Is that what conservatives historically said about African Americans? Cuz I don’t really think it is.

Historically they would say that one’s race is irrelevant and no one should be treated differently because of race.

Which is about as idealistic as Marxism, but whatever ideologies are rarely executed correctly or even realistic in the real world.

William F. Buckley, 1957:

“…the white community is entitled to because, for the time being, it is the advanced race.”

Where is the part about race being irrelevant? I can’t find it. Or, is Buckley now not a conservative?

At least the boogeyman version of “liberalism” that lives in your head would say that, anyway, sure.

Right. What I want to know is: which notable people in the American political sphere are conservatives? There’s no fixed pole for conservativism; it’s a chimera that wiggles away under any scrutiny while throwing No True Scotsman chaff up as cover.

Buckley famously reversed himself a few years later, endorsed affirmative action, and publicly praised MLK Jr.

For some definitions of ‘reversed himself’ and ‘a few years later’.

Just so ya know, this is preposterous.


That’s this week.

Facts don’t matter? You should go to a Trump rally.

Except for all the times they try to do it, sure. Don’t blame me that liberalism never had a catchy phrase like conservatism did. I had to make one up on the spot.

Hmm, cherry picking cases and then extending it to an entire “ism…” interesting rhetorical tactic, that.

Buckley’s conversion occurred some 47 years later.

I’m still waiting for examples of historical conservatives on race. Not your characterization of what you think they would say, but what they actually said.

LOL, but when Scott does it first you have nothing to say?

Just to be clear, we have in the other thread a recent law proposed that would make calling someone a birch illegal.

What? He wrote his original racist article in 1957. By 1965, he was a supporter of affirmative action:

The white people owe a debt to the Negro people against whom we have discriminated for generations.

Literally less than a week ago. And yesterday they arrested people in Connecticut for using a racial slur.
But it’s just painting everyone with a broad brush man.
Unlike, you know, calling all conservatives ever racists. That’s just hard facts.

I’m not following this conversation very closely. You paired it with the “fist/face” thing which was your own construction, so I presumed not a caricature of conservatism. You followed it with a total caricature of liberalism.

Scott can look out for himself.

As long as it’s not illegal to call someone a larch.

I repeat what I said upthread about cherry picking cases. Conservatism doesn’t have a monopoly on idiocy, it turns out. Just a … majority share?

Begrudgingly. His infamous debate with with Baldwin was in 1965, and he blamed blacks for their own plight. His actual comments recanting the ‘57 editorial and his own history on race are all from the 2000’s.

In any event, whether he recanted it or not is irrelevant. He was a conservative, voicing the conservative position on the matter. Shall we pick another example, say voting rights for women, and see where conservatives were?

Yesterday a cop beat up a 12 year old girl for not following his orders quickly enough. Ah, but wait, you’ll say he wasn’t a conservative.

So… I’ll say that anyone who tries to restrict speech isn’t a liberal. Fair?

I followed it with things liberals have been doing this fucking week.