There was a huge battle over the 1964 Civil Rights Act because of the opposition of Southern Democrats being conservative on social issues.
There was not a huge battle over the 1964 Economic Opportunity Act (centerpiece of LBJ Great Society income redistribution schemes) because the support of Southern Democrat, being liberal on economic issues.
That's largely incorrect. There wasn't as much hair pulling over the Great Society because it was largely viewed as LBJ being the executor of FDR's will; it was basically an extension of the dominant economic policy of the country since the Great Depression.
OTOH, the CRA was changing the very social fabric of our nation. Race is one of the central social issues of OUR time, you can only imagine how much bigger of a deal it was then. It was THE central social issue of the day.
You misunderstood my point. By "compartmentalize," I meant that you cannot look at exclusively the social issues in assessing whether those who supported the Civil Rights Act (ect.) were liberals or conservatives.
No, I get what you're saying, I'm just adding that you can't look just at the economic positions either. Think about it for a second--how many people argue that Lincoln Chafee or even either of the George Bushes are essentially liberals on economic issues (and I don't disagree with them for the most part, save the tax cutting orthodoxy). If you're going to try to argue that Dixiecrats were liberals because of the economic policy, I don't see how it's any different pointing out that Rockefeller Republicans were liberals because of their social policies, specifically integration.
Look back through the thread. We've been talking about both econmic and social issues. Both are on the table.
Race and Jim Crow are largely a social issue, so in this context I'd say that's what's on the table. But if you care to talk about race as a class issue, as any good liberal should, I'm all ears.
I'm just rejecting the idea that liberal = all progress. Depends on what you're progressing to.
And I'm rejecting the idea that you can look at the progress we've made on civil rights, race, Jim Crow, and the like and argue it's not thanks to liberals (if it makes you feel better, I'll modify that to "socially liberal people" and that'll include some fiscal conservatives). Even by your standard (holding an economic or social liberal position makes you a liberal), the people responsible for this progress have been liberals by and large in the relevant sense--race is in this context a social issue.
Quit trying to defend modern conservatives for a moment, and put this in context--the prominent segregationsists, the KKK, Orval Faubus, Strom Thurmond, Bull Connor, Byron de la Beckwith, JB Stoner, George Wallace, etc....these people were simply NOT liberals in any real sense. Outside the context of this conversation, if you walked down the street and asked 100 people if they thought those segregationists and the KKK were liberals, 98 would say of course not.
The other two would probably slug you.
