yes, that would be sarcasm

Not to mention it as FDR who voted down the Federal anti lynching laws in order to appeal to southern democrates...who were lynching folks left and left

Roosevelt was a man of his times. And he needed votes to institute his liberal policies. Not commendable but understandable in the context of 70 years ago. My meme has nothing to do with party loyalty, but loyalty to philosophical belief. The founding fathers founded a liberal democracy against the conservative values of monarchy and an unrepresentative parliament. Civil rights demonstrators sought and fought for liberal concepts of freedom and rights and democratic representation. And this primary season has done nothing if not proven the how in thrall to undemocratic and unconstitutional dark conservative impulses the Republican party is. Using one example of a president of seven decades ago sadly following his gritty realpolitik over his compassion disproves none of this.

Yeah, the Democrats at the time were the party of the south. Primarily because they were the party of the south during the civil war. But the growing social liberalism of the northern portion of the party angered conservative southerners who supported the racial status quo. (They had originally supported the party due to its economic populism.) Many southerners began to defect to the Republican party during this period and when Nixon and his campaign aides instituted the 'southern strategy' in the late '60s and early '70s - appealing to the racial prejudices of white southerners in order to garner votes for the presidency and the GOP in general - the current mass loyalty to the (now) conservative party took its form. The truncheons and hoses were ordered and wielded by social conservatives regardless of whom they voted for.

I was a history major, and I read deeply in the subject still (not just memes). I know my shit.

Both major parties have had strong periods of "Conservatism." I like this meme because I get caught in the middle between those on both sides, who are extreme in this way. Balance.

I agree. The Democrats and the Republicans of 150 years ago are not the same parties of today. I simply plead that I am not of the extreme. I am an unapologetic 'liberal', but liberalism is not leftism. I am against socialism as well as conservatism. I would never seek income redistribution. I am a liberal as a reformist supporter of the autonomy of the individual, and the right to free association, both social and economic, of all people regardless of status in society. I maintain that conservatism is the philosophy of those seeking to maintain the old order of power in fewer hands. Conservatives are for freedom - for themselves. This requires repressive norms and laws, and closed societies. The nation, and the world at large, will function better with open societies, which promote devolving power among many hands, not few. The current conservative agitation against gay rights, questions of gender, and immigration are but just a few of the symptoms in a right-leaning portion of the electorate who seek to falsely empower themselves by denying freedoms to others, and have convinced many of those 'others' to support them by appeal to prejudices. History is a story of conflict between the impulses of open-minded freedom versus socially-repressed conformity. Liberalizing impulses versus order-maintaining conservatism.

Maybe you are more of a social libertarian. I took an Internet "test" which showed I was exactly in the middle between authoritarian & libertarian, although I don't understand all the terms. I don't need to be pigeon-holed, but it was interesting. Google political compass.org if you want. I was also leftish on the fiscal end---because I think it's overbalanced for the ultra rich in the U.S.

I might try that site. I think we've had a similar conversation before: I consider myself in the middle of the political spectrum with a lean to the left, primarily for social liberalism. I'd say I have libertarian tendencies with a lower-case 'L'. For me, you scratch a Libertarian and you'll find an authoritarian underneath. Freedom for me, but when your freedom gets in my way then laws should be passed to stop you. That's the mindset which has infected the right wing of the Republican party nowadays, and I think you can find substantial parts of it in those who support Trump. I'm not for big government, I believe in allowing people to be free to do what they want as long as it doesn't directly physically harm someone else; but I'm not for small government either - a medium-sized government would be ideal. No interference of basic freedoms of the citizenry, but enough legal barriers to keep the ultra rich and powerful to stomp on those on the lower rungs. And yes, some programs to help those who have fallen on hard times, but not big enough to get them addicted to handouts. Sometimes the hard edge of want is necessary to motivate people. Overall I'd probably be one of those sneeringly labelled as 'neoliberal' by lefty activists. (After all, the activist left isn't particularly liberal nowadays.)

[image deleted]