Voting beyond idelogy

[old timey villain]

It seems that before the 50s and 60s, the two parties had equally strong moderate, conservative and liberal wings. So during presidential elections it wasn't always clear which candidate was generally more conservative or more liberal. Take the 1950s races. Ike was conservative in that he was seen as a staunch anti communist, but he also steered clear of members like Joe McCarthy. he might have campaigned as an economic conservative but he did little to dismantle new deal programs and of course he gave his famous speech warning against the military industrial complex. Adlai Stevenson ran as a "progressive" but he steered clear of issues like segregation in order to win the south.

So with candidates who were not clear liberals or conservatives, how did people know who to vote for? Was it regional allegiances, or occupation or race? I just can't figure it out.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Partisan loyalty trumped ideological purity/consistency back then (Of course, you could argue the same holds true nowadays, but in a different way...). The contemporary way of viewing politics through the prism of "ideology" and "issues"  is not the pattern that was present for much of America's political history (and the issues were different back then anyway). Most of the "common folk" don't have strongly held political views anyway.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Regionalism, race (blacks, immigrants), tradition, class, geography, history, personal appeal, charisma, economics, & so on. Also, because parties didn't resemble modern ideologies doesn't mean they didn't have their own back then.

[courts]

this all implies the parties have 'clear ideologies,' which i and many more 'qualified academics'  would argue is patently false. neither party really has much in an ideology beyond neo-liberalism and a certain kind of genteel 'human rights'  imperialism. and while since the 1980s there are admittedly more 'ideological voters' (i.e. issue based) than in the past, this is clearly false. most of us here already know this is false without having to look up lachat or whoever. this is arguably one of the most serious problem of modern 'liberal democracy': that extremely diverse and pluralist societies like those found in the modern west have trouble creating the sort of consensus that democracy (which is basically collectivist in nature) implicitly demands. i suspect if they can survive another 30-50 years a lot of countries are going to look to the chinese as a model of government (re: authoritarian, somewhat 'multicultural' yet very clearly not liberal on integration and/or race) increasingly as a result.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Partisan loyalty trumped ideological purity/consistency back then (Of course, you could argue the same holds true nowadays, but in a different way...). The contemporary way of viewing politics through the prism of "ideology" and "issues"  is not the pattern that was present for much of America's political history (and the issues were different back then anyway). Most of the "common folk" don't have strongly held political views anyway.

I would contend the opposite is true, at least for conservatives and Republicans/

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

1930's Great Depression, was the clear dividing line that separted the two parties. But the Karl Marx philosophy socialism vs free trade that set each party apart.  Each party stayed clear of racial tensions until they had to deal with them in the 1960's.