Historical continuity of Democrats and Republicans

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

Hi!
I am a newcomer to this forum and this is my first post.

I see that people were having a fiery discussion mostly about what "liberal" and "conservative" mean.
I think that being from Italy (so Western democracy, but not the USA), I can add some context - although some have already tried.

Basically, from my imperfect understanding of United States history, I agree that Democrats have always been more "liberal" and Republicans more "conservative".

I think that a lot of confusion stems from the fact that current parties are really polarized and discernible from each other, one of them stems from a liberal philosophy and the other from a conservative philosophy.
Because of this, the framework under which people, parties, ideas etc. are categorized is "liberal - moderate - conservative", which is intended to mean "left - centre - right"; this is problematic.
Right-wing is not inherently conservative, left-wing (even more so) is not inherently liberal, and who the heck are "moderates"*?

If you go outside of North America**, you can find a lot of things like "liberal conservatism", "conservative liberalism", places like Australia where the main party ON THE RIGHT is called Liberal Party, places like France where there was nothing you could call liberal before Emmanuel Macron founded his party, but in general I believe liberalism is thought of being somewhere in between conservatives or nationalists and labourites and socialists, so usually towards the centre.

I would also argue that I think some Democrats are not really liberals (especially near the Warren/Bernie zone) and are better described as social democrats or in some cases democratic socialists; I'm more fine with calling Republicans conservatives.

So, my advice should be to think heavily about the context before deciding to use "liberal" or "conservative" vs "left" or "right" vs "progressive" and other labels.

*There are places including Italy where moderate is usually a euphemism for centre-right, but this is for another post.

**I didn't say "United States" because I suspect that Canada has to a degree the same problem, given that its two main parties are the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party.

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

With regards to that discussion about Progressivism, I found this section in the 1916 Republican that I think is relevant:

The Republican party has long believed in the rigid supervision and strict regulation of the transportation and of the great corporations of the country. It has put its creed into its deeds, and all really effective laws regulating the railroads and the great industrial corporations are the work of Republican Congresses and Presidents. For this policy of regulation and supervision the Democrats, in a stumbling and piecemeal way, are within the sphere of private enterprise and in direct competition with its own citizens, a policy which is sure to result in waste, great expense to the taxpayer and in an inferior product.

The Republican party firmly believes that all who violate the laws in regulation of business, should be individually punished. But prosecution is very different from persecution, and business success, no matter how honestly attained, is apparently regarded by the Democratic party as in itself a crime. Such doctrines and beliefs choke enterprise and stifle prosperity. The Republican party believes in encouraging American business as it believes in and will seek to advance all American interests.

"business success is apparently regarded by Democrats as in itself a crime"; "they choke enterprise and stifle prosperity"; "encouraging American business"; it's so fascinating that Republicans still say these same things after 104 years

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

This kind of controlling behavior social conservatism was present as recent as the 2000s and had strong support from the same group largely, married women who were highly religious.

What examples do you have in mind from the 2000s?

The big ones would be LGBT issues but their is also stem cells and depending on your perspective abortion. There was also the whole Terri Schiavo case in Florida.

At the same time Democrats were going for the secular suburban Authoritarian vote by embracing Gun Control and going after things like say video games and movies, which IIRC you mention frequently. This was building off what Clinton had started with his triangulation on crime and culture in 1992 but taking it up to eleven with Gore.

Describing new well-off Democrats as "the secular suburban authoritarian vote" (which I doubt is a term of endearment) is one of those things that create an unholy alliance between the far-left and "RINO's" and I find that fascinating.

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

This point that you raise about abortion is an interesting one, and a reminder that we must always view issues in their historical contexts and take into account the motives for holding political positions; pro-life positions are largely conservative because they are generally held (though of course not in all cases; there are actually liberal cases to be made against abortion) out of a desire for the state to enforce religious morality and traditional gender roles.

What are the liberal cases against abortion? It sounds like something that gets completely sidelined from the ordinary discourse.

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

This point that you raise about abortion is an interesting one, and a reminder that we must always view issues in their historical contexts and take into account the motives for holding political positions; pro-life positions are largely conservative because they are generally held (though of course not in all cases; there are actually liberal cases to be made against abortion) out of a desire for the state to enforce religious morality and traditional gender roles.

What are the liberal cases against abortion? It sounds like something that gets completely sidelined from the ordinary discourse.

Not that I buy into these as applying to foetuses, but human dignity and protection of the vulnerable are liberal values.

Ah, I understand. I imagined so.
I think it rather a bad thing that 99% of that debate seems to be about "religious morality" and not about "protection of the vulnerable", if you ask me.
(I don't have a clear-cut side in the debate)

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

This point that you raise about abortion is an interesting one, and a reminder that we must always view issues in their historical contexts and take into account the motives for holding political positions; pro-life positions are largely conservative because they are generally held (though of course not in all cases; there are actually liberal cases to be made against abortion) out of a desire for the state to enforce religious morality and traditional gender roles.

What are the liberal cases against abortion? It sounds like something that gets completely sidelined from the ordinary discourse.

Not that I buy into these as applying to foetuses, but human dignity and protection of the vulnerable are liberal values.

Ah, I understand. I imagined so.
I think it rather a bad thing that 99% of that debate seems to be about "religious morality" and not about "protection of the vulnerable", if you ask me.
(I don't have a clear-cut side in the debate)

Quite frankly, the fact that abortion is one of the biggest issues of the last few decades in the US baffles me. It is an issue which does not materially effect voters’ lives and which most don’t care for much. It’s not even like LGBT rights were a large proportion of people felt a natural disgust. Nonetheless, you have to say the Religious Right have been extremely successful at keeping it in the national spotlight, although, like virtually all other culture war issues, its almost impossible to see them gaining ultimate victory.

Well I agree much with your first sentence, in so far as it brings to a continual, stale, relitigation of policy and laws and what not and people seem shoved to join one of the two camps and the two camps get more and more polarized by party.

I don't know about the ultimate victory. I guess you could say that most European abortion laws have been ultimate victories of sorts for the pro-choice/left side, but I don't know.

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

The institutional Catholic Church was not only opposed to organized labor and socialist movements, but liberal democracy itself, which as you later note were indeed different things. I can only say I'm a bit surprised that the Labour party were advocates for Catholics, since in the early 18th century they were mostly Tories, but I guess things had changed a little since then .

You know at the risk of being disrespectful, I would almost surmise that you view ones politics as genetic or hereditary. All Catholics have to be reactionaries because of the Pope, All Yankees have to be liberals because of Cromwell and even the poorest of Southern dirt farming Johnny Cash type has to be a far right reactionary.

This is not how the world works. People's political outlook is at once idiosyncratic and is derived from their socio-economic status, their surroundings, and their treatment by the dominant forces economic, religious, societal, racial and ethnically speaking.

Catholics in Britain were an oppressed minority, many occupied down market laboring jobs and were exploited by the wealthy classes, and you find it surprising that a "Socialist/Social Democratic" party would oppose religious discrimination and support workers rights?

Because Catholics are evil, Yankee. Bloody Mary burned heretics at the stake and the Stuart monarchy waged war against parliament. Ergo every Catholic is a reactionary and every anti-Catholic bigot is a liberal crusader!

As a Catholic I can confirm we are evil and all reactionaries, but as Henry's closest Atlas friend I have to admit he doesn't actually see us that way.

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

Can I just say that all of this would be more interesting if Henry cited someone other than Frederick Douglass sometimes when talking about e.g. the 1880's?

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

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.

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.

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.

- 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.

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.

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 ), 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.

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.

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.

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.