Historic Political Narratives You Disagree With (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 01, 2024, 12:42:03 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  History (Moderator: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee)
  Historic Political Narratives You Disagree With (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Historic Political Narratives You Disagree With  (Read 6030 times)
darklordoftech
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,507
United States


« on: March 07, 2022, 04:45:00 AM »
« edited: March 07, 2022, 04:50:10 AM by darklordoftech »

That in the days of Reagan, Republicans weren’t any more hostile to immigration than Democrats.

https://www.nytimes.com/1984/10/22/us/transcript-of-the-reagan-mondale-debate-on-foreign-policy.html
Logged
darklordoftech
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,507
United States


« Reply #1 on: March 18, 2022, 10:56:40 AM »
« Edited: March 18, 2022, 06:02:44 PM by darklordoftech »

The narrative that Republicans never had a rural element to them until the 21st Century.
Logged
darklordoftech
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,507
United States


« Reply #2 on: March 29, 2022, 07:37:00 PM »

That the Democrats were opposed to free trade until "neoliberals" took over the party or whatever.

Anyone parroting this is effectively arguing that FDR, Woodrow Wilson and candidates like William Jennings Bryan were protectionists, making it a talking point about as stupid as the notion that Bernie Sanders would be a right-winger in Europe.
In the days of Bryan and Wilson, Republicans were the party of protectionism and Democrats were the party of free trade.
Logged
darklordoftech
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,507
United States


« Reply #3 on: March 30, 2022, 07:45:05 PM »

      I disagree with the idea that Central Powers were “just” the enemy in WW1, and that WW1 had no “good guys” or “bad guys.” The brutality of the Central Powers isn’t talked about as much because of how the Axis in the WW2 were much worse, but if one has the moral capabilities of recognizing how depraved the Axis were, they should be just as able to see that the Central Powers were undoubtedly the evil side of WW1, from committing to genocide to war crimes against civilians to violating treaties and international law.
I think a lot of Americans were confused by WWI and didn’t know who two the sides were and what they were fighing over.
Logged
darklordoftech
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,507
United States


« Reply #4 on: April 04, 2022, 06:34:26 PM »

“Neocon” meaning internationalist and the Iraq War being an internationalist war. Does anyone remember “freedom fries”?

Also the claim that Republicans were ever for open boarders.
Logged
darklordoftech
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,507
United States


« Reply #5 on: April 20, 2022, 09:03:34 PM »

That the Democrats were opposed to free trade until "neoliberals" took over the party or whatever.

Anyone parroting this is effectively arguing that FDR, Woodrow Wilson and candidates like William Jennings Bryan were protectionists, making it a talking point about as stupid as the notion that Bernie Sanders would be a right-winger in Europe.
In the days of Bryan and Wilson, Republicans were the party of protectionism and Democrats were the party of free trade.
Yes and one of FDR's first actions was repealing Smoot-Hawley which was passed by Republicans. And the most protectionist President since WWII before Trump was definitely Nixon. The only remotely protectionist Democratic President since the Civil War was maybe Carter.

I’d argue Obama was more protectionist, the GM bailout was pretty straightforward economic nationalism and was a huge part of what he ran on in 2012.

Agreed on the larger point that Democrats have more or less always been the more pro-free trade party. It’s just that prior to the 1970s organized labor wasn’t really hostile to free trade. Neoliberalism didn’t make Democrats more pro-free trade, it made organized labor more protectionist and Democrats didn’t update their stance on trade to respect this.
The GM bailout had nothing to do with tariffs.

It was a form of protectionism though in that it’s sole purpose was the preservation of American jobs.
“Protectionism” means protection from foreign competition.
Logged
darklordoftech
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,507
United States


« Reply #6 on: June 22, 2022, 06:57:33 PM »

The notion that the 1950s was the most prosperous decade in US history, that America had a stronger welfare state and it was some sort of progressive epoch with Eisenhower being to the left of Bernie Sanders. A quarter of the country lived in poverty and Medicare and Medicaid were non-existent. Eisenhower was a fiscal conservative who refused to deficit spend even in the midst of a recession. The only reason he kept the tax rate as high as it was was because fiscally conservative dogma was balanced budgets at the time rather then supply side.

Related : people getting confused between Eisenhower and the median republican of his time, and erroneously concluding the GOP of that era were defined by their good natured moderation

There were some very hard right Republicans, especially in the Midwest. The strength of the unions in elections like 1958 washed them out of office.

Noted Moderate Nice Guy FFs like *checks notes* Robert Taft, John Bricker, William Jenner, literally Joseph McCarthy...


Don't forget where a lot of that rural Midwestern support for the Republicans came from. Barely twenty years old by then.
What are you referring to?
Logged
darklordoftech
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,507
United States


« Reply #7 on: August 23, 2022, 03:13:51 PM »

That everyone was a neocon from the beginning of time until the second half of the 1960s.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.032 seconds with 12 queries.