Talk:Conservative Democrat

message: 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)
thread_title: Untitled

message: What was it about LBJ that drove conservative away in 1964?
:"Conservatives" were driven away by Johnson's support for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. john k 19:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but more to the point, Southern conservative Democrats were outraged at Johnson's comprehensive opposition to segregation (of which the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was, admittedly, the cornerstone). KevinOKeeffe (talk) 15:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What was it about LBJ that drove conservative away in 1964? 

message: 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.
:Schlesinger is not identified as a conservative in the article, nor is he intended to be so identified. Rather, Schlesinger, along with Hoffer and others, are merely identified as part of an intellectual trend within Democratic Party politics that impacted upon the history of conservative Democrats. The reference to Jerry Brown is clearly somewhat more problematic, but he is never explicitly identified as a conservative Democrat (which he is not), but rather as a Democrat who adopted a conservative (even by Republican standards) position on taxation during the 1992 Democratic Presidential primaries. Within that context, I think its appropriate for him to continue to be mentioned in this article, so long as he is not inaccurately characterized as an overall conservative Democrat. Jerry Brown was associated with moderate-to-conservative positions on fiscal issues through his 1975-1983 tenure as Governor of California (while remaining decidedly liberal on social and foreign policy questions), so this 1992 campaign proposal is not actually out of character with his earlier career.KevinOKeeffe (talk) 15:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Arthur Schlesinger and Jerry Brown

message: 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)
thread_title:  The South 

message: 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)
replies: text: Article was a bit dusty, so I removed those cobwebs. Settler 02:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Giving all of these as examples of post-1980 "leaders" of their respective parties is weird too, since neither Brownback nor Allard have ever held a Republican leadership post in any capacity, Kennedy is mostly an unofficial leader of a particular party faction, and Pelosi only very recently gained a leadership post. --Delirium (talk) 07:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Innaccuracy and POV in the intro

message: 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)
replies: text: To be more to the point, are they just conservatives who prefer to belong to the Democratic Party or are they less conservative than conservative Republicans by virtue of being Democrats?Wikischolar1983 (talk) 07:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Conservative Democrats and Liberal Republicans are moderates who lean slightly more towards their party. Think about it like this ... break people up into three groups: 40% Liberal, 20% Moderate, 40% Conservative. Conservative democrats are within the first 10% for the moderate percentage while Liberal Republicans are within the second 10% of the moderate percentage. QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 07:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 50 years ago, conservative Democrats were basically conservatives (usually, though not always, from the South) who belonged to the Democratic Party, and were often to the right of many/most conservative Republicans. Today, conservative Democrats tend to be essentially moderates, which is largely to say, Democrats who dissent with the national party on certain key issues; gun control, immigration, and abortion being three of the leading examples. It might be reasonable to suggest that many "Blue Dog"-style, conservative Democrats of the modern age have essentially forged a new ideological niche for themselves, as many are actually to the left of the national party on issues of international trade, often favoring a strongly protectionist perspective. It thus might be more technically accurate to label them as populists, rather than conservatives (or moderates). In any event, its clear the definition of conservative Democrat has shifted over the decades. It was not the same phenomenon in 1962 as it is in 2008. Never-the-less, a single article covering the historical totality of the phenomenon does seem entirely appropriate (albeit a work ever in progress). KevinOKeeffe (talk) 15:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Difference between conservative democrat and republican

message: This is obviously the same wire service article as the Sacramento Bee citation, just printed in a different newspaper:
*Everything from ethnic prejudice to low voter turnout was blamed yesterday for the surprising primary victory that made a supporter of ultra-conservative Lyndon LaRouche the Democratic Party's candidate for Illinois lieutenant governor in the fall elections. [...] Party regulars aren't thrilled by him, either. Terry Michael, spokesman for the Democratic National Committee, calls LaRouche and his followers the "far-out kook fringe." Columnist and television commentator Tom Braden once proclaimed him "the champion loose nut of American politics." [...] But LaRouche, after moving to West Germany for a time, began a rapid shift to the right. After running for president on the U.S. Labor Party ticket in 1976, his rhetoric turned openly anti-Semitic. His newspaper, New Solidarity, told followers that Zionism is an evil cult, that the Holocaust was "mythical" and that B'nai B'rith "resurrects the tradition of the Jews who demanded the crucifixion of Jesus Christ." [...]He called for a massive military buildup, increased use of nuclear energy, and huge engineering projects around the world, including construction of a second Panama canal. And long before President Reagan announced his Strategic Defense Initiative, LaRouche was promoting that "Star Wars" concept of a nuclear missile shield using beam weaponry.
**"Perennial presidential candidate focusing on states" Associated Press. THE FREDERICK POST, FREDERICK, MD., FRIDAY, MARCH 21, 1986
I'll change the cite in the article.  ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  LaRouche 

message: 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)
replies: text: I'm not so sure that we should have either. The terms are too subjective. It would be more suitable for an encyclopedia to focus on actual organizations, such as the right-wing Democratic Democratic Leadership Council, or the liberal Republican Ripon Society. Wikipedia has a lot of political articles which are essentially nothing more than POV forks and soapboxes. I mean, what are the odds that someone would actually go to an encyclopedia and look up "Conservative Democrat" or "Liberal Republican"? --Niels Gade (talk) 14:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

text: From a historical standpoint, conservative Democrats have played an enormous role in American politics, and remain a force to this day. For an online encyclopedia (with respect to the absence of limitations on paper usage that traditional encyclopedia labored under, and were thus forced to be overly selective in topics) to neglect to have an article on conservative Democrats is simply absurd. Liberal Republicans should have their own article as well. This article is not a "soapbox," but rather a potentially vital examination of one of the most important aspects of 20th century American political life. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 15:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Liberal Republicans

message: 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)
replies: text: I have cleaned-up the citations for this article. I had to delete one because it was a dead link, and several others because I really had no idea what they were cited in specific reference to, and having not read those books, it seemed very inappropriate for me to just assume they were in reference to what their titles suggested. There are now 17 citations, all of which show up properly numbered in the ref list (the other day, there were just seven which did so, although I have since added 4-5 citations of my own). A couple of the books which I cleaned up the citatons for, such the Disuniting of America by Arthur Schlesinger Jr., and The Politics of Rage by Dan T. Carter, are books I have actually read, and thus was very comfortable in determining their relevance to the article. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 10:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations

message: 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)
thread_title:  RE:CONSERAVATIVE DEMOCRATS 

message: 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)
thread_title:  1874-1896: The rise of agrarian populism 

message: I would like to see more added about JFK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunnbrian9 (talk • contribs) 04:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  JFK 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Presidents 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Inaccurate 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Conservative Democrat. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160124060812/http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=4277263&sid=2&Fmt=3&clientId=12010&RQT=309&VName=PQD to http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=4277263&sid=2&Fmt=3&clientId=12010&RQT=309&VName=PQD
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:51, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131029193002/http://majorityinms.com/2010/11/01/miss-right-to-life-grades-the-candidates/ to http://majorityinms.com/2010/11/01/miss-right-to-life-grades-the-candidates/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:11, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: Mark Bignell. I am open to discussion. As you can see, I posted on the talk page almost a year ago about some of the issues I saw in the article. Until your post from earlier today, nobody responded at all. Off the bat, I have the following concerns: (a) In the history section, the paragraph on John Kerry needs to go. It says that some candidates were supported by people calling themselves conservatives--not that those candidates were conservatives. The distinction matters. I believe that Kerry--whose American Conservative Union (ACU) lifetime rating was 5.03 out of 100--would be flabbergasted to see himself mentioned in this article (as am I); (b) Joe Lieberman's listing ought to be qualified somewhat. He is a conservative on national security issues, but not on anything else (lifetime ACU rating: 15.30). The cited source quotes Lieberman as saying that he is generally in line with the Democratic Party on issues other than national security; (c) I believe the listing of Biden (lifetime ACU rating: 12.67) and I contend that the cited source doesn't support it. Rather, the cited source indicates that Biden has moved to the left over the course of his career. SunCrow (talk) 03:21, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Mark Bignell, I hear you. We agree on more sourcing on Lieberman. Point of clarification regarding the ACU rating: That rating only takes into account Biden's voting record during his Senate career. It does not take into account anything other than that, and it stops at 2008. SunCrow (talk) 03:55, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Many issues

message: 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)
replies: text: Went ahead and removed him since nobody responded to me. Feel free to revert if you think he should be on there, just explain why QoopyQoopy (talk) 19:07, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should Tucker Carlson be on this page? 

message: 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.  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  and the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 . 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)
replies: text: On Wikipedia we avoid endless philosophical discussions, such as e.g. what the word "conservative" truly means, by focusing on what reliable sources say. If you're looking for a source that straightforwardly argues "American conservatism = racism and always has", I'd suggest Conservatism and Racism, and Why in America They Are the Same by the political scientist Robert C. Smith. That's not necessarily the consensus view among all political scientists but it's certainly not a fringe view either. In such cases we look to the usage in the sources themselves. On this point see also Sidanius et al., "Racism, Conservatism, Affirmative  Action, and Intellectual Sophistication: A Matter of Principled  Conservatism or Group  Dominance?" , and Hakeem Jefferson, "Storming The U.S. Capitol Was About Maintaining White Power In America" . Generalrelative (talk) 16:15, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

text: Also, as I mentioned in my original revert, before cutting something as unsourced (or complaining about it here) you might want to simply click through and examine the page of each figure discussed. E.g. it took me 30 seconds to locate (and another 2 minutes to verify) the source given at Allen J. Ellender to support the "voted with the Conservative Coalition 77% of the time" statement. Go ahead and verify for yourself if you'd like: . I suggest doing that kind of due diligence before removing information from lists in the future. Generalrelative (talk) 16:25, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page needs to be fixed 

message: 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)
replies: text: I reserve absolutely no objection to removing him from the list. –tnr (debate me) (my accomplishments) 04:25, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: He started his career as a conservative. It was only during his 1910 gubernatorial campaign that he broke with the conservatives. See the official White House bio for starters: . Generalrelative (talk) 23:40, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Woodrow Wilson

message: @Toa Nidhiki05
Reagan Democrat says in the introduction that the term applies beyond the 1980s. Altanner1991 (talk) 19:10, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reagan Democrats 

message: ...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)
thread_title:  I removed the list...