The side that is fighting for greater social equality will always be on the right side of history

Do you agree or disagree with this assessment?

One thing that I have been concerned with is the thought that I will one day lose sight of what is right and wrong and choose to side with one political party regardless of what they support. I can't be alone in this thought process. It's no secret that the two major political parties have flipped on where they stand on the issue of social equality, probably a few times, and that people have almost certainly adapted their views because the party they sided with at the time did so first and essentially told them to or else consider themselves to no longer be associated with that political party.

So that's my question, is the stance on social equality a good guiding light on being morally and ethically correct regardless of what your political party of choice is currently supporting?

This is obvious. I mean as we become less barbaric and empathetic we realize how we should treat others with respect. Oddly enough this is the mayor issue with conservatism, the unwillingness to change traditional values at the expense of others. Notice how conservatives have always been wrong historically with Blacks, women, gays and history will frown on their actions.

Ethics can be surprisingly gray, particularly when more than two stakeholders are involved, and that really means there's no sure fire way to always be "right".

That being said, I think there are skills and methods that can get you pretty close. Personally, I think that a combination of empathy (so that you consistently look at issues from others' viewpoints) and humility (so that you can consistently question what you already "know") are the best methods. Even then, there will be times when the answer is not clear, but acknowledging that is a positive thing.

As for political parties in a first past the post system, they're big tent coalitions. You're not supposed to agree with everyone in the party or the party's entire platform. They're just a group of people with whom you've implicitly agreed to band together with in order to further each others' goals. Because of that, you should absolutely be willing to switch parties because the platform of that party can (and will) change over time.

"people have almost certainly adapted their views because the party they sided with at the time did so first and essentially told them to or else consider themselves to no longer be associated with that political party." - Purity tests are dumb. A pure party is a small party, and a small party is a weak party. A weak party gets nothing. Just ask the Green party. Hell, the only reason the Libertarians in the country have made any headway legislatively is because a large and influential portion of them have agreed to unite under the Republican banner.

Respect isn't given, it is earned. I don't have to respect you and you don't have to respect me, but we can have somewhat of a mutual understanding: I will let you do your thing as long as you aren't hurting anyone and you will let me do my thing as long as I am not hurting anyone. The reason there is a huge unwillingness to change traditional values is because the traditional values that are in place are already pretty damn solid. So now we are suddenly expected to change these good values because people, who are in the minority, don't like them? That is pretty ridiculous.

Also, don't forget that it was us conservatives who abolished slavery and 600k white people died trying to end slavery. Let's get away from this identity politics bullshit and stop treating and judging people based on their skin or beliefs. It's not complicated nor is it hard to treat others how you want to be treated and that is the bottom line.

Don't be dumb. Conservatives didn't abolish slavery. You'd be dumb to think that conservatism is tied to a party. Democrats are not the same as they are now. They are liberals, where as they used to be the conservative party.

@needhealing: Weird- in the history books that I read in school it was the Republicans who abolished slavery and it was the Democrats that had slaves. It was also the Republicans who wanted to end segregation and we were more in favor of the 1964 Civil Rights act. While it is true that you can be a conservative Democrat or a Liberal Republican, if we want to really break it down, usually Republicans are mostly conservative and usually Democrats are mostly liberal.

Republicans have always been conservative and we have traditionally remained consistent in our views: we are avid protectors of all aspects of the Constitution, we have always believed in a free market system, and a limited government.

I'm just going to facepalm right now.

Depends on what social equality entails. Not all "equality" is good, just look at USSR, Cuba and communism

People work best if there is a carrot,

But generally as to the basic equality, then yes it´s a good guiding light.

@needhealing: You can facepalm all you want, but you are the one who is ignorant on history:

Fact #1: The Republican Party was founded primarily to oppose slavery, and Republicans eventually abolished slavery. The Democratic Party fought them and tried to maintain and expand slavery. The 13th Amendment, abolishing slavery, passed in 1865 with 100% Republican support but only 23% Democrat support in congress.

Fact #2: During the Civil War era, the "Radical Republicans" were given that name because they wanted to not only end slavery but also to endow the freed slaves with full citizenship, equality, and rights.

Fact #3: Lincoln's Vice President, Andrew Johnson, was a strongly pro-Union (but also pro-slavery) Democrat who had been chosen by Lincoln as a compromise running mate to attract Democrats. After Lincoln was assassinated, Johnson thwarted Republican efforts in Congress to recognize the civil rights of the freed slaves, and Southern Democrats continued to thwart any such efforts for close to a century.

Fact #4: The 14th Amendment, giving full citizenship to freed slaves, passed in 1868 with 94% Republican support and 0% Democrat support in congress. The 15th Amendment, giving freed slaves the right to vote, passed in 1870 with 100% Republican support and 0% Democrat support in congress.

Fact #5: In the 1950s, President Eisenhower, a Republican, integrated the US military and promoted civil rights for minorities. Eisenhower pushed through the Civil Rights Act of 1957. One of Eisenhower's primary political opponents on civil rights prior to 1957 was none other than Lyndon Johnson, then the Democratic Senate Majority Leader. LBJ had voted the straight segregationist line until he changed his position and supported the 1957 Act.

Fact #6: The historic Civil Rights Act of 1964 was supported by a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats in both houses of Congress. In the House, 80 percent of the Republicans and 63 percent of the Democrats voted in favor. In the Senate, 82 percent of the Republicans and 69 percent of the Democrats voted for it.

Fact #7: Contrary to popular misconception, the parties never "switched" on racism. The Democrats just switched from overt racism to a subversive strategy of getting blacks as dependent as possible on government to secure their votes. At the same time, they began a cynical smear campaign to label anyone who opposes their devious strategy as greedy racists.

You can keep facepalming all you want, but your version of history doesn't change the facts of what actually happened.

Again, nobody said the republican party did not abolish slavery, I didn't even mention the republican party in my original post. I was talking about conservatism. Somehow you attribute an ideology to a political party. I could debate you a bit more, but then I ask myself like my debate with you on sexual workers and immigration months ago if I should even spend my energy and time... and then i realized. No.

Oh good one! I think you have just proven to everyone that you have no idea what you are talking about. Good discussion though!

You're usually the poster most in the political discussion forum ignore, so I don't have to prove anything.

Again, you went off topic talking about the republican party when i'm talking about conservatism. 2 different things and could mean different things in other parts of the world. But of course you're American and are ignorant to everything else that goes on globally.

In the next few generations, probably. In the long run, hundreds or thousands of years? Yes and no, depending on the times.

I think we'll eventually get the one world socialist government, probably within the next generation or 2. After that, since power will be so consolidated worldwide, a leader/group will rise and abuse their power (so easily given and neatly consolidated and packaged for them). Enough people will decide they've had enough and revolt. Things will eventually fall apart and people will break off into groups/nations/regions again.

Civilizations will continue to rise and fall, power will continue to be consolidated, then broken down once someone takes things too far. Depending on the values and situation at any given time, today's politics will look awful or wonderful.

Yeah that party wasn't conservatives back in the day. They were the liberal party.

Not 100% sure what you are trying to say with your first statement, but ok?

Second, it is no secret that in "America" that conservatism has been strongly tied to the Republican party and that liberalism has been strongly tied to the Democratic party. This isn't a lie and this isn't fake news, this is reality. So your main argument is that this is not how it is in the rest of the world so I am suddenly ignorant American? Hahahaha what?!

If conservatism means something different somewhere else I really don't care, all I care about is what it means in America.

They usually want them changed because they are harmed by them in some way, its not just a general dislike of them.

Again, typical ignorant American that believes conservatism means the republican party. Not even worth debating.

LOL, how reductive. You're pretty much wrong just by definition. Conservatism is, at its base, defined as preserving the current status quo, whereas liberalism is at its base defined as upsetting it. During the early nineteenth century the status quo was slavery, Republicans opposed it, hence Republican were liberal. In the eighteenth century mercantilism was the status quo and Adam Smith opposed it, hence he was a liberal. Today Smith's economics are the status quo, and if he were still living he would be a conservative. Things change, I'm not sure if conservatives understand that.

If you think that a country ruled by one party is equal, then you have a pretty twisted definition of equality. In fact, I'd argue that the problem with those countries was not so much too much equality but lack of it.

Where's the carrot in today's capitalism? Seems like these days it's all stick.

There might actually be a situation where greater social equality is a bad thing, but I can't think of it right now. The only thing that really came to mind was hate groups demanding equal respect, but even then they're groups who are blatantly anti-equality so curbing their equality is really in service to greater social equality. What's going on in South Africa almost might qualify. It's always better to go about achieving equality in more organic, non-coerced ways, but if the other side is completely disinterested in that then you're stuck with a choice of accepting inequality or using coercive methods to achieve equality. It's actually my opinion that ethics breaks down in situations like these. It's like the classic trolley dilemma, no matter which ethical system you use to resolve the problem you end up with an non-ideal outcome.

So really, and I think you touched on this, method is probably more important than outcome, at the very least equally important. If a group doesn't believe in equality but always goes about things in a respectful way and takes the opposing point of view into consideration then they might end up on the right side of history but, ironically, probably because their methods led to greater equality. I think that's why it's so hard to be against social equality and on the right side of history, though, is because it's so hard to hold beliefs that people are unequal, and at the same time treat them with empathy and respect. Treating people with empathy and respect leads to seeing the inherent equality, the inherent humanity, in other people.

The trouble comes in defining social equality. What is "ethically or morally" correct is very subjective. e.g., what is the ethical or morally correct position on abortion? Both sides can make valid arguments.

@Serraph105: "They usually want them changed because they are harmed by them in some way, its not just a general dislike of them."

Bingo.

Heroes.

Folks who start talking about being on the right side of history have already lost sight of right and wrong. There is no right side of history. From the perspective of 40 years out you are a hateful, ignorant, evil little person humanity must put behind them. When someone endeavors to be on the right side of history, they are seeking validation not moral clarity.

If you want moral clarity, ignore sides, and try being good as you define it. If your views are socially acceptable you should accept that future generations are going to rage over just how malicious your world view was, but hey what do they know?

Future generations are going to think the same thing about them. That is the glory of progress. So long as everyone tries, we will get there, even if everyone thinks everyone who disagrees with them is evil.

Are you honestly saying that back in the 1800's people didn't think that slavery was evil? Or back in the 1900's that woman should have equal rights? Nothing has changed. History always looks more positive at those that fight against the injustice of minorities being oppressed. The only ones who can't see if it's right or wrong are those fighting against change.

Are you honestly saying you can not read?

Can you honestly learn to write so people can comprehend your paragraphs?

The parties loosely swapped. Conservative Southern Democrats became Conservative Republicans. The party on the wrong side of slavery/racism was usually conservative in views. Regardless of how the party name simply changed.

This is well documented and uncontested, so I'd like you to source which history book you are referring to:

https://www.history.com/news/how-the-party-of-lincoln-won-over-the-once-democratic-south

https://www.livescience.com/34241-democratic-republican-parties-switch-platforms.html

http://factmyth.com/factoids/democrats-and-republicans-switched-platforms/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

In American politics, the southern strategy was a Republican Party electoral strategy to increase political support among white voters in the South by appealing to racism against African Americans.^[1][2][3] As the Civil Rights Movement and dismantling of Jim Crow laws in the 1950s and 1960s visibly deepened existing racial tensions in much of the Southern United States, Republican politicians such as presidential candidate Richard Nixon and Senator Barry Goldwater developed strategies that successfully contributed to the political realignment of many white, conservative voters in the South that had traditionally supported the Democratic Party to the Republican Party.^[4] It also helped push the Republican Party much more to the right.^[4]

Though some Democrats had switched to the Republican party prior to this, “the defections became a flood” after Johnson signed these acts, Goldfield says. “And so the political parties began to reconstitute themselves.”

The change wasn’t total or immediate. During the late 1960s and early ‘70s, white Southerners were still transitioning away from the Democratic party (newly enfranchised black Southerners voted and continue to vote Democratic). And even as Republican Richard Nixon employed a “Southern strategy” that appealed to the racism of Southern white voters, former Alabama Governor George Wallace (who’d wanted “segregation now, segregation tomorrow, and segregation forever”) ran as a Democrat in the 1972 presidential primaries.

By the time Ronald Reagan became president in 1980, the Republican party’s hold on white Southerners was firm. Today, the Republican party remains the party of the South. It’s an ironic outcome considering that a century ago, white Southerners would’ve never considered voting for the party of Lincoln.

Silly to blame others for your desire to strawman, or your inability to comprehend basic English.

Fun fact: nearly 70% of all younger generations think that both left and right wings are completely impotent and not inthe best interests of the people.

I think things will get better once the archaic views of baby boomers get out of politics (die, that's the olny wat they will leave) and make way for younger, more open minded people.

Younger generations even want a strong third party to develop so we don't have to decide on Black or White, A or B. My concern is if the people are smart enough to overcome the division they have started, and stay strong long enough for that to happen.

Silly to blame others for not knowing how to write a paragraph.

I disagree. Admiration is earned, respect should be given to everyone. Sure, they can lose it and have to earn it back but I shouldn't have to prove myself first in order to be heard and respected. I'd like to think society has evolved past that...

LMAO

You are a treasure. Thanks for the laughs.

Also, Trump won solely because of identity politics. Identity politics has been a thing since the day America came into existence.

That is behavior you should also avoid. I however do not have high hopes.

Nope. The Republican party of the 1800s was the leftist/progressive party. The parties have switched sides since then. Crack a history book.

"Identity Politics" = some right wing bullshit about how women, minorities, and gay people should shut up and get in line.

I bet you work for the KMT. You murdered my people, you bastard.

It's not always conservatives. Eugenics was a leftist idea, and Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger writing this charming letter to Clarence Gamble

"We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."

Lot's of people still think it's pretty sick that 79% of PP clinics are in non-white communities.

Racism aside, PP still had a pretty abysmal view of life, unapologetically referring to born unwanted children as "human weeds" and that they "can never truly be loved".

Oh, and there's also that whole communism thing leftist politics is responsible for too.

There's absolutely a right side to history. Are you arguing that, say, WWII was fought for validation and not moral clarity? They're not mutually exclusive concepts, there can be validation in moral clarity. 72 years on from the end of WWII, the only thing humanity has put behind them are the hateful, ignorant, evil little people that stood on the wrong side of history and had moral clarity brought to them in the most explicit and harshest manner possible.

WW2 was fought for money and colonial power. I am arguing that.

@sonicare: of course, I won't deny that, but that's not the only reason.

It was also fought over gaming consoles

@sonicare: ....and board games.

Pretty much, so long as you define money as resources.

yes, but they weren' racist either like the other party, and still are.

@mecha_frieza: Jesus...you’re ignorant. Don’t they teach American history anymore?

Look up “the southern strategy” and get back to us. If you’re dad taught you to be a man at all you’d come back here and admit you were wrong.

I think it'd be hard to discuss this issue without describing what we are talking about with "social equality." What does that even mean? There are a lot of varying possible interpretations about that.

Economical equality? That's be catastrophe. An equal right to vote? Etc, etc...it's such a broad term I feel like it'd have to be defined in the conversation to go anywhere.

Honestly, that's why I ignore Freeza. Extremely uneducated person, not even worth debating.

He's probably one of those people who thinks that Nazism is a left wing ideology because it has "socialism" in its name.

Depends on what you mean by "social equality". If you mean fighting for equal outcomes, then no. In fact, I would argue quite the opposite as humans are inherently a varied species and expecting equal outcomes is thus illogical, and enforcing such unjust. Even an extreme version of equality of opportunity I would argue is bad as well as to get a perfect equality of opportunity would pretty much eliminate all forms of individuality.

Right side of history?

While society is definately moving towards social liberalism... which is a good thing. Who is to say, it will always remain this way. There is a lot of moral greyness out there, especially when multiple parties are involved.

When the only merit to traditional values is that they are... traditional, they will inevitably fall. As odds are, those ideas were never good to begin with.

Yes individuals vary. That does not mean you take subsets based on some arbitrary characteristic and treat them unequally. Honestly that seems like an apology for racism, xenophobia, sexism, and any other discriminatory belief/action.

Pretty sure that the Khmer Rouge was on the wrong side of history when fighting for greater social equality.

But the topic is so ill defined that I cannot properly discuss it without much clarification. Also beyond the objective ideal, one needs to consider the means employed aka Burke vs Robespierre.