And that's fine, I'll happily engage -- with a stressed caveat; the only reason I took such a strong position originally was because I was appalled at the oversimplified idiotic portrayal of conservatism, as an ideology, somehow being inherently racist. I know it's a bit of an odd exercise to look at the humanistic elements of political theory outside of the confines of political reality, and I understand why some habitually conflate the two ... but bear with me. Conservatism, at its core, is not a reactionary belief system. It preaches a kind of prudent lethargy towards everything from societal progressivism to policy formation in very calculated baby steps. If I had to dumb it down idiomatically, I would probably choose to characterize it as, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." In my mind, that is the essence of conservative theory -- not just politically, but socially as well. It's dated and old-fashioned, definitely not the shiniest ideology on the block, but she still purrs and might just drop your ass off the starting line.
So, let's take that very rudimentary stenciling of conservatism and, for the sake of this particular discourse, lay it on top of the Civil Rights movement and bring in the political component of conservatism to boot. The citizenry, by and large, came to a mutually shared ideological understanding that overt racism (at least) would no longer stand. The next step was to legislate that progress. Liberals wanted changes that the conservatives considered radical, not because they out and out disagreed with them, but because they were parts broad, overreaching, fast. Goldwater famously said, "You can't legislate morality." Thusly, a political tug of war begins that is still very alive, and, clearly, still very raw. We see it in the aforementioned gerrymandering debacles, to affirmative action, to food stamps.
There isn't one path to advancement.
You're kinda talking past the point with George Wallace. Yes, he was a racist demagogue Democrat . . . and the Republican Party poached his base, and securely owns it today. That was not an accident of history. Those Southern Democrats self-identified as conservatives. They joined a voting bloc with conservative Republicans in order to prevent Roosevelt from effecting change antithetical to them (i.e. involving civil rights and labor) and that coalition continued to influence, if not dominate, congressional politics until it ceased to be a coalition and just became, well, the Republican congressional delegation.
Not exactly. Wallace was running as a segregationist Democrat as late as 1964. And that had precious little to do with the Dixiecrat movement of 1948, but everything to do with the fact that Wallace was, for the most part, actually a very progressive liberal that just happened to get caught up in what you accurately described as the 'muddling' of ideology and politics. My point in bringing up his name was simply to illustrate that segregationist beliefs were clearly dribbling across ideological lines, an example of how the culture of the time was influencing the politics.
You've mentioned the "modern conservative movement." How do you date that? Does Reagan not rate? What's the timeframe on this movement, and who are its leading lights? If there's a writer or thinker who has significantly shifted conservative thought (in your opinion) in the last 15-20 years, I'd be interested to learn more. Any suggestions?
I would actually make the case for modern conservatism beginning sometime around 1995 (Gingrich's contract for America). I think contemporary Republicans have been trying to get back to the Reagan era ever since, though, so you'll find a lot of theorists actively espousing beliefs dating back to that political time period.
When I hear the issue discussed, though, it's usually rife with racial code words and (usually) misunderstanding or misinformation. Is this your experience? There's the assumption, of course, that the majority on welfare are black. From the 2012 campaign...
Not the majority, but a very disconcerting figure. I'm stealing this from an article on Daily KOS: "Black Americans make up 32% of welfare recipients, even though they comprise a mere 12% of the US population. So the demographics of welfare recipients are not comparable to the overall demographics of the US. Even more concerning, Black Americans are more than twice as likely (a link to a research study from Pew) to have been on welfare than White Americans."
---
So just how ****ing insulting is that? How chock-full of distortion, prejudice, paternalism, and assumption? By the way, "Food Stamp President" wasn't a one-off or a mistake. It was an applause line in his stump speech. Now, I think that either man could explain himself and his policies in a more diplomatic and empathetic way. However, they were speaking during a Republican primary, and the message that they needed to transmit to the base was that they would not take your tax dollars and give it to indolent blacks. What's changed, exactly, except the language?
The quotes that you used are in poor taste, I won't dispute that -- but, I also don't think you are giving enough consideration to what either politician actually formulated as policy alternatives to the status quo regarding the welfare system. The essence of their reforms can't really afford to mince words.
Again, from Daily KOS: "We need to wake up and grow up here. This is a welfare problem in the Black community. 27% of Black Americans live in poverty compared to only 10% of non-Hispanic White Americans. And that's a more telling statistic. If Black Americans have a 'in the ballpark range' regarding the percentage of college graduates to White Americans (18% vs. 32%), then how come our poverty rates are still significantly higher?"
