was socially liberal, and ran against gay marriage, now a staunch social liberal position. Maybe you say he changed later, but as before, there was no changing or fixed attachment of social conservatives towards racial intermarriage either, broadly speaking.
Anyways, I don't think anything but partisanship can be seen behind trying to refer to "X movement I oppose" being attached to "the wrong side of history," particularly if you have to adopt ludicrous positions of invariant identities stretching back half centuries.
|
|
|
Kinda weird to accuse “right side of history” talk of being “partisan.” It’s literally saying “I think this side is right and that side is wrong,” of course that’s partisan. So is any argument anyone makes favoring one side over another. So?
I mostly don’t find the “right side of history” framing that useful, although historical contextualization of an issue certainly can be. Looking at historical bans on women, blacks, and gays in the military alongside Trump’s trans ban it’s hard not to notice a trend.
|
I think the point Danglars is making with these examples isn't to break this down party lines, but to answer Mohdoo's post:
On June 13 2020 06:50 Mohdoo wrote:
Certainly. But when we look at:
1. What if black people are humans
2. What if black people should have equal voting
3. What if women are equal to men
4. what if different races should be allowed to marry
5. what if same sex marriage was ok
there is one side that fought against every single one of those
There is no "one side". "Social conservatism" is not a single, monolithic entity. The "social conservative" that hates gays, women, and blacks is not a single, unified idealogy. Rather, individual people have complex belief systems that change over time, as is demonstrated by those examples Danglars raised.
Declaring social conservatism as on "the wrong side of history" reeks of post-hoc analysis because history is only meaningful when change happens. When social conservatism "wins", things stay the same, so there's nothing to write about. Social conservatism was "winning" for the hundreds of years that blacks were enslaved.
|
I can name an example of social conservatism winning pretty easily : Phyllis Schafly killing the equal rights amendment.
|
Would you agree that instituting and raising age of consent were conservative victories? According to wikipedia, it was 7 in Delaware at some point haha.
|
I mean, people opposing abolition of slavery didn’t call themselves “social conservatives,” but they did root their opposition in traditional values, respect for established institutions, and a general skepticism of radical social change, right? In other words there was no Social Conservatism but there was certainly social conservatism.
Part of why I don’t like the framing, though, is that it manages direct analogy to history only by abstracting away almost all of the relevant details. Slavery wasn’t wrong because it was socially conservative, it was wrong because the institution itself was wrong.
I hesitate to invoke this curse on the discussion by bringing them up, but NAMBLA are, I think, clearly socially liberal, and opposing them is socially conservative. But I think the socially conservative view here is clearly the right one.
Edit: oh god, I wasn’t even the first one to bring up age of consent. Please don’t let that be the new topic.
|
On June 13 2020 06:50 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2020 06:44 micronesia wrote:On June 13 2020 06:26 Mohdoo wrote:
Today is the anniversary of interracial marriage being legal in the US. Friendly reminder that social conservatism has never once been on the right side of history. They eventually lose every. single. time. I'm sure there have been some pretty wacky ideas from self-proclaimed socially liberal people in the past that never got any traction following a modicum of push-back from social conservatives. It's easy to remember all the cases where social conservatism failed to prevent the future and forget the times when they were actually the voice of reason (since nothing changed). My guess would be that most of the significant social arguments that got a lot of attention eventually went in the direction of social liberals, but I'd be cautious about going too far and saying or implying that all ideas from social liberals should be embraced by default. Certainly. But when we look at: 1. What if black people are humans 2. What if black people should have equal voting 3. What if women are equal to men 4. what if different races should be allowed to marry 5. what if same sex marriage was ok there is one side that fought against every single one of those
I mean, sure, if you just completely ignore the history of the democratic party in the US, this point is accurate lol
|
These tangents you let Danglars walk you on are wild.
|
On June 13 2020 10:02 Nevuk wrote:
I can name an example of social conservatism winning pretty easily : Phyllis Schafly killing the equal rights amendment.
Wasn't the ERA designed to guarantee equal rights to everyone, regardless of sex?
|
On June 13 2020 10:26 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2020 10:02 Nevuk wrote:
I can name an example of social conservatism winning pretty easily : Phyllis Schafly killing the equal rights amendment. Wasn't the ERA designed to guarantee equal rights to everyone, regardless of sex?
Yes, it was to specify that all rights in the constitution were granted equally to women and men. By some counts it now has the appropriate number to ratify (as of January 2020), but 5 states also uncertified it, so it's in a weird state. Was first proposed in 1923.
It's a really, really simple amendment :
Men and women shall have equal rights throughout the United States and every place subject to its jurisdiction. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
It was opposed on the grounds that it could open women to the draft, eliminate alimony, and prevent women from almost always getting custody of children.
It was also (more notoriously, and probably more successfully) opposed on the grounds it would eliminate different gender bathrooms, let gay people marry, destroy traditional gender roles, and only help professional young women - that it would hurt housewives who had no marketable skills.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
