When did the Republican Party become the Party of the Left?

[Scam of God]

And by this I don't mean such trivialties as promoting economic redistribution, which the Republicans obviously do not. I mean something more fundamental: when did the GOP sacrifice all credibility upon the altar of populism, and began to speak out of the bloodied mouth of the vox populi?

If you don't believe it is, my liberal friends, then I'd recommend you read What's The Matter With Kansas?. Though I am almost precisely the political opposite of Frank Rich, I nevertheless agree with his conclusion: the Republican Party's descent into the puerile strata of populism marks a fundamental shift in the political situation; any Republican who pines for the days when the Reagan Raiders rode to the defense of Wall Street and had only to throw a bone to the masses on social issues is a downright imbecile.

These are the facts: Populism is of the Left. Elitism is of the Right. I welcome the charge of elitism, though I am likely poorer than a vast majority of posters here. And I am also a Democrat. My favorite liberals are latte-liberals. I hate the culture of Middle America, and I hate Middle Americans. I am also a libertarian who "worships at the church of the market", to use Rich's description.

Whither this change?

[Rob]

"Populism" and "elitism" are attitudes, not ideologies. Libertarian heroes who "worship at the church of the market" while attacking phantom "elites" include Ron Paul and Milton Friedman, among others, and you say they're "of the left" because of their rhetoric?

As a self-described poor who "hates Middle Americans," do you realize you're in the same position of all those dumb hicks who value style over substance in political debate? They believe that "populist" language equals genuine support for the unwashed masses, and so do you.

Your fantasy realignment is not going to happen, dude.

[Scam of God]

"Populism" and "elitism" are attitudes, not ideologies. Libertarian heroes who "worship at the church of the market" while attacking phantom "elites" include Ron Paul and Milton Friedman, among others, and you say they're "of the left" because of their rhetoric?

These attitudes most certainly are ideologies: all ideologies are the product of rhetoric, and not the other way around. This ought to be self-evident from examining our recent past: the only reason the Democrats were able to position themselves as the "liberal" Party during the 1930s was because they had spent a half-century prior positioning themselves as the champion of the downtrodden, by which they meant poor Southern whites at the mercy of carpetbaggers.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But I'm clever enough to realize that style is equal to substance, and eventually turns into it in the greater course of things.

[Mint]

For once I agree with Rob.

[pogo stick]

Einzeige, your Anti-Religion crap isn't helping you. AT ALL. Populism > Eizeigism

[Scam of God]

Einzeige, your Anti-Religion crap isn't helping you. AT ALL. Populism > Eizeigism

As opposed to helping yourself, which is the only reason you and your kind engage in it?

[Rob]

the only reason the Democrats were able to position themselves as the "liberal" Party during the 1930s was because they had spent a half-century prior positioning themselves as the champion of the downtrodden, by which they meant poor Southern whites at the mercy of carpetbaggers.

The GOP (more plausibly) also positioned itself as the champion of the downtrodden during this "half-century" after the Civil War, as the protectors of impoverished blacks and southern mountaineers, as well as the cautious friend of labor unions in the North.

So what explains the massive shift among working-class voters of all races and regions toward the Democratic Party in the New Deal era? Policy enacted by Franklin Roosevelt? I would say "yes."

The bloody, gaping hole in your theory is this: all major parties indulge in "populist" rhetoric if they hope to win, regardless of their favored policies! Returning to the New Deal era, we find that anti-Roosevelt Republicans used "populist" language to oppose such programs as Social Security- "it will turn the average worker into a government slave! All employees will be forced to wear dog tags around their necks!"

Populist words? Of course. Populist actions? Of course not. It comes down to policy in the end. Always.

[Scam of God]

the only reason the Democrats were able to position themselves as the "liberal" Party during the 1930s was because they had spent a half-century prior positioning themselves as the champion of the downtrodden, by which they meant poor Southern whites at the mercy of carpetbaggers.

The GOP (more plausibly) also positioned itself as the champion of the downtrodden during this "half-century" after the Civil War, as the protectors of impoverished blacks and southern mountaineers, as well as the cautious friend of labor unions in the North.

Not hardly. Which of the Williams were more friendly to organized labour, McKinley or Bryan? No doubt the GOP had at one point a progressive wing - which, outside of the Presidency of Theodore Roosevelt, exerted a less-than-negligible influence on the national Party, to the point that it felt the need to break away violently from it in order to attain its political goals. Try again.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What explains Franklin Roosevelt's ability to win the nomination in a historically conservative Party at all, if not for the fact that the Democrats had gradually been drawing together a loose-knit coalition of "downtroddens" by expanding that label from Southern whites to others? A person has to have rhetorical space to implement ideological policy.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sure. And as we have seen recently, only one Party is really capable of holding onto populist rhetoric at a time - Gore was completely incapable of striking a successful populist note, Kerry hardly even tried, and Obama didn't win because he appealed to the masses with a solid economic package.

[opebo]

The problem with your thesis is that there is no populism in either party, Enzyte.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

The problem with your thesis is that there is no populism in either party, Enzyte.

I agree.

[Torie]

Some more specificity here would be helpful. Just tossing around vague terms like "populism" does not do much for me. Which specific policy positions are we talking about?  I know Einzige loathes social conservatism, but this puppy seems  a more broad based j'accuse.

[President Mitt]

Einzigism > Populism