Lincoln, Conservatism, and Liberalism
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 11:35:56 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  History (Moderator: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee)
  Lincoln, Conservatism, and Liberalism
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Author Topic: Lincoln, Conservatism, and Liberalism  (Read 8389 times)
Tetro Kornbluth
Gully Foyle
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,846
Ireland, Republic of


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: January 19, 2011, 06:12:22 PM »

From Lincoln's first annual message to Congress:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

That sounds like Young Marx.

Not only that but it is quite obvious that the people he was referring to as exploiters weren´t exactly ´welfare queens´.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: January 30, 2011, 10:57:09 AM »

Support of whiggish business-friendly governmental implements of the American System (infrastructure, protective tariff, central bank) would not be considered "liberal" in a 19th century context.
Of course 19th century liberalism has nothing to do with the current American definition of liberalism.

At their hearts, the Republican party has remained the party of economic individualism and the Democratic party has remained the party of political individualism.  They have done so while essentially wriggling around on almost every other issue, especially on the scope and role of government intervention in economic affairs.
Logged
FEMA Camp Administrator
Cathcon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,284
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: January 30, 2011, 11:13:44 AM »

Support of whiggish business-friendly governmental implements of the American System (infrastructure, protective tariff, central bank) would not be considered "liberal" in a 19th century context.
Of course 19th century liberalism has nothing to do with the current American definition of liberalism.

At their hearts, the Republican party has remained the party of economic individualism and the Democratic party has remained the party of political individualism.  They have done so while essentially wriggling around on almost every other issue, especially on the scope and role of government intervention in economic affairs.

How can you be the Party of economic individualism, while changing on the role of government in the economy?
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: January 30, 2011, 11:14:24 AM »

Well, yeah. 'Liberalism' in an American context doesn't mean much more than 'the policies of the Democratic Party'.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: January 30, 2011, 11:34:33 AM »

How can you be the Party of economic individualism, while changing on the role of government in the economy?

The Republican Party has consistently championed having government act in ways to increase the ability of people with talent to make use of such talents for their own benefit.  What has changed over the decades is what is sees as the biggest impediment to such ability and the ways in which government can best promote it.

When it was founded, the primary threat to economic individualism was seen as slavery.  Government could promote economic opportunity for individuals by doling out the public lands to homesteaders, providing for education (at the federal level via land grants for endowing colleges), and seeing to it that essential infrastructure such as railroads were accessible to all.  Also in a purely pro-American vein, they favored having tariffs sufficient to block the competition from the cheap labor of Europe.

Today, the primary threat to economic individualism is seen as the burden imposed by government regulation and taxation.  Government could promote economic opportunity for individuals by eliminating programs that encourage dependency on the government and generally reducing the costly role of government in favor of the more efficient private provision of services. They are also generally opposed to tariffs as harmful to the economy as a whole.
Logged
Mikestone8
Rookie
**
Posts: 84
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: April 14, 2011, 01:40:00 AM »


That is because he did so well debating Douglas. He actually won the popular vote, which post 17th amendment, would have made him Senator. The State legislative districts were gerrymandered enough to preserve a Dem majority in the state legislature and thus reelect Douglas.

I don't think it was primarily a question of gerrymandering, rather that not all the legislative seats were up for re-election, and the ones not being contested were heavily Democrratic. Iirc the Republicans made gains but not enough.

Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: April 14, 2011, 01:14:26 PM »

Not so much gerrymandering as that population grew faster in the 1850's in northern Illinois where the Republicans were strong than in southern Illinois where the Democrats were strong.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.036 seconds with 12 queries.