The first election in which the D was left-wing and the R was right-wing

[buritobr]

I know that the polarization left-right is more applicable for European politics than it is for American politics, in which there is no strong Socialist or Social Democrat party.

But nowadays, it is possible to say that by comparing the Democratic and the Republican party, the last one is on the right in the American political spectrum and the first one is on the left.

When did it happen for the first time?

1896: Bryan X McKinley?
1916: Wilson X Hughes?
1928: Smith X Hoover?
1932: Roosevelt X Hoover?
1936: Roosevelt X Landon?

[barfbag]

By today's standards the earliest I can see is 1932.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

1896.

[barfbag]

1896.

Are you meaning rightwing and leftwing as we know the terms today? Also, do you switch avatars a lot? I feel like sometimes you're a Democrat from Minnesota.

[Sol]

1896.

Are you meaning rightwing and leftwing as we know the terms today? Also, do you switch avatars a lot? I feel like sometimes you're a Democrat from Minnesota.

You're thinking of Snowguy.

[MATTROSE94]

Probably 1896 and 1916, although Franklin Roosevelt did run as a fiscal conservative against Herbert Hoover in 1932.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

1896.

Are you meaning rightwing and leftwing as we know the terms today? Also, do you switch avatars a lot? I feel like sometimes you're a Democrat from Minnesota.

You're thinking of Snowguy.

That is what happens when you don't get it trademarked.

I would say 1896, and could make arguments for 1796, but I con't have time for six paragraphs right now.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

1896 McKinley
1912 Populist-Wilson income tax

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I would say 1896, and could make arguments for 1796, but I con't have time for six paragraphs right now.

1796?  There was no Democratic Party in 1796.  Just Republicans and Federalists, with the Republicans not the same party as today's GOP, but the ancestor of both of today's major parties.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I would say 1896, and could make arguments for 1796, but I con't have time for six paragraphs right now.

1796?  There was no Democratic Party in 1796.  Just Republicans and Federalists, with the Republicans not the same party as today's GOP, but the ancestor of both of today's major parties.

I disagree with that analysis. Indeed there are traces of the Republicans of the 1790's in GOP, especially now with all the Southerners that have joined it but also even as far back as the founding of the party. However, the true ancestor both to the GOP and American Conservatism is the Federalist Party. A large number of Federalists joined the Republicans of Jefferson during the early part of the nineteenth century and they began to move the pary towards ideas of the Federalist Party. There was also the rise of the nationalists such as Henry Clay who shared the expansionist views of their party, but their economic platform was much more in line with the Federalist Party. That is why even as the Federalist were dying out, you had the Bank and tariffs passed in 1816. Jackson's movement and founding of the Democratic Party in the 1820's was a move to reclaim the the Republican's support of the common man, farmer and so forth against the elites. The name was adopted to emphasize that fact. That is why, at least until the last few decades, the Democrats were party of Jackson and Jefferson, and you still have Jefferson-Jackson dinners. I beleive the NY Democratic party organization dates itself back to 1792.

In the 1820's you had the old Federalists, nationalist Republicans, many of whom were from places that were not even states in the 1790's and a few other Republicans that came to believe the American System was the proper approach. They kept the name Republicans but altered it to reflect their nationalist views (National Republicans of course). Later they took the name Whigs as a means of forming an anti-Jackson coalition with several states-rights Democrats in the South. In the 1850's, the formation of the GOP was led by northern Whigs, and anti-slavery northern Democrats, they picked a name that would emphasize their goal (save the Republic), attach themselves to Jefferson's populist legacy even as their domestic policy was hardly anything close to what Jefferson would have supported (Banks, Tariffs and abolition) in his time and keep those anti-slavery Democrats on board at least until the issue of slavery was resolved.

Parties adapt with the times but typically they generally don't change as much as people would like to think. The Federalists got aced out of the game because of their appearence of elitist and aristocratic tendencies and various other actions, including their alleged treason. Successors thus did their best to expand their base to include a larger group of people to avoid that problem, while preserving the core desires and interest to serve, almost always to facilitate, support and protect commercial interests.

As for American Conservatism, the desire for limited goverment developed as a reaction to what was being done in the Progressive Era, during which time you had the Democrats moving towards the desire to use gov't to help the common man instead of seeing it as just a tool of the elites and seeking to restrain it like before. Prior to that era, most business interests saw Gov't as tool to advance their interests, but after it, such was mostly in the way. You still have a large number of Republicans today, particular establishment ones and those in the rural states who support subsidies to favored industries and of course pork barrel spending. That doesn't even get into the military and the spending there.

The best way to approach this issue is to back away from the how (as in how government is utilized) and focus more on the what and for whom it is being done. The how part of the question is variable based on the context and is subject to alteration out of political necessity, such as Conservatives and Libertarians moving toward each other during the Progressive and New Deal Periods and thus the shifting away from goverment in general, though still liking it on specific pet projects. Libertarians also trace a heritage to Jefferson, but rejected the embrace of Government and thus you had a split between classical and modern liberals.

I think most would accept that Jefferson is the father of American Liberalism, even without accepting all of the above. Fewer but still many, would say that Hamilton is the father of American Conservatism. John Adams, though not exactly friends of Hamilton, was hardly anything but a Conservative based on most definitions, save for a few of the modern ones, but especially in regards to the Burkean variety. He was certainly preoccupied with order, he supported a standing army and created the navy, was somewhat aristocractic, defended the British in Court after the Boston Massacre and was considerably on the religious side. I really don't want to go to twelve paragraphs on this, but this was before the Transcendentalist movement and its influences on the Unitarian church and thus while breaking away on matters of theology, they still possessed a similar worldview to that of the other, more Calvinist Congregational Churches in this era. Adams was the Conservative and Jefferson the Liberal in 1796. As for the parties, the easiest case can be made on the side of Jefferson's Party being the ancestors to the Democrats, because you have an organization tie, dinners that bare his name and the common objective, helping the little guy against the elites. On the side of the Federalist and the GOP, you have less, but enough. The early GOP's economic policy of Tariffs and financial stability was much the same as the Federalist's and for the same reason. Even with today's party they share the desire to serve business interests and preserve stability neccessary for them to thrive and aren't afraid (at least before the tea party era) of using government to do it when necessary.

[Mechaman]

Obviously 1932.

Before that the Republican Party was so left winged and the Democrats were far right wing Birchers.

[/retard answer]

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Advent of the Labour and Tory parties swept west and Marxism in socialist countries in 1912. But the Great Depression totally reformed the parties into secular and Tory camps.

[H. Ross Peron]

1896. The last time the Democrats were more right-wing than the Republicans was in 1904 IMO.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

The GOP party during Lincoln's time because of the slavery issue, was known as the moderate or compassionate conservative wing of the GOP party. Then during the Goldwater era, Dixiecrats element of the Democratic Party sought refuge in the Republican Party.

[Stranger in a strange land]

1896.

[The Mikado]

I don't see how the answer couldn't be 1896.  Bryan's platform was literally debauching the currency as a debt forgiveness tactic: outside of flat-out expropriation I don't see how you can have a platform more hostile to finance capital. 

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

It was the beginning of industrial era. Labor movement in the likes of pragmatism such teddy Roosevelt and Charles Hughes and Woodrow Wilson were opposed by workplace restrictions in the likes of Taft and Hoover.

[buritobr]

Bryan was not supported by urban manufactory workers, but by poor farmers. He defended traditional values. Marx would consider him a "reactionary socialist". The electoral map of 1896 was almost the same as the map of the early 21th centrury, but the colors were switched. Even though, he opposed the candidate of the rich capitalists.
Wilson laid a basis for an welfare state, but he was less favorable to the blacks than the Republicans were.
Al Smith was not an economic interventionist, but he belonged to a religious minority and employeed women in his cabinet. Maybe, he was a predecessor of post-1980 democrats.
In 1932, Roosevelt was not a Keynesian yet. He criticized Hoover for not balancing the budget and his vice criticized Hoover for increasing the size of the public sector. But speeches in elections do not necessarily reflect the real opinion of the candidates.

Depends on different points of view if the today's party polarization started in the 1890s or in the 1930s, but one can say that since the 1930s, in every presidential election, the Republican candidate is more rightist than the Democratic candidate.

However, no earlier than 1960, the Democrats were stronger in the South than in the North. Only in 1960, Kennedy and Nixon divided the North and the South.

[TNF]

Left and right are not applicable terms to American political development at least until 1896.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Left and right are not applicable terms to American political development at least until 1896.

Present day moderate republican was the Lincoln GOP which Arlen Specter defended very well in his support and party switch for Obama. Dixiecrats were Jeffersonian democrats.

[barfbag]

Left and right are not applicable terms to American political development at least until 1896.

Present day moderate republican was the Lincoln GOP which Arlen Specter defended very well in his support and party switch for Obama. Dixiecrats were Jeffersonian democrats.

I think another good comparison to Jeffersonian philosophy would be Ron Paul and Barry Goldwater. Actually I'd put George W. Bush close to Lincoln's ideology based on their fundamental belief in liberation. Issues change as times change.

[Person Man]

I would say 1896, and could make arguments for 1796, but I con't have time for six paragraphs right now.

1796?  There was no Democratic Party in 1796.  Just Republicans and Federalists, with the Republicans not the same party as today's GOP, but the ancestor of both of today's major parties.

I disagree with that analysis. Indeed there are traces of the Republicans of the 1790's in GOP, especially now with all the Southerners that have joined it but also even as far back as the founding of the party. However, the true ancestor both to the GOP and American Conservatism is the Federalist Party. A large number of Federalists joined the Republicans of Jefferson during the early part of the nineteenth century and they began to move the pary towards ideas of the Federalist Party. There was also the rise of the nationalists such as Henry Clay who shared the expansionist views of their party, but their economic platform was much more in line with the Federalist Party. That is why even as the Federalist were dying out, you had the Bank and tariffs passed in 1816. Jackson's movement and founding of the Democratic Party in the 1820's was a move to reclaim the the Republican's support of the common man, farmer and so forth against the elites. The name was adopted to emphasize that fact. That is why, at least until the last few decades, the Democrats were party of Jackson and Jefferson, and you still have Jefferson-Jackson dinners. I beleive the NY Democratic party organization dates itself back to 1792.

In the 1820's you had the old Federalists, nationalist Republicans, many of whom were from places that were not even states in the 1790's and a few other Republicans that came to believe the American System was the proper approach. They kept the name Republicans but altered it to reflect their nationalist views (National Republicans of course). Later they took the name Whigs as a means of forming an anti-Jackson coalition with several states-rights Democrats in the South. In the 1850's, the formation of the GOP was led by northern Whigs, and anti-slavery northern Democrats, they picked a name that would emphasize their goal (save the Republic), attach themselves to Jefferson's populist legacy even as their domestic policy was hardly anything close to what Jefferson would have supported (Banks, Tariffs and abolition) in his time and keep those anti-slavery Democrats on board at least until the issue of slavery was resolved.

Parties adapt with the times but typically they generally don't change as much as people would like to think. The Federalists got aced out of the game because of their appearence of elitist and aristocratic tendencies and various other actions, including their alleged treason. Successors thus did their best to expand their base to include a larger group of people to avoid that problem, while preserving the core desires and interest to serve, almost always to facilitate, support and protect commercial interests.

As for American Conservatism, the desire for limited goverment developed as a reaction to what was being done in the Progressive Era, during which time you had the Democrats moving towards the desire to use gov't to help the common man instead of seeing it as just a tool of the elites and seeking to restrain it like before. Prior to that era, most business interests saw Gov't as tool to advance their interests, but after it, such was mostly in the way. You still have a large number of Republicans today, particular establishment ones and those in the rural states who support subsidies to favored industries and of course pork barrel spending. That doesn't even get into the military and the spending there.

The best way to approach this issue is to back away from the how (as in how government is utilized) and focus more on the what and for whom it is being done. The how part of the question is variable based on the context and is subject to alteration out of political necessity, such as Conservatives and Libertarians moving toward each other during the Progressive and New Deal Periods and thus the shifting away from goverment in general, though still liking it on specific pet projects. Libertarians also trace a heritage to Jefferson, but rejected the embrace of Government and thus you had a split between classical and modern liberals.

I think most would accept that Jefferson is the father of American Liberalism, even without accepting all of the above. Fewer but still many, would say that Hamilton is the father of American Conservatism. John Adams, though not exactly friends of Hamilton, was hardly anything but a Conservative based on most definitions, save for a few of the modern ones, but especially in regards to the Burkean variety. He was certainly preoccupied with order, he supported a standing army and created the navy, was somewhat aristocractic, defended the British in Court after the Boston Massacre and was considerably on the religious side. I really don't want to go to twelve paragraphs on this, but this was before the Transcendentalist movement and its influences on the Unitarian church and thus while breaking away on matters of theology, they still possessed a similar worldview to that of the other, more Calvinist Congregational Churches in this era. Adams was the Conservative and Jefferson the Liberal in 1796. As for the parties, the easiest case can be made on the side of Jefferson's Party being the ancestors to the Democrats, because you have an organization tie, dinners that bare his name and the common objective, helping the little guy against the elites. On the side of the Federalist and the GOP, you have less, but enough. The early GOP's economic policy of Tariffs and financial stability was much the same as the Federalist's and for the same reason. Even with today's party they share the desire to serve business interests and preserve stability neccessary for them to thrive and aren't afraid (at least before the tea party era) of using government to do it when necessary.

I think that Government and Politics is a lot less about how it works and more about what its purpose is.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Secular and tradt'l lines were always there when founding fathers were and describes worldly view on Christianity. Yes the GOP made up wealthy businessmen in the beginning but view that Slavery was inherently wrong made its view on Christianity and constitution as a living doctrine it changes with times. The current liberal v GOP lines are built based on that premise.

[Pessimistic Antineutrino]

Definitely 1896 defined the Democrats as the left-leaning party and the Republicans as the right-wing party, with the ultimate burial of the Bourbon Democrats being 1904. Afterwards the current ideological lines stabilized somewhere after 1932, whereas before then one might see two right-wing candidates, like in 1924.

[barfbag]

I might say as recent as 1980 thinking about it again. Ronald Reagan was the very first true  conservative to ever be in the White House.