The problem with black folks...

[_Analytics]

Conservatives or liberals - which group generally opposed the civil rights movement?

Answering this question, Droopy said:

The following is among the best explications of the relationship of early modern conservatism to the early civil rights movement I've found...
http://www.claremont.org/publications/c ... detail.asp

Paraphrasing Droopy’s own source, liberals championed the civil rights movement, while the conservatives opposed it (i.e. were worse than MIA).

I for one appreciate Droopy admitting that Conservatives were generally opposed to the civil rights movement, and for providing a link that proves that this was in fact the case.

For your reference, here is the text to the link that Droopy shared with us from the Claremont website that frankly admits that Conservatives opposed the civil rights movement.

Worse than Missing in Action
The constitutional principles at the heart of this project were—are—ones that liberals find laughable, fantastic, and bizarre. Because they cannot take them seriously they reject the possibility that conservatives do. Thus, liberals dismiss "states' rights" as nothing more than a code word for racism. There is no point in conservatives even asking what the code word for states' rights is, because liberals cannot imagine anyone believes this to be a legitimate political concern.

From this viewpoint, conservatism's "reasons" for opposing civil rights were, in fact and from the beginning, excuses for oppressing blacks. Buckley's least judicious writings make it difficult to wave away that allegation. These are moments in conservatism's history where it was, in Goldberg's sense, worse than merely missing in action in the battle for racial equity.

Exhibit A, quoted triumphantly by Paul Krugman in his new book The Conscience of a Liberal, was a 1957 National Review editorial Buckley wrote, "Why the South Must Prevail." In it, Buckley said that the "central question" is neither "parliamentary" nor one "that is answered by merely consulting a catalogue of the rights of American citizens, born Equal." Rather, it is "whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not predominate numerically?"

And? "The sobering answer is Yes—the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race." In other words, the South "perceives important qualitative differences between its culture and the Negroes', and intends to assert its own," an intention Buckley approves:
If the majority wills what is socially atavistic, then to thwart the majority may be, though undemocratic, enlightened. It is more important for any community, anywhere in the world, to affirm and live by civilized standards, than to bow to the demands of the numerical majority.

Buckley's subsequent treatment of civil rights issues was more circumspect. In 1957 he regarded the whites' civilization as more advanced both subjectively and objectively. The South perceives important differences between white and black culture, and the white community is the advanced race and what blacks would bring about is atavistic.

Later, Buckley emphasized only the subjective element. Abandoning the argument that whites were objectively more civilized, however, sometimes led to expressions of solicitude for Southern whites who were conspicuously uncivilized. A 1961 editorial beseeches readers to try to understand those whites who responded to the provocation posed by the Northern "Freedom Riders" by beating the crap out of a few of them. "Jim Crow at the bus stations strikes us as unnecessary, and even wrong," Buckley said, but this is "irrelevant" because it "does not strike the average white Southerner as wrong."

That is what they feel, and they feel that their life is for them to structure; that the Negro has grown up under generally benevolent circumstances, considering where he started and how far he had to go; that he is making progress; that the coexistence of that progress and the Southern way of life demand, for the time being, separation.

This was indeed what the South felt, or at least what it said it felt during the early years of the civil rights movement. Buckley's characterization resembles that of the "Southern Manifesto," signed in 1956 by nearly every senator and representative from the South. The Manifesto charged the Supreme Court's Brown decision with destroying the amicable relations between the white and Negro races that have been created through 90 years of patient effort by the good people of both races. It has planted hatred and suspicion where there has been heretofore friendship and understanding.

It's hard for modern readers to decide whether cynicism, or delusion, explains such an assessment.

The single most disturbing thing about Buckley's reactions to the civil rights controversies was the asymmetry of his sympathies—genuine concern for Southern whites beset by integrationists, but more often than not, perfunctory concern for Southern blacks beset by bigots. This disparity culminated in a position on violence committed by whites against blacks and civil rights activists that was reliably equivocal. Like the liberals of the 1960s who didn't condone riots in Watts and Detroit but always understood them, Buckley regularly coupled the obligatory criticism of Southern whites' violent acts with a longer and more fervent denunciation of the provocations that elicited them. Thus, "the nation cannot get away with feigning surprise" when a mob of white students attacks a black woman admitted to the University of Alabama by federal court order in 1956. "For in defiance of constitutional practice, with a total disregard of custom and tradition, the Supreme Court, a year ago, illegalized a whole set of deeply-rooted folkways and mores; and now we are engaged in attempting to enforce our law." Thus, the Freedom Riders went into the South to "challenge with language of unconditional surrender" the whites' "deeply felt" beliefs, and were "met, inevitably, by a spastic response. By violence."

There is much to be said for the Burkean notion that social change unfolds best when it is the unplanned, incremental result of particular actions and concrete realities, rather than imposed sweepingly, from afar, on the basis of lofty abstractions. There is something to be said for the position that modern Burkeans can demonstrate their attachment to this idea by applying it to the hard cases as well as the easy ones. There is almost nothing to be said in defense of conservatives' profound misjudgment about the civil rights movement.. Their [the Conservatives’] response to it was that the only solution to the problem of apartheid in the American South was to wait, for however many decades it required, for blacks' infinite forbearance and whites' latent decency to somehow work things out. To act more assertively, in this view, amounted to intolerable, heavy-handed social engineering, far worse than the problem that needed fixing.

Thanks again, Droopy, for providing a link by conservatives that agrees with beastie’s point: conservatives were against the civil rights movement.

[_Droopy]

Conservatives or liberals - which group generally opposed the civil rights movement?

Answering this question, Droopy said:

The following is among the best explications of the relationship of early modern conservatism to the early civil rights movement I've found...
http://www.claremont.org/publications/c ... detail.asp

Paraphrasing Droopy’s own source, liberals championed the civil rights movement, while the conservatives opposed it (i.e. were worse than MIA).

I for one appreciate Droopy admitting that Conservatives were generally opposed to the civil rights movement, and for providing a link that proves that this was in fact the case.

For your reference, here is the text to the link that Droopy shared with us from the Claremont website that frankly admits that Conservatives opposed the civil rights movement.

Worse than Missing in Action
The constitutional principles at the heart of this project were—are—ones that liberals find laughable, fantastic, and bizarre. Because they cannot take them seriously they reject the possibility that conservatives do. Thus, liberals dismiss "states' rights" as nothing more than a code word for racism. There is no point in conservatives even asking what the code word for states' rights is, because liberals cannot imagine anyone believes this to be a legitimate political concern.

From this viewpoint, conservatism's "reasons" for opposing civil rights were, in fact and from the beginning, excuses for oppressing blacks. Buckley's least judicious writings make it difficult to wave away that allegation. These are moments in conservatism's history where it was, in Goldberg's sense, worse than merely missing in action in the battle for racial equity.

Exhibit A, quoted triumphantly by Paul Krugman in his new book The Conscience of a Liberal, was a 1957 National Review editorial Buckley wrote, "Why the South Must Prevail." In it, Buckley said that the "central question" is neither "parliamentary" nor one "that is answered by merely consulting a catalogue of the rights of American citizens, born Equal." Rather, it is "whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not predominant numerically?"

And? "The sobering answer is Yes—the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race." In other words, the South "perceives important qualitative differences between its culture and the Negroes', and intends to assert its own," an intention Buckley approves:
If the majority wills what is socially atavistic, then to thwart the majority may be, though undemocratic, enlightened. It is more important for any community, anywhere in the world, to affirm and live by civilized standards, than to bow to the demands of the numerical majority.

Buckley's subsequent treatment of civil rights issues was more circumspect. In 1957 he regarded the whites' civilization as more advanced both subjectively and objectively. The South perceives important differences between white and black culture, and the white community is the advanced race and what blacks would bring about is atavistic.

Later, Buckley emphasized only the subjective element. Abandoning the argument that whites were objectively more civilized, however, sometimes led to expressions of solicitude for Southern whites who were conspicuously uncivilized. A 1961 editorial beseeches readers to try to understand those whites who responded to the provocation posed by the Northern "Freedom Riders" by beating the crap out of a few of them. "Jim Crow at the bus stations strikes us as unnecessary, and even wrong," Buckley said, but this is "irrelevant" because it "does not strike the average white Southerner as wrong."

That is what they feel, and they feel that their life is for them to structure; that the Negro has grown up under generally benevolent circumstances, considering where he started and how far he had to go; that he is making progress; that the coexistence of that progress and the Southern way of life demand, for the time being, separation.

This was indeed what the South felt, or at least what it said it felt during the early years of the civil rights movement. Buckley's characterization resembles that of the "Southern Manifesto," signed in 1956 by nearly every senator and representative from the South. The Manifesto charged the Supreme Court's Brown decision with destroying the amicable relations between the white and Negro races that have been created through 90 years of patient effort by the good people of both races. It has planted hatred and suspicion where there has been heretofore friendship and understanding.

It's hard for modern readers to decide whether cynicism, or delusion, explains such an assessment.

The single most disturbing thing about Buckley's reactions to the civil rights controversies was the asymmetry of his sympathies—genuine concern for Southern whites beset by integrationists, but more often than not, perfunctory concern for Southern blacks beset by bigots. This disparity culminated in a position on violence committed by whites against blacks and civil rights activists that was reliably equivocal. Like the liberals of the 1960s who didn't condone riots in Watts and Detroit but always understood them, Buckley regularly coupled the obligatory criticism of Southern whites' violent acts with a longer and more fervent denunciation of the provocations that elicited them. Thus, "the nation cannot get away with feigning surprise" when a mob of white students attacks a black woman admitted to the University of Alabama by federal court order in 1956. "For in defiance of constitutional practice, with a total disregard of custom and tradition, the Supreme Court, a year ago, illegalized a whole set of deeply-rooted folkways and mores; and now we are engaged in attempting to enforce our law." Thus, the Freedom Riders went into the South to "challenge with language of unconditional surrender" the whites' "deeply felt" beliefs, and were "met, inevitably, by a spastic response. By violence."

There is much to be said for the Burkean notion that social change unfolds best when it is the unplanned, incremental result of particular actions and concrete realities, rather than imposed sweepingly, from afar, on the basis of lofty abstractions. There is something to be said for the position that modern Burkeans can demonstrate their attachment to this idea by applying it to the hard cases as well as the easy ones. There is almost nothing to be said in defense of conservatives' profound misjudgment about the civil rights movement.. Their [the Conservatives’] response to it was that the only solution to the problem of apartheid in the American South was to wait, for however many decades it required, for blacks' infinite forbearance and whites' latent decency to somehow work things out. To act more assertively, in this view, amounted to intolerable, heavy-handed social engineering, far worse than the problem that needed fixing.

Thanks again, Droopy, for providing a link by conservatives that agrees with beastie’s point: conservatives were against the civil rights movement.

Well, you are going to extract what you desire to extract from this, and carefully edit it to express the particular cherries you wish to pick. You might, in any case, have noticed that Voegeli was quite clear that most early conservatives who opposed key aspect of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (as distinct from civil rights per se) and the civil rights movement as a social phenomenon, were not so opposed due to racism (the idea that blacks were innately inferior human beings) qua racism but due to philosophical opposition to both the potential means of achieving the ends sought and misgivings over constitutional issues and the potential precedents set in seeking the results desired.

It was within this framework that National Review conservatism addressed the issues raised by the civil rights movement. Integration and black progress were welcomed when they were the result of private actions like the boycotts of segregated buses or lunch counters, which Buckley judged "wholly defensible" and "wholly commendable." He also praised a forerunner to the socially responsible mutual fund, an investment venture started in 1965 to raise capital for racially integrated housing developments, calling it "a project divorced from government that is directed at doing something about a concrete situation," one that "depends for its success on the spontaneous support of individual people."

The corollary was that conservatism opposed the civil rights agenda when it called for or depended on Big Government. "We frown on any effort of the Negroes to attain social equality by bending the instrument of the state to their purposes," Buckley wrote in 1960.

Buckley had his reasons, then, for opposing the civil rights movement. Even though he ultimately came to regard that movement's initial and unassailable goal—the end of second-class citizenship in both its petty and vicious aspects—as the more compelling imperative, it was always a close call. Buckley never retracted his limited-government arguments against the civil rights agenda, nor did he relinquish the hope that civil rights could be advanced in ways that impinged only slightly on the conservative project of restoring the founders' republic.

Or again:

The corollary was that conservatism opposed the civil rights agenda when it called for or depended on Big Government. "We frown on any effort of the Negroes to attain social equality by bending the instrument of the state to their purposes," Buckley wrote in 1960.

But we applaud the efforts to define their rights by the lawful and non-violent use of social and economic sanctions which they choose freely to exert, and to which those against whom they are exerted are free to respond, or not, depending on what is in balance. That way is legitimate, organic progress.

Voegeli is also clear that the civil rights movement did contain within it a "dark side":

Conservatives have offered some trenchant criticisms of the civil rights movement over the past half century. Many commentators, not all of them conservative, have contended that Brown v. Board of Education demonstrated that jurists are foolish to base epochal decisions on social science research they have no competence to evaluate, as they did with Kenneth Clark's problematic black and white dolls experiment. The misguided foray into sociology undermined the work the justices were qualified and authorized to carry out, the interpretation and application of the law, and the articulation of its principles. Although the Court gave the NAACP a policy victory, it denied the legal victory the plaintiffs sought, the explicit repudiation of Plessy v. Ferguson's doctrine of "separate but equal" in favor of the principle, articulated by Justice John Marshall Harlan as the lone dissenter in Plessy, that "[o]ur Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens." The failure, or refusal, to make that simple point left the door ajar for all the subsequent assaults on logic and republicanism committed in the name of civil rights—affirmative action, set-asides, race-normed employment tests, busing, and tortuously drawn "majority-minority" legislative districts.

In posting this essay, I have no intention of giving a moralistic, finger-wagging ideologue like Beastie any ground, but only of pointing out that the historical record, and conservatism itself, being a human enterprise, is both complex and fraught with historical and cultural baggage that demands more than a passing harrumph from a self-anointed moral prig who is too busy adjusting her halo to do serious philosophical or historical thinking.

Was Buckley et al on the wrong side of the civil rights movement? Yes. Was Buckley et al on the right side of misgivings and caveats about the civil rights movement? Yes again. As Thomas Sowell has so eloquently attempted to teach during his long and deeply important career as a public intellectual, phenomena such as the civil rights movement represent trade-offs, not ultimate solutions, to human problems, and they come, even at their best, with toxic side effects. The question is not whether such exist, but how to minimize them and extract the best from our trade-offs while limiting, as Bastiat would say, "that which is not seen."

[_beastie]

And, once again, on the VERY SAME THREAD, droopy ignores the fact that I already linked to and heavily quoted from the SAME ARTICLE.

Come on, droopy. Just how much of a jerk are you? I'm thinking a pretty big one.

[_beastie]

It's really funny to listen to some of you act as if you (or rather, your right-wing media conglomerates) have ferreted out some deeply hidden historical fact that should upend everything. What you're really revealing is your own ignorance on the topic. None of this is new or surprising to anyone with even a modicum amount of curiosity and/or education about the civil rights movement. Yet people like Rand Paul lecture the students of Howard as if he can school them on real history. It's a hoot, but also kind of sad. Because, in the larger picture (and I mean outside this little board where I enjoy watching droopy and his ilk blow regular gaskets), I agree with Brackite. It is important to the health of our country that we have two healthy, functioning parties. And right now the republican party is failing.

But back to the dispute at hand - let's take William Buckley as an example. He is a good example in many ways. While there is no doubt that the modern republican party has become home to a certain racist portion of the population who once made their homes with Southern Democrats, there is a much larger coalition that opposed the civil rights movement for other reasons, but which still translated into being on the wrong end of history, as Buckley himself later admitted.

Asked by Time in 2004 whether he regretted any positions he had taken in the past, Buckley said simply, "Yes. I once believed we could evolve our way up from Jim Crow. I was wrong: federal intervention was necessary."

http://www.claremont.org/publications/c ... detail.asp

by the way, this linked article is excellent and as balanced as I've ever seen on the subject.

The problem with Buckley is that he made statements, sometimes at different points in his life, that can be taken to be totally opposed to racism, or tolerant of racism. This section of the linked article deals with this dilemma, and it is instructive for conservatives in general, not just Buckley.

Liberals and Conservatives

It would be unfair to leave the impression that conservatism was uniquely preoccupied with its own agenda as the civil rights cause was gaining salience. Liberals, too, had other fish to fry, such as consolidating and expanding the New Deal, prosecuting the containment doctrine against the Soviet Union, and forestalling any second act to McCarthyism. Adlai Stevenson won two Democratic presidential nominations, and numberless admirers among liberals, despite: selecting an Alabama segregationist, John Sparkman, to be his running mate in 1952; opposing (more forcefully than did President Eisenhower) any federal role in integrating Southern schools in 1956; and denouncing "the reckless assertions that the South is a prison, in which half the people are prisoners and the other half are wardens."

One difference between Eisenhower-era liberals and conservatives is that the former kept their distance from the civil rights movement for practical reasons while the latter did so for principled ones. Democrats would imperil their chances for a majority in the Electoral College and Congress without the Solid South, a reality that constrained both FDR and JFK. Legend has Lyndon Johnson turning to an aide after signing the Civil Rights Act and saying that the Democrats had just lost the South for a generation. Johnson was the least politically naïve man in America, of course; he looked forward to an election victory and beyond it to forging a Great Society coalition that would secure Democratic victories without the New Deal coalition's reliance on the South. Nevertheless, none of this was assured, and liberals have been nearly as reluctant as conservatives to praise the big political risk Johnson took for the sake of a deep moral conviction.

Having embraced the destruction of Jim Crow and the broader cause of promoting black progress, liberals' belief in the federal government's plenary power facilitated their support for any measure that would, or might, promote civil rights. Conservatives opposed to racial discrimination, however, had few obvious ways to act on that belief without abandoning their long, twilight struggle to re-confine the federal government within its historically defined riverbanks after the New Deal had demolished all the levees. Perlstein portrays Goldwater, a member of the NAACP who had fought against segregation in the Phoenix public schools while on the city council, as anguished by the choice between a moral and a constitutional imperative confronting him in the vote on the civil rights bill.

William Buckley's writings, by contrast, leave the impression that he found the choice between civil rights and the Constitution of limited, enumerated powers regrettable but not especially difficult. (It's worth noting that Buckley's father, born in 1881, grew up in Texas, while his mother was born in 1895 and raised in New Orleans. The "cultural coordinates of our household were Southern," Buckley wrote in his mother's obituary.) If the conservative understanding of constitutional government meant that segregation would persist for decades...then segregation would persist. Conservatives "know that some problems are insoluble," Buckley wrote in 1961. "Should we resort to convulsive measures that do violence to the traditions of our system in order to remove the forms of segregation in the South?" he asked. "I say no." Instead, Buckley expressed the hope that when Negroes have finally realized their long dream of attaining to the status of the white man, the white man will still be free; and that depends, in part, on the moderation of those whose inclination it is to build a superstate that will give them Instant Integration.

Forty years later Buckley and Michael Kinsley shared a series of email exchanges with the readers of Slate. The discussion turned to the 1964 Civil Rights Act, about which Kinsley offered the opinion "that using the power of the government to tell people whom they must do business with really is a major imposition on private freedom.... There's no question the imposition is justified—and has been hugely successful—in rectifying the historical injustice to African-Americans." Buckley, in a formulation John Kerry would have done well not to borrow, responded: "I'd have voted against the bill, but if it were out there today, I'd vote for it, precisely for the reason you gave."

In other words, convulsive measures to overturn segregation were necessary. But then again perhaps not, since Buckley immediately goes on to tell Kinsley, "I'd vote with trepidation, however, for the obvious reason that successful results cannot necessarily legitimize the means by which they were brought about." The desegregation omelet was worth making, but the limited government eggs might or might not have been worth breaking.

Buckley had his reasons, then, for opposing the civil rights movement. Even though he ultimately came to regard that movement's initial and unassailable goal—the end of second-class citizenship in both its petty and vicious aspects—as the more compelling imperative, it was always a close call. Buckley never retracted his limited-government arguments against the civil rights agenda, nor did he relinquish the hope that civil rights could be advanced in ways that impinged only slightly on the conservative project of restoring the founders' republic.

Worse than Missing in Action
The constitutional principles at the heart of this project were—are—ones that liberals find laughable, fantastic, and bizarre. Because they cannot take them seriously they reject the possibility that conservatives do. Thus, liberals dismiss "states' rights" as nothing more than a code word for racism. There is no point in conservatives even asking what the code word for states' rights is, because liberals cannot imagine anyone believes this to be a legitimate political concern.

From this viewpoint, conservatism's "reasons" for opposing civil rights were, in fact and from the beginning, excuses for oppressing blacks. Buckley's least judicious writings make it difficult to wave away that allegation. These are moments in conservatism's history where it was, in Goldberg's sense, worse than merely missing in action in the battle for racial equity.

Exhibit A, quoted triumphantly by Paul Krugman in his new book The Conscience of a Liberal, was a 1957 National Review editorial Buckley wrote, "Why the South Must Prevail." In it, Buckley said that the "central question" is neither "parliamentary" nor one "that is answered by merely consulting a catalogue of the rights of American citizens, born Equal." Rather, it is "whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not predominant numerically?"

And? "The sobering answer is Yes—the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race." In other words, the South "perceives important qualitative differences between its culture and the Negroes', and intends to assert its own," an intention Buckley approves:
If the majority wills what is socially atavistic, then to thwart the majority may be, though undemocratic, enlightened. It is more important for any community, anywhere in the world, to affirm and live by civilized standards, than to bow to the demands of the numerical majority.

Buckley's subsequent treatment of civil rights issues was more circumspect. In 1957 he regarded the whites' civilization as more advanced both subjectively and objectively. The South perceives important differences between white and black culture, and the white community is the advanced race and what blacks would bring about is atavistic.

Later, Buckley emphasized only the subjective element. Abandoning the argument that whites were objectively more civilized, however, sometimes led to expressions of solicitude for Southern whites who were conspicuously uncivilized. A 1961 editorial beseeches readers to try to understand those whites who responded to the provocation posed by the Northern "Freedom Riders" by beating the crap out of a few of them. "Jim Crow at the bus stations strikes us as unnecessary, and even wrong," Buckley said, but this is "irrelevant" because it "does not strike the average white Southerner as wrong."
That is what they feel, and they feel that their life is for them to structure; that the Negro has grown up under generally benevolent circumstances, considering where he started and how far he had to go; that he is making progress; that the coexistence of that progress and the Southern way of life demand, for the time being, separation.

This was indeed what the South felt, or at least what it said it felt during the early years of the civil rights movement. Buckley's characterization resembles that of the "Southern Manifesto," signed in 1956 by nearly every senator and representative from the South. The Manifesto charged the Supreme Court's Brown decision with destroying the amicable relations between the white and Negro races that have been created through 90 years of patient effort by the good people of both races. It has planted hatred and suspicion where there has been heretofore friendship and understanding.

It's hard for modern readers to decide whether cynicism, or delusion, explains such an assessment.

The single most disturbing thing about Buckley's reactions to the civil rights controversies was the asymmetry of his sympathies—genuine concern for Southern whites beset by integrationists, but more often than not, perfunctory concern for Southern blacks beset by bigots. This disparity culminated in a position on violence committed by whites against blacks and civil rights activists that was reliably equivocal. Like the liberals of the 1960s who didn't condone riots in Watts and Detroit but always understood them, Buckley regularly coupled the obligatory criticism of Southern whites' violent acts with a longer and more fervent denunciation of the provocations that elicited them. Thus, "the nation cannot get away with feigning surprise" when a mob of white students attacks a black woman admitted to the University of Alabama by federal court order in 1956. "For in defiance of constitutional practice, with a total disregard of custom and tradition, the Supreme Court, a year ago, illegalized a whole set of deeply-rooted folkways and mores; and now we are engaged in attempting to enforce our law." Thus, the Freedom Riders went into the South to "challenge with language of unconditional surrender" the whites' "deeply felt" beliefs, and were "met, inevitably, by a spastic response. By violence."

It's an article worth reading for anyone interested in a deeper analysis of the issue than droopy's cartoonish rhetoric. It also demonstrates some of the difficulties conservatives face in trying their minority outreach. The students of Howard are far more aware of this history than buffoons like droopy assume them to be.

Bumping for the arsehole who can't bother to read people's responses before vomiting up his bile.

Bumping it up for the arsehole who is so insecure he can't even bring himself to admit he made a boo-boo.

Bumping it up for the arsehole who will shortly be on my ignore list.

[_beastie]

Looks like droopy's back, so I'll help him out with this bump.

[_Droopy]

Move along, Beaste, you've already lost this argument one too many times.

[_beastie]

Move along, Beaste, you've already lost this argument one too many times.

There will be no moving along.

Why are you incapable of admitting your error?

Is it too frightening?

If you admit one error, does your world come tumbling down?

Does admitting one mistake open a Pandora's box?

Earlier on this thread, you cited the Claremont article and said:

Blah, blah, blah and, if I may say so myself, blah.

The following is among the best explications of the relationship of early modern conservatism to the early civil rights movement I've found, and contains the nuance, required intellectual background, and intellectual honesty that Beastie et al refuse steadfastly to bring to the table of discussion.

http://www.claremont.org/publications/c ... detail.asp

I quoted extensively and linked to the EXACT SAME ARTICLE earlier on this very thread.

Come on, droopy. Be brave. Admit your error. It's scary, but the world won't end.

[_Droopy]

I quoted extensively and linked to the EXACT SAME ARTICLE earlier on this very thread.

Yes, but unlike you, I actually read the entire article and expanded, critiqued, and extrapolated upon it at length, which I find necessary to do with the Anointed when confronted with their pious moral snobbery and inability to think critically.

But then, I've just defined "liberalism" haven't I?

[_beastie]

On the thread "The Problem with Black Folks", droopy said the following:
Post subject: Re: The problem with black folks...
Posted: Sun Apr 21, 2013 10:39 pm

Blah, blah, blah and, if I may say so myself, blah.

The following is among the best explications of the relationship of early modern conservatism to the early civil rights movement I've found, and contains the nuance, required intellectual background, and intellectual honesty that Beastie et al refuse steadfastly to bring to the table of discussion.

http://www.claremont.org/publications/c ... detail.asp

viewtopic.php?p=704392#p704392

The article that he admired, and said I would refuse to bring to the table of discussion, had, in fact, already been linked to and heavily cited by….beastie. Me. This is what I said about the article:
Post subject: Re: The problem with black folks...
Posted: Mon Apr 15, 2013 6:23 pm

http://www.claremont.org/publications/c ... detail.asp

by the way, this linked article is excellent and as balanced as I've ever seen on the subject.

viewtopic.php?p=702847#p702847
I then quoted half the article.

What does droopy hope to gain by refusing to admit his error?
Time to man up, Droopy.

[_beastie]

I quoted extensively and linked to the EXACT SAME ARTICLE earlier on this very thread.

Yes, but unlike you, I actually read the entire article and expanded, critiqued, and extrapolated upon it at length, which I find necessary to do with the Anointed when confronted with their pious moral snobbery and inability to think critically.

But then, I've just defined "liberalism" haven't I?

LOL

This is what you said about the article.

Blah, blah, blah and, if I may say so myself, blah.

The following is among the best explications of the relationship of early modern conservatism to the early civil rights movement I've found, and contains the nuance, required intellectual background, and intellectual honesty that Beastie et al refuse steadfastly to bring to the table of discussion.