This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers. This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors |
I made a few edits for NPOV but this article still needs some attention. I don't think it needs to be merged but there is a lot of good material in articles such as Boll weevil (politics), Blue Dog Democrats, Dixiecrats, that can be incorporated (or maybe summarized) in this article. Kaibabsquirrel 20:22, 18 May 2005 (UTC)Reply
I'm going to go ahead and do a big expansion of this article. Let me know what you think, or feel free to add anything more that I missed. Kaibabsquirrel 01:37, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
What was it about LBJ that drove conservative away in 1964?
I wouldn't consider either one of these men to be conservatives. Schlesinger's opposition to multiculturalism is clearly from a liberal, New Deal type inclusionary stance rather than a conservative stance, and while Jerry Brown may have adopted some conservative-libertarian ideas, it would be really stretching the meaning of "conservative" in current US political culture to refer to him as a conservative.
How can the introduction to this article fail to mention the South? Don't we really mean "Conservative Southern Democrat," here? john k 19:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
More broadly, this article is rather a mess. Among other things, it seems to think that "liberalism" is synonymous with "leftist," in the immediate post-war period, which isn't true. Cold War Liberals were generally very strong on the liberalism, but Liberalism meant to them anti-communism as well as anti-conservatism (or, perhaps, even more than anti-conservatism). An article which implies that cold war liberalism and right wing dixiecracy are different facets of the same phenomenon has serious problems. john k 19:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
I've added an accuracy tag. I think the article makes a lot of dubious generalizations of questionable accuracy. In particular, it implies a parity between the two parties before 1964 that didn't really exist - already at that point the Democrats were clearly the more liberal party on the national level, the Republicans the more conservative, and this had been true since 1932, at least. There's much else that's problematic, but whatever. For now, I've put up the tag. john k 19:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
While few would argue that Sam Brownback is conservative or that Ted Kennedy is liberal, the assertion of Joe Lieberman as a "moderate Democrat" is dubious at best. Given that he was most recently elected not as a Democrat but as a third-party candidate, and whether he's a moderate or a conservative is widely disputed, he's really not the best example of a moderate Democrat. Likewise, Lincoln Chafee is a poor choice for a centrist Republican example, since he's officially left the Republican Party. If examples are to be given of centrist wings in the Democratic and Republican Parties, it would make more sense to pick politicians who are actually members of those parties. 71.203.209.0 03:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)Reply
What's the difference between the two? Ie, if a conservative democrat is conservative, should they not have any ideological differences with the Republican Party?Wikischolar1983 (talk) 07:35, 25 May 2008 (UTC)Reply
This is obviously the same wire service article as the Sacramento Bee citation, just printed in a different newspaper:
I'll change the cite in the article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
Because we have a Conservative Democrat article, I think it would be useful for the reader to also create a Liberal Republican article. QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 07:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
The cites for this article should really be cleaned up; fewer than half of them even show up as numbered. Ideally, all of them should adopt the same format. I may get around to doing it myself, but in any event, it needs doing. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 16:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
Dear Readers-
In Regards to the part of Zell Miller being the last is true. Now more people in the South for example are, and have won as conservative Democrats. Sen Ben Nelson, Lincoln Davis, Joe Lieberman, and Congressman Dan Lipinski for example. This will be interesting as the rise of conservative Democrats come back!
Robert Jones —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.142.126.109 (talk) 05:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
Heath Shuler has been prominent for House conservative Democrats. Harold Ford Jr could be mentioned as well even though he is not in office.
Can someone help me out with this argument it doesn’t make any sense.
“Populist and Agrarian movements were essentially right-wing and reactionary movements, left-wing economic issues notwithstanding.” Then it goes on to say because there are both liberal and conservative in both parties. |
In other words how I am reading this is because there are liberal and conservatives in both parties he doesn’t take into account their economic views. Meaning he doesn’t take into account if they are progressive but somehow if they are reactionary that makes them conservative.
Then they use William Jennings Bryan as an example of a conservative or as they put it a populist. How someone that fought for a progressive federal income tax as his bases to show he is conservative is beyond my understanding. McKinley was for the protective tariffs and Bryan wasn’t which means he was for the federal income tax which replaces the tariffs.
Can someone help me out with this?
--OxAO (talk) 08:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
I would like to see more added about JFK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunnbrian9 (talk • contribs) 04:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)Reply
Footnote:
With the lost of the Senator from LA.State, thus end the conservative Democrats in all governor, state reps and senators in the south. Now solid Republican.
R.I.P.
This is absolutely nonsense. No one can say with a straight face that FDR, who created modern American liberalism as we know it, was a "conservative Democrat," even by the standards of his time. While there may be debate about Bill Clinton, only someone on the far-left of the Democratic Party, or a member of the D.S.A. would say that Obama is a conservative Democrat by the standards of the time. Remove FDR and Obama or I will. 66.67.32.161 (talk) 20:56, 26 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
Obama did NOT run to Clinton's "right" on economic issues in the '08 primaries, rather the reverse. Clinton's support came from smaller, rural, conservative Democratic states like West Virginia, Texas and Ohio. This is a bunch of nonsense. Obama was ALWAYS further to the left in the primaries than Clinton. To say otherwise is fiction made up by a pro-Clintonista in 2016 to desperately try to appeal to left-wingers in the primaries this year. Remove it or I will.
It is simply inaccurate to claim that the Republican Party became a right-wing/conservative party "after 1980." The Republican Party has been right-wing since at least the early 20th century, if not earlier. It was the party of McKinley and Coolidge and Hoover and Nixon, it opposed FDR's New Deal, and its membership, while often sustaining a significant "liberal" moderate faction, was consistently conservative. Please change the introduction to reflect this. 2601:152:4100:8AAB:AD69:418E:F25C:F643 (talk) 17:04, 26 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Conservative Democrat. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to trueorfailed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:51, 29 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Conservative Democrat. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:11, 12 August 2017 (UTC)Reply
This article has a lot of issues with sourcing and accuracy. I have gotten rid of a bunch of unsourced material (the article has been tagged as needing sources since 2015) and irrelevant material. Much of the material that is left is unsourced, but is at least relevant and plausible. A few dubious statements have been tagged. Another editor already tagged a number of individuals listed as conservative Democrats. I believe the article would benefit from an expert's attention. SunCrow (talk) 04:37, 22 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for doing your due diligence, I can see the quality edits made and I would like to collaborate on this project to make it more cohesive and ensure credibility. I think it would be incredibly more productive to have a conversation about whole sections before deletion, instead of just wholesale dismissing valid data points. For instance, it is proven fact, that that Biden refered to himself as a conservative. By nature of the subject, this whole page is a practice in politics, however, bias for truth is my only motivation. If I find one of my own sources, uncredible, I will remove it myself. So, let's discuss any inconsistencies. Mark Bignell (talk) 10:56, 10 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
I see where you are coming from and agree with you over much of it. I do disagree over Biden, because although he is liberal on a set of issues, he does in fact remain conservative on certain serious issues. I'm not convinced the ACU provides an accurate measure in regards to Biden, as the lens he is viewed by them is under a President they view as extremely polarizing. In addition, according to the article, of which Biden disputed one detail that they later retracted, self proclaimed himself socially conservative. Since it's a self identifying label, I believe it gives serious merit to the argument. Lastly, I viewed this article as one in which conservatism is defined in a more worldly term, than in US methodology. In our modern age, traditional conservatism seems to have moved radically towards the right, thereby changing the viewpoints of the lay observer. IE, what was once traditional conservative, seems liberal by modern standards. IE, the median shifted rightward. To conclude: more debate/source research over Biden and better quality sourcing should be located about Lieberman. Mark Bignell (talk) 03:38, 11 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
That's a good point that it stops at 08, I should have taken that into account. So we agree, more research, more sourcing. Mark Bignell (talk) 04:01, 11 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
It looks like the VP section will have to be revised and moved from the name of the individual involved and turned into a paragraph for the historical section. In additional, there are new links that should be ferreted out for accurateness. Mark Bignell (talk) 16:06, 15 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
The bare assertion that Biden as a conservative based largely on a 38 year old article without further or current context would, by most measures, be seen as unbalanced (see WP:NPOV). As for more recent assertions, many of those are subjective arguments (often from partisan opinion writers) and can be met with equal numbers asserting exactly the opposite. Again, failing to present a balanced view would be giving undue weight to one perspective without presenting any balance. I have added two cites and quotes in an attempt to balance the assertion.
Generally speaking, I find this entire article problematic given that it's inherently dependent upon the personal opinions of someone else's politics versus how the particular individual identifies themselves. While 38 years ago Biden said he had some conservative tendencies in some areas, he recently has proclaimed he would be the most progressive candidate ever nominated. Unless this article unpacks all of that, it's inherently suspect. Rayeverett (talk) 21:54, 11 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
He acknowledges that he's only a registered Dem to have a voice in DC mayoral elections, and it's widely agreed that he's a conservative (without adjectives). — Preceding unsigned comment added by QoopyQoopy (talk • contribs) 03:40, 19 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
Too many entries lack sufficient evidence that the listed Democrat is conservative or are just plain wrong. For example, the one on Hattie Caraway. The source it links to says she was a strong New Deal supporter. She even voted against killing the court packing plan. Also, Theodore Bilbo was not a conservative Democrat. He boasted of being 100 percent for Roosevelt and the New Deal. [1] Allen Ellender was too a New Dealer who voted against killing the court packing. As for the claim he "voted with the Conservative Coalition 77% of the time," no source is provided. He gave support to liberal federal initiatives, and President Johnson thanked him for helping pass the Food Stamp Act in 1964 [2] and the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 [3]. It's also worth noting that the Southern Democrats in the 1920 were almost entirely staunch liberals/leftists in their voting records, evident in their opposition to high tariffs and low taxes. They opposed the policies of Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover. I can go on and on.
Point is, racist does not simply equal conservative. Total random nerd (talk) 02:55, 30 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
Woodrow Wilson should not be listed here. He is known as a progressive. One of the cited sources says he distanced himself from his conservative connections in his very first run for office. The other is a book, and no page number is given. (Perhaps the title of the book alone is supposed to satisfy us?) The listing was tagged and then removed, but has been reinstated. Does anyone object to removal? 74.76.164.230 (talk) 04:21, 29 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
tnr
(debate me) (my accomplishments) 04:25, 29 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
Reagan Democrat says in the introduction that the term applies beyond the 1980s. Altanner1991 (talk) 19:10, 19 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
...because there really is no purpose to it. First of all the label itself is relatively fluid, but second, why would we try listing all the people who might fit in this category? And since people change, maybe some of these need a date range? And what good does it do to try and maintain a huge list here of people whose political philosophy may change over time? That's a BLP problem too. Drmies (talk) 23:44, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply