were most of the leftists originally in the GOP?

[freepcrusher]

looking at America before about 1930, a lot of the hard core leftists were either republicans (LaFollette, Norris, LaGuardia). Was the New Deal coalition formed by bringing these types into the democratic party?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

No.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

You toss three names at us for the base of a sweeping historical assertion on the matter of American politics?

[Redalgo]

The two major parties are more polarized along ideological lines today than used to be the case.

They were even more opportunistic than today - pandering to factions in an attempt to get majority support or blatantly doing things like nominating generals for President because strategists understood the politics of image mattered more in appeals to the masses than substance. The New Deal Coalition was one of these attempts at bringing together folks with scattered, often contradictory interests. There were "liberal" and "conservative" people on each side... though I do agree that *on average* the leftists leaned Republican or toward minor parties until the Democrats finally established themselves as clearly more progressive and social democratic-leaning on economic issues. Hell, didn't FDR initially tout his devotion to capitalism and accuse his Republican opponent of being red while running for president? Not that the assertion was true of course, but I really don't think Roosevelt was as leftist as some folks may think (on a related note I've heard of Eleanor being more passionate than him about human rights and trying to pressure her husband to do more than he cared for to promote them; do any of you know if it's true?).

Anyway, maybe part of why people didn't self-segregate as much in terms of ideals is because many of the states had de-facto one-and-a-half party systems. A Republican had no chance in the Deep South so anybody who wanted to have any influence at all was part of the Democratic machine. Likewise for folks gravitating toward the Republican Party up in their strongholds. Or perhaps it would be fair to say there used to be more corruption in politics than today, and media outlets (e.g. newspapers) were easier to capture and control for the sake of framing debates and public opinion. That is not to say there was not any idealism or plans for improving peoples' lives - just that there didn't seem to be so much a notion of humanism and traditionalism defining the fundamental rift between the two major parties. Nowadays in contrast people are generally better informed and have mostly sorted themselves into cahoots with groups they share a lot of substantive political interests with.

Or am I off mark with a lot of this? It's honestly been a long time since I last read about the different paradigms of two-party rule in the States throughout its history.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

If you must know, the originally left-wingers in American politics were in fact the Tories or "Loyalists" of the colonial era, known mostly for their belief in a strong federal government, support of high taxes, and hatred for gun-toting hillbillies and anti-government "big business" types such as John Hancock and George Washington. They'd be the modern day Walter Mitty's and TNF's of the world. Their spiritual successors in America would be the Federalists, Whigs, and finally the Know Nothings who despised immigrants for their reactionary and papist views and had secret societies--the perfect example of typical liberal elitism. It would only be in the Bryan Era that #TrueLeftism had a resurgence on the Democratic ballot line.

[Redalgo]

But wasn't the Republican Party where the Whigs went after their organization dissolved?

Edit:

On the other hand, maybe we're thinking along different lines here. When I use "left" as a label I mean to refer to people dissatisfied with the established order who are eager to reform it or replace it with a new system, in contrast to folks on the "right" who are content with the established order and - though to an extent willing to reform it slowly over time - remain firmly committed to its survival. For example, I would consider the Tories or loyalists to the Crown conservative until the end of the revolution, at which point the Anti-Federalists soon came to represent the right squaring off against Federalists who were set on greater unification, consolidation of centralized power, and a shift away from state-level nationalism among other things, for better or worse.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

But wasn't the Republican Party where the Whigs went after their organization dissolved?

You'd like to think so. However, that's not entirely the case, as by then New England had become a center of capitalism and industry. If you take a quick peak at the 1896 map in which well known conservative William McKinley soundly trounced William Jennings Bryan, you'll see that a number of the states that went for Lincoln went also for McKinley. However, the Whigs were hardly the party of the North, and Know-Nothing Millard Fillmore won only Maryland in 1856, a testament to the state's liberal leanings. After that obvious defeat, American liberalism would retreat in favor of Republican nationalism and the laissez-faire policies of the Democrats. Only the Panic of 1893 awoke the sleeping giant in time to get defeated at the polls yet again in 1896. After Fillmore, Wilson was our first truly liberal president.

[TDAS04]

Some were, some were not.  Both parties used to have strong liberal and conservative elements.

There is truth in the notion that a constant in American politics has been that Democrats have always been at least somewhat more populist than the opposing party.  Even during the days of Jefferson and Jackson, when Democrats were more "small government", they actually felt that big government helped the rich too much, and was for the elite.

So it's not exactly the case that the parties have flipped.  However, it is also false that the two parties haven't changed.  It's silly to refer to the worst segregations as being mostly liberal, and it is also false that Lincoln was a conservative.  Also, the Radical Republicans who wanted to reconstruct Southern society in favor of equality would not fit in well with the modern Republicans.

However, by the 1920s, Republicans were certainly more economically conservative, and the Democrats did obtain more liberals during the New Deal of the 1930s.

Some argue that the parties are basically reversed of what they were long ago, and some argue that Democrats have always and unquestionably been the more liberal party.  Both extremes are wrong.  I wouldn't call 1890s Republicans "liberal", but did Vermont and Mississippi change partisan allegiances because they reversed ideology?  No, but the parties didn't completely reverse themselves either.  

Certainly in the 1800s, neither party could have been the more liberal or conservative party by today's standards, and even during the New Deal, the parties were divided ideologically.  Democrats were more liberal overall, but I doubt that Wendall Wilkie and Harry Byrd would fit in with their respective parties if they had been alive today.

[Redalgo]

@Cathcon, TDAS04: These posts of yours are very helpful, thanks!

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

On the other hand, maybe we're thinking along different lines here. When I use "left" as a label I mean to refer to people dissatisfied with the established order who are eager to reform it or replace it with a new system, in contrast to folks on the "right" who are content with the established order and - though to an extent willing to reform it slowly over time - remain firmly committed to its survival. For example, I would consider the Tories or loyalists to the Crown conservative until the end of the revolution, at which point the Anti-Federalists soon came to represent the right squaring off against Federalists who were set on greater unification, consolidation of centralized power, and a shift away from state-level nationalism among other things, for better or worse.

The Tories were in many ways just as you describe. While the colonists had managed to attain a level of autonomy comparable to what we today call "states rights", liberal Loyalists were attempting to uphold the revenue-increasing reforms of the crown. You'll notice that today the British monarchy is focused on latte-liberal-style pet projects such as preserving quaint architecture that meets their fancy. When not reduced to a pathetic place as a figurehead, they were enacting far more left-wing reforms such as the Act of Union and so on and so forth. Meanwhile, the religiously zealous colonists were attempting to use the argument of natural and God-given rights against the godless aristocrats and their tax collectors. Deval Patrick comes in a long line of Massachusetts Governors going back to Thomas Hutchinson.

[All Along The Watchtower]

No.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

In the 71st Senate, the Wisconsin Senators were the only Republicans more liberal than any Democrat, and were only more liberal than 1 Democrat. LaFollete was actually the more conservative of the two Republican Senators from Wisconsin.

http://voteview.com/SENATE_SORT71.HTM

However, in the 112th Senate, there was a gap of 0.05 between the most liberal Democrat and the most conservative Republican, and that increases to 0.242 without retiring Ben Nelson and Snowe. In fact, Collins is the only Senator from last Senate still in who has a score between -0.141 and 0.228.

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

Fillmore was a liberal? Wow.
Anyway, here are the main "conservative" presidents I think of before Harding.
Buren
John Tyler (supported limited gov spending)
Zachary Taylor (same)
Grant (gold standard)
Hays
Cleveland
McKinley

Grant, Hays,  and McKinley were Republicans.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Wow, Cathcon makes the unfortunate mistake of super-imposing the modern ideological definitions onto the past and thus comes up with some fairly weird descriptors of people. I will weight in on this more in a short while when I have time.

Some argue that the parties are basically reversed of what they were long ago, and some argue that Democrats have always and unquestionably been the more liberal party.  Both extremes are wrong.  I wouldn't call 1890s Republicans "liberal", but did Vermont and Mississippi change partisan allegiances because they reversed ideology?  No, but the parties didn't completely reverse themselves either.  

It comes back to whether or not you apply dynamic ideological definitions or static ones from modern times. The latter is almost always a mistake and falls under the misapplication of modern biases onto historical events and figures. The former one is so complex that you need to have a good undestanding not just of the politics but the economic and socialetal context in which the ideologies werem otivated to thake a certain approach or another.

As for Vermont and Mississippi, in the 1940's, Vermont had Ralph Flanders and Mississippi had Theodore Bilbo. As far as I know, only the latter of two considered themselves to be a "progressive".

[traininthedistance]

Wow, Cathcon makes the unfortunate mistake of super-imposing the modern ideological definitions onto the past and thus comes up with some fairly weird descriptors of people. I will weight in on this more in a short while when I have time.

I'm pretty sure Cathcon was being sarcastic.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

But wasn't the Republican Party where the Whigs went after their organization dissolved?

Edit:

On the other hand, maybe we're thinking along different lines here. When I use "left" as a label I mean to refer to people dissatisfied with the established order who are eager to reform it or replace it with a new system, in contrast to folks on the "right" who are content with the established order and - though to an extent willing to reform it slowly over time - remain firmly committed to its survival. For example, I would consider the Tories or loyalists to the Crown conservative until the end of the revolution, at which point the Anti-Federalists soon came to represent the right squaring off against Federalists who were set on greater unification, consolidation of centralized power, and a shift away from state-level nationalism among other things, for better or worse.

The basics you learn in school:
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/Hx/AmericanMajorParties.htm

The real good stuff:
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/PCom/?20120213-0

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/PCom/?20120215-0

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/PCom/?20120218-0

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I recommend reading all seven parts of this series, but iti s long because he goes into a lot od detail.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Conservatism was the about greater central authority, strong military and rule of law for the sake of enabling and facilitating commerce and business. In 1789, there was no gov't practically, hardly any infrastructure and no shortage of pirates, Native Americans, and thieves, not to mention mobs of violent people ready to burn stuff to the ground (Daniel Shays). That is the context, conservatism is the ideology of preservation. Throughout American History, Conservatism has been the ideology of preserving the rule of law and by extension stability, whether it be Alexander Hamilton in the 1794 or Ted Cruz in 2014 complaining about Obama's non-enforcement of laws. In the 1790's that required a bigger government.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Liberalism in the 18th century was about uplifting the rights of the common man and ensuring that Government represented the people. The best singlular expression of this in terms of English History is that of John Locke, whose influence on the American Revolution is well known. Whilst the tidewater gentry and urban middle and upper classes were affraid of the mob, those of the localist faction were not. Jefferson believed that freedom had to be renewed from time to time with the blood of patriots or somethign along those lines. He thus was sympathetic to the French Revolution, which scared the bajesus out of the cosmopolitan Federalists. The history of the world was that of big and powerful monarchs oppressing the people and/or the institutions of government being used as a tool to stand up and facilitate the elites and further oppress the people, and therefore to liberate the people in the 1790's you had to necessarily shrink and reduce the power of government.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The difference between the tories/loyalist and the conservative component of the Whigs/Patriots in the Revolutionary America is that Tories were old world Conservatives or perhaps pre-Burkean Conservatives and adhered to the status quo of King and Country regardless of how arbitrary or contrary to law (English Law as being handed down from the Glorious Revolution and the rights contained therein-think "No taxation without Representation") it was to the colonists. The cosmopolitan element of the Whigs/Patriots (the term I use for those who supproted the Revolution in this instance) opposed this arbitrary nature and thus alligned with the localists and both were thus liberals in relation to the old-world conservatism of the Tories/Loyalists. After the war, they split along factional lines obviously and formed the new Conservative-Liberal divide in America with the cosmopolitan faction on the right in the form of the Federalist Party. The French Revolution forced a similar split in England and it was heretofore Whig (as in English Whig Party) and Liberal Edmund Burke that led that shift. Burke is rightly considered the founder of Modern Conservatism and Hamilton is considered as such for American Conservatism and both did so in reaction to excesses of popular expression, around the same time period and reacted in the same way ironically.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Wow, Cathcon makes the unfortunate mistake of super-imposing the modern ideological definitions onto the past and thus comes up with some fairly weird descriptors of people. I will weight in on this more in a short while when I have time.

I'm pretty sure Cathcon was being sarcastic.

In the words of Marlon Brando, "You Don't Say".

It is called "illustrating absurdity, by being absured" as Rush Limbaugh would say. 

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Some were, some were not.  Both parties used to have strong liberal and conservative elements.

Yes and that is because both parties were a hodge podge combination dating from the Civil War adn the history of the 20th Century has been the unraveling of those alignments. Though ironically, we seem to be no closer to the rebirth of a pure cosmopolitan versus localist divide

There is truth in the notion that a constant in American politics has been that Democrats have always been at least somewhat more populist than the opposing party.  Even during the days of Jefferson and Jackson, when Democrats were more "small government", they actually felt that big government helped the rich too much, and was for the elite.

The murkiness comes from two sources. One the fact that there is no one specific date where the left gets together and says hey, we gonna use goverment from now on as a tool for the people. It was a long process over several decades really. The other source comes from the fact that out of a coalition you get varied interests and for those some they might share the means, but not the same ends it is thus that you get a Presidents like Cleveland in the Democratic Party and that you get the splintering off of Libertarians who continue to adhere to Classical Liberalism even as mainstream liberals embrace government as a solution instead of a problem.

So it's not exactly the case that the parties have flipped.  However, it is also false that the two parties haven't changed.  It's silly to refer to the worst segregations as being mostly liberal, and it is also false that Lincoln was a conservative.  Also, the Radical Republicans who wanted to reconstruct Southern society in favor of equality would not fit in well with the modern Republicans.

While many have said that the parties have flipped, I know of few to have said that they haven't changed at all. And yes the former is definately factually innaccurate as I have repeatedly stressed.

Radical Republicans are just that, radical and thus would be cosnidered on the left. However, one most remember that Segregation was not the firm divide between left and right that so many in the today's Liberal circles would like it to be remembered as. There was an intense battle in the southern states between pro-business bourbons and populist/progressive elements. Since it was the south, Segregation was accepted convention by both sides and was used as a football to get a lead on the other sides. There were exceptions to this in some states where the later group sought support from African-Americans since they were poor just like the white farmers and textile workers that formed their base in all of the states. But this was isolated, obviously.

It must be said that also, beyond the progressive segregationists, the Southern Democrats who were bourbons were largely also heirs to the Jefferson tradition, but emphasized the means as opposed to the ends as I said with Cleveland above. Since representing the people was the ultimate goal and the people were racist white southern man, it naturally leads that liberalism was vulnerable to whims of the majority and even the mob, and whether that be Shay's rebellion in MA or a lynch mob in Mississippi, mob rule is the antithesis of rule of law and is inherently discriminatory.

Whether this be direct or distilled through Represenatives such as with something like the Freeport Doctrine for instance whereby localities would determine whether or not slavery existed  through elected leaders or direct votes of the people determining the enforcement of the law (Such would be arbitrary power (see my previous posts)), the effect is the same and it is hardly in line with any consistent interpretation of Conservatism, even less so when considered in context. Lincoln's opposition to the Freeport Doctrine is far more Conservative than Stephen Douglas' support for the same.

I would also point out that Lincoln's position on slavery was the most moderate of the Republicans seeking the nomination, his support for preserving the union (albeit with some questionable means), his couching of the Emancipation Proclamation in his military power and subsequent frantic push for the 13th Amendment out of concern for the sustainability legally speaking of the former after the war illustrate a man who, even whilst willing to push the boundaries of legality, was still very much concerned about them with regard to his actions.

If American Conservativism is about opposing arbitrary power and promoting the rule of law, is removing a fundamantle disconnect based only on race in any way contrary to that objective? Is preserving a union from dismemberment contrary to ensuring the enforcement of law?  

However, by the 1920s, Republicans were certainly more economically conservative, and the Democrats did obtain more liberals during the New Deal of the 1930s.

And subsequently the Republicans obtained more economic conservatives as well as ideological polarization began.

Certainly in the 1800s, neither party could have been the more liberal or conservative party by today's standards, and even during the New Deal, the parties were divided ideologically.  Democrats were more liberal overall, but I doubt that Wendall Wilkie and Harry Byrd would fit in with their respective parties if they had been alive today.

Hence the problem with applying static modern standards in such fashion. If one is going to go the static route then best bet is to seek the most unifying theme that still holds true even after so much has changed. What do Conservatives and Liberals watn that both also wanted two hundred years ago.

Wendell Wilkie switched parties largely because he thought the New Deal had gone too far. It is hard to say what he would have done but between foreign policy and his pro-business side, it is hard to say what he would he do today. Byrd, the younger of the two died last year and I don't recall reading that he had switched parties. So whatever issues he had, he stayed in the party until his death. Just like Ford and so many others who would find it difficult to get along in their party today.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Wow, Cathcon makes the unfortunate mistake of super-imposing the modern ideological definitions onto the past and thus comes up with some fairly weird descriptors of people. I will weight in on this more in a short while when I have time.

I'm pretty sure Cathcon was being sarcastic.

In the words of Marlon Brando, "You Don't Say".

It is called "illustrating absurdity, by being absured" as Rush Limbaugh would say. 

Naturally.