Why does the future always have to be liberal?

[Wazza [INACTIVE]]

Badger, this obviously all depends on what you mean by "liberal."  I'll go ahead and skip proving that multiple conservative legislators supported civil rights, as that should be obvious and to dispute it is kind of ridiculous given the number of Republicans (and overwhelming majority of their caucus in both the Senate and House) that supported the CRA and VRA, but an obvious example is Everett Dirksen, who played possibly THE critical role in getting the CRA passed.  Additionally, if you are going to make the flat assumption that opposing institutional discrimination is inherently "liberal" and supporting it is inherently "conservative" to the point that those politicians can be defined as such, I'd consider that incredibly simplistic, and this would be a huge waste of time.  I don't, however, think you think that in such simplified terms, so...

Now, for the "liberals against civil rights" claim, here are the Senators who voted against the CRA and their DW-Nominate scores for the 88th Congress (far from perfect, but I feel if I provided random Wikipedia anecdotes about how Random Southern Democrat Who Was Racist supported infrastructure, increased education spending, wealth redistribution, etc. while also being a segregationist, it'd come across as more subjective):

Hill (D-AL) (-.262)
Sparkman (D-AL) (-.189)
Goldwater (R-AZ) (.656)
Fulbright (D-AR) (-.366)
McClellan (D-AR) (.034)
Holland (D-FL) (.012)
Smathers (D-FL) (-.142)
Russell (D-GA) (.008)
Talmadge (D-GA) (-.072)
Ellender (D-LA) (-.075)
Long (D-LA) (-.170)
Eastland (D-MS) (.049)
Stennis (D-MS) (-.043)
Cotton (R-NH) (.392)
Mechem (R-NM) (.535)
Ervin (D-NC) (-.016)
Jordan (D-NC) (-.070)
Johnson (D-SC) (-.160)
Thurmond (D-SC) (.320)
Gore (D-TN) (-.348)
Walters (D-TN) (-.151)
Tower (R-TX) (.455)
Byrd (D-VA) (.198)
Roberston (D-VA) (.087)
Byrd (D-WV) (-.298)
Simpson (R-WY) (.661)

I'd say it's obvious/fair to remove the Republican nay votes as obvious "conservatives," Thurmond (who switched parties, obviously) as an obvious "conservative" and any Democrat with a positive DW-Nominate score, which would leave us with the following Democrats who had pretty standard left-of-center voting records and also opposed the Civil Rights Act:

Sparkman (D-AL) (-.189)
Fulbright (D-AR) (-.366)
Smathers (D-FL) (-.142)
Talmadge (D-GA) (-.072)
Ellender (D-LA) (-.075)
Long (D-LA) (-.170)
Stennis (D-MS) (-.043)
Ervin (D-NC) (-.016)
Jordan (D-NC) (-.070)
Johnson (D-SC) (-.160)
Gore (D-TN) (-.348)
Walters (D-TN) (-.151)
Byrd (D-WV) (-.298)

Using a pretty standard, Northern, liberal Democrat like Humphrey (D-MN) (-.404) as an example of a "liberal" and a standard, Northern, conservative Republican civil rights supporter like Dirksen (R-IL) (.318), I think it's perfectly fair to call only a few of those nay votes "conservatives," many of them left-of-center, a few of them moderates and the folks below unquestionably "liberal" Senators:

Sparkman (D-AL) (-.189)
Fulbright (D-AR) (-.366)
Long (D-LA) (-.170)
Gore (D-TN) (-.348)
Byrd (D-WV) (-.298)

Additionally, I would say Old School Republican's claim would hold even more true as we go further back in time and deal with figures like Hugo Black (an unquestionably staunch liberal who was a Klansman and, much like Byrd, only apologized much later in life while being a pretty standard liberal all the while), Al Smith (a standard, pro-immigrant Northern liberal who made absolutely no efforts on civil rights), William Jennings Bryan (a pre-Bernie Sanders who had all kind of sympathies toward racist sentiment), etc.  I'd say it's pretty clear people from both sides of the ideological spectrum supported and opposed civil rights, often for very different reasons.  Obviously, due to Southern Whites eventually permanently rejecting the Democratic Party at most levels, it's easy to draw a simple "conservative-liberal" narrative on the issue (which simply has conservative Southern Democrats ideologically "sorting" into the GOP and becoming conservative Southern Republicans), but I don't think that does history justice, personally.

Very good post. Thankyou for bringing Voteview to my attention as well, its an extremely useful resource.

[Wazza [INACTIVE]]

It's not, the south was far more reactionary about slavery in 1860 than it was in 1800.

Yes, circumstances such as the Northwest ordinance and isolation of slavery in southern states, or Germany losing WW1 can hinder the process... but most societies progress in periods of prosperity.

The US was more conservative in the 80s 90s and 00s than 30s 40s 50s

For whom? My great grandparents were sharecroppers in the 1930s ffs.

He doesn't mean civil rights. He means economic policy given his track record.

Civil Rights arent a left right issue


There were many conservatives who were staunch supporter of Civil rights, while their were liberals who opposed it .

Name three of either.

I can do better than three...
Republican senators with DW nominates greater than 0.2 that voted for the 1964CRA:
John J Williams (R-DE), Carl T. Curtis (R-NE), Wallace F. Bennet (R-UT), Roman L. Hruska (R-NE), Leonard B. Jordan (R-ID), Peter H. Dominick (R-CO), Jack R. Miller (R-IA), Everett M. Dirksen (R-IL), Gordon L. Allott (R-CO), Karl E. Mundt (R-SD), Frank Carlson (R-KS), James C. Boggs (R-DE), Thurston B. Morton (R-KY).

Democratic Senators with DW nominates less than -0.2 that voted against the 1964CRA:
James W. Fullbright (D-AR), Albert A. Gore (D-TN), Robert C. Byrd (D-WV), Joseph L. Hill (D-AL), John J. Sparkman (D-AL)

The lists would be a hell of a lot longer if we included the house as well, but this should suffice.

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

Badger, this obviously all depends on what you mean by "liberal."  I'll go ahead and skip proving that multiple conservative legislators supported civil rights, as that should be obvious and to dispute it is kind of ridiculous given the number of Republicans (and overwhelming majority of their caucus in both the Senate and House) that supported the CRA and VRA, but an obvious example is Everett Dirksen, who played possibly THE critical role in getting the CRA passed.  Additionally, if you are going to make the flat assumption that opposing institutional discrimination is inherently "liberal" and supporting it is inherently "conservative" to the point that those politicians can be defined as such, I'd consider that incredibly simplistic, and this would be a huge waste of time.  I don't, however, think you think that in such simplified terms, so...

Now, for the "liberals against civil rights" claim, here are the Senators who voted against the CRA and their DW-Nominate scores for the 88th Congress (far from perfect, but I feel if I provided random Wikipedia anecdotes about how Random Southern Democrat Who Was Racist supported infrastructure, increased education spending, wealth redistribution, etc. while also being a segregationist, it'd come across as more subjective):

Hill (D-AL) (-.262)
Sparkman (D-AL) (-.189)
Goldwater (R-AZ) (.656)
Fulbright (D-AR) (-.366)
McClellan (D-AR) (.034)
Holland (D-FL) (.012)
Smathers (D-FL) (-.142)
Russell (D-GA) (.008)
Talmadge (D-GA) (-.072)
Ellender (D-LA) (-.075)
Long (D-LA) (-.170)
Eastland (D-MS) (.049)
Stennis (D-MS) (-.043)
Cotton (R-NH) (.392)
Mechem (R-NM) (.535)
Ervin (D-NC) (-.016)
Jordan (D-NC) (-.070)
Johnson (D-SC) (-.160)
Thurmond (D-SC) (.320)
Gore (D-TN) (-.348)
Walters (D-TN) (-.151)
Tower (R-TX) (.455)
Byrd (D-VA) (.198)
Roberston (D-VA) (.087)
Byrd (D-WV) (-.298)
Simpson (R-WY) (.661)

I'd say it's obvious/fair to remove the Republican nay votes as obvious "conservatives," Thurmond (who switched parties, obviously) as an obvious "conservative" and any Democrat with a positive DW-Nominate score, which would leave us with the following Democrats who had pretty standard left-of-center voting records and also opposed the Civil Rights Act:

Sparkman (D-AL) (-.189)
Fulbright (D-AR) (-.366)
Smathers (D-FL) (-.142)
Talmadge (D-GA) (-.072)
Ellender (D-LA) (-.075)
Long (D-LA) (-.170)
Stennis (D-MS) (-.043)
Ervin (D-NC) (-.016)
Jordan (D-NC) (-.070)
Johnson (D-SC) (-.160)
Gore (D-TN) (-.348)
Walters (D-TN) (-.151)
Byrd (D-WV) (-.298)

Using a pretty standard, Northern, liberal Democrat like Humphrey (D-MN) (-.404) as an example of a "liberal" and a standard, Northern, conservative Republican civil rights supporter like Dirksen (R-IL) (.318), I think it's perfectly fair to call only a few of those nay votes "conservatives," many of them left-of-center, a few of them moderates and the folks below unquestionably "liberal" Senators:

Sparkman (D-AL) (-.189)
Fulbright (D-AR) (-.366)
Long (D-LA) (-.170)
Gore (D-TN) (-.348)
Byrd (D-WV) (-.298)

Additionally, I would say Old School Republican's claim would hold even more true as we go further back in time and deal with figures like Hugo Black (an unquestionably staunch liberal who was a Klansman and, much like Byrd, only apologized much later in life while being a pretty standard liberal all the while), Al Smith (a standard, pro-immigrant Northern liberal who made absolutely no efforts on civil rights), William Jennings Bryan (a pre-Bernie Sanders who had all kind of sympathies toward racist sentiment), etc.  I'd say it's pretty clear people from both sides of the ideological spectrum supported and opposed civil rights, often for very different reasons.  Obviously, due to Southern Whites eventually permanently rejecting the Democratic Party at most levels, it's easy to draw a simple "conservative-liberal" narrative on the issue (which simply has conservative Southern Democrats ideologically "sorting" into the GOP and becoming conservative Southern Republicans), but I don't think that does history justice, personally.

Almost none of those people listed at the bottom were "liberal". They may have been liberal on economics or even foreign policy but being liberal also means being liberal on major social issues like Civil Rights for minorities and none of those Senators were liberals.

Fulbright, Sparkman, Byrd (at the time) were all segregationists. You can't be a segregationist and be classified as being liberal. That's like saying the Nazis were liberals because they were liberal on economics issues. Gore Sr was a moderate Dem not a liberal. Russell B. Long was not a "liberal" also he was very much ignorant when it came to racial issues like most White Americans (especially Southern Whites) at the time. Anyways, Southern Democrats (at the time) believed in liberalism (primarily economically) only when applied to Southern Whites.

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

It's not, the south was far more reactionary about slavery in 1860 than it was in 1800.

Yes, circumstances such as the Northwest ordinance and isolation of slavery in southern states, or Germany losing WW1 can hinder the process... but most societies progress in periods of prosperity.

The US was more conservative in the 80s 90s and 00s than 30s 40s 50s

For whom? My great grandparents were sharecroppers in the 1930s ffs.

He doesn't mean civil rights. He means economic policy given his track record.

Civil Rights arent a left right issue


There were many conservatives who were staunch supporter of Civil rights, while their were liberals who opposed it .

Name three of either.

I can do better than three...
Republican senators with DW nominates greater than 0.2 that voted for the 1964CRA:
John J Williams (R-DE), Carl T. Curtis (R-NE), Wallace F. Bennet (R-UT), Roman L. Hruska (R-NE), Leonard B. Jordan (R-ID), Peter H. Dominick (R-CO), Jack R. Miller (R-IA), Everett M. Dirksen (R-IL), Gordon L. Allott (R-CO), Karl E. Mundt (R-SD), Frank Carlson (R-KS), James C. Boggs (R-DE), Thurston B. Morton (R-KY).

Democratic Senators with DW nominates less than -0.2 that voted against the 1964CRA:
James W. Fullbright (D-AR), Albert A. Gore (D-TN), Robert C. Byrd (D-WV), Joseph L. Hill (D-AL), John J. Sparkman (D-AL)

The lists would be a hell of a lot longer if we included the house as well, but this should suffice.

Pretty much all of those Democrats you listed were segregationists not liberal. Gore Sr. was a moderate Dem who felt that he was representing his base.

If you can list more than 5-10 Democrats in all of Congress at the time who were generally SOCIALLY liberal who voted against the Civil Rights act then we can talk.

I'm not saying that White liberal Democrats were or are perfect on the issue of civil rights for minorities but saying that there was a decent amount of liberals who voted against the Civil Rights bills of the 1960s in disingenuous.

Just go the typical Republican route and say "DEMOCRATS WERE THE KKK!!!" instead lol.

[Wazza [INACTIVE]]

It's not, the south was far more reactionary about slavery in 1860 than it was in 1800.

Yes, circumstances such as the Northwest ordinance and isolation of slavery in southern states, or Germany losing WW1 can hinder the process... but most societies progress in periods of prosperity.

The US was more conservative in the 80s 90s and 00s than 30s 40s 50s

For whom? My great grandparents were sharecroppers in the 1930s ffs.

He doesn't mean civil rights. He means economic policy given his track record.

Civil Rights arent a left right issue


There were many conservatives who were staunch supporter of Civil rights, while their were liberals who opposed it .

Name three of either.

I can do better than three...
Republican senators with DW nominates greater than 0.2 that voted for the 1964CRA:
John J Williams (R-DE), Carl T. Curtis (R-NE), Wallace F. Bennet (R-UT), Roman L. Hruska (R-NE), Leonard B. Jordan (R-ID), Peter H. Dominick (R-CO), Jack R. Miller (R-IA), Everett M. Dirksen (R-IL), Gordon L. Allott (R-CO), Karl E. Mundt (R-SD), Frank Carlson (R-KS), James C. Boggs (R-DE), Thurston B. Morton (R-KY).

Democratic Senators with DW nominates less than -0.2 that voted against the 1964CRA:
James W. Fullbright (D-AR), Albert A. Gore (D-TN), Robert C. Byrd (D-WV), Joseph L. Hill (D-AL), John J. Sparkman (D-AL)

The lists would be a hell of a lot longer if we included the house as well, but this should suffice.

Pretty much all of those Democrats you listed were segregationists not liberal. Gore Sr. was a moderate Dem who felt that he was representing his base.

If you can list more than 5-10 Democrats in all of Congress at the time who were generally SOCIALLY liberal who voted against the Civil Rights act then we can talk.

I'm not saying that White liberal Democrats were or are perfect on the issue of civil rights for minorities but saying that there was a decent amount of liberals who voted against the Civil Rights bills of the 1960s in disingenuous.

Just go the typical Republican route and say "DEMOCRATS WERE THE KKK!!!" instead lol.

You missed the point of my post. It wasn't to attack Liberals as racists or expose the racism behind progressivism. Obviously you had a massive number of Liberals/left wingers supporting civil rights and right wing/conservative Dixiecrats like Harry Byrd and Strom Thurmond supporting segregation. It was to show that on both sides of the political spectrum you had people who supported and opposed segregation. Its not like every Dixiecrat who voted against the Civil Rights Bill was just a DINO small government conservative (the 2 above were the only ones in the senate during the 88th congress) and every Republican who voted for it was some Javitsian Liberal Republican (Again only 2 Republican senators at this time could really be considered Liberal, those being Javits himself and Clifford Case), which is a narrative I have frequently and consistently seen regarding this topic.

The definitions of conservative vs liberal are rather vague and they can be fallaciously changed and shifted to suit ones agenda. Those 5 senators I listed may not fit your definition of "Liberal", but their voting record definitely puts them all well left of centre, and well within their party in terms of overall ideology. You seem to be disregarding economics despite the fact that economic policy is the basis of modern ideology and the primary division in modern and historical party systems.

[pbrower2a]

Because society naturally progresses over time, public opinion naturally sh**ts leftward due to younger people and older people dying off.

Not true


Silent Generation and Boomers were a lot more conservative than the GI generation

The elderly get more politically conservative as a group because poor elderly people who have less stake in a system of class privilege are more likely to die off. Being old isn't so bad so  long as one has one's health -- and the means with which to thoroughly enjoy life. Stay in shape, and so long as you have the funds you can go on walking tours of fascinating places,

On the other hand, life is grim, dreary, joyless, and precarious for the poor in America -- especially for the poor who happen to be old. The poor are more likely to get bad medical care, eat crappy food, and neglect dental care. The poor are less physically fit, and more likely to be alcoholic, obese, and hoked on cancerweed. '70 is the new 50' if one is middle-class or rich in America. '70' is an 'old 70' if one is broke.

People with less stake in the economic order are more likely to be liberals on economics.     

[Frodo]

Because, Mike, the vast majority of those of us under forty want nothing to do with the America you and Trump espouse. 

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

Almost none of those people listed at the bottom were "liberal". They may have been liberal on economics or even foreign policy but being liberal also means being liberal on major social issues like Civil Rights for minorities and none of those Senators were liberals.

Fulbright, Sparkman, Byrd (at the time) were all segregationists. You can't be a segregationist and be classified as being liberal. That's like saying the Nazis were liberals because they were liberal on economics issues. Gore Sr was a moderate Dem not a liberal. Russell B. Long was not a "liberal" also he was very much ignorant when it came to racial issues like most White Americans (especially Southern Whites) at the time. Anyways, Southern Democrats (at the time) believed in liberalism (primarily economically) only when applied to Southern Whites.

You can absolutely be a segregationist and a liberal. Liberalism is a school of political thought, not a set of policy positions. It would be fair to say they didn't necessarily support segregation because they were liberals, but it's not accurate to say they were not liberals because they were segregationists.

Many of the founding fathers were liberals and also abided the maintenance of slavery because they either had later-disproven views about racial supremacy or mixed their liberal ideology with pragmatic considerations for the economic foundation of the country. (Some were simply hypocrites, but not all or even many.)

Liberals in America generally mean being social liberals as well. C'mon you know this. You can't be a segregationist and be socially liberal therefore they were NOT liberals.

We're not talking about classical liberalism.

[RINO Tom]

Almost none of those people listed at the bottom were "liberal". They may have been liberal on economics or even foreign policy but being liberal also means being liberal on major social issues like Civil Rights for minorities and none of those Senators were liberals.

Fulbright, Sparkman, Byrd (at the time) were all segregationists. You can't be a segregationist and be classified as being liberal. That's like saying the Nazis were liberals because they were liberal on economics issues. Gore Sr was a moderate Dem not a liberal. Russell B. Long was not a "liberal" also he was very much ignorant when it came to racial issues like most White Americans (especially Southern Whites) at the time. Anyways, Southern Democrats (at the time) believed in liberalism (primarily economically) only when applied to Southern Whites.

You can absolutely be a segregationist and a liberal. Liberalism is a school of political thought, not a set of policy positions. It would be fair to say they didn't necessarily support segregation because they were liberals, but it's not accurate to say they were not liberals because they were segregationists.

Many of the founding fathers were liberals and also abided the maintenance of slavery because they either had later-disproven views about racial supremacy or mixed their liberal ideology with pragmatic considerations for the economic foundation of the country. (Some were simply hypocrites, but not all or even many.)

Liberals in America generally mean being social liberals as well. C'mon you know this. You can't be a segregationist and be socially liberal therefore they were NOT liberals.

We're not talking about classical liberalism.

How is this so much like talking to a recording?  You are saying that being pro-civil rights is an inherently, ONLY-"liberal" position, and anyone who doesn't hold it is automatically not a liberal, by the very virtue of not supporting civil rights.

We.  Are.  Disagreeing.  With a lot more coherent arguments than you're throwing out there, by the way.

[Some of My Best Friends Are Gay]

Almost none of those people listed at the bottom were "liberal". They may have been liberal on economics or even foreign policy but being liberal also means being liberal on major social issues like Civil Rights for minorities and none of those Senators were liberals.

Fulbright, Sparkman, Byrd (at the time) were all segregationists. You can't be a segregationist and be classified as being liberal. That's like saying the Nazis were liberals because they were liberal on economics issues. Gore Sr was a moderate Dem not a liberal. Russell B. Long was not a "liberal" also he was very much ignorant when it came to racial issues like most White Americans (especially Southern Whites) at the time. Anyways, Southern Democrats (at the time) believed in liberalism (primarily economically) only when applied to Southern Whites.

You can absolutely be a segregationist and a liberal. Liberalism is a school of political thought, not a set of policy positions. It would be fair to say they didn't necessarily support segregation because they were liberals, but it's not accurate to say they were not liberals because they were segregationists.

Many of the founding fathers were liberals and also abided the maintenance of slavery because they either had later-disproven views about racial supremacy or mixed their liberal ideology with pragmatic considerations for the economic foundation of the country. (Some were simply hypocrites, but not all or even many.)

Liberals in America generally mean being social liberals as well. C'mon you know this. You can't be a segregationist and be socially liberal therefore they were NOT liberals.

We're not talking about classical liberalism.

so you think William Jennings Bryan, who was similar to someone like Bernie Sanders on economic issues, wasn't a liberal because he was socially conservative?

What about Christian Socialist or even Christian Communist parties in Europe? are they conservatives too just because they don't like abortion and LGBT rights?

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

Almost none of those people listed at the bottom were "liberal". They may have been liberal on economics or even foreign policy but being liberal also means being liberal on major social issues like Civil Rights for minorities and none of those Senators were liberals.

Fulbright, Sparkman, Byrd (at the time) were all segregationists. You can't be a segregationist and be classified as being liberal. That's like saying the Nazis were liberals because they were liberal on economics issues. Gore Sr was a moderate Dem not a liberal. Russell B. Long was not a "liberal" also he was very much ignorant when it came to racial issues like most White Americans (especially Southern Whites) at the time. Anyways, Southern Democrats (at the time) believed in liberalism (primarily economically) only when applied to Southern Whites.

You can absolutely be a segregationist and a liberal. Liberalism is a school of political thought, not a set of policy positions. It would be fair to say they didn't necessarily support segregation because they were liberals, but it's not accurate to say they were not liberals because they were segregationists.

Many of the founding fathers were liberals and also abided the maintenance of slavery because they either had later-disproven views about racial supremacy or mixed their liberal ideology with pragmatic considerations for the economic foundation of the country. (Some were simply hypocrites, but not all or even many.)

Liberals in America generally mean being social liberals as well. C'mon you know this. You can't be a segregationist and be socially liberal therefore they were NOT liberals.

We're not talking about classical liberalism.

How is this so much like talking to a recording?  You are saying that being pro-civil rights is an inherently, ONLY-"liberal" position, and anyone who doesn't hold it is automatically not a liberal, by the very virtue of not supporting civil rights.

We.  Are.  Disagreeing.  With a lot more coherent arguments than you're throwing out there, by the way.

It's not the "only" liberal position but being a segregationist is literally the antithesis of being a social liberal which 95% of liberals in America are.

Segregationists wanted to uphold the traditional values and beliefs of the South. The fact that White Southerners are superior to Black Southerners and to obey that traditional order. Holding on to traditional order aka maintaining the status quo is literally the definition of social conservatism. It doesn't mean that all social conservatives supported/support segregation but almost all the people that did were social conservatives.

Many White Southerners argued that the federal government should have left them alone because of "states rights". When have you heard the "states rights" argument being prominently used by social liberals in America?

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

Almost none of those people listed at the bottom were "liberal". They may have been liberal on economics or even foreign policy but being liberal also means being liberal on major social issues like Civil Rights for minorities and none of those Senators were liberals.

Fulbright, Sparkman, Byrd (at the time) were all segregationists. You can't be a segregationist and be classified as being liberal. That's like saying the Nazis were liberals because they were liberal on economics issues. Gore Sr was a moderate Dem not a liberal. Russell B. Long was not a "liberal" also he was very much ignorant when it came to racial issues like most White Americans (especially Southern Whites) at the time. Anyways, Southern Democrats (at the time) believed in liberalism (primarily economically) only when applied to Southern Whites.

You can absolutely be a segregationist and a liberal. Liberalism is a school of political thought, not a set of policy positions. It would be fair to say they didn't necessarily support segregation because they were liberals, but it's not accurate to say they were not liberals because they were segregationists.

Many of the founding fathers were liberals and also abided the maintenance of slavery because they either had later-disproven views about racial supremacy or mixed their liberal ideology with pragmatic considerations for the economic foundation of the country. (Some were simply hypocrites, but not all or even many.)

Liberals in America generally mean being social liberals as well. C'mon you know this. You can't be a segregationist and be socially liberal therefore they were NOT liberals.

We're not talking about classical liberalism.

so you think William Jennings Bryan, who was similar to someone like Bernie Sanders on economic issues, wasn't a liberal because he was socially conservative?

What about Christian Socialist or even Christian Communist parties in Europe? are they conservatives too just because they don't like abortion and LGBT rights?

In the modern sense, William Jennings Bryan is not a liberal. He was a "liberal" in his day. Also, many people can support liberal economic policy but only want it to apply to a specific group. Heck, the KKK believes in social democracy but only for White Americans. I guess that makes them liberals. C'mon man.

[Middle-aged Europe]

Well, according to well-known Canadian liberal Margaret Atwood, the future isn't necessarily always liberal.

But to make an attempt in answering the original question in a serious manner: A society always consists of more conservative and more liberal/progressive/leftist/whatever members, and as result so do the politicians this society elects. Conservatives generally want to keep things the way they are, while liberals want to change things. While liberals realistically can't always win any political battle they fight, neither can conservatives. So, society will inevitably change ("become more liberal") over time even though not at the pace liberals would prefer, because the speed by which these changes ultimately occur is at least somewhat slowed down by conservatives. But in the long run, that's the only thing that conservatives can achieve: Slowing things down.

So, a more apt question would be: Why does almost any society consist of more conservative and more liberal elements instead of, let's say, only more conservative and more reactionary members? Why do liberals exist in the first place?

[OSR stands with Israel]

Almost none of those people listed at the bottom were "liberal". They may have been liberal on economics or even foreign policy but being liberal also means being liberal on major social issues like Civil Rights for minorities and none of those Senators were liberals.

Fulbright, Sparkman, Byrd (at the time) were all segregationists. You can't be a segregationist and be classified as being liberal. That's like saying the Nazis were liberals because they were liberal on economics issues. Gore Sr was a moderate Dem not a liberal. Russell B. Long was not a "liberal" also he was very much ignorant when it came to racial issues like most White Americans (especially Southern Whites) at the time. Anyways, Southern Democrats (at the time) believed in liberalism (primarily economically) only when applied to Southern Whites.

You can absolutely be a segregationist and a liberal. Liberalism is a school of political thought, not a set of policy positions. It would be fair to say they didn't necessarily support segregation because they were liberals, but it's not accurate to say they were not liberals because they were segregationists.

Many of the founding fathers were liberals and also abided the maintenance of slavery because they either had later-disproven views about racial supremacy or mixed their liberal ideology with pragmatic considerations for the economic foundation of the country. (Some were simply hypocrites, but not all or even many.)

Liberals in America generally mean being social liberals as well. C'mon you know this. You can't be a segregationist and be socially liberal therefore they were NOT liberals.

We're not talking about classical liberalism.

so you think William Jennings Bryan, who was similar to someone like Bernie Sanders on economic issues, wasn't a liberal because he was socially conservative?

What about Christian Socialist or even Christian Communist parties in Europe? are they conservatives too just because they don't like abortion and LGBT rights?

In the modern sense, William Jennings Bryan is not a liberal. He was a "liberal" in his day. Also, many people can support liberal economic policy but only want it to apply to a specific group. Heck, the KKK believes in social democracy but only for White Americans. I guess that makes them liberals. C'mon man.

WJB even by modern definition is far closer to being a liberal than an conservative

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

Almost none of those people listed at the bottom were "liberal". They may have been liberal on economics or even foreign policy but being liberal also means being liberal on major social issues like Civil Rights for minorities and none of those Senators were liberals.

Fulbright, Sparkman, Byrd (at the time) were all segregationists. You can't be a segregationist and be classified as being liberal. That's like saying the Nazis were liberals because they were liberal on economics issues. Gore Sr was a moderate Dem not a liberal. Russell B. Long was not a "liberal" also he was very much ignorant when it came to racial issues like most White Americans (especially Southern Whites) at the time. Anyways, Southern Democrats (at the time) believed in liberalism (primarily economically) only when applied to Southern Whites.

You can absolutely be a segregationist and a liberal. Liberalism is a school of political thought, not a set of policy positions. It would be fair to say they didn't necessarily support segregation because they were liberals, but it's not accurate to say they were not liberals because they were segregationists.

Many of the founding fathers were liberals and also abided the maintenance of slavery because they either had later-disproven views about racial supremacy or mixed their liberal ideology with pragmatic considerations for the economic foundation of the country. (Some were simply hypocrites, but not all or even many.)

Liberals in America generally mean being social liberals as well. C'mon you know this. You can't be a segregationist and be socially liberal therefore they were NOT liberals.

We're not talking about classical liberalism.

so you think William Jennings Bryan, who was similar to someone like Bernie Sanders on economic issues, wasn't a liberal because he was socially conservative?

What about Christian Socialist or even Christian Communist parties in Europe? are they conservatives too just because they don't like abortion and LGBT rights?

In the modern sense, William Jennings Bryan is not a liberal. He was a "liberal" in his day. Also, many people can support liberal economic policy but only want it to apply to a specific group. Heck, the KKK believes in social democracy but only for White Americans. I guess that makes them liberals. C'mon man.

WJB even by modern definition is far closer to being a liberal than an conservative

I didn't say that he was a conservative. However, talking about WJB is not really relevant because the early 20th century in America was completely different from today. The politics of the 1960s and 1970s is much closer to today than the 1890s & 1900s is to today.

Also, there are many people who are liberal on certain issues but conservative.on others. That doesn't make them liberals or conservatives.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Technology is nuclear rather than fossil fuel. It was predicted, anyways by 2030, we would have to be totally reliant on nuclear power than fossil fuels.

The traditional way is being dependent on fossil fuels

[Big Abraham]

so you think William Jennings Bryan, who was similar to someone like Bernie Sanders on economic issues, wasn't a liberal because he was socially conservative?

Bryan wasn't anything other than a conservative when it came to economic issues.

[Hydera]

This probably has been mentioned but its not that you'll have die hard social liberals but as society changes its view of what is ok and not the conservatives will first fight back and grungidly accept societal change when its futile to fight back against these changes and move on to different targets.

Whether its Women voting, Civil Rights, revealing clothes(aka doesnt cover all skin underneath the neck), Rock music,  interracial relationships, short hair for women, long hair for men, Gay acceptance, gay marriage, trans acceptance, atheism, and etc.


Its not like theres a realistic chance of moving society akin to that of Victorian England in terms of social norms.

[ProudModerate2]

Because liberals are more naturally optimistic and conservatives rely on pessimism and fear-mongering to get votes.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

This probably has been mentioned but its not that you'll have die hard social liberals but as society changes its view of what is ok and not the conservatives will first fight back and grungidly accept societal change when its futile to fight back against these changes and move on to different targets.

Whether its Women voting, Civil Rights, revealing clothes(aka doesnt cover all skin underneath the neck), Rock music,  interracial relationships, short hair for women, long hair for men, Gay acceptance, gay marriage, trans acceptance, atheism, and etc.


Its not like theres a realistic chance of moving society akin to that of Victorian England in terms of social norms.

You're right that it's unrealistic, but primarially because American "conservatives" are reprehensible frauds.

If a good-sized segment of the population (maybe 15-20%) were to actually adopt practical and positive conservative values and social mores in their everyday lives and lead by example (instead of simply hating those different than themselves and trying to force their will on others) they could very well 'move the dial' on social norms over the course of a generation or two, particularly if there practices were associated with real social and economic success. 

Now, the fake conservatives (who are in truth mostly anti-intellectual bigots who favor fascism and hate democracy) will doubtless claim that is what they try to do but are smashed down by some flavor of "evul libruals". Such claims would be nothing but a load of toxic manure. You have only to look at the modern Republican party (which is neither republican nor a political party) to see that most conservatives make no attempt to practice what they preach (i.e. Trump), and those who do will abandon their principles at the slightest whiff of power, hardship or self-gratification (i.e. Pence).

 

[OSR stands with Israel]

Its really true only when it comes to social issues,

when it comes to economic issues it is not true

[junior chįmp]

This probably has been mentioned but its not that you'll have die hard social liberals but as society changes its view of what is ok and not the conservatives will first fight back and grungidly accept societal change when its futile to fight back against these changes and move on to different targets.

Whether its Women voting, Civil Rights, revealing clothes(aka doesnt cover all skin underneath the neck), Rock music,  interracial relationships, short hair for women, long hair for men, Gay acceptance, gay marriage, trans acceptance, atheism, and etc.


Its not like theres a realistic chance of moving society akin to that of Victorian England in terms of social norms.

Pretty much. Conservatives always lose culture wars

Its just pointless raging against changing norms by people with too much free time on their hands

[Some of My Best Friends Are Gay]

Its really true only when it comes to social issues,

when it comes to economic issues it is not true

This is very true.

The country has actually shifted in a noticeably right-wing/neoliberal direction on economic issues since the 90s.

Bill Clinton and his allies basically reinvented the Democratic Party as a party full of socially liberal centrists who don't particularly care about truly progressive economic policy. we can see this in Obama, whose greatest "achievement" was a right-wing healthcare law that was proposed by conservatives in the 90s, and yet a substantial number of Republicans believed that bill was socialism.

This is why I, despite being strongly socially liberal and supportive of rights for LGBT people and minorities of all kinds, wouldn't dare call myself a Democrat, and if someone like Kamala Harris is the nominee, you can bet I'll be voting Green again.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

so you think William Jennings Bryan, who was similar to someone like Bernie Sanders on economic issues, wasn't a liberal because he was socially conservative?

Bryan wasn't anything other than a conservative when it came to economic issues.

Lol

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

so you think William Jennings Bryan, who was similar to someone like Bernie Sanders on economic issues, wasn't a liberal because he was socially conservative?

Bryan wasn't anything other than a conservative when it came to economic issues.

Lol

I might be able to see where he’s coming from, though that might be giving him too much credit. Either way, such ignores the intellectual heritage of American liberalism. If we continue in the same direction, might as well call half the Democratic electorate conservative.