The comments section in this video is going to be a tangled mass of horror and anger. So I'd just like to say that you, dear reader, look very good today. Is that a new shirt? You wear it well.
Thanks! It's not new, but I don't wear it often. I appreciate your attempt to retain some civility here. I agree, this one is probably going to fall apart, comments-wise. -stan
I watch Crash Course every week and I really appreciated the balanced take on conservatism here. It was really interesting seeing it put into historical context and seeing how all of the things that make the current Republican party what it is today were shaped by so many factors. I'm not a conservative, but it was at least interesting thinking where everyday people might have been coming from when conservative backlash arose during this time period. I hope the comments on this one don't blow up too much because it would do the video a disservice.
Actually, the biggest argument against the ERA hands-down, was that women would have to sign up for the draft, and the conflict in Vietnam was still going on at this point, so women didn't want to go, men didn't want their daughters to go so that's over half the possible people that could've had a say on the ERA passing in the first place.
That's what I always thought killed the ERA bill too? I'm pretty sure that was in my jr. high history if I'm remembering right. I was kinda surprised he didn't mention that.
At 10:00 you omitted a very important point. The reason the ERA failed is because it would have required women to register for the draft. It failed because it would have taken away women's privileges, such as being exempt from the draft. The "STOP ERA" movement was an acronym. It stood for Stop Taking Our Privileges, Equal Rights Amendment.
Impressive video. My eyes have been opening to politics and I've been asking a lot of questions of conservatism in my home state of Texas to which I haven't gotten clear or truthful answer. This went a long way to me understanding both the Civil Rights impact on politics and why conservatives do what they do today.
For anyone claiming that somehow Abraham Lincoln was a "social conservative" listen to this. Slavery was a states rights issue. Some States had Slaves, some didn't. But the south was staunchly opposed to the NORTHERN FEDERAL GOVERNMENT impeding on their states ECONOMY (slavery) Read the confederacy's constitution after the split from the union. Emancipation Proclamation - Executive Order pushed before the 13th amendment was passed. Several southern conservatives and even some conservative republicans opposed it because they said he didn't have the power to do so from the constitution...Sound familiar Social CONSERVATISM is the true architect for racism in america...
Lincoln was a nazi who pranced around in his wife's knickers. The guy built camps in the Utah dominion to enslave Emplum and his freedom fighters against time travelers!
I mean, I mean, I mean...I was there in the 60's, participating in happenings, student protests, and antidiscrimination writing/events. I worked at the welfare demonstration project in Watts, where the people we served warned us days before the "spontaneous riot" broke out. I've reviewed these crash courses as a check on what was covered. They're well done, except... have too many "I mean" statements, y'know what I mean. Peace and love. Thanks for the memories.
@ 4:20 - 4:38 .... he explained why Conservatives (White southerners who were Democrats) switched to support the Conservatives Politicians who now called themselves Republicans also known as the Southern Strategy. Conservative Ideology haven't changed, just the name of the Party. So when you think of Pro Segregation, Pro Slavery, Anti Civil Rights.... think Conservatives...... their parents great grandparents (Democrats), grandparents (Democrats), parents (Republicans), and they themselves (Republicans), could all be Conservatives. Funny how some of Americans are just skip passed this and try to put social blame on the Name of a party (Democrats/Republicans) and not the "Ideology" which is more important.
“Absolutely power corrupts absolutely”. Small government with politicians who make less money is the only way to keep such scandals from happening or from the scandals to actually impact anything of importance.
I mean that ending hit it. That is the reason I lean more to the right than left. I do not trust the government to do its job correctly, I don't think I ever could. I only need to look at history for an instant to know that a government with even slightly too much power is a threat not just to quality of life, but life in and of itself. It is regimes like Nazi Germany, like the Soviet Union and its Eastern Bloc, like the PRC, like North Korea, like 19th century Britain, like G-d knows how many more, that I fear. Has our government done good? Yes. Has it done bad? Let me introduce you to the 19th and early 20th century, have you met? Now what I will not deny is the government does have its role, namely in the protection of the nation, like the head of a house to their family. If you have any questions on my beliefs, I am more than happy to answer. To Crash Course, this video wasn't bad, but it could've done well in showing more modern conservatives. I do understand that most historians follow a 20 year rule, but you could've at least hit on Reganism. Edit: I just realized that the did a separate video on Reganism, my mistake.
The reason why the number of divorces was on the rise was because Reagan started letting one person have to sign to get out of a marraige which lead to lots of people getting out of abusive marriages
Conservatism and Liberalism are two sides of the same coin, both suck to an equal degree. A centrist approach to running the country who be a breath of fresh air and we got a few years of that under George H.W. Bush Sr. but then Bill Clinton got in and everything when to hell.
This video should take a lesson from the Crash Course Philosophy series. In that series, they talk about conservative ideas in an equally neutrally way as liberal ideas. Not here
To be fair, as much as the war on drugs was implemented by the Right, it was supported by a lot on the Left as well, back when Nixon implemented it, it was supported by a lot of people, and is still continued by some Dems today.
Conservatism does confuse me. I mean they believe in people having individual rights and that government shouldn't get involved in our daily lives. But then is it any of the government business who I want to marry man our women.
That is the compromise most conservatives are actually 100% on board with. Get the government out of marriage, which will allow both people who want to practice gay marriage to do so while letting churches and individuals who don't do have their own right to disagree protected.
One can never know how history may have turned out if certain events never happened. That said, it is a little sad that you did not mention poor Bobby Kennedy when talking about the 1968 election........
You said conservatives opposed abortion because it led to the breakdown of family values. True, but NOT the heart of the issue. You didn't even mention the personhood of the unborn! Conservatives think the unborn are persons, and as persons have rights! That's the PRIMARY issue with abortion! And you didn't even mention it.
Riiiiiiight... which is why conservatives will happily defend the rights of an unborn fetus with potential for life but have no problem immediately disregarding the needs of numerous poor and starving children referring to them as “entiteled” such as defunding after school programs, children’s healthcare initiatives, and healthier meals... Unborn, a life that deserves to be protected, born, meh...
This is a history video not a discussion about politics. This video is strictly about the rise of conservatism in the second half of the 20th century, and why it happened.
Collin McLean You're argument stating conservatives don't want to support children is a logical fallacy. When you resort to strawmen you should avoid the cliché ones.
The deep south went for Goldwater because Goldwater opposed the '64 civil rights bill EVEN THOUGH he didn't have a racist bone in his body (the reason for his opposition was that he objected to the part that forced private businesses to serve everyone regardless of race and all true libertarians would object to that...sayings that racism should be fought with civil protests...not government mandates). In the 1968 election the deep south did NOT go republican. It went to the "Dixiecrat party" which was an off shoot of the democrat party. Later all but ONE of those "Dixiecrat" politicians went BACK to the democrat party (the real party of racism). Voters of the deep south, who were rapidly dying off and being replaced by their off spring who were much less racist and were attracted to the republican party because of its strong policies on free markets. Racism in America is far more connected to the democrat party than it is to the "south". The "southern strategy" was NOT about "racism" or the deep south. It was about the rising industrial areas of the south (like Atlanta) whose economies were starting to take off.
I reject the idea that race played any factor at all in the south turning red. Almost no Dems switched parties, not even the racists. The idea makes no sense, a higher percentage of republicans voted for civil rights than democrats. How would it work for disenfranchised Dems to join a party that hated racism more than their own party. Their platform would only be less successful on the republican ticket. The fact of the matter is that America was getting less racist as a whole, and that included the South. The switch of South votes to republicans and black votes to democrats was economically based. Blacks started voting blue before this supposed "switch" because of the promises of the New Deal. Southern votes turned red because republicans tried a platform calling for lower taxation on the upper class which appealed to the South. It wasn't some magical language that only you know about regarding crime and black people. That's nonsense.
I've been watching Green's videos for years now, but lately it seems all of his content drips with personal bias and narrow ideologies. I was hoping for a simple description of conservative values and view points, but instead I was fed a treatise of statements that paint conservatism as primitive, racist, sexist and logically flawed. I hope the children who watch this in class understand that there is much more to be said about conservative and libertarian values.
Tranny Man Can 'Fuck Both parties' is the common Mantra for all libertarians. Libertarians are socially liberal against family values against the war for open borders and probably agree some what More with the liberals than the conservatives. Dont get me wrong libertarians did spawn from the republican party but out of a hatred for conservative ideas and following THE CLASSICAL LIBERAL Philosophy .Also if you need any more prof that im right just read any thing by Ayn rand or more modernly Penn Juliet 2 atheist libertarians who openly reject the conservative philosophy.
I guess it depends on the type of libertarian your talking to. All the libertarians I've met seem to be very conservative based on the love they have the constitution and love freedom and guns which is the conservative mantra. Most might be conservative fiscally but socially liberal but I don't think Rand Paul is socially liberal.
Ron Paul was Christian and a very conservative libertarian who was a republican before that, so I doubt he was socially liberal. If your socially liberal and a Christian, you need a reality check. I don't if your a liberal (which you probably are) and like to think that libertarians are more liberal but it's just not true.
On this topic I would like to give one of my nominations for worst president ever and that is Gerald Ford. Upon getting caught after Watergate, Nixon famously defended himself on the grounds that if the president does it, that means it's not illegal. By pardoning him, I feel Ford set a precedent of letting previous presidents get away with blatant crimes, up to and including treason (cough*Iran Contra*cough). While presidents had obviously abused power before, this was so public and blatant I feel it did more to codify a, 'get away with anything' mentality than anything else in recent American history.
Ryan I would have to disagree with the reasoning behind your opinion. In pardoning Nixon, Ford knowingly gave up any opportunity he might have had to be re-elected. It was a time of such internal conflict and turmoil that our nation would have been detrimentally unable to move past Watergate and the pardon allowed us to do so.
there should have been an asterisk *People who oppose medicare due to fiscal affordability or selfishness as stockholders in big pharma do not like medicare or medicaid
Moe Al Hakani if that’s the case, then let’s get rid of Big Pharma as a private industry entirely or at least prevent them from jacking up prices. We can do that, there’s nothing stopping us
Danil Thorstensson that’s a very plausible thing to work toward. I’m not convinced that ridding privatization of pharmaceutical companies is best (I’ll do some more research) as it is an excellent competition *model*. However, it is practically awful right now, and likely because these companies seem to be acting as a cartel currently. They’re all jacking up prices for MINIMAL innovation. And innovation is supposed to makes things more affordable (or at least more effective), yet drugs like insulin are unbelievably high right now. By the way I live in Canada so I’m comparing both systems lol
Hey look it's a bunch of conservatives and liberals in the comments forming massive generalizations of the opposing side without providing any solid facts, evidence, or rational details to back up their points and instead resort to name-calling and keyboard raging. Good job!
The left thinks all conservatives are neo nazis. While the right thinks there is some leftist conspiracy taking over the Media, and soon to be the world
Rayven 55555 because Trump is antithetical to actual conservative ideologues and this supporting him only do so to hold onto their own power as the very people Barry Goldwater rejected have taken over the party.
I discovered CrashCourse on my youtube feed recently. After watching a dozen or so, I heard John mention he was a novelist. Oh cool, let's google his name. John Greene, that sounds familiar. Wait, those book covers look familiar. Yes, I own those books. It's the same John Greene!!! Needless to say, in the off chance you read this, it's kinda cool to see the face of an author whose books I've enjoyed. Thanks.
I will throw out my conservative joke now so I can not be killed for it. _'Conservative: One who admires radicals a century after they are dead.'~Leo Rosten_
To be fair, the radical ideas of the past often become the mainstream ideas of the future, and the mainstream ideas of the past often become the radical ideas of the future, society changed often.
@@lonewolfM16 Brings a whole new understanding to Ecclesiastes 1:9: "That which hath been is that which shall be, And that which hath been done is that which shall be done; And there is nothing new under the sun." (speaking of radical ideas of the present being the mainstream ideas of the past, here's a Bible verse)
I'm socially Liberal and fiscally moderate. I am 100% with the Conservatives on gun rights and the "work your ass off and you'll succeed" concept, but conservative ideology is being destroyed by tea partiers, Christian zealots and social Conservatism. Also, for a party that totes "small government", they don't seem to have any problems with monumental military spending, funding the drug war and using the government to tell you who you can and cannot marry. Conservatives need to get their shit together if they want to be taken seriously. Same thing applies to hyper PC liberals who believe that big bad America is the greatest evil in the world.
Hummm yes it is true that anyone who is poor must be poor as a result of not working hard enough, and all rich people must be rich because they worked so much harder than the rest of us.
Avi Kota I'm more libertarian than anything I guess. The amount of money spent on the military is pennies compared to the big three programs. Even if they completely eliminated the military it wouldnt balance the budget. And the military is the only thing the government is really supposed to spend money on anyway. (for the record, I don't agree with all these wars in the middle east, but I do agree with a strong defense.. meaning defense.. in america.. lol) But Social sec, medicair, medicaid alone are more than the budget, and are unsustainable. So maybe the military spends a lot of money but it's not the problem. That's just a liberal talking point. Look at a graph of what makes up the budget.
2sites You're right, US health and social care are great burdens on the budget. It would be far more efficient and cost effective if the US had a state-run, publicly owned health service. That would be far better for people in need as well as taxpayers since they would no longer have to give tax dollars to private insurance companies.
Avi Kota I agree completely!! The gun issue is something I'm on the fence about, because it would be extremely drastic to say that a citizen can't own a weapon. At the same time, I hate the fact that some people throw the gun rights thing around and act oh so proud to own a bunch of items that could take a human life. It just seems juvenile. I could go off on a rant about that. But yes, great points about hyper conservative and hyper liberals.
ImagineBaggins "PC police" is just another way of saying "what i'm saying didnt use to be offensive so why cant people adjust to my entitlement complex as opposed to the other way around?". have you considered that oppressed minorities have been allowed to feel more comfortable speaking out over time and no longer putting up with your trite and played out low brow humor? you know that black face and minstril shows used to be "PC" right? times change, grow up and be more creative with your language.
This episode did not really discuss the rise of conservatism, in fact it only showed how the things conservatives stand for were being torn apart and discussed a leader who was not really conservative.
MegaMementoMori Agree. I personally believe there has been a rapid rise in libertarianism after Obama's first failed term, and thus a rise in fiscal conservatives.
jonnyhan I do not think Obama's terms have been a failure. Do you not remember all the jobs lost during W's years. The crash of '08 (certainly can happen again). 16 million people have healthcare. The Lilly Ledbetter Act, such a list that here is a link pleasecutthecrap.com/obama-accomplishments/ - I have some beefs with the Obama administration, but in comparison to what we have had he has been a marvel and with a congress that stated a goal of obstruction. CachedSimilar
Paula Helene So he was fortunate enough to have a term during the recovery after the world financial crisis and forced people to pay for healthcare for strangers. Sure, there were some good sides, like the tpp as well.
*facepalm* This is so innacurate. Conservativism is based on the ideals of John Locke (his philosophy inspired the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution) Thomas Paine (inspired and rallied the colonies for the Revolution), and Adam Smith (voluntary trade and Capitalism dictated by merit and virtue not government and nobility). Conservatism didn't rise in 1960s. It rose with intellectuals and small business owners opposed to FDR'S new deal and Alphabet soup in the 1930s.They actually saw it as Marxism and were opposed to it as Karl Marx was inspired by the philosophy of Rousseau and Hegel who opposed the idea of individual rights that Locke, Pain and Smith advocated for. Libertarianism didn't come to rise until the 1960s. With the Libertarian party founded in 1970s. At this point in time it was common belief a Republican is no longer just a conservative but Libertarian as both share the same ideological roots but differ in stance. This was due to the Republican party achieved thier goals of ending slavery and segregation as they were abolishionists. For example Libertarians believe death penalty is wrong and Drugs should be legal (I am simplifying). Conservatives Follow John Locke's philosophy of Natural rights as All have the right to live only murderers forfeit their right, and Drugs harm the human body (thier own property) and can cause the theft or damage of another's property which violates John Locke's 2nd and 3rd rule of Natural rights: you have the right to own property from your own work, gift or trade uncoerced as long as it doesn't violate the first two: the rights of expression as long as it doesn't violate the first: the right to live as long as you don't take that right from another except in defense of your own. Moral conservativism did not come until Roe v Wade. This wasn't necessarily a change in viewpoints as it was Christians and religious groups rallying around Conservative ideology and John Locke. Civil Rights act may have been passed under a Democratic majority congress, but it was a Republican victory. In yays v nays, Republican yays outnumbered democrats in majority ergo Former Democrats who voted Yay to civil rights actually became Republican. ERA was not ratified due to states having a Democratic majority in state legislatures. The Constitution calls for a 3/4 amendment. The last time a "progressive" Amendment was ratified was the 18th amendment part of the Prohibition of 1919. And was quickly repealed with the 22nd. I wouldn't call the 19th progressive because women could vote in the colonies and in many states. Just not in presidential elections. Edit: I finally finished watching this. Nice propaganda. Ok next despite what some textbooks claim. There was no "southern strategy." In contrary to progressive rhetoric, the facts show a different perspective. Though it does tie into the 1972 elections. Nixon was in California. McGovern, his Democratic opponent was in South Dakota. McGovern pandered to min wage and an end to the Vietnam conflict. This is Also where Watergate comes from (Nixon's campaign staff wire taps mc Govern). Nixon in contrast references to drugs and law and order in the DNC events of Chicago 1968 were quite obviously directed at the antiwar protesters. To iterate, this is where the pop culture references of National Guard and Swat teams were lined up to face a horde of antiwar protesters lined up outside the DNC conventional meeting (Hollywood likes to show us pictures of a girl putting flowers in the soldiers rifles). He rallied against the drug culture supporters and activists who were white in majority and had a excellent record for civil rights He supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, plus he fought to end segregation in schools. The New York Times wrote: "There's no doubt about it - the Nixon administration accomplished more in 1970 to desegregate Southern school systems than had been done in the 16 previous years or probably since. There's no doubt either that it was Richard Nixon personally who conceived and led the administration's desegregation effort." In 1968 the main issue was the Vietnam War. One of the popular Republican slogans about Democrats was it was the party "Acid, Amnesty, and Abortion" (remember the Roe v Wade references?). It was a rally against Democrat George McGovern and the source was his running mate Tom Eagleton (you can Read about it in his memoir The Prince of Darkness: 50 Years Reporting in Washington). It was discovered later Eagleton had been admitted for shock therapy in the past so they had to get someone else. If not for Eagleton's blunder, it would have been McGovern not Carter that won the election and remained the standard-bearer for liberalism after what would have been a close defeat by Nixon. Had they known that Eagleton originated the phrase, they wouldn't have picked him. "Then he never would have been picked as vice president. Because the two things, the two things that happened to George McGovern-two of the things that happened to him-were the label you put on him, number one, and number two, the Eagleton disaster. We had a messy convention, but he could have, I think in the end, carried eight or 10 states, remained politically viable. And Eagleton was one of the great train wrecks of all time." Eagleton wrote to Novak: "One liberal senator feels McGovern’s surging popularity depends on public ignorance of his acknowledged public positions. "The people don’t know McGovern is for amnesty, abortion and legalization of pot," he told us. Once "middle America-Catholic middle America, in particular"-once they find out, "he’s dead." But here is the facts on the 3: 1.) Acid. McGovern flat-out did not favor legalizing marijuana, much less acid. Eagleton was quite nastily reminding Novak by indirection that McGovern's teenage daughter Terry (an addict who would later freeze to death while passed out drunk) had, four years earlier, gotten busted for marijuana possession. 2.) Amnesty. McGovern did indeed favor amnesty for Vietnam draft resisters, but so, prior to the 1972 campaign, had Nixon. When Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter later granted in stages, complete amnesty to all Vietnam draft evaders, the republic somehow managed to survive. Abortion. McGovern's position stood to the right of Roe. McGovern said abortion was a matter best left to the states, which essentially is the pro-life position today. In 1973 Roe would say that the U.S. Constitution guaranteed every woman the right to choose whether to have an abortion. The results were a landslide and the South was still largely Democrat territory. The South would not be Republican until Ronald Reagan with the 80s and 90s. The conservative appeal to patriotism, anti-communism, free markets, pro-life and Christianity had far more to do with the South's movement into the GOP camp than anything related to race. And this is because of Gingrich and Raegan's "Contract with America" of 1994. Among the proposals were tax cuts, a permanent line-item veto, measures to reduce crime and provide middle-class tax relief, and constitutional amendments requiring term limits and a balanced budget. Yet the myth of Nixon's Southern Strategy endures in curriculums - not because it's true, but because it conveniently serves to exculpate the crimes of the Democratic Party and not just in Chicago of 1968 nor with Eagleton. Somehow the party that promoted slavery, segregation, Jim Crow and racial terrorism gets to wipe its slate clean by pretending that, with Nixon's connivance, the Republicans stole all their racists. It's time we recognize this excuse for what it is: a lie and myth. I'm an Americanist by profession so yeah I am quite confident in my statement. Public Records don't lie. I suggest you go read up on them.
+R Yokoe That is because the US conservatives are different then what is considered conservative in the rest of the world, at least in Europe it is. That is why it is correct to say that. (a conservative in my country is mostly liberal and economically conservative(( in the sense op preserving)) most of the time and the word conservative is mostly used as someone who sticks to culture and mindset of years ago, kinda like a 80 year old elderly who still revels in the good old days when blacks were still negro's and white people still the better people)
+Tripserpentine That's a bad example lol, it would sort of be like me presenting liberals as hipsters who can't wait for weed to get legalized. Although there are people still like what you said, I'd have to say that most of the focus (at least from my part) is on the traditional family first, lemme have my gunz plz, military service, religious, everything is earned by someone, etc. mentality. I embrace some liberal views, but I am for the most part conservative because I think this mentality allows me to focus more on becoming a better person for me and my future family and is overall a formula for hard work, since everything in life is earned (unless it gets Berned... err) by someone even if it was given to you.
People have always used conservative and liberal as buzz words. I generally adhere to the original meaning, starting in the French revolution - for government: right, limited government:left. Every single political party is a combination of both, depending on the issue. Nobody is really a conservative or liberal, everybody is a mix of both, most often even equal parts of both. If keeping the true and tested is conservatism however (paraphrasing Lincoln), then I'm a conservative on regulation of banks and economy and probably most other relevant issues (Civil liberties has been a non issue for a long time). Since it's been tried and it definitely worked. It's a definition that most accurately describes my political views. But right now I would be considered a radical liberal, despite being conservative on most issues. But in all honesty, I never approach a political decision on ideology terms. The questions Can it work?, Has it worked before? can be an answer to practically all political questions. If a policy isn't working, change it. Otherwise don't. Reality always provides the answer. Governing was supposed to be a tool, a means to an end, not the goal. We really need to (re)define what these words mean or start using terms that actually mean something. Most of the problems in politics stems from unclear definitions. So people instead of thinking: "I support this and that, therefore I must be this and that.", people think: "I am this and that, therefore I must support this and that." The meaning of the labels can be completely reversed in the mean time. So people really support a brand, not adhering to content at all. Manipulation is too easy for politicians.
You highlight a problem that makes me wary to ever discuss politics in public. That is, the baggage that comes with all political terms and the need to attach these terms and labels to others. If you voted for Obama in the last election, for example, you are a liberal, you support X, Y, and Z, you dislike A, B, and C. This is of course rubbish. One can vote for, support, or protest anything without necessarily agreeing with others on different issues. In essence, Liberal and Conservatism may have a dictionary definition, but in reality, they're just another label of "us vs. them." Empty words meant to divide people and turn them on others.
Sean Goss I entirely agree. We need to do away with these buzzwords and have rational discussions. One thing in Toronto at least, local government has no parties which is somewhat better than Federal election which is party based.
The French revolution is the antithesis to ours...based on an idea that mankind can be perfected by weeding out (via guillotine) the corrupted and undesirable folks. Their revolution resembles more the rises to power of communism in Russia and China under Stalin and Mao. As far as the labels are concerned, I think its important to consider who, today, is evaluating their party's adherence to their values. Tea party members are growing every day to despise modern Republicans and would LOVE to part company with them. Democrats, however, seem willing to overlook or even embrace the actions of "their guy/gal" no matter what... There is zero introspection on the left. Case in point...when "Bush" was monitoring phone calls, it was supposed to be only when one of the parties on the line was directly linked to terrorism. Whether you believed it or not at the time doesn't matter. THIS president openly and brazenly collects information on EVERYONE...and no one on the left bats an eye.
Brian Smith He was talking about the origin of the terms "right wing" and "left wing", which originate from the time of the french revolution. Did you even understand a word of what he wrote?
Whomever approaches a problem based on ideology alone (assuming that they are the follower, not the creator) is simply a mindless drone. Likewise, the same can be easily said about the evolution-creation 'debate' (I'll get zinged for this one). Don't these two, similar reactions to an ideological question--the one to science, and the one to an opposing political view which we see very often in GOP reps--seem mighty similar?
You wouldn't know it from this video, but Conservatism pre-dates and runs all throughout US history. In fact, the American Revolution turned out differently from the French Revolution because the American Revolution was that rare creature, a conservative revolution, whereas the French Revolution was a radical (and humanistic) revolution. The US revolution was based on the claim that King George III had violated the law, particularly the rights guaranteed to British citizens. Instead of a royal impeachment, the colonists revolted, to reassert their traditional rights. The French, on the other hand, decided to scrap their whole system and execute anyone associated with the predecessor regime, going so far as becoming an atheistic and communist state for a time. To this day, this has been the trend of Communist revolutionaries, virtually all of whom studied in France at some time in their lives. Also unmentioned in this video is that the ERA was implemented in later legislation that did not involve amending the US Constitution. Finally, I should mention that the Civil Rights Act was a Republican initiative, strongly opposed by the Democrats. This video might lead people to believe it was the other way around. Admittedly, it probably was a liberal Republican initiative, verses a conservative Democratic opposition, but, nonetheless, Blacks did not get their signature protections from Democrats.
***** "King James I of England (reigned 1603-25) was the foremost exponent of the divine right of kings, but the doctrine virtually disappeared from English politics after the Glorious Revolution (1688-89)." www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/166626/divine-right-of-kings Perhaps you've heard of the Magna Carta? That 13th Century document puts a stake through the heart of any British claim to divine right to unquestioned rule. It established that British non-royalty *do* have rights that even the king shall not abrogate. "Edmund Burke, an 18th-century politician who opposed the French Revolution, is credited as one of the main theorists of conservatism in Great Britain in the 1790s.[4]" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism I consider Edmund Burke the father of modern Conservatism. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Burke
***** I don't know what your point is. It is true that Conservatism does promote retaining traditional institutions, but that is what I was pointing out when I stated that the American Revolution was a rare creature, a conservative revolution. Conservative, incidentally, does not mean static. Conservatism allows for moderate change. Modern Liberalism, however, embraces "rootlessness" (the term used by "Encyclopaedia Britannica"), disassociation as much as possible with the past. It led to nihilism, which is still a significant social mindset.
***** The American Revolution hinged on retaining the legal rights the colonists had as British subjects. As a result of the revolution, the colonists had to form a new government. They considered implementing a new monarchy, but then went with a loose confederacy that was embodied in the Articles of Confederation. It took about a decade before the new nation decided on yet another form of government, embodied in the US Constitution. The majority of the legal system was borrowed from British common law, which is still the basis of most of US law. The theory behind the constitutional government was based on close examination of historical governmental models stretching back thousands of years.
+coreyjohn94 To be fair, there also exist studies that show the exact same thing in reverse (I am neutral myself, but political stuff is always going to be biased, even when politics isn't involved).
The Southern strategy isn't well understood. Nixon didn't run a racist campaign and he won 18% of the African American vote. He was generally regarded as a moderate on civil rights. He called his 1968 election strategy the southern strategy, because he abandoned the deep south to former Democrat George Wallace who was a racist running as an independent that year. Nixon won some of the less racist states while Wallace won the more fervent ones. In 1972 Wallace ran again, but this time as a Democratic candidate in the primary, but an assassination attempt paralyzed him from the waist down ending his campaign. Nixon ended up winning the entire south by default not by becoming more racist. As racism ebbed in the South the Republican party ended up winning more and more of it leading up to the present with the Democratic party exercising their own southern strategy that calls for abandoning the South to the Republicans.
augmenautus rex Nixon was a twisted, criminal, racist, paranoid, horrible human being who corrupted everything he touched. You want to defend Nixon? It's a losing proposition.
How can you be a moderate on civil rights? You either support them or you don't lol, are you seriously trying to say only granting some civil rights is a defensible position?
At this point neither side is really that silent, the internet has allowed for everyone to have their own megaphone that is turned all the way up to 1000 out of 10
Zach, though that is true, a microphone still needs people talking into it in order to amplify. And while everyone has megaphones only some have microphones.
But conservatives have always done conservative things. They've always been on the wrong side of history, completely opposed to change. That's why they were against the abolition of slavery, against the American Revolution (Conservative Tories), against the Civil Rights Movement, against the Women's Movement, etc.
Conservatism didn't rise. Conservatism has always been in the majority until recently. To be a conservative one has standards that one is RESPONSIBLE for conserving. To be a liberal is to have less standards. Liberalism has come to known as the ideology of change because they often are on the forefront of breaking paradigms of conservative standards. Liberalism has no established bounds or limits, always pushing the envelope of what many consider sacred, moral, or ethical in the label of fairness and equality, often resulting in the representation of minority groups interests, often using tactics that remove rights of speech (censorship in the name of political correctness) or freedom of religion (expression of belief or the right to adhere to the standards that one believes in), from majority groups in the process. The root definition of "liberal" has undergone transformation throughout history ranging from mid-14c., "generous," also, late 14c., "selfless; noble, nobly born; abundant," and, early 15c., in a bad sense "extravagant, unrestrained," from Old French liberal "befitting free men, noble, generous, willing, zealous" (12c.), from Latin liberalis "noble, gracious, munificent, generous," literally "of freedom, pertaining to or befitting a free man," from liber "free, unrestricted, unimpeded; unbridled, unchecked, licentious," Today Liberal can be used as little restraint such as a liberal helping of dessert, being liberal minded is akin to being extremely open minded. A liberal vocabulary can mean having no scruples in speech ie. That persons speech is as liberal as a porn stars! Conservatives seem to be less open minded when their values are in question. They stick to (conserve) what they believe is right. Social conservatism is largely based on religious beliefs so it's easy for secularists to invalidate social conservatives based on beliefs because it can be argued that one's belief is only one's opinion, and not necessarily factual. Fiscal conservatism is the belief in being RESPONSIBLE with financial aspects of life. ie. not overspending or staying within a budget. Many liberals should be surprised to find that they are very conservative in many aspects of their lives (or should be) because RESPONSIBILIY is the root of conservatism, likewise many conservatives may find that they are quite liberal in many ways. Such as many conservatives speech or choice of words that may not be exactly considered G-Rated. Liberal also is rooted in Freedom, Liberate, liberating, etc. but we all know that freedom unchecked by responsibility is anarchy and total freedom to do wrong without consequences is disastrous. So the debate continues upon what is right and what is wrong within our freedoms. What is responsible and irresponsible while preserving the greatest amount of freedom is the heart of what drives Liberals and Conservatives. Each side conservative and liberal, if taken to an extreme can have disastrous consequences, and both sides have aspects of the other in many cases. ie Conservatives are very liberal when it comes to Gun regulation, and Liberals are very conservative when it comes to enforcement of their agenda.(in other words liberals like to fore their way of living on those that want the freedom to live the way they believe.) Forcing others to live in a different manner is less freedom or more control over that said group. For instance, the wealthy is a minority group, but liberals have no interest in representing them, rather they would tax this group higher than everyone else as if they are entitled to someone else's money, and they also believe that they are granted with authority to arbitrarily choose who is deserving of the redistribution of wealth that they themselves have not earned, thus punishing success and rewarding those that have not achieved success in the like manner that a burglar or common thief would choose to do for himself. Furthermore if wealth be taken away, then it also robs the wealthy or at least puts a big damper on the wealthy's ability to be generous or give to charity. One is forced, the other is given from the heart. Which is better? Which is correct? Equality can never exist perfectly, for everyone has unequal attributes based on who they innately are. It is unfair that men can not share the burden of childbirth as women do. It us unfair that all people aren't born with the looks of a supermodel. It is unfair that everyone does not have the IQ that Leonardo Da Vinci had. Life is not even equally unfair! What is fair, is that people are allowed to use what talents and gifts they do have, to achieve whatever level of success that they are able to achieve, and not be punished for it, and that they have the freedom to be the masters over what they choose to do with their success just like anyone else. While no one individual is perfect, most find responsible ways of living within reasonable laws, and if they break the law then and only then should they receive a punishment, just like anyone else. High achieving individuals should not be punished for just being successful, just as low achieving individuals should NOT receive the the confiscated fruits of others success.
Because free markets will always weed out poor customer service. It's ingenious, and yet people still think that it's the government's role to pass laws that govern businesses. It's not.
Hello Crash Course. I have been watching your videos since the beginning and I have noticed a positive correlation in my schooling and general knowledge as I combine it with what I learn from this UA-cam channel. While I previously had trouble in subjects such as history, watching your videos have created a sense of curiosity and wonder to the subject as a whole and being able to feel this has brought me great joy. For this I would like to say thank you, and though you may not come to see this comment as there are many that flood this section daily, I feel that my expression of gratification was necessary. If you do see this comment however, and are willing to reply, I have often wondered if you were hoping to expand your subjects into other categories such as mathematics. Where Hank would teach the subject. I have often struggled with mathematics. I can see how teaching such a subject can be difficult as, unlike history or physics, there is little to no interesting facts to captivate your audience and keep them engrossed, and as this subject is taught throughout the academic career it would be challenging to find a starting point. Naturally, I wouldn't be devastated if such things were to not come to fruition, it is your channel after all, I simply feel I would greatly enjoy it. Once again, I thank you for the great videos and for the ones to come
@Shades of Blue, bull. I'm Canadian, from a medical family, and NO ONE from Canada wants to move to the crime-ridden US. Your murder rate per capita is TEN TIMES ours. Our poor aren't desperately poor, and all have access to a good education. Nurses would NEVER trade the US system for Canadian, and Doctors are poached, but normally only with prestigious positions at top institutes, usually they have to be recruited and enticed, and it really helps if it's by an institute in a normally Blue State with a decent education system and especially social-safety net, with a resulting lower crime rate, as compared to most historically Red States. Republicans prefer 10× the murders for a a fifth less taxes, duh, I think this video is explaining that now.
@Shades of Blue, bull, the US has 10× Canada's murder rate per capita because far too often your poor are desperately poor, their children don't have access to a real education system, and instead you send them to crime college, aka jail. That's Republican policy, not Democrat. Right now, in the Maritimes, Canada, out of a couple million people, there are around a dozen underage offenders incarcerated in those 3 provinces, TOTAL, the juvi facilities are almost empty, and everyone is debating what to do with them now. YET NOT ONE WESTERN COUNTRY has allowed more refugees in than Canada over the last few years, and that's not per capita, that's in hard numbers, and we have a tiny population compared to the US. Studies done in Europe and North America, incuding the US, have consistently shown for DECADES that immigrants and refugees are MORE law abiding on average than the citizens in their adopted homes, as are their children, google it, you brainwashed, ill-informed bigot.
@Shades of Blue, google every fact I stated, BOTH posts are factual. I'm a retired print journalist who majored in History and minored in Sociology and Anthropology, and to account for the US's annual murder rate, every immigrant and refugee who's entered the US in your lifetime would have to commit mass murder on a Nazi scale. You simply don't know what you're writing about, and are clearly misinformed. You say "can't let those brown people in," but when Canada actually did, we STILL have one TENTH your murder rate per capita. Those are FACTS, as is the FACT that you are an obvious bigot and racist.
@Shades of Blue my grammar is not as bad as your lack of knowledge on anything that occured in this thread so far. Search up the crimes undocumented immigrants bring.
Because many conservatives opposed critical things like secularism , the moral conservatives were straight up authoriterians who wanted to dictate lives , their legacy ie the drug war is still here, as well as promotion of creationism. Although I fall into the liberterian camp , we are splitting off from conservatives because of the moral authoriterianism
I assume a /s here, but in the case of not being so, the unfortunate fact is that the American conservative movement has become increasingly tied to moral conservatism, which is rapidly becoming very out-of-touch with average Americans.
Authoritarianism does not have an ideology it is a form of governing which is also used as slander like "fascism" and "socialism" Right-wing governments and left-wing governments can both be authoritarian (ie Nazi Germany and the Soivet Union)
Conservatives can be the bad guys though. As summed up by @Justin Trechel the modern conservatives are far different than that of the 60s. Conservatives today have the habit of taking their ideals to far, such would the Tea Party Movement. The Tea Party Republicans had shut down the government over Obamacare. Regardless of how you feel about the law no opinion authorizes a small group of people to close a majority of the world's largest government.
Yes he did. he was totally biased. He said that segregation and civil rights was something the democrats were viewed as championing, which is false. Most democrats opposed both. Republicans were united in their support for freeing the slaves, desegregating, and the civil rights.
I was a little disappointed this video glossed over the monumental shifts in our justice system that started with Nixon and the Neoconservative movement. There was a little bit about the race/crime coding in the Southern Strategy, but that is it. This is when our justice system switched from the rehabilitative Progressive model to the model of Neoclassicism we now use. It is why we have the war on drugs and why we incarcerate more people than any other country on the planet (both gross and per capita). We imprison more people per capita than South Africa did during apartheid. Maybe I am biased (I have a CJ degree), but I feel like that is a huge piece to leave out. Hopefully we will get into when he talks about Reagan - who really took the War on Drugs and ran with it.
+Ali Saleem No, sorry, read my comment. Title IX is so seldomly applied to aid male victims of discrimination that it functionally only applies to women.
I did read your comment and your statement is still wrong. How a law, policy or rule is used is one story and what it applies to or does is a different topic. Whether Title 9 is used to help more female or male students depends on the user. As far as its function is concerned it APPLIES to both male and female students.
+Ali Saleem That is explicitly not the topic. In my very first comment I both acknowledge what you're saying AND dismiss it. It's not logical to come in and drag an issue I threw away out of the trash and pretend that it's still relevant. The topic is: Title IX protects only females because it is rarely or never used to aid males. Period. Coming in and saying "But it technically says otherwise!" is a complete non sequitur.
Consider: Title IX is probably applied less often to men because that would be the status quo - men already enjoy preferential treatment and more often do not need Title IX to guarantee them equal opportunity.
omastar444 the joke is that people are trying to amend their spelling of amendment. The Ironic thing is that you,(the audience) think that it is a problem that need to be fixed. when in reality this is the way the spelling was intended by the writer.
Derral Gerken Will the commenters be satisfied if CrashCourse starts using sic to indicate intentionally misspelled words? Or will they be upset that CrashCourse is using a modern function of sic?
You know, John, you haven't pretended that slave owners and segregationists were good people, you don't have to start pretending people opposing the rights of women are nice people just because some of them are still alive. The whole dancing around in this episode to make it seem like conservatives were somehow justified in being classist and sexist got a bit tiresome.
and racist. Don't forget racist. But honestly, I think it's really good to see things from their flawed, terrible point of view. It lets you see that these people, while they had flawed and horrible reasons, were still people
Haha, I am not kidding Hubert Humphrey is my great Grandfather, unfortunately he passed away before I was born but, his wife was one of the nicest people I have ever met, It makes my heart ache a bit that I never got to meet him. My middle name is after him, Humphrey was an embarrassing middle name in grade, and highschool.
Political comments 10%
Comments warning about political comments 90%
ThatFighterGuy
You forgot 5% hey look at 8:48 the baby came out black!
Nice profile pic
Your profile picture is amazing.
Chiang Kai-Shek So is yours. I considered having your pic originally, but decided I wanted more blue for contrast and chose this one.
@@thatfighterguy5846 nice profile pic
The comments section in this video is going to be a tangled mass of horror and anger. So I'd just like to say that you, dear reader, look very good today. Is that a new shirt? You wear it well.
Thanks! It's not new, but I don't wear it often. I appreciate your attempt to retain some civility here. I agree, this one is probably going to fall apart, comments-wise. -stan
I am not wearing a shirt.
dangerouslytalented Go on...
I'm not wearing a shirt right now lol
+StretchedSquash Well, thank you. It's not new, but thanks!
"In those days, Republicans and Democrats could have civil, human interaction" 😂😂
Actually it was worse, back then they called each other communists/socialists and facists, and absolutely everything even simple films were political
I'm glad that's all changed now.
Nope they didn't
rchave it hasn’t changed
Smoore Sarcasm much?
5:54 "stop me if any of this sounds familiar" oh john from the past, if only you knew
Even more familiar
Wonder why the couple at 08:50 got divorced.
Anyone else notice that at 8:48 the couple divorced because the pregnant lady cheated with a black guy XD
Yeah I did lol
bahaha dude i noticed that. haha look at the dipshit that's making it racist.
And the teenager in the other family was confirmed honour killed with a hose.
Yep it's very sad that modern liberals promote these sorts of things :/
I just thought the baby was adopted 😁
So wait, you're telling me that the Plumbers are a real government organization
AND THEY DON'T FIGHT ALIENS?!
I see what reference you made there...
I love this comment
Katie Kuspis Clearly Nixon was an alien.
IT ALL MAKES SENSE NOW!
The Creeper NIXON'S BAAAACK
David Boshears May Death come swiftly to his enemies
I'm waiting for the "mystery document" chair to collapse from John jumping into it.
I watch Crash Course every week and I really appreciated the balanced take on conservatism here. It was really interesting seeing it put into historical context and seeing how all of the things that make the current Republican party what it is today were shaped by so many factors. I'm not a conservative, but it was at least interesting thinking where everyday people might have been coming from when conservative backlash arose during this time period. I hope the comments on this one don't blow up too much because it would do the video a disservice.
Actually, the biggest argument against the ERA hands-down, was that women would have to sign up for the draft, and the conflict in Vietnam was still going on at this point, so women didn't want to go, men didn't want their daughters to go so that's over half the possible people that could've had a say on the ERA passing in the first place.
Nailed it.
That's what I always thought killed the ERA bill too? I'm pretty sure that was in my jr. high history if I'm remembering right. I was kinda surprised he didn't mention that.
Easier to say "muh sexism" when you are trying to brainwash people who trust you.
@ 8:47 I think the black baby explains the divorce. ...just saying.
At 10:00 you omitted a very important point. The reason the ERA failed is because it would have required women to register for the draft. It failed because it would have taken away women's privileges, such as being exempt from the draft. The "STOP ERA" movement was an acronym. It stood for Stop Taking Our Privileges, Equal Rights Amendment.
Impressive video.
My eyes have been opening to politics and I've been asking a lot of questions of conservatism in my home state of Texas to which I haven't gotten clear or truthful answer. This went a long way to me understanding both the Civil Rights impact on politics and why conservatives do what they do today.
at 8:47, i'll go out on a limb and say that the black baby was probably, PROBABLY the reason for the divorce. lol
For anyone claiming that somehow Abraham Lincoln was a "social conservative" listen to this.
Slavery was a states rights issue. Some States had Slaves, some didn't. But the south was staunchly opposed to the NORTHERN FEDERAL GOVERNMENT impeding on their states ECONOMY (slavery) Read the confederacy's constitution after the split from the union.
Emancipation Proclamation - Executive Order pushed before the 13th amendment was passed. Several southern conservatives and even some conservative republicans opposed it because they said he didn't have the power to do so from the constitution...Sound familiar
Social CONSERVATISM is the true architect for racism in america...
Lincoln was a nazi who pranced around in his wife's knickers. The guy built camps in the Utah dominion to enslave Emplum and his freedom fighters against time travelers!
I mean, I mean, I mean...I was there in the 60's, participating in happenings, student protests, and antidiscrimination writing/events. I worked at the welfare demonstration project in Watts, where the people we served warned us days before the "spontaneous riot" broke out. I've reviewed these crash courses as a check on what was covered. They're well done, except... have too many "I mean" statements, y'know what I mean. Peace and love. Thanks for the memories.
It’s amazing that you lived through that era.
Dude, that video was PACKED! first time I watched it a bit slower :D
9:27 - baby John Green. How adorable.
@ 4:20 - 4:38 ....
he explained why Conservatives (White southerners who were Democrats) switched to support the Conservatives Politicians who now called themselves Republicans also known as the Southern Strategy. Conservative Ideology haven't changed, just the name of the Party.
So when you think of Pro Segregation, Pro Slavery, Anti Civil Rights.... think Conservatives...... their parents great grandparents (Democrats), grandparents (Democrats), parents (Republicans), and they themselves (Republicans), could all be Conservatives. Funny how some of Americans are just skip passed this and try to put social blame on the Name of a party (Democrats/Republicans) and not the "Ideology" which is more important.
Who else is cramming for APUSH Test?
Me.
Just trying to get in some small info.
+bobo lobo same.
+Clutch Films yeup
+marc gabriel Is there your only AP Test this year?
+Clutch Films lol no, I have Macroeconomics and English Lang
5-2 for the Mystery Document season. So far, so good John.
“Absolutely power corrupts absolutely”.
Small government with politicians who make less money is the only way to keep such scandals from happening or from the scandals to actually impact anything of importance.
I mean that ending hit it. That is the reason I lean more to the right than left. I do not trust the government to do its job correctly, I don't think I ever could. I only need to look at history for an instant to know that a government with even slightly too much power is a threat not just to quality of life, but life in and of itself. It is regimes like Nazi Germany, like the Soviet Union and its Eastern Bloc, like the PRC, like North Korea, like 19th century Britain, like G-d knows how many more, that I fear. Has our government done good? Yes. Has it done bad? Let me introduce you to the 19th and early 20th century, have you met? Now what I will not deny is the government does have its role, namely in the protection of the nation, like the head of a house to their family. If you have any questions on my beliefs, I am more than happy to answer. To Crash Course, this video wasn't bad, but it could've done well in showing more modern conservatives. I do understand that most historians follow a 20 year rule, but you could've at least hit on Reganism.
Edit: I just realized that the did a separate video on Reganism, my mistake.
The reason why the number of divorces was on the rise was because Reagan started letting one person have to sign to get out of a marraige which lead to lots of people getting out of abusive marriages
I know this was hard for you, but liberalism really sucks and maybe one day you will realize this.
Conservatism and Liberalism are two sides of the same coin, both suck to an equal degree. A centrist approach to running the country who be a breath of fresh air and we got a few years of that under George H.W. Bush Sr. but then Bill Clinton got in and everything when to hell.
I know this is hard for you, but someday you will realize conservatism is stupid
Nixon wasnt a libertarian conservative. he was a moral conservatism. He wanted to conserve the family.
This video should take a lesson from the Crash Course Philosophy series. In that series, they talk about conservative ideas in an equally neutrally way as liberal ideas. Not here
Not a word on the war on drugs. Shameful.
To be fair, as much as the war on drugs was implemented by the Right, it was supported by a lot on the Left as well, back when Nixon implemented it, it was supported by a lot of people, and is still continued by some Dems today.
bassface Doesn’t matter now it was a stupid idea
bassface the democrats havent been left wing since LBJ
One thing you should have mentioned in addition to Nixon's liberalism: he actually backed new affirmative action.
And while he didn't veto bills, impoundment was a big thing.
You should do a part 2 for this for Current Year.
Of course all the haters here are Conservatives hating on the fact that he's presenting a fact based historical analysis.
Conservatism does confuse me. I mean they believe in people having individual rights and that government shouldn't get involved in our daily lives. But then is it any of the government business who I want to marry man our women.
That is the compromise most conservatives are actually 100% on board with. Get the government out of marriage, which will allow both people who want to practice gay marriage to do so while letting churches and individuals who don't do have their own right to disagree protected.
One can never know how history may have turned out if certain events never happened. That said, it is a little sad that you did not mention poor Bobby Kennedy when talking about the 1968 election........
who else is watching it because ur history teacher sighned it in quarantine
The song you might be desperately looking for is Young & Beautiful - Somo
You said conservatives opposed abortion because it led to the breakdown of family values. True, but NOT the heart of the issue.
You didn't even mention the personhood of the unborn! Conservatives think the unborn are persons, and as persons have rights! That's the PRIMARY issue with abortion! And you didn't even mention it.
Riiiiiiight... which is why conservatives will happily defend the rights of an unborn fetus with potential for life but have no problem immediately disregarding the needs of numerous poor and starving children referring to them as “entiteled” such as defunding after school programs, children’s healthcare initiatives, and healthier meals...
Unborn, a life that deserves to be protected, born, meh...
because thats a modern argument, that wasn't argued during the party switch and rise of conservatism....
This is a history video not a discussion about politics. This video is strictly about the rise of conservatism in the second half of the 20th century, and why it happened.
Collin McLean This is akin to saying that because I don’t want you to be murdered, I will also want to pay your bills.
Collin McLean You're argument stating conservatives don't want to support children is a logical fallacy. When you resort to strawmen you should avoid the cliché ones.
The deep south went for Goldwater because Goldwater opposed the '64 civil rights bill EVEN THOUGH he didn't have a racist bone in his body (the reason for his opposition was that he objected to the part that forced private businesses to serve everyone regardless of race and all true libertarians would object to that...sayings that racism should be fought with civil protests...not government mandates). In the 1968 election the deep south did NOT go republican. It went to the "Dixiecrat party" which was an off shoot of the democrat party. Later all but ONE of those "Dixiecrat" politicians went BACK to the democrat party (the real party of racism). Voters of the deep south, who were rapidly dying off and being replaced by their off spring who were much less racist and were attracted to the republican party because of its strong policies on free markets. Racism in America is far more connected to the democrat party than it is to the "south". The "southern strategy" was NOT about "racism" or the deep south. It was about the rising industrial areas of the south (like Atlanta) whose economies were starting to take off.
I don't think extremism makes your argument invalid in and of itself.
But I don't want a nuclear war.
I just stopped in to make sure you were giving us conservatives a fair shake, and wasn't disappointed. Keep up the good work!
We must have watched different videos.
Fr, horrible representation
Green: "Nixon?!"
Nixon: "OWOOH?!"
I reject the idea that race played any factor at all in the south turning red. Almost no Dems switched parties, not even the racists. The idea makes no sense, a higher percentage of republicans voted for civil rights than democrats. How would it work for disenfranchised Dems to join a party that hated racism more than their own party. Their platform would only be less successful on the republican ticket. The fact of the matter is that America was getting less racist as a whole, and that included the South. The switch of South votes to republicans and black votes to democrats was economically based. Blacks started voting blue before this supposed "switch" because of the promises of the New Deal. Southern votes turned red because republicans tried a platform calling for lower taxation on the upper class which appealed to the South. It wasn't some magical language that only you know about regarding crime and black people. That's nonsense.
I'm a conservative
I swear if he says anything about a party shift I'm out.
why?
Cause the party swap is a lie
@@Narv58 and how did you come to that conclusion?
Because there's no evidence of it ever happening, people just say it happened and everyone else is supposed to believe it.
What brings you to the idea that it did happen? Democrats and Republicans still stand for the same base principals they originally did.
Truly the word liberal isn't what's it supposed to mean ... Classical liberalism is what country is supposed to be
Rhett Newbern
Conservatism is classic liberalism
(Modern) liberalism is progressivism.
@@cilapulapu6065 neo liberals are the federalists of the 1790s
Remember back when doing everything in your power to prevent investigation was considered a sign that you might be corrupt? Good times
I'd just like to say.... I'm in favor for shrinking the govt.
Why is that? And don't just say it's wasteful, point to a part you would shrink.
Subtle black baby, thought bubble.
WAIT, so were the plumbers in Ben 10 an alternate version of Nixons plumbers & also a reference!?!
I've been watching Green's videos for years now, but lately it seems all of his content drips with personal bias and narrow ideologies. I was hoping for a simple description of conservative values and view points, but instead I was fed a treatise of statements that paint conservatism as primitive, racist, sexist and logically flawed. I hope the children who watch this in class understand that there is much more to be said about conservative and libertarian values.
"...I was fed a treatise of statements that paint conservatism as primitive, racist, sexist and logically flawed" - As it is practiced to today.
ask a progressive to describe conservativism without bias is like asking a conservative to explain progressivism without bias
libertarians are not conservatives
I know, libertarians are big goverment liberals. Am I right or am I wrong Wilbur?
Tranny Man Can 'Fuck Both parties' is the common Mantra for all libertarians. Libertarians are socially liberal against family values against the war for open borders and probably agree some what More with the liberals than the conservatives. Dont get me wrong libertarians did spawn from the republican party but out of a hatred for conservative ideas and following THE CLASSICAL LIBERAL Philosophy .Also if you need any more prof that im right just read any thing by Ayn rand or more modernly Penn Juliet 2 atheist libertarians who openly reject the conservative philosophy.
I guess it depends on the type of libertarian your talking to. All the libertarians I've met seem to be very conservative based on the love they have the constitution and love freedom and guns which is the conservative mantra. Most might be conservative fiscally but socially liberal but I don't think Rand Paul is socially liberal.
Tranny Man Can Rand Paul isn't a libertarian Its Ron Paul His father that's the ideal libertarian who yes is socially liberal.
Ron Paul was Christian and a very conservative libertarian who was a republican before that, so I doubt he was socially liberal. If your socially liberal and a Christian, you need a reality check. I don't if your a liberal (which you probably are) and like to think that libertarians are more liberal but it's just not true.
On this topic I would like to give one of my nominations for worst president ever and that is Gerald Ford. Upon getting caught after Watergate, Nixon famously defended himself on the grounds that if the president does it, that means it's not illegal. By pardoning him, I feel Ford set a precedent of letting previous presidents get away with blatant crimes, up to and including treason (cough*Iran Contra*cough). While presidents had obviously abused power before, this was so public and blatant I feel it did more to codify a, 'get away with anything' mentality than anything else in recent American history.
Ryan I would have to disagree with the reasoning behind your opinion. In pardoning Nixon, Ford knowingly gave up any opportunity he might have had to be re-elected. It was a time of such internal conflict and turmoil that our nation would have been detrimentally unable to move past Watergate and the pardon allowed us to do so.
"People like Medicare"
The future is wild, John lol
😄he really made replay that part...i shook my head with laughter
there should have been an asterisk *People who oppose medicare due to fiscal affordability or selfishness as stockholders in big pharma do not like medicare or medicaid
Duatia uhm...they love it. They can keep raising the price because they know it’ll be paid for?
Moe Al Hakani if that’s the case, then let’s get rid of Big Pharma as a private industry entirely or at least prevent them from jacking up prices. We can do that, there’s nothing stopping us
Danil Thorstensson that’s a very plausible thing to work toward. I’m not convinced that ridding privatization of pharmaceutical companies is best (I’ll do some more research) as it is an excellent competition *model*. However, it is practically awful right now, and likely because these companies seem to be acting as a cartel currently. They’re all jacking up prices for MINIMAL innovation. And innovation is supposed to makes things more affordable (or at least more effective), yet drugs like insulin are unbelievably high right now. By the way I live in Canada so I’m comparing both systems lol
lol at 8:45 she's pregnant and the baby came out black and then they got divorced XD
omg I didn't notice I'm dead 😂😭
I didn't either, that is some amazing subtle humour
it means she cheated on him
Soviet Doge Thanks, Captain Obvious! 😐
+THEx141xMAN you're welcome
Wow, a video about Conservatism that didn't mention Reagan.
Hey look it's a bunch of conservatives and liberals in the comments forming massive generalizations of the opposing side without providing any solid facts, evidence, or rational details to back up their points and instead resort to name-calling and keyboard raging.
Good job!
The left thinks all conservatives are neo nazis. While the right thinks there is some leftist conspiracy taking over the Media, and soon to be the world
Thank you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The Great Walrus kxmhr😮
*taco girls looks up and whispers* why not both!?
Conservatism is a backwards ideology
Imagine watching this in a future where Roe Vs Wade was overturned.
[Insert politically charged comment here]
hhahahahaha
[Insert offended comment here]
EEEEEEEEEEEE
[Insert ill-informed and biased info comment here]
.
Quarantine: exists
*Kids watching Crash course for school*
John: stonks
You should have included at least something about the Reagan Administaration.
We're up to about 1974. Unless you're talking about Reagan's administration as Governor of California, you're a little early. We'll get there. -stan
Wally White don't worry there'e a video:)
+CrashCourse the plumbers? like Ben 10?
+Wally White This is about what led to Reagan
+Wally White This is about what led to Reagan
Come on man! How could you do a whole show on conservatism without mentioning the role of Regan?
Because Regan is honestly just a greatest hits of previous candidates.
Advocatus Diaboli or... trump?
Rayven 55555 because Trump is antithetical to actual conservative ideologues and this supporting him only do so to hold onto their own power as the very people Barry Goldwater rejected have taken over the party.
I’m a trump supporter... Just putting it out there
*Reagan
Who else is watching this because your teacher assigned it during corona quarantine
APUSH ?
@@myconvelasquez4165 nah just regular
you got the answers tho?
GGM Drew quizlet does lol
Mycon Velasquez ur godly for that bro
"Scoodley-pooping"... Thanks for ruining sex, John.
"History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes."
I discovered CrashCourse on my youtube feed recently. After watching a dozen or so, I heard John mention he was a novelist. Oh cool, let's google his name. John Greene, that sounds familiar. Wait, those book covers look familiar. Yes, I own those books. It's the same John Greene!!! Needless to say, in the off chance you read this, it's kinda cool to see the face of an author whose books I've enjoyed. Thanks.
I will throw out my conservative joke now so I can not be killed for it.
_'Conservative: One who admires radicals a century after they are dead.'~Leo Rosten_
To be fair, the radical ideas of the past often become the mainstream ideas of the future, and the mainstream ideas of the past often become the radical ideas of the future, society changed often.
@@lonewolfM16 Brings a whole new understanding to Ecclesiastes 1:9: "That which hath been is that which shall be, And that which hath been done is that which shall be done; And there is nothing new under the sun."
(speaking of radical ideas of the present being the mainstream ideas of the past, here's a Bible verse)
I love how in the TB everyone is smoking.
Because everyone smoked. All the time. Everywhere.
When corporations took over government, that’s when problems occurred
468er/ PeaShooter any evidence to support your ‘point?’
468er/ PeaShooter silly me, of course not. Just another Rush Hannity drone with his head in 14th century sand
468er/ PeaShooter not really, it happened even before that
@@468erpeashooter9 Happened when they invented people
@@468erpeashooter9 Solid argument; you don't think anyone can become corrupt?
I find your image lacking a Clone of Agnew to be disappointing.
Damn, you can almost feel that this guy votes strictly Democrat
of course he does.... look at him.
+noahporter95 you're making assumptions, not I.
He used to live in Alabama, so there is no real way to know his political vote.
In a couple of his videos he admits to leaning to the left.
+Ty Smith Not like he needed to admit it, it's hardly subtle...
I'm socially Liberal and fiscally moderate. I am 100% with the Conservatives on gun rights and the "work your ass off and you'll succeed" concept, but conservative ideology is being destroyed by tea partiers, Christian zealots and social Conservatism. Also, for a party that totes "small government", they don't seem to have any problems with monumental military spending, funding the drug war and using the government to tell you who you can and cannot marry. Conservatives need to get their shit together if they want to be taken seriously. Same thing applies to hyper PC liberals who believe that big bad America is the greatest evil in the world.
Hummm yes it is true that anyone who is poor must be poor as a result of not working hard enough, and all rich people must be rich because they worked so much harder than the rest of us.
Avi Kota I'm more libertarian than anything I guess. The amount of money spent on the military is pennies compared to the big three programs. Even if they completely eliminated the military it wouldnt balance the budget. And the military is the only thing the government is really supposed to spend money on anyway. (for the record, I don't agree with all these wars in the middle east, but I do agree with a strong defense.. meaning defense.. in america.. lol)
But Social sec, medicair, medicaid alone are more than the budget, and are unsustainable. So maybe the military spends a lot of money but it's not the problem. That's just a liberal talking point. Look at a graph of what makes up the budget.
2sites You're right, US health and social care are great burdens on the budget. It would be far more efficient and cost effective if the US had a state-run, publicly owned health service. That would be far better for people in need as well as taxpayers since they would no longer have to give tax dollars to private insurance companies.
Avi Kota I agree completely!! The gun issue is something I'm on the fence about, because it would be extremely drastic to say that a citizen can't own a weapon. At the same time, I hate the fact that some people throw the gun rights thing around and act oh so proud to own a bunch of items that could take a human life. It just seems juvenile. I could go off on a rant about that. But yes, great points about hyper conservative and hyper liberals.
ImagineBaggins "PC police" is just another way of saying "what i'm saying didnt use to be offensive so why cant people adjust to my entitlement complex as opposed to the other way around?". have you considered that oppressed minorities have been allowed to feel more comfortable speaking out over time and no longer putting up with your trite and played out low brow humor? you know that black face and minstril shows used to be "PC" right? times change, grow up and be more creative with your language.
This episode did not really discuss the rise of conservatism, in fact it only showed how the things conservatives stand for were being torn apart and discussed a leader who was not really conservative.
MegaMementoMori Agree. I personally believe there has been a rapid rise in libertarianism after Obama's first failed term, and thus a rise in fiscal conservatives.
jonnyhan Failed term? lmao. There's no rise. Most republicans don't like libertarians (they pretend they do). Rand will never be elected.
Ann Okafor
You don't think Obama's terms have been utter failures?
jonnyhan I do not think Obama's terms have been a failure. Do you not remember all the jobs lost during W's years. The crash of '08 (certainly can happen again). 16 million people have healthcare. The Lilly Ledbetter Act, such a list that here is a link pleasecutthecrap.com/obama-accomplishments/ - I have some beefs with the Obama administration, but in comparison to what we have had he has been a marvel and with a congress that stated a goal of obstruction.
CachedSimilar
Paula Helene
So he was fortunate enough to have a term during the recovery after the world financial crisis and forced people to pay for healthcare for strangers.
Sure, there were some good sides, like the tpp as well.
*facepalm* This is so innacurate.
Conservativism is based on the ideals of John Locke (his philosophy inspired the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution) Thomas Paine (inspired and rallied the colonies for the Revolution), and Adam Smith (voluntary trade and Capitalism dictated by merit and virtue not government and nobility).
Conservatism didn't rise in 1960s. It rose with intellectuals and small business owners opposed to FDR'S new deal and Alphabet soup in the 1930s.They actually saw it as Marxism and were opposed to it as Karl Marx was inspired by the philosophy of Rousseau and Hegel who opposed the idea of individual rights that Locke, Pain and Smith advocated for.
Libertarianism didn't come to rise until the 1960s. With the Libertarian party founded in 1970s. At this point in time it was common belief a Republican is no longer just a conservative but Libertarian as both share the same ideological roots but differ in stance. This was due to the Republican party achieved thier goals of ending slavery and segregation as they were abolishionists.
For example Libertarians believe death penalty is wrong and Drugs should be legal (I am simplifying). Conservatives Follow John Locke's philosophy of Natural rights as All have the right to live only murderers forfeit their right, and Drugs harm the human body (thier own property) and can cause the theft or damage of another's property which violates John Locke's 2nd and 3rd rule of Natural rights: you have the right to own property from your own work, gift or trade uncoerced as long as it doesn't violate the first two: the rights of expression as long as it doesn't violate the first: the right to live as long as you don't take that right from another except in defense of your own.
Moral conservativism did not come until Roe v Wade. This wasn't necessarily a change in viewpoints as it was Christians and religious groups rallying around Conservative ideology and John Locke.
Civil Rights act may have been passed under a Democratic majority congress, but it was a Republican victory. In yays v nays, Republican yays outnumbered democrats in majority ergo Former Democrats who voted Yay to civil rights actually became Republican.
ERA was not ratified due to states having a Democratic majority in state legislatures. The Constitution calls for a 3/4 amendment. The last time a "progressive" Amendment was ratified was the 18th amendment part of the Prohibition of 1919. And was quickly repealed with the 22nd. I wouldn't call the 19th progressive because women could vote in the colonies and in many states. Just not in presidential elections.
Edit: I finally finished watching this. Nice propaganda. Ok next despite what some textbooks claim. There was no "southern strategy." In contrary to progressive rhetoric, the facts show a different perspective. Though it does tie into the 1972 elections. Nixon was in California. McGovern, his Democratic opponent was in South Dakota.
McGovern pandered to min wage and an end to the Vietnam conflict. This is Also where Watergate comes from (Nixon's campaign staff wire taps mc Govern).
Nixon in contrast references to drugs and law and order in the DNC events of Chicago 1968 were quite obviously directed at the antiwar protesters. To iterate, this is where the pop culture references of National Guard and Swat teams were lined up to face a horde of antiwar protesters lined up outside the DNC conventional meeting (Hollywood likes to show us pictures of a girl putting flowers in the soldiers rifles). He rallied against the drug culture supporters and activists who were white in majority and had a excellent record for civil rights He supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, plus he fought to end segregation in schools.
The New York Times wrote:
"There's no doubt about it - the Nixon administration accomplished more in 1970 to desegregate Southern school systems than had been done in the 16 previous years or probably since. There's no doubt either that it was Richard Nixon personally who conceived and led the administration's desegregation effort."
In 1968 the main issue was the Vietnam War. One of the popular Republican slogans about Democrats was it was the party "Acid, Amnesty, and Abortion" (remember the Roe v Wade references?). It was a rally against Democrat George McGovern and the source was his running mate Tom Eagleton (you can Read about it in his memoir The Prince of Darkness: 50 Years Reporting in Washington). It was discovered later Eagleton had been admitted for shock therapy in the past so they had to get someone else. If not for Eagleton's blunder, it would have been McGovern not Carter that won the election and remained the standard-bearer for liberalism after what would have been a close defeat by Nixon. Had they known that Eagleton originated the phrase, they wouldn't have picked him.
"Then he never would have been picked as vice president. Because the two things, the two things that happened to George McGovern-two of the things that happened to him-were the label you put on him, number one, and number two, the Eagleton disaster. We had a messy convention, but he could have, I think in the end, carried eight or 10 states, remained politically viable. And Eagleton was one of the great train wrecks of all time."
Eagleton wrote to Novak:
"One liberal senator feels McGovern’s surging popularity depends on public ignorance of his acknowledged public positions. "The people don’t know McGovern is for amnesty, abortion and legalization of pot," he told us. Once "middle America-Catholic middle America, in particular"-once they find out, "he’s dead."
But here is the facts on the 3:
1.) Acid. McGovern flat-out did not favor legalizing marijuana, much less acid. Eagleton was quite nastily reminding Novak by indirection that McGovern's teenage daughter Terry (an addict who would later freeze to death while passed out drunk) had, four years earlier, gotten busted for marijuana possession.
2.) Amnesty. McGovern did indeed favor amnesty for Vietnam draft resisters, but so, prior to the 1972 campaign, had Nixon. When Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter later granted in stages, complete amnesty to all Vietnam draft evaders, the republic somehow managed to survive.
Abortion. McGovern's position stood to the right of Roe. McGovern said abortion was a matter best left to the states, which essentially is the pro-life position today. In 1973 Roe would say that the U.S. Constitution guaranteed every woman the right to choose whether to have an abortion.
The results were a landslide and the South was still largely Democrat territory.
The South would not be Republican until Ronald Reagan with the 80s and 90s. The conservative appeal to patriotism, anti-communism, free markets, pro-life and Christianity had far more to do with the South's movement into the GOP camp than anything related to race. And this is because of Gingrich and Raegan's "Contract with America" of 1994. Among the proposals were tax cuts, a permanent line-item veto, measures to reduce crime and provide middle-class tax relief, and constitutional amendments requiring term limits and a balanced budget.
Yet the myth of Nixon's Southern Strategy endures in curriculums - not because it's true, but because it conveniently serves to exculpate the crimes of the Democratic Party and not just in Chicago of 1968 nor with Eagleton. Somehow the party that promoted slavery, segregation, Jim Crow and racial terrorism gets to wipe its slate clean by pretending that, with Nixon's connivance, the Republicans stole all their racists. It's time we recognize this excuse for what it is: a lie and myth.
I'm an Americanist by profession so yeah I am quite confident in my statement.
Public Records don't lie. I suggest you go read up on them.
Dude .. thanks for your comment .. this make a lot more sense... I'm a conservative btw
Any time. I'm nonpartisan btw
John says "conservativism"
+R Yokoe So....?
It's most likely a good attempt at distinguishing 'big C conservatives' and 'small C conservatives'
+R Yokoe That is because the US conservatives are different then what is considered conservative in the rest of the world, at least in Europe it is.
That is why it is correct to say that.
(a conservative in my country is mostly liberal and economically conservative(( in the sense op preserving)) most of the time and the word conservative is mostly used as someone who sticks to culture and mindset of years ago, kinda like a 80 year old elderly who still revels in the good old days when blacks were still negro's and white people still the better people)
+Tripserpentine That's a bad example lol, it would sort of be like me presenting liberals as hipsters who can't wait for weed to get legalized. Although there are people still like what you said, I'd have to say that most of the focus (at least from my part) is on the traditional family first, lemme have my gunz plz, military service, religious, everything is earned by someone, etc. mentality. I embrace some liberal views, but I am for the most part conservative because I think this mentality allows me to focus more on becoming a better person for me and my future family and is overall a formula for hard work, since everything in life is earned (unless it gets Berned... err) by someone even if it was given to you.
The correct way to say it when not speaking about the political party
Roe vs wade, oh boy…
People have always used conservative and liberal as buzz words. I generally adhere to the original meaning, starting in the French revolution - for government: right, limited government:left. Every single political party is a combination of both, depending on the issue. Nobody is really a conservative or liberal, everybody is a mix of both, most often even equal parts of both.
If keeping the true and tested is conservatism however (paraphrasing Lincoln), then I'm a conservative on regulation of banks and economy and probably most other relevant issues (Civil liberties has been a non issue for a long time). Since it's been tried and it definitely worked. It's a definition that most accurately describes my political views. But right now I would be considered a radical liberal, despite being conservative on most issues.
But in all honesty, I never approach a political decision on ideology terms. The questions Can it work?, Has it worked before? can be an answer to practically all political questions. If a policy isn't working, change it. Otherwise don't. Reality always provides the answer. Governing was supposed to be a tool, a means to an end, not the goal.
We really need to (re)define what these words mean or start using terms that actually mean something. Most of the problems in politics stems from unclear definitions. So people instead of thinking: "I support this and that, therefore I must be this and that.", people think: "I am this and that, therefore I must support this and that." The meaning of the labels can be completely reversed in the mean time. So people really support a brand, not adhering to content at all. Manipulation is too easy for politicians.
You highlight a problem that makes me wary to ever discuss politics in public. That is, the baggage that comes with all political terms and the need to attach these terms and labels to others.
If you voted for Obama in the last election, for example, you are a liberal, you support X, Y, and Z, you dislike A, B, and C. This is of course rubbish. One can vote for, support, or protest anything without necessarily agreeing with others on different issues.
In essence, Liberal and Conservatism may have a dictionary definition, but in reality, they're just another label of "us vs. them." Empty words meant to divide people and turn them on others.
Sean Goss I entirely agree. We need to do away with these buzzwords and have rational discussions. One thing in Toronto at least, local government has no parties which is somewhat better than Federal election which is party based.
The French revolution is the antithesis to ours...based on an idea that mankind can be perfected by weeding out (via guillotine) the corrupted and undesirable folks. Their revolution resembles more the rises to power of communism in Russia and China under Stalin and Mao.
As far as the labels are concerned, I think its important to consider who, today, is evaluating their party's adherence to their values. Tea party members are growing every day to despise modern Republicans and would LOVE to part company with them. Democrats, however, seem willing to overlook or even embrace the actions of "their guy/gal" no matter what...
There is zero introspection on the left. Case in point...when "Bush" was monitoring phone calls, it was supposed to be only when one of the parties on the line was directly linked to terrorism. Whether you believed it or not at the time doesn't matter. THIS president openly and brazenly collects information on EVERYONE...and no one on the left bats an eye.
Brian Smith
He was talking about the origin of the terms "right wing" and "left wing", which originate from the time of the french revolution. Did you even understand a word of what he wrote?
Whomever approaches a problem based on ideology alone (assuming that they are the follower, not the creator) is simply a mindless drone.
Likewise, the same can be easily said about the evolution-creation 'debate' (I'll get zinged for this one). Don't these two, similar reactions to an ideological question--the one to science, and the one to an opposing political view which we see very often in GOP reps--seem mighty similar?
This sounds almost too familiar...
Sadly so. America has been duped.
Fernanda Roig - history repeating itself, in a way...
***** how come ur cat has a cone?
Brastion how come?
Please let the rest of this comment section be about cats...
You wouldn't know it from this video, but Conservatism pre-dates and runs all throughout US history. In fact, the American Revolution turned out differently from the French Revolution because the American Revolution was that rare creature, a conservative revolution, whereas the French Revolution was a radical (and humanistic) revolution. The US revolution was based on the claim that King George III had violated the law, particularly the rights guaranteed to British citizens. Instead of a royal impeachment, the colonists revolted, to reassert their traditional rights. The French, on the other hand, decided to scrap their whole system and execute anyone associated with the predecessor regime, going so far as becoming an atheistic and communist state for a time. To this day, this has been the trend of Communist revolutionaries, virtually all of whom studied in France at some time in their lives.
Also unmentioned in this video is that the ERA was implemented in later legislation that did not involve amending the US Constitution.
Finally, I should mention that the Civil Rights Act was a Republican initiative, strongly opposed by the Democrats. This video might lead people to believe it was the other way around. Admittedly, it probably was a liberal Republican initiative, verses a conservative Democratic opposition, but, nonetheless, Blacks did not get their signature protections from Democrats.
***** "King James I of England (reigned 1603-25) was the foremost exponent of the divine right of kings, but the doctrine virtually disappeared from English politics after the Glorious Revolution (1688-89)."
www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/166626/divine-right-of-kings
Perhaps you've heard of the Magna Carta? That 13th Century document puts a stake through the heart of any British claim to divine right to unquestioned rule. It established that British non-royalty *do* have rights that even the king shall not abrogate.
"Edmund Burke, an 18th-century politician who opposed the French Revolution, is credited as one of the main theorists of conservatism in Great Britain in the 1790s.[4]"
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism
I consider Edmund Burke the father of modern Conservatism.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Burke
*****
That is a horribly simplified view of an entire political ideology.
***** I don't know what your point is. It is true that Conservatism does promote retaining traditional institutions, but that is what I was pointing out when I stated that the American Revolution was a rare creature, a conservative revolution. Conservative, incidentally, does not mean static. Conservatism allows for moderate change. Modern Liberalism, however, embraces "rootlessness" (the term used by "Encyclopaedia Britannica"), disassociation as much as possible with the past. It led to nihilism, which is still a significant social mindset.
***** The American Revolution hinged on retaining the legal rights the colonists had as British subjects. As a result of the revolution, the colonists had to form a new government. They considered implementing a new monarchy, but then went with a loose confederacy that was embodied in the Articles of Confederation. It took about a decade before the new nation decided on yet another form of government, embodied in the US Constitution. The majority of the legal system was borrowed from British common law, which is still the basis of most of US law. The theory behind the constitutional government was based on close examination of historical governmental models stretching back thousands of years.
Do you even truly understand what Conservative means politically? The conservatives were the loyalists.
All Hail Robot Nixon 3000!
I ain't his slave :)
This was liberally biased.
+Archie Andrews
Reality has a well known liberal bias.
+coreyjohn94 Links?
+coreyjohn94 To be fair, there also exist studies that show the exact same thing in reverse (I am neutral myself, but political stuff is always going to be biased, even when politics isn't involved).
Never seen a Green John video before, huh?
Cullen Mayes Don't worry, this is just some guy trying to bring politics where it doesn't belong. Enjoy the rest of John Green's content as you will.
The Southern strategy isn't well understood. Nixon didn't run a racist campaign and he won 18% of the African American vote. He was generally regarded as a moderate on civil rights. He called his 1968 election strategy the southern strategy, because he abandoned the deep south to former Democrat George Wallace who was a racist running as an independent that year. Nixon won some of the less racist states while Wallace won the more fervent ones. In 1972 Wallace ran again, but this time as a Democratic candidate in the primary, but an assassination attempt paralyzed him from the waist down ending his campaign. Nixon ended up winning the entire south by default not by becoming more racist. As racism ebbed in the South the Republican party ended up winning more and more of it leading up to the present with the Democratic party exercising their own southern strategy that calls for abandoning the South to the Republicans.
augmenautus rex Nixon was a twisted, criminal, racist, paranoid, horrible human being who corrupted everything he touched.
You want to defend Nixon? It's a losing proposition.
dude nixon targeted blacks and white liberals in the drug war
I don't think he was really defending him he was just saying what happened.
Best description I've seen of this so far
How can you be a moderate on civil rights? You either support them or you don't lol, are you seriously trying to say only granting some civil rights is a defensible position?
John green...learn your history and stop passing your opinions as facts
loubo02, use a different picture and your opinion might be respected.
tfw you realized that Nixon's "silent majority" campaign has a stark resemblance to that of the Trump campaign
At this point neither side is really that silent, the internet has allowed for everyone to have their own megaphone that is turned all the way up to 1000 out of 10
Zach, though that is true, a microphone still needs people talking into it in order to amplify. And while everyone has megaphones only some have microphones.
Silent majority is called white people.
Field Marshall Rommel Yes he did you melon.
Even more so now.
If conservatives don't do conservative things, can we call them conservatives?
No, you can call them RINOS, or neo-cons.
+Josue Barboza Neo cons sound like a traveling Matrix convention.
Neo-new.
Con- conservative.
New conservatives. As opposed to paleo conservatives described in the video.
All changed with bush and reagan.
But conservatives have always done conservative things. They've always been on the wrong side of history, completely opposed to change. That's why they were against the abolition of slavery, against the American Revolution (Conservative Tories), against the Civil Rights Movement, against the Women's Movement, etc.
NIxon created EPA, that's conservative. /s
Conservatism didn't rise. Conservatism has always been in the majority until recently. To be a conservative one has standards that one is RESPONSIBLE for conserving. To be a liberal is to have less standards. Liberalism has come to known as the ideology of change because they often are on the forefront of breaking paradigms of conservative standards. Liberalism has no established bounds or limits, always pushing the envelope of what many consider sacred, moral, or ethical in the label of fairness and equality, often resulting in the representation of minority groups interests, often using tactics that remove rights of speech (censorship in the name of political correctness) or freedom of religion (expression of belief or the right to adhere to the standards that one believes in), from majority groups in the process. The root definition of "liberal" has undergone transformation throughout history ranging from mid-14c., "generous," also, late 14c., "selfless; noble, nobly born; abundant," and, early 15c., in a bad sense "extravagant, unrestrained," from Old French liberal "befitting free men, noble, generous, willing, zealous" (12c.), from Latin liberalis "noble, gracious, munificent, generous," literally "of freedom, pertaining to or befitting a free man," from liber "free, unrestricted, unimpeded; unbridled, unchecked, licentious," Today Liberal can be used as little restraint such as a liberal helping of dessert, being liberal minded is akin to being extremely open minded. A liberal vocabulary can mean having no scruples in speech ie. That persons speech is as liberal as a porn stars!
Conservatives seem to be less open minded when their values are in question. They stick to (conserve) what they believe is right. Social conservatism is largely based on religious beliefs so it's easy for secularists to invalidate social conservatives based on beliefs because it can be argued that one's belief is only one's opinion, and not necessarily factual. Fiscal conservatism is the belief in being RESPONSIBLE with financial aspects of life. ie. not overspending or staying within a budget.
Many liberals should be surprised to find that they are very conservative in many aspects of their lives (or should be) because RESPONSIBILIY is the root of conservatism, likewise many conservatives may find that they are quite liberal in many ways. Such as many conservatives speech or choice of words that may not be exactly considered G-Rated. Liberal also is rooted in Freedom, Liberate, liberating, etc. but we all know that freedom unchecked by responsibility is anarchy and total freedom to do wrong without consequences is disastrous. So the debate continues upon what is right and what is wrong within our freedoms. What is responsible and irresponsible while preserving the greatest amount of freedom is the heart of what drives Liberals and Conservatives. Each side conservative and liberal, if taken to an extreme can have disastrous consequences, and both sides have aspects of the other in many cases. ie Conservatives are very liberal when it comes to Gun regulation, and Liberals are very conservative when it comes to enforcement of their agenda.(in other words liberals like to fore their way of living on those that want the freedom to live the way they believe.)
Forcing others to live in a different manner is less freedom or more control over that said group. For instance, the wealthy is a minority group, but liberals have no interest in representing them, rather they would tax this group higher than everyone else as if they are entitled to someone else's money, and they also believe that they are granted with authority to arbitrarily choose who is deserving of the redistribution of wealth that they themselves have not earned, thus punishing success and rewarding those that have not achieved success in the like manner that a burglar or common thief would choose to do for himself. Furthermore if wealth be taken away, then it also robs the wealthy or at least puts a big damper on the wealthy's ability to be generous or give to charity. One is forced, the other is given from the heart. Which is better? Which is correct?
Equality can never exist perfectly, for everyone has unequal attributes based on who they innately are. It is unfair that men can not share the burden of childbirth as women do. It us unfair that all people aren't born with the looks of a supermodel. It is unfair that everyone does not have the IQ that Leonardo Da Vinci had. Life is not even equally unfair! What is fair, is that people are allowed to use what talents and gifts they do have, to achieve whatever level of success that they are able to achieve, and not be punished for it, and that they have the freedom to be the masters over what they choose to do with their success just like anyone else. While no one individual is perfect, most find responsible ways of living within reasonable laws, and if they break the law then and only then should they receive a punishment, just like anyone else. High achieving individuals should not be punished for just being successful, just as low achieving individuals should NOT receive the the confiscated fruits of others success.
+TennesseeSaint This video seems to be more about the rise of neo-cons
haha agreed!
Did you write that on your own?
TennesseeSaint Wow that's the most American thing I've read all day 😂
Andrew567 tl;dr: autism supports the patriarchy
Do civil rights and the free market really have to be a odds? I'd say that freedom requires that they go hand in hand.
no 100% free markets allows private companies to discriminate based on gender race and nationality
free markets allow choice for private companies, and deciding who to serve is one of them even if you find the consequences distasteful
Because free markets will always weed out poor customer service. It's ingenious, and yet people still think that it's the government's role to pass laws that govern businesses. It's not.
Except you still keep drugs and prostitution illegal, you are not believers of freedom -libertarian
free market is pretty much the root of all the social inequalities in USA so, unless civil rights don't include equal opportunity, not really no.
Hello Crash Course. I have been watching your videos since the beginning and I have noticed a positive correlation in my schooling and general knowledge as I combine it with what I learn from this UA-cam channel. While I previously had trouble in subjects such as history, watching your videos have created a sense of curiosity and wonder to the subject as a whole and being able to feel this has brought me great joy. For this I would like to say thank you, and though you may not come to see this comment as there are many that flood this section daily, I feel that my expression of gratification was necessary.
If you do see this comment however, and are willing to reply, I have often wondered if you were hoping to expand your subjects into other categories such as mathematics. Where Hank would teach the subject. I have often struggled with mathematics. I can see how teaching such a subject can be difficult as, unlike history or physics, there is little to no interesting facts to captivate your audience and keep them engrossed, and as this subject is taught throughout the academic career it would be challenging to find a starting point. Naturally, I wouldn't be devastated if such things were to not come to fruition, it is your channel after all, I simply feel I would greatly enjoy it.
Once again, I thank you for the great videos and for the ones to come
Love the series, BUT, to get pedantic on yo ass for just a mo', Nixon's middle name did not have an 'e' in it - it was spelling "Milhous"
“People like Medicare”
Have you met a Canadian who moved to the US
@Shades of Blue, bull. I'm Canadian, from a medical family, and NO ONE from Canada wants to move to the crime-ridden US. Your murder rate per capita is TEN TIMES ours. Our poor aren't desperately poor, and all have access to a good education. Nurses would NEVER trade the US system for Canadian, and Doctors are poached, but normally only with prestigious positions at top institutes, usually they have to be recruited and enticed, and it really helps if it's by an institute in a normally Blue State with a decent education system and especially social-safety net, with a resulting lower crime rate, as compared to most historically Red States. Republicans prefer 10× the murders for a a fifth less taxes, duh, I think this video is explaining that now.
@Shades of Blue, bull, the US has 10× Canada's murder rate per capita because far too often your poor are desperately poor, their children don't have access to a real education system, and instead you send them to crime college, aka jail. That's Republican policy, not Democrat. Right now, in the Maritimes, Canada, out of a couple million people, there are around a dozen underage offenders incarcerated in those 3 provinces, TOTAL, the juvi facilities are almost empty, and everyone is debating what to do with them now. YET NOT ONE WESTERN COUNTRY has allowed more refugees in than Canada over the last few years, and that's not per capita, that's in hard numbers, and we have a tiny population compared to the US. Studies done in Europe and North America, incuding the US, have consistently shown for DECADES that immigrants and refugees are MORE law abiding on average than the citizens in their adopted homes, as are their children, google it, you brainwashed, ill-informed bigot.
@Shades of Blue, google every fact I stated, BOTH posts are factual. I'm a retired print journalist who majored in History and minored in Sociology and Anthropology, and to account for the US's annual murder rate, every immigrant and refugee who's entered the US in your lifetime would have to commit mass murder on a Nazi scale. You simply don't know what you're writing about, and are clearly misinformed. You say "can't let those brown people in," but when Canada actually did, we STILL have one TENTH your murder rate per capita. Those are FACTS, as is the FACT that you are an obvious bigot and racist.
@Shades of Blue crimes are because if illegal aliens? Do you ever fact check what you say
@Shades of Blue my grammar is not as bad as your lack of knowledge on anything that occured in this thread so far. Search up the crimes undocumented immigrants bring.
im a 22 year old atheist conservative and lean republican. it's not many of us, and im not sure why really.
Because many conservatives opposed critical things like secularism , the moral conservatives were straight up authoriterians who wanted to dictate lives , their legacy ie the drug war is still here, as well as promotion of creationism. Although I fall into the liberterian camp , we are splitting off from conservatives because of the moral authoriterianism
+arctictoothpaste nice explanation
I assume a /s here, but in the case of not being so, the unfortunate fact is that the American conservative movement has become increasingly tied to moral conservatism, which is rapidly becoming very out-of-touch with average Americans.
Authoritarianism does not have an ideology it is a form of governing which is also used as slander like "fascism" and "socialism"
Right-wing governments and left-wing governments can both be authoritarian (ie Nazi Germany and the Soivet Union)
Im also an right-wing atheist, i just tend to be more of a libertarian because of my socially liberal views.
Shouldn't the title of the video be "The Rise of Conservatism: Crash Course US History #41"?
Conservatism for the win!
This man has taught me more than any of my teachers in any subject when we were still in school and now that we are out of school.
That's sad because he says a lot of misleading things
Thankfully you didn't paint out the conservatives as "the bad guys" which alot of people do.
Conservatives can be the bad guys though. As summed up by @Justin Trechel the modern conservatives are far different than that of the 60s. Conservatives today have the habit of taking their ideals to far, such would the Tea Party Movement. The Tea Party Republicans had shut down the government over Obamacare. Regardless of how you feel about the law no opinion authorizes a small group of people to close a majority of the world's largest government.
Yes he did. he was totally biased. He said that segregation and civil rights was something the democrats were viewed as championing, which is false. Most democrats opposed both. Republicans were united in their support for freeing the slaves, desegregating, and the civil rights.
I only consider conservatives the "bad guys" when they're trying to impose christian values on others.
Bocephus Blue What about when Islam impose their values on others? It happens all the time in Europe at least.
[15th] Wismar Slightly more harmful doctrine.
I was a little disappointed this video glossed over the monumental shifts in our justice system that started with Nixon and the Neoconservative movement. There was a little bit about the race/crime coding in the Southern Strategy, but that is it. This is when our justice system switched from the rehabilitative Progressive model to the model of Neoclassicism we now use. It is why we have the war on drugs and why we incarcerate more people than any other country on the planet (both gross and per capita). We imprison more people per capita than South Africa did during apartheid. Maybe I am biased (I have a CJ degree), but I feel like that is a huge piece to leave out. Hopefully we will get into when he talks about Reagan - who really took the War on Drugs and ran with it.
It was actually Clinton who ran up the incarceration rates. Reagan talked about it. Clinton did it.
Correction: Title IX outlawed discrimination against women based on sex at universities. Not everyone. Title IX is virtually never applied to males.
+Ali Saleem No, sorry, read my comment. Title IX is so seldomly applied to aid male victims of discrimination that it functionally only applies to women.
I did read your comment and your statement is still wrong. How a law, policy or rule is used is one story and what it applies to or does is a different topic.
Whether Title 9 is used to help more female or male students depends on the user. As far as its function is concerned it APPLIES to both male and female students.
+Ali Saleem That is explicitly not the topic. In my very first comment I both acknowledge what you're saying AND dismiss it. It's not logical to come in and drag an issue I threw away out of the trash and pretend that it's still relevant.
The topic is: Title IX protects only females because it is rarely or never used to aid males. Period. Coming in and saying "But it technically says otherwise!" is a complete non sequitur.
dude thats like saying punching only hurts men because almost no one wants to pick fights whit woman .
Consider: Title IX is probably applied less often to men because that would be the status quo - men already enjoy preferential treatment and more often do not need Title IX to guarantee them equal opportunity.
You spelled Richard Milhous Nixon wrong.
***** Cleary that was an Ironic typo.
***** An ironic typo is still a typo.
omastar444 the joke is that people are trying to amend their spelling of amendment. The Ironic thing is that you,(the audience) think that it is a problem that need to be fixed. when in reality this is the way the spelling was intended by the writer.
Derral Gerken Will the commenters be satisfied if CrashCourse starts using sic to indicate intentionally misspelled words? Or will they be upset that CrashCourse is using a modern function of sic?
It's because this guy is not as smart as he'd like to think.
You know, John, you haven't pretended that slave owners and segregationists were good people, you don't have to start pretending people opposing the rights of women are nice people just because some of them are still alive. The whole dancing around in this episode to make it seem like conservatives were somehow justified in being classist and sexist got a bit tiresome.
and racist. Don't forget racist. But honestly, I think it's really good to see things from their flawed, terrible point of view. It lets you see that these people, while they had flawed and horrible reasons, were still people
"The Roomba shall make you free"?
I think it's worth pointing out (5 years after the fact) that Nixon earned the nickname "Iron-butt" in law school, not during his tour of service.
Haha, I am not kidding Hubert Humphrey is my great Grandfather, unfortunately he passed away before I was born but, his wife was one of the nicest people I have ever met, It makes my heart ache a bit that I never got to meet him. My middle name is after him, Humphrey was an embarrassing middle name in grade, and highschool.