You consistently vote against your own interests.
Mike Mansfield passed it.
That’s the thing: they like to bring up old, racist democratic stuff as some kind of mic drop, and it’s just silly.
old? yeah, the racist in the wh is old. means nothing
No need. joe biden is supposed to fix black folks once and for all.
How’s he doing so far??
That’s New England liberals for you—they’re just as racist, but with a smile on their faces.
Good for Dean Martin for defending his family member.
In what way?
For all the inclusion associated with this man, it appears he was more of an opportunist looking to boost his approval:
For all the insults against whites in the southern states, notice the attitudes of a majority in Kennedy’s home state.
They didn’t care if black Americans lived or died. They just did so with more proper language 
Your narration of that data is dishonest.
I’ve never claimed otherwise. Every time I post about the CRA I credit both sides voting for it. Can’t say the same for you.
1 Like
your claim about my charecterization is an outright lie
can’t say the opposite either. acknowledging that johnson was one of those who killed it in '59 in np way implies that it would have passed without democrat support
I am curious: the 1964 CRA was a big, complex, heavy-handed, big-government federal law that enforced positive liberties (unlike the Constitution, for example).
It’s pretty easy to make a liberal or leftwing case for it—in terms of ideology and principle.
What was the conservative ideological rationale for the CRA, which intruded on state, local, and even private entities?
the congress has the constitutional authority to make laws which support those rights. there are aspects that may, in some circumstances over reach, but only in limited circumstances involving private property of persons. i have no issue with it
Every way.
No, not liberal case.
I assume this is rhetorical?
If you’re referring to the definition of “classical liberalism,” maybe. But in 2021, that’s kind of pedantic.
Well, it’s always seemed odd to me that contemporary conservatives love talking about how the GOP supported the CRA (a simplification to be sure; just ask Reagan and Goldwater and Renquist, et. al.). But there’s no ideologically conservative way to support it. If there was, magazines like National Review would have articulated them at the time.
There is nothing liberal about progs.
