How do "the parties switched platforms" people explain Joe McCarthy?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Because yeah he was a Republican.

I realize that most probably just don't think about him or the time period and there's a disconnect, but it's still a valid question.

[Roll Roons]

I don't think anyone is arguing that the parties completely switched, but both parties used to be much more ideologically diverse and have both liberal and conservative factions. There was a robust liberal wing of the GOP that was primarily based in the Northeast, along with a large contingent of conservative Democrats mostly from the South.

Now, most Northeastern liberals are Democrats and most Southern conservatives are Republicans.

[jojoju1998]

I don't think anyone is arguing that the parties completely switched, but both parties used to be much more ideologically diverse and have both liberal and conservative factions. There was a robust liberal wing of the GOP that was primarily based in the Northeast, along with a large contingent of conservative Democrats mostly from the South.

Now, most Northeastern liberals are Democrats and most Southern conservatives are Republicans.

A Conservative Republican Senator  voted against the 1964 Civil Rights act. And no, he was not Barry Goldwater.

It was a guy named Norris Cotton; who otherwise voted for the 1965 voting rights act.

[Benjamin Frank]

I don't think anyone is arguing that the parties completely switched, but both parties used to be much more ideologically diverse and have both liberal and conservative factions. There was a robust liberal wing of the GOP that was primarily based in the Northeast, along with a large contingent of conservative Democrats mostly from the South.

Now, most Northeastern liberals are Democrats and most Southern conservatives are Republicans.

A Conservative Republican Senator  voted against the 1964 Civil Rights act. And no, he was not Barry Goldwater.

It was a guy named Norris Cotton; who otherwise voted for the 1965 voting rights act.

He voted to end cloture though. There were other Republicans not from the South who voted in favor of the filibuster, which was really the more important vote.

The 6 Republicans were: Wallace F. Bennett (Utah), Barry Goldwater (Ariz.), Edwin L. Mechem (N.M.), Milward L. Simpson (Wyo.), John G. Tower (Texas) and Milton R. Young (N.D.). The following Democrats joined 18 from the deep South in voting against ending the debate: Alan Bible (Nev.), Robert C.Byrd (W.Va.), Albert Gore (Tenn.), Herbert S. Walters (Tenn.) and Carl Hayden (Ariz.), dean of the Senate, who had never voted for cloture

https://library.cqpress.com/cqalmanac/document.php?id=cqal64-1304621

[TheTide]

I don't think anyone is arguing that the parties completely switched, but both parties used to be much more ideologically diverse and have both liberal and conservative factions. There was a robust liberal wing of the GOP that was primarily based in the Northeast, along with a large contingent of conservative Democrats mostly from the South.

Now, most Northeastern liberals are Democrats and most Southern conservatives are Republicans.

The Republicans also had quasi-socialist (in the Western world rather than Eastern world sense) figures such as Robert La Follette Sr, Fiorello La Guardia and Henry Wallace (before he became a Democrat). That's a political tradition that faded pretty much by the Second World War and swept up by FDR and the New Deal (hence Wallace being FDR's second Vice President). LBJ and the Great Society swept up much of the liberal tradition within the GOP, at that point led by Nelson Rockefeller and previously by the likes of Earl Warren and Thomas Dewey. From then on, most liberals within the GOP were as thus in a relative sense rather than in an absolute sense. Colin Powell's endorsement of Barack Obama in 2008 was perhaps the symbolic final nail for this tradition.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I don't think anyone is arguing that the parties completely switched, but both parties used to be much more ideologically diverse and have both liberal and conservative factions. There was a robust liberal wing of the GOP that was primarily based in the Northeast, along with a large contingent of conservative Democrats mostly from the South.

Now, most Northeastern liberals are Democrats and most Southern conservatives are Republicans.

The Republicans also had quasi-socialist (in the Western world rather than Eastern world sense) figures such as Robert La Follette Sr, Fiorello La Guardia and Henry Wallace (before he became a Democrat).

That was LONG before the Civil Rights Act (and the supposed "party switch") occurred.

[Benjamin Frank]

I don't think anyone is arguing that the parties completely switched, but both parties used to be much more ideologically diverse and have both liberal and conservative factions. There was a robust liberal wing of the GOP that was primarily based in the Northeast, along with a large contingent of conservative Democrats mostly from the South.

Now, most Northeastern liberals are Democrats and most Southern conservatives are Republicans.

The Republicans also had quasi-socialist (in the Western world rather than Eastern world sense) figures such as Robert La Follette Sr, Fiorello La Guardia and Henry Wallace (before he became a Democrat). That's a political tradition that faded pretty much by the Second World War and swept up by FDR and the New Deal (hence Wallace being FDR's second Vice President). LBJ and the Great Society swept up much of the liberal tradition within the GOP, at that point led by Nelson Rockefeller and previously by the likes of Earl Warren and Thomas Dewey. From then on, most liberals within the GOP were as thus in a relative sense rather than in an absolute sense. Colin Powell's endorsement of Barack Obama in 2008 was perhaps the symbolic final nail for this tradition.

There were liberal Republicans up to the 1980s. To be sure not as liberal as the most liberal Democrats, but rankings groups like the ADA and the ACU had them much more liberal than conservative southern Democrats - mostly on the coasts Senators like Dan Evans of Washington and Mark Hatfield of Oregon.

I suppose the symbolic nail could be argued to be liberal New York Republican Senator Jacob Javits losing the Republican nomination to Alphonse D'Amato in 1980, which also heralded the Reagan Revolution. Javits ended up running on the Liberal Party line in New York and got about 11% of the vote, enough to split the vote and cause the election of D'Amato over Democrat Elizabeth Holtzman.

[Dan the Roman]

Despite being a conservative, this is an area where I feel genuine(not hipster) Marxist analysis is somewhat useful. The US parties, contrary to claims they don't differ on economics, actually were always class-based, and Marx never claimed class politics are represented by differences on economic policy. In fact, he argued quite the opposite. Classes, which are the primary political actors in any system, have interests, and they approach policies from that perspective.

In fact, the ability to even have an ideology is a conceit of the upper bourgeoise and it is important to understand that the "woke/liberal/progressive" trend has always been a form of elite class politics.

1. Abolitionism
2. Good government progressivism
3. (Social eugenics including actual eugenics, jewish quotas etc)
4. Ideological support for civil rights(ie pushing bussing and increasingly academic policies in the 1970s designed more to crush white groups opposed to integration rather than to advance integration)
5. Modern "wokeness" LGBT/Racial stuff

Has always been associated with a New England class tradition. That tradition was strongest in the Federalists, then the Whigs, then the Republicans.

It was not the whole the GOP. After all, the GOP was created in opposition to the Democrats who were themselves an alliance of Southerners, northern free traders, urban machines, immigrant groups.

So the GOP had two wings

1. The Progressive New England Wasp wing
2. The more conservative, often ex-Democratic Midwestern Wing which was in it out of opposition to Eastern Cities, for protectionism, and suspicion of White Southern power


What changed?

Well

Group #2 was always in favor of civil rights not because they liked African Americans. The claim Republicans were racist in the 1860s is a lie. New England ones generally were progressive. Boston integrated its schools early. However, the Midwestern Republicans tended to be free soil and backed African American rights to keep the South/Democrats weak, not out of any affection themselves. Which meant once the "African American" issue moved northward, they had a reason to split with the first group.

In turn, what happened in the South is not Dixiecrats leaving. Instead, the Southern suburbs produced a new local elite who were self-confident in their economic and social position who resented their subordinate position in the Democratic party.

It is worth considering that while the Democrats had the support of the solid South, only one three southerners ever became President

1. Woodrow Wilson debatedly
2. Jimmy Carter
3. Bill Clinton


So the deal was very much the Democrats nationally would be run by their northern wing which would protect the white southerners.


So three things happened at once.

1. Midwestern Rs revolted against New England Yankee Rs(and the latter lost out in battles for control of the California party among others with Reagan)
2. The Immigrant Catholic Elite in the North chose to ally and absorb the Wasp Rs rather than destroy them. Or at least they didn't need the white southerners
3. White Southern Ds lost their existing Northern allies, which meant they and the Midwestern Rs were both adrift. So they united.


Looking at this in terms of parties leads to confusing ideas such as "they swapped policies". In reality, the parties have always been alliances of various constituencies and they shifted their alliances. But very few groups changed their politics. In other words, the Free Soil Republicans in Iowa who voted for Lincoln but also tried to ban African American migration would absolutely be on the Right today. And they have merely formed an alliance with other groups who are willing to back their positions on trade and economics, because those have become articles of faith for the Old Whig/NE elite who run the Democratic party today

[Electric Circus]

Alcoholism.

[Senator Incitatus]

I don't think anyone is arguing that the parties completely switched, but both parties used to be much more ideologically diverse and have both liberal and conservative factions. There was a robust liberal wing of the GOP that was primarily based in the Northeast, along with a large contingent of conservative Democrats mostly from the South.

Now, most Northeastern liberals are Democrats and most Southern conservatives are Republicans.

The Northeastern Republicans were the ones that could be more reasonably described as “far-right,” insofar as anyone can. The Governor in charge of Attica and the population control report was not a liberal.

[KaiserDave]

I don't think anyone is arguing that the parties completely switched, but both parties used to be much more ideologically diverse and have both liberal and conservative factions. There was a robust liberal wing of the GOP that was primarily based in the Northeast, along with a large contingent of conservative Democrats mostly from the South.

Now, most Northeastern liberals are Democrats and most Southern conservatives are Republicans.

The Northeastern Republicans were the ones that could be more reasonably described as “far-right,” insofar as anyone can. The Governor in charge of Attica and the population control report was not a liberal.

No but George Aiken, Bill Cohen, and Lowell Weicker definitely were.

[jojoju1998]

I don't think anyone is arguing that the parties completely switched, but both parties used to be much more ideologically diverse and have both liberal and conservative factions. There was a robust liberal wing of the GOP that was primarily based in the Northeast, along with a large contingent of conservative Democrats mostly from the South.

Now, most Northeastern liberals are Democrats and most Southern conservatives are Republicans.

The Northeastern Republicans were the ones that could be more reasonably described as “far-right,” insofar as anyone can. The Governor in charge of Attica and the population control report was not a liberal.

No but George Aiken, Bill Cohen, and Lowell Weicker definitely were.

Don't forget Nelson Rockefeller ! The most famous Liberal Republican of all.

[Darthpi – Anti-Florida Activist]

The parties switched platforms long before Joe McCarthy. Democrats were the more progressive party consistently from 1920 onward.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Well, Wayne Morse left the Republican party because of him.

[Antonio the Sixth]

To the extent that the "party switch" (which is a deeply reductive lens in the first place, of course) happened it was a gradual process that spanned 70 years or so. Clearly politics in the middle of that period will not make sense under either paradigm.

[KaiserDave]

The answer to the OP's question is that the parties never switched platforms.

[jojoju1998]

The answer to the OP's question is that the parties never switched platforms.

The Republicans always had an isolationist, populist, and somewhat xenophobic faction. Look at Pat Buchanan. But they were often always overshadowed by the more big city liberal republicans.

Starting after the 1970s, decades and a century after the civil war, the Isolationist faction realized they have more in common with the Solid south than they ever did with the big city liberal republicans .

[OSR stands with Israel]

The answer to the OP's question is that the parties never switched platforms.

The Republicans always had an isolationist, populist, and somewhat xenophobic faction. Look at Pat Buchanan. But they were often always overshadowed by the more big city liberal republicans.

Starting after the 1970s, decades and a century after the civil war, the Isolationist faction realized they have more in common with the Solid south than they ever did with the big city liberal republicans .

That faction basically controlled the party from 1918-1940

[Santander]

The Democrats weren't always the good guys, but the Republicans were always the bad guys.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I don't think anyone is arguing that the parties completely switched, but both parties used to be much more ideologically diverse and have both liberal and conservative factions. There was a robust liberal wing of the GOP that was primarily based in the Northeast, along with a large contingent of conservative Democrats mostly from the South.

Now, most Northeastern liberals are Democrats and most Southern conservatives are Republicans.

The Northeastern Republicans were the ones that could be more reasonably described as “far-right,” insofar as anyone can. The Governor in charge of Attica and the population control report was not a liberal.

No but George Aiken, Bill Cohen, and Lowell Weicker definitely were.

Don't forget Nelson Rockefeller ! The most famous Liberal Republican of all.

Nelson Rockefeller was not a Liberal Republican.  He was a Big-Spending Republican who was pro-choice, but instituted some of the most Draconian Drug Laws.  He was also hawkish on Vietnam.  I would classify him as a Big Spender and a Pro-Choicer, but not a Liberal Republican.  He never received the Liberal Party's nomination for Governor, as Jacob Javits routinely did.  Jacob Javits was a liberal Republican.  Nelson Rockefeller was not (although he was not a conservative, either).

[longtimelurker]

I don't think anyone is arguing that the parties completely switched, but both parties used to be much more ideologically diverse and have both liberal and conservative factions. There was a robust liberal wing of the GOP that was primarily based in the Northeast, along with a large contingent of conservative Democrats mostly from the South.

Now, most Northeastern liberals are Democrats and most Southern conservatives are Republicans.

The Northeastern Republicans were the ones that could be more reasonably described as “far-right,” insofar as anyone can. The Governor in charge of Attica and the population control report was not a liberal.

No but George Aiken, Bill Cohen, and Lowell Weicker definitely were.

New Jersey, 1970's - 1980's: Tom Kean Sr., Millicent Fenwick, Matt Rinaldo.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I don't think anyone is arguing that the parties completely switched, but both parties used to be much more ideologically diverse and have both liberal and conservative factions. There was a robust liberal wing of the GOP that was primarily based in the Northeast, along with a large contingent of conservative Democrats mostly from the South.

Now, most Northeastern liberals are Democrats and most Southern conservatives are Republicans.

1964 and 1968 were the critical for both parties in the Presidential nominating process.

1964 was when the Southern GOP came of age in the Presidential nominating process; it was Southern delegations that put Goldwater over the top, and defeated the Northeast GOP factions.  On the Democratic side, the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party challenged the Mississippi regulars as illegitimate in the Credentials Committee.  A compromise pushed by LBJ was made; two of the 68 MFDP delegates chosen by Johnson would be made at-large delegates and the remainder would be non-voting guests of the convention; the regular Mississippi delegation was required to pledge to support the party ticket; and no future Democratic convention would accept a delegation chosen by a discriminatory poll.

1968 was more of the same.  On the Republican side, it was The Thin Grey Line cobbled together by Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-SC) that provided Richard Nixon with a 1st ballot victory and a President beholden (in part) to the South.  On the Democratic side, it was the LAST Democratic convention where conservative Southerners played a major role; it was John Connally and his 500 delegates that he controlled that pushed through Humphrey's nomination.  (Humphrey, amazingly enough, was the most CONSERVATIVE Democrat running for President with a chance to win that year.)  Unfortunately (for the Southerners), Humphrey turned Connally down flat on a Southern VP (which likely would have been Connally).  He picked Northeastern liberal Ed Muskie of Maine.  The Southern conservatives weren't in a position to demand a spot on the ticket even when they delivered the nomination to the nominee.  The McGovern-Fraser commission reforms would diminish the influence of Southern conservatives within the Democratic Party even further.

The last blow to Southern conservatives was when the House Democratic Caucus voted to elect committee chairs by Caucus vote and not by a mere seniority system.  This meant that Southern conservatives would have to moderate their records or lose their chairs.  Some moderated, but others switched.  This also meant that there was no incentive for a YOUNG conservative to enter politics as a Democrat.