Talk:Timeline of modern American conservatism

Civil rights legislation

It seems to me that a major feature of American conservatism in the 1950s and 1960s was opposition to civil-rights legislation. This was particularly significant in the South, where the national Democratic Party "lost the South" by embracing civil-rights legislation. The current Republican domination in southern states is often traced to this shift arising from conservative opposition to civil-rights bills. This doesn't appear to be covered by the timeline in any great depth. Does anyone think it should be? MastCell ^Talk 22:03, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely! A major feature of the history of U.S. conservatism. Binksternet (talk) 22:09, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, let's talk sources then. The issue is actually addressed head-on by some partisan conservative sources. For instance, the Claremont Institute, a conservative think-tank, has a 2008 piece on "Civil Rights and the Conservative Movement". It's fairly nuanced, and argues (among other things) that conservatism of the era was not inherently racist (despite some of William F. Buckley's early remarks on the superiority of the white race), but was implacably opposed to any government intervention even if that intervention was aimed at addressing obvious racial injustices. The same piece quotes Jonah Goldberg, a conservative commentator, as saying:

Conservatives should feel some embarrassment and shame that we are outraged at instances of racism now that it is easy to be. Conservatives... were often at best MIA on the issue of civil rights in the 1960s. Liberals were on the right side of history on the issue of race. And conservatives should probably admit that more often.

Writing in the National Review, Ramesh Ponnuru argues:

In the civil-rights debates of the 1950s and 1960s, many conservatives—including William F. Buckley Jr., other figures associated with this magazine, and Sen. Barry Goldwater—took positions that the vast majority of conservatives now reject. Most contemporary conservatives who know this history regret it and find it embarrassing.

In some cases these conservative positions were motivated by straightforward support for an official policy of white supremacy, or by a desire to enlist segregationist southern Democrats in the burgeoning conservative movement. But some people held these positions while also sincerely wishing for segregation to end. They believed that their conservative principles—principles that do not on their face entail hostility to blacks—compelled opposition to the civil-rights movement’s platform. ([1])

Again, these are partisan conservative sources, but they underscore that this is relevant aspect of American conservatism in the 1950s and 1960s. I would assume we can find good non-partisan sources as well. MastCell ^Talk 23:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

One should not lump all civil rights legislation together. Restrictions on racial discrimination by government (at whatever level) are good. Restrictions on choices by private entities as to which persons they associate with are wrong. See User:JRSpriggs#Civil Rights Act of 1964. JRSpriggs (talk) 01:35, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Let's please avoid any discussions of the benefits of various public policies - we're just here to talk about improving this article.   Will Beback  talk  01:40, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

This is a timeline, not an article about modern conservatism. Conservative opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 should be mentioned, but the statement that conservatism "was implacably opposed to any government intervention even if that intervention was aimed at addressing obvious racial injustices" is not what one would expect to find in a timeline. Why they did this, whether they were right or wrong etc. is outside the scope of this article. TFD (talk) 05:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. I mentioned that by way of context, but I agree that any lengthy analysis of the reasons for conservative opposition to civil-rights legislation belongs elsewhere. MastCell ^Talk 18:48, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Several additions to the article have been made which mention civil rights. The unwary reader might be mislead by them into thinking that conservatives or Republicans were opposed to civil rights. So I added an item pointing out that Republicans gave relatively more support to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than did Democrats (as that article states and references). In fact, Republicans have always been more opposed to racial discrimination than Democrats. However, after African-Americans registered to vote in large numbers, the Democrats opportunistically switched from anti-black to pro-black. Unfortunately, The Four Deuces (talk · contribs) chose to delete my item without deleting the others, thus leaving the article with a bias. JRSpriggs (talk) 08:18, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was supported by liberal Democrats and Republicans and opposed by conservative Democrats and Republicans. It was a wedge issue that accelerated the polarization of the political parties into Democrats as liberals and Republicans as conservatives. Incidentally conservatives explained their objection to the act on the basis that it infringed on individual liberty. TFD (talk) 08:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

No, the CR Act split along region: nearly all Liberal and conservative southerners opposed, & vice versa nearly all liberal and conservative northerners supported it. Goldwater was the main exception. Someone is slipping in the notion that Wallace was a conservative. He was a leader of the populist liberal Democrats in the South, as his governorship demonstrates. He had a strong appeal to labor union members,. for example--he carried labor strongholds like Gary Indiana in the Dem primaries. Rjensen (talk) 09:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Except for Goldwater and his supporters, it is not clear who was a conservative in 1964. TFD (talk) 09:34, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The Senate vote by party and region from Civil Rights Act of 1964

• North Parties: South: 1 yes, 21 no; North = 72 yes, 6 no
• Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5%–95%)
• Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0%–100%) [one one GOP-- Tower of Texas]
• Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%–2%)
• Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%–16%) [Goldwater & 4 others opposed] Rjensen (talk) 10:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget about the neocons: "Neoconservatives differed with traditional conservatives on a number of issues, of which the three most important, in my view, were the New Deal, civil rights, and the nature of the Communist threat... On civil rights, all neocons were enthusiastic supporters of Martin Luther King, Jr. and the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1965" [2] – Lionel ^(talk) 10:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Except they did not exist then. As your link rightly points out, "their first institutional incarnation, after all, was as the Coalition for a Democratic Majority", which formed in 1972. (Note, we need to see if an article exists and create one if it does not.) TFD (talk) 10:49, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

In 1964, the main problem was discrimination against blacks by the governments of Southern states. Discrimination by private entities was primarily a consequence of them being compelled by the state governments. Only Goldwater and the libertarians realized that applying countervailing force to the private entities would become a big problem in the future. (And that it also hurts blacks indirectly.) JRSpriggs (talk) 11:31, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

So there was no organic, popular racism or discrimination in the South in 1964? And private entities engaged in discrimination only because they were compelled to do so by the state? Actually, never mind.

The contention that Wallace was not conservative seems based on an extraordinarily simplistic and selective reading of history. "Populist" and "conservative" are hardly mutually exclusive categories. Moreover, the fact that one appeals to blue-collar whites or union members does not exclude conservatism. In fact, Wallace was a pioneer in using racial resentment and social conservatism to split this demographic - generally progressive on economic matters - away the national Democratic party. Wallace himself frequently claimed credit for this strategy, used to great effect by Nixon and later Reagan. Do you want sources? We could start with George Wallace: Conservative Populist. MastCell ^Talk 18:14, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Rjensen will probably try to add in the article that Wallace had supported liberal programs and such and carried in union areas. I think that if this information should be added then we must also add the socially/culturally liberal views of Goldwater, Friedman ect to be fair. 96.35.124.13 (talk) 22:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Goldwater and Friedman were indeed in the libertarian camp at various points--tho in Goldwater's case it was revealed pretty late in life. Rjensen (talk) 11:40, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

We get back to the issue, what is a U.S. conservative? Sources describe Walllace as such, but they also say that none of these people were real conservatives. TFD (talk) 01:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

To MastCell: Certainly, a significant fraction of white people in the South were uncomfortable around blacks. But in most cases, that did not rise to the level that they would forgo the business of black people just to avoid that feeling. JRSpriggs (talk) 09:59, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Huh. Do you think it might have risen to the level that they wouldn't hire an African-American? Or do you think that as long as white vendors were willing to sell to African-Americans, discrimination in the private sector was a non-issue? MastCell ^Talk 17:59, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

the way it worked was like this, taking restaurants as an example of hiring blacks (or serving black customers). Some restaurant owners WANTED to hire a few black waitresses but a few customers made clear they would boycott the place and warn their friends away. No restaurant dared hire a black (or serve one). When the new law passed all the restaurant owners now were free from threats and could hire blacks. (and serve them) It liberated the owners from threats by a small minority of whites and they were pleased--except for one angry Lester Maddox in Atlanta. Rjensen (talk) 18:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, that was the theory used to justify it. But I believe that, absent threats of violence from the authorities or the Ku Klux Klan, most restaurants and other public accommodations would have eventually decided to defy the boycott and hire black employees and serve black customers. It makes no sense for most customers to participate in such a boycott. JRSpriggs (talk) 07:53, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

• Again, this page isn't the place to debate philosophy or government policies. We're just ehre to discuss this article. I suggest that this dispute is best settled by finding sources which describe the role of Conservatives (or whichever party) for or against the Civil Rights struggle.   Will Beback  talk  08:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I was just trying to point out that the whole thesis of this section of talk, that conservatism (esp. libertarianism) is opposed to equal rights for blacks, is completely the reverse of the truth. Leftists have been spreading this smear for a long time and it is necessary to point it out when it appears so people are not deceived by it. JRSpriggs (talk) 09:50, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

There are many strains of conservatism. We need to remember that it is not a monolith and that elements of it hold incompatible views on many topics. Let's stick to what sources say rather than constructing "No true conservative" arguments.   Will Beback  talk  11:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

The reasons for their opposition to the CRA is not something that should be covered in a timeline. TFD (talk) 13:50, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Any thoughts on the Note section? I realized that conservatism is a method, not a group. Though Republicanism is now associated with it, it wasn't always, and there were proponents of both slavery and the civil rights act that used conservative arguments. I also try to show that through comparing the arguments for/against slavery at that time with those for/against abortion today, since they happen to be almost identical. (And could I get some help finding citations? I know I've seen some, but I couldn't tell you where.) There is no hard and fast rule for whether or not conservatives were for or against it, so (in my opinion) it is best to point that out rather than letting the reader decide based solely on a list of events that none of us can actually agree on, thus creating a biased page. My hope for this is to remove any accidental bias that the page has in relation to slavery. Yodarocks1 (talk) 21:56, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Tax policy

Is "lowering taxes" or "tax cuts" generally accepted to mean the same as lowering tax rates? I keep running into people who argue that a "tax cut" lowers the total amount of tax that some favored group pays (like rich people or huge corporations). But I also have read (even here in Wikipedia) of examples where cutting a tax rate resulted in the federal government bringing in more tax revenue.

I don't think people in general will agree that "lowering taxes" means the same thing as "lowering the tax rate". There are many who assert that lowering tax rates can (and has!) result in increasing taxes. I read just the other day a claim that the Reagan tax rate cuts resulted in nearly doubling federal tax revenues.

Whether these claims are true or not might be controversial, but let's get the ball rolling by distinguishing between laws and regulations aimed at increasing tax revenue (via "tax rate cuts") and those which are intended (perhaps secretly) at lowering tax revenue (e.g,. tax cuts for the rich).

You can't discuss the issue without clear terminology. --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:55, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

A-Class Review: finally!

WikiProject Conservatism has just launched an A-Class Review department. It's modelled on the one at MILHIST. Did you know that A-Class is a higher quality than Good Article (GA)? (In fact there is no Good List.) And the entire process takes place within the WikiProject. I'm inviting editors here to joint nominate this list for A-List! @Rjensen and Toa Nidhiki05: – Lionel^(talk) 09:23, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Interesting. Glad to see more attention here! I'll have to check this out. Toa Nidhiki05 01:16, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Ideology Underlying the Tea Party Movement

I am so sorry, as I don't know how or where to raise this question, and I hope I'm doing it in the proper place.

The lede summary includes the statement: "Since 2009, the Tea Party movement has energized conservatives at the local level against the policies made by the presidency of Barack Obama, leading to a Republican landslide in 2010 and again in 2014, eventually culminating in the election of Republican Donald Trump as President in 2016."

I certainly agree that the Tea Party movement presaged the election of Donald Trump but I'm wondering about the phrase "the policies made by the presidency of Barack Obama" I'm not disputing that, but I'd just be interested in a source for this claim, especially as it uses the definite article 'the' in 'the policies made by...', as this implies it was in response to specific policies. It has been my understanding that resistance to the Obama presidency actually preceded Obama's inauguration, which was obviously too early to represent a response to actual policies. Can someone support this claim?

Would the claim be more accurate if the words, "the policies made by" as well as the word "has" (which constrains this perspective to a specific point in time) were deleted, to read, "...the Tea Party movement energized conservatives at the local level against the presidency of Barack Obama, leading to a Republican landslide in 2010 and again in 2014, eventually culminating in the election of Republican Donald Trump as President in 2016.

I am basing this partly on a book I've been reading about the Tea Party movement, entitled "Change They Can't Believe In: The Tea Party and Reactionary Politics in America", by Christopher Parker & Matt Barreto. They unequivocally identified an extremely strong antipathy toward Barack Obama, representing some 90% of self-identified Tea Party supporters, but the book does not not clarify what this antipathy was based on. If it was based on policy issues, they did not elucidate them. Is the statement as it stands in the current draft, based on actual data, mere supposition, or the author's personal opinion.

Thanks... and if this is not where to post this inquiry, please advise. Thanks. TreeDoctor (talk) 02:16, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

References

POV Issues

This article seems to me to struggle with maintaining a neutral POV and doesn't measure up to standards of encyclopedic rigor. This was particularly striking to me in the section on the 1960s wherein we are told that "Within weeks of the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights law...Nearly 400 racial disorders in 298 cities saw blacks attacking shopkeepers and police, and looting stores." I don't think an honest evaluation could call this a neutral tone and to me it seems to be playing with implying that racial strife in the 1960s was a result of the passage of the Civil Rights Act and that black people participating in these conflicts did little more than loot and cause violence. This presents at best a very reductive accounting of these tensions and at worse a gross distortion. It is also not supported by the citation of Omi and Winant -- here is in fact what the source that the article cites as substaintating evidence says on the cited page 196:

" Nixon learned from Wallace but, unlike the guv-nah, he kept his racist pitch on the down-low. He countered the black movement’s democratic and egalitarian appeal,as he did the anti-war appeal, in ways that would not leave him vulnerable to charges of explicit racism (or of excessive hawkishness). Building on the right-wing populism of Wallace, and exploiting the self-immolation of the Democrats—by highlighting black unrest, the antiwar demonstrations in Chicago and the predicament of the for- lorn Humphrey—Nixon helped the new right develop a new subtextual approach to politics. This involved the rearticulation of white resentments against blacks, and soon enough against other insurgent groups as well: “second-wave” feminists, the anti- war movement, the counterculture, and the dawning gay rights movement. It did not, however, repudiate civil rights in its entirety, nor did it directly attack the new social movements. Instead of defending segregation, institutionalized discrimination, and white supremacy, the new right invoked the code words of “law and order”; instead of advocating for systemic patriarchy and justifying male chauvinism, it upheld"

These kinds of issues of questionable scholarship and tone abound in this article and it should likely be flagged for revision. Sponejordan (talk) 05:16, 26 March 2025 (UTC)