Rockefeller Republicans

[OSR stands with Israel]

I think a large part of this is in the past the parties were more sorted more on their philosophical views on how society should look like and sometimes people with different philosophical views can come to the same conclusions on policy.

[OSR stands with Israel]

On economics, they supported Keynesianism, the New Deal, social programs, intervention, and even on labour unions they seemed to occupy a similar space as JFK for example.

I am far from an expert on this topic so ignore me if I'm wrong...but I would be surprised if liberal Republicans were pro-union, pro-major new social programmes and pro-deficit spending.

Nelson Rockefeller and Jacob Javits supported Single Payer

[OSR stands with Israel]

On economics, they supported Keynesianism, the New Deal, social programs, intervention, and even on labour unions they seemed to occupy a similar space as JFK for example.

I am far from an expert on this topic so ignore me if I'm wrong...but I would be surprised if liberal Republicans were pro-union, pro-major new social programmes and pro-deficit spending.

Nelson Rockefeller and Jacob Javits supported Single Payer

Okay?

I was responding to this

[OSR stands with Israel]

On economics, they supported Keynesianism, the New Deal, social programs, intervention, and even on labour unions they seemed to occupy a similar space as JFK for example.

I am far from an expert on this topic so ignore me if I'm wrong...but I would be surprised if liberal Republicans were pro-union, pro-major new social programmes and pro-deficit spending.

Nelson Rockefeller and Jacob Javits supported Single Payer

Okay?

I was responding to this

Right, but those are just two people, one being an absolute extreme among Republicans (about as relevant to “Pennsylvania Republicans of the 2000s” as late Arlen Spector was).  Even then, Rockefeller was a classic “Me Too,” moving only far enough left to get the votes to beat his Democratic opponent.  Point being, this doesn’t speak to this strident “liberalism” that the OP imagines Republicans of this era having.

Sure but I think it is fair to point out that Rockefeller Republicans were more receptive to social programs than even some Conservative Southern Democrats were like Harry Byrd, James Eastland , John Stennis were . Now not every Southern Democrat fit this bill but there were more than a few who actually were pretty conservative as well.

I think a better way to look at this is : New York Republicans were more Conservative than New York Democrats and Mississippi Republicans were more Conservative than Mississippi Democrats but it does not really mean New York Republicans were more Conservative than Mississippi Republicans. It is exactly why many major bills in those days would have members from both parties not only who voted for it but against it as well.

The reason why we dont have this anymore has less to do with any type of flip but more or less cause politics is so nationalized now.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Without reading the dozens of paragraphs above, I need to chime in to remind everyone that "Rockefeller Republicans" had some of the most brutal views on crime, urbanism, and race in the history of the country. The movement is literally named after the governor best remembered for his response to the Attica prison riots. They were not suburban intellectuals; they were the last political movement appealing to the concerns of a now politically extinct class: upper-class urban whites. Their "moderate" views on abortion and gun control largely stem from paranoia regarding black crime, and the common view of them as broadly "liberal" is misguided, as is liberal nostalgia for them.

P.S. Having written this out, I did go back and see that Al and NCY largely hit the mark.

I'll tack on that the narrow WASPishness (at least in public reputation) of the Rockefeller set prevented them from appealing to ethnic minorities, which would have preserved their power another decade or so. And the acceleration of Northern white fears after 1964 pushed voters past what even the Republicans were offering. Instead, ethnic  voters went for Wallace (before later abandoning the cities) while wealthier voters abandoned the cities as soon as possible for Rye, Greenwich, Orange County, etc., forming the basis for the Reaganism of the 1980s.

And none of this is to say that there weren't "liberal Republicans" as there are today. But they were never a coherent enough movement appealing to enough voters to, say, elect a President. Or even a Governor of New York.

Economically it does seem like Rockefeller was more liberal than the 1980-present GOP Though.

Rockefeller was re-elected in the three subsequent elections in 1962, 1966 and 1970, increasing the state's role in education, environmental protection, transportation, housing, welfare, medical aid, civil rights, and the arts. To pay for the increased government spending, Rockefeller increased taxation - for example, a sales tax was introduced in New York in 1965

He also supported Single Payer:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_health_care_reform_in_the_United_States

In April 1970, Senator Jacob Javits (R-NY) introduced a bill to extend Medicare to all—retaining existing Medicare cost sharing and coverage limits—developed after consultation with Governor Nelson Rockefeller (R-NY) and former Johnson administration HEW Secretary Wilbur Cohen

Wasn't he considered pretty pro union as well