Talk:Conservatism in the United States/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

Problematic second intro paragraph.

Historians, in recent decades argue that the conservative tradition has played a major role in American politics and culture since the American Revolution. However they have stressed that an organized conservative movement has played a key role in politics only since the 1950s. The recent movement is based in the Republican Party, but during the era of segregation, before 1965, many Southern Democrats were conservatives, and they played a central role in the Conservative Coalition that largely controlled domestic legislation in Congress from 1937 to 1963. The Southern white conservatives moved from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party (GOP) at the presidential level in the 1960s, and at the state and local level after 1990.

First, there's a contradiction in claiming that conservatives have only played an organized role in politics since the 1950s and then following that up by stating that a "Conservative Coalition largely controlled" domestic legislation starting in 1937. Both partially reflect elements of truth (or at least actual claims; we were also supposedly ruled by a "liberal consensus" in the mid 20th Century) but aren't integrated here with great coherence. Second, and worse, why is "segregation" among all issues singled out for emphasis here? It's true that the ideas we now refer to as "conservatism" long predate the rise of the modern "conservative movement" in the 1950s, but they certainly applied to a lot more than "many Southern Democrats" "during the era of segregation". As the article's history shows, Republicans have always more or less been a base for conservatism. In fact, almost all politicians and major parties were generally what we would now call "conservative" from the Revolution through most of the 19th Century. What changed and recast politics into the modern spectrum wasn't the appearance of "conservatism", but that of modern liberalism, which rose from the socialist and progressive movements of the late 19th and early 20th Centuries, made a big impact during Wilson's presidency, and heavily changed the country from the New Deal forward.

The pertinent source used to claim that "many" Southern Democrats were conservatives "in the era of segregation" also states that "many" (its word) Southern white Democrats were liberals, and supported New Deal type policies. Forcing "segregation" into the intro and explicitly tying it to "conservatives" without mentioning that many Southern (segregationist) Democrats were also liberals, not to mention failing to identify whom these Southern conservatives were building a "coalition" with or on what issues (they were economic) is a misleading skew, and frankly just seems like a way to brand conservatives with the "segregationist" (aka "racist") label near the top of this article. I note that the Liberalism in the United States article manages to avoid mentioning segregation in its intro, much less the history of segregationist liberals, including but not limited to the venerated progressive Woodrow Wilson.

The final sentence is also oversimplified at best and arguably flat out wrong. Southern whites didn't instantly move from Democrat to Republican at "the presidential level" (which implies voting, not party affiliation changes anyway) or any other level instantly. It was a gradual process over the 20th Century. Texas and some other Southern states started going Republican in some presidential elections as early as the 1920s and 1950s. In 1956 half the South-Texas, Florida, Louisiana, both Virginias, Kentucky, and Tennessee-voted for Eisenhower.

(A quick, handy tool) http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/

The deepest few Southern states switched from Democrat and went for Goldwater in 1964, but that was a one off election. In 1968 various parts of the South went Republican, Democrat (Texas), or for Wallace (who later rejoined the Democrats), but in 1976 the entire South went for Carter. Half the South went for Clinton in 1992 and 1996. It's misleading to include 1972 and 1984 when considering this since in those years the entire country outside the Democrat's home state went Republican. The notion of anything approaching a solid Republican South in competitive presidential elections is really a 21st Century phenomenon, as it didn't crystallize until 2000. Simply stating that "Southern white conservatives" moved from the Democratic to Republican Party at the presidential level in the 1960s implies a false precision. Furthermore, most Democratic politicians "during the era of segregation" remained Democrats their whole lives. Strom Thurmond was the exception. More typical were old segregationists like Al Gore Sr., William Fulbright, and Robert Byrd. That underscores the fact that old Southern Democrats weren't just a bunch of conservatives who switched parties suddenly in the 1960s.

Since conservatives belonged to all sorts of parties and regions in the pre-modern era, I propose we improve accuracy and neutrality by streamlining this paragraph. We should lose the second half focusing on the South, and leave it with this (also removing that first frivolous comma):

Historians in recent decades argue that the conservative tradition has played a major role in American politics and culture since the American Revolution. However they have stressed that an organized conservative movement has played a key role in politics only since the 1950s. The recent movement is based in the Republican Party, but has antecedents in all major parties in US history.

That's short, sweet, and summarizes the article body without the South/segregation skew. If necessary we can get into more details on party and region shifts over time lower on the page, where there's room to do it neutrally and accurately. VictorD7 (talk) 22:43, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose: Conservative Coalition should not be removed from the lead. It is an important part of conservative history. It is true that "organized conservative movement has played a key role in politics only since the 1950s." The Conservative Coalition was not an "organized conservative movement," but it was an informal coalition that allowed conservatives to have an influence on national politics at times.

This article by Jenkins and Monroe in The Journal of Politics says, "From the late-1930s through the mid-1980s, a coalition of Southern Democrats and Republicans sometimes formed in the House of Representaties and influenced the course of policymaking. The conventional wisdom in both journalistic and academic accounts is that this 'conservative coalition' acted as a barrier to many liberal policy initiatives proposed by Northern (non-Southern) Democrats." This is more evidence that the Conservative Coalition was significant and should be included in the lead.

Segregation is mentioned because the Rae source says, "Yet even given that the southern Democrats were not as monolithically on other questions as they were on civil rights, on the economic and social welfare issues of the time a majority of the southern members-reflecting the generally rural and small-town nature of their districts-tended more toward the Republican position. This provided the basis for the so-called conservative coalition of Republicans and southern Democrats that was originally constructed around opposition to Roosevelt's 'court-packing' bill in 1937." However, it was not only segregation that resulted in the coalition, but also "economic and social welfare issues" affecting the rural South. Either segregation shouldn't be mentioned or the other issues should also be included to prevent the NPOV of only including segregation and civil rights issues.

I agree that the last sentence should removed and replaced with a mention of the Republican Party. Abierma3 (talk) 23:51, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

• I didn't say the coalition between economic conservatives in the South and North didn't exist, but there are lots of important parts of conservative history. If we were going to get into such historical specifics we should focus on the founding fathers first, from the Federalist Papers where Madison condemns tyranny of the majority and sounds like a modern TEA Party activist in explicitly rejecting attempts to use government to deprive people of freedom in order to bring about equality of result or "property", to Benjamin Franklin (the supposed "deist") eloquently proposing that the Constitutional Convention hire a chaplain to lead them in opening their sessions with a prayer, because he's convinced that "God governs in the affairs of men", and it's vital for America to be on the right side. Most of the founders were successful businessmen or planters interested in retaining both their centuries old rights as Englishmen and the more expansive free society that had developed in America with the help of distance from the Crown that in the pre-Revolutionary period began infringing on that liberty by reasserting its authority. Or we could discuss how all major parties of the 19th Century (Democratic Republican, Federalist, Democrat, Whig, Republican) supported laissez faire capitalism and generally had the same view of the individual's relationship to the government. We could discuss Coolidge (a New England conservative Republican) condemning lynching in the same speeches where he touted his own across the board spending and tax cuts with the hope of unleashing economic growth. I could go on and on, which indicates that the lede isn't the place to do that.

Also, that a "majority" of Southerners supposedly aligned with the "conservative coalition" isn't the issue. Most Southerners were conservative on economic issues (most New Englanders were too until a few decades ago), but "many" (again, your source's wording) were liberal, and the Democratic office holders on balance were more liberal than Republicans in both the North and the South, which is one reason most of them remained Democrats throughout the 20th Century even as their voters gradually shifted to the Republicans. Democrats, both liberal and conservative, dominated a solid South for a long time due to support for segregation (not really a liberal/conservative issue in the modern sense of the terms) crowding out other things, leading to Democratic politicians being empowered who were more liberal on other issues (including economic ones) than the typical Southern voter who elected them was. Regardless, you're right to say that we should either drop segregation or mention a whole host of other issues (I'd add mentioning Southern white liberal segregationists, to avoid a misleading equation of "conservative" with "segregationist"). It would be far better to just drop segregation from the intro. VictorD7 (talk) 01:15, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

The anti-New Deal "Old Right" of the 1930s is seen as the immediate precursor of modern conservatism. But the Old Right was really a coalition rather than a movement, hence it is correct to say that the movement only became influential in the 1950s. And there certainly was a realignment of conservative Democrats to the Republican Party after the Second World War. I have always thought though that we encounter problems in discussing conservatism before the Old Right, because the term was not used at the time and different writers have disagreed which people and movements, if any, should be considered conservative. TFD (talk) 00:32, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

we follow the reliable secondary sources on the history of American conservatism pretty closely in this article --such as Nash, Schneider, Allitt, Critchlow, Rossiter, Phillips-Fein etc. so I do not see any problem. People who disagree need to start off by arguing they have better Reliable Sources on the history, & they have failed to do so. Rjensen (talk) 02:23, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

We're discussing page layout more than factual disputes here. Above I even cited from the key source currently used (Rae) for the most problematic segment to illustrate what's being omitted. You didn't address the points in the op, or explain why "segregation" is selected for prominent, special emphasis in the intro. Segregation has nothing to do with either conservatism's origins or modern outlook. It was mostly regional and partisan rather than ideological along "liberal"/"conservative" lines as the terms today are understood. It can be discussed in the body with fuller detail and more appropriate nuance, along with commentary on other issues, regions, and historical episodes, but there's no legitimate reason to cherry-pick it for inclusion in the lede, much less devote half a paragraph to it. VictorD7 (talk) 04:33, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Segregation: until they lost out in 1964, southern Democrats could and did always claim that only they could defend segregation because the Republican Party was committed to integration. Hence the famous solid South. That argument collapsed in 1964 and provided an opportunity for Republicans to appeal to conservative Southerners on the basis that the GOP was the more conservative party on social and economic issues. Segregation was thus a critical factor in Southern politics. Rjensen (talk) 06:12, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree completely, but that's unfortunately not what the current paragraph says. It just identifies Southern whites during the era of segregation as conservative, mentioning no issues other than "segregation", and says they used to be Democrats but suddenly switched to the Republicans in the 1960s. That leaves a very different impression on readers who don't know better (or are just informed enough to know when the Civil Rights Act was passed) than the paragraph you just typed. I'll add that this isn't an article about "Southern politics", so while your explanation of Southern states shifting from Democrats to Republicans would be great for the body, I'm not sure why that and the segregation issue are included in the lede when the history of conservatism in other regions like New England (which really went economically left wing only in the past few decades), the Central Plains, the Mountain West, etc. aren't, or why "Southern whites during the era of segregation", are the only demographic selected for mention, as opposed to most military personnel being conservative, entrepreneurs, rural populations (in the modern era), etc..

I think the simplest solution would just be to streamline the paragraph along the lines I proposed above, keeping roughly the first half while replacing the second half with a broader clause that reflects the extensive History section below. That would fix things without causing article bloat. But if the Southern white/segregation stuff must remain, is there a way we could at least tweak it that you'd accept to make clear that many Southern white Democrats during segregation were liberals too (per already used Rae and lots of other sources), showing that the issue cut across "liberal"/"conservative" lines as the terms today are understood, and add what you said here about Republicans appealing to Southern white Democrats on other issues where they had more in common with them than national Democrats once racial segregation had been taken off the table? Even then the change was gradual and had started before the 1960s as I showed above because a growing number of Southern whites were already voting on issues other than segregation (like national defense or against the increasing economic leftism of the national Democrats); the loss of segregation as an issue just gave the process a boost. I also strongly support altering the final sentence (or rendering it irrelevant depending on how the preceding lines are changed) to reflect the gradual nature of the change. VictorD7 (talk) 19:06, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I rewrote the Southern section....see how that works. Rjensen (talk) 07:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

IMHO, while segregation is mentioned in the body of the article, given the length of the article, its mention in the lead, given its brief mention in the article, gives it undue weight in the lead. While the edit by Rjensen is an improvement, IMHO the mention of segregation should be avoided in the lead, and instead the growth of conservatism and the move away from classic liberalism within the Democratic Party which lead to the shift should be the emphasis (which the Rjensen edit is a work towards, and a step in the right direction).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:55, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

While not how I'd do it (as RCLC said, the segregation segment would fit better in the body than the lede), I agree that the recent edit by Rjensen is an improvement on clarity, accuracy, and neutrality, and I appreciate his engagement in this. VictorD7 (talk) 21:53, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I think the recent edit by Rjensen and RightCowLeftCoast strikes a good balance between the economic liberals and the social conservatives. However, to remove segregation from the lead would go too far. Throughout the 1950s and 1960s, the two major conservative issues were support for segregation and anti-communism. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:04, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

The current version of the lead says that segregation played a role before 1965: that is it made for the Solid South and blocked the Republicans from attracting Southern Conservatives. The lede and the text does not say segregation was a conservative issue. It was pretty strongly held by Southern liberals as well as southern conservatives – which is why Southern Congressmen were nearly unanimous on segregation but they split on other economic and social questions that had a liberal-conservative dimension. Was George Wallace (in 1964 1968 and 1972) part of the conservative movement? No. I can't think of any prominent conservative who endorsed Wallace in those years. Northern conservatives-- except for Goldwater himself-- voted against segregation in 1964. Republican leader Senator Dirksen is a famous example of this. Rjensen (talk) 12:49, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Attempts to rewrite history, and to change the way words are used, does not help people understand the world they live in. I grew up in the South, in a white racist family. They were good people. They never harmed a Negro. But they believed deeply in the social hierarchy. My mother was a DAR. They called themselves conservative, and they called people who opposed segregation liberal. Liberal was a bad word, almost as bad as communist. Of course, for the article, we can't use oral history, we need written history, but there is no shortage of that. Read almost any southern newspaper during this period and watch how they use the words conservative and liberal. In the north, there were plenty of racists, as books by black authors who moved North show, and comments by white racists who lived in the north amply demonstrate. Senator Dirksen was a remarkable exception. Liberals were outspoken in their support of integration. Conservatives were either opposed to integration -- William F. Buckley is a good example -- on the grounds that the Negro race was not ready for the same rights as the superior white race. Or, like Ron Paul, allowed racists to write for his organization while personally distancing himself from racism. Buckley and Paul eventually came around, at least publicly, as they realized that they racism was becoming less and less acceptable, so that it is hard to realize, unless you lived through it, just how mainstream racism was in the 1950s. Even today, watch how the conservative media talk about race. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:30, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure that Rick Norwood's parents never liked George Wallace-- but he was the face of southern segregation in 1964-68-72 and a) he was not part of or supported by the conservative movement; b) Other than race on most domestic policy issues Wallace was more or less liberal. In Alabama he was strongly opposed by the business community, for example and the groups that became leaders in the Republican Party. My point is in the white South pre 1965, there were plenty of liberals (On economic issues) and they nearly all supported segregation. That means that in the South, among the whites, you did not have a polarization between liberal integrationist and conservative segregationists. There were very few white liberal integrationists ( I knew some of them, like C Vann Woodward, who directed my dissertation). I don't think Ron Paul ever took a position on segregation one way or the other. A majority of the northern Republicans voted against segregation in 1964, Dirksen used Republican votes to break the filibuster by Southern Democrats. The GOP senators voted 27 in favor and six opposed (82% in favor), including Goldwater. In the House, 138 Republicans voted in favor, with 34 opposed (80% in favor). So I think it's fair to say that conservative Republicans played a significant role in ending segregation in 1964. Rjensen (talk) 14:41, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Would it not be fair to say that in the south there were few liberals and also that a large number of Southern liberals (including William Fulbright, but not Albert Gore, Sr., Lyndon Johnson, or Estes Kefauver) also supported segregation, although they tended to be less virulent on the issue? There is a list of supporters and opponents in the Southern Manifesto (1956) article. Wallace is better described as a right wing populist, but his supporters moved to conservatism, even if he did not. But Strom Thurmond, the earlier face of Southern segregation, was certainly a conservative.

I think the confusion is that American thinking on social equality is continually evolving led by liberals and followed by conservatives. So don't ask, don't tell was opposed by conservatives in 1993 but supported by them in 2011.

TFD (talk) 16:48, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Strom Thurmond in the 1940s was a middle-of-the road reformer (on non-race issues). The liberals in South were strong in 1930-36 era but many broke with FDR on multiple issues 1937-38 esp Supreme Court packing, 1938 purge, labor unions, recession. I looked again at the 1964 GOP House vote. 34 opposed the Civil Rights bill, but 13 of these were from the South. Northern GOP was 138 for and 21 against the famous law. Wallace was a populist all right but he was opposed by the conservatives in Alabama and appealed mostly to the poor whites. In 1968, in the South, Nixon won the suburbs and Wallace did best in poor white districts. (In the North Wallace won the votes of ethnic liberal Democrats--a core New Deal bloc.) Bottom line: segregation was mostly an issue of geography (N-S) and maybe class. Rjensen (talk) 18:06, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

While it is not really relevant, since my name was used, and since I discussed my parents, I'll mention that they and everyone else I knew considered George Wallace a hero. They felt the same way about Joe McCarthy, who was saving the world from communism. The called Martin Luther King "Martin Luther Coon" and considered him a communist dupe. They saw the integration movement as a communist attempt to undermine the American way of life. The mixing of races was called "mongralization" and after white America was mongralized by black men raping white women, and our moral standards were undermined by marijuana and "Negro" music (like the Beatles) we would be ripe for a communist takeover. On this last, see "Reefer Madness" and news footage of the burning of Beatles records. As Joe McCarthy bravely reported, there were already sixty-four communists in the state department. This world view is almost impossible to imagine today, but in the South it was no near universal that until I left for college I was the only person I knew who didn't buy into it.

On Republicans voting for the Civil Rights Act, read a biography of LBJ. His wheeling and dealing brought in many votes from segregationists. He offered favors, shmoosed them in nude swimming parties, and convinced them the act as written was the lesser of two evils.

George Wallace is an interesting character. Personally, he was liberal, but for purely political reasons he became the face of conservative segregationists. Later, after he was shot and left politics, he returned to his more liberal views.

There is a strong temptation on both the Left and the Right to paint the history of the movement they espouse in a positive light. The Left tries to distance itself from Stalin, the Right tries to distance itself from Hitler. Wikipedia needs to bend over backwards to follow the historical documents of the time. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:59, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually, a large fraction of the left in the US admired or was loyal to pro-Stalin Communist Party for a while. Near zero conservatives were supportive of pro-Hilter bunds in the USA. It was far more likely (by a factor of maybe 100 to 1 I would say) that a movement conservative in the 1950s had previously been pro-Stalinist versus pro-Nazi. Rick's problem is that the two words "conservative" and "segregationist" always locked together for him. He is not at all thinking of the conservatives/Classical liberal/pro-business of the sort this article deals with, but he means conservative in the sense of tied closely to the past. Rjensen (talk) 12:27, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

As I said, the American Left tries but fails to distance itself from the European Left. The American Right tries, but fails, to distance itself from the European Right. There is a reason that the names are the same; it is not just coincidence. I recognize that the Libertarians who allied with the Conservatives are less overtly racist than, say, the Tea Party, but even Rand Paul just the other day made some incredibly racist comments, to the effect that Blacks were poor because they never learned to pick cotton, and were better off under slavery than under Obama. He is far from the first major conservative to say that, but he is the most libertarian conservative to make that claim. The current of racism in the conservative movement has a long history and runs deep. Maybe I, more than you, hear the racist talk that goes on when they think nobody is listening, but it comes out in public often enough to be undeniable. Can you imagine any politician anywhere saying that whites would be better off as slaves? Rick Norwood (talk) 15:38, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I cannot follow Rick here. He says that the American right fails to distance itself from European right.... That's nonsense, and he gives zero examples. Rjensen (talk) 16:50, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

As for Rand Paul and slavery---Rick has it wrong: Rand condemned those remarks which were made by a Mr Bundy from Nevada. "Senator Rand Paul,...who had been one of the most prominent people offering support for Mr. Bundy’s cause, said Thursday that his [Bundy's] remarks on race were “offensive, and I wholeheartedly disagree with him." [NY Times April 24, 2014] Rjensen (talk) 16:56, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

You are right. I was wrong. While a number of conservatives supported the idea that blacks were better off as slaves, Rand Paul was not one of them. I confused Paul with Bundy. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:04, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

It's sad that this even has to be said, but for the record the general conservative movement and TEA Party strain in particular (which is more libertarian than the typical conservative; the opposite of Rick Norwood's characterization) are neither overtly nor secretly "racist", as the eager embrace of numerous black and Hispanic leaders within both attest. Race has nothing to do with either (it's certainly not among the various issues championed), and support for a color blind society (where race is viewed as a cosmetic physical trait only somewhat more important than hair or eye color rather than a primary component of social identity) is a major aspect of conservative ideology. "Racism" is a charge leveled against conservatives by certain partisans for cynical strategic reasons, to both change the subject from substance and demonize opponents. It's absurd that we're even still discussing this in the 21st Century. VictorD7 (talk) 01:54, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Segregation in the lead

Since the body of the article does not say that segregation was a significant part of conservatism in the 1960s (given this article deals with all of Conservatism in the United States, and the 1960s was just one decade of more than two hundred years of history), then it would be (in my humble opinion) undue to place an emphasis on segregation in this article's lead.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:23, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Wasn't this just thoroughly discussed in the section above? We have reached consensus (based on sources) that segregation was significant for conservatism in the U.S. and should be included in the lead, so it would be the article body that has undue weight. Abierma3 (talk) 05:46, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I didn't see a conversation end while I was away from Wikipedia. I believe VictorD7 would agree.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:57, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

No, we've reached consensus (based on sources) that segregation was important regionally for Democrats, with both conservatives and liberals (and there were "many" among Southern Democratic politicians) supporting it. The expanded paragraph is a clarifying improvement, but RCLC is right. It's still undue to have a "segregation" paragraph in the lede (not to mention so near the top) when the article covers all of American history and all the major parties, and when segregation wasn't a "conservative"/"liberal" issue anyway. The improved segment should be transferred to an appropriate place in the body and the lede streamlined. VictorD7 (talk) 22:26, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

VictorD7 makes a good point. I moved the section in question to the "1960s" section. Rjensen (talk) 07:34, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Segregation was one of the most important conservative/liberal issues in American history. Conservatism supports social hierarchy. Segregation supports social hierarchy. Conservatism supports tradition. Segregation was a Southern tradition. Even using the modern idea of conservatism supporting small government, one of the main arguments in favor of segregation was that the federal government had no right to interfere with the state governments. On the liberal side, liberalism is defined as belief in freedom and equality. Integration was a struggle for freedom and equality. Listen to the sources. Segregation, Carl H. Nightengale, p. 299 "The US Supreme Court, stacked with racial conservatives, went along with these ploys and weakened the Fourteenth Amendment's civil rights provisions..." p. 235 "W. E. B. DuBois who joined with his fellow black elites to join with white liberals in a movement for guarantees of equal rights." How Race is Made, Mark M. Smith, p. 184, "...southern liberals were too radical on some matters to southern conservative exploitation of anti-Communism and segregation." It took me about ten minutes to find examples (and I found no examples that used the words the other way around). I could find a hundred examples if I had the time. This is how the words are defined. This is how the words were used. Wikipedia must reflect how words are defined and how they are actually used. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:38, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

As for liberals and equality--well no, they did not support equality for blacks in the Wilsonian or New Deal eras. There was zero legislation on behalf of blacks until 1957. Rjensen (talk) 15:55, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I can't say it much better than Rick Norwood for why segregation should be included in the lead. Segregation was crucial for conservatives, not just in the 60s, but in the entire first half of the 20th century because it allowed conservatives to influence national politics by forming coalitions over the issue when they weren't powerful enough to have this influence alone. It is only "undue" or "biased" if you hold a particular point of view and wish to change/hide aspects of history because you feel it diminishes your point of view. Segregation belongs in the lead, and we already reached consensus on this as we were all satisfied with the changes made in the original edit by Rjensen. Another editor then pointed out a discrepancy between the lead we agreed on and the article body, but this does not automatically mean that the lead is the section with undue weight. In this case, it is the article body that does not place proper weight on segregation due to the community consensus on its significance and inclusion in the lead. Abierma3 (talk) 15:59, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I contest what Rick Norwood says about American Conservatism, look at the sources below. There is a large difference between American Conservatism (the primary subject of this article) and European Conservatism. One of that is that American Conservatism doesn't adhere to the idea of maintaining a monarchy or oligarchy, but adhering to the idea of classic liberalism which the nation's founding documents were founded upon. Therefore to say that American Conservatism, who are primarily in one party in the U.S. (that being the Republican Party), are pro-segregation is not factual.

Also, I don't believe that there is a consensus that it has significant weight given the wide breadth of the history of American Conservatism to be included in the lead, as the comments above by Rjensen, VictorD7, and myself. Just saying there is a consensus does not make it so. Should it be mentioned in the article, yes, in the body; but not in the lead section.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:21, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

No one is saying conservatives are pro-segregation, and no one is claiming conservatives are pro-monarchy or pro-oligarchy, so stop trying to distract from the main disagreement here. Conservatives were formerly pro-segregation, and this position allowed conservatives to gain considerable influence over national politics in the first half of the 20th century with the Conservative Coalition. This is history, you can't change it because you wish it wasn't true. The original consensus must have been that segregation should be in the lead since this is how the article has been for quite some time. Wikipedia Consensus Policy says, "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right." I would argue that you have failed to convince the "broader community" that segregation doesn't belong in the lead as evidenced by this talk page (Rick Norwood, TFD, and myself have pointed out the historical significance of segregation for conservatives based on reliable sources). Abierma3 (talk) 21:47, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

What "broader community" is being talked about Abierma3? We are talking about this article, there is no (nor was there (as far as I am aware)) RfC saying that it is the consensus of all of Wikipedia that American conservatism supports racism vis-a-vis support of segregation. The consensus is of the editors of this article. Active editors of articles come and go. Different groups of editors become active at different times of their editing history for their own reasons. Presently Rick Norwood, TFD, and Abierma3 are opposing the opinions of Rjensen, VictorD7, and myself, in the concern of how much weight should be given to segregation in the lead of this particular article. So is there presently no consensus, yes, but there is a showing that consensus may change, and that there is presently not a majority opinion of active editors of this article who believe that past consensus is the reasonable one.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:02, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. What part of this policy do you not understand? A community of editors built this page, and they chose to include segregation in the lead, thus establishing a consensus. You and the two other opposing editors have failed to convince the community of editors that been active on this page that this significant change should be made. I'm also confused how you are claiming there is "presently no consensus" then accusing me and others of edit-warring by reverting edits for which there is "presently no consensus." Shouldn't edits that are against consensus be reverted? Please clarify Abierma3 (talk) 23:09, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Rjensen: We are dealing with definitions and usage. If people supported some liberal causes, but favored segregation, then they were liberal in some views and conservative in others. If we change the meaning of words, communication becomes impossible. Rick Norwood (talk) 17:41, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Abierma3 can climb down From his high horse. "community of editors built this page, and they chose to include segregation in the lead" -- No they did not so choose, as the talk page will demonstrate, and I was the one who added that material the first place. Rjensen (talk) 08:23, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

First, no need for personal attacks about being on a high horse. I have attempted to remain as civil as possible through this dispute, and if you question anything I say, I would be happy to cite sources or Wikipedia to explain myself. To get back to your main point: Per WP:OWN, once you submitted your edit, you no longer control that content, it belongs to the community. "Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone." Likely hundreds of other editors in the community saw this edit, deemed it acceptable, and chose not to edit it. A talk page discussion is not required to constitute consensus. If something is long-standing, this implies there has been consensus to keep it, otherwise it would have been reverted. See WP:SILENCE, "The more visible the statement, and the longer it stands unchallenged, the stronger the implication of consensus is." This is the lead of a frequently visited article, so it can be deemed highly visible. Hence, that is why I keep reiterating that "consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale." The reality is that right now "at one place and time," the consensus is evenly split between those who want to keep it in the lead and those who want to wipe it from the lead. So how would no consensus at this "one place and time" overrule the community consensus that has decided to leave it in the lead over time? Abierma3 (talk) 17:03, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I have to say that Rick Norwood's claim that segregation was "one of the most the most important conservative/liberal issues in American history" because conservatism supposedly supports tradition, and segregation was a southern tradition, is beyond tortured and reflects neither the terms as used in this article nor the sources making it clear that segregation cut across conservative/liberal lines. And I'll add that consensus does follow the sources and valid argument weight, not a simple vote count nor clearly invalid arguments. The fact that the very editor who first added the material is now one of those who supports moving it is telling. VictorD7 (talk) 01:39, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

The sources say that segregation was the primary basis for the Conservative Coalition, and that the Conservative Coalition allowed conservatives to influence national politics for decades when they otherwise wouldn't have been able to. Considering that "organized conservative movement has played a key role in politics only since the 1950s," the fact that segregation allowed conservatives to influence national policymaking as soon as the 1930s is significant and lead-worthy (https://faculty.virginia.edu/jajenkins/cc%20paper.pdf). Whether the majority of conservatives supported segregation or just regional conservatives, you cannot deny that reliable sources say segregation gave conservatives influence for decades that they wouldn't have had if not for being able to form a coalition with Southern Democrats. This is exactly what the lead already explains, so it shouldn't be changed because editors with a conservative POV want to wipe away references to segregation or because an editor feels that historical facts about segregation imply conservatives are racist. Abierma3 (talk) 02:08, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Segregation was the basis for it being a cross party "coalition" rather than a large bloc within the Republican party as it is now. Conservatives would have had even more power and representation in Congress without segregation getting more liberals elected in the South than otherwise would have been case, and without even conservative Democrats voting for Democratic rather than Republican congressional leaders (leading to a more liberal overall agenda). The sources state that segregation support cut across conservative/liberal lines. Those are the historical facts. Another is that Republican (and therefore conservative) strength in the South has always been inversely proportional to the importance of race as an issue at any given time. Given the new discretionary sanctions everyone should tread carefully about commenting on other editors, especially when claims of "POV" can be so easily boomeranged that it's hardly worth pointing it out. VictorD7 (talk) 02:21, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree that segregation was the basis for a cross-party coalition. We have sources that confirm it, which are already cited in the article, and I think this is a point we all agree on. Now for the reason I disagree with removing segregation from the lead (I have already included this source in a previous section of the discussion, but it was never addressed): The Jenkins and Monroe article in The Journal of Politics states, "From the late-1930s through the mid-1980s, a coalition of Southern Democrats and Republicans sometimes formed in the House of Representaties and influenced the course of policymaking. The conventional wisdom in both journalistic and academic accounts is that this 'conservative coalition' acted as a barrier to many liberal policy initiatives proposed by Northern (non-Southern) Democrats." Thus, a coalition formed on the basis of segregation (as we have agreed upon) was able to block the "liberal policy initiatives of Northern Democrats" and gave conservatives influence over policymaking that they could not have had alone. The source also says, "Not only was the conservative coalition a regular floor coalition that gave national Democrats fits in the mid-20th Century, it was also an institutionally empowered procedural coalition that, at times, shared in the prefloor screening of bills." Whether the majority of conservatives supported segregation or just Southern conservatives (I'm not even sure this matters much considering the power committee chairmen wielded over the floor during the time), it is clear that segregation was crucial for the influence conservatives in the U.S. had over the nation's policymaking during this significant chunk of their history. I just don't see how this isn't lead worthy; 50 years is a large span of conservative history, and it seems especially significant since it came before the organized conservative movement/modern Republican party.

Now to address your points: Your statement, "Conservatives would have had even more power and representation in Congress without segregation getting more liberals elected in the South than otherwise would have been case, and without even conservative Democrats voting for Democratic rather than Republican congressional leaders," seems like either your own original research or speculation stated as facts. I could be wrong. For your statement, "Republican (and therefore conservative) strength in the South has always been inversely proportional to the importance of race as an issue at any given time," I would have to see and read the source to properly discuss this in the context of the lead. Abierma3 (talk) 04:54, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Your quote doesn't support your claim. Like I said, it just states that a coalition of conservative Democrats and Republicans blocked liberal policies. It doesn't say anything about segregation being "crucial" (in your words) "for the influence conservatives had over US policymaking". That's your own original (and false) claim. No support for lede inclusion whatsoever. That you admit you don't know whether most conservatives supported segregation kills your argument (not that it would matter anyway, as sources have already been cited saying liberals supported it too, meaning it wasn't a conservative/liberal issue, let alone lede worthy). I have no idea what you're talking about regarding "slavery" that we've supposedly agreed on. That's totally out of left field. VictorD7 (talk) 06:37, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

You just said in your last post, "Segregation was the basis for it being a cross party 'coalition.'" Are you now saying this is not true? We have sources that support this already cited in the article (Rae), so I didn't think I would need to mention it again. I never said most conservatives believe in segregation, but I am simply saying support on the issue of segregation allowed conservatives to form coalitions that gave them influence for half a century, which is significant history. "Slavery" should have read "segregation," that was a typo I have now fixed. Abierma3 (talk) 07:01, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

@Abierma3: please see Correlation does not imply causation. Just because conservative Democrats and Republicans blocked liberal policies does not mean that segregation is a conservative policy, nor was/is civil rights a specific policy that is wholly the owned by and solely supported by modern liberalism,s shown by Rjensen below using reliable sources. To summarize what he stated, as verified by reliable sources, while conservatives in the United States did not see it as a major issue, it did not oppose it either, and a large percentage of conservatives outside of the Southern United States supported civil rights in both the movement and legislation. Therefore segregation was a regional issue that had wide support within the Southern United States by both liberal and conservatives there. Thus if this was an article specific to the History of politics in the Southern United States, it might have a place in the lead, but since this is not that article, it is best handled in the body of this article, as Rjensen had done (and only after at that time it appeared that a consensus had formed to support the move of content which Rjensen originally added to the lead a while ago).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:07, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

No, you misunderstood. Segregation was the reason it was a cross party coalition. It was the reason Southern conservatives were in the Democratic party to begin with rather than the more conservative Republican party. It was not the reason conservatives had electoral/legislative strength. That stemmed purely from so many Americans being conservative. As has already been pointed out above in source discussion, the coalition focused on economic issues like blocking or softening the more left wing proposals by the Democratic leadership. VictorD7 (talk) 17:59, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

And to Rick Norwood, laws mandating racial segregation (e.g. Jim Crow) are the opposite of "small government". VictorD7 (talk) 18:08, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

VictorD7, you agree that segregation was the reason the Conservative Coalition was formed; this is important middle ground between us. "It was not the reason conservatives had electoral/legislative strength. That stemmed purely from so many Americans being conservative." ...can you please provide sources for this? I am only aware of the Rae source that says segregation was the primary basis for the Conservative Coalition (it also notes a shared agreement on certain economic issues affecting the South, but to a lesser degree. Segregation was the common bonding point for the coalition). The main reason that segregation is lead-worthy (in my opinion) is that the Conservative Coalition gave conservatives half a century of influence, but we also say that the organized conservative movement was not influential until the 1950s. Both of these statements are true, but confusing without an explanation or clarification about what the Conservative Coalition actually was or how it formed (to distinguish it from the "organized conservative movement"). I don't know how you would accomplish such an explanation without proving the proper context, so a mention of segregation (only in the context of the role it played for the Conservative Coalition) is required for the lead. Abierma3 (talk) 00:28, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

"The sources say that segregation was the primary basis for the Conservative Coalition" that is not true. In the 1930s and 1940s the Republicans in Congress were strong supporters of civil rights and the Southern Dems were strong opponents. The Katznelson article shows that beyond doubt. see http://hist590.pbworks.com/f/Katznelson%2Bet%2Bal%2BLimiting%2BLiberalism.pdf Katznelson says it was LABOR issues that formed the main reason for the conservative coalition in Congress. (ie South & GOP were both hostile to labor unions). Rjensen (talk) 00:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Just to let anyone interested know, this discussion is being continued in section "Talk:Conservatism_in_the_United_States#Evidence_that_the_American_civil_rights_movements_was_of_major_importance." to consolidate the ongoing discussions among editors into one, making it easier for people to follow along. Abierma3 (talk) 01:12, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Abierma, that's blatantly untrue. I'm not sure why I need to repeat this since my earlier post explaining this is still visible just slightly above in this same section, but I most certainly do not agree that "segregation was the reason the conservative coalition was formed"; that's contradicted by all the sources I've seen posted here, and your quote from Rae failed to even come close to supporting it (indeed Rae contradicts it, as I've already pointed out). You haven't posted anything from Rae or other sources claiming that segregation was the "common bonding point" among conservatives. What has been firmly established by multiple sources is that liberals also supported segregation. What I said, again, was that segregation was the reason there were conservatives in the Democratic party to begin with in the 20th Century, rather than just the Republican party like now. Segregation was not a conservative/liberal issue, and no more belongs in this lede than it does in the Liberalism in the United States article lede in reference to FDR's "New Deal coalition" (of which segregationists were a vital part), Wilson's implementation of segregation at the federal level, or the "liberal coalition" between southern and northern Democrats in the scholarly political science article posted above. Since segregation really did enhance liberal strength for reasons given, it would actually be more legitimate to include it in that lede than this one, though I wouldn't emphasize it in either given that both articles cover American history much more broadly. VictorD7 (talk) 02:04, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Just to clarify, you have directly said, "Segregation was the basis for it being a cross party 'coalition'..." and "Segregation was the reason it was a cross party coalition". Do you believe what you said is true or not true? I'm just trying to determine what middle ground we have before I delve into the sources. Abierma3 (talk) 02:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Now to further clarify, do you see the phrase "cross party" in my quotes? Segregation was the reason it was a cross party rather than an internal party coalition. That said, I'll add that the extent of the existence of a cross party coalition at all is being greatly exaggerated here, as the study cited above shows. Some southern Democratic politicians were true conservatives (the people who would have been Republicans without the segregation issue getting in the way), but voting with Republicans swelled to a majority mostly just on labor issues, with most Southern Democrats voting on the liberal side of most issues, particularly economic ones. In my earlier comments I was referring to the true conservatives, but given their small size it's debatable how noteworthy a "coalition" with Republicans they formed. VictorD7 (talk) 03:40, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I am not claiming that it wasn't a cross party coalition. I stand by the reliable source and quote I have provided earlier: "From the late-1930s through the mid-1980s, a coalition of Southern Democrats and Republicans sometimes formed in the House of Representaties and influenced the course of policymaking. The conventional wisdom in both journalistic and academic accounts is that this 'conservative coalition' acted as a barrier to many liberal policy initiatives proposed by Northern (non-Southern) Democrats." Because conservatives were allowed to "[influence] the course of policymaking" and block "many liberal policy initiatives" by means of the Conservative Coalition prior to having an influential organized conservative movement, this alone is lead-worthy as it covers half a century of U.S. conservative history. However, it must be properly explained. We should not ignore history because segregation has a bad connotation, and I haven't called to include just the context of segregation issues but also labor/economic issues (per the Kryder and Katznelson source, and even the Rae source mentions economic issues). We should not be afraid to properly explain the Conservative Coalition. Also, please keep in mind this is a reliable source, if you claim that it doesn't apply because they weren't "true conservatives," you will have to provide some sources to explain what true conservatives are and how they differ from the conservatives that were a part of the Conservative Coalition to back that assertion up. Abierma3 (talk) 04:08, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Your quote doesn't mention segregation (segregation just explains why Democrats held most of the Southern offices; the conservative coalition was not a pro segregation alliance). Also, the article body covers over two centuries of American history, not just 50 years, and sources have already been provided showing that there were other alliances over that same half century anyway, with Southern Democrats mostly siding with Nonsouthern Democrats in taking the leftist economic positions in opposition to Republicans. The conservative coalition only included a majority of Southern Democrats on labor issues. This can all be discussed in the body, but there's no good reason to stuff this segment into the lede, giving it enormous undue weight. The intro isn't the place to "properly explain" some niche detail from a single period in the history covered. What I would support retaining there is the mention that the modern conservative movement is associated with the Republican Party, since that's basic, almost definitional elucidation appropriate for a lede. The original legitimate purpose of the controversial segment seems to have been to point out that conservatives have also been identified with other parties in the past, but of course that's not limited to either Southern Democrats or the mid 20th Century, and implying otherwise is misleading. That point can be made more effectively in an intro summary context with a concise clause along the lines of "...but had antecedents in other parties in US history." VictorD7 (talk) 05:25, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Other reliable sources mention segregation. If one reliable source explains the influence gained by conservatives by the cross-party coalition but doesn't explain the basis for the cross-party can, other reliable sources can be used describe the basis of formation. The purpose of the controversial segment is that conservatives were influential for decades before the organized conservative movement. The lead should summarize what the article covers, and half a century out of two century is something that deserves mentioning in a summary. Also, you mention sources say there were other alliances, but I haven't seen any source that shows any "alliance" was as influential over national policymaking for conservatives as the Conservative Coalition, so that's irrelevant. Lastly, as discussed in other sections, the civil rights movement is important, it is not some "niche detail." Abierma3 (talk) 16:35, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The Rae source says, "Yet even given that the southern Democrats were not as monolithically conservative on other questions as they were on civil rights, on the economic and social welfare issues of the time a majority of the southern members-reflecting the generally rural and small-town nature of their districts-tended more toward the Republican position. This provided the basis for the so-called conservative coalition of Republicans and southern Democrats that was originally constructed around opposition to Roosevelt's 'court-packing' bill in 1937." Rae is stating that the southern Democrats were monolithically conservative on civil rights and also tended towards the Republican position on economic and social welfare issues although not as "monolithically conservative" as they did for civil rights. He explained this (segregation, economic, and social welfare issues) is what "provided the basis" for the Conservative Coalition. Abierma3 (talk) 17:57, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Now I have provided for you direct quotes from the Rae source that explains "the basis for the so-called conservative coalition of Republicans and southern Democrats" and the direct quote from the Jenkins and Monroe source that explains, "From the late-1930s through the mid-1980s, a coalition of Southern Democrats and Republicans sometimes formed in the House of Representaties and influenced the course of policymaking. The conventional wisdom in both journalistic and academic accounts is that this 'conservative coalition' acted as a barrier to many liberal policy initiatives proposed by Northern (non-Southern) Democrats." Keeping in mind what these reliable sources say about the Conservative Coalition and that this was prior to the influential organized conservative movement (i.e. modern Republican party), do you deny that the Conservative Coalition formed between southern Democrats and Republicans on the issues of segregation, economic, social welfare (and labor per the Katznelson source) is significant in U.S. conservative history? Abierma3 (talk) 18:10, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

No, Abierma. You've quoted nothing that said the "conservative coalition" supported segregation. Southern Democrats, both liberal and conservative, did, but segregation was not the basis for the coalition with Republicans. Your quotes only speak of that coalition uniting around certain economic issues and the court packing scheme in 1937. The author does define opposition to civil rights as "the conservative" position, but that's in the same sense that hardline communists in eastern Europe are referred to as "conservative", or Islamists (who are almost invariably socialists) are called "conservative". It doesn't speak to the ideology of "conservatism", which is how the word is most commonly used in a political context in modern America and is the primary focus of this article. Any attempt to conflate the two in this article, let alone the lede, would be extremely misleading and do a huge disservice to readers. And Rae's vague claim about a majority of the southern members being "conservative" on economic issues has already been disputed (and indeed refuted) by the superior source offered with extensive quotes below that actually counted votes and provided transparent factual details. Aside from civil rights (which Republicans supported even more than Nonsouthern Democrats, those two groups joining in a coalition) and labor policy (the sole issue on which there was a meaningful cross party "conservative" coalition), the article says Southern and Nonsouthern Democrats were virtually identical. That means most weren't certainly weren't conservative; they supported an expansive welfare state, greater regulation of business, more government economic planning, and the (modern) liberal position on fiscal policy. That said, even Rae states, "This was only part of the story, however, Beyond the defense of segregation, there were significant divisions among the southern members on a variety of issues, particularly government intervention on the economy, national security, and welfare. On foreign and defense policy the southerners tended to be more internationalist during the 1930s and 1940s than were members from other regions, and on the economic issues of the New Deal, many-such as Alabama’s Lister Hill and Texas’s Maury Maverick and Lyndon Johnson—were staunch supporters of Roosevelt." So majority or not, even Rae concedes that "many" Southern Democrats were pro New Deal (modern liberals). That means segregation wasn't a conservative/liberal issue. BTW, in case you were wondering, Lyndon Johnson was a staunch segregationist and virulent opponent of civil rights bills most of his time in office. But he was never a "conservative" in the sense that's the subject of this article.

You basically just repeat what I said about the purpose of ledes being to summarize what's in the article (with an extra emphasis on defining the subject), so I appreciate that. Segregation just gets a couple of small subsections in the article, much of which consists of the segment at issue here which was moved to the body. Vastly more space is spent in the body on other issues and other topics. WW2, the Industrial Revolution, and the Homestead Act were all important too, Abierma, but in the context of this article they're all niche topics, and none of them are mentioned in the lede. The other 3+ quarters of American history outside that cherry-picked "conservative coalition" tenure are important, and even during the more limited "coalition" span other important things happened that aren't covered in the lede. Also, the source cited below certainly does establish that the "liberal coalition" between Southern and Northern Democrats was stronger and covered more issues than the so called "conservative coalition" on labor policy, contrary to your claim here about no sources being offered on that point.

It's far more legitimate for us to mention conservative stances during that period on things that were actually conservative/liberal issues in the pertinent sense of the words, like opposition to FDR's New Deal, the Great Society, Wilsonian progressivism, socialism, etc., that laid the foundation for the modern conservative movement that took off in the 1950s. Segregation mostly got in the way, since it, as we've firmly established, kept Democrats in power in the South. VictorD7 (talk) 23:50, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Read the first part of the first sentence of the Rae source, it includes civil rights as part of the basis of the Conservative Coalition. So you have provided no counter-sources, you have made arguments from the Rae source that aren't relevant to the discussion (i.e. why are we discussing the southern pro-New Deal liberals that weren't a part of the conservative coalition that we all already know existed or what does a liberal coalition have to do with this article? We have a source that says the conservative coalition influenced national policymaking for 50 years, and this is the coalition being disputed, not a liberal coalition), and finally, you claim what the reliable source Rae refers to as conservative is not actually conservative but merely the same as referring to Islamists or hardline communists as conservative. Since I trust this reliable source over your opinion, could you please provide a source or counter-source for this? Abierma3 (talk) 06:20, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Abierma3 misreads Rae--she never says Republicans opposed civil rights, only Southerners. She never says civil rights was part of the conservative coalition. Rjensen (talk) 12:45, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

So far, Abierma3, you've failed to quote any sentence from that source claiming that segregation was part of the basis for the conservative coalition. As Rjensen observes, on the topic of opposing civil rights the language shifts to Southerners, not the cross party conservative coalition described elsewhere. What's more, sourcing has been provided demonstrating that the conservative coalition was issue specific and existed only on labor issues. As for definitions, I think I'll start a new section on that below. VictorD7 (talk) 18:18, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

This is an article on conservatism, not Republicanism (although it's true the modern Republican party is mostly conservative, the two terms are not synonymous or interchangeable, let's not forget that). Rae says that southern Democrats were "monolithically conservative" on civil rights issues and tended towards the Republican party on economic and social welfare issues (in rural districts). Then, Rae says "this" (referring to the conservative positions on issues mentioned in the previous sentence: civil rights, economic, and social welfare) is what "provided the basis for the so-called conservative coalition." Should we disregard what Rae is stating in these two sentences because some editors don't want segregation to have any association with conservatism, which in turn, is now highly associated with the modern Republican party? Lastly, you can say it was only a labor issue, but your own source (as I've already explained, see page 292) considers that issues of racial segregation, low wage rates, and farming methods, and the Southern political economy have their roots in the labor market (in essence tying all the issues together) and cites a source by Gavin Wright. I disagree with the arguments by you two that something cannot be conservatism unless the Republican party at the time supported it, especially when reliable sources say otherwise. Abierma3 (talk) 19:09, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I think you are misreading Rae. I read her this way: "Yet even given that the southern Democrats were not as monolithically conservative on other questions as they were on civil rights, on the economic and social welfare issues of the time a majority of the Southern members... tended toward the Republican position. This provided the basis for the so-called conservative coalition...."' That she is arguing the "economic and social welfare issues" provided the basis for the conservative coalition. Rjensen (talk) 20:05, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

No, Abierma3, Rjensen is correct. Rae treats civil rights and the "economic and social welfare issues of the time" separately, and associates the latter with the "conservative coalition". Nowhere in these quotes is segregation associated with the cross party conservative coalition. It's also worth pointing out that, to the extent Rae and Katznelson somewhat conflict on how "Republican" the positions of most Southern Democrats were, the former's language is vague and brief, while the latter lists and analyzes the actual votes in question with precision. And actually I'm reminded that RightCowLeftCoast has already cited several sources in the section below proving that words like "conservative" have completely different meanings in different historical/national/topical contexts, a point also made in this article's lede: "The meaning of "conservatism" in America has little in common with the way the word is used elsewhere. As Ribuffo (2011) notes, "what Americans now call conservatism much of the world calls liberalism or neoliberalism."[25]" In fact "conservative" and "liberal" aren't always seen as opposites. So there's little immediate need for me to create a new section for yet more sources offering a primer on what "words mean". VictorD7 (talk) 21:36, 8 July 2015 (UTC)