Why didn't Republicans become the progressive/ liberal party?

[oldkyhome]

If the GOP ever had a “progressive” President, it was assuredly Lincoln, but even that stretches the definition, I think.

[oldkyhome]

If the GOP ever had a “progressive” President, it was assuredly Lincoln, but even that stretches the definition, I think.

Ironically, you could argue that there has never been a President before or since Lincoln that was so clearly the embodiment of a "moderate" both nationally and relative to his party's various factions.  So, I cannot agree with this one.

Almost all U.S Presidents were moderate to varying extents, as the job demands. I still can’t imagine many of them signing the Emancipation Proclamation at the peak of the Civil War, or pushing through the Reconstruction amendments, or enacting the various liberal wartime measures that Lincoln did. These were not merely acts spurred by opportunity but also political will.

Again, if you frame Roosevelt as a warmonger who wanted to conquer small Latin American countries, and Democrats as the anti-imperialists, you could easily argue that Roosevelt was right-wing and Democrats were left-wing, which would not be accurate.

It absolutely would be.

[oldkyhome]

Again, if you frame Roosevelt as a warmonger who wanted to conquer small Latin American countries, and Democrats as the anti-imperialists, you could easily argue that Roosevelt was right-wing and Democrats were left-wing, which would not be accurate.

It absolutely would be.

A president whose biggest legacy was busting monopolies is not a president I would describe as right-wing.

His legacy on antitrust was to the left of his predecessor and contemporary Republicans, and perhaps for that reason is regarded as being liberal on the issue, but he was certainly not. He frequently distinguished between “good” and “bad” trusts, believed certain monopolies were necessary, and for that reason broke with his own successor, Taft, who busted twice as many trusts as Roosevelt in half the time. This excerpt from ‘The New Freedom’ puts it succinctly:

“The [Progressive] party says that the present system of our industry and trade has come to stay. Mind you, these artificially built up things, these things that can't maintain themselves in the market without monopoly, have come to stay, and the only thing that the government can do, the only thing that the [Progressive] party proposes should be done, is to set up a commission to regulate them. It accepts them. It says: 'We will not undertake, it were futile to undertake, to prevent monopoly, but we will go into an arrangement by which we will make these monopolies kind to you. We will guarantee that they shall be pitiful. We will guarantee that they shall pay the right wages. We will guarantee that they shall do everything kind and public-spirited, which they have never heretofore shown the least inclination to do.'"

[oldkyhome]

Wilson's presidency established the blueprint that the likes of FDR, Truman, JFK, and LBJ followed. But Wilson was also notoriously racist, he was a known Klan sympathizer and oversaw the segregation of the federal government. Meanwhile Calvin Coolidge, while not exactly a Civil Rights hero, did openly speak out against the KKK, lynching, things like that. It would be patently ridiculous to say that Coolidge was therefore more of a liberal than Wilson, but this is the error people make when they assume that pre-Civil Rights Democratic party was not liberal, or at least less liberal than the GOP.

Agree with the broader point, but this is a misnomer. The civil service was already effectively segregated by the time Wilson entered office, and was significantly expanded under Harding and Coolidge. This not to say anything of Wilson’s racism, just that it was not exclusive to him.