Seriously, people? 1934-38 = most economically left a majority party has ever been in US history. Lincoln might have beaten this had he lived and actually brought about "40 acres and a mule" in 1866, but no other time period since the Founding even comes close to the mid 1930's.
It's a PRETTY big stretch to try to put politics into left vs. right (how we use the terms now) any time before the 1920s, IMO - Early 1900s at the earliest. To say Lincoln was economically left makes no sense. He enacted the first income tax, but it was an absolutely tiny tax, it was temporary and it ended up affecting the poor a lot more than the wealthy (and we all seem to completely ignore that it was a Democratic Congress in the late 1800s that enacted the first PERMANENT income tax, against Republican opposition). He supported a high tariff, but we've discussed many times how that was a very pro-business policy that actually ended up screwing over many working class people (hence why Democrats supported free trade for a long time but now are more likely to be protectionists - they weren't supporting an ideology, they were supporting the interests of working people). I think it's really irresponsible to look back at things like "free land for farmers!" (NO ONE OWNED THIS LAND! LOL, this policy position was a very "keep the government out of your pockets!" type stance, helping out the small, free market loving, self-made entrepreneur, a darling figure of the GOP since its foundation) or "support for the continental railroad/infrastructure!" (big business was begging for more efficient railroads, and guess which party was ready to cater to their every demand for decades to come!) and say they're "progressive" or "liberal" things to do.
It's just silly to simplify those times' politics into liberal or conservative. For example:
"It was 'socially liberal' to be an abolitionist because defenders of slavery were trying to CONSERVE the tradition of slavery, while 'liberals' were trying to change it!"
"No, it was 'socially conservative' to be an abolitionist, as the first abolitionists were from the most conservative Christian denominations such as the Quakers, and many defenders of slavery often used 'scientific' arguments that Blacks were inherently inferior and told abolitionists to start worrying about poor, disadvantaged White people instead of slaves; it has a lot of parallels to conservatives' opposition to abortion and liberals' defense of it."
Both of those statements are ridiculously simplistic.
