Challenging the notion that Vermont was always left wing

[ElectionsGuy]

Two presidential results that might conflict with the notion:

1924:

Coolidge: 78.2%
Davis: 15.7%
LaFollette: 5.8%

LaFollette fails to even get 6%, he got nearly 17% in the nation as a whole

1912:

Taft: 37.1%
Roosevelt: 35.2%
Wilson: 24.4%
Chafin: 1.7%
Debs: 1.5%

The fact that Taft beat Roosevelt (Roosevelt being the more 'progressive' candidate) and the Prohibition candidate getting more votes than the socialist, is quite amazing for the supposed left wing state.

Every socialist/progressive candidate from 1900-1948 gets significantly less % of the vote in Vermont than the national average. On top of that, its one of two states (the other being Maine) to never vote for FDR, a liberal icon.

From this, I  can conclude that Vermont, while a liberal (socially for sure) state, it was always a solid Republican state from the Civil War till the end of the 20th century. Its left wing turn started in the 1960's, and from there on it became its modern day state. I don't think it was always the very left wing place that it is now.

[Rockefeller GOP]

Did anyone think VT has always been liberal?  If they did, they're very ignorant of political history.

For God's sake, many VT natives and older VT residents are apart of the "take back Vermont" movement, LOL.

[Rockefeller GOP]

Exactly, go to page 15 of this study of historical ideologies of states (based on the policies of state government)
http://caughey.mit.edu/sites/default/files/documents/CaugheyWarshaw_Policy_Dynamics140728.pdf

Vermont used to be centrist/slightly right-leaning in the 1930's and was probably more conservative in the Early 20th century, and much to the chagrin of Oldies types, the Deep South was always deeply conservative in its governmental policies, even back in the 1930's during the periods of full Democratic control. 

These charts should counter many historical revisionist stances.

What would you say was so conservative about these deep Southern states?  I absolutely refuse the disturbing revisionist assumption that being racist/favoring segregation = conservative.

[bobloblaw]

Vermont was thw ONLY state to never vote for FDR.

VT was always an independent, self reliant yankee state. Now it is a meth addict hell hole.

[Boston Bread]

I agree with the OP and RFayette's points in general. But why would northern republicans generally implement more liberal policy than southern democrats throughout the 20th century, yet southern democrat senators were to the left of northern republican senators on economics for most of that period? Most prominent southern democratic senators in that period supported New Deal or otherwise progressive economic ideas, even if they were racist to varying degrees, like Bilbo, Byrd, Johnson, etc. Why didn't that happen at the state level?

[Libertarian Socialist Dem]

I think though that starting with the New Deal era the Democrats were by and large the more left-leaning party as they absorbed all of the progressives and the south was more of a political outlier then anything, though southern Democrats were pretty divided on economic issues.

As for Vermont, my grandmother is a native Vermonter and a lifelong Republican and I think that there political culture was conservative in the same way that the great plains states were and just changed not so much due to the GOP moving right but because of hippies moving there. Maybe in another timeline Kansas would have become liberal if a bunch of hippie farmers had moved there and Kansas City and Topeka became counter-cultural meccas.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I agree with the OP and RFayette's points in general. But why would northern republicans generally implement more liberal policy than southern democrats throughout the 20th century, yet southern democrat senators were to the left of northern republican senators on economics for most of that period? Most prominent southern democratic senators in that period supported New Deal or otherwise progressive economic ideas, even if they were racist to varying degrees, like Bilbo, Byrd, Johnson, etc. Why didn't that happen at the state level?

It's hard to define any dominant economic ideology of the Southern Democrats in Congress.* There was some opposition to the New Deal among Southerners in Congress, but the South had the ability to shape legislation to regional interests since the Southerners had a high level of influence over committees and the workings of the congressional majority.  The prospect of redistribution between states would be attractive to a Senator from a poor Southern state hit hard by the Depression more than redistributory policies at the state level, so long as the perception was that the Federal policies would reinforce rather than upend the state's social structure in the course of relieving poverty.

*(edit: Well, that's not quite accurate. There is an ideology of support for an agricultural-based economy and low tariffs. When it comes to the level and kind of government involvement in the economy and what might be called progressive legislation it is quite variable...)

[H. Ross Peron]

As for anecdotal evidence I once came across a joke book from the 1980s about "true Vermonters" versus the new migrants from NYC and elsewhere which made it clear "true Vermonters" were conservative Republicans and while expressing some respect for then-Mayor Bernie Sanders also hoped that he'd stop being a socialist and never run for a higher office such as the Senate.

[Türkisblau]

I hate this idea that somehow prohibition was some kind of right-wing movement. It was one of the notions brought about by progressivism that the government could intervene to solve a social ill, very much left wing in it's time. The right wingers in 1912 were very much anti-prohibition, being fueled by business interests diametrically opposed to the idea.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I hate this idea that somehow prohibition was some kind of right-wing movement. It was one of the notions brought about by progressivism that the government could intervene to solve a social ill, very much left wing in it's time. The right wingers in 1912 were very much anti-prohibition, being fueled by business interests diametrically opposed to the idea.

Prohibition was both a progressive and a conservative movement, to the extent that the delineation between a left and a right on the issue is irrelevant. The same can be said for the Eugenics of the time - it combined a vision of social improvement and a concern for cultural and ethnic stability. 

[ElectionsGuy]

I hate this idea that somehow prohibition was some kind of right-wing movement. It was one of the notions brought about by progressivism that the government could intervene to solve a social ill, very much left wing in it's time. The right wingers in 1912 were very much anti-prohibition, being fueled by business interests diametrically opposed to the idea.

Prohibition itself was indeed both a conservative and progressive idea, but the Prohibition Party was very conservative (well, I guess they still exist, so are ), there's no debating that.

[Boston Bread]

You don't win a state 67-31 without winning its native residents, the democratic trend trend also happened to them. Look at Essex county, it used to vote republican at the presidential level but not anymore, while it's till republican locally. And that's not a county where I expect much migration to have happened. I don't think something similar could have ever happened to Kansas, the state's too large to be dominated by one political microclimate.

[bobloblaw]

I hate this idea that somehow prohibition was some kind of right-wing movement. It was one of the notions brought about by progressivism that the government could intervene to solve a social ill, very much left wing in it's time. The right wingers in 1912 were very much anti-prohibition, being fueled by business interests diametrically opposed to the idea.

Prohibition was both a progressive and a conservative movement, to the extent that the delineation between a left and a right on the issue is irrelevant. The same can be said for the Eugenics of the time - it combined a vision of social improvement and a concern for cultural and ethnic stability. 

For a cerntury or more Prohibition was a conservative idea. It took the Progressive Movement and WW1 to make it a reality. It is no coincidence that Woman's Sufferage and Prohibition happened at the same time.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

Exactly, go to page 15 of this study of historical ideologies of states (based on the policies of state government)
http://caughey.mit.edu/sites/default/files/documents/CaugheyWarshaw_Policy_Dynamics140728.pdf

Vermont used to be centrist/slightly right-leaning in the 1930's and was probably more conservative in the Early 20th century, and much to the chagrin of Oldies types, the Deep South was always deeply conservative in its governmental policies, even back in the 1930's during the periods of full Democratic control. 

These charts should counter many historical revisionist stances.

What would you say was so conservative about these deep Southern states?  I absolutely refuse the disturbing revisionist assumption that being racist/favoring segregation = conservative.

According t many on the left, anything that is bad is automatically right-wing.  There have been people who have said that Stalin was right-wing.

[bobloblaw]

Exactly, go to page 15 of this study of historical ideologies of states (based on the policies of state government)
http://caughey.mit.edu/sites/default/files/documents/CaugheyWarshaw_Policy_Dynamics140728.pdf

Vermont used to be centrist/slightly right-leaning in the 1930's and was probably more conservative in the Early 20th century, and much to the chagrin of Oldies types, the Deep South was always deeply conservative in its governmental policies, even back in the 1930's during the periods of full Democratic control. 

These charts should counter many historical revisionist stances.

What would you say was so conservative about these deep Southern states?  I absolutely refuse the disturbing revisionist assumption that being racist/favoring segregation = conservative.

According t many on the left, anything that is bad is automatically right-wing.  There have been people who have said that Stalin was right-wing.

And then there are those on the left who denied Stalin was ever bad

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

Exactly, go to page 15 of this study of historical ideologies of states (based on the policies of state government)
http://caughey.mit.edu/sites/default/files/documents/CaugheyWarshaw_Policy_Dynamics140728.pdf

Vermont used to be centrist/slightly right-leaning in the 1930's and was probably more conservative in the Early 20th century, and much to the chagrin of Oldies types, the Deep South was always deeply conservative in its governmental policies, even back in the 1930's during the periods of full Democratic control. 

These charts should counter many historical revisionist stances.

What would you say was so conservative about these deep Southern states?  I absolutely refuse the disturbing revisionist assumption that being racist/favoring segregation = conservative.

According t many on the left, anything that is bad is automatically right-wing.  There have been people who have said that Stalin was right-wing.

And then there are those on the left who denied Stalin was ever bad

Yep, I've seen that too.

[buritobr]

Why does it need so long explanation?

Bush won there in 1988. His son had 40.7% in 2000. Only since 2004 the Republican candidates are more than 10 percentage points worse in Vermont than in the rest of the country.

Even in 1972, when Nixon performed much better in the south than in the north, his margin in Vermont was bigger than the national margin. Very diferent comparing to the neighbor Massachusetts.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Keep in mind that Vermont was, for a long time, a mostly rural/small-town place dominated by Yankee Protestants who were deeply moralistic. That moralism carried over to their politics. Lots of Congregationalists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, etc. who contributed to the state's Republican dominance; and within the dominance of Vermont's GOP was a spectrum of positions on the issues of the day (many of which would not be familiar to modern observers).

So yes, Vermont was not always left wing.

[TDAS04]

I posted this article on Vermont's voting pattern's a while back.  It's interesting, and I'd like to see people here think.  I'm not saying it's completely correct, but it suggests that Vermont has always had a libertarian streak on issues of personal liberty.

I don't think that Vermont has always been left-wing, and they're still conservative in some ways, but the state has a long record of supporting civil rights.  They even elected a black man to the state legislature during the 1830s.

[Rockefeller GOP]

I posted this article on Vermont's voting pattern's a while back.  It's interesting, and I'd like to see people here think.  I'm not saying it's completely correct, but it suggests that Vermont has always had a libertarian streak on issues of personal liberty.

I don't think that Vermont has always been left-wing, and they're still conservative in some ways, but the state has a long record of supporting civil rights.  They even elected a black man to the state legislature during the 1830s.

Going along with this thread's earlier, slightly pointless argument, I think VT was a very conservative state that has always supported civil rights.  I think it's unfair to act like thinking everyone deserves the same rights is incompatible with conservatism.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I posted this article on Vermont's voting pattern's a while back.  It's interesting, and I'd like to see people here think.  I'm not saying it's completely correct, but it suggests that Vermont has always had a libertarian streak on issues of personal liberty.

I don't think that Vermont has always been left-wing, and they're still conservative in some ways, but the state has a long record of supporting civil rights.  They even elected a black man to the state legislature during the 1830s.

On the other hand that acceptance wasn't always extended to immigrants. Just ask this guy:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.uvm.edu/~hag/histreview/vol6/lund.html

[TDAS04]

I posted this article on Vermont's voting pattern's a while back.  It's interesting, and I'd like to see people here think.  I'm not saying it's completely correct, but it suggests that Vermont has always had a libertarian streak on issues of personal liberty.

I don't think that Vermont has always been left-wing, and they're still conservative in some ways, but the state has a long record of supporting civil rights.  They even elected a black man to the state legislature during the 1830s.

Going along with this thread's earlier, slightly pointless argument, I think VT was a very conservative state that has always supported civil rights.  I think it's unfair to act like thinking everyone deserves the same rights is incompatible with conservatism.

No, civil rights is not about left vs. right.  Vermont was more conservative than it is now.  I do find it interesting, though, that Vermont championed racial justice early in its history, and in modern times, it's a leading state in LGBT rights and has one of the highest percentages of women in its legislature. I think LGBT rights should not be a left/right issue, but another civil rights issue (but that's another topic that's been debated here frequently).

Of course a conservative can support fairness for everyone, sorry if it sounded like I suggested otherwise.  Maybe Vermont was conservative in the past and liberal now, but it's always been one of the better states for civil rights.

[Rockefeller GOP]

I posted this article on Vermont's voting pattern's a while back.  It's interesting, and I'd like to see people here think.  I'm not saying it's completely correct, but it suggests that Vermont has always had a libertarian streak on issues of personal liberty.

I don't think that Vermont has always been left-wing, and they're still conservative in some ways, but the state has a long record of supporting civil rights.  They even elected a black man to the state legislature during the 1830s.

Going along with this thread's earlier, slightly pointless argument, I think VT was a very conservative state that has always supported civil rights.  I think it's unfair to act like thinking everyone deserves the same rights is incompatible with conservatism.

No, civil rights is not about left vs. right.  Vermont was more conservative than it is now.  I do find it interesting, though, that Vermont championed racial justice early in its history, and in modern times, it's a leading state in LGBT rights and has one of the highest percentages of women in its legislature. I think LGBT rights should not be a left/right issue, but another civil rights issue (but that's another topic that's been debated here frequently).

Of course a conservative can support fairness for everyone, sorry if it sounded like I suggested otherwise.  Maybe Vermont was conservative in the past and liberal now, but it's always been one of the better states for civil rights.

Agreed.  VT, and much of New England, has always had a very early adoption of most civil rights struggles.  Definitely proud of that.

[bobloblaw]

Vermont has always been anti-Southern

[Rockefeller GOP]

Vermont has always been anti-Southern

Anti-Southern =/= left wing.  It has, throughout history, coincided with for people's basic rights.