Bryan, Wilson and Roosevelt? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 30, 2024, 04:53:44 AM
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)
  Bryan, Wilson and Roosevelt? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Bryan, Wilson and Roosevelt?  (Read 3669 times)
Oldiesfreak1854
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,674
United States


WWW
« on: August 17, 2012, 10:52:55 AM »

Possibly.
Logged
Oldiesfreak1854
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,674
United States


WWW
« Reply #1 on: August 18, 2012, 08:01:24 PM »
« Edited: August 18, 2012, 08:03:09 PM by Oldiesfreak1854 »

Bryan and Wilson may have helped set the framework, but it wasn't until the Great Depression and the election of FDR that it made Democrats the majority party, a position they have never relinquished (except possibly for a bred time during the presidencies of Reagan and Bush I.)  I just came up with an illustration of the party alignment since both major parties have been in existence:

1854-1920
Republicans: Fiscally and Socially Liberal
Democrats: Fiscally and Socially Conservative

1920-1980
Republicans: Fiscally Conservative and Socially Liberal
Democrats: Fiscally Liberal and Socially Conservative

1980-present
Republicans: Fiscally and Socially Conservative

Democrats: Fiscally and Socially Liberal

Of course issues change, as do the meanings of "liberal" and "conservative", but this is just a summary.
Logged
Oldiesfreak1854
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,674
United States


WWW
« Reply #2 on: August 19, 2012, 07:14:31 AM »

Oldie, I think it depends on the President. I mean, from what I remember, Grant upheld gold even in the face of the 1873 Panic. But Eight years after his re-election, a vehemently pro-silver Republican, James Garfield, was elected. Harrison as well counts as pro-silver while McKinley was a moderate on the issue. As for socially conservative, that comes down to defining the term, though I'd define McKinley as "socially liberal", but in '20's, I think it's safe to say the GOP was socially conservative, especially when they were up against Al Smith.

This.

Regions also had a part to play in the whole dynamic as well.  Referring to 19th Century-early 20th Century:  While Southern Democrats were obvious authoritarians Northern Democrats were quite "liberal" on issues like alcohol (with the exception of Bryan), immigration (with the exception of Bryan), morality (with the exception of Bryan), and trade (yes, even Bryan).  Republicans, in general, were more likely to support Prohibition, limits on immigration, criminalization of prostitution, and a Protectionist trade policy.  Pretty illiberal views at that.

New Deal onward Republicans were more of a "moderate" party compared to the big tent populism of the Democrats.  Hate elitists?  Vote Democratic!  Don't like anti-Civil Rights Southern politicians but also don't like pretentious intellectual drug users?  Vote Republican!

1980 onward is probably the only era in which the major parties could really be summarized as having set ideologies.  Before then parties were usually a collection of groups who could stand each other more than (insert group a here and group b here).  For example:  Blacks and Northern WASPs vs. Catholic Immigrants and Southern WASPs, white collars vs. blue collars and intellectuals, etc. etc. etc.
Maybe not now, but they were liberal for that time.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
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 0.028 seconds with 12 queries.