Historically, the "conservatives" (if you're referring to the Republican party) was actually more tolerant. The abolitionist movement to end slavery, for one, and republicans supported the civil rights act more than the democrats did:
Yes, in all votes, by percentage, more democrats opposed the civil rights act than did republicans.
Earlier, the progressive movement was founded on, among other things, eugenics (sterilization and abortion) of undesirable people, such as minorities and disabled. The progressive movement has since changed its tune.
Minority groups clearly aren't using history to pick roommates they would feel comfortable with.
In fact, it is the same party, but different people.
I was responding to the idea that minorities were using history to choose their roommates, and how if that were the case, it would not be so clear cut.
That is certainly not true in many regards. See for example my sibling comment on progressivism and eugenics.
The Progressive party had followers in its own right, as well as those in both the Democratic and Republican party, at least until Theodore Roosevelt left the Republican party in 1912.
Among the progressive movements goals were getting women the right to vote, and disenfranchising black voters. The philosophies of eugenics, and obsession with purity, were in fact an inspiration for those people who would eventually attempt to purify Germany during the Nazi reign.
Although much has changed in the progressive movement in the years since, the application of eugenics through abortion to eliminate undesirables has not (from my other comment, see Iceland).
Also a part of history, and a disappointing one at that. It does not, however, change my point about history being a poor way to choose one's roommates.
I specifically stated “conservative” because that’s more meaningful across large periods of time than referring to political parties. Yes, the Republican Party was once the more progressive party. That changed, and for ~50 years, Republicans have been the more conservative party.
> As a philosophy, it is based on the idea of progress, which asserts that advancements in science, technology, economic development and social organization are vital to the improvement of the human condition.
That is pretty much the antithesis of conservative, to be sure. However, keep in mind that none of that could have described the Republican party of old. The abolitionist movement and civil rights movement had a lot of support from conservatives for religious reasons. Martin Luther King Jr's message of unity was heard on multiple levels.
That definition of progressivism does still tie fairly closely to what a lot of Democrats would identify with, I think. Unfortunately, eugenics is still alive and well within the progressive movement- consider, for example, Iceland's attempt at eradicating Down's Syndrom by aborting babies. If you were to ask most people with Down's syndrom whether their condition would have been improved had they been aborted, they would disagree.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#By_...
Yes, in all votes, by percentage, more democrats opposed the civil rights act than did republicans.
Earlier, the progressive movement was founded on, among other things, eugenics (sterilization and abortion) of undesirable people, such as minorities and disabled. The progressive movement has since changed its tune.
Minority groups clearly aren't using history to pick roommates they would feel comfortable with.