When was the Republican Party the liberal party?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 06:34:58 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Presidential Election Trends (Moderator: 15 Down, 35 To Go)
  When was the Republican Party the liberal party?
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: When was the Republican Party the liberal party?  (Read 18899 times)
FerrisBueller86
jhsu
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 507


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: March 05, 2005, 10:30:19 PM »

The Republican Party was originally formed to push for the abolition of slavery.  Abraham Lincoln is now recognized as the icon of the early days of the Republican Party.

What happened to the Republican Party in the post-slavery days given that it lost its original purpose?  How did the Republican Party become the party of big business?

At what point did the Democratic Party become the more liberal party?  Was it during the FDR administration and the New Deal?  Was it during the JFK administration and the Civil Rights movement?  Were Dewey and Eisenhower liberals?  Were both major parties liberal during the 1932-1960 period?
Logged
Rob
Bob
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,277
United States
Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -9.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: March 05, 2005, 10:36:57 PM »

Well, first of all it's important to note that the GOP was always pro-business. It was the party of industry from the day of its birth; even in the Nineteenth Century, the Republicans hugely outspent the Democrats.

The Democrats got a lock on "liberalism" during the New Deal. The GOP offered a more restrained version of that until Goldwater, so I guess you could say both parties were relatively liberal during that period.
Logged
dazzleman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,777
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: March 06, 2005, 07:17:18 AM »

The definition of liberal and conservative has changed a lot over time.

Twenty years ago, even liberals didn't support gay marriage.  And twenty years ago, conservatives didn't oppose affirmative action, for the most part.

In the 1930s and 1940s, confiscatory taxes and price controls were part of mainstream politics, and today they would be considered extremist.  Even liberals don't advocate those today.

Issues come and go.  I think it's fair to say that what we define as conservative today is in many ways liberal in the classic sense.  Today's liberalism is a collection of positions, many of which would have been considered looney a half century ago.

The Democratic party has probably been pretty consistently more populist, or liberal, on economic policy.  Back in the late 19th century, Democrats favored the abandonment of the gold standard (William Jennings Bryan) while Republicans argued against that as inflationary.

Teddy Roosevelt made the Republicans much more liberal on economic policy.  Republicans also were formerly more "liberal" on social policy because Catholics, who were the foremost social conservatives, were Democrats.  This continued until the 1960s.  There was no real hint of today's brand of social liberal from the Democrats until the 1960s.
Logged
angus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,423
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: March 06, 2005, 02:07:48 PM »

The Republican Party was originally formed to push for the abolition of slavery.  Abraham Lincoln is now recognized as the icon of the early days of the Republican Party.

What happened to the Republican Party in the post-slavery days given that it lost its original purpose?  How did the Republican Party become the party of big business?

At what point did the Democratic Party become the more liberal party?  Was it during the FDR administration and the New Deal?  Was it during the JFK administration and the Civil Rights movement?  Were Dewey and Eisenhower liberals?  Were both major parties liberal during the 1932-1960 period?

The definining characteristic of the GOP is, and always was, nationalism.  It has been so since its first national convention in Pittsburgh in 1856.  And the easiest way to define the democrats is to look at whatever counter to nationalism is fashionable at any given moment in history.  In the 1850s and 60s it was sectionalism, nowadays it seems to be internationalism. 

It is a serious mistake to assume that Americans ever divide along the classic Left/Right lines as is done in most contries.  You yourself have asked the pertinent question in a thread you created.  If we divide along Liberal and Conservative lines, why do some poor folks prefer rightists and some rich folks prefer Leftists?  The answer is that we simply don't.  Which party is more economically laissez-faire, and which is more authoritarian-socialist will simply depend on externally imposed circumstances, and is easily identified at any given point in history, but you cannot simply say that Republicans are Right and Democrats are Left and thus it has always been and thus it always will be.  I think there's probably a sinusoidally-varying function that can describe the extreme Left-right swings in the parties, and this function has a very long period, on the order of decades.  But, the definining characteristic of the GOP has not ever changed:  Nationalism.  Think about it, you probably stereotype us as wrapping ourselves up in God and The Flag, right?  Well, that's not far off, nor was it far off in 1860s when that was exactly the way both New York Democrats and Atlanta Democrats stereotyped the GOP then.  And, maybe it was deserved, hell, what would you do, if you were Weird Al Yankovic and you were going to satirize a fight song than began with "Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord / He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored / He has loosed the fateful lightening of His terrible swift sword / His truth is marching on."  ?   I mean, that's a lyric just asking to be made fun of by the Democrats. 

Plus ça change, plus ce la même chose.  N'est-ce pas, mon ami?

But, to answer your question, it was before the New Deal.  I only caution you not to make the mistake made by the talking heads on FOX, MSNBC, and the like, who attempt to oversimplify, or to compare American "liberalism" or American "conservatism" with those concepts that are long-established worldwide.

"Twas always thus, and always thus shall be"
     --Robin Williams in Dead Poets Society
Logged
dazzleman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,777
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: March 06, 2005, 02:21:01 PM »


The definining characteristic of the GOP is, and always was, nationalism.  It has been so since its first national convention in Pittsburgh in 1856.  And the easiest way to define the democrats is to look at whatever counter to nationalism is fashionable at any given moment in history.  In the 1850s and 60s it was sectionalism, nowadays it seems to be internationalism. 

It is a serious mistake to assume that Americans ever divide along the classic Left/Right lines as is done in most contries.  You yourself have asked the pertinent question in a thread you created.  If we divide along Liberal and Conservative lines, why do some poor folks prefer rightists and some rich folks prefer Leftists?  The answer is that we simply don't.  Which party is more economically laissez-faire, and which is more authoritarian-socialist will simply depend on externally imposed circumstances, and is easily identified at any given point in history, but you cannot simply say that Republicans are Right and Democrats are Left and thus it has always been and thus it always will be.  I think there's probably a sinusoidally-varying function that can describe the extreme Left-right swings in the parties, and this function has a very long period, on the order of decades.  But, the definining characteristic of the GOP has not ever changed:  Nationalism.  Think about it, you probably stereotype us as wrapping ourselves up in God and The Flag, right?  Well, that's not far off, nor was it far off in 1860s when that was exactly the way both New York Democrats and Atlanta Democrats stereotyped the GOP then.  And, maybe it was deserved, hell, what would you do, if you were Weird Al Yankovic and you were going to satirize a fight song than began with "Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord / He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored / He has loosed the fateful lightening of His terrible swift sword / His truth is marching on."  ?   I mean, that's a lyric just asking to be made fun of by the Democrats. 

Plus ça change, plus ce la même chose.  N'est-ce pas, mon ami?

But, to answer your question, it was before the New Deal.  I only caution you not to make the mistake made by the talking heads on FOX, MSNBC, and the like, who attempt to oversimplify, or to compare American "liberalism" or American "conservatism" with those concepts that are long-established worldwide.

"Twas always thus, and always thus shall be"
     --Robin Williams in Dead Poets Society

Great post, Angus.  Even in the 1920s and 1930s, when nationalism meant isolationism and a weak defense establishment, because a strong defense establishment would only be used for internationalist intervention, Republicans displayed the nationalism of the time.

Back then, nationalism meant that America was too good for the world, and Republicans, more than Democrats, embraced this position, and gave it up more reluctantly than Democrats when Nazi aggression forced a rethinking of it.

For a period during the Cold War, both parties were about equally nationalistic, but during and after Vietnam, liberals moved toward an isolationist brand of internationalism, if that makes sense, with the basic philosophy being that America is evil and therefore shouldn't do anything to defend itself on its own, without the approval of a multitude of coutries that are indifferent or hostile to us.  That is where we stand today.

We have gone from America avoiding unilateral action because it is too good to involve itself in the evil outside world, to America should avoid unilateral action because America itself is evil.  And through it all, Republicans have had the nationalistic position, while Democrats have adapted to whatever the anti-nationalistic position is.
Logged
phk
phknrocket1k
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,906


Political Matrix
E: 1.42, S: -1.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: March 06, 2005, 02:50:29 PM »


The definining characteristic of the GOP is, and always was, nationalism.  It has been so since its first national convention in Pittsburgh in 1856.  And the easiest way to define the democrats is to look at whatever counter to nationalism is fashionable at any given moment in history.  In the 1850s and 60s it was sectionalism, nowadays it seems to be internationalism. 

It is a serious mistake to assume that Americans ever divide along the classic Left/Right lines as is done in most contries.  You yourself have asked the pertinent question in a thread you created.  If we divide along Liberal and Conservative lines, why do some poor folks prefer rightists and some rich folks prefer Leftists?  The answer is that we simply don't.  Which party is more economically laissez-faire, and which is more authoritarian-socialist will simply depend on externally imposed circumstances, and is easily identified at any given point in history, but you cannot simply say that Republicans are Right and Democrats are Left and thus it has always been and thus it always will be.  I think there's probably a sinusoidally-varying function that can describe the extreme Left-right swings in the parties, and this function has a very long period, on the order of decades.  But, the definining characteristic of the GOP has not ever changed:  Nationalism.  Think about it, you probably stereotype us as wrapping ourselves up in God and The Flag, right?  Well, that's not far off, nor was it far off in 1860s when that was exactly the way both New York Democrats and Atlanta Democrats stereotyped the GOP then.  And, maybe it was deserved, hell, what would you do, if you were Weird Al Yankovic and you were going to satirize a fight song than began with "Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord / He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored / He has loosed the fateful lightening of His terrible swift sword / His truth is marching on."  ?   I mean, that's a lyric just asking to be made fun of by the Democrats. 

Plus ça change, plus ce la même chose.  N'est-ce pas, mon ami?

But, to answer your question, it was before the New Deal.  I only caution you not to make the mistake made by the talking heads on FOX, MSNBC, and the like, who attempt to oversimplify, or to compare American "liberalism" or American "conservatism" with those concepts that are long-established worldwide.

"Twas always thus, and always thus shall be"
     --Robin Williams in Dead Poets Society

Great post, Angus.  Even in the 1920s and 1930s, when nationalism meant isolationism and a weak defense establishment, because a strong defense establishment would only be used for internationalist intervention, Republicans displayed the nationalism of the time.

Back then, nationalism meant that America was too good for the world, and Republicans, more than Democrats, embraced this position, and gave it up more reluctantly than Democrats when Nazi aggression forced a rethinking of it.

For a period during the Cold War, both parties were about equally nationalistic, but during and after Vietnam, liberals moved toward an isolationist brand of internationalism, if that makes sense, with the basic philosophy being that America is evil and therefore shouldn't do anything to defend itself on its own, without the approval of a multitude of coutries that are indifferent or hostile to us.  That is where we stand today.

We have gone from America avoiding unilateral action because it is too good to involve itself in the evil outside world, to America should avoid unilateral action because America itself is evil.  And through it all, Republicans have had the nationalistic position, while Democrats have adapted to whatever the anti-nationalistic position is.

That is largely because of the neo-cons.
Logged
angus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,423
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: March 06, 2005, 05:05:36 PM »

Well, they're part of it, but you have to be careful not to put imperialism, or more precisely, American Militarism, entirely on the shoulders of the GOP.  Dazzleman pointed out one excellent counterexample to that point of view.  It strikes me that several groups helped establish the new militarism.  The neoconservatives, for one, but also the Defense Priesthood, as Andrew Bacevich likes to call them, since few or none had served in a war, or ever been shot at, or ever had to agonize over sending thousands of young boys to meet their deaths.  But these folks aren't just Republicans.  This is a phenomenon in which we are all implicated.  We may not be members of the officer's corps, or neoconservatives, or evangelical Protestants, or members of the Trilateral Commission, but a clear majority of us have clearly signed onto the attitude of the military solution to the need for cheap oil.  Think about it, the great contest to see who is going to control the Persian Gulf, or the Greater Middle East, as the Bush Administration likes to call it, was militarized by, of all people, Jimmy Carter.  The next time you see a big yellow "Support our troops" ribbon plastered on the side of a gas-guzzling SUV, don't assume it's a Wall Steet Journal-reading, red-wine guzzling, neocon or generalized Bushie.  Think back to the so-called Carter Doctrine of of 1980, and notice that when you point your index finger, that you sitll have three fingers pointing toward yourself.  And one of them is your middle finger.

Like it or not, we're all in this now.  All four major groups of Republicans, and Me and WalterMitty, and all the Democrats as well.  You are as addicted to the cheap gas, and all the stuff that goes with it.  The plastics, the keys your punching as you type, the screen you're looking at, the fact that you can dash off to the market at will and be back in five minutes with whatever your little heart desires, rather than have to wait half an hour for a bus.

I know you didn't specifically mention a military solution to the need for cheap oil, but I saw where this was going and decided to make a pre-emptive strike, as it were.  Wink
Logged
phk
phknrocket1k
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,906


Political Matrix
E: 1.42, S: -1.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: March 08, 2005, 07:15:35 PM »

Well, they're part of it, but you have to be careful not to put imperialism, or more precisely, American Militarism, entirely on the shoulders of the GOP.  Dazzleman pointed out one excellent counterexample to that point of view.  It strikes me that several groups helped establish the new militarism.  The neoconservatives, for one, but also the Defense Priesthood, as Andrew Bacevich likes to call them, since few or none had served in a war, or ever been shot at, or ever had to agonize over sending thousands of young boys to meet their deaths.  But these folks aren't just Republicans.  This is a phenomenon in which we are all implicated.  We may not be members of the officer's corps, or neoconservatives, or evangelical Protestants, or members of the Trilateral Commission, but a clear majority of us have clearly signed onto the attitude of the military solution to the need for cheap oil.  Think about it, the great contest to see who is going to control the Persian Gulf, or the Greater Middle East, as the Bush Administration likes to call it, was militarized by, of all people, Jimmy Carter.  The next time you see a big yellow "Support our troops" ribbon plastered on the side of a gas-guzzling SUV, don't assume it's a Wall Steet Journal-reading, red-wine guzzling, neocon or generalized Bushie.  Think back to the so-called Carter Doctrine of of 1980, and notice that when you point your index finger, that you sitll have three fingers pointing toward yourself.  And one of them is your middle finger.

Like it or not, we're all in this now.  All four major groups of Republicans, and Me and WalterMitty, and all the Democrats as well.  You are as addicted to the cheap gas, and all the stuff that goes with it.  The plastics, the keys your punching as you type, the screen you're looking at, the fact that you can dash off to the market at will and be back in five minutes with whatever your little heart desires, rather than have to wait half an hour for a bus.

I know you didn't specifically mention a military solution to the need for cheap oil, but I saw where this was going and decided to make a pre-emptive strike, as it were.  Wink

Bush is largely a militaristic Jimmy Carter to me.
Logged
RJ
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 793
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: March 10, 2005, 10:12:56 PM »

I'm not quite convinced Democrats are not as involved in nationalism as Republicans. One thing the last election proved to me is that there are certainly two different views for the direction our country should be heading in, but I would anything but say the Democrats cause is one of antinationalism. I suppose one man's nationalism is another man's antinationalism...

I don't believe I see a link between certain events in which the two parties have taken opposite sides on in different parts of history and nationalism. How can abolishing slavery in 1865 be viewed as nationalism while passing civil rights 100 years later be viewed as part of antinationalism? How can getting involved in Iraq in 2003 be viewed as nationalism while going to Viet Nam 40 years prior be viewed as antinationalism? Our leaders on capitol hill said the same thing 40 years ago as they did today: "Preserve freedom," "Support our troops," "My country right or wrong..."

I suppose what I'm trying to say is that people have different ideas of what nationalism is. That's a very subjective term. I don't really mean to sound too defensive in the respect that someone is saying "Democrats are not as much nationalists as Republicans," but I think there are better ways of contrasting the two parties. I think the economic one is an excellent point.

I suppose I would not offer criticisms without offering solutions. In my opinion, another distinct difference between the two is that "liberal" involves change while "conservative" begs for status quo. Most elderly tend to be conservative, and my thinking is because they want things exactly as they were throughout the course of their lifespan. liberal thinking is more likely to be found in younger people because they want something different and embrace change. I think both groups, young and old, equally believe they are nationalists.
Logged
Ebowed
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,597


Political Matrix
E: 4.13, S: 2.09

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: March 11, 2005, 12:41:34 AM »

Among the liberals trying to seize the Democratic nomination in 1972 were George McGovern, Hubert Humphrey, and Edmund Muskie.

McGovern believed abortion should be left up to the states.  Humphrey flatly said "I'm not for it."  Muskie: "It compromises the sanctity of human life."

McGovern's original running mate, Missour Senator Tom Eagleton, was a very pro-life Catholic.  I doubt there'd ever be a guy like that on a Democratic national ticket these days.

That said, I'm an old-school Democrat!

(Muskie in particular had some controversy over gay rights, and McGovern approved a watered down gay rights plank at the 1972 convention, rather than the radical one his constituents wanted.  I  don't particularly agree with the old-school Democrats on this issue, but hey, abortion matters more to me.)
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,615


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: March 11, 2005, 12:44:13 AM »

Among the liberals trying to seize the Democratic nomination in 1972 were George McGovern, Hubert Humphrey, and Edmund Muskie.

McGovern believed abortion should be left up to the states.  Humphrey flatly said "I'm not for it."  Muskie: "It compromises the sanctity of human life."

McGovern's original running mate, Missour Senator Tom Eagleton, was a very pro-life Catholic.  I doubt there'd ever be a guy like that on a Democratic national ticket these days.

That said, I'm an old-school Democrat!

(Muskie in particular had some controversy over gay rights, and McGovern approved a watered down gay rights plank at the 1972 convention, rather than the radical one his constituents wanted.  I  don't particularly agree with the old-school Democrats on this issue, but hey, abortion matters more to me.)

Reid is pretty anti-abortion
If you call yourself pro-life, you should be against killing random Iraqis. Also, stem cell research will save lives, which is another problem right there for those people.

Pro-life is such a useless term. A pollster called my mom once, and she said she was pro-life when they asked, because it seemed like a reasonable term to her. She's 100% pro-choice.
Logged
Ebowed
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,597


Political Matrix
E: 4.13, S: 2.09

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: March 11, 2005, 01:37:58 AM »

Among the liberals trying to seize the Democratic nomination in 1972 were George McGovern, Hubert Humphrey, and Edmund Muskie.

McGovern believed abortion should be left up to the states.  Humphrey flatly said "I'm not for it."  Muskie: "It compromises the sanctity of human life."

McGovern's original running mate, Missour Senator Tom Eagleton, was a very pro-life Catholic.  I doubt there'd ever be a guy like that on a Democratic national ticket these days.

That said, I'm an old-school Democrat!

(Muskie in particular had some controversy over gay rights, and McGovern approved a watered down gay rights plank at the 1972 convention, rather than the radical one his constituents wanted.  I  don't particularly agree with the old-school Democrats on this issue, but hey, abortion matters more to me.)

Reid is pretty anti-abortion
If you call yourself pro-life, you should be against killing random Iraqis. Also, stem cell research will save lives, which is another problem right there for those people.

Pro-life is such a useless term. A pollster called my mom once, and she said she was pro-life when they asked, because it seemed like a reasonable term to her. She's 100% pro-choice.
I never supported the Iraq war.  My pacifist beliefs compliment my pro-life ones.

Stem cell research is a little different.  I'm all for using things like baby teeth that are full of stem cells.  No reason to use embryos IMO.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,806


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: March 11, 2005, 02:27:00 AM »
« Edited: March 11, 2005, 02:31:40 AM by Beet »

I'm not quite convinced Democrats are not as involved in nationalism as Republicans. One thing the last election proved to me is that there are certainly two different views for the direction our country should be heading in, but I would anything but say the Democrats cause is one of antinationalism. I suppose one man's nationalism is another man's antinationalism...

I don't believe I see a link between certain events in which the two parties have taken opposite sides on in different parts of history and nationalism. How can abolishing slavery in 1865 be viewed as nationalism while passing civil rights 100 years later be viewed as part of antinationalism? How can getting involved in Iraq in 2003 be viewed as nationalism while going to Viet Nam 40 years prior be viewed as antinationalism? Our leaders on capitol hill said the same thing 40 years ago as they did today: "Preserve freedom," "Support our troops," "My country right or wrong..."

I suppose what I'm trying to say is that people have different ideas of what nationalism is. That's a very subjective term. I don't really mean to sound too defensive in the respect that someone is saying "Democrats are not as much nationalists as Republicans," but I think there are better ways of contrasting the two parties. I think the economic one is an excellent point.

We are discussing nationalism, which is interesting, because nationalism is not often discussed with regard to American politics. It is a word that is more often used with regards to other countries e.g. French nationalism, Arab nationalism, but not often do you see 'American nationalism' explicitly. Further, even in those places where nationalism is often discussed, they mean different things. Arab nationalism is more oriented around Arab ethnicity and history as well as religion, whereas French nationalism is organized around language and culture, and to a lesser extent history. Clearly there is an ideological support behind the policy prescriptions; it cannot be defined by the latter alone. But with America, since it is virtually never discussed, there is even less to stand on. It seems that this is an element of America's exceptionalism, that what most resembles nationalism in America is what we call our rhetoric of democracy, human rights, freedom, and equality. These are values and we consider that we have 'conquered' a country when its institutions conform to these values. So we have started to discuss a subject and assign to it certain values and even the platform of a whole party without really defining it, though I have put out a tiny little tail out there to build on if desired.

To answer the question, the Republicans were probably the progressive party from about from 1854 to some time between 1876 and 1896, and the Democrats were consistently more liberal after 1912, although the 2004 campaign cycle was extremely unusual as the ordinary roles seemed to be reversed, Kerry being an extremely conservative candidate, Dean a quintessential reactionary candidate, and Bush with the most idealistic posture.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,770


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: March 14, 2005, 08:16:45 AM »

There are a few different keys to the current alignment iwth GOP as right and Democrats as left. One is that from the mid 1890s to the start of WWI the Democrats, headed by Bryan, became the Progressive party whereas the GOP refused to nominate Roosvelt in 1912 and turned away progressive elements. This meant that from 1895-1925, roughly,the Democrats defined themselves as the party of the poor and te GOP became the party of big business. Then of course, in the 60s, came the whole race conflict. The Democrats siding with blacks in the South was really just a logical consequent of identifying with the down-trodden.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
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 0.247 seconds with 12 queries.