When did Democrats become the left-of-center American party?

[pragmatic liberal]

As most people here are almost certainly aware, the two parties have nearly completely flipped positions ideologically and geographically from when the Republican Party was first formed. Yet I see a lot of disagreement about when the transition happened, with many characterizing the Republican Party as a conservative party throughout much of the late 19th century.

I would argue that Republicans actually remained the "left-of-center" party until the Wilson presidency and that the Democrats only definitively became the "left-of-cetner" party with FDR's presidency.

Of course, what makes the characterization complicated as that the meaning of so many political terms have changed. The term "conservative" for example, used to be a very broad term, describing both Jeffersonians (anti-federal government, pro-states' rights) AND those who drew from Hamilton and favored robust public expenditures, government intervention in the economy, regulation, and social spending. Today, those who favor the latter, tend to call themselves "liberals. Meanwhile, the term "liberal" used to be a synonym for Jeffersonian conservatism! Many Bourbon Democrats like Grover Cleveland would use the terms "conservative" and "liberal" interchangeably! (It was FDR who co-opted the term "liberal" and thus redefined it in the American context - in most of the rest of the world, "liberal" means centrist or libertarian.)

Also, the terms "left" and "right" weren't really employed in the American political context until well into the 20th Century. It had been a European convention and was only really used in the American context to describe voices on the fringes of "respectable" debate (such as the Socialists).

All that being said, I think if you were to try to characterize the two parties ideologically, the Republican would have remained the "left-of-center" party until at least 1896 (when things get a bit ideologically messy) and arguably until 1912.

It's true that by the 1870s and 1880s, the Republicans had become a fairly conservative party, largely deferential to major business and commercial interests. Still, if you were looking for a party that came closer to modern liberals' ideals, the Republicans were still more left-of-center than the Democrats. Even in the late 19th Century, it was Republicans who were generally more favorable to unions, Republicans who supported civil rights for African-Americans, Republicans who backed protectionist legislation, and Republicans who supported increased public investments in infrastructure and education.

Some people trace the Democrats' "left-of-center"-ism to 1896, and William Jennings Bryan's candidacy, but I think the reality is a little more complicated. Bryan's candidacy is significant in that it marked the establishment within the Democratic Party of an economically-interventionist wing. However, that wing was also extremely socially-conservative and very rural in its base. Its significance is that many of these agrarian reformers, even while they didn't remain in the Democratic Party in the long term, brought to the Democratic Party the cause of economic redistribution, which brought about an influx of some northern and urban reformers. Thus, you could argue that Bryan's candidacy established a progressive wing in the Democratic Party.

Thus, I would argue that from 1896 through FDR's election, both parties had progressive and conservative wings. As late as 1928, remember, you had Herbert Hoover, the Republican, campaigning as a "progressive." Ideologically, Hoover and Smith were not at all far apart. It's true that Hoover did back prohibition, but prohibition was not a position that broke down along clean ideological or partisan lines; there were Republicans AND Democrats who backed prohibition, as well as Republicans AND Democrats who opposed it. And there were progressives and conservatives who backed it and progressives and conservatives who opposed it.

I think that it was only the Great Depression and FDR's presidency that firmly established the Democrats as the left-of-center party. Remember that many leading New Dealers were actually former Republicans (such as Harold Ickes and Henry Wallace) who joined the Democratic Party when they joined Roosevelt's administration. Many leading Democrats, including many Northern Democrats like Al Smith, opposed the New Deal and FDR. It's true that since Wilson's time there had been a wing of Northern liberal Democrats, but it was only with FDR's presidency that Northern liberals became *THE* most powerful bloc in the Democratic Party.

Had, for example, Al Smith, won the presidency in 1928, I think it's quite possible that Republicans would today be the left-of-center, liberal party in American politics, as they were when they first formed.

[Person Man]

...I don't really have that much to add to that. However, I do think it is important to understand one basic principle- our condition is not just "the way things are". Sure, things are the way they are, but they are only like that because they became that over time. I mean, people aren't just "fat" because they were born to be fat, but they became fat over time, whether it happen in childhood or after they had children of their own....but I digress. The point I am trying to make is that people weren't just Democrats or Republicans for no reason, however that reason may not have been because they liked (conservative) or didn't like (liberal) the times that they lived in. For example, it could simply be an issue of culture or community psycology. One could even argue that to be a Democrat or a Republican gives certain things meaning.

[Beet]

Um, a Labour government of Ramsay MacDonald was elected in June 1929; that did not make the Tories the left-of-center party for the rest of the century. It just made sure that the UK government learned toward the fascist side in the 1930s, which had consequences for Spain and elsewhere.

To what, specifically, are you referring to with regard to the Republicans and unions in the 19th century? It sounds interesting. From what I am aware, the labor movement was largely third party during the gilded age, although it did attempt to infiltrate the major parties from time to time.

From what I understand, the Democratic party and its predecessor, the Republican party, have always been to the left of center, and the GOP has always been to the right of center. Yes, for the first century or more of its existence there was a progressive wing within the GOP, however, this was largely a consequence of the fact that the GOP's natural constituency were the rich, bourgeois and these people, by virtue of being educated, tended to exhibit a typical trait of rich, bourgeois and educated people, which is the urge to help improve the disadvantaged and improve society.

[Person Man]

Um, a Labour government of Ramsay MacDonald was elected in June 1929; that did not make the Tories the left-of-center party for the rest of the century. It just made sure that the UK government learned toward the fascist side in the 1930s, which had consequences for Spain and elsewhere.

To what, specifically, are you referring to with regard to the Republicans and unions in the 19th century? It sounds interesting. From what I am aware, the labor movement was largely third party during the gilded age, although it did attempt to infiltrate the major parties from time to time.

From what I understand, the Democratic party and its predecessor, the Republican party, have always been to the left of center, and the GOP has always been to the right of center. Yes, for the first century or more of its existence there was a progressive wing within the GOP, however, this was largely a consequence of the fact that the GOP's natural constituency were the rich, bourgeois and these people, by virtue of being educated, tended to exhibit a typical trait of rich, bourgeois and educated people, which is the urge to help improve the disadvantaged and improve society.

I wonder how that entire "Champagne Liberal" started. I mean, does becoming rich make your generous?...and about lower-income Republicans- does being fat and poor mean that you are greedy?

[Beet]

Um, a Labour government of Ramsay MacDonald was elected in June 1929; that did not make the Tories the left-of-center party for the rest of the century. It just made sure that the UK government learned toward the fascist side in the 1930s, which had consequences for Spain and elsewhere.

To what, specifically, are you referring to with regard to the Republicans and unions in the 19th century? It sounds interesting. From what I am aware, the labor movement was largely third party during the gilded age, although it did attempt to infiltrate the major parties from time to time.

From what I understand, the Democratic party and its predecessor, the Republican party, have always been to the left of center, and the GOP has always been to the right of center. Yes, for the first century or more of its existence there was a progressive wing within the GOP, however, this was largely a consequence of the fact that the GOP's natural constituency were the rich, bourgeois and these people, by virtue of being educated, tended to exhibit a typical trait of rich, bourgeois and educated people, which is the urge to help improve the disadvantaged and improve society.

I wonder how that entire "Champagne Liberal" started. I mean, does becoming rich make your generous?...and about lower-income Republicans- does being fat and poor mean that you are greedy?

No; Even after all the upheaval, today's Democratic party still draws its economic base from the poor, and today's Republican party still draws its economic base from the rich.

Anyway, I wouldn't characterize 'champagne liberal' as all of these people. Most of them had real ideals actually took them seriously, and many of them did very efficacious work on the behalf of the disadvantaged. Don't read a disparaging tone- I'm not too far off form this breed myself.

Also, some of the Progressive side of the GOP may have had to do with cultural issues arising from the different groups of Europeans and their migration patterns; others would know more about this than I.

[Person Man]

So, if it is not ideology or class, could it be culture? And if it was culture, how did any of these cultures evolve?

[pragmatic liberal]

Um, a Labour government of Ramsay MacDonald was elected in June 1929; that did not make the Tories the left-of-center party for the rest of the century. It just made sure that the UK government learned toward the fascist side in the 1930s, which had consequences for Spain and elsewhere.

To what, specifically, are you referring to with regard to the Republicans and unions in the 19th century? It sounds interesting. From what I am aware, the labor movement was largely third party during the gilded age, although it did attempt to infiltrate the major parties from time to time.

From what I understand, the Democratic party and its predecessor, the Republican party, have always been to the left of center, and the GOP has always been to the right of center. Yes, for the first century or more of its existence there was a progressive wing within the GOP, however, this was largely a consequence of the fact that the GOP's natural constituency were the rich, bourgeois and these people, by virtue of being educated, tended to exhibit a typical trait of rich, bourgeois and educated people, which is the urge to help improve the disadvantaged and improve society.

My point about the Depression is that the New Deal fundamentally shifted the Democratic Party to the left. My counterfactual was that if, say, Al Smith, had been president during the 1929 crash, then perhaps a Republican that won in 1932 might have embarked on a New Deal-like program and cemented the Republicans as the "left-of-center" party.

Where I completely disagree with you is the idea that Democrats were always the left-of-center party. Democrats were the party that supported slavery. They opposed federal spending and an active federal government. They were the party of rural voters and agrarian interests. In the late 19th century, they were even more hostile to unions and regulation than Republicans. They opposed most federal spending and were extremely close to banking interests and conservative business interests. Grover Cleveland vetoed aid to flood victims for God's sake!

While the Democrats were historically the party of the poor, they were largely the party of the rural poor. Many urban poor voted Republican. Although it is true that Democrats were historically the party of most immigrant communities (Jews, Irish), although some immigrant communities (Germans, Italians) were more likely to be Republicans.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

From its inception, the Republican Party has always been the party of pro-business and the elite. In many ways, it still is today, although the Democrats have been gaining in that demographic recently. They still drawn their base from the most wealthy Americans, while the Democrats still drawn their base from the poor and minorities.

Sure, some of the ideologies have changed, but they haven't completely flipped as many people claim. The Republican Party was always for a more free-market economic system and less government intervention. The party pushed civil rights up through the 50s before Goldwater's wing took the torch.

There are still progressives within the party, although we are a small breed. I like to think of myself as one, supporting gay rights, abortion rights, stem cell research and environmental regulations. However, the GOP's main principles are the ones that keep me in the party today: individual freedoms, pro-business policies and a small government that gives the person choices, not a mandate for the government. Today's GOP still adheres to those principles, but they are waning just a bit. The Democratic Party, however, will never adhere to them. It just isn't their ideology.

[Beet]

I'm going to punt on Depression counter-factuals; partly because UK parties are different from US parties, so you may well be right, and partly to focus on the other point of disagreement.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

By this standard, Adolf Hitler was a massive leftist because the Nazis had a command economy. Buy into this stuff if you want-- I'd always filed it in the category of libertarian fantasy, but some people do see it this way and as a semantical matter there's no point in arguing.

No, what differentiates the right and the left in the West is mainly is that the Left tends to champion the weak and disadvantaged in society, while the Right champions those in power.

[Person Man]

Another thing that has been stewing in my mind is this Sociological theory of Relative Deprivation. This could explain why so many rural poors are Republican and so many Upper-Middle and Middle-Class urbanites are democrats.

You see, in rural areas, where taxes, wages, land values- and above all- economic competiton are low, it is relatively easy to get a nice apartment on the main drag or a nice colonial a mile or two down the main drag, without much more than a High School education. Making just 35,000 a year as a carpenter, plumber or mechanic, you will be able to get a 3 bedroom home, a used truck and maybe a nice TV, health insurance and a savings account going. If not, your wife, who probably is just a High School graduate, will probably work part time as a receptionist for someone and bring in perhaps another 15,000 a year. In this situation, you have no need for government support, because you don't have to fight for work and everything is cheap. Even if you are poor, if the market ain't broke, don't fix it....and life is good and no one else is flaunting their stuff. You can be a happy yeoman.

On the other hand, if you are a doctor, lawyer or executive making 120,000 in a big city, you probably have massive competition. Your 2500 you can afford a rent only gets you a two bedroom loft, if you are very lucky. You will probably need to get married to someone at least of your station just to afford the 4000 a month you probably need to get a family-size apartment in the middle of town. On top of that, the competition for food and utilities is tense and though you have a new Large Benz in your parking space, you probably have trouble saving money or having health insurance (though your insurance is probably covered by your "lucrative" position). On top of that, you probably have at least 50000 in loans to just have been trained. You feel that you can never get ahead because your supervisor or competitor and his wife makes twice as much as you and your wife do and can afford to have a full-sized, 4-bedroom penthouse on the 8000 (a 2 or 3 million dollar house) they have available for rent and can afford to go out to eat every night and always go to the South Seas or Europe for vacation every other weekend. You are a very succesful man, but you are still struggling to get by and you are constantly reminded how long of a ways you have to go. At this point, you probably believe that you should get help in affording basic neccesities, even if it means that the tax burden will go on you- you need to get your daughter chemo, not a new pair of $500 jogging shoes.

In a nutshell- a working class lifestyle in the country is less difficult than an upper-middle class lifestyle in "town". People could just say that you should move, but then you would lose all of the services you get as well as all the business you produce. It's nuts. I mean, everyone wants freedom and I don't think that people are actively debating whether or not they want a market economy. OTOH, they do debate whether or not the market, as liberal/free as it is, actually causes them to be happy.

[WillK]

As most people here are almost certainly aware, the two parties have nearly completely flipped positions ideologically and geographically from when the Republican Party was first formed. Yet I see a lot of disagreement about when the transition happened, with many characterizing the Republican Party as a conservative party throughout much of the late 19th century.

I would argue that Republicans actually remained the "left-of-center" party until the Wilson presidency and that the Democrats only definitively became the "left-of-cetner" party with FDR's presidency.
...

I think its interesting to compare the maps of 1920 and 1964.  When in between one could say the shift happened, Im not sure  but I definitely think its between those two. 

[WillK]

...
No, what differentiates the right and the left in the West is mainly is that the Left tends to champion the weak and disadvantaged in society, while the Right champions those in power.

Which supports the contention that the Democrats have been the party on the right at times.

[pragmatic liberal]

I'm going to punt on Depression counter-factuals; partly because UK parties are different from US parties, so you may well be right, and partly to focus on the other point of disagreement.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

By this standard, Adolf Hitler was a massive leftist because the Nazis had a command economy. Buy into this stuff if you want-- I'd always filed it in the category of libertarian fantasy, but some people do see it this way and as a semantical matter there's no point in arguing.

No, what differentiates the right and the left in the West is mainly is that the Left tends to champion the weak and disadvantaged in society, while the Right champions those in power.

Beet, in what ways were the 19th Century Bourbon Democrats "left-of-center" - in any way?!

The Bourbon Democrats - and they were the defining faction of the Democratic Party throughout the late 19th Century - opposed virtually all forms of social spending and all redistributionist policies. In Andrew Jackson's time, farther back, they opposed aid to public education. It was Republicans who passed redistributionist legislation like the Land Grant College Act, the Homestead Act, protective tariffs, etc. It was Republicans who passed the first antitrust legislation (Sherman Antitrust Act) and argued for civil rights for blacks.

Yes, Democrats claimed they were for the "common man." But every party claims that. Hell, George W. Bush's Republicans claimed they were the party of working people. And as I said, much of the urban poor historically voted Republican.

Again - what policies did 19th century Democrats have that made them "left-of-center"?

[Person Man]

Well...there were a couple of close elections during this time, but most of them weren't. Let's take a look-see through the lense of a 50-50 election.

1920

1932

1944

1956

- The West Coast and South. Wow.

1960

1968

...and this goes on until about 1984 or 1988. Then you start to see our modern map come into place.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Good analysis, but even if the transformation of Democratic Party was a quite long process, I still believe that republicans very soon became a conservative party. In fact, economical conservatism was not in contradiction with the original GOP. But that becoming more and more the main issue, we can consder that GOP became conservative immediately after the Civil War. Now, Democrats became really progressive only with FDR, I agree. But even the Conservative "Bourbon Democrats" during the Golden Age were more moderates than Republicans on economic issues.
Finally, if during the 1900-1930 period a great part of the GOP ( The "TR wing" ) was also resolutely progressive, that was in my opinion by the lack of a real progressive political force, considering that the two attempts to create one failed.

[Person Man]

jtlyk, these are the 1980, 1996 and 2008 maps...and a prediction for 2020.
1980

1996

2008

[Person Man]

Heck. It appears that when the Democrats become marginalized again, they may become the party for Middle-Class Westerners with little appeal anywhere else.

[jokerman]

Especially in the North, the Democrats even in the mid 19th century, were socially the left of center party, so to speak, at least in the sense they attracted the votes of the "amoral" masses of urban, especiallly immigrant population, versus the established, puritan protestantism base of the Republicans, which inherited the Know-Nothing legacy.

[pragmatic liberal]

Especially in the North, the Democrats even in the mid 19th century, were socially the left of center party, so to speak, at least in the sense they attracted the votes of the "amoral" masses of urban, especiallly immigrant population, versus the established, puritan protestantism base of the Republicans, which inherited the Know-Nothing legacy.

That's true and like I said, while I do think the parties have largely flipped, ideologically and demographically, it's not completely simple. Democrats have always been the party of working class white "ethnics" (although some groups, like Italian-Americans, did lean more Republican in the 20th Century).

It also explains why the Republicans, even many self-described "progressives," favored prohibition.

However, keep in mind that the descendants of those Republican pietists these days largely vote Democratic, while many of the liturgical "ethnic" whites (esp. those who are still working-class) now often vote Republican.

[Person Man]

Like I said, politcal affiliation probably has move to do with economic competition than class.

[Zarn]

The Republicans were always capitalists...

For most of the time, so were the Dems.

[pbrower2a]

In the North, the Republicans were the party of creditors, Big Business, small-scale entrepreneurs, and successful farmers. Democrats were the party of debtors, blue-collar workers and non-WASP ethnic groups (especially the Irish) other than blacks. On the whole the Republicans were a right-leaning party, with the exception of blacks who distrusted blue-collar white workers; the Democrats were the left-leaning Party.

In the South, the Democratic Party was the party of rural large land-owners, and the Republican Party was associated largely with people denied the vote. Most Southern states were de facto single-party dictatorships. The Democratic Party there was unequivocally the right-wing Party.

[Beet]

I'm going to punt on Depression counter-factuals; partly because UK parties are different from US parties, so you may well be right, and partly to focus on the other point of disagreement.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

By this standard, Adolf Hitler was a massive leftist because the Nazis had a command economy. Buy into this stuff if you want-- I'd always filed it in the category of libertarian fantasy, but some people do see it this way and as a semantical matter there's no point in arguing.

No, what differentiates the right and the left in the West is mainly is that the Left tends to champion the weak and disadvantaged in society, while the Right champions those in power.

Beet, in what ways were the 19th Century Bourbon Democrats "left-of-center" - in any way?!

The Bourbon Democrats - and they were the defining faction of the Democratic Party throughout the late 19th Century - opposed virtually all forms of social spending and all redistributionist policies. In Andrew Jackson's time, farther back, they opposed aid to public education. It was Republicans who passed redistributionist legislation like the Land Grant College Act, the Homestead Act, protective tariffs, etc. It was Republicans who passed the first antitrust legislation (Sherman Antitrust Act) and argued for civil rights for blacks.

Yes, Democrats claimed they were for the "common man." But every party claims that. Hell, George W. Bush's Republicans claimed they were the party of working people. And as I said, much of the urban poor historically voted Republican.

Again - what policies did 19th century Democrats have that made them "left-of-center"?

Even in the 19th century, the Bourbon Democrats drew their support from lower classes of society relative to the Republicans. In the north, the Republicans were supported by big financiers, industrialists, and the petty bourgeois, while the Democrats were more likely to be supported by immigrants and unskilled workers. Also, there was a significant Civil War residual at this time; Republicans drew their support from nationalists and union pensioners, while Democrats drew their support from the south and copperheads. Within the South, the best argument can be made that the Democratic establishment represented conservatism: it was dominated by the planter elite whereas the poor mountain whites tended towards Republicans. But the shadow of race and the civil war primarily determined Democratic domination of the South.

Yes, the Bourbon Democrats opposed virtually all forms of social spending and redistributionist policies,  but so did the Republicans. The entire Gilded Age was one in which economic conservatism defined the two major parties-- the left was mainly relegated to third party movements, although it did have local footholds in major parties and try to infiltrate both of the major parties from time to time, they never really succeeded nationally until 1896-1901. There was not the sharp economic divide there is today in the terms that we think of today. Yes, Sherman was a Republican, but his antitrust bill passed 51-1 in the Senate and unanimously in the House. A more partisan issue that year was the McKinley Tariff; all but one Republican in the House voted for it, every single Democrat voted against it.

The tariff was the primary foundation on which Republicans ran their campaigns in the late 19th century. In contrast to the 20th century, where the tariff was seen as an instrument to protect manufacturing jobs, back then it was seen as an instrument to protect America's growing industries. The consumers of industrial output, many of them agricultural, opposed the the tariff because it increased their prices. Thus the battle in the 19th century was one of producers over consumers of industrial goods. Since many of the consumers were poor farmers, generally disorganized, and the producers were usually organized industrial interests-- a pro high-tariff position cannot be said to have been automatically left of center.

In the 19th century, government redistribution was not automatically seen as friendly to the poor and dispossessed-- that is an artifact of the Progressive era and the New Deal. Things like the Homestead Act and the Land Grant Act were evaluated more in terms of how they would affect constituencies and the extent to which government expansion would tend to centralize-- as opposed to decentralize, power. The Land Grant Act would make the federal government more powerful in the provision of education to the states, therefore it was seen as Hamiltonian and elitist. The Homestead Act was arguably more genuinely populist, because the Democrats in opposing it were siding with the southern planter elite. But in the debate over centralism, the Democratic party, despite the nationalist tendencies of Jackson, to lean towards the states' rights side, and at that time, the planter elite represented that side. Only a small minority within the Republican party (the abolitionists) were actually concerned with the civil rights of blacks. The majority of Republican opposition to slavery came from the mid-western free soil movement, which was equally concerned with keeping blacks out of the territories.

Broadly, the 19th century Republicans and Democrats-
- Advanced a view of small central government because government at that time government was seen as an instrument of the privileged or industrial producers (e.g., the Bank of the United States, the tariff)
- Advanced an agricultural view of economics because industry and big business was seen as elitist at at time when 70-90% of people were living on farms
- In the Second Party system, advocated financial reform and broad participation by the masses in politics and holding office

Broadly, the Whigs and GOP/modern Republicans-
- Advanced a view of strong central government due to nationalistic sentiments which was inherited from the Federalist era
- Advanced government intervention to develop the Hamiltonian vision of a commercial, industrial economy

I would argue that of the issues of their day, the Democrats, by favoring weaker government and an egalitarian (agricultural) economy, were acting leftist, while the Republicans, by being more nationalistic and advocating a more complex, hierarchical economic system, were acting rightist, and although there were many and significant exceptions to these tendencies, they never usurped this basic dichotomy.

It was not until our century that the idea came to "use Hamiltonian means towards Jeffersonian ends" and the notion of an egalitarian commercial/industrial economy became widespread.

[pragmatic liberal]

I'm going to punt on Depression counter-factuals; partly because UK parties are different from US parties, so you may well be right, and partly to focus on the other point of disagreement.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

By this standard, Adolf Hitler was a massive leftist because the Nazis had a command economy. Buy into this stuff if you want-- I'd always filed it in the category of libertarian fantasy, but some people do see it this way and as a semantical matter there's no point in arguing.

No, what differentiates the right and the left in the West is mainly is that the Left tends to champion the weak and disadvantaged in society, while the Right champions those in power.

Beet, in what ways were the 19th Century Bourbon Democrats "left-of-center" - in any way?!

The Bourbon Democrats - and they were the defining faction of the Democratic Party throughout the late 19th Century - opposed virtually all forms of social spending and all redistributionist policies. In Andrew Jackson's time, farther back, they opposed aid to public education. It was Republicans who passed redistributionist legislation like the Land Grant College Act, the Homestead Act, protective tariffs, etc. It was Republicans who passed the first antitrust legislation (Sherman Antitrust Act) and argued for civil rights for blacks.

Yes, Democrats claimed they were for the "common man." But every party claims that. Hell, George W. Bush's Republicans claimed they were the party of working people. And as I said, much of the urban poor historically voted Republican.

Again - what policies did 19th century Democrats have that made them "left-of-center"?

Even in the 19th century, the Bourbon Democrats drew their support from lower classes of society relative to the Republicans. In the north, the Republicans were supported by big financiers, industrialists, and the petty bourgeois, while the Democrats were more likely to be supported by immigrants and unskilled workers. Also, there was a significant Civil War residual at this time; Republicans drew their support from nationalists and union pensioners, while Democrats drew their support from the south and copperheads. Within the South, the best argument can be made that the Democratic establishment represented conservatism: it was dominated by the planter elite whereas the poor mountain whites tended towards Republicans. But the shadow of race and the civil war primarily determined Democratic domination of the South.

Yes, the Bourbon Democrats opposed virtually all forms of social spending and redistributionist policies,  but so did the Republicans. The entire Gilded Age was one in which economic conservatism defined the two major parties-- the left was mainly relegated to third party movements, although it did have local footholds in major parties and try to infiltrate both of the major parties from time to time, they never really succeeded nationally until 1896-1901. There was not the sharp economic divide there is today in the terms that we think of today. Yes, Sherman was a Republican, but his antitrust bill passed 51-1 in the Senate and unanimously in the House. A more partisan issue that year was the McKinley Tariff; all but one Republican in the House voted for it, every single Democrat voted against it.

The tariff was the primary foundation on which Republicans ran their campaigns in the late 19th century. In contrast to the 20th century, where the tariff was seen as an instrument to protect manufacturing jobs, back then it was seen as an instrument to protect America's growing industries. The consumers of industrial output, many of them agricultural, opposed the the tariff because it increased their prices. Thus the battle in the 19th century was one of producers over consumers of industrial goods. Since many of the consumers were poor farmers, generally disorganized, and the producers were usually organized industrial interests-- a pro high-tariff position cannot be said to have been automatically left of center.

In the 19th century, government redistribution was not automatically seen as friendly to the poor and dispossessed-- that is an artifact of the Progressive era and the New Deal. Things like the Homestead Act and the Land Grant Act were evaluated more in terms of how they would affect constituencies and the extent to which government expansion would tend to centralize-- as opposed to decentralize, power. The Land Grant Act would make the federal government more powerful in the provision of education to the states, therefore it was seen as Hamiltonian and elitist. The Homestead Act was arguably more genuinely populist, because the Democrats in opposing it were siding with the southern planter elite. But in the debate over centralism, the Democratic party, despite the nationalist tendencies of Jackson, to lean towards the states' rights side, and at that time, the planter elite represented that side. Only a small minority within the Republican party (the abolitionists) were actually concerned with the civil rights of blacks. The majority of Republican opposition to slavery came from the mid-western free soil movement, which was equally concerned with keeping blacks out of the territories.

Broadly, the 19th century Republicans and Democrats-
- Advanced a view of small central government because government at that time government was seen as an instrument of the privileged or industrial producers (e.g., the Bank of the United States, the tariff)
- Advanced an agricultural view of economics because industry and big business was seen as elitist at at time when 70-90% of people were living on farms
- In the Second Party system, advocated financial reform and broad participation by the masses in politics and holding office

Broadly, the Whigs and GOP/modern Republicans-
- Advanced a view of strong central government due to nationalistic sentiments which was inherited from the Federalist era
- Advanced government intervention to develop the Hamiltonian vision of a commercial, industrial economy

I would argue that of the issues of their day, the Democrats, by favoring weaker government and an egalitarian (agricultural) economy, were acting leftist, while the Republicans, by being more nationalistic and advocating a more complex, hierarchical economic system, were acting rightist, and although there were many and significant exceptions to these tendencies, they never usurped this basic dichotomy.

It was not until our century that the idea came to "use Hamiltonian means towards Jeffersonian ends" and the notion of an egalitarian commercial/industrial economy became widespread.

OK, good response. I think you make a good case. And as I said, the issue is complicated by the fact that both parties were generally conservative in the 19th Century and by the fact that more interventionist policies were generally seen as "conservative" as opposed to liberal, as they are in the modern day.

Still, I would point out - again - that the poor did not vote uniformly Democratic. The rural poor did, as did (most) immigrant communities in the north. Other urban northern populations, however, did vote Republican. And I would also point out that in terms of geographic bases and demographic bases, the parties have largely flipped places. For example, in the 19th century, a middle-class or upper-middle-class pietistic WASP in the Northeast would generally be pro-business, have been abolitionist pre-Civil War, and favor a stronger, more economically interventionist central government, while calling themselves "conservative" and voting Republican. Today, their descendants probably also favor a stronger, more assertive federal government, favor civil rights, but call themselves liberal and vote Democrat.

Meanwhile, a working-class Southern white would have been hostile to the central government and voted Democrat in the 19th Century. Nowadays, their descendants are probably hostile to the central government and vote Republican.

[Alexander Hamilton]

1828