All right, so part of my motivation with this topic is simply to throw a bomb in the room and enjoy the fireworks. BUT:

We know so much about what conservatives are against: gay marriage, big government, welfare, nationalized health care.

We know a little about what they're for: small government, "original intent" interpretations, traditional values.

I'm interested in their accomplishments. What have conservatives done to advance this nation of ours?

I ask the question because it seems that conservatives have been on the wrong side of just about every social advance in American history. In general they supported slavery; opposed equal rights for minorities and women; supported Prohibition; backed the anti-Communist crusades; opposed affirmative action; supported segregated schools; backed poll taxes and other Jim Crow laws; and so on.

There are probably other examples that I'm missing. But you get the point.

Now, some of these may be principled stands. And sometimes, preventing change is the best defense of liberty. But on every major social issue I can think of, conservatives mounted a rearguard defense of the status quo -- a status quo that in the consensus of later generations was indefensible.

So tell me: How have conservatives helped change society over the course of American history? Quite honestly, I'm curious what the answers will be.

Sorry but the topic reminded me of the movie "Life of Brian".

What have the Romans done for us...............

Pointless post, please ignore.

Trot

Hey, at least the Romans built roads. And aquaducts. And brought peace and security.

Okay, okay, but *besides* all that....

A Monty Python reference is *never* pointless....

I don't know if you guys are aware of this but if we are talking about history, the Democrats were the racist party throughout the Civil war and up until the 60s. Democratic senator Robert Byrd was once a KKK member: http://vikingphoenix.com/news/madmin.../mm2002-05.htm

It was a Republican Abe Lincoln who helped end slavery!

I can go on and on if you want:

It was June 1964, less than five months before the elder Gore was to face Tennessee voters. Southern Democrats, representing the powerful segregationist wing of the party, were in the midst of a 57-day filibuster to prevent the Senate from voting on the Civil Rights Act. Title I of the legislation established numerous voting rights for racial minorities.

Look it up if you don't believe me.

Enough history for you?

__________________
lambaste me not

"enough history for you"?



.


.


good god . . .... . . bet that fool is a neo-con bushieite.............they are very impressed with themselves when they can find a fact with out a flashlight and a map.
worst part of it is that the fool probably 'thinks', for lack of a better word, that it IS enough history for him/her!!

__________________
"The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left."
Ecclesiastes 10:2 (NIV)

True. But you'll note I said conservatives, not Republicans. The two have not always been synonymous.

For what it's worth, those Southern Democrats who opposed desegregation became known as the Dixiecrats, and most of them eventually ended up in the Republican party. In the 100 years between 1864 and 1964, the Democrat and Republican parties essentially traded places with regard to civil rights.

So remember, we're talking about conservatives, and I'm still waiting for a list of their accomplishments in advancing society.

LOL. I was asked to find facts, and that's waht I did. I think the truth offended you more than I did.

__________________
lambaste me not

Conservative is too much of an umbrella term to really say.

I think the Southern States in the Civil War considered themselves liberal.

Speaking in more modern terms: Ronald Reagan was a conservative. Say what you will about him, but his political pressure on the Soviet Union did alot to abolish Communism in that region and bring the Berlin Wall down.

As bad a president as Nixon was, he opened talks with China. China was becoming increasingly volitile, dangerous, and worse, isolated. Nixon was the first to to open China up to the rest of the world.

George W. Bush sent troops into Afghanistan and freed the people there from the Taliban.

I am not a Republican, but I can see that people do bad things and good things. Remember, Lyndon Johnson was a liberal who expanded the war in Vietnam (bad), and also created Social Security (good).

__________________
lambaste me not

You may be right. But then why do we toss it around so much? If we can't point to conservative achievements, what use is the term? And by extension, what use is the term "liberal"?

Well, you also get the problem that the meaning of "liberal" and "conservative" has changed a lot over the centuries.

I think I'm trying to narrow the focus to social conservatives, whatever they called themselves, whatever their party.

By doing so, I just realized I may be pre-defining the answer: if I define a social conservative is one who defends the status quo, then ergo they're never going to be on the "change" side of social change. And that means they'll always be on the wrong side of history, because the best they can do is point to social changes they stopped or slowed down. Arguing "I prevented this" is always weaker than being able to point to "I achieved that", especially because the society that writes history is the one that is created by those achievements, whatever they are.

Thoughts? Can any of you give me a better way to define the question?

Agreed on China and Afghanistan, less so on Reagan (although he played a role). But were any of those a truly conservative position, or more the president at the time dealing with the problems before him? FDR won WW II; does that really say anything about his relatively liberal social policies? You point out the same thing with regards to Lyndon Johnson.

I'm not so sure the foreign policy of the nation can fit neatly into liberal or conservative pigeon holes. The foreign policy triumphs or failures of liberal or conservative presidents say next to nothing about the benefits or costs of liberalism or conservativism. Again, that's why I tried to focus the question on social issues.