Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
July 22, 2014, 02:21:13 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Atlas Hardware Upgrade complete October 13, 2013.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  General Discussion
| |-+  History (Moderator: True Federalist)
| | |-+  Lincoln, Conservatism, and Liberalism
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] Print
Author Topic: Lincoln, Conservatism, and Liberalism  (Read 2876 times)
Tetro Kornbluth
Gully Foyle
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11186
Ireland, Republic of


View Profile
« Reply #25 on: January 19, 2011, 06:12:22 pm »
Ignore

From Lincoln's first annual message to Congress:

Quote
Inasmuch as most good things are produced by labor, it follows that all such things ought to belong to those whose labor has produced them. But it has happened in all ages of the world that some have labored, and others, without labor, have enjoyed a larger proportion of the fruits. This is wrong, and should not continue. To secure to each laborer the whole product of his labor as nearly as possible is a worthy object of any good government.

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



Quote from: DarqWolff
I'm kind of tired of citing these examples and I'm guessing you're getting tired of reading them... In closing, the people who know me in real life all respect me, as do a great many people in the Reddit brony community

Quote
Keith R Laws ‏@Keith_Laws  Feb 4
As I have noted before 'paradigm shift' is an anagram of 'grasp dim faith'
True Federalist
Ernest
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27742
United States


View Profile WWW
« 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

I wonder why Van Heusen never bothered to make women's clothing?
#Ready4Nixon
Cathcon
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14854
United States


View Profile
« Reply #27 on: January 30, 2011, 11:13:44 am »
Ignore

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

Sibboleth Bist
Realpolitik
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 56187
Saint Helena


View Profile WWW
« Reply #28 on: January 30, 2011, 11:14:24 am »
Ignore

Well, yeah. 'Liberalism' in an American context doesn't mean much more than 'the policies of the Democratic Party'.
Logged

True Federalist
Ernest
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27742
United States


View Profile WWW
« 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

I wonder why Van Heusen never bothered to make women's clothing?
Mikestone8
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 68
View Profile
« Reply #30 on: April 14, 2011, 01:40:00 am »
Ignore


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
Ernest
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27742
United States


View Profile WWW
« 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

I wonder why Van Heusen never bothered to make women's clothing?
Pages: 1 [2] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines