Remember this when conservatives attempt to rewrite history

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by gator996, Aug 29, 2013.

  1. gator996
    Offline

    gator996 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    9,963
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +15
    Much of what you hear from conservatives today about current black leaders are the same accusations and slander they hurled at the civil rights leaders who led the march in the 60's.

    The racist beliefs of the conservative movement haven't changed.
    Nor has their reluctance to admit they have been wrong on the issue of race.

    What has changed is their rhetoric towards a movement they vehemently opposed but now try to "morph" into their ideals.



    Read the entire article here: http://www.mediaite.com/online/i-have-a-revisionist-dream-national-review-tries-to-make-dr-kings-speech-an-ode-to-conservativism/


    I Have a Revisionist Dream: National Review Tries to Make Dr. King’s Speech an Ode to Conservatism
    by Evan McMurry | 1:45 pm, August 28th, 2013


    The upstanding folks at the National Review are shoveling overtime on this August 28 to get themselves out of the hole their founder William F. Buckley first dug more than fifty years ago.

    “Too many conservatives and libertarians, including the editors of this magazine, missed all of this at the time,” the editors wrote of the March on Washington, in an editorial I doubt a single one of them looked forward to. “They worried about the effects of the civil-rights movement on federalism and limited government. Those principles weren’t wrong, exactly; they were tragically misapplied, given the moral and historical context.”

    Tragically misapplied limited government principles is quite the deflation of the systemic and institutionalized racism that reigned from the end of the Civil War until it was partially mitigated by hard-earned legislation in the 1960s—as if conservatives were all set to join the March on Washington but tripped over a hardcover of Hayek and missed their church bus. The National Review knows full well it was on the wrong side of history fifty years ago. But by retroactively reading their conservative ideals into the civil rights movement—by reframing the “moral context”— the editors hope to smuggle the magazine’s current, less rabid but no less sincere brand racism back into the debate.

    Editor at large Jonah Goldberg does most of the heavy lifting in a separate post. “In the American context, these are universal appeals,” Goldberg wrote of King’s “idea of colorblindness.” “King pleaded for the fulfillment of America’s classically liberal revolution. At the core of that revolution was the concept of negative liberty—being free from government-imposed oppression. That is why the Bill of Rights is framed in the negative or designed to restrict the power of government. ‘The Congress shall make no law’ that abridges freedom of speech, assembly, etc. This arrangement has never fully satisfied the Left.”

    It’s quite rich to call “colorblindness” a universal appeal at a time when much of the country was vehemently opposing the integration of African Americans into society. It didn’t have a universal appeal for George Wallace, or for the men who killed Emmett Till, or who shot Medgar Evers. It didn’t have universal appeal for baseball until 1947. It didn’t have universal appeal for the armed forces until 1948. It didn’t have universal appeal for schools until 1954. Nor did the “universal appeal” of colorblindness speak to the Founding Fathers, who saw to it that these wonderful negative rights did in fact subtract two-fifths of African Americans’ personhood. It didn’t speak to slave owners. It didn’t speak to the Supreme Court. How many asterisks does a universal appeal need before it no longer is universal?

    This sleight of logic both centers an illusion of conservatism within the civil rights movement and leaves contemporary conservatives free to pursue any modern form of racist garbage they’d like. See, for instance, Bill O’Reilly on what MLK would make of contemporary black society, or George Will on any Sunday you’d like, each of whom in their own way attempt to read African Americans’ economic conditions not as an obstacle to self-realization but a punishment for lack of personal responsibility, something with which the socialist-heavy civil rights movement probably would not have agreed. By erasing integral portions of his message, conservatives have withered Dr. King into a right wing scold.

    Which brings us to the National Review’s pressing need to rewrite history. If the magazine seems to be pretzling itself over its own civil rights legacy, it’s because they’re trying to somehow square the fact that they were wrong about racial progress fifty years ago with the desire not to be wrong about it now. Ignore the fact that the publication has had to fire two writers in the past two years for racist rhetoric. (Or don’t!) Consider instead the publication’s stance on Voter ID laws, which are ruses to restrict minority voting—ruses which threaten to undue the very legislation the civil rights movement worked so hard to achieve.
  2. gator996
    Offline

    gator996 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    9,963
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +15
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/06/civil_rights_the_conservative.html

    Civil Rights & the Conservative Movement
    By William Voegeli

    It was within this framework that National Review conservatism addressed the issues raised by the civil rights movement. Integration and black progress were welcomed when they were the result of private actions like the boycotts of segregated buses or lunch counters, which Buckley judged "wholly defensible" and "wholly commendable." He also praised a forerunner to the socially responsible mutual fund, an investment venture started in 1965 to raise capital for racially integrated housing developments, calling it "a project divorced from government that is directed at doing something about a concrete situation," one that "depends for its success on the spontaneous support of individual people."

    The corollary was that conservatism opposed the civil rights agenda when it called for or depended on Big Government. "We frown on any effort of the Negroes to attain social equality by bending the instrument of the state to their purposes," Buckley wrote in 1960.

    But we applaud the efforts to define their rights by the lawful and non-violent use of social and economic sanctions which they choose freely to exert, and to which those against whom they are exerted are free to respond, or not, depending on what is in balance. That way is legitimate, organic progress.

    This opposition to Big Government engendered conservative opposition to every milestone achievement of the civil rights movement. National Review denounced Brown v. Board of Education (1954), calling it "an act of judicial usurpation," one that ran "patently counter to the intent of the Constitution" and was "shoddy and illegal in analysis, and invalid as sociology." It opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act and 1965 Voting Rights Act on similar grounds. A Buckley column dismissed the former as

    a federal law, artificially deduced from the Commerce Clause of the Constitution or from the 14th Amendment, whose marginal effect will be to instruct small merchants in the Deep South on how they may conduct their business.

    Senator Barry Goldwater used similar reasoning to justify voting against the bill on the eve of his general election contest with Lyndon Johnson. Saying he could find "no constitutional basis for the exercise of Federal regulatory authority" over private employment or public accommodations, Goldwater called the law "a grave threat" to a "constitutional republic in which fifty sovereign states have reserved to themselves and to the people those powers not specifically granted to the central or Federal government." Goldwater arrived at this conclusion, according to Rick Perlstein's book on the 1964 campaign, Before the Storm: Barry Goldwater and the Unmaking of the American Consensus (2001), after receiving advice from two young legal advisors, William Rehnquist and Robert Bork.
  3. gator996
    Offline

    gator996 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    9,963
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +15
    National Review's William F Buckley on Civil Rights


    Why the South Must Prevail’

    A famous example of the early NR stance on race was an unsigned editorial of August 24, 1957, titled “Why the South Must Prevail.” It was almost certainly written by Mr. Buckley, since he uses similar language in his book Up From Liberalism. The editorial argued against giving blacks the vote because it would undermine civilization in the South:


    “The central question that emerges … is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not prevail numerically? The sobering answer is Yes — the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race. It is not easy, and it is unpleasant, to adduce statistics evidencing the cultural superiority of White over Negro: but it is a fact that obtrudes, one that cannot be hidden by ever-so-busy egalitarians and anthropologists.”

    “National Review believes that the South’s premises are correct… It is more important for the community, anywhere in the world, to affirm and live by civilized standards, than to bow to the demands of the numerical majority.”

    “The South confronts one grave moral challenge. It must not exploit the fact of Negro backwardness to preserve the Negro as a servile class… Let the South never permit itself to do this. So long as it is merely asserting the right to impose superior mores for whatever period it takes to effect a genuine cultural equality between the races, and so long as it does so by humane and charitable means, the South is in step with civilization, as is the Congress that permits it to function.”

    The final passage about “genuine cultural equality between the races” can be read either as a last-minute loss of will or as a description of a criterion for the black franchise that could never be met. In any case, the editorial recognizes a principle NR would never articulate today: the right of a civilized minority — racial or otherwise — to impose its will upon an uncivilized majority. NR Contributing Editor L. Brent Bozell dissented from the editorial on constitutional grounds but still admitted, “It is understandable that White Southerners should try to have it both ways — they can’t know what would happen should Negroes begin to vote, and they naturally want to cover their bet.
  4. LittleBlueLW
    Offline

    LittleBlueLW Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    5,257
    Likes Received:
    717
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +986
    The Evan McMurray piece was garbage. Plain and simple.

    Sorry I dumbed down enough to start my day reading that. Time for a shower.
  5. gatordowneast
    Offline

    gatordowneast Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    11,748
    Likes Received:
    303
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +985
    Liberals have really helped blacks with their plan. 75% of black babies born out of wedlock. Family structure screwed up. Education in inner cities screwed up. Drugs rampant. Black males more likely to end up in prison than college. "real" Black unemployment rate more like 30% due to such a high drop out rate from even looking. And Blacks (like many other races) addicted to government crack like never before. Family incomes down. Detroit bankrupt. Stockton CA bankrupt. Oakland, CA on verge. Philly in trouble.

    AND WITH A BLACK PRESIDENT

    How is liberalism working out for the black race?
  6. gator996
    Offline

    gator996 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    9,963
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +15
    Do you hear the echo conservatives? :yes:

    "Integration is Communism"
    "Racially biased associations are OK"
    "Negro rights? What, the white community has none?”
    "Blame the activist judges on the SCOTUS"
    "Race relations in the country are ten times worse than in 1954" :roll:


    http://www.amren.com/news/2012/04/the-decline-of-national-review/



    The Decline of National Review
    James P. Lubinskas


    Needless to say, even in the 1950s, when the interests of whites were more openly recognized, the editorial called down the wrath of the liberals. Prof. William Muehl of the Yale Divinity School wrote: n that vicious and wholly amoral thesis you exposed again the basic savagery of the reactionary mentality at bay.” Would anything NR publishes today evoke such fury from established liberals?

    But Mr. Buckley’s magazine stood firm. A book review from the July 13th issue of the same year — 1957 — by Richard Weaver was called, “Integration is Communization.” Mr. Weaver found Carl Rowan’s Go South to Sorrow “a sorry specimen of Negro intellectual leadership,” and went on to express deep suspicion about the whole integrationist enterprise:


    ‘Integration’ and ‘Communization’ are, after all, pretty closely synonymous. In light of what is happening today, the first may be little more than a euphemism for the second. It does not take many steps to get from the ‘integrating’ of facilities to the ‘communizing’ of facilities, if the impulse is there.”

    He concluded with a restatement of the principles of voluntary association. “In a free society, associations for educational, cultural, social, and business purposes have a right to protect their integrity against political fanaticism. The alternative to this is the destruction of free society and the replacement of its functions by government, which is the Marxist dream.” Government’s current “civil rights” powers to limit freedom of association have, indeed, brought virtually every corner of our lives under bureaucratic control, but would NR dare say so today?

    Likewise in 1957, Sam M. Jones interviewed segregationist Senator Richard Russell of Georgia. In a Q&A format, Mr. Jones asked, “Do the people of the South fear political domination by the Negro or miscegenation or both?”

    Senator Russell replied, “Both. As you know, Mr. Jones, there are some communities and some states where the Negro’s voting potential is very great. We wish at all costs to avoid a repetition of the Reconstruction period when newly freed slaves made the laws and undertook their enforcement. We feel even more strongly about miscegenation or racial amalgamation.

    “The experience of other countries and civilizations has demonstrated that the separation of the races biologically is highly preferable to amalgamation.


    “I know of nothing in human history that would lead us to conclude that miscegenation is desirable.”

    The September 28, 1957 issue contained a piece by James Kilpatrick called “Right and Power in Arkansas,” in which he endorsed Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus’ call-up of the National Guard to prevent forced integration at Little Rock’s Central High School. Defending a community’s right to keep the peace, he wrote that “the State of Arkansas and Orval Faubus are wholly in the right; they have acted lawfully; they are entitled to those great presumptions of the law which underlie the whole of our judicial tradition.” Predicting a “storm” of white resistance he wrote, “Conceding, for the sake of discussion, that the Negro pupil has these new rights, what of the white community? Has it none?”

    An unsigned editorial in the September 21, 1957, issue put the blame for the whole incident squarely on the Supreme Court:


    Under the disintegrating effects of Brown v. Board of Education, the units of our society are forced into absolute dilemmas for which there is literally no solution within the traditional American structure. “Violence and the threat of violence; base emotions; the cynical exploitation of members of both races by ruthless ideologues; the shameful spectacle of heavily armed troops patrolling the lawns and schoolyards of once tranquil towns and villages; the turgid dregs of hatred, envy, resentment, and sorrow — all these are part of the swelling harvest of Brown v. Board of Education.”

    On the tenth anniversary of Brown, NR offered this June 2, 1964, editorial:


    But whatever the exact net result in the restricted field of school desegregation, what a price we are paying for Brown! It would be ridiculous to hold the Supreme Court solely to blame for the ludicrously named ‘civil rights movement’ — that is, the Negro revolt … But the Court carries its share of the blame. Its decrees, beginning with Brown, have on the one hand encouraged the least responsible of the Negro leaders in the course of extra-legal and illegal struggle that we now witness around us…“Brown, as National Review declared many years ago, was bad law and bad sociology. We are now tasting its bitter fruits. Race relations in the country are ten times worse than in 1954.
  7. AndyGator
    Offline

    AndyGator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    2,251
    Likes Received:
    35
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +123
    While I agree that civil rights went too far to help blacks and thus did not allow them to help themselves (which is what they really needed). But to paint the black community is no better off today than pre-civil rights is just plain wrong.

    While you can point to the half that is mired in poverty and dysfunction, I would argue that the other half of the black community is better off. Certainly the top quartile is. Back in the 60s and 70s when I was a kid growing up, we lived in an middle class to upper middle class neighborhood. We had one black family living within a 10-block radius of us. Today, I live in a similar neighborhood. We have dozens of black families within several blocks of us.

    So you think the bottom half or bottom 75% of the black community is worse off than they were in the 50s and 40s? Or 60s and 70s? I think they had the same blights, but more poverty.

    But I do agree with you on one premise, at least I think that may be your premise. The black community, and in fact any lower socio-economic community, needs to fix themselves. Government cannot do it for them.
  8. northgagator
    Offline

    northgagator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2007
    Messages:
    7,874
    Likes Received:
    80
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Metro Atlanta Ga Gwinnet County
    Ratings Received:
    +98
    Any sane and rational person can see that neither the Liberal and Conservative factions are all good or all bad. Yet 986 has started a thread with the intent that everything the Liberals did with Civil Rights is all good and at the same time The Conservatives did nothing right.
  9. gator996
    Offline

    gator996 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    9,963
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +15

    Yes, and so did the writers of these articles right?


    How about conservatives here defending the history of the quotes from Buckley and others rather than attacking the messenger?


    Here's a couple more another beauties from the National Review and the fathers of modern conservatism...


    "In the 1960s NR continued to oppose the civil rights movement and the assumption that race could somehow be reduced to irrelevance. A July 2, 1963, editorial declared: “The Negro people have been encouraged to ask for, and to believe they can get, nothing less than the evanescence of color, and they are doomed to founder on the shoals of existing human attitudes — their own included.” Race, as AR continues to point out, cannot be made not to matter, and NR once understood that.
    An article by James Kilpatrick in the September 24, 1963, issue argued that the Civil Rights Bill (eventually passed in 1964) should be voted down. He wrote, “I believe this bill is a very bad bill. In my view, the means here proposed are the wrong means… In the name of achieving certain ‘rights’ for one group of citizens this bill would impose some fateful compulsions on another group of citizens.” After it passed, an editorial declared: “The Civil Rights Act has been law for only a little over two months, yet it already promises to be the source of much legalistic confusion, civic chaos and bureaucratic malpractice.”
    (Expect to hear this one reused as the ACA goes live)

    Mr. Kilpatrick also took aim at the 1965 Voting Rights Act in the April 20, 1965 issue. “Must We Repeal the Constitution to Give the Negro the Vote?” he asked, accusing the bill’s supporters of “perverting the Constitution.” He thought certain blacks should be given the right to vote but notes, “Over most of this century, the great bulk of Southern Negroes have been genuinely unqualified for the franchise.” He also defended segregation as rational for Southerners. “Segregation is a fact, and more than a fact; it is a state of mind. It lies in the Southern subconscious next to man’s most elementary instincts, for self-preservation, for survival, for the untroubled continuation of a not intolerable way of life.”
  10. gatordowneast
    Offline

    gatordowneast Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    11,748
    Likes Received:
    303
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +985
    I repeat the Question. How has liberalism helped blacks? Can one of our uber libs explain that to the rest of us?
  11. gator996
    Offline

    gator996 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    9,963
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +15

    I glad you wrote this because not only is it filled with personal attack but factual inaccuracies and a noticed avoiding of the controversial cited quotes of the people who fathered the conservative movement.

    You would rather attack me...

    I show the quotes from articles that conservatives wrote and I'm waging a "personal" attack?



    I made no comments about "Liberalism being all good"...
    ...you made up that accusation out of thin air. Good job!

    Haven't mentioned the word "Liberalism" at all.


    So who here is prejudiced and abandon[ed] objectivity?
    :laugh:


    Respond to the quotes or the premise of the articles presented...don't bother attacking me.


    Oh BTW - most of what's coming back at me is summed up in the last highlighted paragraph of the OP....


    That is if you guys actually read the stuff posted.....


    "This sleight of logic both centers an illusion of conservatism within the civil rights movement and leaves contemporary conservatives free to pursue any modern form of racist garbage they’d like. See, for instance, Bill O’Reilly on what MLK would make of contemporary black society, or George Will on any Sunday you’d like, each of whom in their own way attempt to read African Americans’ economic conditions not as an obstacle to self-realization but a punishment for lack of personal responsibility, something with which the socialist-heavy civil rights movement probably would not have agreed. By erasing integral portions of his message, conservatives have withered Dr. King into a right wing scold."
  12. gator996
    Offline

    gator996 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    9,963
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +15

    How has it helped blacks?

    Its helped the entire country unless you believe in the "merits" of segregation.

    Care to defend the quotes that are the premise of this thread or will you continue to try and hijack the thread to deflect from commenting on what the conservative party stands for?

    :grin:
  13. Row6
    Offline

    Row6 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2009
    Messages:
    15,997
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +26
    The National Review and MLK don't go together and Buckley's position was indefensible. He was the leading spokesman for the cause of conservatism for over a generation, is still revered by conservative, and like so many in the movement on so many issues, was on the wrong side of history. Your appeal to "nobody's perfect" is a really weak response which makes one wonder why you bothered.
  14. Row6
    Offline

    Row6 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2009
    Messages:
    15,997
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +26
    If by liberalism you mean the civil rights movement, do you even have to ask? And yes, it was supported by liberals and mostly not by conservatives. See MLK on Goldwater to get the contemporary view.
  15. gatordowneast
    Offline

    gatordowneast Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    11,748
    Likes Received:
    303
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +985
    I would not agree with any of those quotes. They were someone's opinion which I do not agree with. But neither do I agree with most liberal positions in regard to helping blacks rise from poverty and the clutches of government dependency, bad schools and broken families.
  16. gator996
    Offline

    gator996 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    9,963
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +15

    They're not just someone's quotes...

    Buckley is the father of the conservative movement.


    This is one of the serious problems today....people in the modern conservative movement don't even know where their beliefs come from.

    These are quotes from your founding fathers....


    Don't agree with them?
  17. gatordowneast
    Offline

    gatordowneast Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    11,748
    Likes Received:
    303
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +985
    Yes, I do need to ask. With 30% black unemployment, 75% of black babies born outside of marriage (if they are fortunate enough to not be aborted), young black men more likely to go to jail or prison than get a college degree, and blacks continuing to be enslaved by government programs designed to help, and with the black poverty rate the same today as in 1964. I repeat. HOW HAS LIBERALISM HELPED BLACKS?
  18. Row6
    Offline

    Row6 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2009
    Messages:
    15,997
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +26
    I asked you to define your terms and you haven't responded.

    I had a friend who was an old farmer I did custom hay cutting with back in the 1970's. He was black and I liked to ask him about the old days, like I do most older people (less and less of them now as I'm becoming that guy). One time I asked if it was better then or now. He looked at me like my head had just turned into a possum. Did I even have to ask? Will that do for your answer?
  19. gatordowneast
    Offline

    gatordowneast Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    11,748
    Likes Received:
    303
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +985
    996, my beliefs come from my parents, teachers, mentors, the bible, life experiences, those that have influenced me. Not one man or one idea. And fortunately I have a bull shit meter which allows me to filter out those whose views are bull shit.

    Where do your's come from? Che Guevara?
  20. PSGator66
    Offline

    PSGator66 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2011
    Messages:
    6,221
    Likes Received:
    145
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +613

Share This Page