Historical continuity of Democrats and Republicans

[Alcibiades]

I would like to echo the opinion that this thread has been full of excellent and informed posts.

I agree that the divisions which arose in the English Civil War were the foundation for English political divisions ever since, and that influence was obviously felt across the Anglosphere. The Tories are the heirs of the Royalists and the Liberals/Lib Dems (and arguably Labour) of the Parliamentarians. Thus Anglo-Saxon liberalism as we know it would probably not exist without the Puritans.

Whether this extends to the US is more debatable. The two main problems with trying to map English Civil War divisions onto American politics are:

a) Different religious composition: the US never had an established Church, and whereas in England Anglicans and Nonconformists were in direct opposition, they were allied in the US against Southerners and Catholics.

b) Only one major political tradition: In Europe, political parties tend to be heirs of traditions representing different groups in 19th century society with radically different views of society: conservatives of monarchists/aristocrats, socialists of the working classes, liberals of the bourgeoisie etc.  In America there was only one tradition: republican liberalism, which all groups in society largely accepted. No competing monarchism, Christian democracy or socialism. This is arguably why America has never developed a major social democratic party. An older, but still important, work on this is Louis Hartz’s The Liberal Tradition in America.

For this reason, I often find it most helpful to think of the pre-1932 parties as fairly non-ideological (not to say they didn’t have ideology, but it was the same (classical liberalism) so it didn’t really matter), and more culturally aligned big tent parties, a little like Fianna Fail and Fine Gael in Ireland. What policy differences did exist (e.g. tariffs) were more expressions of cultural and sectional divisions than ideological statements.

As for trying to compare British 19th century parties to American ones, I have always seen a certain similarity between the Democrats and the Liberals: representing religious and cultural minorities against the dominant establishment and both were staunch free-traders. But then the American equivalent of the nonconformist conscience, inextricably linked to the British Liberals, was largely found within the Republican Party, perhaps showing that such comparisons are messy and mostly futile.

[Alcibiades]

I would like to echo the opinion that this thread has been full of excellent and informed posts.

I agree that the divisions which arose in the English Civil War were the foundation for English political divisions ever since, and that influence was obviously felt across the Anglosphere. The Tories are the heirs of the Royalists and the Liberals/Lib Dems (and arguably Labour) of the Parliamentarians. Thus Anglo-Saxon liberalism as we know it would probably not exist without the Puritans.

Whether this extends to the US is more debatable. The two main problems with trying to map English Civil War divisions onto American politics are:

a) Different religious composition: the US never had an established Church, and whereas in England Anglicans and Nonconformists were in direct opposition, they were allied in the US against Southerners and Catholics.

b) Only one major political tradition: In Europe, political parties tend to be heirs of traditions representing different groups in 19th century society with radically different views of society: conservatives of monarchists/aristocrats, socialists of the working classes, liberals of the bourgeoisie etc.  In America there was only one tradition: republican liberalism, which all groups in society largely accepted. No competing monarchism, Christian democracy or socialism. This is arguably why America has never developed a major social democratic party. An older, but still important, work on this is Louis Hartz’s The Liberal Tradition in America.

For this reason, I often find it most helpful to think of the pre-1932 parties as fairly non-ideological (not to say they didn’t have ideology, but it was the same (classical liberalism) so it didn’t really matter), and more culturally aligned big tent parties, a little like Fianna Fail and Fine Gael in Ireland. What policy differences did exist (e.g. tariffs) were more expressions of cultural and sectional divisions than ideological statements.

As for trying to compare British 19th century parties to American ones, I have always seen a certain similarity between the Democrats and the Liberals: representing religious and cultural minorities against the dominant establishment and both were staunch free-traders. But then the American equivalent of the nonconformist conscience, inextricably linked to the British Liberals, was largely found within the Republican Party, perhaps showing that such comparisons are messy and mostly futile.

The Southern elite was also Anglican, and there was socialist movement in America before the Palmer Raids.

Yes, many (though far from all) Southern elites were Anglican. I should have prefaced the above mention with “Northern”, though my point still stands that Protestant denominations were never really strong, opposing political identities as they were in England.

This socialist movement never developed into the main centre-left party as most did in Europe.

[Alcibiades]

I would like to echo the opinion that this thread has been full of excellent and informed posts.

I agree that the divisions which arose in the English Civil War were the foundation for English political divisions ever since, and that influence was obviously felt across the Anglosphere. The Tories are the heirs of the Royalists and the Liberals/Lib Dems (and arguably Labour) of the Parliamentarians. Thus Anglo-Saxon liberalism as we know it would probably not exist without the Puritans.

Whether this extends to the US is more debatable. The two main problems with trying to map English Civil War divisions onto American politics are:

a) Different religious composition: the US never had an established Church, and whereas in England Anglicans and Nonconformists were in direct opposition, they were allied in the US against Southerners and Catholics.

b) Only one major political tradition: In Europe, political parties tend to be heirs of traditions representing different groups in 19th century society with radically different views of society: conservatives of monarchists/aristocrats, socialists of the working classes, liberals of the bourgeoisie etc.  In America there was only one tradition: republican liberalism, which all groups in society largely accepted. No competing monarchism, Christian democracy or socialism. This is arguably why America has never developed a major social democratic party. An older, but still important, work on this is Louis Hartz’s The Liberal Tradition in America.

For this reason, I often find it most helpful to think of the pre-1932 parties as fairly non-ideological (not to say they didn’t have ideology, but it was the same (classical liberalism) so it didn’t really matter), and more culturally aligned big tent parties, a little like Fianna Fail and Fine Gael in Ireland. What policy differences did exist (e.g. tariffs) were more expressions of cultural and sectional divisions than ideological statements.

As for trying to compare British 19th century parties to American ones, I have always seen a certain similarity between the Democrats and the Liberals: representing religious and cultural minorities against the dominant establishment and both were staunch free-traders. But then the American equivalent of the nonconformist conscience, inextricably linked to the British Liberals, was largely found within the Republican Party, perhaps showing that such comparisons are messy and mostly futile.

It gets less messy if you consider it terms of dominant religion versus the dissident religious views as opposed to zoning in on a particular faith. As you said America didn't have an established Anglican church, but it did have a dominant religious culture that was heavily influenced by more Calvinist and non-conformist sects and thus they became the religious establishment in the context of America. Faith as it governs politics often comes down to an equation of what it is their influence and dominance compared to what is seen as the dominant religious influence and are they part of that or are they at odds with it. This is why Catholics were on the liberal side in the US because they were on the outs.

It is also why Cavaliers would be on the liberal side in the US because Calvinism is inconvenient for their party life style. One thing that came about in the Restoration period in England was Charles II and the abundance of sex, booze and parties. These are all things that many puritans banned or at least considered horrific. This even goes down to the some of the voting patterns in 1928 and one of the reasons that Smith held up with some Plantation society elites because they wanted their booze back (emphasis one of the reasons).

So while political and anti-monarchical liberalism has origins from nonconformists, it must be stated the the "libertine" lifestyle of "Party boy aristocrats" the love for wine, women and song etc was very much Cavalier in origin and thus a level of disdain or scorn for traditional morals, religious restrictions and such forth. In the 19th century mindset because radicalism and revolutionary upheaval, we assume that because they were both targeted, that the church and the nobility were always allies but prior to such upheavals you often found a dynamic of strict religious fervor at odds with the dare I say "cavalier attitude towards responsible and pious behavior", among young and even old aristocrats with far too much money on their hands.

You are right that the most important dynamic in any country’s religious politics tends to be that of in vs. out group. Nonetheless, there are certain features of e.g. Calvinism that remain constant, due to the nature of the religion, whether it is the in group (US) or out group (UK), namely a strong moralistic streak, a certain type of egalitarianism and a strong social conscience. For instance, they spearheaded the abolitionist movement in both countries.

Same with the Cavaliers; in both countries they advocated for a reactionary and hierarchical social system. For that reason they were definitely not “liberal”.

[Alcibiades]

Same with the Cavaliers; in both countries they advocated for a reactionary and hierarchical social system. For that reason they were definitely not “liberal”.

If the politics does not question the hierarchy as it exists but instead operates on other concerns like say morality, then yes it is very possible for the elites to be liberal.

There is also going back to the in versus out group, if a group of elites locally can deflect blame to an opposed group of national elites then they can in effect operate as allies of the liberal side of politics. For instance you see this with tech companies today and many other rich business types that do in fact support the left. Does the fact that they are rich, make their positions on issues like abortion, gay rights, immigration any less liberal?

Does the fact that Jefferson was a plantation owner make his views on speculation, religious tolerance, egalitarian democracy (relative to the Federalists) any less liberal?

This is how you prove the inaccuracy of a simplistic narrative. Slave owners/rich people/elites cannot be liberals because they want to maintain the hierarchy. That is only true if the hierarchy is in doubt or in question. No one questioned the slave hierarchy prior to the 1840s in a substantial way and after reconstruction, no one challenged power structure in the South dominated by plantation elites using share croppers. Likewise after the English Civil War there were aristocrats on both sides of the Glorious Revolution and in both the Tory and Whig Parties. The political wheels keep turning and the politics finds its own natural divide and thus it is very possible for a group of elites depending their interests and values on other areas to be allied with or even be liberals.

That doesn't even get into the fact of the mistake of presuming consistency of monolithic purity of any given ideology by anyone, as such is very rare because someone will always have some pet issue that doesn't align perfectly. So why should we presume such about historical figures when we wouldn't dream of it today?

As you have said, it is very possible for elites to find themselves in marriages of convenience  with liberals, and even hold some liberal views themselves.

Nonetheless, the planters were not liberal; in fact they were anti-liberal if we take liberalism to be the ideology of the Enlightenment. They were deeply reactionary and ultimately sought to recreate a mini-feudal Europe in the Southern states. In addition, while they were the out-group on the national scale, on the state and local level, where real power laid, they were the oppressive in-group.

Jefferson is an interesting example. He was, in spite of being a slaveholder, a liberal (and in fact was nowhere near as enthusiastic about slavery as most Southern elites), as he sought to establish a Republic on the values of the Enlightenment. He did of course a major effect on the politics of the South, but I would argue it was not his liberal values that effected it, but his Romantic and agrarian inclinations (which could be used to support either liberal or feudalist points of view).

[Alcibiades]

^ A couple of novice thoughts:

- Just as Puritans in America didn't necessarily inherit the spirit of their English ancestors' starting ideologies, I would argue that the Southern planters' obsession with being the successors of European aristocrats (compared to the trashy, uncultured industrialists of the dirty North) had a significantly different flavor.  They often chastised abolitionists as being anti-science, preferring a fluffy fantasy of racial equality where everyone got along, whereas they were an educated and enlightened elite who "got it."  Even though it was mostly nefarious and not genuine, the assertion on their part that slavery was a benevolent institution in place for the well-being of a fundamentally inferior race of people often led to the assertion that the GOP wanted slaves freed to even out the price advantage the planters had over Northern-made goods only to let these Freedmen starve on the streets of Northern cities or live dirt poor lives in the rural South with no master to care for them.  I agree that I would never call the slavers something as simple as "liberal," but some of their tone does resemble a modern liberal elitist living in a high rise rather than a modern conservative/reactionary elitist living in a McMansion in the exurbs.

This type of paternalism that you describe was for many decades one of the hallmarks of conservatism. However, it really fell out of favour after the fusionist/neoliberal/movement conservative ascendency in the 70s and 80s. We must not also forget that liberalism was originally the ideology of the capitalist bourgeosie (as opposed to the conservative mercantilist aristocracy). Therefore it is not at all suprising if some 19th century perceptions of liberals was that they were immoral individualists only out to enrich themselves.

- This comparison has fallen out of favor as the GOP base has shifted toward the South over the last several decades, but I remember reading once that the steam behind the first real pro-life movement after Roe v. Wade was that these people saw themselves as the second coming of the abolitionists - fighting for God's will against cold, unsympathetic and scientifically-minded pro-choice heathens to protect the unborn just as their political ancestors had fought to protect the slaves.  Now, as someone who happens to be pro-choice and has the advantage of being removed from the time, I obviously see where this comparison is lacking.  However, imagining a conservative point of view that sees the slaves and the unborn as helpless people in need of moral activism, both times facing a "less religious" (to them, anyway) and antagonistic force of "science" helps me see how slavers might not have seemed overly "conservative" to the Northern abolitionists who were more religiously motivated.  At least to me.  Again, these terms weren't widely used in the same way we use them today, so this is all kind of a lost cause (heh, heh).  However, I do find that point interesting.  As I said on another page, if abortion becomes outlawed someday and our descendants look back on it in 200 years as a barbaric practice, their analysis of the Republicans as "liberals" for fighting to end it would no doubt be flawed.

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.

I’m not sure where you read that analogy about the abolitionists and pro-lifers. In the 40s, 50s and 60s, abortion was of course not really an issue at all, and vocal pro-life positions were almost exclusively confined to Catholic politicans. To that end, Yankee Republicans were some of the most prominent pro-choicers.

The abortion issue as we know it today was almost exclusively created by the Religious Right, which had its roots in the campaign to stop desegregation of private Christian academies in the South.

[Alcibiades]

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.

[Alcibiades]

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.

[Alcibiades]

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.

The very nature of being a social conservative is that you are always fighting a losing battle, with the goalposts of what is acceptably socially conservative constantly being moved further and further to the left. It’s hard to see support for legal abortion going down at all (currently the clear majority of Americans support it), especially as the country gets less and less religious.

[Alcibiades]

I find it interesting that whether in the English Civil War or in American politics, Irish Catholics and Cavaliers have tended to see each other as a lesser evil than Puritans. In ~1854-1928, Democrats were Irish Catholics + Cavaliers and Republicans were Puritans and since ~1968, Republicans have been Irish Catholics + Cavaliers and Democrats have been Puritans.

Well first of all, I would not say your post-1968 classification is completely accurate:
-If by Cavaliers you mean the Southern elite, then they were some of the first in the South to abandon the Democrats, but of course many white Southerners were voting Democrat downballot until 2010.
-With Irish Catholics, it’s more a case of having gone from being overwhelmingly Democratic to voting like the white population at large as they assimilated; they are certainly not a strongly Republican group, and in states like MA are still mostly Democratic.
-Puritans/Northern WASPs have definitely gone from being very Republican to mostly Democratic, and this process was already starting in the 60s, but it was not in full swing until the 90s.

As for the English Civil War, initially the Tories (the Cavalier party), were more pro-Catholic than the Whigs (the Puritan party), as the Stuart monarchs were Catholic. Of course at the time, there were very few Irish Catholics in Britain. However, by the late 19th Century (by which time there had been lots of Irish Catholic immigration to Britain), more Catholics were voting Liberal than Tory in an uneasy alliance with the Nonconformists (and many also voted for the Irish Parliamentary Party, which held a seat in Liverpool), and in the 20th century would vote largely for Labour.

The difference between the UK and the US is that in the former, the Cavaliers were the in-group and the Puritans and Catholic were the out-group, while in the US, on a national scale, the Puritans were the in-group and the Cavaliers and Catholics were the out-group (although the Cavaliers were very much the in-group within their own region, the South).

[Alcibiades]

Here’s an interesting question - what was the earliest point at which someone would have, if you asked them to briefly explain the differences between the two major parties (or you looked it up in an encylopaedia), responded that the Democrats were the more liberal/left-of-centre party, and the Republicans the more conservative/right-of-centre party?

[Alcibiades]

https://www.nytimes.com/1984/10/22/us/the-candidates-debate-transcript-of-the-reagan-mondale-debate-on-foreign-policy.html

MODERATOR: Miss Geyer, your question to Mr. Mondale. IMMIGRATION REFORM

Q: Mr. Mondale, many analysts are now saying that actually our No. 1 foreign policy problem today is one that remains almost totally unrecognized. Massive illegal immigration from economically collapsing countries. They are saying that it is the only real territorial threat to the American nation-state. You yourself said in the 1970's that we had a ''hemorrhage on our borders'' yet today you have backed off any immigration reform such as the balanced and highly- crafted Simpson-Mazzoli Bill. Why? What would you do instead today if anything? MONDALE: Ah, this is a very serious problem in our country and it has to be dealt with. I object to that part of the Simpson-Mazzoli Bill which I think is very unfair and would prove to be so. That is the part that requires employers to determine the citizenship of an employee before they're hired. I am convinced that the result of this would be that people who are Hispanic, people who have different languages or speak with an accent would find it difficult to be employed. I think that's wrong. We've never had citizenship tests in our country before. And I don't think we should have a citizenship card today. That is counterproductive. I do support the other aspects of the Simpson-Mazzoli Bill that strengthens enforcement at the border, strengthens other ways of dealing with undocumented workers in this difficult area and dealing with the problem of settling people who have lived here for many many years and do not have an established status. I further strongly recommend that this Administration do something it has not done. And that is to strengthen enforcement at the border, strengthen the officials in this Government that deal with undocumented workers and to do so in a way that's responsible and within the Constitution of the United States. We need an answer to this problem. But it must be an American answer that is consistent with justice and due process. Everyone in this room, practically, here tonight, is an immigrant. We came here loving this nation, serving it and it has served all of our most bountiful dreams. And one of those dreams is justice. And we need a measure, and I will support a measure that brings about those objectives, but avoids that one aspect that I think is very serious. The second part is to maintain and improve relations with our friends to the south. We cannot solve this problem all on our own. And that's why the failure of this administration to deal in an effective and good-faith way with Mexico, with Costa Rica, with the other nations in trying to find a peaceful settlement to the dispute in Central America has undermined our capacity to effectively to deal diplomatic in this, diplomatically in this area as well.

Q: Sir, people as well-balanced and just as Father Theodore Hesburgh at Notre Dame, who headed the Select Commission on Immigration, have pointed out repeatedly that there will be no immigration reform without employer sanctions because it would be an unbalanced bill and there would be simply no way to enforce it. However, putting that aside for the moment, your critics have also said repeatedly that you have not gone along with the bill, or with any immigration reform, because of the Hispanic groups - or Hispanic leadership groups, who actually do not represent what the Hispanic Americans want because polls show that they overwhelmingly want some kind of immigration reform. Can you say, or how can you justify your position on this, and how do you respond to the criticism that this is another, or that this is an example of your flip-flopping and giving in to special interest groups at the expense of the American nation?

MONDALE: I think you're right that the polls show that the majority of Hispanics want that bill, so I'm not doing it for political reasons. I'm doing it because all my life I've fought for a system of justice in this country, a system in which every American has a chance to achieve the fullness of life without discrimination. This bill imposes upon employers the responsibility of determining whether somebody who applies for a job is an American or not, and just inevitably they're going to be reluctant to hire Hispanics or people with a different accent. If I were dealing with politics here, the polls show the American people want this. I am for reform in this area, for tough enforcement at the border, and for many other aspects of the Simpson-Mazzoli Bill , but all my life I've fought for a fair nation and, despite the politics of it, I stand where I stand, and I think I'm right. And before this fight is over, we're going to come up with a better bill, a more effective bill, that does not undermine the liberties of our people. Q: Mr. President, you too have said that our borders are out of control. Yet this fall, you allowed the Simpson-Mazzoli Bill, which would at least have minimally protected our borders and the rights of citizenship because of a relatively unimportant issue of reimbursement to the states for legalized aliens. Given that, may I ask what priority can we expect you to give this forgotten national security element; how sincere are you in your efforts to control, in effect, the nation's states, that is, the United States.

REAGAN: Georgie, and we, believe me, supported the Simpson-Mazzoli Bill strongly, and the bill that came out of the Senate. However, there were things added in in the House side that we felt made it less of a good bill; as a matter of fact, made it a bad bill. And in conference, we stayed with them in conference all the way to where even Senator Simpson did not want the bill in the manner in which it would come out of the conference committee. There were a number of things in there that weakened that bill - I can't go into detail about them here. But it is true our borders are out of control, it is also true that this has been a situation on our borders back through a number of Administrations. And I supported this bill, I believe in the idea of amnesty for those who have put down roots and who have lived here, even though some time back they may have entered illegally. With regard to the employer sanctions, we must have that - not only to ensure that we can identify the illegal aliens but also, while some keep protesting about what it would do to employers, there is another employer that we shouldn't be so concerned about, and these are employers down through the years who have encouraged the illegal entry into this country because they then hire these individuals and hire them at starvation wages and with none of the benefits that we think are normal and natural for workers in our country. And the individuals can't complain because of their illegal status. We don't think that those people should be allowed to continue operating free, and this was why the provisions that we had in with regard to sanctions and so forth. And I'm going to do everything I can, and all of us in the Administration are, to join in again when Congress is back at it to get an immigration bill that will give us once again control of our borders. And with regard to friendship below the border with the countries down there, yes, no Administration that I know has established the relationship that we have with our Latin friends. But as long as they have an economy that leaves so many people in dire poverty and unemployment, they are going to seek that employment across our borders. And we work with those other countries. Q: Mr. President, the experts also say that the situation today is terribly different - quantitatively, qualitatively different - from what it has been in the past because of the gigantic population growth. For instance, Mexico's population will go from about 60 million today to 120 million at the turn of the century. Many of these people will be coming into the United States not as citizens but as illegal workers. You have repeatedly said recently that you believe that Armageddon, the destruction of the world, may be imminent in our times. Do you ever feel that we are in for an Armageddon or a situation, a time of anarchy, regarding the population explosion in the world?

REAGAN: No, as a matter of fact the population explosion, if you look at the actual figures, has been vastly exaggerated - over-exaggerated. As a matter of fact, there are some pretty scientific and solid figures about how much space there still is in the world and how many more people can have. It's almost like going back to the Malthusian theory, when even then they were saying that everyone would starve with the limited population they had then. But the problem of population growth is one here with regard to our immigration. And we have been the safety valve, whether we wanted to or not, with the illegal entry here; in Mexico, where their population is increasing and they don't have an economy that can absorb them and provide the jobs. And this is what we're trying to work out, not only to protect our own borders but to have some kind of fairness and recognition of that problem.

MODERATOR: Mr. Mondale, your rebuttal.

MONDALE: One of the biggest problems today is that the coutries to our south are so desparately poor that these people who will almost lose their lives if they don't come north, come north despite all the risks. And if we're going to find a permanent, fundamental answer to this, it goes to American economic and trade policies that permit these nations to have a chance to get on their own two feet and to get prosperity so that they can have jobs for themselves and their people.

And that's why this enormous national bebt, enigneered by this Administration, is harming these countries and fueling this immigration.

These high interest rates, real rates, that have doubled under this Administration, have had the same effect on Mexico and so on, and the cost of repaying those debts is so enormous that it results in massive unemployment, hardship and heartache. And that drives our friends to the north - to the south - up into our region, and we need to end those defiecits as well.

MODERATOR: Mr. President, your rebuttal.

REAGAN: Well, my rebuttal is I've heard the national debt blamed for a lot of things, but not for illegal immigration across our border, and it has nothing to do with it.

https://www.nytimes.com/1984/08/09/us/reagan-raises-new-obstacle-to-house-bill-on-immigration.html

The Reagan Administration has raised a new objection to the House version of a comprehensive immigration bill, saying it goes too far in protecting the rights of legal aliens and Hispanic workers.

That last point by Mondale is rather weak in terms of tying it back to Reagan though he is not entirely wrong on the root problem.

My point was to show that Democrats have always been for more leniant immigration laws and Republicans for more restrictive immigration laws.

OF course though naturally it should be noted that during the 1980s, it was the height of Republican Moderation on immigration for the simple fact that the politics of the sunbelt at least for the time lent itself to such because of the heavy interest by many monied interests in having cheap labor imported to keep costs down.

That being said during the Bush years, this was not uniform even and people talk of "Republicans use to sound like this on immigration citing Reagan or Bush", need to account for the fact that the House Republican Caucus throughout this period was almost uniformly hawkish on the border and somewhat restriction favored, the 2005 enforcement only bill comes to mind. This is especially so because of demographic pressure and suburban crime fears by many Representatives in the sunbelt.

Even so, I bet some of the OC crazies took a pretty hard line on immigration during the 80s (Bob Dornan blamed his defeat to Loretta Sanchez in 1996 on illegal immigrants voting).

[Alcibiades]

It’s important to remember that in the 19th century, liberalism was inextricably associated with nationalism (in opposition to the vast undemocratic multi-ethnic empires of Europe and in favour of the right to self-determination) and capitalism (as it was the economic system which enabled the creation of a middle class and thus threatened the power and privilege of the conservative aristocracy). So to look at a 19th century party which espoused nationalistic rhetoric and supported free market and business-friendly policies, and say that it cannot have been liberal because it doesn’t conform to our notion of 21st century liberalism, is wrong.

[Alcibiades]

It’s important to remember that in the 19th century, liberalism was inextricably associated with nationalism (in opposition to the vast undemocratic multi-ethnic empires of Europe and in favour of the right to self-determination) and capitalism (as it was the economic system which enabled the creation of a middle class and thus threatened the power and privilege of the conservative aristocracy). So to look at a 19th century party which espoused nationalistic rhetoric and supported free market and business-friendly policies, and say that it cannot have been liberal because it doesn’t conform to our notion of 21st century liberalism, is wrong.

While this is true, it's important to remember that supporting the free-market and being pro-business were very much NOT the same thing in the 19th century. Quite the opposite, which is why classical conservatives tended to be considerably more economically interventionist than their classical liberal counterparts.

While this may well have been true in America, which lacked an aristocracy, it was not in Europe, where the landed gentry were often in opposition to bourgeois businesses. A good example was that the cotton mill owners of Lancashire were mostly staunch Liberals, with the odd result that in certain pockets of the county, working-class support for the Tories persisted as late as the 1950s.

[Alcibiades]

It’s important to remember that in the 19th century, liberalism was inextricably associated with nationalism (in opposition to the vast undemocratic multi-ethnic empires of Europe and in favour of the right to self-determination) and capitalism (as it was the economic system which enabled the creation of a middle class and thus threatened the power and privilege of the conservative aristocracy). So to look at a 19th century party which espoused nationalistic rhetoric and supported free market and business-friendly policies, and say that it cannot have been liberal because it doesn’t conform to our notion of 21st century liberalism, is wrong.

While this is true, it's important to remember that supporting the free-market and being pro-business were very much NOT the same thing in the 19th century. Quite the opposite, which is why classical conservatives tended to be considerably more economically interventionist than their classical liberal counterparts.

While this may well have been true in America, which lacked an aristocracy, it was not in Europe, where the landed gentry were often in opposition to bourgeois businesses. A good example was that the cotton mill owners of Lancashire were mostly staunch Liberals, with the odd result that in certain pockets of the county, working-class support for the Tories persisted as late as the 1950s.

That's honestly really interesting, I didn't know that. Is that why the Tories did respectably in Liverpool when you look at electoral maps from that period? Also, do you mean to tell me that the Liberals in Britain did tend to be pro-Business? Again, I didn't know that, very interesting.

The non-aristocratic business class were a stronghold of the Liberals in the 19th century, I believe. Tory strength in Liverpool was actually for a different reason, namely that sectarianism was rife in the city in the period with its large Irish Catholic immigrant population, and so many working class Protestants voted Tory.