[crandc]

In another thread, a well-known poster said conservatives (who are true patriots and real Americans, by definition) want to return to the past. I am not calling out a given poster who blocks me anyway, but I would like to know what past? I've heard other conservatives refer to the mid-50s as the good time, before all these nasty hippies and social movements and liberal court decisions. In case anyone mistakenly believes that 50 years ago was an idyllic period in American history, this is what America looked like 50 years ago.

Legal segregation was in place throughout the South. Many sports leagues and more teams were all-white by law. It was against the law to have an interracial game of checkers. Black people were murdered for trying to register to vote and were excluded from juries. Children were sent to reform school for using the "white" bathroom when often there was no "colored" bathroom. In Monroe, Louisiana, two black boys, age 8 and 9, were convicted of rape and sentenced to decades in adult prison because a 7 year old white girl kissed them on the cheek.

Ironically, real rape cases were almost impossible to prosecute as the law required the judge, regardless of evidence, to instruct the jury that the victim was almost certainly lying. In many states, it was a crime for married women (forget unmarried) to use birth control, but wife beating was legal in every state. Large companies had separate pay scales for men and women doing the same job, and public schools also had separate pay scales for male and female teachers. Pregnant students were routinely expelled from high school and college. Not that this was much of a deterrant as 1956 had the highest percentage of teen pregnancies of any year before or since. Although women had won the right to vote in federal elections in 1920, until the 1970s women could not vote in 3 state's elections.

Jobs were listed as "help wanted male" or "help wanted female". It was routine for a job posting to say something like "Protestants only" or "no Irish need apply". Religion was routinely asked on job applications and was the second question, after name, on applications to join any branch of the US military. So-called "gentlemen's agreements" kept Jews and Catholics, let alone Blacks, Hispanics and Asians, from purchasing homes in certain neighborhoods. Major universities did not hire Jewish professors. Public accomodations, north and south, were rigidly segregated. All this was open and completely legal.

In the Senate, Joseph McCarthy reigned. One did not need to be a communist to be blacklisted; one needed only to have dissident political views or a nonconforming lifestyle, or to have a relative or associate who was such a person, to lose a job or home or even freedom. The Smith Act made it a crime to advocate, however peacefully, views deemed "subersive". James Kutcher, a veteran who lost both legs in WWII, was fired from his clerical job at VA and evicted, along with his elderly parents, from government housing, because he was a member of the Socialist Workers Party.

Poll taxes, yes, paying to vote, prevented poor people from voting.

Problems like alcoholism, child molestation, abuse, etc. were considered private family shames that were supposed to be just endured.

And the Korean war was raging, costing lives of thousands of Americans and Koreans, a war that has not bee resolved to this day.

Is this the past that "true patriots", "real Americans" want us to return to? And are those who oppose this "anti-America"? Whose America are we talking about?

[e_blazer1]

Geez, crandc, you paint a bleak picture of the fifties. Next you'll be telling me that Beaver Clever had to work in a sweat shop between episodes.

There's no doubt that the country has made tremendous social progress since then. While this post seems to be directed towards a certain poster whom you prefer not to identify by name, I'd just caution you that I think the premise of your post is flawed. I don't think most conservatives want to return to the past or that they do not support the civil rights gains of the past half-century. I think most of them are concerned about the future. They may not agree with liberals about the role of government in moving forward, but it's still the future that concerns them most.

[crandc]

e_blazer, I have heard more than one self described conservative refer to the 1950s as the best time for America. My point is it was a very bad time for a lot of Americans. And I also hear self-described conservatives refer to the 1960s as the beginning of the downfall of America, but that was the time of civil rights, the beginnings of women's rights, expansion of civil liberties, et al.

I can add that in the 1950s college students were prohibited from forming political organizations, left, right or center. The Free Speech Movement at Berkeley began that change. So if it were not for those damn liberal hippies at Berkeley, Karl Rove would not have been president of his college Young Republicans...

So no, my point is not to call out a single poster. It's to describe what exactly this supposedly idyllic time was like in the real world, not the Cleaver family.

[dudleysghost]

William F. Buckley said specifically that his magazine "stands athwart history, yelling Stop..."

As for what kind of past they want, I think it's the one where the Beatles wore nice suits and didn't have long hair.

[e_blazer1]

Originally Posted by dudleysghost

William F. Buckley said specifically that his magazine "stands athwart history, yelling Stop..."

As for what kind of past they want, I think it's the one where the Beatles wore nice suits and didn't have long hair.

Max, with all your strict allegiance to laissez faire economics and preconceived notions about what Democrats supposedly represent, I can't say anyone is in suspense about who you are going to vote for.

Nice to see that you have no preconceived notions about what conservatives supposedly represent.

[dudleysghost]

Originally Posted by e_blazer1

Nice to see that you have no preconceived notions about what conservatives supposedly represent.

Please explain to me how providing a direct quote from the guy widely credited as having founded modern conservatism as a specific counterexample to a point made about conservatism is indicative of some kind of preconceived notion. I'd like to understand clearly what you are trying to say.

[Dan]

Wait..so that stuff is bad?

Man, if it weren't for those "America" hating liebrals out there, we'd still be that great country.

A lot of times, imho (and ONLY imho) when people say they wish for the old times, they mean either two things.

They wish for a simpler time from their childhood. Like, I sometimes wish it was back in the early 80's, not because I prefer that time, but because all of my grandparents were alive. Do I wish it was like that now (the 80's)? God no.

Though sometimes I think people wish it was like a certain era, because they liked that they could do what they wanted, and not, to them, made to feel bad about it. Although ironically, a lot of other people weren't allowed to do nearly as much (blacks, jews, irish, women, gays, etc) BECAUSE they weren't white men.

I don't know if as many people feel that way because they want it to be like it was when they were a kid (or their parents were kids)in that they want the racial aspect to be "centered again", but as much as as a kid, you don't notice those things. So if you're a 9 year old white kid in the 50's, you don't normally notice that a 9 year old black kid, or 9 year old asian kid, or a 9 year old immigrant might not have the same experience as you do.

[e_blazer1]

Originally Posted by dudleysghost

Please explain to me how providing a direct quote from the guy widely credited as having founded modern conservatism as a specific counterexample to a point made about conservatism is indicative of some kind of preconceived notion. I'd like to understand clearly what you are trying to say.

First, you take Buckley's quote out of context. As you may know, it was written as a publisher's statement in the first issue of "National Review."

http://www.nationalreview.com/flashback/buckley200406290949.asp

From the context of the piece, it's clear that the "Stop" he was refering to was not a call by true conservatives to stand still in history, but what he saw as the mission of the magazine to get society to pause and consider what he referred to as radical conservativism. He held in disdain not only the liberals of his time, but the fat cats of the "well fed Right".

Second, the jibe about the short-haired Beatles is yours, I believe, not Mr. Buckley's. It's a pretty good line, and I admire you for that, but it does tend to reflect, IMHO, something of a preconceived notion on your part about conservatives.

[Hector]

Sometimes I dream of an idyllic past, a land of swaying palm trees and coconut milk and honey, a land where 50 wins is guaranteed, a land of warm winds and sleeping on the beach, a land where a bunch of freaks blew up a great team, a land of entertaining rebels yelling at the same authorities I dislike, a land of gentle waves licking my salty lips as I bodysurf bobbing like a cork, a land of Bob Whitsitt shinnying up a palm tree and getting us coconuts every single trade deadline, a land of winning forever. But God smote us for eating the apple, the venomous snake bit our fig leaves off, and we went through 5 years of purgatory to satisfy the Evil Ones.

[mook]

although it's the liberals who are often painted with broad strokes of idealism and utopianism, liberals can point to modern examples like Canada, Japan, and much of Western Europe for examples of health care, economic and environmental policies grounded in the modern real world.

when you ask a conservative exactly which countries he or she would wish to emulate for solving our current problems, you usually hear brief mutterings about Chile's health care system, and then a quick change in conversation to vague ideas about our founding fathers and maybe some aspects of the 1950's.

then the conversation turns away from real world examples and toward philosophical concepts like traditional family values and the unfailing corrective force of the free market.

but it's the liberals who are idealistic utopians.

[crandc]

Originally Posted by Hector

Sometimes I dream of an idyllic past, a land of swaying palm trees and coconut milk and honey, a land where 50 wins is guaranteed, a land of warm winds and sleeping on the beach, a land where a bunch of freaks blew up a great team, a land of entertaining rebels yelling at the same authorities I dislike, a land of gentle waves licking my salty lips as I bodysurf bobbing like a cork, a land of Bob Whitsitt shinnying up a palm tree and getting us coconuts every single trade deadline, a land of winning forever. But God smote us for eating the apple, the venomous snake bit our fig leaves off, and we went through 5 years of purgatory to satisfy the Evil Ones.

I don't. The Blazers never won a title!

Seriously. I know some people sentimentalize their childhood - "oh, those happy carefree days!" But most don't really want to turn the clock back. And unless someone is past their mid-50s, the 1950's were not really their childhood years, as most of us don't really remember clearly until age 5 or thereabouts. I have specifically heard self-described conservatives refer to the 1950s as golden age of America - when there was mandatory Christian prayer in public schools, unmarried pregnant women were hidden away, and Joseph McCarthy made damn sure we were all patriots (but did he wear a flag pin?) In most cases these individuals are much too young to have experienced childhood in the 1950s.

[e_blazer1]

Originally Posted by crandc

I have specifically heard self-described conservatives refer to the 1950s as golden age of America - when there was mandatory Christian prayer in public schools, unmarried pregnant women were hidden away, and Joseph McCarthy made damn sure we were all patriots (but did he wear a flag pin?) In most cases these individuals are much too young to have experienced childhood in the 1950s.

Crandc, you'd never let somebody get away with a strawman generalization about any group you support as you're throwing out here. "I have specifically heard self-described conservatives"...? Come on. Replace conservatives with "women", "liberals", "gays", "blacks", etc., put it in a Talkhard post, and you'd rightly roast him alive. Please point to any comment by a conservative candidate in this year's election that would indicate that they get all warm and fuzzy about McCarthyism.

[crandc]

Originally Posted by e_blazer1

Crandc, you'd never let somebody get away with a strawman generalization about any group you support as you're throwing out here. "I have specifically heard self-described conservatives"...? Come on. Replace conservatives with "women", "liberals", "gays", "blacks", etc., put it in a Talkhard post, and you'd rightly roast him alive. Please point to any comment by a conservative candidate in this year's election that would indicate that they get all warm and fuzzy about McCarthyism.