Will the GOP ever pay the price for being on the wrong side of history?

[darklordoftech]

"Wrong side of history" is a completely meaningless phrase.

Not only this, but the OP is self-defeating. When did the Democratic Party "pay the price" for being on the so-called "wrong side", as the OP claims? If they didn't, why would you expect anyone to? It is really a childish view of history and politics that expects divine retribution on your opponents or even the truly evil. You don't get to damn the bad guys to all the misery you think they deserve. The world doesn't work that way.

I won't even get into the absurd assumption that abortionists will be seen as the "right side" of history.

Civil Rights, Women's Suffrage,  Child Labor Laws, Environmental regulation, End of the guilded age, and a host of other issues are all probably seen as the right side of history by most professionals.

There is actual much debate over the role and possible benefits of guilds among modern historians of economies.

“The Gilded Age” means the era of robber barons, contaminated food, and child labor.

[Vittorio]

I would side with the conservatives as against the Whiggish, banally progressive history on display here, if their own ideologies were not so full of it themselves (the efficacy of technological 'progress' under liberal capitalism, occasionally 'the end of History', the final victory of capitalism over Communism, etc.). I suppose that's what happens when it's materially impossible to 'purify' your ideology, as the conservatives want, of Whiggism when it is a direct descendant of Whiggism, and the material conditions underlying it, itself.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

2020, has a potential to be another wave election, giving a second chance of a trifecta.  Trump is Sarah Palin's student whon, she endorsed in the primary against Cruz.  However, the voters have to be confident that Dems deserve a second chance from now until nxr yr

[Kizzuwanda]

No, because Trump is on the right side. Decades from now, we will view the hateful left of 2019 in the same way we view the mindless violent counterproductive Black Panthers of the late 60s or the Symbionese Liberation Army of the 70s. Donaldophobia, anti-male attitudes, racism against whites, etc will be regarded as old disgusting ideas in the same way that we view 1930s prohibition and discrimination against the Irish with scorn.

lol comparing the left to bank robbers and cop killers.

The left isn't that cool.

[pbrower2a]

The "right" and "wrong" sides of history can change suddenly. Think of Mlada Horakova and Nikolai Petkov, martyrs of political conscience in eastern Europe. The Commies killed them and then vilified them, and they are now heroes.

A cause discredited forever? Not many people are going to defend the Holocaust or the Atlantic slave trade.   

[Fight for Trump]

They haven't paid the price for being on the wrong side of the Civil War.

[junior chįmp]

History is subjective and being on the ''right side of history'' is written by whoever wins. If you ignore the narrative fallacy, you'll find that historical periods arent what they're made out to be. For example:

The ‘Dark Ages’ Weren’t As Dark As We Thought

The 1950s werent a Conservative period

The 1980s werent that Conservative

You can find many examples of this throughout history. Generally, the narrative ascribed to each era only describes the changes happening to that small minority at the top of society and not the changes happening to the massive clueless majority that just sleepwalks through life totally unaware of all of these changes and narratives. Both the hippies and the tea party nutcases were minority groups and not some opinion of the masses as their made out to be.

[J. J.]

History might be showing a repudiation of the Left especially the extreme left. 

[All Along The Watchtower]

Probably not.

[Free Bird]

History might be showing a repudiation of the Left especially the extreme left. 

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

History might be showing a repudiation of the Left especially the extreme left. 

[Nyvin]

History might be showing a repudiation of the Left especially the extreme left. 

For what??

Most of what the left wants is to ensure everyone has access to basic life necessities.   

Raising the Minimum Wage

Affordable access to healthcare

Environmental protections

Criminal Justice Reform

Action on Climate Change

What is controversial about any of this at it's base level?   

[Vittorio]

History might be showing a repudiation of the Left especially the extreme left. 

How Whiggish.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

History might be showing a repudiation of the Left especially the extreme left. 

How Whiggish.

America's Left was very much on the wrong side of Bolshevism and Communism.  Not the Democratic Party, mind you, but the Left in America.  They were on the wrong side of the issue of viewing Communism as something far less than what it was.  They were also on the wrong side of how deeply Communists had infiltrated our government.  They were on the wrong side of failing to intervene in Cambodia to stop the Communist takeover of Pol Pot, who was a genocidal dictator. 

[Vittorio]

History might be showing a repudiation of the Left especially the extreme left.  

How Whiggish.

America's Left was very much on the wrong side of Bolshevism and Communism.

Insofar as any of them considered the Soviet Union Communist, I'm inclined to agree. But this is their fault for being Leftists at all, as Leftism is a bourgeois ideology.

Not the Democratic Party, mind you, but the Left in America.  They were on the wrong side of the issue of viewing Communism as something far less than what it was.

To the contrary: they viewed Russian "Communism" as far more than it actually was - a social democracy with teeth.

They were also on the wrong side of how deeply Communists had infiltrated our government.

Yes, ultranationalists tend to infiltrate the governments of rival nations. What's your point?  

They were on the wrong side of failing to intervene in Cambodia to stop the Communist takeover of Pol Pot, who was a genocidal dictator.  

Nationalism is pretty awful anywhere it pops up, I agree.

[Senator Incitatus]

"Wrong side of history" is a completely meaningless phrase.

Not only this, but the OP is self-defeating. When did the Democratic Party "pay the price" for being on the so-called "wrong side", as the OP claims? If they didn't, why would you expect anyone to? It is really a childish view of history and politics that expects divine retribution on your opponents or even the truly evil. You don't get to damn the bad guys to all the misery you think they deserve. The world doesn't work that way.

I won't even get into the absurd assumption that abortionists will be seen as the "right side" of history.

Civil Rights, Women's Suffrage,  Child Labor Laws, Environmental regulation, End of the guilded age, and a host of other issues are all probably seen as the right side of history by most professionals.

There is actual much debate over the role and possible benefits of guilds among modern historians of economies.

“The Gilded Age” means the era of robber barons, contaminated food, and child labor.

I know what the Gilded Age is.

[MarkD]

One basic purpose of liberalism is to make sure that progress happens in our society. One basic purpose of conservatism is to make sure that the changes liberals want to make do not happen too rapidly. Slow down the pace of change, so everyone can adjust to the changes gradually.

"Conservatism is the politics of prudence, which begins with acceptance of the fact that, more of than not, and to a degree that is humbling to mere human being, the inertia of history and society severely limits both the pace and degree of change that human willfulness can bring about. Or, as a wise man once said, in a battle between you and the world, bet on the world." -- George F. Will, "The New Season."

There is no "price to pay" for doing something in society that needs to be done -- tempering the pace of changes that liberals want to implement with natural inertia.

[Vittorio]

There is no "price to pay" for doing something in society that needs to be done -- tempering the pace of changes that liberals want to implement with natural inertia.

If aforementioned intertia were 'natural', it would not need to be implemented politically.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Only when enough of them die off and the party ends up being forced to finally catch up with the times. That won't be soon enough though. So in the short term: no, their shamelessness is paying off and they know it.

[Slander and/or Libel]

One basic purpose of liberalism is to make sure that progress happens in our society. One basic purpose of conservatism is to make sure that the changes liberals want to make do not happen too rapidly. Slow down the pace of change, so everyone can adjust to the changes gradually.

"Conservatism is the politics of prudence, which begins with acceptance of the fact that, more of than not, and to a degree that is humbling to mere human being, the inertia of history and society severely limits both the pace and degree of change that human willfulness can bring about. Or, as a wise man once said, in a battle between you and the world, bet on the world." -- George F. Will, "The New Season."

There is no "price to pay" for doing something in society that needs to be done -- tempering the pace of changes that liberals want to implement with natural inertia.

But only a cursory glance will reveal that what you laid out here is laughably false. You seem to be claiming that liberals and conservatives support the same general aims, and the only difference is the speed with which they want to accomplish them. Conservatives are not simply trying to temper the pace of liberal change. They're actively rolling it back wherever and however they can. And more than just liberal in the sense of the left-right dichotomy in American society. They're fundamentally undercutting the precepts of the broader notion of liberal democracy.

[Person Man]

One basic purpose of liberalism is to make sure that progress happens in our society. One basic purpose of conservatism is to make sure that the changes liberals want to make do not happen too rapidly. Slow down the pace of change, so everyone can adjust to the changes gradually.

"Conservatism is the politics of prudence, which begins with acceptance of the fact that, more of than not, and to a degree that is humbling to mere human being, the inertia of history and society severely limits both the pace and degree of change that human willfulness can bring about. Or, as a wise man once said, in a battle between you and the world, bet on the world." -- George F. Will, "The New Season."

There is no "price to pay" for doing something in society that needs to be done -- tempering the pace of changes that liberals want to implement with natural inertia.

But only a cursory glance will reveal that what you laid out here is laughably false. You seem to be claiming that liberals and conservatives support the same general aims, and the only difference is the speed with which they want to accomplish them. Conservatives are not simply trying to temper the pace of liberal change. They're actively rolling it back wherever and however they can. And more than just liberal in the sense of the left-right dichotomy in American society. They're fundamentally undercutting the precepts of the broader notion of liberal democracy.

That doesn't apply here. Maybe before Trump and even during W there could have been this argument that eventually things would get better when the powers that be were ready. Maybe conservatism could have just been about waiting for technology to make things better or waiting for our employers to be kind to us on our own or that we would find "libertarian" solutions.

[Badger]

"Wrong side of history" is a completely meaningless phrase.

Not only this, but the OP is self-defeating. When did the Democratic Party "pay the price" for being on the so-called "wrong side", as the OP claims? If they didn't, why would you expect anyone to? It is really a childish view of history and politics that expects divine retribution on your opponents or even the truly evil. You don't get to damn the bad guys to all the misery you think they deserve. The world doesn't work that way.

I won't even get into the absurd assumption that abortionists will be seen as the "right side" of history.

Democrats were on the wrong side of slavery and paid for it deeply for about 50 years

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

"Wrong side of history" is a completely meaningless phrase.

Not only this, but the OP is self-defeating. When did the Democratic Party "pay the price" for being on the so-called "wrong side", as the OP claims? If they didn't, why would you expect anyone to? It is really a childish view of history and politics that expects divine retribution on your opponents or even the truly evil. You don't get to damn the bad guys to all the misery you think they deserve. The world doesn't work that way.

I won't even get into the absurd assumption that abortionists will be seen as the "right side" of history.

Democrats were on the wrong side of slavery and paid for it deeply for about 50 years

Not because they supported slavery in the States, but because they ultimately supported the slaveholders' rebellion when they failed to ram through having the slaveowners bring their black chattels wherever they wished. Keep in mind that the Republican Party got it's start not as an amped up version of the Liberty Party, but on a platform of keeping the territories reserved for whites only. It's opposition to slavery was not based on antipathy to slavery but antipathy to non-white labor that would reduce wages for white Protestants. (The same impetuous is why the Republican Party was generally anti-Catholic and anti-immigrant during the 19th century.)

[Insomnian]

"Wrong side of history" is a completely meaningless phrase.

Not only this, but the OP is self-defeating. When did the Democratic Party "pay the price" for being on the so-called "wrong side", as the OP claims? If they didn't, why would you expect anyone to? It is really a childish view of history and politics that expects divine retribution on your opponents or even the truly evil. You don't get to damn the bad guys to all the misery you think they deserve. The world doesn't work that way.

I won't even get into the absurd assumption that abortionists will be seen as the "right side" of history.

Democrats were on the wrong side of slavery and paid for it deeply for about 50 years

More like paid for it deeply for like 9 years. They bounced back pretty quickly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1874_United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections

Broadly speaking, the Democrats actually did really well in national politics from 1874 to 1898, at which point things started going really wrong for them.