Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Does the "study" indicate how donors selected beneficiaries of their gracious donations by race?The actions of the Republican Party, who historically and currently have shown their steadfast color blindness, is a proud one. I understand why racist dems want to pretend it didn't happen..and as you can see in Pogo's case, changing history does bear fruit. He had no idea....
This is even going on today. Democrats are very racist and Science Proves It.
Are Republicans stingy but principled while Democrats are generous but racist?
"I wouldn't put it quite so starkly," said Stanford University professor Shanto Iyengar. He would prefer to call Democrats "less principled" rather than bigoted, based on his analysis of data collected in a recent online experiment that he conducted with The Washington Post and washingtonpost.com.
As reported in this column a few weeks ago, the study found that people were less likely to give extended aid to black Hurricane Katrina victims than to white ones. The race penalty, on average, totaled about $1,000 per black victim.
As Iyengar and his colleagues subsequently dug deeper into these data, another finding emerged: Republicans consistently gave less aid, and gave over a shorter period of time, to victims regardless of race.
Democrats and independents were far more generous; on average, they gave Katrina victims on average more than $1,500 a month, compared with $1,200 for Republicans, and for 13 months instead of nine.
But for Democrats, race mattered -- and in a disturbing way. Overall, Democrats were willing to give whites about $1,500 more than they chose to give to a black or other minority. (Even with this race penalty, Democrats still were willing to give more to blacks than those principled Republicans.) "Republicans are likely to be more stringent, both in terms of money and time, Iyengar said. "However, their position is 'principled' in the sense that it stems from a strong belief in individualism (as opposed to handouts). Thus their responses to the assistance questions are relatively invariant across the different media conditions. Independents and Democrats, on the other hand, are more likely to be affected by racial cues."
To test the effects of race, participants in the study were asked to read a news article about Katrina victims. Some read a story featuring a white person. Some read identical stories -- except the victim was black, Asian or Hispanic. Then they were asked how much assistance they think the government should give to help hurricane victims. Approximately 2,300 people participated in the study.
Iyengar said he's not surprised by the latest findings: "This pattern of results matches perfectly an earlier study I did on race and crime" with Franklin D. Gilliam Jr. of UCLA. "Republicans supported tough treatment of criminals no matter what they encountered in the news. Others were more elastic in their position, coming to support more harsh measures when the criminal suspect they encountered was non-white."
Here's the basic beginning flaw of this thread's premise:
Thread title:
Conservatives and Racism
Good. Very worthy topic.
Then when I press him for what his point is he says this:
I posted this to show how the GOP has always been inclusive of blacks. Some of the finest minds of this current era are conservative blacks who sorrow for what has been handed to their brethren by liberals.
He doesn't make a distinction between "conservatism" and the Republican Party. He thinks they're the same thing.
That's where the understanding has to start.
While it's true to say that of the Republican party of the 1800's, it's complete and utter bullshit to pretend that to be the case of modern day Republicans who have elected a whopping grand total of 6 blacks to Congress since then. That's just 6 blacks elected in more than 26,000 elections since 1900. Sure, you can say Republicans are "color blind" ... they don't see black people. Unless they're committing a crime, that is.The actions of the Republican Party, who historically and currently have shown their steadfast color blindness, is a proud one. I understand why racist dems want to pretend it didn't happen..and as you can see in Pogo's case, changing history does bear fruit. He had no idea....
And, when conservative blacks run for office, the barrage from liberal sources against them is incredible. Name one who has run and then check out the amounts of money from Democrat sources pouring out in opposition to them.
Please, Republicans attack Democrats with no less fervor. That's just a sad excuse. While y'all are ridiculously placing yourselves on this pedastal, what you're really saying is that Republicans and Conservatives just don't think blacks are as qualified as whites to hold a public office. And then you guys hysterically call that, "color blind."While it's true to say that of the Republican party of the 1800's, it's complete and utter bullshit to pretend that to be the case of modern day Republicans who have elected a whopping grand total of 6 blacks to Congress since then. That's just 6 blacks elected in more than 26,000 elections since 1900. Sure, you can say Republicans are "color blind" ... they don't see black people. Unless they're committing a crime, that is.The actions of the Republican Party, who historically and currently have shown their steadfast color blindness, is a proud one. I understand why racist dems want to pretend it didn't happen..and as you can see in Pogo's case, changing history does bear fruit. He had no idea....
And, when conservative blacks run for office, the barrage from liberal sources against them is incredible. Name one who has run and then check out the amounts of money from Democrat sources pouring out in opposition to them.
I
Does the "study" indicate how donors selected beneficiaries of their gracious donations by race?The actions of the Republican Party, who historically and currently have shown their steadfast color blindness, is a proud one. I understand why racist dems want to pretend it didn't happen..and as you can see in Pogo's case, changing history does bear fruit. He had no idea....
This is even going on today. Democrats are very racist and Science Proves It.
Are Republicans stingy but principled while Democrats are generous but racist?
"I wouldn't put it quite so starkly," said Stanford University professor Shanto Iyengar. He would prefer to call Democrats "less principled" rather than bigoted, based on his analysis of data collected in a recent online experiment that he conducted with The Washington Post and washingtonpost.com.
As reported in this column a few weeks ago, the study found that people were less likely to give extended aid to black Hurricane Katrina victims than to white ones. The race penalty, on average, totaled about $1,000 per black victim.
As Iyengar and his colleagues subsequently dug deeper into these data, another finding emerged: Republicans consistently gave less aid, and gave over a shorter period of time, to victims regardless of race.
Democrats and independents were far more generous; on average, they gave Katrina victims on average more than $1,500 a month, compared with $1,200 for Republicans, and for 13 months instead of nine.
But for Democrats, race mattered -- and in a disturbing way. Overall, Democrats were willing to give whites about $1,500 more than they chose to give to a black or other minority. (Even with this race penalty, Democrats still were willing to give more to blacks than those principled Republicans.) "Republicans are likely to be more stringent, both in terms of money and time, Iyengar said. "However, their position is 'principled' in the sense that it stems from a strong belief in individualism (as opposed to handouts). Thus their responses to the assistance questions are relatively invariant across the different media conditions. Independents and Democrats, on the other hand, are more likely to be affected by racial cues."
To test the effects of race, participants in the study were asked to read a news article about Katrina victims. Some read a story featuring a white person. Some read identical stories -- except the victim was black, Asian or Hispanic. Then they were asked how much assistance they think the government should give to help hurricane victims. Approximately 2,300 people participated in the study.
Iyengar said he's not surprised by the latest findings: "This pattern of results matches perfectly an earlier study I did on race and crime" with Franklin D. Gilliam Jr. of UCLA. "Republicans supported tough treatment of criminals no matter what they encountered in the news. Others were more elastic in their position, coming to support more harsh measures when the criminal suspect they encountered was non-white."
Sorry, I didn't realize it wasn't based on reality. Never mind.I
Does the "study" indicate how donors selected beneficiaries of their gracious donations by race?The actions of the Republican Party, who historically and currently have shown their steadfast color blindness, is a proud one. I understand why racist dems want to pretend it didn't happen..and as you can see in Pogo's case, changing history does bear fruit. He had no idea....
This is even going on today. Democrats are very racist and Science Proves It.
Are Republicans stingy but principled while Democrats are generous but racist?
"I wouldn't put it quite so starkly," said Stanford University professor Shanto Iyengar. He would prefer to call Democrats "less principled" rather than bigoted, based on his analysis of data collected in a recent online experiment that he conducted with The Washington Post and washingtonpost.com.
As reported in this column a few weeks ago, the study found that people were less likely to give extended aid to black Hurricane Katrina victims than to white ones. The race penalty, on average, totaled about $1,000 per black victim.
As Iyengar and his colleagues subsequently dug deeper into these data, another finding emerged: Republicans consistently gave less aid, and gave over a shorter period of time, to victims regardless of race.
Democrats and independents were far more generous; on average, they gave Katrina victims on average more than $1,500 a month, compared with $1,200 for Republicans, and for 13 months instead of nine.
But for Democrats, race mattered -- and in a disturbing way. Overall, Democrats were willing to give whites about $1,500 more than they chose to give to a black or other minority. (Even with this race penalty, Democrats still were willing to give more to blacks than those principled Republicans.) "Republicans are likely to be more stringent, both in terms of money and time, Iyengar said. "However, their position is 'principled' in the sense that it stems from a strong belief in individualism (as opposed to handouts). Thus their responses to the assistance questions are relatively invariant across the different media conditions. Independents and Democrats, on the other hand, are more likely to be affected by racial cues."
To test the effects of race, participants in the study were asked to read a news article about Katrina victims. Some read a story featuring a white person. Some read identical stories -- except the victim was black, Asian or Hispanic. Then they were asked how much assistance they think the government should give to help hurricane victims. Approximately 2,300 people participated in the study.
Iyengar said he's not surprised by the latest findings: "This pattern of results matches perfectly an earlier study I did on race and crime" with Franklin D. Gilliam Jr. of UCLA. "Republicans supported tough treatment of criminals no matter what they encountered in the news. Others were more elastic in their position, coming to support more harsh measures when the criminal suspect they encountered was non-white."
That's another interesting aspect. Remember we're dealing with pretend money here which is supposed to represent government aid. Conservatives tend to think of government money as their own money, hence they want it managed responsibly while liberals tend to think of government money as someone else's money and they spend it without abandon. Liberals aren't being generous. Here's P.J. O'Rourke describing this phenomenon:
"1. You spend your money on yourself. You're motivated to get the thing you want most at the best price. This is the way middle-aged men haggle with Porsche dealers.
2. You spend your money on other people. You still want a bargain, but you're less interested in pleasing the recipient of your largesse. This is why children get underwear at Christmas.
3. You spend other people's money on yourself. You get what you want but price no longer matters. The second wives who ride around with the middle-aged men in the Porsches do this kind of spending at Neiman Marcus.
4. You spend other people's money on other people. And in this case, who gives a sh*t?"
Conservatives are Category #1 and Liberals are Category #4.
Lesson: To show generosity one must self sacrifice. Voting to spend other people's money on a project is not an indication that one is generous.
Sorry, I didn't realize it wasn't based on reality. Never mind.I
Does the "study" indicate how donors selected beneficiaries of their gracious donations by race?The actions of the Republican Party, who historically and currently have shown their steadfast color blindness, is a proud one. I understand why racist dems want to pretend it didn't happen..and as you can see in Pogo's case, changing history does bear fruit. He had no idea....
This is even going on today. Democrats are very racist and Science Proves It.
Are Republicans stingy but principled while Democrats are generous but racist?
"I wouldn't put it quite so starkly," said Stanford University professor Shanto Iyengar. He would prefer to call Democrats "less principled" rather than bigoted, based on his analysis of data collected in a recent online experiment that he conducted with The Washington Post and washingtonpost.com.
As reported in this column a few weeks ago, the study found that people were less likely to give extended aid to black Hurricane Katrina victims than to white ones. The race penalty, on average, totaled about $1,000 per black victim.
As Iyengar and his colleagues subsequently dug deeper into these data, another finding emerged: Republicans consistently gave less aid, and gave over a shorter period of time, to victims regardless of race.
Democrats and independents were far more generous; on average, they gave Katrina victims on average more than $1,500 a month, compared with $1,200 for Republicans, and for 13 months instead of nine.
But for Democrats, race mattered -- and in a disturbing way. Overall, Democrats were willing to give whites about $1,500 more than they chose to give to a black or other minority. (Even with this race penalty, Democrats still were willing to give more to blacks than those principled Republicans.) "Republicans are likely to be more stringent, both in terms of money and time, Iyengar said. "However, their position is 'principled' in the sense that it stems from a strong belief in individualism (as opposed to handouts). Thus their responses to the assistance questions are relatively invariant across the different media conditions. Independents and Democrats, on the other hand, are more likely to be affected by racial cues."
To test the effects of race, participants in the study were asked to read a news article about Katrina victims. Some read a story featuring a white person. Some read identical stories -- except the victim was black, Asian or Hispanic. Then they were asked how much assistance they think the government should give to help hurricane victims. Approximately 2,300 people participated in the study.
Iyengar said he's not surprised by the latest findings: "This pattern of results matches perfectly an earlier study I did on race and crime" with Franklin D. Gilliam Jr. of UCLA. "Republicans supported tough treatment of criminals no matter what they encountered in the news. Others were more elastic in their position, coming to support more harsh measures when the criminal suspect they encountered was non-white."
That's another interesting aspect. Remember we're dealing with pretend money here which is supposed to represent government aid. Conservatives tend to think of government money as their own money, hence they want it managed responsibly while liberals tend to think of government money as someone else's money and they spend it without abandon. Liberals aren't being generous. Here's P.J. O'Rourke describing this phenomenon:
"1. You spend your money on yourself. You're motivated to get the thing you want most at the best price. This is the way middle-aged men haggle with Porsche dealers.
2. You spend your money on other people. You still want a bargain, but you're less interested in pleasing the recipient of your largesse. This is why children get underwear at Christmas.
3. You spend other people's money on yourself. You get what you want but price no longer matters. The second wives who ride around with the middle-aged men in the Porsches do this kind of spending at Neiman Marcus.
4. You spend other people's money on other people. And in this case, who gives a sh*t?"
Conservatives are Category #1 and Liberals are Category #4.
Lesson: To show generosity one must self sacrifice. Voting to spend other people's money on a project is not an indication that one is generous.
You don't agree that the understanding has to start? Or that you posted that?
Can't live with your head in the sand, dood.
Sorry, I didn't realize it wasn't based on reality. Never mind.[/QUOTE]I
Does the "study" indicate how donors selected beneficiaries of their gracious donations by race?The actions of the Republican Party, who historically and currently have shown their steadfast color blindness, is a proud one. I understand why racist dems want to pretend it didn't happen..and as you can see in Pogo's case, changing history does bear fruit. He had no idea....
This is even going on today. Democrats are very racist and Science Proves It.
Are Republicans stingy but principled while Democrats are generous but racist?
"I wouldn't put it quite so starkly," said Stanford University professor Shanto Iyengar. He would prefer to call Democrats "less principled" rather than bigoted, based on his analysis of data collected in a recent online experiment that he conducted with The Washington Post and washingtonpost.com.
As reported in this column a few weeks ago, the study found that people were less likely to give extended aid to black Hurricane Katrina victims than to white ones. The race penalty, on average, totaled about $1,000 per black victim.
As Iyengar and his colleagues subsequently dug deeper into these data, another finding emerged: Republicans consistently gave less aid, and gave over a shorter period of time, to victims regardless of race.
Democrats and independents were far more generous; on average, they gave Katrina victims on average more than $1,500 a month, compared with $1,200 for Republicans, and for 13 months instead of nine.
But for Democrats, race mattered -- and in a disturbing way. Overall, Democrats were willing to give whites about $1,500 more than they chose to give to a black or other minority. (Even with this race penalty, Democrats still were willing to give more to blacks than those principled Republicans.) "Republicans are likely to be more stringent, both in terms of money and time, Iyengar said. "However, their position is 'principled' in the sense that it stems from a strong belief in individualism (as opposed to handouts). Thus their responses to the assistance questions are relatively invariant across the different media conditions. Independents and Democrats, on the other hand, are more likely to be affected by racial cues."
To test the effects of race, participants in the study were asked to read a news article about Katrina victims. Some read a story featuring a white person. Some read identical stories -- except the victim was black, Asian or Hispanic. Then they were asked how much assistance they think the government should give to help hurricane victims. Approximately 2,300 people participated in the study.
Iyengar said he's not surprised by the latest findings: "This pattern of results matches perfectly an earlier study I did on race and crime" with Franklin D. Gilliam Jr. of UCLA. "Republicans supported tough treatment of criminals no matter what they encountered in the news. Others were more elastic in their position, coming to support more harsh measures when the criminal suspect they encountered was non-white."
That's another interesting aspect. Remember we're dealing with pretend money here which is supposed to represent government aid. Conservatives tend to think of government money as their own money, hence they want it managed responsibly while liberals tend to think of government money as someone else's money and they spend it without abandon. Liberals aren't being generous. Here's P.J. O'Rourke describing this phenomenon:
"1. You spend your money on yourself. You're motivated to get the thing you want most at the best price. This is the way middle-aged men haggle with Porsche dealers.
2. You spend your money on other people. You still want a bargain, but you're less interested in pleasing the recipient of your largesse. This is why children get underwear at Christmas.
3. You spend other people's money on yourself. You get what you want but price no longer matters. The second wives who ride around with the middle-aged men in the Porsches do this kind of spending at Neiman Marcus.
4. You spend other people's money on other people. And in this case, who gives a sh*t?"
Conservatives are Category #1 and Liberals are Category #4.
Lesson: To show generosity one must self sacrifice. Voting to spend other people's money on a project is not an indication that one is generous.
You don't agree that the understanding has to start? Or that you posted that?
Can't live with your head in the sand, dood.
I think the GOP ESTABLISHMENT is far from conservatism! The entrenched pols are only in it for themselves.
However, true conservatives do not discriminate by age, race, or culture but accept that every American has the God-given right to make of themselves whatever they want - without government interference.
The "study" is not rooted in reality. Therefore, it could very well include Liberals claiming to be Republicans to make them appear less likely to donate and Conservatives posing as Democrats to make them appear more likely to donate to whites.Sorry, I didn't realize it wasn't based on reality. Never mind.I
Does the "study" indicate how donors selected beneficiaries of their gracious donations by race?The actions of the Republican Party, who historically and currently have shown their steadfast color blindness, is a proud one. I understand why racist dems want to pretend it didn't happen..and as you can see in Pogo's case, changing history does bear fruit. He had no idea....
This is even going on today. Democrats are very racist and Science Proves It.
Are Republicans stingy but principled while Democrats are generous but racist?
"I wouldn't put it quite so starkly," said Stanford University professor Shanto Iyengar. He would prefer to call Democrats "less principled" rather than bigoted, based on his analysis of data collected in a recent online experiment that he conducted with The Washington Post and washingtonpost.com.
As reported in this column a few weeks ago, the study found that people were less likely to give extended aid to black Hurricane Katrina victims than to white ones. The race penalty, on average, totaled about $1,000 per black victim.
As Iyengar and his colleagues subsequently dug deeper into these data, another finding emerged: Republicans consistently gave less aid, and gave over a shorter period of time, to victims regardless of race.
Democrats and independents were far more generous; on average, they gave Katrina victims on average more than $1,500 a month, compared with $1,200 for Republicans, and for 13 months instead of nine.
But for Democrats, race mattered -- and in a disturbing way. Overall, Democrats were willing to give whites about $1,500 more than they chose to give to a black or other minority. (Even with this race penalty, Democrats still were willing to give more to blacks than those principled Republicans.) "Republicans are likely to be more stringent, both in terms of money and time, Iyengar said. "However, their position is 'principled' in the sense that it stems from a strong belief in individualism (as opposed to handouts). Thus their responses to the assistance questions are relatively invariant across the different media conditions. Independents and Democrats, on the other hand, are more likely to be affected by racial cues."
To test the effects of race, participants in the study were asked to read a news article about Katrina victims. Some read a story featuring a white person. Some read identical stories -- except the victim was black, Asian or Hispanic. Then they were asked how much assistance they think the government should give to help hurricane victims. Approximately 2,300 people participated in the study.
Iyengar said he's not surprised by the latest findings: "This pattern of results matches perfectly an earlier study I did on race and crime" with Franklin D. Gilliam Jr. of UCLA. "Republicans supported tough treatment of criminals no matter what they encountered in the news. Others were more elastic in their position, coming to support more harsh measures when the criminal suspect they encountered was non-white."
That's another interesting aspect. Remember we're dealing with pretend money here which is supposed to represent government aid. Conservatives tend to think of government money as their own money, hence they want it managed responsibly while liberals tend to think of government money as someone else's money and they spend it without abandon. Liberals aren't being generous. Here's P.J. O'Rourke describing this phenomenon:
"1. You spend your money on yourself. You're motivated to get the thing you want most at the best price. This is the way middle-aged men haggle with Porsche dealers.
2. You spend your money on other people. You still want a bargain, but you're less interested in pleasing the recipient of your largesse. This is why children get underwear at Christmas.
3. You spend other people's money on yourself. You get what you want but price no longer matters. The second wives who ride around with the middle-aged men in the Porsches do this kind of spending at Neiman Marcus.
4. You spend other people's money on other people. And in this case, who gives a sh*t?"
Conservatives are Category #1 and Liberals are Category #4.
Lesson: To show generosity one must self sacrifice. Voting to spend other people's money on a project is not an indication that one is generous.
The same thinking process though informs how people vote. Liberals love to think of themselves as kind, caring and generous when they use their vote to support welfare and such. They're nothing of the kind. To be caring and generous requires that liberals individually sacrifice in order to help other people.
Lincoln's speech was also capital friendly. He defends the acquisition of wealth and the ability to hire others.Do you know what you're talking about? The idea that people advance in their work is absolutely a conservative idea. That they begin as labor for others, eventually being able to hire labor for themselves, was part of the American idea at the country's founding, and has always been a part of the GOP platform. Lincoln's ideas of the accumulation of wealth and of the seeking of opportunity are American ideas, not Progressive ideas.I posted this to show how the GOP has always been inclusive of blacks. Some of the finest minds of this current era are conservative blacks who sorrow for what has been handed to their brethren by liberals.
What you forgot to mention--and probably even to consider--is that the GOP was not a conservative party in the 19th Century.
In fact, in that same speech, he warns laborers not to surrender the "political power which they already possess, and which if surrendered will surely be used to close the door of advancement against such as they and to fix new disabilities and burdens upon them till all of liberty shall be lost."
Lincoln's warning, of course, was not long heeded, as we have seen for ourselves since the Progressive Era.
It's not my post, but if I can interject, since I did post the full quote -- the thread is about what political parties stand for through the course of time. Lincoln's quote, which you have amplified above, is obviously worker-friendly (i.e. sympathetic to the "commoner" class). That's a Liberal philosophy, and demonstrates once again my whole point that parties evolve, devolve, and migrate their positions. You have only to consider the relative positions on that constituency today to see the radical turnabout. QED.
Lincoln's quote does not favor workers. It favors the American work ethic. Lincoln thought people should be able to both sell labor and hire labor. Social mobility is conservative.
Nice try but swingannamiss. Let's put it in its further context by filling out the 1861 quote with what sets it up:
>> In my present position I could scarcely be justified were I to omit raising a warning voice against this approach of returning despotism.It's about classism.
It is not needed nor fitting here that a general argument should be made in favor of popular institutions, but there is one point, with its connections, not so hackneyed as most others, to which I ask a brief attention. It is the effort to place capital on an equal footing with, if not above, labor in the structure of government. It is assumed that labor is available only in connection with capital; that nobody labors unless somebody else, owning capital, somehow by the use of it induces him to labor. This assumed, it is next considered whether it is best that capital shall hire laborers, and thus induce them to work by their own consent, or buy them and drive them to it without their consent. Having proceeded so far, it is naturally concluded that all laborers are either hired laborers or what we call slaves. And further, it is assumed that whoever is once a hired laborer is fixed in that condition for life.
Now there is no such relation between capital and labor as assumed, nor is there any such thing as a free man being fixed for life in the condition of a hired laborer. Both these assumptions are false, and all inferences from them are groundless.
Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. Capital has its rights, which are as worthy of protection as any other rights. Nor is it denied that there is, and probably always will be, a relation between labor and capital producing mutual benefits. The error is in assuming that the whole labor of community exists within that relation. A few men own capital, and that few avoid labor themselves, and with their capital hire or buy another few to labor for them. A large majority belong to neither class--neither work for others nor have others working for them. In most of the Southern States a majority of the whole people of all colors are neither slaves nor masters, while in the Northern a large majority are neither hirers nor hired. Men, with their families--wives, sons, and daughters--work for themselves on their farms, in their houses, and in their shops, taking the whole product to themselves, and asking no favors of capital on the one hand nor of hired laborers or slaves on the other. It is not forgotten that a considerable number of persons mingle their own labor with capital; that is, they labor with their own hands and also buy or hire others to labor for them; but this is only a mixed and not a distinct class. No principle stated is disturbed by the existence of this mixed class.
Again, as has already been said, there is not of necessity any such thing as the free hired laborer being fixed to that condition for life. Many independent men everywhere in these States a few years back in their lives were hired laborers. The prudent, penniless beginner in the world labors for wages awhile, saves a surplus with which to buy tools or land for himself, then labors on his own account another while, and at length hires another new beginner to help him. This is the just and generous and prosperous system which opens the way to all, gives hope to all, and consequent energy and progress and improvement of condition to all. No men living are more worthy to be trusted than those who toil up from poverty; none less inclined to take or touch aught which they have not honestly earned. Let them beware of surrendering a political power which they already possess, and which if surrendered will surely be used to close the door of advancement against such as they and to fix new disabilities and burdens upon them till all of liberty shall be lost. --- excerpted from the SOTU address, December 3, 1861
Note that he touched on this concept two years prior before the Presidency, where he kind of straddled the fence on it; parts of the speech are directly copied But clearly he comes down on the side of standing up for the rights of the commoner versus the Elite. Which is after all what Liberalism is all about.
Lincoln's speech was also capital friendly. He defends the acquisition of wealth and the ability to hire others.Do you know what you're talking about? The idea that people advance in their work is absolutely a conservative idea. That they begin as labor for others, eventually being able to hire labor for themselves, was part of the American idea at the country's founding, and has always been a part of the GOP platform. Lincoln's ideas of the accumulation of wealth and of the seeking of opportunity are American ideas, not Progressive ideas.I posted this to show how the GOP has always been inclusive of blacks. Some of the finest minds of this current era are conservative blacks who sorrow for what has been handed to their brethren by liberals.
What you forgot to mention--and probably even to consider--is that the GOP was not a conservative party in the 19th Century.
In fact, in that same speech, he warns laborers not to surrender the "political power which they already possess, and which if surrendered will surely be used to close the door of advancement against such as they and to fix new disabilities and burdens upon them till all of liberty shall be lost."
Lincoln's warning, of course, was not long heeded, as we have seen for ourselves since the Progressive Era.
It's not my post, but if I can interject, since I did post the full quote -- the thread is about what political parties stand for through the course of time. Lincoln's quote, which you have amplified above, is obviously worker-friendly (i.e. sympathetic to the "commoner" class). That's a Liberal philosophy, and demonstrates once again my whole point that parties evolve, devolve, and migrate their positions. You have only to consider the relative positions on that constituency today to see the radical turnabout. QED.
Lincoln's quote does not favor workers. It favors the American work ethic. Lincoln thought people should be able to both sell labor and hire labor. Social mobility is conservative.
Nice try but swingannamiss. Let's put it in its further context by filling out the 1861 quote with what sets it up:
>> In my present position I could scarcely be justified were I to omit raising a warning voice against this approach of returning despotism.It's about classism.
It is not needed nor fitting here that a general argument should be made in favor of popular institutions, but there is one point, with its connections, not so hackneyed as most others, to which I ask a brief attention. It is the effort to place capital on an equal footing with, if not above, labor in the structure of government. It is assumed that labor is available only in connection with capital; that nobody labors unless somebody else, owning capital, somehow by the use of it induces him to labor. This assumed, it is next considered whether it is best that capital shall hire laborers, and thus induce them to work by their own consent, or buy them and drive them to it without their consent. Having proceeded so far, it is naturally concluded that all laborers are either hired laborers or what we call slaves. And further, it is assumed that whoever is once a hired laborer is fixed in that condition for life.
Now there is no such relation between capital and labor as assumed, nor is there any such thing as a free man being fixed for life in the condition of a hired laborer. Both these assumptions are false, and all inferences from them are groundless.
Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. Capital has its rights, which are as worthy of protection as any other rights. Nor is it denied that there is, and probably always will be, a relation between labor and capital producing mutual benefits. The error is in assuming that the whole labor of community exists within that relation. A few men own capital, and that few avoid labor themselves, and with their capital hire or buy another few to labor for them. A large majority belong to neither class--neither work for others nor have others working for them. In most of the Southern States a majority of the whole people of all colors are neither slaves nor masters, while in the Northern a large majority are neither hirers nor hired. Men, with their families--wives, sons, and daughters--work for themselves on their farms, in their houses, and in their shops, taking the whole product to themselves, and asking no favors of capital on the one hand nor of hired laborers or slaves on the other. It is not forgotten that a considerable number of persons mingle their own labor with capital; that is, they labor with their own hands and also buy or hire others to labor for them; but this is only a mixed and not a distinct class. No principle stated is disturbed by the existence of this mixed class.
Again, as has already been said, there is not of necessity any such thing as the free hired laborer being fixed to that condition for life. Many independent men everywhere in these States a few years back in their lives were hired laborers. The prudent, penniless beginner in the world labors for wages awhile, saves a surplus with which to buy tools or land for himself, then labors on his own account another while, and at length hires another new beginner to help him. This is the just and generous and prosperous system which opens the way to all, gives hope to all, and consequent energy and progress and improvement of condition to all. No men living are more worthy to be trusted than those who toil up from poverty; none less inclined to take or touch aught which they have not honestly earned. Let them beware of surrendering a political power which they already possess, and which if surrendered will surely be used to close the door of advancement against such as they and to fix new disabilities and burdens upon them till all of liberty shall be lost. --- excerpted from the SOTU address, December 3, 1861
Note that he touched on this concept two years prior before the Presidency, where he kind of straddled the fence on it; parts of the speech are directly copied But clearly he comes down on the side of standing up for the rights of the commoner versus the Elite. Which is after all what Liberalism is all about.
And? Today's liberalism teaches it's brainwashed followers that the rich get rich on the back of the poor, which is total bullshit. Lincoln believed as most normal people do in this country that one can start from laborer and work his way up to his own business and labor for himself and in turn hire others
Lincoln's speech was also capital friendly. He defends the acquisition of wealth and the ability to hire others.Do you know what you're talking about? The idea that people advance in their work is absolutely a conservative idea. That they begin as labor for others, eventually being able to hire labor for themselves, was part of the American idea at the country's founding, and has always been a part of the GOP platform. Lincoln's ideas of the accumulation of wealth and of the seeking of opportunity are American ideas, not Progressive ideas.I posted this to show how the GOP has always been inclusive of blacks. Some of the finest minds of this current era are conservative blacks who sorrow for what has been handed to their brethren by liberals.
What you forgot to mention--and probably even to consider--is that the GOP was not a conservative party in the 19th Century.
In fact, in that same speech, he warns laborers not to surrender the "political power which they already possess, and which if surrendered will surely be used to close the door of advancement against such as they and to fix new disabilities and burdens upon them till all of liberty shall be lost."
Lincoln's warning, of course, was not long heeded, as we have seen for ourselves since the Progressive Era.
It's not my post, but if I can interject, since I did post the full quote -- the thread is about what political parties stand for through the course of time. Lincoln's quote, which you have amplified above, is obviously worker-friendly (i.e. sympathetic to the "commoner" class). That's a Liberal philosophy, and demonstrates once again my whole point that parties evolve, devolve, and migrate their positions. You have only to consider the relative positions on that constituency today to see the radical turnabout. QED.
Lincoln's quote does not favor workers. It favors the American work ethic. Lincoln thought people should be able to both sell labor and hire labor. Social mobility is conservative.
Let's be completely honest here. "Conservative" politicians of today favor capital of labor 100% of the time, and the capital of the very wealthy over the capital of the everyman 90+% of the time.
I pointed out to him that this is a glowing example of how parties shift in their ideological roles through time. Had we all been on this mesaage board 150 years ago it's a safe bet that everybody identifying with the one party now --- would have been with the other then.
I didn't notice his closing phrase at the time--
"Social mobility is conservative".
--- The Ministry of Truth turning 180s again. Social mobility means people are not fixed in classes; and that's very much a Liberal idea. Liberals after all are the inventors of the concept "all men are created equal". That egalitarian spirit is the whole essence behind breaking down the aristocratic class system we threw off to create this country. Lincoln's speech here is another expression of it.
The same proletariat gotta get themselves past this facile notion that one, "liberal = Democrat and conservative = Republican", and two, that that equation, even if it had existed, is a fixed one throughout time. It isn't.
That's why I went to those loquacious lengths earlier; this study deserves more and deeper thought than offhand false sound-bite slogans using the credibility factor of an Aesop's fable. Dumbing down to that degree is a deflection, a way of sidestepping an inconvenient rhetorical swamp.
Here's the basic beginning flaw of this thread's premise:
Thread title:
Conservatives and Racism
Good. Very worthy topic.
Then when I press him for what his point is he says this:
I posted this to show how the GOP has always been inclusive of blacks. Some of the finest minds of this current era are conservative blacks who sorrow for what has been handed to their brethren by liberals.
He doesn't make a distinction between "conservatism" and the Republican Party. He thinks they're the same thing.
That's where the understanding has to start.
Democrats have been using blacks as chattel for over fifty years. They have destroyed the black family unit and been able to blame white conservatives for the failures of their legislation and ideology and the personal choices of the black underclass. It's quite a stunning reality that we live in. How is it possible that blacks vote like sheep? And against their own best interests.
Are blacks really genetically inferior? Are they able to be led like dogs down a path of self-destruction? Or is it as old as the hills, this problem? Is it maybe that democrats have simply tapped into the human failing, that whenever something goes wrong, always look to someone else to blame...
If I were a black man, I would be disgusted at how my race acts like a single hive of inane drones. It's something that should be studied beyond the surface. It's sick.
Lincoln's speech was also capital friendly. He defends the acquisition of wealth and the ability to hire others.Do you know what you're talking about? The idea that people advance in their work is absolutely a conservative idea. That they begin as labor for others, eventually being able to hire labor for themselves, was part of the American idea at the country's founding, and has always been a part of the GOP platform. Lincoln's ideas of the accumulation of wealth and of the seeking of opportunity are American ideas, not Progressive ideas.I posted this to show how the GOP has always been inclusive of blacks. Some of the finest minds of this current era are conservative blacks who sorrow for what has been handed to their brethren by liberals.
What you forgot to mention--and probably even to consider--is that the GOP was not a conservative party in the 19th Century.
In fact, in that same speech, he warns laborers not to surrender the "political power which they already possess, and which if surrendered will surely be used to close the door of advancement against such as they and to fix new disabilities and burdens upon them till all of liberty shall be lost."
Lincoln's warning, of course, was not long heeded, as we have seen for ourselves since the Progressive Era.
It's not my post, but if I can interject, since I did post the full quote -- the thread is about what political parties stand for through the course of time. Lincoln's quote, which you have amplified above, is obviously worker-friendly (i.e. sympathetic to the "commoner" class). That's a Liberal philosophy, and demonstrates once again my whole point that parties evolve, devolve, and migrate their positions. You have only to consider the relative positions on that constituency today to see the radical turnabout. QED.
Lincoln's quote does not favor workers. It favors the American work ethic. Lincoln thought people should be able to both sell labor and hire labor. Social mobility is conservative.
Nice try but swingannamiss. Let's put it in its further context by filling out the 1861 quote with what sets it up:
>> In my present position I could scarcely be justified were I to omit raising a warning voice against this approach of returning despotism.It's about classism.
It is not needed nor fitting here that a general argument should be made in favor of popular institutions, but there is one point, with its connections, not so hackneyed as most others, to which I ask a brief attention. It is the effort to place capital on an equal footing with, if not above, labor in the structure of government. It is assumed that labor is available only in connection with capital; that nobody labors unless somebody else, owning capital, somehow by the use of it induces him to labor. This assumed, it is next considered whether it is best that capital shall hire laborers, and thus induce them to work by their own consent, or buy them and drive them to it without their consent. Having proceeded so far, it is naturally concluded that all laborers are either hired laborers or what we call slaves. And further, it is assumed that whoever is once a hired laborer is fixed in that condition for life.
Now there is no such relation between capital and labor as assumed, nor is there any such thing as a free man being fixed for life in the condition of a hired laborer. Both these assumptions are false, and all inferences from them are groundless.
Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. Capital has its rights, which are as worthy of protection as any other rights. Nor is it denied that there is, and probably always will be, a relation between labor and capital producing mutual benefits. The error is in assuming that the whole labor of community exists within that relation. A few men own capital, and that few avoid labor themselves, and with their capital hire or buy another few to labor for them. A large majority belong to neither class--neither work for others nor have others working for them. In most of the Southern States a majority of the whole people of all colors are neither slaves nor masters, while in the Northern a large majority are neither hirers nor hired. Men, with their families--wives, sons, and daughters--work for themselves on their farms, in their houses, and in their shops, taking the whole product to themselves, and asking no favors of capital on the one hand nor of hired laborers or slaves on the other. It is not forgotten that a considerable number of persons mingle their own labor with capital; that is, they labor with their own hands and also buy or hire others to labor for them; but this is only a mixed and not a distinct class. No principle stated is disturbed by the existence of this mixed class.
Again, as has already been said, there is not of necessity any such thing as the free hired laborer being fixed to that condition for life. Many independent men everywhere in these States a few years back in their lives were hired laborers. The prudent, penniless beginner in the world labors for wages awhile, saves a surplus with which to buy tools or land for himself, then labors on his own account another while, and at length hires another new beginner to help him. This is the just and generous and prosperous system which opens the way to all, gives hope to all, and consequent energy and progress and improvement of condition to all. No men living are more worthy to be trusted than those who toil up from poverty; none less inclined to take or touch aught which they have not honestly earned. Let them beware of surrendering a political power which they already possess, and which if surrendered will surely be used to close the door of advancement against such as they and to fix new disabilities and burdens upon them till all of liberty shall be lost. --- excerpted from the SOTU address, December 3, 1861
Note that he touched on this concept two years prior before the Presidency, where he kind of straddled the fence on it; parts of the speech are directly copied But clearly he comes down on the side of standing up for the rights of the commoner versus the Elite. Which is after all what Liberalism is all about.
And? Today's liberalism teaches it's brainwashed followers that the rich get rich on the back of the poor, which is total bullshit. Lincoln believed as most normal people do in this country that one can start from laborer and work his way up to his own business and labor for himself and in turn hire others
Didn't read the speech, didja? He's talking about the class divisions that came with slavery. It was eighteen sixty frickin' one. And in the greater sense he's defending the stature of the common class. That's why it's Liberalism.
Political philosophies don't "teach" btw. Even if your strawman were real that's not what a political philosophy does. An ideology already knows what it believes, and seeks to act on it. And what you've got there has nothing to do with Liberalism.
(But if it did teach it might let you know that there is no apostrophe in its. "Teaches it is brainwashed followers" doesn't make any sense.)
Here's the basic beginning flaw of this thread's premise:
Thread title:
Conservatives and Racism
Good. Very worthy topic.
Then when I press him for what his point is he says this:
I posted this to show how the GOP has always been inclusive of blacks. Some of the finest minds of this current era are conservative blacks who sorrow for what has been handed to their brethren by liberals.
He doesn't make a distinction between "conservatism" and the Republican Party. He thinks they're the same thing.
That's where the understanding has to start.
I've said it before and i'll say it again for clueless people like yourself. The Democrat party is the party of slavery segregation they are still that. They never closed up shop and became something else. Lincoln and the Republicans fight for the liberty of the individual to succeed or fail based on his own merit. Democrats fight for slavery,as they always have. Slavery to all powerful government at the expense of the individual. Individual liberty boy, understand it, the concept seems to be over your head
Lincoln's speech was also capital friendly. He defends the acquisition of wealth and the ability to hire others.Do you know what you're talking about? The idea that people advance in their work is absolutely a conservative idea. That they begin as labor for others, eventually being able to hire labor for themselves, was part of the American idea at the country's founding, and has always been a part of the GOP platform. Lincoln's ideas of the accumulation of wealth and of the seeking of opportunity are American ideas, not Progressive ideas.
In fact, in that same speech, he warns laborers not to surrender the "political power which they already possess, and which if surrendered will surely be used to close the door of advancement against such as they and to fix new disabilities and burdens upon them till all of liberty shall be lost."
Lincoln's warning, of course, was not long heeded, as we have seen for ourselves since the Progressive Era.
It's not my post, but if I can interject, since I did post the full quote -- the thread is about what political parties stand for through the course of time. Lincoln's quote, which you have amplified above, is obviously worker-friendly (i.e. sympathetic to the "commoner" class). That's a Liberal philosophy, and demonstrates once again my whole point that parties evolve, devolve, and migrate their positions. You have only to consider the relative positions on that constituency today to see the radical turnabout. QED.
Lincoln's quote does not favor workers. It favors the American work ethic. Lincoln thought people should be able to both sell labor and hire labor. Social mobility is conservative.
Nice try but swingannamiss. Let's put it in its further context by filling out the 1861 quote with what sets it up:
>> In my present position I could scarcely be justified were I to omit raising a warning voice against this approach of returning despotism.It's about classism.
It is not needed nor fitting here that a general argument should be made in favor of popular institutions, but there is one point, with its connections, not so hackneyed as most others, to which I ask a brief attention. It is the effort to place capital on an equal footing with, if not above, labor in the structure of government. It is assumed that labor is available only in connection with capital; that nobody labors unless somebody else, owning capital, somehow by the use of it induces him to labor. This assumed, it is next considered whether it is best that capital shall hire laborers, and thus induce them to work by their own consent, or buy them and drive them to it without their consent. Having proceeded so far, it is naturally concluded that all laborers are either hired laborers or what we call slaves. And further, it is assumed that whoever is once a hired laborer is fixed in that condition for life.
Now there is no such relation between capital and labor as assumed, nor is there any such thing as a free man being fixed for life in the condition of a hired laborer. Both these assumptions are false, and all inferences from them are groundless.
Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. Capital has its rights, which are as worthy of protection as any other rights. Nor is it denied that there is, and probably always will be, a relation between labor and capital producing mutual benefits. The error is in assuming that the whole labor of community exists within that relation. A few men own capital, and that few avoid labor themselves, and with their capital hire or buy another few to labor for them. A large majority belong to neither class--neither work for others nor have others working for them. In most of the Southern States a majority of the whole people of all colors are neither slaves nor masters, while in the Northern a large majority are neither hirers nor hired. Men, with their families--wives, sons, and daughters--work for themselves on their farms, in their houses, and in their shops, taking the whole product to themselves, and asking no favors of capital on the one hand nor of hired laborers or slaves on the other. It is not forgotten that a considerable number of persons mingle their own labor with capital; that is, they labor with their own hands and also buy or hire others to labor for them; but this is only a mixed and not a distinct class. No principle stated is disturbed by the existence of this mixed class.
Again, as has already been said, there is not of necessity any such thing as the free hired laborer being fixed to that condition for life. Many independent men everywhere in these States a few years back in their lives were hired laborers. The prudent, penniless beginner in the world labors for wages awhile, saves a surplus with which to buy tools or land for himself, then labors on his own account another while, and at length hires another new beginner to help him. This is the just and generous and prosperous system which opens the way to all, gives hope to all, and consequent energy and progress and improvement of condition to all. No men living are more worthy to be trusted than those who toil up from poverty; none less inclined to take or touch aught which they have not honestly earned. Let them beware of surrendering a political power which they already possess, and which if surrendered will surely be used to close the door of advancement against such as they and to fix new disabilities and burdens upon them till all of liberty shall be lost. --- excerpted from the SOTU address, December 3, 1861
Note that he touched on this concept two years prior before the Presidency, where he kind of straddled the fence on it; parts of the speech are directly copied But clearly he comes down on the side of standing up for the rights of the commoner versus the Elite. Which is after all what Liberalism is all about.
And? Today's liberalism teaches it's brainwashed followers that the rich get rich on the back of the poor, which is total bullshit. Lincoln believed as most normal people do in this country that one can start from laborer and work his way up to his own business and labor for himself and in turn hire others
Didn't read the speech, didja? He's talking about the class divisions that came with slavery. It was eighteen sixty frickin' one. And in the greater sense he's defending the stature of the common class. That's why it's Liberalism.
Political philosophies don't "teach" btw. Even if your strawman were real that's not what a political philosophy does. An ideology already knows what it believes, and seeks to act on it. And what you've got there has nothing to do with Liberalism.
(But if it did teach it might let you know that there is no apostrophe in its. "Teaches it is brainwashed followers" doesn't make any sense.)
Class division is a Marxist concept. Certainly not what Lincoln was talking about a person can move in and out of income brackets
Holy shit.I prefer use Democrat party. becuase they are surly less than democratic . Keep focusing the minor, the big picture you'll never comprehendHere's the basic beginning flaw of this thread's premise:
Thread title:
Conservatives and Racism
Good. Very worthy topic.
Then when I press him for what his point is he says this:
I posted this to show how the GOP has always been inclusive of blacks. Some of the finest minds of this current era are conservative blacks who sorrow for what has been handed to their brethren by liberals.
He doesn't make a distinction between "conservatism" and the Republican Party. He thinks they're the same thing.
That's where the understanding has to start.
I've said it before and i'll say it again for clueless people like yourself. The Democrat party is the party of slavery segregation they are still that. They never closed up shop and became something else. Lincoln and the Republicans fight for the liberty of the individual to succeed or fail based on his own merit. Democrats fight for slavery,as they always have. Slavery to all powerful government at the expense of the individual. Individual liberty boy, understand it, the concept seems to be over your head
There's no such entity as the "Democrat Party". Never has been.
Racism began waaaaaay before any parties were established here. Centuries before.
If you're trying to say "Democratic Party", the racial contingent of those bipolar days was all spelled out in post 8. Why don't you go catch up instead of sneezing talking point snot all over this part of the thread. You won't look so clueless.
Why do these right wingers keep printing this same dumbass bullshit. I went to the OP's link and read the comments below. Clearly it was heavily edited.I posted this to show how the GOP has always been inclusive of blacks. Some of the finest minds of this current era are conservative blacks who sorrow for what has been handed to their brethren by liberals.
What you forgot to mention--and probably even to consider--is that the GOP was not a conservative party in the 19th Century.
