The Conservative Fantasy History Of Civil Rights

New York Magazine:

The civil rights movement, once a controversial left-wing fringe, has grown deeply embedded into the fabric of our national story. This is a salutary development, but a problematic one for conservatives, who are the direct political descendants of (and, in the case of some of the older members of the movement, the exact same people as) the strident opponents of the civil rights movement. It has thus become necessary for conservatives to craft an alternative story, one that absolves their own ideology of any guilt. The right has dutifully set itself to its task, circulating its convoluted version of history, honing it to the point where it can be repeated by any defensive College Republican in his dorm room. Kevin Williamson’s cover story in National Review is the latest version of what is rapidly congealing into conservatism’s revisionist dogma.

Read the whole story at New York Magazine

Comments

[Carla van der Meer]

04:53 PM on 05/26/2012

I hope that no one actually buys into this revisionist fantasy. This is the same party who routinely argue against hate crime laws, gay rights and even anti bullying legislation. Any attempt to make them appear warm and fuzzy is nothing more than smoke and mirrors.

[YOKEL13]

09:44 PM on 05/23/2012

Any discussion of the respective roles of the major political parties in civil rights must recognize that over the last 150 years, the Democratic and Republican Parties have switched labels. The Republican Party of 1860 was the "progressive" party. The distinguished Senator from Illinois, Stephen A. Douglas, saw fit to label the opposition as "Black Republicans", as did many others.

To suggest that Southerners had a commitment to civil rights in the aftermath of the Civil War, or that they did not continue to embrace the Democratic Party OF THAT TIME as a vehicle for maintaining the entrenched racism of the South, is absurd.

So strong was the racist theme that the Republican Party could, at most, downplay the counter-theme of social justice. With the northward migration of blacks in the early 20th century, their votes became a political force which the Democratic Party of the time expediently exploited. Inexorably, this force had its impact on the character of the Democratic Party itself, and the coalition of white progressives and black voters slowly turned the northern wing of the party away from its racist base. Of course, this shift did not go unnoticed by the South, but it took time for the trends to become fully recognized.

Republicans, like all politicians, were happy to take advantage of the shift, and eventually the names were changed to reflect the reality.

That's how the Democratic Party became the Party of Lincoln.

[mflorian]

08:10 PM on 05/23/2012

It's hilarious how many conservative revisionists in the comments are trying to tie political ideology to party to defend their end of the spectrum.

You have to point out a thousand times that liberals and conservatives in the past were spread out amongst the parties and it was the cause of Civil Rights that created the stratification that we see today.

"Lincoln was a Republican!" they shout. Today, they'd call him a Communist.

[jimfurl179]

06:38 PM on 05/23/2012

Wow, talk about figures don't lie but liars can figure. Let's see now.
George Wallace-segregationist Governor of Alabama; Democrat, check.
Orville Faubus-segregationist Governor of Arkansas who called out National Guard to prevent Little Rock integration of schools; Democrat, check
Dwight Eisenhower, POTUS who forced desegregation on Gov. Faubus, Republican, check.
Robert Byrd, Senate Leader and former KKK member, Democrat, check.
Strom Thurmond, Senate Leader, Democrat (first), check.

Obviously, The New Yorker has a distored reality field going here.

[mflorian]

08:01 PM on 05/23/2012

Liberal vs Conservative, not Democrat vs Republican. Do you know how to read?

[jimfurl179]

08:33 PM on 05/23/2012

We don't have a Liberal Party or a Conservative Party in this Country. I'm just pointing out a fact which you can't dispute. Because all your dimwitted friends do seem to think its a Republican vs. Democratic thing. Did you send them a nasty missive?

[YOKEL13]

10:01 PM on 05/23/2012

(You're confusing The New Yorker with New York Magazine.)

However, you are ignoring the evolution of the political parties and the themes that defined them. There is no equating the southern and northern wings of the Democratic Party.

Still, we could point to Harry Truman, Democrat, who started a firestorm by desegregating the Armed Forces in 1948. We could point to the Daughters of the American Revolution, who denied to the African-American singer Marian Anderson the use of Independence Hall in 1939. We could point to Eleanor and Franklin Roosevelt, notorious Democrats, who responded by sponsoring Ms. Anderson's performance on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. We could point to the civil rights legislation championed by Lyndon Johnson, a Democrat, in the 1960s.

But, to cut to the chase: the Party of Lincoln is today the Democratic Party. Over the course of the last 150 years, the parties have switched labels.

[elfin12u]

02:52 PM on 05/23/2012

Highlighting the conservative promulgation of civil rights, currently as previously:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/23/hate-crime-harlan-county_n_1534421.html

[happyblackman]

01:48 PM on 05/23/2012

A very true portrayal of how republicans "think" they are, but really aren't. I would suppose those who disagree with him, will say he is living a fantasy or making up a story. The typical responses when they become uncomfortable at having a myth pointed out and overturned.

[storgrisdemo]

01:47 PM on 05/23/2012

This pic is selling millions for the R/Teaklanner...

http://www.ilovefreedom.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/image.png

This artist also changed George Washington to look like what republican leader?

[bigolemagilla]

01:08 PM on 05/23/2012

It's appropriate that the right's greatest fairytale involves an actor.

[Richard Dudgeon]

01:07 PM on 05/23/2012

I had to read this to believe it.
It's not just loony, it's indicative of what's wrong with us as a society: too much spin, not enough reality.

[marco01]

03:29 PM on 05/23/2012

Ever heard of the Southern Strategy/

[mabinog]

04:17 PM on 05/23/2012

or the states rights democrats who opposed Truman, who integrated the military.

Wonder where those conservatives went?

which candidates have lauding states rights in this election, thats right, the conservative bigots who inhabited the Dem party bailed and were greeted with open arms by the GOP>

[ddanimal]

01:06 PM on 05/23/2012

William Buckley justifying racism:

" The central question that emerges—and it is not a parliamentary question or a question that is answered by merely consulting a catalog of the rights of American citizens, born Equal—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? The sobering answer is Yes—the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race. …

National Review believes that the South's premises are correct. 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. Sometimes it becomes impossible to assert the will of a minority, in which case it must give way; and the society will regress; sometimes the numerical minority cannot prevail except by violence: then it must determine whether the prevalence of its will is worth the terrible price of violence."

[storgrisdemo]

01:30 PM on 05/23/2012

Buckley adored William Randolph Hearst, who backed Adolf Hitler.. which has shown us his rascist ideals..

[YOKEL13]

10:06 PM on 05/23/2012

What would the Founding Fathers say about "the terrible price of violence"?

[mtrem]

12:54 PM on 05/23/2012

Why am I not surprised......

[BBackSoon]

12:44 PM on 05/23/2012

The war for Conventional wisdom.

[ncman713]

12:31 PM on 05/23/2012

Sen Al Gore Sr voted against the Civil Rights Bill. Sen John Kennedy voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1957. Sen Byrd of WV voted against the Civil Rights bill.

Who is trying to rewrite history? The Dems again. Next, they will tell us that Lincoln was a Democrat.

[BHOMG2012]

01:12 PM on 05/23/2012

They always use the line, "The Republicans in those days were the liberals of today, and vice versa."

To which I say...lift right buttock check, and let 'er rip - Fffrrpppppppt

[marco01]

01:56 PM on 05/23/2012

I prefer this line - ever heard of the Southern Strategy?

[addisonsteele]

01:17 PM on 05/23/2012

Mental illness is so sad.

[luvdatbobcat]

04:23 PM on 05/23/2012

I am sorry that you are suffer so much.

[StopMakingSense2]

12:26 PM on 05/23/2012

Conservatives know a lie repeated enough times becomes the truth for the factually challenged rubes that vote for them. The infamous Texas board of education is endlessly trying to whitewash the conservative stains from history so they can repeat them again! Half truths, out right lies, fear mongering are the basic tools of their craft! They want to roll everything back to the time times of Dickens when the world was perfect aligned with their current state of mind! It matters not since they lose in the end! Two liberal steps forward one conservative step back! Humanity continues to progress despite the conservatives best regressive efforts!

[lavarrock]

12:22 PM on 05/23/2012

Ollie North was pushing Crack Cocaine in minority communities to pay for the Contras in Nicaragua. And we ended up with 1 million black males in prison. The conservatives record on civil rights has typically resembled that of Fascist Italy.