Lincoln, Conservatism, and Liberalism

[Ghyl Tarvoke]

From Lincoln's first annual message to Congress:

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´.

[True Federalist]

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.

[Cathcon]

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?

[Sibboleth]

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

[True Federalist]

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.

[Mikestone8]

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.

[True Federalist]

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.