Conservativism = Racism . . . why?

[Fr_of_Jazz]

I have often heard it said—especially in election years—that mainstream conservative principles and ideals are inherently racist.

Racism = any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race or color for the purpose of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in society.

Mainstream conservative principles and ideals often listed include (not exhaustively) a belief in/that:
(1) an objective truth that is knowable and in a transcendent order based in tradition, divine revelation, or natural law;
(2) the variety and mystery of human existence versus enforced uniformity based on egalitarian ideological systems;
(3) a natural balance between (a) inherent distinctions in individuals leading to inequalities of conditions and (b) equality before God and the courts under the rule of law;
(4) freedom and private property are linked;
(5) distrust for schemes of social engineering;
(6) change in and of itself is not necessarily a good thing and it should be pursued when necessary with caution and the recognition that wisdom may lie in the customs and traditions of the past.

(7) family values
(8) a merit based society (involving appropriately regulated capitalism) rather that an entitlement based society produces the greatest wealth and improvement in living conditions for the most people;
(9) society should have a safety net to offer a temporary hand up to needy individuals leading them to get back on their feet.

Would someone please connect the dots. Why is the set (1)-(9) inherently racist?

 

[Ender]

I have often heard it said—especially in election years—that mainstream conservative principles and ideals are inherently racist.
… Would someone please connect the dots. Why is the set (1)-(9) inherently racist?

There is an old joke about this kind of charge:

Scientists discover a huge asteroid heading for Earth that will hit in two days and end all human life. Here is how it is covered by the media:

Wall Street Journal: “World to end; markets crash.”
NY Times: “World to end; Women and minorities hardest hit.”

It really doesn’t matter what the issue, there will always be charges from liberals that the conservative position is racist. It’s like a doctor whacking your leg just below the knee, there will always be a reactive jerk.

Ender

 

[Allegra]

I think it’s a charge that is used by the oposition to encourage minorities to support their party. The issue is that minorities still tend to have a lower socioeconomic status and those who are liberal attempt to suggest that their problems are caused by the conservatives who don’t want to give away all their stuff. It’s a silly argument in my opinion.

 

[Dale_M]

I have often heard it said—especially in election years—that mainstream conservative principles and ideals are inherently racist.

I find that puzzling because I have never heard such a claim. Are you hearing that from friends or family or co-workers?

 

[St_Francis]

I propose 3 reasons:

1. Liberals are inherently progressive; they see change as moving forward to an exalted state of humanity so conservatism is really evil because it is holding humanity back from that perfection. Racism is the ultimate evil; we are moving forward and thus away from that evil, conservatives are trying to hold us back; therefore, conservatives are racist.
2. Liberals have cast this issue in left/right terms and themselves as the heroes, even tho a higher percentage of Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act of 64 than did Democrats.
3. It works.

 

[Pat_the_elder]

Funnily enough I was just reading “Private Eye”, a British satirical magazine. One artical scans as follows:
**US Republican presidential race frontrunners emerge.
**The candidates appeal to Republican supporters
Mitt Romney
“I’m white”
Rick Santorum
“I’m white and I’m not Mitt Romney”
Newt Gingrich
“I’m white and I’m not Mitt Romney nor Rick Santorum”

to this all I can add is
“O wad some Pow’r the giftie gie us
To see oursels as others see us
It wad frae monie a blunder free us
An’ foolish notion
What airs in dress an’ gait wad lea’e us
An’ ev’n Devotion”

 

[Swiss_Guy]

I propose 3 reasons:

1. Liberals are inherently progressive; they see change as moving forward to an exalted state of humanity so conservatism is really evil because it is holding humanity back from that perfection. Racism is the ultimate evil; we are moving forward and thus away from that evil, conservatives are trying to hold us back; therefore, conservatives are racist.
2. Liberals have cast this issue in left/right terms and themselves as the heroes, even tho a higher percentage of Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act of 64 than did Democrats.
3. It works.

Question to 2: Weren’t the Democrats considered more socially liberal back then?

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

There is an old joke about this kind of charge:

Scientists discover a huge asteroid heading for Earth that will hit in two days and end all human life. Here is how it is covered by the media:

Wall Street Journal: “World to end; markets crash.”
NY Times: “World to end; Women and minorities hardest hit.”

It really doesn’t matter what the issue, there will always be charges from liberals that the conservative position is racist. It’s like a doctor whacking your leg just below the knee, there will always be a reactive jerk.

Ender

Yeah, I like those too. Here’s 2 others I’ve heard.

Local small town paper: World ends Friday (Full Story, page 7)
USAToday: You’re Gone: God

 

[Swiss_Guy]

(9) society should have a safety net to offer a temporary hand up to needy individuals leading them to get back on their feet.

Would someone please connect the dots. Why is the set (1)-(9) inherently racist?

Maybe it’s because I’m not a true conservative, but why would you want a safety net that only temporarily helps people? I’m not saying I’m for government welfare, but shouldn’t the Church be the real safety net 24/7/365?

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

Maybe it’s because I’m not a true conservative, but why would you want a safety net that only temporarily helps people? I’m not saying I’m for government welfare, but shouldn’t the Church be the real safety net 24/7/365?

I wasn’t saying the safety net itself should be temproary, but that for individuals the model ordinarily is temporary help to get you back to supporting yourself.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

I find that puzzling because I have never heard such a claim. Are you hearing that from friends or family or co-workers?

Liberal talk show hosts, political candidates, talking head experts on news shows.

 

[Dale_M]

Question to 2: Weren’t the Democrats considered more socially liberal back then?

No, 50 years ago the political parties were much more mixed in terms of left/right. They started polarizing during the 1970s and it became very apparent in the 1980s.

In particular, the Democrats from the southern states were conservatives and often at odds with the national leadership. This was back in the era of yellow dog Democrats: “I’d rather vote for a yellow dog, than vote for a Republican.” Southern conservatives in the early 1960s would have been leery of civil rights.

 

[hannajomar]

My dad was talking with a distant cousin and somehow mentioned mentioned my conservative leanings. Cousin asked in a puzzled way, “But isn’t she married to a black guy?” (I’m white.) He couldn’t grasp the concept that a conservative would be “unracist” enough for that.

 

[Dale_M]

Liberal talk show hosts, political candidates, talking head experts on news shows.

hm… I don’t mean to put you on the spot, but can you think of a particular instance? I think it would help avoid debating straw men if we had some specifics.

 

[St_Francis]

Oh, I forgot the other reason: liberals believe in equality if outcome, and if the outcome isn’t equal, then there is “systemic racism” occurring.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I would suggest a couple of issues

1. Since conservatives want to preserve wealth and minorities were historically discriminated against which prevented wealth in minority communities the question becomes do conservatives desire to maintain a wealth injustice?
2. Hypocrisy: Current conservatives are walking models of hypocrisy which creates a credibility issue. ( before you ask please state the subject which is void of open hypocrisy within conservative leadership)
3. Capitalism conflicts with merit, one benefits the earner while the other benefits the owner.
4. Non-conservative movements have greatly improved the USA

FYI – I do not wish to do any name calling now or later, debate the meaning of the word liberal or conservative, this is simply an answer to the OP

 

[Swiss_Guy]

No, 50 years ago the political parties were much more mixed in terms of left/right. They started polarizing during the 1970s and it became very apparent in the 1980s.

In particular, the Democrats from the southern states were conservatives and often at odds with the national leadership. This was back in the era of yellow dog Democrats: “I’d rather vote for a yellow dog, than vote for a Republican.” Southern conservatives in the early 1960s would have been leery of civil rights.

Oops, I think I meant Republicans. Otherwise the question makes no sense.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

Oh, I forgot the other reason: liberals believe in equality if outcome, and if the outcome isn’t equal, then there is “systemic racism” occurring.

Well taken points.

The wierd thing is that what seems to elude Catholic lefties in the equality of outcome versus equality of opportunity debate is that greater equality is the inevitable end result of the application of the actual social teaching of the Church.

Yet this teaching includes:
the regulated but free market;
private ownership of property and the means of production;
presumption of independent individual or group initiative;
competition;
bridled, regulated capitalism;
condemns collectivism and rejects the welfare state;
and teaches the creation of opportunity;
importance of education;
opening markets for broader access;
establishment of the rule of law and democratic structures where lacking;
sharing scientific, medical, technical, and business know how;
cutting back on expensive aid bureaucracies for poor countries;
opposition to religious fundamentalism.

 

[Dale_M]

Oops, I think I meant Republicans. Otherwise the question makes no sense.

eh… it works out the same.

The Republican Party used to be more liberal. For example,the only woman to head the Republican National Committee (Mary Louise Smith) was strongly pro-choice. But in 1984 she was physically blocked from entering the hall of national convention because there was concern she was going to stir a fight over abortion language which was prepared for the party platform. 1984 was the first time that the Republican Party officially took a strong stand against abortion.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

eh… it works out the same.

The Republican Party used to be more liberal. For example,the only woman to head the Republican National Committee (Mary Louise Smith) was strongly pro-choice. But in 1984 she was physically blocked from entering the hall of national convention because there was concern she was going to stir a fight over abortion language which was prepared for the party platform. 1984 was the first time that the Republican Party officially took a strong stand against abortion.

You’ve gotta like Reagan on social issues.