Ideological shifts of the parties in the last 50 years

[GeorgiaModerate]

I was musing in another thread how the Republican party has lurched to the right during my lifetime, and today I ran across this chart that really illustrates it:




Source: http://rpubs.com/ianrmcdonald/293069


Zero on this scale is a moderate, centrist position; negative is more liberal, positive is more conservative.  This shows that in the 1960s (when I started following politics) there was a significant overlap between the parties.  There were both conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans in Congress; but on average, the Republicans were the closer party to the center at that time.

However, starting around the 1980s, the Republicans migrated well to the right, until today there is no overlap between the parties.  The GOP is far more conservative than it was at the beginning of the chart, while the Democrats have become just a bit less moderate, mostly because they've lost their right-handed (more conservative) tail.  Today the Democrats are the closer party to the center.

This explains in a nutshell why I started out as a Republican, but today I'm more likely to vote for Democrats.

[Fight for Trump]

I thought all the racist Democrats became Republicans in 1964.

[GeorgiaModerate]

I thought all the racist Democrats became Republicans in 1964.

Maybe so, but their data only goes back to 1963, and that was a little before my time.  (I do remember the JFK assassination and the '64 election, but wasn't following politics at that age.)

[pbrower2a]

In the 1960s the Democrats had some right-wing Dixiecrat pols I might not discuss the House for personalities, but the Senate has some memorable figures. The Republicans had Charles Percy and John Chaffee -- and the Democrats had John Stennis and Strom Thurmond. There were relatively-liberal Republicans, and they would show that they could accept the Civil Rights Act of 1964. They might have been pro-business, but they had no use for a cause associated with terrorism.

So there were "Rockefeller Republicans"... but by 2017 most of those (or those whose demographics suggest that they would have been such in the 1960s) are now Democrats. But at the same time, white Democrats in the South have given up on their old antipathy for Big Business, They consider the industrial jobs an improvement over tenant farming or other ill-paying activities of the old agrarian South. They may still be racists, but the Republican Party has a big-enough tent for those.

As late as the mid-1960s the Democrats had a bimodal distribution of Representatives with a peak around -.032  and another, smaller peak near zero. By 1995 the Democrats had a distribution with a single peak around  -.037 with a distribution resembling a bell curve. By 2013 the single peak for Democrats was around -.040, likely the result of the hammering of somewhat-conservative Democrats in the Tea Party election of 2010.

Meanwhile the Republican Party went from having a peak of about  0.22 in 1963 to about 0.45 around 1997 (but it was a bell curve). By 2013 the Republican Party had a three-humped curve resembling the profile of an atoll-lined sinking island with a large peak around 0.8 and lesser peaks at 0.55 and at 0.92. The scary point is what people might believe if they are at the range of 1,00 on either side. Marxists on the Left? Genocidal fascists on the Right?

Now here's a cause for much political distress: if one was in the range of -0.05 to about 0.30, the center-right, you had no representation like you. Democrats may be closer to the center, but they do not have the center. A President like Barack Obama might need to triangulate to the center after his Party gets clobbered in the 2010 Tea Party election. Donald Trump so far suggests that he can completely neglect people to the left of about 0.45 and must appeal to people close to 1.00. And who are around that level?

Donald Trump may act as if people to the left of about -.030 are now politically irrelevant, but there might be people on the far-right end of the Republican distribution who would like the Left eliminated from political life. Shut down the opposition, make it permanently irrelevant, or eliminate it? That could be the debate should the Republicans consolidate even more power in 2018 and 2020.  And that would be an ugly America.  

[Person Man]

In the 1960s the Democrats had some right-wing Dixiecrat pols I might not discuss the House for personalities, but the Senate has some memorable figures. The Republicans had Charles Percy and John Chaffee -- and the Democrats had John Stennis and Strom Thurmond. There were relatively-liberal Republicans, and they would show that they could accept the Civil Rights Act of 1964. They might have been pro-business, but they had no use for a cause associated with terrorism.

So there were "Rockefeller Republicans"... but by 2017 most of those (or those whose demographics suggest that they would have been such in the 1960s) are now Democrats. But at the same time, white Democrats in the South have given up on their old antipathy for Big Business, They consider the industrial jobs an improvement over tenant farming or other ill-paying activities of the old agrarian South. They may still be racists, but the Republican Party has a big-enough tent for those.

As late as the mid-1960s the Democrats had a bimodal distribution of Representatives with a peak around -.032  and another, smaller peak near zero. By 1995 the Democrats had a distribution with a single peak around  -.037 with a distribution resembling a bell curve. By 2013 the single peak for Democrats was around -.040, likely the result of the hammering of somewhat-conservative Democrats in the Tea Party election of 2010.

Meanwhile the Republican Party went from having a peak of about  0.22 in 1963 to about 0.45 around 1997 (but it was a bell curve). By 2013 the Republican Party had a three-humped curve resembling the profile of an atoll-lined sinking island with a large peak around 0.8 and lesser peaks at 0.55 and at 0.92. The scary point is what people might believe if they are at the range of 1,00 on either side. Marxists on the Left? Genocidal fascists on the Right?

Now here's a cause for much political distress: if one was in the range of -0.05 to about 0.30, the center-right, you had no representation like you. Democrats may be closer to the center, but they do not have the center. A President like Barack Obama might need to triangulate to the center after his Party gets clobbered in the 2010 Tea Party election. Donald Trump so far suggests that he can completely neglect people to the left of about 0.45 and must appeal to people close to 1.00. And who are around that level?

Donald Trump may act as if people to the left of about -.030 are now politically irrelevant, but there might be people on the far-right end of the Republican distribution who would like the Left eliminated from political life. Shut down the opposition, make it permanently irrelevant, or eliminate it? That could be the debate should the Republicans consolidate even more power in 2018 and 2020.  And that would be an ugly America.  

Basically a lot of the world will look a checkerboard of banana republics propping themselves up with bullets against hoards of "Marxist Terrorists"?

Basically Latin America during the Cold War?

[Technocracy Timmy]

However, starting around the 1980s, the Republicans migrated well to the right, until today there is no overlap between the parties.  The GOP is far more conservative than it was at the beginning of the chart, while the Democrats have become just a bit less moderate, mostly because they've lost their right-handed (more conservative) tail.  Today the Democrats are the closer party to the center.

This explains in a nutshell why I started out as a Republican, but today I'm more likely to vote for Democrats.

The Reagan Revolution in 1980 basically forged a de facto alliance between the interests of the neoliberal business elites in the GOP and the southern Democrats. The politics of the country shifted rightward, Reagan got most of his agenda through (an agenda which had castigated him as a far right radical when he ran twice before for President), and caused the Democrats to moderate.

It's not a coincidence that it took a moderate southern Democrat to win the White House after Reagan and Bush and to finish the House Ronnie built. Cut capital gains taxes, NAFTA, welfare reform, tough on crime laws, deregulation of financial institutions, etc. Clinton did raise taxes very moderately and had quite a number of small scale liberal projects that were done through the tax system/tax credits, but his signature accomplishments had everything relating to the Reagan Revolution where his ideological wing of the Party had been in a de facto alliance with the GOP.

A lot of Republicans now that go to the polls are voting on social issues. Gun owners, Evangelical christians, nativists, etc. That group by itself is fairly numerous when half the country doesn't vote and couple that with the tried and true foreign policy and economic Reaganites and you get a Party that's been successful over the decades even in its shift to the right.

[Person Man]

However, starting around the 1980s, the Republicans migrated well to the right, until today there is no overlap between the parties.  The GOP is far more conservative than it was at the beginning of the chart, while the Democrats have become just a bit less moderate, mostly because they've lost their right-handed (more conservative) tail.  Today the Democrats are the closer party to the center.

This explains in a nutshell why I started out as a Republican, but today I'm more likely to vote for Democrats.

The Reagan Revolution in 1980 basically forged a de facto alliance between the interests of the neoliberal business elites in the GOP and the southern Democrats. The politics of the country shifted rightward, Reagan got most of his agenda through (an agenda which had castigated him as a far right radical when he ran twice before for President), and caused the Democrats to moderate.

It's not a coincidence that it took a moderate southern Democrat to win the White House after Reagan and Bush and to finish the House Ronnie built. Cut capital gains taxes, NAFTA, welfare reform, tough on crime laws, deregulation of financial institutions, etc. Clinton did raise taxes very moderately and had quite a number of small scale liberal projects that were done through the tax system/tax credits, but his signature accomplishments had everything relating to the Reagan Revolution where his ideological wing of the Party had been in a de facto alliance with the GOP.

A lot of Republicans now that go to the polls are voting on social issues. Gun owners, Evangelical christians, nativists, etc. That group by itself is fairly numerous when half the country doesn't vote and couple that with the tried and true foreign policy and economic Reaganites and you get a Party that's been successful over the decades even in its shift to the right.

With it being a big tent of whoever, I am waiting for the day they mix up their wings of their platforms and constituencies.

"My uncle had a thriving small business around here. He had  like 20 guys coming to work for him. He was making $100,000 a year! Then, the abortion thing happened and he had to let a lot of his guys go. Legal abortion is hurting us. We thought things would be better when it when it went through but we just couldn't afford it. You just can't mess with the free market."

"Our government doesn't understand us and now are children are out of control and its as if people can't tell right from wrong anymore! We should of stopped the godless legislators from increasing the minimum wage from $5.15 to $10.10 an hour. Its an abomination before the Lord! America is a Christian nation and high minimum wages hurts families and takes away from God! Good Christians must stop this moral decay and bring God back into our communities!"

[darklordoftech]

The "Rockefeller Republicans" were called the "Eastern establishment" by their more conservative opponents. Somehow, the Eastern establishment weakened over time (I suspect do to big oil and the military-industrial complex funding more conservative candidates) until in 1964, Barry Goldwater was nominated on a platform calling for "extremism in the defense of liberty" and attacking "moderation in the pursuit of justice." Reagan campaigned for Goldwater and said all the same things about Medicare and Medicaid that Sarah Palin would later say about Obamacare. Goldwater won six states, five of which were "desp southern". In 1968, Nixon got elected on a platform more conservative than the Rockefeller Republicans, but not as conservative as Gerald Ford. After Watergate, Ford became President and made Nelson Rockefeller is Vice President to appease what was left of the Rockefeller Republicans. In 1976, Reagan primaried Ford, claiming that Ford was a RINO. Meanwhile, Nelson Rockefeller decided to retire from politics, leaving the Ford and Reagan wings of the GOP to battle it out for control of the party. At the convention, Ford and Reagan had an equal number of delegates, so Ford picked Bob Dole as his running mate to get the nomination. In 1980, Reagan decisively won the nomination and was elected thanks to voters blaming Carter for stagflation and the Iran Hostage Crisis. Throughout his first term, Reagan moved the overton window to the right. In 1984, Reagan won a 49-state landslide thanks to Mondale's entire platform being "Reagan is lying." In 1988, HW Bush, who had been part of the Ford wing of the GOP, now ran as a continuation of Reagan, got nominated, and got elected on a law and order platform, marking the first time that the same party held the White House for more than two consecutive terms since Truman. The Democrats panicked and began to embrace centrism. Bush broke his tax pledge, and many Republicans who went voted for the tax increase got primaried out of office. In 1992, Bill Clinton, saying that he would "end welfare as we know it", got elected by flipping most of the states today considered blue states. Clinton successfully got a temporary assault weapons ban enacted as the Democrats' answer to crime, but his healthcare plan failed. In 1994, Gingrich, with the help of future Tea Party fundraiser Dick Armey, used Clintoncare to convince voters that Clinton was a socialist disguised as a centrist. The 1994 midterms wiped out the "conservative Democrats" and made Gingrich Speaker of the House. Under Gingrich's speakership, the GOP adopted a doctrine of obstruction, no compromise, and absurd investigations.

[Orser67]

However, starting around the 1980s, the Republicans migrated well to the right, until today there is no overlap between the parties.  The GOP is far more conservative than it was at the beginning of the chart, while the Democrats have become just a bit less moderate, mostly because they've lost their right-handed (more conservative) tail.  Today the Democrats are the closer party to the center.

This explains in a nutshell why I started out as a Republican, but today I'm more likely to vote for Democrats.

The Reagan Revolution in 1980 basically forged a de facto alliance between the interests of the neoliberal business elites in the GOP and the southern Democrats. The politics of the country shifted rightward, Reagan got most of his agenda through (an agenda which had castigated him as a far right radical when he ran twice before for President), and caused the Democrats to moderate.

I agree that the politics of the country shifted rightward after Reagan, but the conservative coalition of Republicans and Southern Democrats existed long before Reagan.

[Technocracy Timmy]

However, starting around the 1980s, the Republicans migrated well to the right, until today there is no overlap between the parties.  The GOP is far more conservative than it was at the beginning of the chart, while the Democrats have become just a bit less moderate, mostly because they've lost their right-handed (more conservative) tail.  Today the Democrats are the closer party to the center.

This explains in a nutshell why I started out as a Republican, but today I'm more likely to vote for Democrats.

The Reagan Revolution in 1980 basically forged a de facto alliance between the interests of the neoliberal business elites in the GOP and the southern Democrats. The politics of the country shifted rightward, Reagan got most of his agenda through (an agenda which had castigated him as a far right radical when he ran twice before for President), and caused the Democrats to moderate.

I agree that the politics of the country shifted rightward after Reagan, but the conservative coalition of Republicans and Southern Democrats existed long before Reagan.

The major neoliberal legislative goals of the Goldwater ideological wing of the GOP didn't happen until Reagan. Nixon was a prelude to all of this and did institute some reforms, but they were tame to what Reagan did. Large tax cuts, defense spending increases coupled with cuts to social programs, deregulation, disciplining big labor, etc.

Compare and contrast how the Democratic Party congress treated Nixon with a lot of hostility vs. Reagan when the southern Democrats jumped on board with Reagan on seemingly everything except entitlement reform. Night and day.

[Crumpets]

Interesting that the Republicans appear to currently have a bigger tent than the democrats in terms of most liberal to most conservative members.

[Suburbia]

Interesting that the Republicans appear to currently have a bigger tent than the democrats in terms of most liberal to most conservative members.

Exactly, that is why Keith Ellison and other leftists don't want the resurgence of the Blue Dog Coalition. Both parties are too extreme. The GOP is too right wing, and the Democrats are too left wing.

[Person Man]

Interesting that the Republicans appear to currently have a bigger tent than the democrats in terms of most liberal to most conservative members.

Exactly, that is why Keith Ellison and other leftists don't want the resurgence of the Blue Dog Coalition. Both parties are too extreme. The GOP is too right wing, and the Democrats are too left wing.

Actually, it appears that the democrat's tent are a coalition of left-leaning Centrists (0 to -.20), center left people (-.20 to -.60) and a handful of those are solid-left (-.6 to -.80). OTOH, the Republican tent has no "center right" people, but are instead a coalition of mainstream right-wingers (.20 to .60), hardline right-wingers (.60 to 1.0), and rightists/reactionaries/alt-right/dominionists (1.0<).  Both tents are about as diverse but the Republicans do require a bit more kool-aid.

I think that if the Democrats temporarily gain congress again, they will probably fill the right-leaning centrist void and become the same center-left coalition they were in the later years of their relevancy. If there is a meaningful realignment beyond simply the rejection of the right, I can see the Republicans refilling that void. As long as Republicans are in control, I don't see that void being filled unless Democrats do out of desperation but with no results though I imagine then many Sanderistas jumping ship and running as independents.