The last election in which the Democratic candidate was more conservative?

[mileslunn]

Tough to tell, but my guess would be 1928.  The Democrats were historically more conservative while from the Great Depression right up until the late 60s, the differences were less clear cut as you had both conservatives and liberals in both parties.  It was really after the Civil Rights movement when much of the Southern Democrats began to vote Republican that the party began to swing to the right and likewise the loss of the Southern wing of the Democrats caused the party to swing to the left as the Northeastern Democrats have usually tended to be fairly liberal.  If anything the divide is not just partisan but also regional too.  JFK was conservative on some issues, although on the whole I would hardly call him a conservative vis a vis Nixon.  Maybe compared to Eisenhower who philosophically has little in common with the Republicans of today.  I should note though that Conservatives in Canada and Britain, and Liberals in Australia (they are really a Conservative party) are also substantially more right wing today than 50 years ago (i.e. Stephen Harper vs. Joe Clark/Robert Stanfield, Margaret Thatcher vs. Edward Heath, and John Howard vs. Malcolm Fraser) so the Republican swing to the right is not totally unique to the US although I think the loss of the southern wing of the Democrats played a big role in making the Republicans more right wing and the Democrats more left wing.  Jimmy Carter was hardly a conservative, religious yes, but on most issues he was clearly on the left.  Gerald Ford was moderate, but still a conservative.  John Kerry may not be as liberal as some in his party, but hardly a conservative.  He turned against the Iraq War, whereas Bush still supports it to this day on foreign policy, and he didn't favour large tax cuts for the wealthy like Bush did.  True, Bush was a big spender, but on most other issues he was clearly more conservative than Kerry.  As for Clinton vs. Bush Sr., I would also say Clinton was more liberal.  It was only after the 1994 midterms that he swung to the right when the Republicans won both congresses.  Lets remember, he tried to bring in tough gun control laws and universal health care which are both policies most conservatives in the US oppose.  He did do some conservative things like balance the budget and welfare reform, but I think the Republican majority in both houses might have had somewhat of impact.  I should also add Clinton's move to the right or centre ironically corresponded with other "centre-left leaders" such as Jean Chretien in Canada and Tony Blair in Britain, mind you their right wing opponents were also more right wing than they were before, whereas in the US, there was somewhat of move towards the centre in the 90s of the presidential candidates, althogh the Republican party was moving to the right amongst its members.

[Хahar 🤔]

Not 1960. LBJ's position on the left of the old Southern Democrats is even more clearcut than Carter's. Kennedy sure had some Conservative baggage, but it's not as if Nixon was ever a Liberal Republican either. If Kennedy had ever run against Eisenhower, you might conceivably have a case. Yeah sure, the Reps had a civil rights plank in their platform in 1960 - the prize for an unanimous nomination when everybody knew Nixon would win a vote against Rockefeller but by an unimpressive and possibly by an embarassingly small margin. So?

LBJ was on the left of the Southern Democrats, sure, but he still voted with them. He was no Claude Pepper; he was just on the right, rather than the far right. Certainly, he was well to the right of Lodge.

Joe Kennedy, on the other hand, was hard right, and it ought to be remembered that the Kennedys were McCarthyists. Walter Reuther didn't like them, and for good reason. Nixon, while not a liberal by any means, was certainly supportive of civil rights as Vice President. As I recall, he tried to pull a gambit to end the filibuster while presiding over the Senate.

John Kennedy was definitely not a conservative. Remember, it was primarily his father that was the McCarthyist. While not an eager civil rights guy, JFK was somewhat supportive and his brother made it a big issue in his time as Attorney General. And his social policies were definitely more on the left. And there's the fact that he's one of the last politicians to proudly take up the label of the liberal.

If Nixon is so supportive of civil rights, explain his totally shameless use of the Southern Strategy in 1968 and 1972 to me. I'll be damned if he wasn't trying to get up his racist white southern appeal there.

Please, enlighten me on how LBJ was conservative (excluding Vietnam, which honestly was not consistently opposed by the Democratic Party as a whole until after LBJ was gone) Last time I checked, he was the reason Civil Rights passed and that Medicare was created. I guess that whole Great Society thing totally reeks of conservative philosophy, right?

I'm going of off what we knew in 1960. Johnson was probably the most left-wing President we've ever had, and Nixon moved well to the right, at least partly because of that. But in the Senate, Johnson was on the right, and Nixon was not. As a Senator, Kennedy's voting record was certainly not more liberal than Lodge's.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

It depends how the terms are defined. As things would have been seen at the time, then you have to go back a long way. 1924 is tempting but I would argue that both major party candidates were conservatives (different types, though), so maybe 1916. But the last time it was clear would be 1904.

Now if we're using contemporary ways of looking at things, that might differ.

This (though I would go with 1924).

Though perhaps 1928 could be argued with retrospect; given what Al Smith tried to do in the 1930s.

[Deldem]

Not 1960. LBJ's position on the left of the old Southern Democrats is even more clearcut than Carter's. Kennedy sure had some Conservative baggage, but it's not as if Nixon was ever a Liberal Republican either. If Kennedy had ever run against Eisenhower, you might conceivably have a case. Yeah sure, the Reps had a civil rights plank in their platform in 1960 - the prize for an unanimous nomination when everybody knew Nixon would win a vote against Rockefeller but by an unimpressive and possibly by an embarassingly small margin. So?

LBJ was on the left of the Southern Democrats, sure, but he still voted with them. He was no Claude Pepper; he was just on the right, rather than the far right. Certainly, he was well to the right of Lodge.

Joe Kennedy, on the other hand, was hard right, and it ought to be remembered that the Kennedys were McCarthyists. Walter Reuther didn't like them, and for good reason. Nixon, while not a liberal by any means, was certainly supportive of civil rights as Vice President. As I recall, he tried to pull a gambit to end the filibuster while presiding over the Senate.

John Kennedy was definitely not a conservative. Remember, it was primarily his father that was the McCarthyist. While not an eager civil rights guy, JFK was somewhat supportive and his brother made it a big issue in his time as Attorney General. And his social policies were definitely more on the left. And there's the fact that he's one of the last politicians to proudly take up the label of the liberal.

If Nixon is so supportive of civil rights, explain his totally shameless use of the Southern Strategy in 1968 and 1972 to me. I'll be damned if he wasn't trying to get up his racist white southern appeal there.

Please, enlighten me on how LBJ was conservative (excluding Vietnam, which honestly was not consistently opposed by the Democratic Party as a whole until after LBJ was gone) Last time I checked, he was the reason Civil Rights passed and that Medicare was created. I guess that whole Great Society thing totally reeks of conservative philosophy, right?

I'm going of off what we knew in 1960. Johnson was probably the most left-wing President we've ever had, and Nixon moved well to the right, at least partly because of that. But in the Senate, Johnson was on the right, and Nixon was not. As a Senator, Kennedy's voting record was certainly not more liberal than Lodge's.

LBJ still wasn't conservative though. He was consistently pro-Civil Rights (Didn't even sign the Southern Manifesto), and wasn't extremely active in the red-baiting that basically defined Richard Nixon's time in Congress.

Also, LBJ was pro-New Deal and Nixon supported Taft-Hartley. Granted, LBJ wasn't the most liberal member of Congress, but he really was left of center- just not to the extent he showed as president. As to Nixon, I'd say he was about the same in 1968 as in 1960: center-right.

While Kennedy may have been less liberal than Lodge, he certainly was more liberal than Nixon.

[Badger]

2004

LOL!

I'm being dead serious.

Please elaborate.

I'm also curious to know  in what manner John Kerry is more conservative than George Bush.

Well...by old definitions, Kerry was more conservative foreign policy wise, while Bush was certainly liberal in that regard.

One could also say that Kerry had the potential to be more fiscally responsible than Bush, but we can't know.

"Conservative" does not equal "fiscally responsible". Reagan and both Bushes proved this beyond a shadow of a doubt.

"Liberal" does not equal "fiscally irresponsible" as Clinton convincingly proved.

[Хahar 🤔]

Not 1960. LBJ's position on the left of the old Southern Democrats is even more clearcut than Carter's. Kennedy sure had some Conservative baggage, but it's not as if Nixon was ever a Liberal Republican either. If Kennedy had ever run against Eisenhower, you might conceivably have a case. Yeah sure, the Reps had a civil rights plank in their platform in 1960 - the prize for an unanimous nomination when everybody knew Nixon would win a vote against Rockefeller but by an unimpressive and possibly by an embarassingly small margin. So?

LBJ was on the left of the Southern Democrats, sure, but he still voted with them. He was no Claude Pepper; he was just on the right, rather than the far right. Certainly, he was well to the right of Lodge.

Joe Kennedy, on the other hand, was hard right, and it ought to be remembered that the Kennedys were McCarthyists. Walter Reuther didn't like them, and for good reason. Nixon, while not a liberal by any means, was certainly supportive of civil rights as Vice President. As I recall, he tried to pull a gambit to end the filibuster while presiding over the Senate.

John Kennedy was definitely not a conservative. Remember, it was primarily his father that was the McCarthyist. While not an eager civil rights guy, JFK was somewhat supportive and his brother made it a big issue in his time as Attorney General. And his social policies were definitely more on the left. And there's the fact that he's one of the last politicians to proudly take up the label of the liberal.

If Nixon is so supportive of civil rights, explain his totally shameless use of the Southern Strategy in 1968 and 1972 to me. I'll be damned if he wasn't trying to get up his racist white southern appeal there.

Please, enlighten me on how LBJ was conservative (excluding Vietnam, which honestly was not consistently opposed by the Democratic Party as a whole until after LBJ was gone) Last time I checked, he was the reason Civil Rights passed and that Medicare was created. I guess that whole Great Society thing totally reeks of conservative philosophy, right?

I'm going of off what we knew in 1960. Johnson was probably the most left-wing President we've ever had, and Nixon moved well to the right, at least partly because of that. But in the Senate, Johnson was on the right, and Nixon was not. As a Senator, Kennedy's voting record was certainly not more liberal than Lodge's.

LBJ still wasn't conservative though. He was consistently pro-Civil Rights (Didn't even sign the Southern Manifesto), and wasn't extremely active in the red-baiting that basically defined Richard Nixon's time in Congress.

Also, LBJ was pro-New Deal and Nixon supported Taft-Hartley. Granted, LBJ wasn't the most liberal member of Congress, but he really was left of center- just not to the extent he showed as president. As to Nixon, I'd say he was about the same in 1968 as in 1960: center-right.

While Kennedy may have been less liberal than Lodge, he certainly was more liberal than Nixon.

LBJ didn't sign the Southern Manifesto becasue of his Senatorial position. On every issue that mattered, he voted with the South. Kennedy, when he voted, was not at all left-wing; he despised liberals.

[Deldem]

Not 1960. LBJ's position on the left of the old Southern Democrats is even more clearcut than Carter's. Kennedy sure had some Conservative baggage, but it's not as if Nixon was ever a Liberal Republican either. If Kennedy had ever run against Eisenhower, you might conceivably have a case. Yeah sure, the Reps had a civil rights plank in their platform in 1960 - the prize for an unanimous nomination when everybody knew Nixon would win a vote against Rockefeller but by an unimpressive and possibly by an embarassingly small margin. So?

LBJ was on the left of the Southern Democrats, sure, but he still voted with them. He was no Claude Pepper; he was just on the right, rather than the far right. Certainly, he was well to the right of Lodge.

Joe Kennedy, on the other hand, was hard right, and it ought to be remembered that the Kennedys were McCarthyists. Walter Reuther didn't like them, and for good reason. Nixon, while not a liberal by any means, was certainly supportive of civil rights as Vice President. As I recall, he tried to pull a gambit to end the filibuster while presiding over the Senate.

John Kennedy was definitely not a conservative. Remember, it was primarily his father that was the McCarthyist. While not an eager civil rights guy, JFK was somewhat supportive and his brother made it a big issue in his time as Attorney General. And his social policies were definitely more on the left. And there's the fact that he's one of the last politicians to proudly take up the label of the liberal.

If Nixon is so supportive of civil rights, explain his totally shameless use of the Southern Strategy in 1968 and 1972 to me. I'll be damned if he wasn't trying to get up his racist white southern appeal there.

Please, enlighten me on how LBJ was conservative (excluding Vietnam, which honestly was not consistently opposed by the Democratic Party as a whole until after LBJ was gone) Last time I checked, he was the reason Civil Rights passed and that Medicare was created. I guess that whole Great Society thing totally reeks of conservative philosophy, right?

I'm going of off what we knew in 1960. Johnson was probably the most left-wing President we've ever had, and Nixon moved well to the right, at least partly because of that. But in the Senate, Johnson was on the right, and Nixon was not. As a Senator, Kennedy's voting record was certainly not more liberal than Lodge's.

LBJ still wasn't conservative though. He was consistently pro-Civil Rights (Didn't even sign the Southern Manifesto), and wasn't extremely active in the red-baiting that basically defined Richard Nixon's time in Congress.

Also, LBJ was pro-New Deal and Nixon supported Taft-Hartley. Granted, LBJ wasn't the most liberal member of Congress, but he really was left of center- just not to the extent he showed as president. As to Nixon, I'd say he was about the same in 1968 as in 1960: center-right.

While Kennedy may have been less liberal than Lodge, he certainly was more liberal than Nixon.

LBJ didn't sign the Southern Manifesto becasue of his Senatorial position. On every issue that mattered, he voted with the South. Kennedy, when he voted, was not at all left-wing; he despised liberals.

Then explain the Civil Rights Act of 1957. Sure, it wasn't the most effective piece of legislation, but LBJ did vote for it. Provide some examples of his conservatism in the Senate, I'm having trouble finding some between 1957 and 1960, the last few years of his term. Certainly, he associated with Southern Dems, but that was the only way he could get ahead. I think it was more his opportunism, rather than any ideological issue.

Explain this quote:

"What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of "Liberal." But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."

JFK

Hates liberals, my ass.

[minionofmidas]

Lyndon Johnson disliked Northern Ivy League Liberals because he felt looked down on by them (rightly in a lot cases, wrongly in others). If that makes a man "conservative", the moon is made of purplish cheese. He's the kind of man who freely used the word "n" in private conversation but was fundamentally convinced of the equality of the races (in value, not in every respect) and of the vileness of Jim Crow.

Nixon, OTOH, fundamentally believed that a "democracy" where they let negroes, spics and white southern hayseeds vote couldn't be anything but a sham.

[Phony Moderate]

2004

LOL!

I'm being dead serious.

Please elaborate.

I'm also curious to know  in what manner John Kerry is more conservative than George Bush.

Er, yes... can someone explain that?

Bush was a Social conservative, fiscaly stupid and was a forign policy liberal.

What?

[Scam of God]

2004

LOL!

I'm being dead serious.

Please elaborate.

I'm also curious to know  in what manner John Kerry is more conservative than George Bush.

Er, yes... can someone explain that?

Bush was a Social conservative, fiscaly stupid and was a forign policy liberal. Kerry was a Forign policy conservative and liberal on the other counts.

so I would agree 2004 as far as forign policy and spending goes.

What?

I believe he's trying to tie in John Kerry to the traditional isolationist bent of American conservatism, which has, of course, been virtually ignored since the Reagan Reaction.

[Phony Moderate]

2004

LOL!

I'm being dead serious.

Please elaborate.

I'm also curious to know  in what manner John Kerry is more conservative than George Bush.

Er, yes... can someone explain that?

Bush was a Social conservative, fiscaly stupid and was a forign policy liberal. Kerry was a Forign policy conservative and liberal on the other counts.

so I would agree 2004 as far as forign policy and spending goes.

What?

I believe he's trying to tie in John Kerry to the traditional isolationist bent of American conservatism, which has, of course, been virtually ignored since the Reagan Reaction.

There's no such thing as a "liberal" or a "conservative" foriegn policy anyway in my opinion. It's either interventionist, non-interventionist, or pragmatic. By his logic, Hippies are conservative.

[Franzl]

2004

LOL!

I'm being dead serious.

Please elaborate.

I'm also curious to know  in what manner John Kerry is more conservative than George Bush.

Er, yes... can someone explain that?

Bush was a Social conservative, fiscaly stupid and was a forign policy liberal. Kerry was a Forign policy conservative and liberal on the other counts.

so I would agree 2004 as far as forign policy and spending goes.

What?

I believe he's trying to tie in John Kerry to the traditional isolationist bent of American conservatism, which has, of course, been virtually ignored since the Reagan Reaction.

There's no such thing as a "liberal" or a "conservative" foriegn policy anyway in my opinion. It's either interventionist, non-interventionist, or pragmatic. By his logic, Hippies are conservative.

Yes it's precisely that polarization in U.S. politics.....you're either a conservative or a liberal.....or a Democrat or a Republican....that I find unattractive.

You can't turn everything into a battle of this vs. that, or right vs. wrong as many try to do.

[Swing Voter]

2004

LOL!

I'm being dead serious.

Please elaborate.

I'm also curious to know  in what manner John Kerry is more conservative than George Bush.

Er, yes... can someone explain that?

Bush was a Social conservative, fiscaly stupid and was a forign policy liberal. Kerry was a Forign policy conservative and liberal on the other counts.

so I would agree 2004 as far as forign policy and spending goes.

What?

I believe he's trying to tie in John Kerry to the traditional isolationist bent of American conservatism, which has, of course, been virtually ignored since the Reagan Reaction.

There's no such thing as a "liberal" or a "conservative" foriegn policy anyway in my opinion. It's either interventionist, non-interventionist, or pragmatic. By his logic, Hippies are conservative.

Yes it's precisely that polarization in U.S. politics.....you're either a conservative or a liberal.....or a Democrat or a Republican....that I find unattractive.

You can't turn everything into a battle of this vs. that, or right vs. wrong as many try to do.

Wow, I agree 100% with that sentiment. The idea that there are only two options is detrimental to democracy and the liberal vs. conservative divide that we've seen within the parties since the '80s has only grown more polarized over the years.

As for the topic questions, I'd go with 1976, at least from a campaign standpoint.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

1916, 1960, and 1976

[Badger]

1916, 1960, and 1976

Not really, wrong, and wrong.

[Guderian]

1904 is obviously a slam-dunk, Progressive Republican v. Bourbon Democrat.

In 1916, Hughes was somewhat to the right of Wilson on economic issues, although he was closer than Taft. Also I can't see him adopting Wilsonian liberal internationalist idealism in foreign policy.

In 1928, I guess you could make a strong case for Smith being more conservative than Hoover but I wonder how much of this is present-day projection influenced by Smith's anti-New Deal positions and endorsements of Landon and Wilkie.

1948 is another tricky year, Truman commands a lot of respect among conservatives today, but I don't think that was the case back then. I would give that year to Truman-Barkley in terms of conservatism simply because Dewey's running mate was Earl Warren who of course turned out to be one of the most important American liberals ever.

Speaking of 1960, Nixon has the edge over Kennedy, although I think they were both primarily political opportunists.

If there ever was a Republican who was inviting to be outflanked from the Right, it was Gerald Ford in 1976, and to some extent Carter did just that. However, from today's perspective it's clear that Carter was an even bigger liberal than Ford.