I'm not going to disagree with this because it's certainly quite true. Statues are one thing, even if the intent of their display may vary, but oftentimes when we are talking about something like the Confederate flag flying over a state capital or some redneck's garage, the intent isn't really "art."
At it's basest distillation, art merely exists to provoke a response--usually emotional and throughout that entire range, even visceral or violent. However, when we talk about the issue of "conservative art" that Ackmed is referring to, we are specifically talking about symbols that came into being in the late 50s and 60s, on display in public areas, for no other reason but to rebel against the Civil Rights movement. Not one single piece of conservative symbology that has been discussed over the last couple of years was erected as an "innocent display of southern pride." There were never historical pieces because they don't predate or reflect any other purpose but to proudly display the idea of the people that erected them: "We don't want to share our special freedoms with black people; and damned if that federal government will make us!"
That is what those specific pieces exist for, and nothing more. It is purely political, despite meeting the purest definition of art: Once a piece transcends an "innocent" emotional response and its existence is subjugated as an overt political movement to effect people and their pursuit of happiness, it ceases to become art. It is now a political tool. A statue of Nathan Bedford Forrest erected during the Civil Rights era is not there to champion confederate pride, it was only ever explicitly erected to remind blacky that they have no business living in that town.
Propaganda is "art" if you are simply looking at a poster; but no one disagrees that it is used as a political tool, with often nefarious intent.