It's precisely because there are so few operational conservatives--just 14%--that operational conservatism should be considered the core of conservatism. These are the people who don't just express a broad philosophy of libertarianism and self-reliance, they reject specific spending proposals that most other conservatives support--and in many cases would vote to increase. They are the hard-core libertarians, and the evidence clearly shows that they are less supportive of civil rights, not moreso, as Beck and others--such as Rand Paul--like to claim.
Free and Cantril also found that four political groups (all can be considered outgroups from the WASP prespective) were widely regarded as having too much power:
And that this perception notably increased the more operationally conservative people were:
As I said in that diary:
For every group but Jews, the percentage saying they have too much influence more than doubles between operational liberals and operational conservatives. For blacks and labor unions, the percentage saying they have too much influence nearly triples. And remember, operational liberals represent just under 2/3 of the entire population. A majority of them (58%) are either ideological conservatives (22%) or moderates (36%). Clearly, the operational conservatives see these four outgroups in much more negative terms than the majority of Americans do. This is a powerful indication that they see these groups as "others" who threaten them.
I also noted how objectively powerless blacks were at the time:
At the time this survey was taken, blacks were widely disenfranchised throughout the South, had barely any representation in Congress, and no leadership of any large city. The notion that they had too much influence could not be equated with any objective criteria-it was a measure of prejudice, nothing more. The case is less extreme for the other out-groups, but the opposition to them having more influence was much more clear-cut. Yet, none represented a truly dominant power in American life. At best, they stood up to defend their spheres of interest, winning some, losing some.
Conservative's Attitudes Towards Segregation/Integration--Evidence from the GSS
Free and Cantril's data came from 1964. The General Social Survey (GSS) dates from 1972. The most virulent racist atttiudes were already starting to fade when it was instroduced. Yet, it's still possible to see a very clear and sharp increase in hostility toward blacks as one moves to the conservative end of the operational specrtum. By necessity, I use a different set of spending issues, but interestingly, over a long period of time the number favoring reducing a majority of spending items is about 16%--nearly identical to the 14% operational conservatives found by Free and Cantril--indicating that the two measures are at least roughly compatible. (The numbers below differ from this figure, primarily because sub-samples that also answered other questions produce some variation.)
I choose three GSS questions related to race as most indicative of what we wish to measure: support for the civil rights movement. Two questions probe support for housing integration--either direct support/opposition or support/opposition for an open-housing law. The third question asks about blacks pushing for integration in general. In all three cases, we find that those who are most conservative are most opposed to the civil rights movemen. Compared to those who are most operationally liberal, the differences are dramatically striking. I did two measures for each question--one covering the entire time period, and one limited to the 1970s, when these issues were the most contentious, and we are closest to the period presumably referred to when Beck claims that white conservatives were the original core of the civil rights movement.
First we look at the question of whether whites can segregate themselves by excluding blacks. [Exact question form: "Here are some opinions other people have expressed in connection with (negro/black)-white relations. Do you agree or disagree with each statement: b. White people have a right to keep (negroes/blacks/African-Americans) out of their neighborhoods if they want to, and (negroes/blacks/African-Americans) should respect that right."]
As can be seen, less than 6% of those who strongly agree that whites can segregate think that we're sending too little on 4-6 items, while more than a third (34.5%) think that we're spending too much on one or more items (These are net measures, so "too much" on 2 and "too little" on 1 equals a net of "too much" on 1.)
In contrast, those who strongly oppose the idea that whites can discriminate are stronly supportive of domestic spending. Almost 1/4 (24.1%) think we're spending too little on at least 4 items, while only just over 1/6 (17.5% ) think we're spendign "too little". The spending ratios in bold on the last two lines
are particularly telling: Those who strongly oppose the right of whites to segregate are four times more likely to think we're spending too little on 4 or more items, compared to those who strongly support the right of whites to segregate.
OTOH, those who strongly support the right of whites to segregate are almost twice as likely to think we're spending too much on at least one item, net, compared to those who strongly oppose the right of whites to segregate.
Here's the same data, presented graphically:
Looking at the longer time-span, we see the same general pattern. The first ratio declines, but is still almost 3-1, while the second ratio increases almost 2 1/2-1.
Again, the same data, presented graphically:
Next, we look at how people would vote on an open housing law. [Exct question form: "Suppose there is a community-wide vote on the general housing issue. There are two possible laws to vote on: a. One law says that a homeowner can decide for himself whom to sell his house to, even if he prefers not to sell to(negroes/blacks/African-Americans). b. The second law says that a homeowner cannot refuse to sell to someone because of their race or color. Which law would you vote for?"]
We see the same pattern here. Those who opposed discrimination in the 1970s were more than twice as likely (2.19) to think we're spending too little on 4 items or more than those who say the "owner decides." On the other hand, those who said "owner decides" were more than twice as likely (2.24) to say that we're spending too much. This is not an abstract question. This very issue was on the ballot in 1964 in California as "Proposition 14," a ballot measure to overturn the state's fair housing law. Not only did it carry by 2-1, it was an important grassroots mobilization device to help build infrastructure for Ronald Reagan's successful run for governor two years later. Any attempt to paint these attitudes as "secondary" to the civil rights strugggle not only contradicts what those involved in the struggle had to say. It also contradicts history.
Here's what it looks like in chart form:
The ratios change only very slightly over the longer period.
And again, in chart form:
Finally we look at the question of whether blacks should push for integration. [Exact question form: "Here are some opinions other people have expressed in connection with (negro/black)-white relations. Do you agree or disagree with each statement: a. (Negroes/blacks/African-Americans) shouldn't push themselves where they're not wanted."]
Again, a very similar pattern emerges. In this case, the ratios are almost identical in both cases--about 3-1.
Those who strongly disagree that blacks shouldn't push are 3.07 times more likel to say we're spending "too little" on four or more items, compared to those ho strong agree. And OTOH, those who strongly agree that blacks shouldn't push are 2.92 times more likely to say we're spending "too much", compared to those who strongly disagree.
Here's what it looks like in chart form:
Over the longer time period, the ratio on the spending too little side drops somewhat, while the "too much" ratio increases about half as much--not a bit difference overall.
And, again, in chart form:
Conclusion
The data above leaves no real doubt that conservatives have never been particularly supportive of blacks civil rights struggles. To the contrary, the libertarian concept of individual freedom is--consciously or not--based on white privilege and property ownership, and the kinds of exlcusionary concerns that come with that privileged history.
Although there were individual exceptions, conservartives on the whole--whether Republicans or Democrats--were the backbone of oppsition to the Civil Rights Movement. To pretend the opposite--as Beck does--is to engage in willful self-delusion. |
STATE BLOGS
