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.
