In a saner world, I'd probably consider myself a conservative, in the world we actually live in though, I'm not touching anything the conservative parties have anything to do with.

I generally think that things should overall trend towards being more liberal, and conservatism should just kind of be a moderating factor, not really working against a liberal agenda, just kind of slowing it down, making sure everything is fully thought through before we jump into anything, that the plans and funding and contingencies and such are in place, and in some cases just slowing things down because some stubborn assholes (mostly the current "conservatives") need to be eased into certain changes because their tiny minds will explode if you go to fast

"Socially liberal but fiscally conservative," they say, while voting exclusively for candidates who are socially conservative and fiscally corrupt. It's always smacked of "I'm not racist, but..." to me.

The only reason suburbs even became a thing in this country was because white people with FHA loans wanted nice houses close to their jobs and the amenities of cities but didn’t want their tax money going to fund black kids schools,

Hang on, that doesn't track with history as I know it currently.

• Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) is where the whole garbage "separate but equal" logic came from including on school funding where everyone but whites got poor resources for schools.
• Suburbs were created as a result of soldiers returning from WWII which would have been starting in 1945 with a the majority in 1946 after VJ day with the Japanese surrendering.
• It would be another 8 years before Brown v Board of Education (1954) shot down "separate but equal" for schools allowing integration, and even then it wouldn't have meant instant emptying of inner cities for suburbs until the early 60s or so.

So suburbs already were a thing and not caused by white people not wanting to fund black schools. Yes, exit to suburbs accelerated because of that, but suburbs weren't created because of it.

This was the sack of shit who successfully dealt with segregationists and brought them fully into the Republican party with his Presidential campaign in 1964, so I'm sure he did try with the preachers too

Fucking dirty hippies...

I don't know. I think there was some gas thrown on the fire with the Tea Party horseshit. Electing a black two-term President really seemed to have brought the crazy to a boiling point.

And now?

The US has pretty much always made Social Progress in bursts. We do a whole bunch at once then do nothing for a time while things settle in. Eventually pressure starts to build as we recognize more injustices and when it builds far enough there's another burst of Social Progress.

We're currently headed into another burst but its been delayed by the sheer numbers of old people who are clinging to the levers of power until the Grim Reaper pries them off. This is entirely unique in the history of this country because prior to the 1950s or so people simply didn't live or stay healthy long enough for this problem to manifest.

Big changes are coming in the next decade.

Well Abraham Lincoln did get a letter from Karl Marx congratulating him on a winning second term and how the civil war's fight against slavery was a huge positive direction for workers all across the world. And Franklin Roosevelt despite blemishes like the internment of Japanese American citizens did a lot for protections for the working class. And all the things Teddy Roosevelt did that VaultDweller replied with.

As for political party.... uuuuh yeah not really.