+Matthew Jacobs The decision of the courts ...
... is based entirely on the arguments provided by each side. You clearly do not understand the judicial system very well, but I provided proof positive that their argument was based on the 14th Amendment, despite your incorrect claim otherwise.You're trying to expand the word's definition ...
False.... the word "reactionary" no longer has any useful meaning. I suppose that's the point, though.
To significant extent, yes. I am pointing out the fact that it is irrational to use the word as a value judgment, as you are doing. "Reactionary" cannot possibly mean "good" or "bad."You can then cherry-pick which movements to call "reactionary" and associate yourself with all of history's "good guys", ignoring the fact that your definition now encompasses the "bad guys", too.
False. Not only does this have nothing to do with any association I may wish to make, but I also do not see any inherent good or bad in the term "reactionary," because that's inherently irrational: using whether something has or hasn't happened in the past as a basis for judging it makes no sense.They're the ones talking about how we need to go "back" to the constitution, "back" to the founders, "back" to a particular era they think was the golden age, etc. Reactionaries are about capturing something in the past, which is essentially an extreme conservative stance.
False. Not only do you not understand "reactionary," you also do not understand "conservative." Conservative has nothing to do with recapturing the past, in fact. It seems that way, and that is how many have defined it in the past, but it actually stands for certain principles that withstand the test of time and in some cases have never been fully realized. One obvious example is on slavery: it was always the socially "conservative" right that wanted to abolish it. Granted, many people call them liberals and progressives because they wanted change, but they were the same people who today are conservatives: largely protestant Christians who believe in certain principles about freedom and equality and individual rights. And today the word stands for those principles.
A modern conservative may want to "go back" to, say, repealing the 16th and 17th amendments, but they certainly don't want to "go back" to repealing the 12th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 19th, 20th, etc.: it's because the 16th and 17th violate our principles, and the others uphold them. Conservatism is very clearly not about going back, but about following certain principles.Conservatives, by definition, resist change
Also false. We do tend to prefer slow change (for example, Lincoln was against simply overturning slavery, preferring a gradual abolition, until the war broke out), but we don't necessarily resist it (unless we disagree with it). Your definition is in error.The problem with Chris Nandor's attempted redefinition is that ...
... it doesn't exist.he now ... tries to co-opt historical movements to try and make it seem like America's "good guys" shared that viewpoint
Shrug. I just stated facts, and you didn't rebut a single one of them, and then you attack me without providing any argument against what I wrote. That makes you look like a giant tool, by the way.The Civil Rights movement didn't talk about the past
I already proved you're wrong. And I have more examples, too; for example, the Civil Rights movement, going all the way back to Lincoln (and earlier), talked about Jefferson's Declaration of Independence, and its recognition that all men are created equal. MLK Jr.'s famous "I Have a Dream" speech -- which also quoted Jefferson -- started out with the Emancipation Proclamation, talking about how the promise created on that day had still not been realized.
Of course, the Civil Rights movement was about making a new future. But it was basing it on the principles and promises of the past, exactly like the Tea Party does.
We were promised a government whose sole purpose is "to secure [individual] rights." We were promised a government that would be limited, that would leave every power not in its constitution up to "the states and the people." We were promised a government that secured the privileges and immunities of all citizens. We were promised many things that have never been fully realized, and we push forward -- progress -- toward liberty and justice for all.His redefinition, however, claims that they were reactionary because they were going back to the ideals of the founders, as he defines them.
Shrug. Argue with Lincoln, then; take Stephen Douglas' side. Argue with MLK Jr. They made this case long before I did.