What seems more likely

[ssuperflash]

If Lincoln, Garfield, and Arthur saw the modern GOP:

Scenario 1:

"This is a great political party. They support the creators and masters of industry, and have invested largely in the military to build up a base of national expansion which has rightfully intervened in preventing attacks on American people throughout the world. Also, Republicans have helped increase government spending to a point where a large national debt can be maintained, which has spurred internal development and trade. In terms of taxation, they have in their platform a just and honest policy, although in reality taxes are fairly high compared to our age. All in all, this is very close approximation of the ideals of the initial conventions that met in the 1850s."

Scenario 2:

"We can hardly believe what has happened to the Republican banner. It seems as though it has been trampled by industrialists, radical Southerners, and war profiteers, who are in the business of shutting down the government to make their demands heard. They have given too much money to large corporations, and have left behind the common workers. Money that should be kept in the hands of civilians has been pumped into a large standing military, though officially there is no declared war. The same Army which freed the slaves has been used to oppress foreign nations, just as the Democrats did in Mexico. This is not what we argued for."

[Kingpoleon]

WI: "I can't believe our party supports letting the inferior races to vote!"

[OSR stands with Israel]

WI : Both parties suck

[America Needs R'hllor]

Another plausible reaction would be: "Wait, the majority in both parties acknowledge and support... GAYS?! OH LORD PRESERVE US! Bring me back to my backwards era, please!"

[Kingpoleon]

WI: "I can't believe our party supports letting the inferior races to vote!"

My write in is:

Read the 15th Amendment my boy

I still imagine the comments would be racist.

[mieastwick]

Both the pre-New-Deal Democratic and Republican parties would easily fit into the modern Republican party (except LaFolette and other northern cranks).

[Goldwater]

Why on earth would the 19th century GOP have any issue with industrialists and war profiteers?

[This account no longer in use.]

The option that works with my political views (sane,normal)

[Anti-Bothsidesism]

The option that works with my political views (sane,normal)

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Why on earth would the 19th century GOP have any issue with industrialists and war profiteers?

Wasn't there a slightly socialist wing of the GOP after the civil war? I know it collapsed afterwards, but I recall this.

I mean, sher (an Einzige sock once linked to a few Wikipedia articles). To what extent they were the GOP mainstream, I could not tell you. In any case, I think it's obvious that Grant was not a socialist and we could largely call conservative. Garfield, however, is probably a more complicated case.

[Coolface Sock #42069]

Abraham Lincoln spinning in his grave over what his party has become actually is a great enough source of energy that we don't have to pay for electricity here in central Illinois because if all comes from Lincoln's grave spinning.

Add that to George Halas's grave with the way the Bears are, and you could probably power the whole state.

[Devout Centrist]

Please stop

[Goldwater]

Please stop

Shut up.

no u

[Middle-aged Europe]

Lincoln would be a Democrat today, while Garfield and Arthur would still be Republicans.

But that's just my opinion.

[RINO Tom]

Why on earth would the 19th century GOP have any issue with industrialists and war profiteers?

Wasn't there a slightly socialist wing of the GOP after the civil war? I know it collapsed afterwards, but I recall this.

Any movement dedicated to fighting the slave power is going to draw a very wide range of appeal on the ideological spectrum; let's not pretend like these "socialists" had literally any influence over GOP economic policy.

[RFayette]

Why on earth would the 19th century GOP have any issue with industrialists and war profiteers?

Wasn't there a slightly socialist wing of the GOP after the civil war? I know it collapsed afterwards, but I recall this.

Any movement dedicated to fighting the slave power is going to draw a very wide range of appeal on the ideological spectrum; let's not pretend like these "socialists" had literally any influence over GOP economic policy.

You are on the wrong side of history, my friend. If Lincoln saw the current system, he would agree with social safety nets and government intervention during recessions. He would be fine with a black President and would think Trump is some type of buffoon. Lincoln wasn't a progressive, he was a moderate or even liberal Republican for the time, meaning he was opposed to the conservative wing of the GOP and the Democrats. The parties were arguably more  based on geography than ideology after the collapse of the Whigs.

Ayy lmao

[Goldwater]

Why on earth would the 19th century GOP have any issue with industrialists and war profiteers?

Wasn't there a slightly socialist wing of the GOP after the civil war? I know it collapsed afterwards, but I recall this.

Any movement dedicated to fighting the slave power is going to draw a very wide range of appeal on the ideological spectrum; let's not pretend like these "socialists" had literally any influence over GOP economic policy.

I actually disagree. Marxists would say that capitalism is a necessary step before the socialist revolution, which comes directly after agrarianism. The GOP until about 1880 could have theoretically been in line with socialist ideals.

You are on the wrong side of history, my friend. If Lincoln saw the current system, he would agree with social safety nets and government intervention during recessions. He would be fine with a black President and would think Trump is some type of buffoon. Lincoln wasn't a progressive, he was a moderate or even liberal Republican for the time, meaning he was opposed to the conservative wing of the GOP and the Democrats. The parties were arguably more  based on geography than ideology after the collapse of the Whigs.

The Democrats were classical liberals, in the sense that they were opposed to government intervention in the economy through tariffs and banks. They thought that type of stuff harmed workers and made the rich richer. The Republicans probably were divided on this, there were some moderates like Lincoln, but people like Fremont and Sumner might call themselves liberals or even radicals. The industrialists were probably mostly Republicans since they liked the idea of the government giving land to railroads.

So again, why would the 19th century GOP have any issue with the modern Republicans being thhe party of industrialists?

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Given how Lincoln felt about Andrew Jackson, I can't see him being terribly fond of Trump; claiming such makes him a Democrat is a bit of a stretch, however. In fact, one could argue that the Trump coalition has in fact restored the Republican Party to the it's original state by resurrecting the alliance between working-class voters and wealthy capitalists that allowed Lincoln and Garfield to win their respective elections.

The problem with these sorts of hypotheticals is that they attempt to divorce historical figures from the context in which they lived and drop them un-inoculated into the 21st century. It's probably safe to say that all three of these men would be surprised by the present state of their party, but then, they would also be surprised by female voters and telephones.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Why on earth would the 19th century GOP have any issue with industrialists and war profiteers?

Wasn't there a slightly socialist wing of the GOP after the civil war? I know it collapsed afterwards, but I recall this.

Any movement dedicated to fighting the slave power is going to draw a very wide range of appeal on the ideological spectrum; let's not pretend like these "socialists" had literally any influence over GOP economic policy.

You are on the wrong side of history, my friend. If Lincoln saw the current system, he would agree with social safety nets and government intervention during recessions. He would be fine with a black President and would think Trump is some type of buffoon. Lincoln wasn't a progressive, he was a moderate or even liberal Republican for the time, meaning he was opposed to the conservative wing of the GOP and the Democrats. The parties were arguably more  based on geography than ideology after the collapse of the Whigs.

Ayy lmao

Probably would have gotten his head round a black President relatively quickly - he was a politician, so he always gave politician answers to the equivalent of gotcha questions; but I've never thought his actual views were anything worse than patronising paternalism (i.e. helping "uncivilised" people), rather than explicit belief in whites being innately supreme.

He would have probably been more unsettled by the idea of a female president, or that a third of congress are now women.

[RINO Tom]

Why on earth would the 19th century GOP have any issue with industrialists and war profiteers?

Wasn't there a slightly socialist wing of the GOP after the civil war? I know it collapsed afterwards, but I recall this.

Any movement dedicated to fighting the slave power is going to draw a very wide range of appeal on the ideological spectrum; let's not pretend like these "socialists" had literally any influence over GOP economic policy.

1. Marxists would say that capitalism is a necessary step before the socialist revolution
2. You are on the wrong side of history, my friend.
3. If Lincoln saw the current system, he would agree with social safety nets and government intervention during recessions.
4. Lincoln wasn't a progressive, he was a moderate or even liberal Republican for the time, meaning he was opposed to the conservative wing of the GOP and the Democrats.
5. The parties were arguably more  based on geography than ideology after the collapse of the Whigs.
6. The Democrats were classical liberals, in the sense that they were opposed to government intervention in the economy through tariffs and banks.
7. They thought that type of stuff harmed workers and made the rich richer.
8. The industrialists were probably mostly Republicans since they liked the idea of the government giving land to railroads.

1.  Okay?  Doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of capitalist-loving GOPers WEREN'T Marxists or socialists ... the fact that socialists were along for the ride isn't overly relevant, really.

2. Even if there were always an objective "right side of history," ... what?

3. I don't believe Lincoln ever commented on "social safety nets" to any great extent, but being a moderate in the middle of the Nineteenth Century, I think it's safe to say he'd be absolutely horrified by the current scope of the welfare state ... I'm honestly baffled you'd argue that.  As for intervention into the economy, that is not some static ideological measuring stick.  Supporting moderate intervention into the economy in the Nineteenth Century isn't even remotely comparable to supporting it now, where our government is already HEAVILY integrated with the economy to a point that would seem absurd to most people back then.  If we were living in the 1700s, my views would seem socialist given how I'd want the economic landscape to more resemble 2017 ... that doesn't make me a liberal now, as I think we have MORE than crossed the point of a sensible middle ground on that issue.

4. Those words have meant wildly different things at different points in our country's history ... like, come on.  You're not even really saying anything.  Was Lincoln "opposed" to conservative Republicans?  Not any more than he was "opposed" to "radical" Republicans, so wouldn't that kind of be a wash?  Was he opposed to Democrats?  Uh, yeah, he was a Republican.  Again, these are talking points, I'm seeing no coherent argument or proof of Lincoln's ideology in your sentences.

5. Isn't it so odd that the Whigs are almost eagerly identified as a continuation of the American right, but the second the GOP shows up with all of its ex-Whigs, largely Whig-based policies and its first successful Presidential candidate (Lincoln) basing his entire political outlook on his admiration for Mr. Whig himself (Henry Clay), we just start over and redefine everyone?  LOL.

6. So they employed tactics currently used by American conservatives for inherently liberal/progressive reasons?  That doesn't make them conservative.  Motive > method, every time.

7. This sentence really shows why #6 is so pointless.

8.  Yeah, and now the industrialists want the government to give them fewer regulations and more room to operate ... their motives and ideology was inherently conservative each time.

[RFayette]

Why on earth would the 19th century GOP have any issue with industrialists and war profiteers?

Wasn't there a slightly socialist wing of the GOP after the civil war? I know it collapsed afterwards, but I recall this.

Any movement dedicated to fighting the slave power is going to draw a very wide range of appeal on the ideological spectrum; let's not pretend like these "socialists" had literally any influence over GOP economic policy.

You are on the wrong side of history, my friend. If Lincoln saw the current system, he would agree with social safety nets and government intervention during recessions. He would be fine with a black President and would think Trump is some type of buffoon. Lincoln wasn't a progressive, he was a moderate or even liberal Republican for the time, meaning he was opposed to the conservative wing of the GOP and the Democrats. The parties were arguably more  based on geography than ideology after the collapse of the Whigs.

Ayy lmao

Probably would have gotten his head round a black President relatively quickly - he was a politician, so he always gave politician answers to the equivalent of gotcha questions; but I've never thought his actual views were anything worse than patronising paternalism (i.e. helping "uncivilised" people), rather than explicit belief in whites being innately supreme.

He would have probably been more unsettled by the idea of a female president, or that a third of congress are now women.

Fair enough; my point was just that extrapolating someone's views from the 1800's "relative to their time" to the present day is a bit of a fool's errand, IMO.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     WI: "what is this internet and how does it play such a critical role in electing Presidents?"