Party standpoints

[timburt]

I used to be puzzled by the fact that, with few exceptions, States that were strongly Democratic 100 years ago - basically, the South - are now rock-ribbed Republican, and vice versa (New England).In fact, hard as it is to imagine now, the Republicans were originally the party of the Left in America, formed to oppose at least the extension, if not the existence, of slavery. The most fiercely Radical politicians of those days (Ben Wade, Thaddeus Stevens et. al.) were all in the Republican Party, as would Michael Moore and Ralph Nader have been, if they had been alive then. Conversely, the slave interests - the most reactionary force in the country - were all Democrats and George Bush and John Ashcroft would have been in there with them. Some one should write a book on how the two parties gradually swapped places in the political spectrum - or has someone already done so? If so, can someone point me to it? Any comments? 

[Redefeatbush04]

I used to be puzzled by the fact that, with few exceptions, States that were strongly Democratic 100 years ago - basically, the South - are now rock-ribbed Republican, and vice versa (New England).In fact, hard as it is to imagine now, the Republicans were originally the party of the Left in America, formed to oppose at least the extension, if not the existence, of slavery. The most fiercely Radical politicians of those days (Ben Wade, Thaddeus Stevens et. al.) were all in the Republican Party, as would Michael Moore and Ralph Nader have been, if they had been alive then. Conversely, the slave interests - the most reactionary force in the country - were all Democrats and George Bush and John Ashcroft would have been in there with them. Some one should write a book on how the two parties gradually swapped places in the political spectrum - or has someone already done so? If so, can someone point me to it? Any comments? 

I myself have pondered this also. It is weird how in the 30's south carolina was nearly 100% democratic (I believe they hit 98% in 32 or 36), yet today the white population of south carolina is almost exclusively republican. Vermont on the other hand, used to be the most republican state in the nation. They are now solidly democratic. Look at the party platforms: I have noticed that economically the parties have remained more or less the same, but socially the democratic party has moved much further to the left, and the republican party much further to the right.

[Erc]

They've shifted economically as well.  Republicans (1800's, to a certain extent up until the end of Hoover's term) were Economic Nationalists in the tradition of the Whigs and Friedrich List (who himself was inspired by Henry Clay)--protection for big business, subsidies for business, etc.--the old Conservative position.

The Democrats, on the other hand, wanted government to stay out of business, not grant its subsidies, have a "tariff for revenue only," etc.--the Classical Liberal position.

Then with the Populists and Progressives beginning in 1896, the focus shifts from bolstering business to undermining them--the Republicans slowly take the Classical Liberal position, while the Democrats take the quasi-socialist (well, actually, more Keynesian [after FDR]) position of social spending, labor laws, etc.  Plus some subsidies to business (ie farms) as well--while the Republicans have moved more to the Classical Liberal position in reaction.

Note that Kerry's economic position this time around (nigh-on protectionism) sounded a lot like the 19th-Century one...


Note that I'd have voted Democrat in the 19th Century.  Grover Cleveland is my President.

[Bugs]

If you compare the map from the 1860 pres. election with the ones for 2000 and 2004 they are almost the exact opposite.

[Silent Hunter]

Civil Rights was also a factor in this.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

And huge Demographic changes

[The Dowager Mod]

A lot of southern democrats bolted over civil rights.

[True Democrat]

If you compare the map from the 1860 pres. election with the ones for 2000 and 2004 they are almost the exact opposite.

The map from 1916 is also opposite.

[Vagabond Manifesto]

I think there are some books on this...one that deals with this somewhat is Thomas Frank's "What's the Matter With Kansas?", a liberal's take on why formerly progressive farmers in the Midwest overwelmingly vote Republican now.

Here are some thoughts from what I know of the re-alignment:

--the Republicans were the party of the wealthy in the 19th century, while the Democrats were the party of the agrarian South. With industrialization, Republicans further embraced big business
--many progressive Republicans left the party in the 1920s, and especially once the New Deal began
--the final straw was the 1960s. The moderate-to-liberal wing of the Republicans, led by Rockefeller, lost out to the right-wing Goldwater faction. Goldwater's Southern Strategy, which used social issues and civil rights to win votes in the South, was adopted as a blueprint for the Republicans
--civil rights was the biggest cause. The Democrats basically lost the entire South because of it. Note the "Dixiecrats" under Strom Thurmond, even before the national legislation of the 1960s.

[Schmitz in 1972]

The standpoints of the states are  constantly changing although sometimes the changes seem a bit more dramatic (i. e. the south voting for Goldwater in 1964  while Vermont voted for Johnson). 2000 was a very good election in how it showed very simply where every state pretty much stands right now (in most other elections the strength of the winning candidate overpowers some state standpoints). 2008 will be very interesting because for the first time since 1952 it will truly be an "open seat" contest.

1952: Truman and Barkley decline to run for president
1956: Incumbent Pres Eisenhower runs (W)
1960: Incumbent Veep Nixon runs (L)
1964: Incumbent Pres Johnson runs (W)
1968: Incumbent Veep Humphrey runs (L)
1972: Incumbent Pres Nixon runs (W)
1976: Incumbent Pres Ford runs (L)
1980: Incumbent Pres Carter runs (L)
1984: Incumbent Pres Reagan runs (W)
1988: Incumbent Veep Bush runs (W)
1992: Incumbent Pres Bush runs (L)
1996: Incumbent Pres Clinton runs (W)
2000: Incumbent Veep Gore runs (L)
2004: Incumbent Pres Bush runs (W)

With Bush term limited and Cheney almost certain not to run it looks as though we will have a kind of election not seen since 1952.

[dca5347]

The only reason the deep south voted for Goldwater was they were pissed that Johnson had sold them out on civil rights after they had gotten him & JFK elected in 1960
in what had been the tightest election up till that point since 1888.The only other state he carried was Arizona,his home state.In the main,the South broke with the Democratic Party over Civil Rights during the Sixties & Seventies,The NorthEast & California had been going more slowly and more quietly democratic since the 1920's when most of the "Progressives" left the Republican Party 'en Mass'.