Talk:States' Rights Democratic Party

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

cute opinion website you have here — Unsigned, by: 71.74.225.60 / talk

I mean, it does help that we're correct. I suppose you're going to tell us that they were all far-left, or that they rejoined the Democrats? Or blather on about how the Democrats were the party of slavery in the 1800s? Or maybe, having said nothing of much note, you'll simply wander away like a self satisfied child. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:22, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Mind if I add something here? This is just my opinion, but I think instead of responding to obvious bad faith statements made by trolls, we should try to change the article itself to refute the statements. For example, here we can just add like a shit-ton of citations for even obvious facts to show that it is lot less opinions and more on analysis. (i am sorry if this wasn’t coherent it’s like 11:30 in India)The 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭 talk stalk 16:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Sen. Russell[edit]

There's a link in a section of the page to the WP page on Richard Russell Jr., implying that he's a conservative. I'd like to note that while he allied with conservative Republicans during the 30s on fiscal and labor related issues, he was progressive on other matters. Russell throughout his career pushed for federal programs and initiatives similar to FDR, Lyndon Johnson, and other liberals during his tenure as a racist senator. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 22:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

He was also one of the major leaders of the conservative coalition in congress. "Conservative" does not always have the same meaning.-Flandres (talk) 02:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
The Conservative Coalition largely agreed on fiscal and labor matters but were split on other issues. Just because Russell was a leader of the coalition doesn't make him a conservative because he was particularly liberal on federal government powers in regard to social programs. Many of the very racist segregationists including Russell and Ellender who fought civil rights were the ones who staunchly supported welfare programs. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 02:57, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Ah, but he was a SOCIAL conservative.-Flandres (talk) 03:00, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
You need to pay attention. Russell wasn't exactly conservative on social issues because he supported the very liberal programs touted by FDR and Johnson. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 03:03, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC. Not Liberal. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:04, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Also, just pointing out analyzer clearly has no idea what "social conservative" actually means in the context of the American south circa 1937.-Flandres (talk) 03:08, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
GC, I don't think you understand what some of these terms mean. Supporting federal government programs as opposed to the free market to attempt helping poor people is indeed a liberal position, which was what FDR, Russell, and Johnson had backed. These facts are indisputable. While Russell may have been conservative on fiscal and some labor matters, his liberal positions on social programs contradicts the narrative that he overall was a "conservative Democrat". UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 03:10, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Ok, so first off, your definition of liberalism is bullshit. Liberalism as an ideology is pretty much tied to free market capitalism for better or worse. You know, because they're the ones who fucking invented it. What your talking about (heavy safety regulations on industry, wealth taxes, strong social safety nets) is called social democracy, an ideology which peaked in the early 1900s but as been on an uptick rather recently. Don't you fucking know anything? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:21, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
You're confusing classical liberalism with modern liberalism. The former emphasizes on free market principles while the latter was what FDR, Russell, Ellender, and Johnson supported. Perhaps you ought to understand some of these terms before using them! UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 03:25, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
And yet, Russel was still a social conservative. You are dealing with economic matters, not social ones. Perhaps you would have an easier time understanding the phrase "cultural conservative?"-Flandres (talk) 03:29, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Did you skip over the part where I pointed out that Russell wasn't necessarily conservative on social issues given his support for federal programs? You do realize that repeating a big lie doesn't make it true, right? UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 03:31, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
You realizing accusing someone of lying without evidence makes you look the fool right? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:33, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Also, reply on your damn talkpage. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:34, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Er...I just explained you were talking about economic issues analyzer. Social issues refer to cultural mores and their place in our society. He was a conservative who denounced the civil rights movement as radical. He wanted to keep the status quo of the south enshrined. Again, you seem to not know what the phrase "social conservative" means, hmhmhmhm...-Flandres (talk) 03:35, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
I just explained to you Russell's liberal positions on welfare and other federal programs. You can't get around this fact. Even if you are to argue that this isn't a social issue, the fact remains that this point disproves the narrative supposing he was overall a "conservative Democrat". UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 03:38, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Wow. You certainly are bad at this. If you can't get why supporting segregation makes someone a social conservative, there's really no hope for you.-Flandres (talk) 03:41, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Flandres, GC, enjoying talking to that brick wall there? Kauri0.o (talk) 03:56, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Ah, I see Flandres isn't directly addressing my point anymore regarding Russell's liberal positions. Also, perhaps I am comparable to a brick wall: I'm sturdy and stand firm. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 04:42, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
I mean, you keep dodging the central issue (segregation), so there really isn't that much more to say. Also, why are you so adverse to defining your terms? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 04:47, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Since you guys seem to insinuate (or at least don't attempt to dispute) that segregationists then were conservative, I should note that the civil rights issue during the 50s and 60s was much more of a Republican/Democrat divide rather than a conservative/liberal divide. "Racist liberal" is not an oxymoron, as many segregationist Democrats were indeed liberals. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 04:56, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Furthermore, you have dodged my points about Russell's liberal positions. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 04:59, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I take umbrage with many of the talking points repeated in this thread. First, characterizing FDR's welfare programs as "social" programs is not technically wrong, but very misleading. Nearly all objections to these programs were from economic concerns, not concerns over the well-being of society or the introduction of harmful social behaviors, objections common for social-based policies. These programs were not viewed as adjusting the social structure of America, but instead its economic structure. If these really were social programs, then why didn't many object to them as such? It seems clear that many of these senators were not economic conservatives, that much seems obvious. But now let's go over the top social issues of the day, and how these senators compare: rights of blacks and other races (Strongly against) intermarriage (Strongly against) women, especially married women, participating in the job market or otherwise exercising degrees of independence from men (Strongly against), rights of the mentally ill (Strongly against - many supported mandatory committal to institutions), rights of gays and other sexualities, though this became an issue a little later (Strongly against). I'm hard-pressed to find a relevant social issue that these Congressmen took the more liberal side of. Perhaps your greatest error is your characterization of civil rights as a Republican/Democrat divide. When the Civil Rights Act was introduced to Congress, supermajorities of Republicans and Democrats supported its passage. Meanwhile, both the Southern Democrats and the more staunchly anti-communist, Republican-voting groups, like the John Birch Society, campaigned against desegregation. Even Barry Goldwater, who never took a strong stance on any such social issue, tolerated the presence of strong racists in his presidential campaign, and promised to turn a blind eye to the issues of civil rights and racial equality. It's abundantly clear that there were both Republican and Democrat segregationists and racists, though neither composed the majority of their party at the time. IveBeenFrank (talk) 11:01, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

In addition to that, wasn't the whole point of the Southern Strategy to gobble up the Dixiecrat demographic after the Dems began abandoning them in favor of the Civil Rights movement? A process which took around 20-30 years? Which in turn would indicate a severe level of blur between the parties at the time. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:43, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
@Flandres I don't know a lot about this subject. But I do know about political theory. . The conservatives in UK, from Burke to Peel and Aberdeen were the ones that fought slavery I believe thats partially truth in US (I remember Russel Kirk mentioning how conservatives fought slavery in US on his The Conservative Mind because of their Christian Universalist views). Saying that "conservativism=keep the status" is very poor.
Another flaw I see in the name drop in the section "problems". It can be done both ways. The article should explain why the Southern Democrats are conservatives or not, and if you want my opinion and remove this name drop because it's a logical fallacy . GeeJayK (talk) 21:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Have you ever read the dictionary definition of conservative? Like, google "conservative definition" please.-Flandres (talk) 21:17, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
We don't need to resort to Argumentum ad dictionarium, do we? After all the definition wouldn't fit in a dictionary, Roger Scruton has a 400 pages book about it .Of course you could support slavery with conservative values back then, but you could also be against it (in fact, The pioneers of the anti-slavery in Europe were on average conservatives). GeeJayK (talk) 21:25, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
GeeJayK has an excellent point. While the term "conservative" in a very generic and vague sense can simply mean "keeping the status quo", using it to describe racist Democrat politicians in the 20th century who were liberal on most issues on the argument that "they wanted to keep the status quo of Southern racism" is very misleading and deceitful. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 21:31, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

The early Republican Party definitely wasn't liberal on social issues[edit]

Perhaps it would be useful to review the first Republican Party platform, which says:

Resolved: That the Constitution confers upon Congress sovereign powers over the Territories of the United States for their government; and that in the exercise of this power, it is both the right and the imperative duty of Congress to prohibit in the Territories those twin relics of barbarism--Polygamy, and Slavery.

As such, early Republicans opposed attempts to redefine and undermine the meaning of marriage. This is in some respects comparable to the current conservative opposition to same-sex marriage, where advocates of such, according to the political/religious right, undermine the traditional definition and values.

Furthermore, the early opposition to slavery by Republicans was rooted in a firm Judeo-Christian morality and strong biblical values. They believed that natural rights applied to everyone and not merely a group of people. Sounds comparable in some ways to this more current movementWikipedia. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 18:08, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Presentist. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Your point? Are there any of my provided factual points you'd like to specifically dispute? UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 18:15, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Given you're still avoiding a demand for peer reviewed papers, I'd avoid assertions of being "factual" if I were you. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:22, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Slavery was the status quo in the USA at the time. Progressives denounce the status quo and seek to move beyond it via new reforms. The Republicans were progressives on the issue of slavery. Conservatives wish to keep the status quo. Slavery was the status quo. The Democrats were conservatives on the issue of slavery.-Flandres (talk) 18:25, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Ok, I see your point, Flandres, but you're ignoring the fact that Republicans then rooted their opposition to slavery in the same Judeo-Christian values that more principled conservative Republicans today advocate. Since the use of the term liberal/progressive in the article might lead readers to think that we're implying Republicans at the time to be comparable to liberals/progressives nowadays, I would prefer the wording be improved to avoid that. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 18:44, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
@Flandres I wouldn't break left wing/right wing into "change/no change" respectively. There's more going in those ideologies than that. I'll point out, Flandres, that the prosegregation group likely wanted to strip more and more rights from black people during mid 20th century so they weren't necessarily satisfied with the status quo. Republicans today certainly aren't satistified. Why is this the case?
Also, UShistoryanalyzer, take your comparison of anti abortion to anti slavery and shove your fetus up a womb to get aborted.
(Edit) And I'll like the point that the same Judeo-Christian values were used to support slavery. WTF is your point? --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 20:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Progressives want to change society to something they see as "new," whilst reactionaries are to the right of conservatives-they want to roll back changes to remake society into their vision of what it once was. A reactionary in the mid 19th century would want to force ALL states to make slavery legal, instead of just keeping slavery legal in the south.-Flandres (talk) 20:07, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
@LeftyGreenMario "Judeo-Christian values" didn't exist in the 1700s. The term and concept is a product of the 1960s onward. Again, the dipshit is engaging in presentism. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

About Howard Smith...[edit]

...Opposing Civil Rights in the context of the American south at his time is conservative. He defended the existing status quo of segregation.-Flandres (talk) 01:48, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

@Flandres Ah, so long as you ignore theWikipedia numerousWikipedia racistWikipedia SouthernWikipedia DemocratsWikipedia whoWikipedia wereWikipedia liberalWikipedia. You also seem to forget theWikipedia manyWikipedia staunchlyWikipedia conservativeWikipedia RepublicansWikipedia whoWikipedia supportedWikipedia civilWikipedia rightsWikipedia. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 20:57, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
You have a very simplistic view of "liberal" and "conservative." It is possible to be a ideologically mixed politician, liberal on some issues and conservative on others. You seem to have a lot of trouble getting that...-Flandres (talk) 20:59, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
And your definition of "liberal" and "conservative" are too relative, thus making your usage of the terms deceptively misleading when applying them to describe politicians from the 20th century. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 21:08, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Uh...no. People can be ideologically mixed, and that was in fact mainstream in American politics until the recent decades of hyperpolarization. Aren't really good at analyzing US history are you? Oh, can you actually refute that he was conservative on civil rights?-Flandres (talk) 21:11, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────UShistoryanalyzer, you're making a claim that is contrary to what Wikipedia says on Smith and Russell. As such, the burden of proof is upon you to give actual academic/impartial evidence to support your claim. Although Wikipedia says that Howard W. Smith initially supported the New Deal, practically his whole career was in opposition to liberal ideas: opposing the NLRB, creating the Alien Registration Act of 1940, leading the conservative coalition. Though Russell did support some liberal ideas, he was a founder and leader of the conservative coalition. Bongolian (talk) 07:10, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

A brief look at Ellender's record[edit]

@Plutocow You reverted my edit which took Allen J. Ellender off the list of racist Southern Democrats deemed "conservative". Perhaps we should take a gander at his record:

  • "...widely regarded as a moderate and a pragmatist who supported liberal New Deal policies..." [1]
  • opposed Joseph McCarthy
  • "...became an advocate of closer relations with the Soviet Union and critic of defense spending..." [2]
  • "...supported progressive legislation in areas such as education, public housing, censorship, and the separation of church and state" [3]
  • praised by Lyndon B. Johnson for helping pass a federal government programs [4][5]

So if he's really a "conservative Democrat", in what way specifically? UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 02:47, 26 March 2021 (UTC)