Rockefeller Republicans

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

As we all know, there used to be conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans. Now, the fact that the Dems were able to hold together their liberal northern wing and conservative southern wing before the mid-to-late 20th century isn't that surprising - the south hated Republicans, and before the 1960s, it wasn't that hard for national Democrats to finesse the race issue.

What I don't understand though is, why were liberal Republicans in the mid-20th century...Republicans? As far as I can tell, mid-century liberal Republicans agreed with people like the Kennedys and Hubert Humphrey on just about everything. On economics, they supported Keynesianism, the New Deal, social programs, intervention, and even on labour unions they seemed to occupy a similar space as JFK for example. On foreign policy, they were internationalist and supported combatting communism by promoting a liberal world order, just like like the Democratic establishment of the time. On social issues, again, they were not that far off from the Democrats that came from the same states as them. So what exactly was the distinction between liberal Republicans and Democrats in this era? In other words, had Nelson Rockefeller beat Barry Goldwater for the 1964 GOP nomination, what issues would he have disagreed with LBJ on?

[Make America Grumpy Again]

I'm not sure if this answers your question but many of them opposed Goldwater and the Eisenhower-Ford period was really the golden age for these type of Republicans, as the public consensus was that this wing would be the dominant wing going forward as the Great Depression/establishment of the New Deal coalition was considered to be the future. Goldwater's surprise nomination were the first cracks but it wasn't until the Reagan era that things really began to fall off. I'd say most of these people were Republicans into the '90s with a few into the W. Bush era and even for Romney, although Clinton was able to win a lot of them over. Even some like Baker & Scott continue to be Reps even though they would fit in with the third wayers and are broadly popular with Dems. I think a lot of it more has to do with ancestoral connection than anything else. Unlike the Con. Dems which began to fall apart as early as the collapse of the bourban Dems in the 1890's, the fall apart of the lib Reps happened decades  later which was why many of them still identify as Reps, even until today and I anticipate that some will continue until the last of them die off sometime in the middle of the century and their children identify as Dems. However even some posters like Centrist_Republican & The Flying Mongoose are liberals who identify with Rep's due to the legacy of people like Abraham Lincoln so it's possible that some of the more ancestoral Republican areas of the country could continue to have liberal Reps in name only who mainly vote Dem as far out as the end of the century, although the same isn't as true with Con. Dems as the Lincoln legacy and abolitionism goes a lot further than Andrew Jackson & Jim Crow.

[OSR stands with Israel]

I think a large part of this is in the past the parties were more sorted more on their philosophical views on how society should look like and sometimes people with different philosophical views can come to the same conclusions on policy.

[darklordoftech]

Often it was for local reasons such as the local Democrats being controlled by a political machine that they felt was corrupt or that they had little chance of being nominated for office by.

[Alcibiades]

Ironically, despite the name, Nelson Rockefeller was far from the best example of a liberal Republican in the period. He did have somewhat of a populist conservative streak, especially on law and order. The most liberal Republicans were the likes of Jacob Javits, Edward Brooke, John Lindsay (who ended up switching parties), and, at least by his 1968 run, George Romney.

In general, the moderate Republican line on social programmes at the time was that they would essentially preserve the New Deal legacy, but run them more ‘efficiently’ than the Democrats; that is, taking a somewhat more pro-businesses and fiscally conservative stance. Ultimately, these Republicans viewed the New Deal paradigm as having become entrenched consensus, and out of pragmatic concern they realised they had to operate within it to survive. You can see this in the geographic distribution of liberal Republicans; most were from places like New England, New York, and the Bay Area, the liberal reputation of which obviously goes without saying. To name just one example, these coastal urban area were heavily unionised, so a Republican running as a union-buster wasn’t going to get very far.

In addition, cultural, ethnic and class identities played a huge role in the phenomenon of liberal Republicans. The mid-20th century saw the height of class-based voting in the United States; if you were from an upper middle class or higher background, then becoming a Republican was simply the ‘natural’ thing to do, even if you had generally liberal views. As the name ‘Rockefeller Republican’ suggests, a disproportionate number of liberal Republican politicians came from patrician WASPy backgrounds. When you wonder why some of them, despite their very liberal positions, weren’t Democrats, the answer is often probably that they simply felt uncomfortable with the class connotations of doing so.

Related to this, New England, which had the greatest concentration of liberal Republicans of any part of the country, had been riven by a sharp political divide between WASPs and ‘white ethnics’ (usually Irish-Americans, especially in Massachusetts) since the early 20th century. Even as the region liberalised as the century drew on (most early 20th century New England WASP Republicans were decidedly not liberal) this divide certainly still remained, and again, as a New England WASP, being a Republican was just the default option. Similarly, New York City’s fondness for liberal Republicans can be explained by the perception that the city’s Democratic Party was controlled by Irish-Americans, and was extremely corrupt. This led to resentment towards the Democrats not just from WASPs, but also from Italians (e.g. Fiorello La Guardia) and Jews (e.g. Jacob Javits), who would often form a powerful coalition to power liberal Republicans to victory.

[Blow by blow, the passion dies]

With some exceptions, the Northeast (especially New England) was extremely Republican before the New Deal era.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

Ironically, despite the name, Nelson Rockefeller was far from the best example of a liberal Republican in the period. He did have somewhat of a populist conservative streak, especially on law and order. The most liberal Republicans were the likes of Jacob Javits, Edward Brooke, John Lindsay (who ended up switching parties), and, at least by his 1968 run, George Romney.

In general, the moderate Republican line on social programmes at the time was that they would essentially preserve the New Deal legacy, but run them more ‘efficiently’ than the Democrats; that is, taking a somewhat more pro-businesses and fiscally conservative stance. Ultimately, these Republicans viewed the New Deal paradigm as having become entrenched consensus, and out of pragmatic concern they realised they had to operate within it to survive. You can see this in the geographic distribution of liberal Republicans; most were from places like New England, New York, and the Bay Area, the liberal reputation of which obviously goes without saying. To name just one example, these coastal urban area were heavily unionised, so a Republican running as a union-buster wasn’t going to get very far.

In addition, cultural, ethnic and class identities played a huge role in the phenomenon of liberal Republicans. The mid-20th century saw the height of class-based voting in the United States; if you were from an upper middle class or higher background, then becoming a Republican was simply the ‘natural’ thing to do, even if you had generally liberal views. As the name ‘Rockefeller Republican’ suggests, a disproportionate number of liberal Republican politicians came from patrician WASPy backgrounds. When you wonder why some of them, despite their very liberal positions, weren’t Democrats, the answer is often probably that they simply felt uncomfortable with the class connotations of doing so.

Related to this, New England, which had the greatest concentration of liberal Republicans of any part of the country, had been riven by a sharp political divide between WASPs and ‘white ethnics’ (usually Irish-Americans, especially in Massachusetts) since the early 20th century. Even as the region liberalised as the century drew on (most early 20th century New England WASP Republicans were decidedly not liberal) this divide certainly still remained, and again, as a New England WASP, being a Republican was just the default option. Similarly, New York City’s fondness for liberal Republicans can be explained by the perception that the city’s Democratic Party was controlled by Irish-Americans, and was extremely corrupt. This led to resentment towards the Democrats not just from WASPs, but also from Italians (e.g. Fiorello La Guardia) and Jews (e.g. Jacob Javits), who would often form a powerful coalition to power liberal Republicans to victory.

Interesting, I hadn't considered the ethnic divides. I knew La Guardia mainly identified as a Republican because he was against Tammany Hall, although Italian-Americans were also usually part of the Democratic coalition, no? And Edward Brooke, who served as a liberal Republican even after the GOP became very much the conservative party, was of course black - but again, most black northerners had become Democrats by the time he entered politics. But I get why liberal northeastern WASPs would favour Republicans, since the GOP was always the party of WASP interests, and Democrats were more friendly with Catholics and immigrants.

Opposing corrupt Democratic political machines like Tammany Hall seems like a no-brainer move for any northern Republican, but what about public policy? I mean, "we support the New Deal but will run it more efficiently" makes sense as a political message, but it's a pretty weak one and doesn't really differentiate you much from the opponent. Even in times less polarizing than ours, there are always some issues that fire people up, did liberal Republicans have any that differentiated them from their Democratic opponents? Or was it just "Democrats are the party of corrupt Irish machines, Republicans are the party of prudency and accountability"?

[RINO Tom]

I mean, two people can have different ideologies and wind up agreeing on an issue … look no further than free trade or “isolationism.”  Additionally, it’s incredibly irresponsible to equate “pro-New Deal Republicans” as ideological allies to liberal Democrats who just happen to have an R by their names.  They literally used their power - which wasn’t much, in pro-New Deal areas - to weaken the New Deal.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Compassionate Conservative or Chris Shays Rs description of GzoP was used to describe the R party during Apart of course Rs believed in Federalism today it means states rights but during Apartheid it meant Judicial Review Federal rights Trump states rights that's why Earl Warren Desegregation of schools he believed in Federalism

The R party now believes in Federalism states rights but there is no Apartheid, DIXIECRAT we're for states rights against Judicial Review, all the way up to Reagan Compassionate Conservative was the term if George Romney would of been Prez not Nixon or of course Bobby Kennedy we don't know if there would of been a Reagan Revolution, Reagan era came in the aftermath of Watergate

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The mistake we make is in considering the "Rockefeller Republicans" as being this ancestrally liberal Republican group who after many decades suddenly realized that they were in the wrong party and started to switch.

On the contrary. In the early Progressive Era, Northeast and Midwest Republicans tended to be more conservative relative to their counterparts out west with some variance and support for local parochial concerns obviously. Nelson Aldrich (Nelson Rockefeller's own grandfather on his mother's side) was seen as a tool of industrial concerns, and very often got in the way of Teddy Roosevelt's agenda. Senator Wadsworth of New York, opposed the FDA and later opposed women's suffrage. Taft's "conservative" VP was from New York.

Conservative politics tends to require a strong middle class and the only part of the country that that really had such a base tended to be in the Industrial states and Yankee belt. Outside of that, you had a lot of poor farmers, a few rich planters and politics that very often was dominated by personalities, populists and later various forms of Progressive mindsets (at least economically speaking).

The New Deal, the organization of the laboring classes into unions and leftward shift of WASPs (with heavy impact of generational change in bring this about), you suddenly had a GOP establishment that was very tied to Wall Street and business, but struggling to stay politically viable in the region. The answer was that they dove left to chase after their base and their swing voters.

This is how Rockefeller Republicanism was born, it was a reaction to a shifting political map. Its the same reason that Southern Democrats, went from being mostly agrarian populists and New Dealers to having to vote ever more conservative thanks to both the growing suburban vote in the South and the growing hostility to "big government liberalism" in the region. Look at the shift from say Robert Byrd to Joe Manchin as an example of this in action, or how Arkansas Democrats like J William Fulbright were compared to their last holdouts (Who basically acted as the Senator from Wal-Mart).

Ultimately what it comes down to is the fact that so many states were so close and the map was influx during the period between 1952 and 2000.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Ironically, despite the name, Nelson Rockefeller was far from the best example of a liberal Republican in the period. He did have somewhat of a populist conservative streak, especially on law and order. The most liberal Republicans were the likes of Jacob Javits, Edward Brooke, John Lindsay (who ended up switching parties), and, at least by his 1968 run, George Romney.

In general, the moderate Republican line on social programmes at the time was that they would essentially preserve the New Deal legacy, but run them more ‘efficiently’ than the Democrats; that is, taking a somewhat more pro-businesses and fiscally conservative stance. Ultimately, these Republicans viewed the New Deal paradigm as having become entrenched consensus, and out of pragmatic concern they realised they had to operate within it to survive. You can see this in the geographic distribution of liberal Republicans; most were from places like New England, New York, and the Bay Area, the liberal reputation of which obviously goes without saying. To name just one example, these coastal urban area were heavily unionised, so a Republican running as a union-buster wasn’t going to get very far.

In addition, cultural, ethnic and class identities played a huge role in the phenomenon of liberal Republicans. The mid-20th century saw the height of class-based voting in the United States; if you were from an upper middle class or higher background, then becoming a Republican was simply the ‘natural’ thing to do, even if you had generally liberal views. As the name ‘Rockefeller Republican’ suggests, a disproportionate number of liberal Republican politicians came from patrician WASPy backgrounds. When you wonder why some of them, despite their very liberal positions, weren’t Democrats, the answer is often probably that they simply felt uncomfortable with the class connotations of doing so.

Related to this, New England, which had the greatest concentration of liberal Republicans of any part of the country, had been riven by a sharp political divide between WASPs and ‘white ethnics’ (usually Irish-Americans, especially in Massachusetts) since the early 20th century. Even as the region liberalised as the century drew on (most early 20th century New England WASP Republicans were decidedly not liberal) this divide certainly still remained, and again, as a New England WASP, being a Republican was just the default option. Similarly, New York City’s fondness for liberal Republicans can be explained by the perception that the city’s Democratic Party was controlled by Irish-Americans, and was extremely corrupt. This led to resentment towards the Democrats not just from WASPs, but also from Italians (e.g. Fiorello La Guardia) and Jews (e.g. Jacob Javits), who would often form a powerful coalition to power liberal Republicans to victory.

Interesting, I hadn't considered the ethnic divides. I knew La Guardia mainly identified as a Republican because he was against Tammany Hall, although Italian-Americans were also usually part of the Democratic coalition, no? And Edward Brooke, who served as a liberal Republican even after the GOP became very much the conservative party, was of course black - but again, most black northerners had become Democrats by the time he entered politics. But I get why liberal northeastern WASPs would favour Republicans, since the GOP was always the party of WASP interests, and Democrats were more friendly with Catholics and immigrants.

Opposing corrupt Democratic political machines like Tammany Hall seems like a no-brainer move for any northern Republican, but what about public policy? I mean, "we support the New Deal but will run it more efficiently" makes sense as a political message, but it's a pretty weak one and doesn't really differentiate you much from the opponent. Even in times less polarizing than ours, there are always some issues that fire people up, did liberal Republicans have any that differentiated them from their Democratic opponents? Or was it just "Democrats are the party of corrupt Irish machines, Republicans are the party of prudency and accountability"?

The question you need to ask though, is what was the alternative?

Say you are Wendell Wilkie or Thomas Dewey.

PA, NY and NJ cast like 90 electoral voters between them and the South was a solid block still and sure not going to vote for the party that burned down the family farm in Georgia.

You go liberal on civil rights and foreign policy (post WWII) and you attack Democratic corruption, incompetence, deficits and abuse of power and rally the troops that way. Alternatively you get hawkish on the Cold War and for a while attacking Communist infiltration worked until Joe McCarthy took it too far.

That is why Nixon focused on the Cold War, Vietnam, Crime and Busing, and took a middle of the road path on economics.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

On economics, they supported Keynesianism, the New Deal, social programs, intervention, and even on labour unions they seemed to occupy a similar space as JFK for example.

I am far from an expert on this topic so ignore me if I'm wrong...but I would be surprised if liberal Republicans were pro-union, pro-major new social programmes and pro-deficit spending.

[Orser67]

I think a lot of people today struggle to understand how the parties of yesteryear could be so ideologically heterogeneous, but at the end of the day a party doesn't exist to promote an ideology, it exists to win elections. Ideology (and more specifically, the actual policy changes that a party favors) has never been totally irrelevant to a party, but its importance has waxed and waned during different periods of history; for example, there was relatively little ideological separation during the last third of the 19th century, and often the main prize in those elections wasn't a policy change, but rather which party got to distribute lucrative federal positions. Other people have pointed out the racial/ethnic/sectional/class ties and local concerns, but I'd also throw in that the simple fact that one's parents were of a certain party could hold a lot of weight; for example, FDR never wavered from the Democratic Party despite his affinity for his famous cousin in part because his own father had been a Democrat. If you grew up attending (e.g.) Democratic functions, had family/friends/business associates that were Democrats, and had spent your whole life identifying as a Democrat, then you had a whole lot of non-ideological reasons to stay a Democrat.

I'd argue that the relatively homogeneous parties of today are probably more historically unusual than the parties of the mid-20th century. I think a lot of this change has been caused by new communications technology and infrastructure advances knocking down barriers to communication, thereby making the country "smaller". In earlier eras, both parties were to a large extent confederations of state parties that met every four years to pick a leader, and candidates/parties could tailor different messages for different audiences through speeches, newspaper articles/ads, etc., which didn't have much impact beyond a specific area. In today's world, both parties are, to a large extent, defined by a recurring, two-year long national competition for leadership in which any given remark can be the top news story of the day.

One last thing I'd throw in that's more specific to this question is that the moderate, Northeast establishment had a pretty successful record in the Republican Party in the mid-20th century. Other than Goldwater in 1964, most Republican presidential nominations were won by members of the Northeast establishment (Willkie, Dewey, and Eisenhower) or people who were acceptable to them (Nixon and Landon). It wasn't until the 1970s that the party really moved to the right and became increasingly dominated by the form of conservatism we're more familiar with today.

[OSR stands with Israel]

On economics, they supported Keynesianism, the New Deal, social programs, intervention, and even on labour unions they seemed to occupy a similar space as JFK for example.

I am far from an expert on this topic so ignore me if I'm wrong...but I would be surprised if liberal Republicans were pro-union, pro-major new social programmes and pro-deficit spending.

Nelson Rockefeller and Jacob Javits supported Single Payer

[RINO Tom]

On economics, they supported Keynesianism, the New Deal, social programs, intervention, and even on labour unions they seemed to occupy a similar space as JFK for example.

I am far from an expert on this topic so ignore me if I'm wrong...but I would be surprised if liberal Republicans were pro-union, pro-major new social programmes and pro-deficit spending.

Nelson Rockefeller and Jacob Javits supported Single Payer

Okay?

[OSR stands with Israel]

On economics, they supported Keynesianism, the New Deal, social programs, intervention, and even on labour unions they seemed to occupy a similar space as JFK for example.

I am far from an expert on this topic so ignore me if I'm wrong...but I would be surprised if liberal Republicans were pro-union, pro-major new social programmes and pro-deficit spending.

Nelson Rockefeller and Jacob Javits supported Single Payer

Okay?

I was responding to this

[RINO Tom]

On economics, they supported Keynesianism, the New Deal, social programs, intervention, and even on labour unions they seemed to occupy a similar space as JFK for example.

I am far from an expert on this topic so ignore me if I'm wrong...but I would be surprised if liberal Republicans were pro-union, pro-major new social programmes and pro-deficit spending.

Nelson Rockefeller and Jacob Javits supported Single Payer

Okay?

I was responding to this

Right, but those are just two people, one being an absolute extreme among Republicans (about as relevant to “Pennsylvania Republicans of the 2000s” as late Arlen Spector was).  Even then, Rockefeller was a classic “Me Too,” moving only far enough left to get the votes to beat his Democratic opponent.  Point being, this doesn’t speak to this strident “liberalism” that the OP imagines Republicans of this era having.

[OSR stands with Israel]

On economics, they supported Keynesianism, the New Deal, social programs, intervention, and even on labour unions they seemed to occupy a similar space as JFK for example.

I am far from an expert on this topic so ignore me if I'm wrong...but I would be surprised if liberal Republicans were pro-union, pro-major new social programmes and pro-deficit spending.

Nelson Rockefeller and Jacob Javits supported Single Payer

Okay?

I was responding to this

Right, but those are just two people, one being an absolute extreme among Republicans (about as relevant to “Pennsylvania Republicans of the 2000s” as late Arlen Spector was).  Even then, Rockefeller was a classic “Me Too,” moving only far enough left to get the votes to beat his Democratic opponent.  Point being, this doesn’t speak to this strident “liberalism” that the OP imagines Republicans of this era having.

Sure but I think it is fair to point out that Rockefeller Republicans were more receptive to social programs than even some Conservative Southern Democrats were like Harry Byrd, James Eastland , John Stennis were . Now not every Southern Democrat fit this bill but there were more than a few who actually were pretty conservative as well.

I think a better way to look at this is : New York Republicans were more Conservative than New York Democrats and Mississippi Republicans were more Conservative than Mississippi Democrats but it does not really mean New York Republicans were more Conservative than Mississippi Republicans. It is exactly why many major bills in those days would have members from both parties not only who voted for it but against it as well.

The reason why we dont have this anymore has less to do with any type of flip but more or less cause politics is so nationalized now.

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

"Rockefeller Republicans" is a misnomer.  There were liberal Republicans before Nelson Rockefeller, and there were liberal Republicans after Nelson Rockefeller (although the 1968 election cycle diminished their power in the party greatly).

The strategic error of the Rockefeller Republicans was their failure to give a nominal endorsement of Barry Goldwater before walking away from the 1964 campaign.  It was something that was held against them forever.  Had Nelson Rockefeller endorsed Goldwater after the convention he would not have been forced off the 1964 ticket.  George Romney, William Scranton, and any number of progressive Republicans who lost stature would have been better off endorsing Goldwater, if only to say "I'm voting for the entire Republican ticket!" and leaving it at that.  Jimmy Carter, in 1972, said he would vote for McGovern but not campaign for him.  The problem for Rockefeller and the other Republicans that were shoved aside in the 1970s was that they did not even go that far for Goldwater as Carter did for McGovern.

Richard Nixon, on the other hand, campaigned for Goldwater in 1964.  He also campaigned extensively for Republicans in 1966 and he helped his party win big that year.  Nixon was a conservative who could get the tacit approval of the Eastern GOP Establishment (the Rockefeller types) AND bring Strom Thurmond around to support him (although Thurmond's personal preference was for Reagan.)

[Torie]

The above is an insightful post. I remember at the time that the only reason my parents voted for Goldwater in 1964 was precisely because they were sure that he would lose, and wanted to keep LBJ's margin down. These days of course, compared to the MAGA's, Goldwater would seem  the epitome of respectability and rationality to this long gone cohort of the Pub party. The last of these Mohicans is the soon to be gone Charlie Baker.

[MATTROSE94]

Ironically, despite the name, Nelson Rockefeller was far from the best example of a liberal Republican in the period. He did have somewhat of a populist conservative streak, especially on law and order. The most liberal Republicans were the likes of Jacob Javits, Edward Brooke, John Lindsay (who ended up switching parties), and, at least by his 1968 run, George Romney.

In general, the moderate Republican line on social programmes at the time was that they would essentially preserve the New Deal legacy, but run them more ‘efficiently’ than the Democrats; that is, taking a somewhat more pro-businesses and fiscally conservative stance. Ultimately, these Republicans viewed the New Deal paradigm as having become entrenched consensus, and out of pragmatic concern they realised they had to operate within it to survive. You can see this in the geographic distribution of liberal Republicans; most were from places like New England, New York, and the Bay Area, the liberal reputation of which obviously goes without saying. To name just one example, these coastal urban area were heavily unionised, so a Republican running as a union-buster wasn’t going to get very far.

In addition, cultural, ethnic and class identities played a huge role in the phenomenon of liberal Republicans. The mid-20th century saw the height of class-based voting in the United States; if you were from an upper middle class or higher background, then becoming a Republican was simply the ‘natural’ thing to do, even if you had generally liberal views. As the name ‘Rockefeller Republican’ suggests, a disproportionate number of liberal Republican politicians came from patrician WASPy backgrounds. When you wonder why some of them, despite their very liberal positions, weren’t Democrats, the answer is often probably that they simply felt uncomfortable with the class connotations of doing so.

Related to this, New England, which had the greatest concentration of liberal Republicans of any part of the country, had been riven by a sharp political divide between WASPs and ‘white ethnics’ (usually Irish-Americans, especially in Massachusetts) since the early 20th century. Even as the region liberalised as the century drew on (most early 20th century New England WASP Republicans were decidedly not liberal) this divide certainly still remained, and again, as a New England WASP, being a Republican was just the default option. Similarly, New York City’s fondness for liberal Republicans can be explained by the perception that the city’s Democratic Party was controlled by Irish-Americans, and was extremely corrupt. This led to resentment towards the Democrats not just from WASPs, but also from Italians (e.g. Fiorello La Guardia) and Jews (e.g. Jacob Javits), who would often form a powerful coalition to power liberal Republicans to victory.

Interesting, I hadn't considered the ethnic divides. I knew La Guardia mainly identified as a Republican because he was against Tammany Hall, although Italian-Americans were also usually part of the Democratic coalition, no? And Edward Brooke, who served as a liberal Republican even after the GOP became very much the conservative party, was of course black - but again, most black northerners had become Democrats by the time he entered politics. But I get why liberal northeastern WASPs would favour Republicans, since the GOP was always the party of WASP interests, and Democrats were more friendly with Catholics and immigrants.

Opposing corrupt Democratic political machines like Tammany Hall seems like a no-brainer move for any northern Republican, but what about public policy? I mean, "we support the New Deal but will run it more efficiently" makes sense as a political message, but it's a pretty weak one and doesn't really differentiate you much from the opponent. Even in times less polarizing than ours, there are always some issues that fire people up, did liberal Republicans have any that differentiated them from their Democratic opponents? Or was it just "Democrats are the party of corrupt Irish machines, Republicans are the party of prudency and accountability"?

I read that Italian Americans were swing voters with a slight Republican lean prior to 1928 and didn’t align that much with the Irish-dominated Democratic Party machines in big cities. I would imagine that Italian Americans went Democratic in 1876-1888 and 1912-1916, but Republican in 1860-1872, 1892-1908, and 1920-1924.

[darklordoftech]

I have no idea why Lowell Weicker was a Republican (and is currently registered as a third party) rather than being a Democrat.

[Senator Incitatus]

Without reading the dozens of paragraphs above, I need to chime in to remind everyone that "Rockefeller Republicans" had some of the most brutal views on crime, urbanism, and race in the history of the country. The movement is literally named after the governor best remembered for his response to the Attica prison riots. They were not suburban intellectuals; they were the last political movement appealing to the concerns of a now politically extinct class: upper-class urban whites. Their "moderate" views on abortion and gun control largely stem from paranoia regarding black crime, and the common view of them as broadly "liberal" is misguided, as is liberal nostalgia for them.

P.S. Having written this out, I did go back and see that Al and NCY largely hit the mark.

I'll tack on that the narrow WASPishness (at least in public reputation) of the Rockefeller set prevented them from appealing to ethnic minorities, which would have preserved their power another decade or so. And the acceleration of Northern white fears after 1964 pushed voters past what even the Republicans were offering. Instead, ethnic  voters went for Wallace (before later abandoning the cities) while wealthier voters abandoned the cities as soon as possible for Rye, Greenwich, Orange County, etc., forming the basis for the Reaganism of the 1980s.

And none of this is to say that there weren't "liberal Republicans" as there are today. But they were never a coherent enough movement appealing to enough voters to, say, elect a President. Or even a Governor of New York.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Without reading the dozens of paragraphs above, I need to chime in to remind everyone that "Rockefeller Republicans" had some of the most brutal views on crime, urbanism, and race in the history of the country. The movement is literally named after the governor best remembered for his response to the Attica prison riots. They were not suburban intellectuals; they were the last political movement appealing to the concerns of a now politically extinct class: upper-class urban whites. Their "moderate" views on abortion and gun control largely stem from paranoia regarding black crime, and the common view of them as broadly "liberal" is misguided, as is liberal nostalgia for them.

P.S. Having written this out, I did go back and see that Al and NCY largely hit the mark.

I'll tack on that the narrow WASPishness (at least in public reputation) of the Rockefeller set prevented them from appealing to ethnic minorities, which would have preserved their power another decade or so. And the acceleration of Northern white fears after 1964 pushed voters past what even the Republicans were offering. Instead, ethnic  voters went for Wallace (before later abandoning the cities) while wealthier voters abandoned the cities as soon as possible for Rye, Greenwich, Orange County, etc., forming the basis for the Reaganism of the 1980s.

And none of this is to say that there weren't "liberal Republicans" as there are today. But they were never a coherent enough movement appealing to enough voters to, say, elect a President. Or even a Governor of New York.

Economically it does seem like Rockefeller was more liberal than the 1980-present GOP Though.

Rockefeller was re-elected in the three subsequent elections in 1962, 1966 and 1970, increasing the state's role in education, environmental protection, transportation, housing, welfare, medical aid, civil rights, and the arts. To pay for the increased government spending, Rockefeller increased taxation - for example, a sales tax was introduced in New York in 1965

He also supported Single Payer:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_health_care_reform_in_the_United_States

In April 1970, Senator Jacob Javits (R-NY) introduced a bill to extend Medicare to all—retaining existing Medicare cost sharing and coverage limits—developed after consultation with Governor Nelson Rockefeller (R-NY) and former Johnson administration HEW Secretary Wilbur Cohen

Wasn't he considered pretty pro union as well

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Without reading the dozens of paragraphs above, I need to chime in to remind everyone that "Rockefeller Republicans" had some of the most brutal views on crime, urbanism, and race in the history of the country. The movement is literally named after the governor best remembered for his response to the Attica prison riots. They were not suburban intellectuals; they were the last political movement appealing to the concerns of a now politically extinct class: upper-class urban whites. Their "moderate" views on abortion and gun control largely stem from paranoia regarding black crime, and the common view of them as broadly "liberal" is misguided, as is liberal nostalgia for them.

P.S. Having written this out, I did go back and see that Al and NCY largely hit the mark.

I'll tack on that the narrow WASPishness (at least in public reputation) of the Rockefeller set prevented them from appealing to ethnic minorities, which would have preserved their power another decade or so. And the acceleration of Northern white fears after 1964 pushed voters past what even the Republicans were offering. Instead, ethnic  voters went for Wallace (before later abandoning the cities) while wealthier voters abandoned the cities as soon as possible for Rye, Greenwich, Orange County, etc., forming the basis for the Reaganism of the 1980s.

And none of this is to say that there weren't "liberal Republicans" as there are today. But they were never a coherent enough movement appealing to enough voters to, say, elect a President. Or even a Governor of New York.

Economically it does seem like Rockefeller was more liberal than the 1980-present GOP Though.

Rockefeller was re-elected in the three subsequent elections in 1962, 1966 and 1970, increasing the state's role in education, environmental protection, transportation, housing, welfare, medical aid, civil rights, and the arts. To pay for the increased government spending, Rockefeller increased taxation - for example, a sales tax was introduced in New York in 1965

He also supported Single Payer:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_health_care_reform_in_the_United_States

In April 1970, Senator Jacob Javits (R-NY) introduced a bill to extend Medicare to all—retaining existing Medicare cost sharing and coverage limits—developed after consultation with Governor Nelson Rockefeller (R-NY) and former Johnson administration HEW Secretary Wilbur Cohen

Wasn't he considered pretty pro union as well

Kevin Phillips notes of an acceleration of the leftward drift in Republicans representing WASPy areas, even among the more rural Yankee ones, who up until just a few years prior were down the line Republicans on most economic issues. This acceleration occurred in the Congressional sessions between 1965-1969, demonstrating increased support for the Great Society and later there was a correlation between those manifesting this voting shift and support for Rockefeller over Nixon in 68.

Phillips basically is asserting that the 1964 election broke the hard coded partisan identity in many of these districts and since LBJ won so decisively in so many of them, there was this impetus to support the administration's agenda.

This is kind of similar to how Republicans shook lose by anger at Trump, tended to re-evaluate the rest of their positions as well and it becomes more of an embrace of the Democrats than just a temporary thing to bounce Trump.

You can get a way with murder practically if your base is partisan Republicans, but if a nominee comes along that motivates a radical change in voting behavior (even if it is just one off), its typically never the same after that.