I’m tired of the Republicans and the right-wing using the word “Liberal” like it’s a bad thing. I decided that the best way to discredit the negative connotation that is usually associated with the word “Liberal”, by Conservatives, would be to find all the synonyms for the words “Liberal” and “Conservative”. Read it for yourself and decide whether you would rather be “Liberal” or “Conservative”
Main Entry: liberal
Part of Speech: adjective
Definition: progressive
Synonyms: advanced, avant-garde, broad, broad-minded, catholic, enlightened, flexible, free, general, high-minded, humanistic, humanitarian, indulgent, intelligent, interested, latitudinarian, left, lenient, libertarian, loose, magnanimous, permissive, radical, rational, reasonable, receiving, receptive, reformist, tolerant, unbiased, unbigoted, unconventional, understanding, unorthodox, unprejudiced
Antonyms: conservative, narrow, narrow-minded
Main Entry: liberal
Part of Speech: adjective
Definition: giving, generous
Synonyms: altruistic, beneficent, benevolent, bighearted, bounteous, bountiful, casual, charitable, eleemosynary, exuberant, free, free-and-easy, handsome, kind, lavish, loose, munificent, openhanded, openhearted, philanthropic, princely, prodigal, profuse, soft-touch, unselfish, unsparing, unstinging
Antonyms: economical, greedy, mean, thrifty, ungenerous
Wow, looking at it by using the definition of the word, it sounds like I’d WAY rather be Liberal than it’s antonym; Conservative. Let’s look up “Conservative” now:
Main Entry: conservative
Part of Speech: adjective
Definition: cautious, moderate, tending to preserve the status quo
Synonyms: Tory, bourgeois, constant, controlled, conventional, die-hard, fearful, firm, fogyish, fuddy-duddy, guarded, hard hat, hidebound, holding to, illiberal, in a rut, inflexible, middle-of-the-road, not extreme, obstinate, old guard, old line, orthodox, quiet, reactionary, redneck, right, right of center, right-wing, sober, stable, steady, timid, traditional, traditionalistic, unchangeable, unchanging, uncreative, undaring, unimaginative, unprogressive, white bread
Antonyms: exaggerated, incautious, left-wing, liberal, progressive, radical
Main Entry: conservative
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: person who is cautious, moderate; an opponent of change
Synonyms: Tory, bitter-ender, classicist, conserver, conventionalist, diehard, hard hat, middle-of-the-roader, moderate, moderatist, obstructionist, old guard, old liner, preserver, reactionary, redneck, right, right-winger, rightist, silk-stocking, standpat, stick-in-the-mud, traditionalist, unprogressive
Antonyms: left-winger, liberal, progressive, radical
Wow, just looking at the synonyms of those words it’s not really hard to pick which one I would rather be. Liberal thinkers are the reason we don’t have Coventry, Slavery, and the reason non-White landowners can vote. Liberals have contributed many more things to society than Conservatives trying to preserve the status quo. I’d really like to see some comments on this post about all the great things that liberals have contributed to society, besides the aforementioned. Liberals are responsible for ALL the progress that America has made.
The next time someone calls you “Liberal” like it’s a bad thing, just list off some of the many things that you are proud to be from this list, because you’re a Liberal.
There is NOTHING more liberal than liberty.
Socially Liberal
Fiscally Conservative
Master Race
I think there are liberals and conservatives in both parties. Most politicians seem to change their stance on issues based on who they’re trying to win votes from at the time.
“Liberal thinkers are the reason we don’t have Coventry, Slavery, and the reason non-White landowners can vote. Liberals have contributed many more things to society than Conservatives trying to preserve the status quo. ”
That is because it is THEIR status quo that they are trying to preserve!! They don’t give a crap about us or society or anything…except themselves. They are, have always been…and always will be selfish greedy bastards who don’t even deserve to walk the same planet as the rest of us do…it’s high time we stood up, collectively, as a society, and took them out behind the barn, figuratively speaking. There are more of US than there are of THEM, and it is time we taught them to fear us. No more being tolerant….I’m sorry, I am not tolerant of people who are intolerant towards others…or people who are generally uncaring, unfeeling, selfish fucking assholes.
I’d really like to see some comments on this post about all the great things that liberals have contributed to society, besides the aforementioned. Liberals are responsible for ALL the progress that America has made.
Let’s see…the weekend was brought to you by liberals…used to be people worked 12 hours a day, 7 days a week! The minimum wage and time and a half for over forty hours was brought to you by liberals, And that isn’t even the tip of the iceberg of all the wonderful things liberals have brought us….and which conservatives are TRYING their level best to take away!
Liberals and unions gave us:
8-Hour Workday
40 hour work week
Social Security
Minimum Wage Law
G.I. Bill of Rights
Marshall Plan
NATO
Peace Corps
Medicare
Medicaid
Operation Head Start
Civil Rights Act of 1964
Voting Rights Act of 1965
Water Quality Act
Clean Air Act
First Man on the Moon
Women’s Suffrage Amendment
Workers Compensation Act
Unemployment Compensation Act
Rural Electrification Act
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
Federal Home Loan Program
Securities and Exchange Act
Guaranteed Student Loan Program
Family & Medical leave Act
School lunch Program
Motor Voter Act
Balanced Budget in 1998 as a result of the Balanced Act 1993
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Law
I work in a shelter and once in a while I’ll work with a resident who is a staunch conservative. This amazes me – they’re on foodstamps, living somewhere rent-free, accepting cash assistance sometimes, accepting free health care …. I want to tell them who they should thank for that! And remind them that they’re not wealthy enough to have their interests represented by republicans!
Mr. Desmond’s post reminds me of a quote from my favorite television show, THE WEST WING: “What did liberals do that was so offensive to the liberal party? I’ll tell you what they did. Liberals got women the right to vote. Liberals got African-Americans the right to vote. Liberals created Social Security and lifted millions of elderly people out of poverty. Liberals ended segregation. Liberals passed the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act. Liberals created Medicare. Liberals passed the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act. What did conservatives do? They opposed them on every one of those things every one. So when you try to hurl that label at my feet, ‘Liberal,’ as if it were something to be ashamed of, something dirty, something to run away from, it won’t work, Senator. Because I will pick up that label and I will wear it as a badge of honor.”
~ Matthew Santos (Jimmy Smits) – The West Wing
Couldnt agree more with that, very attractive article
Being a thief is not a bad thing either. Democrats are thieves, aren’t they? When you take money from others without their permission, isn’t that theft? Isn’t the “tan tax” a racist tax on white people?
If tax is theft, then it isn’t just Democrats at fault, but all of government. If you are so myopic as to not realize that the money that the government collects is ultimately used to pay for public goods and services that are a net positive for society, and oppose taxes so violently and single-mindedly, then I suggest you more accurately direct that inchoate rage towards the entirety of the United States government, both state and federal levels, rather than at any given political party. Because not even the Republicans are insane enough to completely abolish taxes.
As for the tan tax: I didn’t know that the group of white people with a desire to artificially maintain a perpetual bronze was considered a race. In other words: Tanning is serious business.
Also, allahdad, please be sure to shut your trap about the potholes in the streets or when no police get to you in an emergency or if you have to watch you house burn down because there is no fire department or if there is a natural disaster and there is no national guard to stop looting, again no police, no help whatsoever to help get things running and protect yourself and your family. I can go on and on and on but frankly judging by the tone of your post, I am not sure there is any point.
Hell i like it lets get rid of taxes that means no more cops the people where i came from will redistribute the wealth in short order, most don’t have a party or vote for that mater but they won’t mind if you call them democrat as long as you hand over you wallet lmao good plan allahdad not to mention you letting all those people who are locked up in jail out very nice, and stop teaching the poor kids in the schools because the streets do a better job of it right, well thought out there, you a republican or and anarchist?
this post is very usefull thx!
Ok. First off, if you’re choosing your political party by looking up dictionary definitions, you’re an idiot. You’re also an idiot if you choose to write another blog to add to the endless sea of them floating around the internet just so that you can whine at the “woman beating” Republicans (notice I use that term as opposed to conservative). As a general rule, everything that a political party stands for changes completely about every 50 years. Republicans will be conservative and Democrats liberal and then suddenly they will change. In politics, liberal doesn’t refer to Democrats, nor does conservative refer to Republicans. Liberal simply means that a person feels that change is in order and that usually means within the government. Conservative means the opposite, that a person likes the way things are now and doesn’t feel that they should necessarily change. For this reason, whenever it comes to segregation, Democrats are considered conservative and the extremist Republicans are considered liberal. Segregation hasn’t been an issue in decades, and the fact that the laws about have been established so long mean that maintaining it makes you a conservative.
Also, if you’re going to bitch about other people making generalizations, try not to turn around and do the same thing. It really undermines your credibility.
Segregation certainly is still an issue. The only difference is the practice: The gerry-mandering of districts. Districts that what to keep conservative, white leadership draw those lines right around black areas within a state. Just because it’s not overt, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
“Separate but equal” also still clearly exists. Certain folks can marry, while others cannot. Some on the conservative side of the spectrum say that there should just be a different title for the marriage of those “others” (which of course comes with less benefits).
Some immigrants get a free pass to this country, while others are dehumanized, and a literal wall in constructed to keep their kind out.
Segregation still exists. You just don’t want to see it. You want to live in a “post-racial” society, so that you don’t have to think about. Well, we’re not there, yet. We can’t be there until these practices are stopped. Which, under conservative leadership (from both parties–Obama is right-of-center on at least one aforementioned issue), will be a long time.
“First off, if you’re choosing your political party by looking up dictionary definitions, you’re an idiot.”
At no point was this claim made. It is about language used. The only time this is close to choosing by definition is where it’s said,”Wow, just looking at the synonyms of those words it’s not really hard to pick which one I would rather be.” It is insinuated but not stated. You are inferring in order to attack the position.
Bailey, first of all, I don’t think you understand the purpose of an ellipses, or how many periods one is supposed to have. Or maybe you just have sticky keys turned on and don’t realize it. Either way, that’s all beside the point. It seems to me that you’re obviously a conservative and are backing our corrupt capitalistic system. Now, capitalism itself isn’t evil, but what it’s become in America, with large corporations exploiting the public and causing economic catastrophes for their own financial benefit, is simply wrong. Don’t tell me the rich lost money in the economic disaster. The richest of the rich, these CEOs and whatnot, have been getting RECORD bonuses, paid for by government bailouts, and what caused the recession in the first place was banks selling derivatives of bad loans (and lying about the loans being bad) so they could make a massive profit, even though they KNEW that it would be bad for the country. The way you phrase it, “Keep stealing my cows for your own selfish benefit instead of working at breeding your own”, it sounds like you’re trying to say the poor, unemployed people on welfare are the ones stealing cows, but it’s not. The ones who already have cows are the ones stealing even more cows, and pretty soon, they’ll be the only ones who have cows. There will be no cows left for the middle-class. And by cows, I mean jobs. I bet you support Reaganomics, too. Well, Reaganomics doesn’t work. It’s been proven. If it worked, and the money really would “trickle down” from the top 1%, then we would have seen massive job growth over the last 10 years, not a recession and the biggest hit to the job market since the Great Depression! What these rich people try to do is hide behind the veil of conservatism, making you think that a “free” market without regulation is best, and that rich people like them are entitled to their money. Well, let me ask you, what are these rich CEOs doing to DESERVE their multi-million dollar bonuses? All I see them doing is fucking over the American people, but conservatives are buying their filthy lies and defending the corporations. Don’t you see how blind you are? The corporations are USING you so they can get richer, and you’ll get poorer.
@Socialist
Maybe you should stop focusing on Bailey’s grammar and usage mistakes and pay attention to what they actually said? You’re pulling things out of the air and using them to accuse Bailey of something they aren’t guilty of
Well bailey sounds like he has a little money and wants more and only cares about himself but bottom line is if the lower class has no jobs and no money then the middle class go broke also so if you ain’t in that top 1% you lose your fancy car you big house and get to move to the hood and it is not welfare people or people like me who live pay check to pay check that caused it. Its greedy bastards and people living above there means that caused it.
grow up not louder
You have a tainted view of history…Can’t be objective when one does not approach things with an open mind. Both parties have greatly disappointed the public, the answer to problems is not spend more , spend more, and spend more…that does not lead to liberty by any means of ones imagination..My concern with you and many other writers is that you have blinders on and have made up your mind before evaluating. You will back your “home football team” regardless of the criminals on the team and only think the other team really has the criminals. Trust me both parties have their sever problems. A politician’s interest is not the public but whether he or she can get re elected.
I think the general theme of the T Party was disgust of same old boys club (now includes several girls) and the unsustainable growth of gov’t… They may not of gained so many seats, but they certainly got the attention of the public……and your analysis of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer is inaccurate, all ships came up with the tide. I’ll grant you some rich gained more but since when have all things been equal………………..Keep stealing my cows for your own selfish benefit instead of working at breeding your own and soon there will be no cows……People that take great risks are rewarded when successful or no one would take risk……where is everyone when that person fails and suffers great losses…We know that answer…
It always comes down to making good personal choices and stop bitching. It’s beginning to sound like a bunch of spoiled teenagers in the media
JB and MW–both wrong
JB and MW–first of all, yes, what MW was saying was deceptive as it leaves out part of the story. But so does your response. The Civil Rights Act and legislation like it was a North/South thing, not a Republican/Democrat thing. The Civil Rights act was supported by Northern Republicans (and Northern Democrats) and opposed by Southern Democrats (and Southern Republicans). But there’s also a LOT of hijacking of Lincoln on both sides. While modern day liberals love to (correctly) recognize that Lincoln views on abolishing slavery and in many cases expanding government were certainly progressive ideals for his time, they also LOVE to forget when they attack the drastic measures that many conservatives recognize today are sometimes necessary to protect our citizens and preserve the very existence of this country, that when Lincoln was faced with that same dilemma of the nation’s very existence at stake, he took FAR greater liberties with Constitutional protections than Bush EVER did. From suspending habeas corpus to regulating the press. These may have been ugly decisions, but he had no choice and he recognized it. So do modern conservatives with regards to the just as serious threats we face today. So for those of you who attack security measures aimed at saving the lives of our citizens–REMEMBER LINCOLN TOO!!!!
Being Liberal is NOT a Bad Thing
It seems to me very telling, and apropos to this post’s point, that it is a REPUBLICAN who injects the names of political parties and correlates them to ideologies. This post is not about Democrats and Republicans, but about liberalism and conservatism. That it is indeed REPUBLICANS who generally use the term ‘liberal’ as an epithet, should be all a person needs to know in order to make a decision about which of America’s two parties to pay most attention to in electoral politics. And whether Abe Lincoln was a liberal, a Republican, or gay hardly is relevant to anyone’s actions at this point. Are we proud to be regressive, this society?
How about opening up an American Gov’t and Politics book?
@MW
I am a history major, a history teacher, and I am surprised that you don’t realize that around the 19th Century, party ideals switched sides. If Abe Lincoln were alive today, he’d be a Democrat. If I (a Democrat) were alive in the mid-1800s, I’d be a Republican. This is basic information I learned in my freshman year American Government and Politics course, reaffirmed in my upper division Political courses. Common sense…I thought everyone knew this! So please, don’t claim Lincoln!!!!!! That’s just wrong!
My Grandparents were Republicans…but if they were alive today, based on their morals, ideals, and issues they were passionate about, they’d be Democrats now.
So maybe open up an American Gov’t textbook?
MW needs better history books
I see someone hasn’t read contemporary history books enough to know that the Democratic and Republican parties changed starting in 1964. LBJ passed the Civil Rights Act and the racist Southern Democrats left the party. Goldwater at the GOP Convention had them seated instead of the real Southern Republican delegates. Nixon completed the process of welcoming the conservative racist Democrats with his “Southern Strategy.” Sen. Byrd changed, he could have joined his fellow racist Dixie Democrats and joined the Republican Party but said that racism was a sad legacy of the past and worked to serve all in his state and tried to defend the Constitution from Bush’s usurpation of power and misguided wars.
Being a Liberal
http://jsimser.blogspot.com/2007/07/if-being-liberal-means-that.html
If being a liberal means that:
you love liberty and freedom
instead of “Patriot Acts” and trampled rights.
you care for people
instead of corporations
you support education, teachers and free public schools
instead of religious indoctrination and acts that
leave many children behind
you care for children and their well-being
instead of corporate CEO’s and their fancy lifestyle.
Fine, then call me a liberal!
If being a liberal means that:
you believe in religious freedom
instead of “everybody think alike” doctrines
you believe women are equal and should be treated (and paid) as such
instead of being “subordinate” barefoot and pregnant
you believe in supporting our troops
instead of the lies that put them in harm’s way
Fine, then I’ll take the name liberal and be proud of it!
If being a liberal means that:
you don’t believe that oil should be purchased with blood
or that greedy corporations should get rich from war
you want to preserve and defend our environment
instead of raping the land so nothing will remain for our future.
And
you believe that some forests should be saved for the animals that inhabit them
instead of destroyed for big business profit.
you believe in clean air
instead of pollution and acid rain from factory smokestacks
Then, I’ll be a liberal!
If being a liberal means that:
you believe in families no matter of whom they are composed
instead of divisive (so called) defense of marriage legislation.
you know that some folks are different from others
not through choice but because they were made that way
you know that God made Adam and Eve
as well as Adam and Steve and Ellen and Eve
And
you believe that everyone has a right to live a life free from harassment and hate
instead of living with humiliation and fear
If being a liberal means all that- then I am a liberal, an American liberal, and proud of it!
Jay Cole Simser
July 7, 2004
Mr. Simser, very profound! Thank you for posting and sharing, and I agree 100%. I, too, am proud to be a liberal!
Fantastic comment about being a liberal. Thanks
Awesome post! I have never been ashamed to call myself a liberal, but your post makes me downright proud! And, it should shame the cons and TB’s to be anything but the things in your post! Thanks for putting it all out there what we stand for and why we should stand proud–because there is plenty there to be proud of!
taking notice
I can’t believe how well this worked. The conservative guy is trying to be a liberal now. I guess once people actually learn the meaning of what they claim to be, the rules change.
Stand up and Speak out
If you can’t stand for something then why stand at all?
If that’s all it takes
If all it takes to get under a Dems skin is to be called liberal, then I know why we are losing. Being a pussywimp is not a good strategy. Screaming at those rightwing bastards,”No, goddamit, I’m NOT a liberal, I’m a socialist, and as soon as we take all your money we’re coming for your women.” When Dems grow big enough balls to answer like that and not whine about being call “liberal,” then we have a chance.
First Gay President
I am so glad all these Republicans claim Lincoln. He was, in fact, a Republican, but not in the sense of the term today. In fact, the evidence is mouting that he was, in fact, the first Gay President. This isn’t from liberals, but from Lincoln historians. Put that in your pipe and smoke it!
Coventry
“Liberal thinkers are the reason we don’t have Coventry”
What’s Coventry done? I’m not from there but I’m fairly sure it’s not a right wing city, per se.
Liberals
MW-You’re missing the point! Liberals USED to come in all shapes, sizes and colors. Liberalism was not just reserved for Democrats. Yes, the Dixiecrats worked tirelessly and accomplished great things in regards to civil rights. And in the current political climate, they would be branded liberals and “thrown under the bus”. I think the more immediate issue is that the conservatives are trying, successfully in some places, to paint liberals as whack job hippies, who want to kill all the babies, let the government take care of us until we die and legalize heroin. I’m not any of those things. I am a wife and mother, who recycles and eats meat, I don’t advocate the use of drugs, I don’t even discuss abortion anymore because the ‘wrong” view can get you beaten, and I don’t want the government taking care of me, until we retire and use the Social Security we have been paying into since age 15. I am a liberal, and proud of it. I vote Democrat because, so far, the giant tools the Republicans keep putting up don’t do it for me. Find someone who thinks like the liberal Republicans of old, and I would listen and possibly even vote for such a rarity. Peace.
JB vs MW
I mean I’m no history buff, but at least put ALL the facts there, as is the responsibility fo everyone on ALL sides.
And sure, you can preach all you want about Fredrick Douglass and Abe Lincoln abolishing slavery, and the Democratic party opposing the Civil Rights act all you want, but to this day, when it comes to who is morally right and wrong, the question of merely which side has more black people, and posing facts that help you score points to support your opinions as a Republican to position yourself as being “right”….is pretty petty, and just plain retarded. Because as it stands, there are Black people in the Republican party who are just as fucked up and borederline whacked as all the white, Asian and Hispanic people on the right who not only oppose all of the relevant issues we face today, but even promote the use of GUNS to engage in the political debate, and the idea of using the second amendment as an option to overthrow the government like it is something relevant and concurrent with today’s government.
Please, all of this other language like above and shit like wanting your COUNTRY back is just codetalk for “Get that Towelheaded and his N**ger family out of my White House before I kill somebody!!!”
You people fool NO ONE!!!….. Ok Maybe some independents. But anyone with an assertive amount of concious brain activity knows what is REALLY going on in the party of NO and their cousins in the party of **Click-Click…BOOM!**
JB vs MW
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090304175225AAtKViL
In the name of all fairness, Abraham Lincoln was a LIBERAL republican who was even for socialist programs, and increasing the size of government. Also, the Civil Rights act was ALSO signed into law by President Lyndon B Johnson, a DEMOCRATIC president. And Johnson the previous commentator WAS commenting on the Presidency upon Nixon’s term and thereafter regarding his last point.
Nice Try JB. Read a little farther in your history book.
Jefferson & Washington are considered classical liberals, as compared with the liberals of today like Pelosi & Obama. Classical liberalism calls for limited government whereas modern liberalism is all about expanding the size & reach of government.
Wrong again. If you read sections 8-10 of Article I of the Constitution, you’ll understand that the intent was always for there to be a strong central government. States were not meant to be autonomous, but merely provinces of local governments. The central government was always strongest.
In fact, Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Madison were all criticized for what was perceived as expansions of the federal government, when in actuality were merely just practices in competent governing.
Nope. Neither Conservatism nor Liberalism has anything at all to do with the “size of government.” Many Conservatives are just as much in favor of “big government” as any Liberal. For example, many Conservatives advocate “Big Government” solutions to issues of morality, religion, homosexuality, or national defense. George W. Bush’s “Patriot Act” was an example of “HUUUGGE Government,” for example, as are Conservative attempts to define marriage based on Christian scripture (as if it didn’t exist prior to them or something…), or a thousand other examples that I could list…
@ MW
But in fact, this country was founded on the principles of the enlightenment, which was a liberal movement. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson both referred to themselves as liberals. The natural equality of all humans is a liberal idea, and the anti-slavery movement was a liberal movement.
While I would not argue that Republicans didn’t make a significant contribution to the passage of civil rights and voting rights legislation of the 60s, one can hardly make the case that any of those who crossed over still have any currency at all in today’s party. In fact, Richard Nixon and all Republican leaders since have embraced a “southern strategy” that welcomes the rump of the Dixiecrats into the Republican party, and simultaneously purges all remnants of liberality from the party.
You could argue that George Washington was liberal, but Thomas Jefferson was surely LIBERTARIAN. He may have supported separation of church and a strong supporter of education, but he was also strongly against a strong national government.
Libertarianism is LEFT on social issues, and RIGHT on economic ones.
Have you ever opened a history book?
I appreciate the fact that you can go to an online thesaurus & click copy & paste. However, your comments at the bottom of the page are factually incorrect. You might want to go back & look at who signed the Emancipation Proclamation. I believe it was a Republican named Abraham Lincoln. You might also be interested to know that the first black delegate seated for a national party convention was Frederick Douglas by the Republicans in 1888. You might also be interested to know that it was the Democratic party, led by Robert Byrd, that filibustered the 1964 civil rights legislation. It was only because of Republicans voting to override the filibuster that the legislation passed.
The parties actually switched positions around the early 1900s, so old conservatives would today be considered liberals and vice versa.
As mentioned, the parties altered their ideologies, and have since switched places on the political spectrum.
The republican party when it was first formed was the abolitionist, or reformist, party. By definition, they were liberal, and they portrayed themselves as such. They were not satisfied with the status quo.
The Southern states, who were democratic, were so concerned with preserving the status quo that rich, white, land (and people) owning men would be at the top of the social and political hierarchy, they refused to accept the presidency of the new liberal abolitionist leader. By definition, they were conservative.
In 1964, Robert Byrd did filibuster the Civil Rights Act. Then, in 1968, he voted for another Civil Rights Act. The real leader of the filibuster was Strom Thurmond, who, disenchanted with the leadership of Lyndon B. Johnson (a staunch liberal), left the democratic party after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed. Al Gore Sr. was also a democratic senator who was not in favor of the 1964 Act. However, like Byrd, Gore voted for future civil rights acts.
Some who filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (like Byrd and Gore) changed ideologies, and moved towards the left and voted for subsequent civil rights acts. Most who filibustered, however, moved to the republican party.
The republican party remained mostly liberal/moderate for a good chunk of the century. Nixon was still liberal on several issues, namely environmental. But by 1980, the conservative right wing had taken over the party, and those who had in past years voted republican, because they had been historically liberal, were now voting republican out of habit. Reagan was elected, and with him returned class warfare and overt racism. Now, the republican party has gone so far to the right, they would consider Reagan a liberal. The republican party of today would fit in nicely with Mussolini’s fascism.
Reading and understanding history are two different things!!–The Republican and Democratic Parties of the 19th centuries did not share the same values of todays parties–you should have paid attention in class
Looks like someone needs to open a political history textbook.
Looks like YOU need to read a history book, chief. The idea that “Republican=Conservative” and “Democrat=Liberal” is only a very recent trend, and a TREND it is…as the parties were never created based on the Left/Right paradigm. In fact, look up the group of Democrats and Republicans who banded together to fight against Civil Rights. They called themselves the “Conservative Coalition.” Or how about MLK? Sure, he was a Republican…but a Republican who referred to the “Right Wing” as “Fascists” in multiple speeches. Whenever some Conservative opens his/her mouth about stuff like this…it proves that the person is unbelievably ignorant. For the record, I have a Master’s Degree in History, you uneducated moron.
Maybe it is you that needs to actually read things and undertsanding them before you pen your mouth.. This article was about Lberals and Conservatives…in Lincolns time.. Republicans were actually Liberal… so it is you that needs to know the facts…Republicans didn’t even want women to vote