Which Party would these people be for today

[Rockefeller GOP]

Dwight Eisenhower would not be a Democrat, that's ridiculous.

[Rockefeller GOP]

Dwight Eisenhower would not be a Democrat, that's ridiculous.

Yes he would, given the current GOP has little regard for much other than decreasing the same capital gains Eisenhower raised to 90%, going out of their way to screw with social services, and worship the military complex Eisenhower spoke against...it's obvious Eisenhower has no place in the party of Reagan

Eisenhower is probably second to Coolidge as having the most conservative Presidency in the 20th Century.  Those "high taxes" he had came in an era when there were several more ways to get money back on your taxes, and fewer people paid them; it's simply false that people in the 1950s paid a higher effective tax rate than people today.  Eisenhower literally campaigned on Democrats being too weak on communism (Adalai the Appeaser ring any bells?), he was constantly attacked by Democrats as a corporatist and typical Republican "only caring about the rich."  If people like Susan Collins, Charlie Baker, Olympia Snowe, etc. are Republicans today, it's idiotic to think that Eisenhower wouldn't be.

[Rockefeller GOP]

Barry Goldwater - Republican
Henry Jackson - Democratic
Dwight Eisenhower - Republican
Joe McCarthy - Republican
Bob Taft - Republican
Henry Wallace - Republican (he swung back to the right during the Korean War, endorsed Eisenhower twice and Nixon in 1960, after all. Would probably be a moderate Republican today)
George Wallace - Democratic (stayed a Democrat when others didn't, after all)
John F. Kennedy - Democratic

Why would Henry Jackson and George Wallave be a democrat lol and why would Henry Wallace be a republican when he basically ran on a socialist platfrom in 1948

How about because George Wallace almost lived to see George W. Bush become President and remained a Democrat until the day he died?

[Rockefeller GOP]

Or that Wallace was elected governor of Alabama the last time in 1982 as a proud Democrat on the strength of the black vote? And, yes right up to his death in 1998 he was a very outspoken Democrat. I don't see him changing in the past 15-odd years. If one was going to make the Dem-GOP switch 1994 was basically the acid test.

Yep.  There were certainly SOME socially and fiscally conservative Southern Democrats who were literally part of the party because of tradition and eventually left (Thurmond and Helms come to mind), but there were also a lot of fiscally populist and even socially moderate Southern Dems who just happened to also be segregationists at one time ... That describes Wallace.

[Rockefeller GOP]

Did no one read the link that Turkisblau posted? Wallace endorsed Dole in 1995, a year before the election. He also said that Alabama was turning Republican because Clinton was "so liberal" and that he voted for Bush in '92. I don't see anything to indicate he was still calling himself a Democrat in later years; his son switched parties after '94 and went on to an active, if frequently unsuccessful, career in state Republican politics. Given his populist leanings, Wallace today would almost certainly be a Tea Party backer.

His populist leanings - especially on fiscal issues - are a perfect example of why he WOULDN'T be in the Tea Party.

[Rockefeller GOP]

Did no one read the link that Turkisblau posted? Wallace endorsed Dole in 1995, a year before the election. He also said that Alabama was turning Republican because Clinton was "so liberal" and that he voted for Bush in '92. I don't see anything to indicate he was still calling himself a Democrat in later years; his son switched parties after '94 and went on to an active, if frequently unsuccessful, career in state Republican politics. Given his populist leanings, Wallace today would almost certainly be a Tea Party backer.

His populist leanings - especially on fiscal issues - are a perfect example of why he WOULDN'T be in the Tea Party.

? The Tea Party are very much right-wing populists.

They oppose like every fiscal policy that could be deemed populist.

[Rockefeller GOP]

Did no one read the link that Turkisblau posted? Wallace endorsed Dole in 1995, a year before the election. He also said that Alabama was turning Republican because Clinton was "so liberal" and that he voted for Bush in '92. I don't see anything to indicate he was still calling himself a Democrat in later years; his son switched parties after '94 and went on to an active, if frequently unsuccessful, career in state Republican politics. Given his populist leanings, Wallace today would almost certainly be a Tea Party backer.

His populist leanings - especially on fiscal issues - are a perfect example of why he WOULDN'T be in the Tea Party.

? The Tea Party are very much right-wing populists.

They oppose like every fiscal policy that could be deemed populist.

Populism is not a f#cking ideology. It is a style. Just about any ideology could be painted in a populist light with the right amount of verbal maneuvering. It is used to frame its holder's ideology's opponents as not reflecting the needs or concerns of the "common man" and such. Reagan and Nixon were both able to use such rhetoric to get voters to vote for conservative candidates.

And those claiming that John F. Kennedy would be a Republican and Nixon a Democrat are obviously unaware of the biographies of the politicians in question. They were electoral chameleons who did what they had to get elected. Kennedy had a relatively conservative record in the Senate, but as soon as the time came for him to try to win a national Democratic primary, he began making sure to appeal to northern voters--blacks, labor, liberals, Jews.

Even if populism isn't an ideology technically, wouldn't you agree that society has somewhat adopted an unofficial meaning for it that often correlates with financial reform on Wall Street, increased aid to the poor and working class, making the wealthy pay their "fair share" in taxes, etc.?  Maybe that's just me, but I feel that's how the word is often used.  It seems a lot like the word "agnostic" in ways; it's defined differently than a lot of people use it, but it still has cultural (if not entirely accurate) meaning that describes a group of people.