When did the parties switch platforms?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 06:00:09 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderator: Dereich)
  When did the parties switch platforms?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7]
Author Topic: When did the parties switch platforms?  (Read 25381 times)
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #150 on: April 14, 2018, 03:37:34 PM »

The Dems were always the party of the poorer, and the Reps the party of the richer.  Their parties stances depended on what their base wanted.  The poor (whites) in the 1800-early 1900's wanted Jim Crow.  So the Dems pandered to that.  See James Cox, the Dem presidential nominee in 1924.  He was a real racist POS.


This is an important point, though Cox was the nominee in 1920.

The Democrats were also more populist owing to their position as a classically liberal party and thus they were also very majoritarian in their view.

This is emphasized in the debates between Lincoln and Douglas were Douglas essentially relegates whether or not you can enslave follow human beings to "popular sovereignty" even if the Supreme Court ruled contrary, which was a term promoted by Lewis Cass before him as well.

This was also a similar basis behind the Trail of Tears. The Democrats ignored the court and pursued what they wanted anyway.

The poor whites enfranchised by the Democrats, were very racists, especially again those ones living in the black belt, in the cities and along the rivers of the South. The ones in the mountains were more passively racist, but were so disconnected from this economic circle, that they voted differently, feeling excluded by the Democrats. They thus voted against secession as well, since they didn't benefit from the slave economy, they weren't going to vote to secede to preserve it.

Yeah, I don't know why I said 1924.  Anyway, I'm not just talking about down South, I'm talking about the factory workers in the North, the Working Class.  They were also racist.  I've seen pictures of lynchings, and race riots from Chicago and the Iron Ring in AP US History.  Those weren't done by Southerners. 

Well obviously, but there is only so much you can fit in one post. Tongue

You had the dynamic of competition for jobs, and this brewed racist sentiments and even pro-slavery ones among Irish backed Democrats in the North. For instance you had the draft riots in NYC, and copperhead activity espoused by some of those "Non-Yankee" white rural in places I talk about and Irish immigrants in the mines of like OH and PA.

These sentiments typically helped the Democrats but by 1860, the combination of the South going too far (Dred Scott), and Lincoln's moderation "Keep slavery to where it is now" basically, enabled them to flip the script and take some of these voters. This is how he narrowly carried IN , PA and ILL and won the election.

You had a second wave of this kind of working class racism, during the early 20th century during the Great Migration because you had African Americans moving from the rural South to the urban North to work in the factories.
Logged
BenBurch
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 481
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.74, S: 7.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #151 on: April 14, 2018, 03:39:03 PM »

The Dems were always the party of the poorer, and the Reps the party of the richer.  Their parties stances depended on what their base wanted.  The poor (whites) in the 1800-early 1900's wanted Jim Crow.  So the Dems pandered to that.  See James Cox, the Dem presidential nominee in 1924.  He was a real racist POS.


This is an important point, though Cox was the nominee in 1920.

The Democrats were also more populist owing to their position as a classically liberal party and thus they were also very majoritarian in their view.

This is emphasized in the debates between Lincoln and Douglas were Douglas essentially relegates whether or not you can enslave follow human beings to "popular sovereignty" even if the Supreme Court ruled contrary, which was a term promoted by Lewis Cass before him as well.

This was also a similar basis behind the Trail of Tears. The Democrats ignored the court and pursued what they wanted anyway.

The poor whites enfranchised by the Democrats, were very racists, especially again those ones living in the black belt, in the cities and along the rivers of the South. The ones in the mountains were more passively racist, but were so disconnected from this economic circle, that they voted differently, feeling excluded by the Democrats. They thus voted against secession as well, since they didn't benefit from the slave economy, they weren't going to vote to secede to preserve it.

Yeah, I don't know why I said 1924.  Anyway, I'm not just talking about down South, I'm talking about the factory workers in the North, the Working Class.  They were also racist.  I've seen pictures of lynchings, and race riots from Chicago and the Iron Ring in AP US History.  Those weren't done by Southerners. 

Well obviously, but there is only so much you can fit in one post. Tongue

You had the dynamic of competition for jobs, and this brewed racist sentiments and even pro-slavery ones among Irish backed Democrats in the North. For instance you had the draft riots in NYC, and copperhead activity espoused by some of those "Non-Yankee" white rural in places I talk about and Irish immigrants in the mines of like OH and PA.

These sentiments typically helped the Democrats but by 1860, the combination of the South going too far (Dred Scott), and Lincoln's moderation "Keep slavery to where it is now" basically, enabled them to flip the script and take some of these voters. This is how he narrowly carried IN , PA and ILL and won the election.

You had a second wave of this kind of working class racism, during the early 20th century during the Great Migration because you had African Americans moving from the rural South to the urban North to work in the factories.

I see your point.  Thanks for putting a lot of effort into your answer! 
Logged
Bidenworth2020
politicalmasta73
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,407
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #152 on: April 14, 2018, 03:50:16 PM »

I would also encourage you to look up Ralph Owen Brewster (R-ME) who was alleged to have ties to the KKK.

Also this guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_E._Jenner
and this guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_Welker
yes, there is a myth that reps were perfect on civil rights, while they were just more "moderate" on it.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #153 on: April 14, 2018, 04:33:05 PM »

I would also encourage you to look up Ralph Owen Brewster (R-ME) who was alleged to have ties to the KKK.

Also this guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_E._Jenner
and this guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_Welker
yes, there is a myth that reps were perfect on civil rights, while they were just more "moderate" on it.

The point is though, there were actually substantial numbers of Representatives and Senators in the GOP in 1940's, among whom Trump would move comfortably, especially among those in the Midwest and some parts of rural New England. Ironically, the very places that Trump made substantial pro-GOP trends happen in 2016. Trumps views are very much in line with the Paleocon beliefs espoused by a large number of voters in the 1940's in rural Midwest and rural New England, in terms of opposing trade, opposing immigration and so forth.

At the same time the Democrats were almost universally for free trade, it was even a key part of the New Deal, and split on immigration.
Logged
darklordoftech
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,388
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #154 on: April 14, 2018, 04:53:48 PM »

Am I correct to notice similarities between the term "Bourbon Democrat" in the second half of the 19th  century and the term "neoliberal" today?
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #155 on: April 14, 2018, 05:36:12 PM »

Am I correct to notice similarities between the term "Bourbon Democrat" in the second half of the 19th  century and the term "neoliberal" today?

Most certainly, as both have ties to financial elites and support in New York for instance. Both are opposed by more populist forces within the party.
Logged
darklordoftech
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,388
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #156 on: April 14, 2018, 05:52:05 PM »

Am I correct to notice similarities between the term "Bourbon Democrat" in the second half of the 19th  century and the term "neoliberal" today?

Most certainly, as both have ties to financial elites and support in New York for instance. Both are opposed by more populist forces within the party.
Indeed, and both are accused of pandering to immigrants to distract voters from class issues.
Logged
darklordoftech
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,388
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #157 on: April 24, 2018, 02:41:05 PM »

"The GOP has always been xenophobic and business-friendly, therefore the parties didn't switch" = slund argument

"Robert Byrd, therefore the Democrats are still racist" = unsound argument

I wonder: In 1924, it was clear from the Democratic Convention that there were major differences between the Northern and Southern Democrats. The Northern Democrats, such as Al Smith and FDR, were urban, Catholic, "wet", and anti-Klan while the Southern Democrats were rural, anti-Catholic, "dry", and pro-Klan. When did the Northern and Southern Democrats become so different?
Logged
H. Ross Peron
General Mung Beans
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,406
Korea, Republic of


Political Matrix
E: -6.58, S: -1.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #158 on: September 24, 2020, 12:11:57 AM »

On an economic level, from ~1860 to ~1925 the two were roughly even, but after this the Democrats became markedly more economically liberal. On social issues, the switch happened on a presidential level from ~1964 to ~1984, but took some time to percolate down ballot. As a result, it would be accurate to say the GOP during much of the 19th and 20th centuries was the more “liberal” party. Nowadays, this is clearly not true.
As David Carlin pointed out in his 2006 book Can a Catholic Be a Democrat?, although the GOP was economically more conservative (in general) from 1896 onwards, the New Deal Democrats were always socially extremely conservative by today’s standards, and much more morally conservative than Northern and Pacific state Republicans.

As one illustration, it was the FDR administration that introduced the Hays Code for motion pictures, which was extremely restrictive compared to what could be filmed in Europe where the working classes were extremely anti-religion (especially Catholicism). As another, the New Deal saw the development of the “family wage” as an effort to hold and encourage permanent marriages, because it was felt that women working depressed wages, increased unemployment, and had been encouraged (if wholly tacitly) by the free-market GOP administrations in the 1920s.

However, the crises brought about by attempts to enforce facility integration in the 1950s and 1960s forcibly turned the Democratic Party away from ideals of the “natural family” and toward social engineering and acceptance of “alternative” lifestyles like homosexuality and cohabitation. As I said in my previous post, the “Revolution of 1954” in the Pacific States was the prelude to this change, and led to elimination of laws on abortion and homosexuality for the first time in US history in these states. In fact, this 1954 revolution was in my view an undoubted factor reversing historic party alignments in the rest of the nation.

Could you explain this "Revolution of 1954" that liberalized abortion and anti-gay laws in the Fifties? I'm from California but have minimal awareness of this particular event.
Logged
Agonized-Statism
Anarcho-Statism
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,802


Political Matrix
E: -9.10, S: -5.83

P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #159 on: September 24, 2020, 12:51:54 PM »

Aside from the coalitions, which were bound to change anyway as America's demographics and the dynamics of the electoral college shifted wildly, we've generally stuck to the fundamentals. The conservatives benefit from reduced turnout and the liberals benefit from high turnout. The conservatives are the nationalists and the liberals are the "other" (sectionalists and internationalists). The conservative party wants to stick to the Anglosphere and the liberal party wants to pivot to Asia. The conservatives still benefit, more or less, from the Protestant moral panic (although it's a tiny minority at this point) and the liberals are the "freewheeling wets". The conservative party is more for protectionism and the liberal party is more for free trade, although trade is something that changes given the nature of the economy (agrarian, industrial, post-industrial). Despite the cultural division making their positions less apparent ("coastal elitists" and all), the conservatives always have a base with the aristocracy and the bottom of the caste system always carves out a place in the liberal faction. The middle class- the suburbanites- are always swinging back and forth.

They didn't "switch platforms", because we're no longer having debates about whether or not to continue slavery or industrialize. As new debates came up, the parties adopted new issues and the coalitions adapted.

Sure, Lincoln wanted to end slavery. He also wanted to ship the slaves back to Africa and make the US a white ethnostate. And of course Eisenhower stood for the Little Rock Nine. It was for the supremacy of federal power over state power and to give capitalism a human face as the Soviets watched, not necessarily civil rights. The liberal myth that the parties switched places, ensuring a long continuous heritage of "good guys", is another attempt to absolve the country and its institutions of their sins instead of celebrating actual progressive icons like Eugene Debs and Malcolm X.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #160 on: September 30, 2020, 11:43:35 PM »

https://www.livescience.com/34241-democratic-republican-parties-switch-platforms.html

Quote
From a business perspective, Rauchway pointed out, the loyalties of the parties did not really switch. "Although the rhetoric and to a degree the policies of the parties do switch places," he wrote, "their core supporters don't — which is to say, the Republicans remain, throughout, the party of bigger businesses; it's just that in the earlier era bigger businesses want bigger government and in the later era they don't."

In other words, earlier on, businesses needed things that only a bigger government could provide, such as infrastructure development, a currency and tariffs. Once these things were in place, a small, hands-off government became better for business.

Worth pointing out that the business wing of the party still favors big gov't when it benefits them. Defense contractors are a good example of this, big agra and their subsidies and then of course big oil and their tax breaks.
Logged
Paul Weller
HenryWallaceVP
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,217
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #161 on: October 06, 2020, 07:59:20 PM »

Quote
One represents the culture, the industry and progressive spirit of the North, and the other affiliates with the South and finds its main support in all that is left of an extinct system of barbarism.

Frederick Douglass on the Republican and Democratic parties, respectively, in 1888. Doesn't that seem like it could've just as easily been said today, except in reverse? A switch happened whether you like it or not. I don't see how you can read that quote, then compare it to today's political parties, and conclude otherwise.

Aside from the coalitions, which were bound to change anyway as America's demographics and the dynamics of the electoral college shifted wildly, we've generally stuck to the fundamentals. The conservatives benefit from reduced turnout and the liberals benefit from high turnout. The conservatives are the nationalists and the liberals are the "other" (sectionalists and internationalists). The conservative party wants to stick to the Anglosphere and the liberal party wants to pivot to Asia. The conservatives still benefit, more or less, from the Protestant moral panic (although it's a tiny minority at this point) and the liberals are the "freewheeling wets". The conservative party is more for protectionism and the liberal party is more for free trade, although trade is something that changes given the nature of the economy (agrarian, industrial, post-industrial). Despite the cultural division making their positions less apparent ("coastal elitists" and all), the conservatives always have a base with the aristocracy and the bottom of the caste system always carves out a place in the liberal faction. The middle class- the suburbanites- are always swinging back and forth.

They didn't "switch platforms", because we're no longer having debates about whether or not to continue slavery or industrialize. As new debates came up, the parties adopted new issues and the coalitions adapted.

Sure, Lincoln wanted to end slavery. He also wanted to ship the slaves back to Africa and make the US a white ethnostate. And of course Eisenhower stood for the Little Rock Nine. It was for the supremacy of federal power over state power and to give capitalism a human face as the Soviets watched, not necessarily civil rights. The liberal myth that the parties switched places, ensuring a long continuous heritage of "good guys", is another attempt to absolve the country and its institutions of their sins instead of celebrating actual progressive icons like Eugene Debs and Malcolm X.

I'm a leftist who would disagree. There are plenty of progressive icons from the Civil War period worth celebrating like Thaddeus Stevens, who combined progressive racial views with genuinely leftist and pro-worker economic positions. Although I consider myself a leftist rather than a liberal, the fact is that the United States has never had a leftist major party. Liberalism is often the best option we've got, as it is better than the alternative (conservatism), and in the 19th century the Republicans were often a better vehicle for liberalism than the Democrats. Also, you mention that the conservatives "always have a base with the aristocracy", but the only genuine aristocrats in American history, the Southern planter elite class descended from the English Cavaliers, were Democrats. Yes, many were Whigs and Federalists before they were Democrats, but that doesn't change the fact that in the latter 19th century they were Democrats.

https://www.livescience.com/34241-democratic-republican-parties-switch-platforms.html

Quote
From a business perspective, Rauchway pointed out, the loyalties of the parties did not really switch. "Although the rhetoric and to a degree the policies of the parties do switch places," he wrote, "their core supporters don't — which is to say, the Republicans remain, throughout, the party of bigger businesses; it's just that in the earlier era bigger businesses want bigger government and in the later era they don't."

In other words, earlier on, businesses needed things that only a bigger government could provide, such as infrastructure development, a currency and tariffs. Once these things were in place, a small, hands-off government became better for business.

Worth pointing out that the business wing of the party still favors big gov't when it benefits them. Defense contractors are a good example of this, big agra and their subsidies and then of course big oil and their tax breaks.

You keep talking about this "big gov't" vs. "small gov't" dichotomy, but I think you're missing the broader point. Government size is and never has been at the root of the conservative-liberal struggle. Classical liberals supported liberty, freedom, and equality first and foremost. That they often happened to align themselves with support for a smaller government is no surprise, as it was an age where much of the West was still ruled by autocracies. But they didn't always ally themselves to the notion of small government. In the American context, the most blatantly egregious violation of liberty, freedom, and equality was done at the level of the local and state governments, rather than the federal government. It existed not because the federal government had too much power, but because it had too little. I am of course talking about slavery. When the Republicans increased the size of government with their Reconstruction amendments, there was nothing conservative about it: they were pursuing Jeffersonian ends via Hamiltonian means.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #162 on: October 06, 2020, 08:27:01 PM »
« Edited: October 06, 2020, 08:31:57 PM by Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee »

https://www.livescience.com/34241-democratic-republican-parties-switch-platforms.html

Quote
From a business perspective, Rauchway pointed out, the loyalties of the parties did not really switch. "Although the rhetoric and to a degree the policies of the parties do switch places," he wrote, "their core supporters don't — which is to say, the Republicans remain, throughout, the party of bigger businesses; it's just that in the earlier era bigger businesses want bigger government and in the later era they don't."

In other words, earlier on, businesses needed things that only a bigger government could provide, such as infrastructure development, a currency and tariffs. Once these things were in place, a small, hands-off government became better for business.

Worth pointing out that the business wing of the party still favors big gov't when it benefits them. Defense contractors are a good example of this, big agra and their subsidies and then of course big oil and their tax breaks.

You keep talking about this "big gov't" vs. "small gov't" dichotomy, but I think you're missing the broader point. Government size is and never has been at the root of the conservative-liberal struggle.

I am emphasizing because the narrative on the right emphasizes it and I am trying to refute it.

Its like posts like this one do not even exist: https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=270952.msg5805058#msg5805058

The narrative on the right is that the parties flipped in 1896, at least among those like OSR and others on this forum. I have spent the last several years opposing utilizing small gov't versus big gov't as a criteria for determining right versus left and if that isn't grating enough to consider in the context of your post, the very post you are responding to and the linked article is articulating why the shift in view regarding the size of gov't is not a change in core base but a shift in desires by the core base and thus not relevant to the right versus left divide.

It is times like these when responding to you gets more tiring then enjoyable. You basically took a post where I said something, said I was wrong and then repeated exactly what I said to prove I was wrong as if I said something else.



Logged
Adem 45
Rookie
**
Posts: 39


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #163 on: October 18, 2020, 01:05:17 PM »

Another obnoxious argument is the idea that the Democrats trick blacks into voting for them so that they can bring back slavery/segregation/KKK.
I saw some cringe Candace Owens tweet saying exactly that. The number of high profile media personalities pushing this idea, and the number of people taking it seriously, is insane.
Logged
RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,999
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #164 on: October 18, 2020, 01:11:25 PM »

Another obnoxious argument is the idea that the Democrats trick blacks into voting for them so that they can bring back slavery/segregation/KKK.
I saw some cringe Candace Owens tweet saying exactly that. The number of high profile media personalities pushing this idea, and the number of people taking it seriously, is insane.

I don't really see that very often from "serious" people on this subject, so yeah ... I imagine places like Twitter and (God forbid) YouTube comment sections are where this kind of trash belongs (right next to the GOP being the "more liberal party before 1964" ... until of course someone needs to blame the GOP for the Great Depression or invoke FDR, lol).

I've said it an obnoxious number of times, but the book Republicans and Race by Timothy Thurber expertly analyzes the Black vote's migration away from the Party of Lincoln.  The common narratives that Democrats "bought" the Black vote or "tricked" Black voters or its mirror that the GOP cynically became racist-courting White supremacists one day are both based on convenient half-truths, and the truth is that both parties didn't want to touch civil rights in the Twentieth Century (besides a few True Believers in the GOP who saw it as the party's legacy and a liberal wing of the Democratic Party that truly represented Black voters as constituents), and the way the parties evolved throughout the 1960s and 1970s wasn't really based on conscious, strategic decisions but rather circumstance.
Logged
Common Sense Atlantan
Rookie
**
Posts: 66
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #165 on: October 18, 2020, 03:07:54 PM »

They never did.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7]  
« 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 0.054 seconds with 11 queries.