How do "the parties switched platforms" people explain Joe McCarthy? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 17, 2024, 06:22:51 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  How do "the parties switched platforms" people explain Joe McCarthy? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: How do "the parties switched platforms" people explain Joe McCarthy?  (Read 1164 times)
Fuzzy Bear
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,026
United States


WWW
« on: February 04, 2024, 06:41:15 PM »

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).
Logged
Fuzzy Bear
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,026
United States


WWW
« Reply #1 on: February 05, 2024, 09:46:14 PM »

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.
 
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 0.021 seconds with 10 queries.