Rockefeller Republicans

[Bo]

Garbage history. The Roosevelt split in 1912 permanently ended any "domination" on the part of the liberal, or even moderate, element of the Republican Party. Don't believe me? Let's look at every Republican President after Roosevelt:

Taft - Moderate-conservative
Harding - Conservative
Coolidge - Conservative
Hoover - Moderate
Eisenhower - Moderate
Nixon - Moderate-conservative
Reagan - Conservative
Bush the First - Moderate
Bush the Second - Conservative

That's four solidly conservative Presidents, two moderately conservative ones, and only three genuine moderates. And no liberals - some "domination".

I'd classify Taft, Eisenhower, Nixon, and Ford (whom you forgot) as liberal-moderate.

Taft was considerably to the Right of Roosevelt; Eisenhower ran against Truman as being "soft on Communism"; Nixon was an anti-Semite and notorious red-baiter; and Ford was never elected.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hoover was quite liberal, and instituted a number of measures that would later be expanded to encompass the New Deal. Bush the First flip-flopped on virtually everything.

Taft was only to the right of Roosevelt in rhetoric. He essentially continued all of TR's policies, and even issued more anti-trust lawsuits than TR. Eisenhower was pretty liberal-moderate on domestic and foreign policy. He supported the New Deal and high taxes on the rich, and essentially continued the foreign policy that FDR and Truman started. Nixon and Ford also supported the New Deal and the Great Society, as well as high taxes on the rich. In addition, Nixon and Ford did not do any dramatic changes to the foreign policy of their liberal predecessors. Ford was never elected, but you said you listed all Republican Presidents since 1912, not all elected Republican Presidents since 1912. That's why I reminded you about Ford. In regards to Hoover, I guess I agree with you. Bush Sr. was pretty liberal-moderate before 1980, but after he became VP and President he became very conservative. He supported low taxes for the rich and big business, as well as deregulation. Raising taxes on ordinary people is not necessarily a liberal thing to do--Reagan did it as well.

[Scam of God]

Garbage history. The Roosevelt split in 1912 permanently ended any "domination" on the part of the liberal, or even moderate, element of the Republican Party. Don't believe me? Let's look at every Republican President after Roosevelt:

Taft - Moderate-conservative
Harding - Conservative
Coolidge - Conservative
Hoover - Moderate
Eisenhower - Moderate
Nixon - Moderate-conservative
Reagan - Conservative
Bush the First - Moderate
Bush the Second - Conservative

That's four solidly conservative Presidents, two moderately conservative ones, and only three genuine moderates. And no liberals - some "domination".

I'd classify Taft, Eisenhower, Nixon, and Ford (whom you forgot) as liberal-moderate.

Taft was considerably to the Right of Roosevelt; Eisenhower ran against Truman as being "soft on Communism"; Nixon was an anti-Semite and notorious red-baiter; and Ford was never elected.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hoover was quite liberal, and instituted a number of measures that would later be expanded to encompass the New Deal. Bush the First flip-flopped on virtually everything.

Taft was only to the right of Roosevelt in rhetoric. He essentially continued all of TR's policies, and even issued more anti-trust lawsuits than TR. Eisenhower was pretty liberal-moderate on domestic and foreign policy. He supported the New Deal and high taxes on the rich, and essentially continued the foreign policy that FDR and Truman started. Nixon and Ford also supported the New Deal and the Great Society, as well as high taxes on the rich. In addition, Nixon and Ford did not do any dramatic changes to the foreign policy of their liberal predecessors. Ford was never elected, but you said you listed all Republican Presidents since 1912, not all elected Republican Presidents since 1912. That's why I reminded you about Ford. In regards to Hoover, I guess I agree with you. Bush Sr. was pretty liberal-moderate before 1980, but after he became VP and President he became very conservative. He supported low taxes for the rich and big business, as well as deregulation. Raising taxes on ordinary people is not necessarily a liberal thing to do--Reagan did it as well.

My concern, as I stated to Yankee, was with perception. Today Taft looks like a flaming liberal; at the height of the progressive era he was viewed as downright reactionary, and the furthest Right of the three major candidates. Ike's rhetoric was reactionary. Nixon's rhetoric was reactionary. I am concerned with the image, the superficialities of the candidates. And in virtually every case after World War I the Republican candidate has been to the Right on these things.

[live free or die]

They basically switched places with Dixiecrats.

[Bo]

They basically switched places with Dixiecrats.

That's right--almost all Dixiecrats either retired or went to the GOP, and almost all Rockefeller Republicans either retired or went to the Democrats. This, in turn, made American politics much more polarized.

[live free or die]

They basically switched places with Dixiecrats.

That's right--almost all Dixiecrats either retired or went to the GOP, and almost all Rockefeller Republicans either retired or went to the Democrats. This, in turn, made American politics much more polarized.

Indeed. I would place the factions as such:

Rockefeller Republicans: left
Democrats: center-left
Republicans: center-right
Dixiecrats: right

So essentially, the parties became united on ideological grounds, rather than cultural, religious, ethnic, and income backgrounds.

[Mint]

Bush wasn't a conservative Einzige, not going by traditional definitions anyway. And Nixon governed like even more like a liberal than Eisenhower in terms of domestic policy.

[Mint]

They basically switched places with Dixiecrats.

That's right--almost all Dixiecrats either retired or went to the GOP, and almost all Rockefeller Republicans either retired or went to the Democrats. This, in turn, made American politics much more polarized.

Indeed. I would place the factions as such:

Rockefeller Republicans: left
Democrats: center-left
Republicans: center-right
Dixiecrats: right

So essentially, the parties became united on ideological grounds, rather than cultural, religious, ethnic, and income backgrounds.

Do you mean in terms of voting base, or leadership? Because if the latter, even under supposed 'polarization' of Bush, both parties voted the same way about 40% of the time.  I'd say the divisions are still more along the racial/'cultural' lines or background in general than substantive differences most of the time.

[Psychic Octopus]

Hoover was a progressive, or at least a form of it, anyway.

[Jensen]

We [isorta[/i] exist in the Northeast, though, we rarely win. My Governor is pretty moderate.

[Psychic Octopus]

We [isorta[/i] exist in the Northeast, though, we rarely win. My Governor is pretty moderate.

Welcome to the forum!

[Mint]

We [isorta[/i] exist in the Northeast, though, we rarely win. My Governor is pretty moderate.

Welcome to the forum!

[Bo]

We [isorta[/i] exist in the Northeast, though, we rarely win. My Governor is pretty moderate.

Welcome to the forum!

[Scam of God]

Bush wasn't a conservative Einzige, not going by traditional definitions anyway.

No True Scotsman fallacy. Bush certainly wanted to be perceived as a conservative, at any rate. He even campaigned, during his first race, as a "paleocon" of sorts, railing against "nation-building". He just wasn't your type of conservative.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Once more, I notice that conservatives tend to take things wildly out of context. Today Nixon would probably be a sort-of populist - socially conservative, economically liberal. But during the last days of the New Deal era, Nixon wasn't merely conservative, he was reactionary - "Why, she's pink, right down to her underwear!"

You have abstracted "conservatism" to the point that it no longer signifies anything.

[hawkeye59]

They'll probably come back around 2050 or so

[All Along The Watchtower]

The Democratic Party has co-opted their agenda.

So never.

[Bo]

The Democratic Party has co-opted their agenda.

So never.

Never say never. That's what many people in the 19th century said about ever having a black President.

[All Along The Watchtower]

The Democratic Party has co-opted their agenda.

So never.

Never say never. That's what many people in the 19th century said about ever having a black President.

Ok, how about "not for a while?"

[Conservative frontier]

Hopefully never.

Libertas, you and me agree on a lot shockingly.

[Bo]

The Democratic Party has co-opted their agenda.

So never.

Never say never. That's what many people in the 19th century said about ever having a black President.

Ok, how about "not for a while?"

That's much better. Now define "a while."

[President Mitt]

If I haven't already,

Hopefully never.

[Vepres]

2014-ish. It appears that there is going to be a NE Republican renaissance this year. Presumably, this will strengthen the moderate wing of the party, which will build on itself.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Vepres, why do you suddenly like Rockefeller Republicans, like Chafee and Snowe?