Opinion of Rockefeller GOP?

[Thunderbird is the word]

FF, don't generally agree with his politics but he's pretty knowledgable and always has interesting and contrarian insights.

[Free Bird]

Can get a tiddle annoying when preaching his and Maine's moderate heroism but still a big FF

[RFayette]

FF, though his responses can get predictable pretty quickly when it comes to political parties.

[Maxwell]

annoying

[TDAS04]

Lean FF.

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

Could be a lot worse. FF

[RINO Tom]

Could be a lot worse. FF

[ElectionsGuy]

FF

[SATW]

Massive FF, I enjoy his posts greatly.

[Negusa Nagast 🚀]

Not very bright.

[free my dawg]

like Oldiesfreak but without the fun MLAATR obsession.

[Mr. Smith]

An admirable ideological and historically confused opponent, FF

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Very arrogant.

Still more bearable than Oldiesfreak and his babbling.

[Mechaman]

An admirable ideological and historically confused opponent, FF

What exactly is historically confusing about his views?  Sure, the GOP had left wing sympathies from about 1854-1874 but the moralists and corporate forces were pretty quick to knock out as many "true believers" as possible once Reconstruction was winding down.  Really, to act as if the GOP was "the liberal party" you'd have to ignore the pretty open corporatism that went on from Hayes onward.

Pretty much, the parties did not "switch", the owners in the GOP just kicked out their useful idiots when anti-racism started hurting their electability while the useful idiots (ethnic labor and poor southern farmer's) in the Democratic coalition got more and more popular due to the corruption and petty favoritism that happened under GOP administrations of the late 19th century.

The confusion on Rockys end is that he seems to think of the GOP as a continuation of the Whigs (who were economic nationalists) instead of a coalition largely formed around the issue of abolitionism.  That's where his analysis might be a little off, otherwise he is more on point than many on here.

[Mr. Smith]

An admirable ideological and historically confused opponent, FF

What exactly is historically confusing about his views?  Sure, the GOP had left wing sympathies from about 1854-1874 but the moralists and corporate forces were pretty quick to knock out as many "true believers" as possible once Reconstruction was winding down.  Really, to act as if the GOP was "the liberal party" you'd have to ignore the pretty open corporatism that went on from Hayes onward.

Pretty much, the parties did not "switch", the owners in the GOP just kicked out their useful idiots when anti-racism started hurting their electability while the useful idiots (ethnic labor and poor southern farmer's) in the Democratic coalition got more and more popular due to the corruption and petty favoritism that happened under GOP administrations of the late 19th century.

The confusion on Rockys end is that he seems to think of the GOP as a continuation of the Whigs (who were economic nationalists) instead of a coalition largely formed around the issue of abolitionism.  That's where his analysis might be a little off, otherwise he is more on point than many on here.

Oh no, you got me all wrong, he seems too simplistic for my tastes...at least regarding the GOP.

Decently balanced regarding the Democrats though.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

I find his "Robert Byrd was a DemocRAT" cliches tiring. Yes, Byrd was in the Klan. He was also a highly effective Senator who served my family when during his tenure. I can see enough through my Republican tinted glasses to acknowledge that.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

An admirable ideological and historically confused opponent, FF

What exactly is historically confusing about his views?  Sure, the GOP had left wing sympathies from about 1854-1874 but the moralists and corporate forces were pretty quick to knock out as many "true believers" as possible once Reconstruction was winding down.  Really, to act as if the GOP was "the liberal party" you'd have to ignore the pretty open corporatism that went on from Hayes onward.

Pretty much, the parties did not "switch", the owners in the GOP just kicked out their useful idiots when anti-racism started hurting their electability while the useful idiots (ethnic labor and poor southern farmer's) in the Democratic coalition got more and more popular due to the corruption and petty favoritism that happened under GOP administrations of the late 19th century.

The confusion on Rockys end is that he seems to think of the GOP as a continuation of the Whigs (who were economic nationalists) instead of a coalition largely formed around the issue of abolitionism.  That's where his analysis might be a little off, otherwise he is more on point than many on here.

The Republicans were a continuation to the extent that they were the primary opposition to the Demcorats and some issues like protectionism and such were continued by the GOP. Of course towards the later period of the 19th century, is when Business interests began to change more towards less government. I would also point out that Hayes, Garfield, Arthur and Harrison were all former Whigs as well. Hayes said he was the best President since John Quincy Adams with the exception of Abraham Lincoln.

Are you saying that Corporatism was not present until 1877. The Transcontinental Railroad was a pretty blatant example in the way it was conducted of course.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

He has an interesting perspective and I can appreciate his perspective on the history of the political parties. He also seems intelligent.

I voted FF.

[Badger]

Could be a lot worse. FF

[free my dawg]

How fitting.

[Mechaman]

An admirable ideological and historically confused opponent, FF

What exactly is historically confusing about his views?  Sure, the GOP had left wing sympathies from about 1854-1874 but the moralists and corporate forces were pretty quick to knock out as many "true believers" as possible once Reconstruction was winding down.  Really, to act as if the GOP was "the liberal party" you'd have to ignore the pretty open corporatism that went on from Hayes onward.

Pretty much, the parties did not "switch", the owners in the GOP just kicked out their useful idiots when anti-racism started hurting their electability while the useful idiots (ethnic labor and poor southern farmer's) in the Democratic coalition got more and more popular due to the corruption and petty favoritism that happened under GOP administrations of the late 19th century.

The confusion on Rockys end is that he seems to think of the GOP as a continuation of the Whigs (who were economic nationalists) instead of a coalition largely formed around the issue of abolitionism.  That's where his analysis might be a little off, otherwise he is more on point than many on here.

The Republicans were a continuation to the extent that they were the primary opposition to the Demcorats and some issues like protectionism and such were continued by the GOP. Of course towards the later period of the 19th century, is when Business interests began to change more towards less government. I would also point out that Hayes, Garfield, Arthur and Harrison were all former Whigs as well. Hayes said he was the best President since John Quincy Adams with the exception of Abraham Lincoln.

Are you saying that Corporatism was not present until 1877. The Transcontinental Railroad was a pretty blatant example in the way it was conducted of course.

OH yes it was. I believe there were hundreds of strikes by Irish dominated work gangs before the Civil War for starters.  My point was largely a counter to the oft recited "the GOP was filled with Marx pen pals!" point that people often make on here.  It is certainly one thing to be a reader of a philosophy, it is quite another to be a consistent follower of it.  The classist implementation of the Civil War draft, working conditions in many northern factories, and the endorsement of the work ethic by many "radical" Republicans, show they weren't near as ideologically zealous as some make them out to be.

However, at the end of the day there were German Marxists and others who did identify with the GOP.  You could possibly argue that they weren't as anti-corporate (mind the Marxist scale of society for a moment where bourgeouis industrial revolution is the second step AFTER the agrarian planter society, the Civil War was seen as that Second Step) as the agrarian radicals in the Democratic Party, but kind of hard to pin those types down as Whig successors.

I mean, imagine if a party was formed tomorrow that was strongly opposed to abortion and many of it's followers were also advocates of corporate tax cuts.  Would it necessarily be a "successor" to the Republican Party, even if quite a few of said followers were also in favor of universal healthcare or democratic socialism?

Would you consider the Homestead Act a Whig act?  Or Robert La Follette Sr. a successor to Whiggery?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

An admirable ideological and historically confused opponent, FF

What exactly is historically confusing about his views?  Sure, the GOP had left wing sympathies from about 1854-1874 but the moralists and corporate forces were pretty quick to knock out as many "true believers" as possible once Reconstruction was winding down.  Really, to act as if the GOP was "the liberal party" you'd have to ignore the pretty open corporatism that went on from Hayes onward.

Pretty much, the parties did not "switch", the owners in the GOP just kicked out their useful idiots when anti-racism started hurting their electability while the useful idiots (ethnic labor and poor southern farmer's) in the Democratic coalition got more and more popular due to the corruption and petty favoritism that happened under GOP administrations of the late 19th century.

The confusion on Rockys end is that he seems to think of the GOP as a continuation of the Whigs (who were economic nationalists) instead of a coalition largely formed around the issue of abolitionism.  That's where his analysis might be a little off, otherwise he is more on point than many on here.

The Republicans were a continuation to the extent that they were the primary opposition to the Demcorats and some issues like protectionism and such were continued by the GOP. Of course towards the later period of the 19th century, is when Business interests began to change more towards less government. I would also point out that Hayes, Garfield, Arthur and Harrison were all former Whigs as well. Hayes said he was the best President since John Quincy Adams with the exception of Abraham Lincoln.

Are you saying that Corporatism was not present until 1877. The Transcontinental Railroad was a pretty blatant example in the way it was conducted of course.

OH yes it was. I believe there were hundreds of strikes by Irish dominated work gangs before the Civil War for starters.  My point was largely a counter to the oft recited "the GOP was filled with Marx pen pals!" point that people often make on here.  It is certainly one thing to be a reader of a philosophy, it is quite another to be a consistent follower of it.  The classist implementation of the Civil War draft, working conditions in many northern factories, and the endorsement of the work ethic by many "radical" Republicans, show they weren't near as ideologically zealous as some make them out to be.

However, at the end of the day there were German Marxists and others who did identify with the GOP.  You could possibly argue that they weren't as anti-corporate (mind the Marxist scale of society for a moment where bourgeouis industrial revolution is the second step AFTER the agrarian planter society, the Civil War was seen as that Second Step) as the agrarian radicals in the Democratic Party, but kind of hard to pin those types down as Whig successors.

I mean, imagine if a party was formed tomorrow that was strongly opposed to abortion and many of it's followers were also advocates of corporate tax cuts.  Would it necessarily be a "successor" to the Republican Party, even if quite a few of said followers were also in favor of universal healthcare or democratic socialism?

Would you consider the Homestead Act a Whig act?  Or Robert La Follette Sr. a successor to Whiggery?

But consider the necessry evolution of parties over time though. The Republicans filled that void in the North because they were better able to unite people against slavery and then afterwards keep a greater number of people and places in support of some core Whig economic views, whilst dropping many other ones, then the Whigs themselves were able to. Not every Republican was a Whig hence the point, but its hard to argue that it wasn't formed around a heavily Whig or former Whig nucleus in some respects or at the very least one that quickly came to dominate after the disintegration of the Whigs, and from which every Republican President prior to McKinley with the exception of Grant, originated from.

[morgieb]

Slightly less annoying Oldiesfreak. Not a big fan.

[TJ in Oregon]

Greatly improved from when he first came on the forum. FF.

[RR1997]

FF overall