Historical continuity of Democrats and Republicans
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 10, 2021, 02:21:45 PM

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  History (Moderator: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자))
  Historical continuity of Democrats and Republicans
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 10 11 12 [13]
Author Topic: Historical continuity of Democrats and Republicans  (Read 11272 times)
Charity be my guide
Battista Minola 1616
Atlas Politician
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 8,215
Vatican City State


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: 0.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #300 on: March 27, 2021, 03:57:37 PM »

Ok, where to start. I admit that my last post was extremely regrettable and I've deleted it. Kuumo's excellent parody should give you the general idea if you missed it. Obviously, the wars of religion in early modern Europe have nothing to do with the subject of this thread.

Thank you. That post was just... offensive.

Quote
Now, I've reflected a bit on why I made that post and others like it, and here's what I think. You have every right to be skeptical, but I don't think I hold any actual prejudice against Roman Catholics, none at all. Zero whatsoever.

Speaking as a Roman Catholic who's had scores of personal conversations with you, I don't think you are actually prejudiced against us either. Well... against those of us who live in contemporary times, that is.

Quote
Then why did I say all the things I did? I think there are a few reasons. First, my growing interest in European history, which took off tremendously in my time on the forum. Second, a feeling that people in this thread seemed to be ignoring that history, which annoyed me a lot more than it should have, considering the thread topic. And third, I felt myself becoming caught up in this "character" I was playing, and I didn't know when to quit.

I would say that the third reason is the most relevant one. Not sure if you agree with me.

Quote
- SNIP -

I almost struggle to believe that you once hated the Glorious Revolution and hung the "party flip" theory on calling Hoover's anti-Catholicism conservative. Truly ironic indeed. There is much to argue with some of the points you made here about early modern Europe and not only, but that is for another thread.

Quote
Finally, the character bit. As time went on, I found myself more and more attached to this role of a 17th/18th century militant Protestant, Whiggish and English in his principles, and a sworn enemy of popery and tyranny. I'm not sure how or where it started exactly, perhaps in this very thread, but it became like a part of my identity on the forum. I don't think there's anything necessarily wrong with that; it's a period of history I'm very interested in and I admire many such men, but it definitely got out of hand. If you look at my recent posts going back some time, I think you'll find that a good majority of them are attacking Catholicism in some form or another. While I do think the Catholic Church played a largely negative role in history, and I strongly dislike the early modern (and 19th century, and medieval) incarnation of the Church, there is no good reason why over half of my recent posts should be bashing that institution. It just became part of what I felt like was expected of me, that it was somehow "in-character" with my forum persona, and that I might be able to make a few people laugh by "owning the papists", as Battista would say.

I find it quite hilarious that you have LARPed as a militant liberal Protestant so much that you have actually become one. In any case yes, you have let that persona get somewhat out of hand. You have "owned the papists" more than enough.

Quote
I admittedly had good fun with it sometimes, as in this exchange (still mad that Truman's silly 19th century Americanisms got more recommends than my Whiggery Angry), but there are other moments I'm not so proud of, like all the times I defended the Know-Nothings.

The post in that exchange that got the most recommends was my initial one! Ironically it was mockingly anti-Catholic too, something you would not see from my current self, but after all it was written before my religious conversion.

Quote
So what's next for me, and for the thread? Well, first off I will try to shed the anti-Catholic image which I have worked so hard to develop on this forum. It won't be easy, and I may falter on occasion, but I would consider it a success if I can get back to light, historical bantering on religion rather than the anti-Catholic rants which have done nothing and helped nobody.

Thank you.

Quote
As for my role in the thread, I think Truman is quite right when he says it is clear that I don't really want to discuss American political history. In the time since this thread began, I've become even more enveloped in early modern European and English history, and it's not for nothing that I keep trying to change the conversation to Whigs and Tories instead of Whigs and Democrats. It is simply something which I'm much more interested in at the moment, and honestly probably much more knowledgeable about at this point. We all have our different eras of history that most interest us, and that's okay; no longer will I attempt to impose my early modernism onto this thread. It's been a fun, contentious 12 pages; we certainly still have our areas of disagreement, but I've learned a hell of a lot and gained many a new perspective - and for that, if nothing else, I am thankful. I hope to see you around on the History board. Smiley

This is all good, although I arrive late here since you basically have reneged on your promise not to impose early modernism on this thread already. And you know, God never tires of forgiving us - Truman, I am not sure.



TL;DR Apologies accepted.
Logged
Cath
Cathcon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #301 on: March 27, 2021, 06:23:09 PM »

Wtf even happened here, and God bless.
Logged
HenryWallaceVP
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,843


Political Matrix
E: -7.48, S: -5.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #302 on: March 27, 2021, 09:20:33 PM »

Wtf even happened here, and God bless.

To be honest, I think what happened was mostly me being autistic, and I mean that in a literal sense as someone with autism. I have a tendency to go on and on about my obsessions to the point that I begin to annoy other people, and not just online but in real-life conversations too (not as much currently since I'm pretty socially isolated). Hence why you see me repeating a lot of quotes, making the same points over and over, steering the discussion to what I'm more interested in, and constantly wanting to talk about the most recent book I read. This is a real problem of mine, as it is for many people with autism, and it is something I have to work on. But this thread is about neither the Glorious Revolution nor my social issues. I'm sorry for ruining it for everyone else; maybe it should just get locked at this point.

In the unlikely event that anyone thinks this thread is worth salvaging, I found a couple of interesting new sources maybe worth discussing:

https://archive.org/details/acrossbusyyearsr01butl/mode/2up
https://archive.org/details/acrossbusyyearsr02butl/mode/2up

These are the memoirs of one Nicholas Murray Butler, the Republican Vice Presidential nominee in 1912 and author of a book entitled The Faith of a Liberal (sadly, I couldn't find that one anywhere, but I'm sure it would have made for some great quote dropping). I spent a lot of time one day flipping through the memoirs and they are an absolute treasure trove of contemporary views on Gilded Age and Progressive Era politics.
Logged
darklordoftech
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 8,898
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #303 on: March 31, 2021, 09:29:09 PM »

It should be kept in mind that the failure of Smoot-Hawley depolarized tariffs, and that that allowed the GOP start making inroads into the South once the Great Depression ended.
Logged
darklordoftech
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 8,898
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #304 on: April 07, 2021, 06:05:46 PM »
« Edited: April 07, 2021, 06:09:03 PM by darklordoftech »

Wrong thread, perhaps, and I can't say I really have the patience or the knowledge for these wall-o-text threads anymore, but... As long as we are proposing that a "party switch" did occur, when did it happen, how, and why?
1788-1896: Democrat(ic-Republican)s wanted “classicly liberal” economics, Federalists/Whigs/Republicans wanted “mercantilist” economics.

1896-1916: Democrats were now “modern liberals” economically but still for free trade, Republicans still mercantilist

1920-1932: Republicans were still protectionists, but otherwise for “small government”

1933-1978: Trade depolarized

1936:  The Democratic nominee for President won the black vote for the first time.

1948, Truman desegregated the military.

1952: Barry Goldwater first elected Senator.

1955: The National Review founded.

1960: TV coverage of the Republican National Convention mentions that Goldwater and his supporters are “skeptical” of Civil Rights.

1964: Barry Goldwater nominated for President on an anti-Civil Rights Act platform.
Logged
HenryWallaceVP
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,843


Political Matrix
E: -7.48, S: -5.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #305 on: April 07, 2021, 10:39:17 PM »

Quoting this post from the other thread, since it pertains more to the topic of this one:

Wrong thread, perhaps, and I can't say I really have the patience or the knowledge for these wall-o-text threads anymore, but... As long as we are proposing that a "party switch" did occur, when did it happen, how, and why?

There is another thread perhaps more suited for these questions (I think you know the one Tongue), but I'll give a short answer here to at least the "when" part. My view is that from 1856-1876, the Republicans were well to the left of the Democrats. The Republicans were founded as a classically liberal party committed to the eradication of slavery for ideological reasons, while the Democrats had gone from the party of the "common man" during the Jacksonian era to an assortment of reactionaries and slavery apologists. After 1876, when the Republicans abandoned Reconstruction and the Democrats largely repudiated their Civil War era politics, both parties were less ideologically coherent and more identity-based, with only a couple signature policies like the tariff and free trade distinguishing them. The establishments of both parties were conservative in the Gilded Age and depended on corrupt political machines. After 1896, strong progressive wings emerged in each party, wings which challenged and sometimes succeeded in winning the Presidential nomination and even the White House, but the party would often reverse course in the next election cycle if defeated. This continued until the end of the Progressive Era with the beginning of the New Deal, at which point the 1920s conservative Republican Presidencies had confirmed the progressive Republicans to be a minority and the rise of FDR affirmed the ascendance of the Democratic progressives. The line dividing the parties was now a much firmer one, and has continued to this day.

Additionally, I found a rather interesting quote from Nicholas Murray Butler's (1912 Republican VP nominee and author of The Faith of a Liberal) Volume I of his memoirs, published in 1939, describing the current state of the Republican party:

Quote
Surely, it is a little less than grotesque to continue to describe as liberal those public men who are definitely and vigorously opposed to almost every constructive policy which is offered at the moment, simply because they gained for themselves that adjective under the conditions which prevailed a quarter-century ago.

Butler is saying that the Republicans in 1939 can no longer be called liberal, even though 25 years earlier they had "gained for themselves that adjective". This suggests that, at least according to Butler, the decisive break with liberalism for the Republican party did indeed occur sometime in the 1920s or 30s, with the end of the Progressive Era and beginning of the New Deal. I'd like to think therefore that Butler would've been pleasantly surprised a year later when Willkie, the ultimate liberal Republican, won the party nomination.

Wrong thread, perhaps, and I can't say I really have the patience or the knowledge for these wall-o-text threads anymore, but... As long as we are proposing that a "party switch" did occur, when did it happen, how, and why?

I would just like this subforum to discuss literally anything else: Mesoamerican agriculture, homosexuality in ancient Greeece, the Xinhai Revolution...literally anything other than whether the US parties switched or not -- or navel-gazing on the origin of US liberalism/conservatism or whatever, though that's probably an unfair ask on a US politics forum, I suppose...

I totally get that, considering how long this has gone on. I've tried making threads about early modern Europe a few times, which is after all my main focus, but those haven't spurred the same level of discussion - probably because, like you said...it's a US politics forum.
Logged
HenryWallaceVP
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,843


Political Matrix
E: -7.48, S: -5.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #306 on: April 08, 2021, 03:14:37 PM »

Wtf even happened here, and God bless.

To be honest, I think what happened was mostly me being autistic, and I mean that in a literal sense as someone with autism. I have a tendency to go on and on about my obsessions to the point that I begin to annoy other people, and not just online but in real-life conversations too (not as much currently since I'm pretty socially isolated). Hence why you see me repeating a lot of quotes, making the same points over and over, steering the discussion to what I'm more interested in, and constantly wanting to talk about the most recent book I read. This is a real problem of mine, as it is for many people with autism, and it is something I have to work on. But this thread is about neither the Glorious Revolution nor my social issues. I'm sorry for ruining it for everyone else; maybe it should just get locked at this point.

In the unlikely event that anyone thinks this thread is worth salvaging, I found a couple of interesting new sources maybe worth discussing:

https://archive.org/details/acrossbusyyearsr01butl/mode/2up
https://archive.org/details/acrossbusyyearsr02butl/mode/2up

These are the memoirs of one Nicholas Murray Butler, the Republican Vice Presidential nominee in 1912 and author of a book entitled The Faith of a Liberal (sadly, I couldn't find that one anywhere, but I'm sure it would have made for some great quote dropping). I spent a lot of time one day flipping through the memoirs and they are an absolute treasure trove of contemporary views on Gilded Age and Progressive Era politics.

Actually, I was wrong - The Faith of a Liberal is available for free on Google Books!
Logged
darklordoftech
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 8,898
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #307 on: April 08, 2021, 05:08:32 PM »

I think people tend to think that politics in between Reconstruction and Civil Rights was purely economic, and that social conservatism and social liberalism were invented in the 1960s.
Logged
HenryWallaceVP
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,843


Political Matrix
E: -7.48, S: -5.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #308 on: April 09, 2021, 11:03:16 PM »
« Edited: April 09, 2021, 11:19:39 PM by HenryWallaceVP »

I am now reading The Faith of a Liberal, which as promised has many a good quotation, but for this post I want to clarify a couple of previous points. First of all, if you think that even in the 1850s-70s the Democrats were liberals and the Republicans conservatives, go read something, anything, about US politics of the time. It is an utterly absurd thing to believe.

Now, something which I haven't adequately addressed is the claim, made by RINO Tom and others, that it was quite possible to oppose slavery for conservative reasons. I have said that the Republican party opposed it on liberal grounds, which is true, but does that mean it was impossible to oppose slavery for conservative reasons? I wouldn't say so. Businessmen who opposed slavery for self-interested reasons, and even some traditionalists who viewed slavery as capitalistic - which is and was a real interpretation, though I personally think it was more feudalistic - are examples of people who opposed slavery for conservative reasons.

So there were people who supported abolitionism for conservative reasons. Fine. But while RINO Tom and others have expounded on this, they have remained silent on another truth - the fact that many who supported nativism did so for liberal reasons. Tom seems to assume that all nativists were led on by conservatism, but that is not so. Many supporters of nativist or otherwise anti-Catholic policies did so out of genuine liberal convictions. Rightly or wrongly, they believed Catholics and Irish immigrants to hold "illiberal pro-slavery and anti-reformist views". The existence of those who supported nativism for liberal reasons is proven by the progressive and liberal legislation they enacted when in power. This article about the Massachusetts Know-Nothings gives numerous examples; I was going to copy some quotes here but the formatting was really messy, so I'd recommend you go read it if you want to know the specifics. Suffice it to say, the Mass. Know-Nothings supported liberal policies on slavery, civil liberties, women's rights, and economic issues. This might seem surprising on the face of it, but it isn't when one comprehends the powerful influence of Protestant liberalism on the Yankee descendants of the Puritans. These were essential Yankee values.

So now this raises an interesting question. Even though some of the nativists may have been motivated by liberalism, surely their position must still be considered the conservative one, right? After all, as NC Yankee said, "the end result is a conservative outcome in favor of the established demographic." Well, perhaps. But if you are to take that view, then by that very same logic you must also believe that those who opposed slavery for conservative reasons were liberals on the issue of slavery, even if their reasoning for it was conservative. Since the abolition of slavery is objectively a liberal result, then it must be so. The question at stake is whether one's ideological motivation for holding a position changes the ideology of the position itself. Evidently, Yankee thinks it does not. You may have noticed that I've made a point of saying "supported/opposed for x reasons" rather than describing the position itself as liberal or conservative; this is why.
Logged
Kapettobagga
CELTICEMPIRE
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,409
Japan



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #309 on: Today at 01:09:08 AM »

https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/ahc-democrats-and-republicans-switch.498637/

This is an interesting thread on the subject.
Logged
darklordoftech
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 8,898
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #310 on: Today at 01:18:28 AM »

All of the following can be true at the same time:

- The parties didn’t switch ideologies.
- Vermont and Mississipi didn’t switch cultures.
- Vermont and Mississipi switched parties.
Logged
Kapettobagga
CELTICEMPIRE
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,409
Japan



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #311 on: Today at 01:30:05 AM »

Here's my take:

All of the following can be true at the same time:

- The parties didn’t switch ideologies.

I'd say that they didn't switch ideologies, though they haven't remained static either.

Quote
- Vermont and Mississipi didn’t switch cultures.

They didn't switch cultures, but their cultures are a lot different than they were in 1860 or even 1960.

Quote
- Vermont and Mississipi switched parties.

And this is the part that no one can disagree with of course.
Logged
HenryWallaceVP
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,843


Political Matrix
E: -7.48, S: -5.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #312 on: Today at 12:49:03 PM »


Meh, it's mostly just people making the same points I've seen here. I would not be surprised if some of the people in that thread have also posted in this one.

Quote
I'd say that they didn't switch ideologies, though they haven't remained static either.

Well, to a certain extent they unquestionably did, considering that the Republican party was founded as a liberal party and is today nothing of the sort, while the opposite is true for the Democrats. FREE SOIL, FREE SPEECH, FREE MEN, FREMONT isn't exactly a 19th century conservative rallying cry. I actually own a PDF of a book called To Make Men Free about the history of the Republican party, but I'm somewhat afraid to start reading it because I know it would make this thread go on 10 times longer. Here is just the first paragraph of the book's blurb:

Quote
When Abraham Lincoln helped create the Republican Party on the eve of the Civil War, his goal was to promote economic opportunity for all Americans, not just the slaveholding Southern planters who steered national politics. Yet, despite the egalitarian dream at the heart of its founding, the Republican Party quickly became mired in a fundamental identity crisis. Would it be the party of democratic ideals? Or would it be the party of moneyed interests? In the century and a half since, Republicans have vacillated between these two poles, with dire economic, political, and moral repercussions for the entire nation.

Quote
They didn't switch cultures, but their cultures are a lot different than they were in 1860 or even 1960.

Well yes, but the culture of every place is a lot different that it was 60 or 160 years ago. That doesn't change the fact that in both 1860 and 1960, the culture of Vermont was infinitely more liberal than that of Mississippi.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 10 11 12 [13]  
« 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 0.051 seconds with 12 queries.