When did the Democratic and Republican parties switch platforms?

[1978 New Wave skinny trousers]

I believe that the parties switched platforms in 1928, when the Democrats ran a progressive, Catholic Northeasterner. The Republicans responded by utilizing Anti-Catholicism to their advantage, which is definitely a Conservative ideology.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Switched platforms from what to what? And, assuming that this switch of two supposed platforms did occur, why do you think it took place over one election?

[OSR stands with Israel]

1896

[1978 New Wave skinny trousers]

Switched platforms from what to what?

This was referring to when the Democrats and Republicans switched platforms with each other. The Democrats switched from being conservative to liberal, and the Republicans switched from being liberal to conservative.

And, assuming that this switch of two supposed platforms did occur, why do you think it took place over one election?

Before the 1928 election, every Republican candidate had been more liberal than every Democratic candidate in each election. After the 1928 election, every Democratic candidate has been more liberal than every Republican candidate in each election. Some may believe that Bryan was more liberal than McKinley or that Wilson was more liberal than Taft or Hughes. But in my opinion, that is not the case.

[Blue3]

The definitions of liberal and conservative change.



And in other countries, liberal means conservative.


Describe what you mean by those terms. Civil rights? Economic interventionism?

[darklordoftech]

They've only switched in two ways: libertarianism vs statism and racism. The first switch occured in 1896 and the second began with FDR and was completed with the 1994 Republican Revolution. Before 1896, rather than the parties being conservative or liberal, the Democrats were libertarian and the Republicans were statists. The parties haven't switched in terms of business vs "the common man" or immigrants vs xenophobia.

[TheSaint250]

Gradual shift. Started under FDR and was completed under Nixon and Reagan.

Since many Republicans supported civil rights, civil rights wasn't the sole issue for the shift.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Switched platforms from what to what?

This was referring to when the Democrats and Republicans switched platforms with each other. The Democrats switched from being conservative to liberal, and the Republicans switched from being liberal to conservative.

And, assuming that this switch of two supposed platforms did occur, why do you think it took place over one election?

Before the 1928 election, every Republican candidate had been more liberal than every Democratic candidate in each election. After the 1928 election, every Democratic candidate has been more liberal than every Republican candidate in each election. Some may believe that Bryan was more liberal than McKinley or that Wilson was more liberal than Taft or Hughes. But in my opinion, that is not the case.

 Harding and Coolidge were clearly more conservative then their democratic opponents , and coolidge possibly being the most conservative candidate either party has nominated since 1896.


How was Bryan not more liberal then McKinley, Bryan was way more economically interventionist then mckinley  and on economic issues was the Bernie Sanders of the Day.


Actully since 1896 the only election I can think about where the dems were more torie then the gop was 1904.

[RINO Tom]

Where's the option for, "this theory is really lazy and total bullsh**t"?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Option 5 is the only reasonable answer, and even that rests on partly faulty premises.

[1978 New Wave skinny trousers]

The definitions of liberal and conservative change.



And in other countries, liberal means conservative.


Describe what you mean by those terms. Civil rights? Economic interventionism?

Before the 1928 election, the Republicans were the more economically liberal party. They were the party of progressivism and trust-busting, while the Democrats were the party of small government. The Republicans were also the more socially liberal party. They supported an anti-lynching bill, while the Democrats were the party of White supremacy and racism. After the 1928 election, though, this changed. The Democrats became the economically liberal party by enacting the New Deal, a collection of social programs and an economic stimulant. The Republicans, on the other hand, became the party of fiscal restraint. The Democrats also became generally the more liberal party on civil rights--at the national level, so not including Southern Democrats. This shift was cemented in the 1964 election by Lyndon Johnson. The Republicans became the party of Anti-Catholicism and were more conservative on civil rights, the former primarily in the election of 1928 and the latter cemented by the 1964 election. The latter was due to Barry Goldwater.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

You ready for the APUSH?

[Mr. Smith]

Where's the option for, "this theory is really lazy and total bullsh**t"?

[OSR stands with Israel]

The definitions of liberal and conservative change.



And in other countries, liberal means conservative.


Describe what you mean by those terms. Civil rights? Economic interventionism?

Before the 1928 election, the Republicans were the more economically liberal party. They were the party of progressivism and trust-busting, while the Democrats were the party of small government. The Republicans were also the more socially liberal party. They supported an anti-lynching bill, while the Democrats were the party of White supremacy and racism. After the 1928 election, though, this changed. The Democrats became the economically liberal party by enacting the New Deal, a collection of social programs and an economic stimulant. The Republicans, on the other hand, became the party of fiscal restraint. The Democrats also became generally the more liberal party on civil rights--at the national level, so not including Southern Democrats. This shift was cemented in the 1964 election by Lyndon Johnson. The Republicans became the party of Anti-Catholicism and were more conservative on civil rights, the former primarily in the election of 1928 and the latter cemented by the 1964 election. The latter was due to Barry Goldwater.

How was McKinley and Taft more conservative then Bryan and Wilson on economic issues

[1978 New Wave skinny trousers]

How was McKinley and Taft more conservative then Bryan and Wilson on economic issues

I never said they were. However, they might have been, as McKinley supported the gold standard while Bryan supported free silver. And it's true that Wilson supported child labor laws. But Taft was a trust buster. And even if McKinley and Taft were more economically conservative than Bryan and Wilson, they were exceptions. For the most part, before the 1928 election during the Progressive Era, Republicans were more economically liberal than Democrats. This is shown by Roosevelt and Taft being trust busters, and the Sherman Antitrust Act, whose author was Republican John Sherman. The bill was signed by President Benjamin Harrison, a Republican, and opposed by Grover Cleveland, a Democrat. Also, most progressive politicians during the Progressive Era were Republicans, such as Robert M. LaFollette Sr., Hiram Johnson, and countless others.

[RINO Tom]

How was McKinley and Taft more conservative then Bryan and Wilson on economic issues

I never said they were. However, they might have been, as McKinley supported the gold standard while Bryan supported free silver. And it's true that Wilson supported child labor laws. But Taft was a trust buster. And even if McKinley and Taft were more economically conservative than Bryan and Wilson, they were exceptions. For the most part, before the 1928 election during the Progressive Era, Republicans were more economically liberal than Democrats. This is shown by Roosevelt and Taft being trust busters, and the Sherman Antitrust Act, whose author was Republican John Sherman. The bill was signed by President Benjamin Harrison, a Republican, and opposed by Grover Cleveland, a Democrat. Also, most progressive politicians during the Progressive Era were Republicans, such as Robert M. LaFollette Sr., Hiram Johnson, and countless others.

Put down your textbook, read some primary texts, age about 7 years and then you'll know what you're talking about.

[OSR stands with Israel]

How was McKinley and Taft more conservative then Bryan and Wilson on economic issues

I never said they were. However, they might have been, as McKinley supported the gold standard while Bryan supported free silver. And it's true that Wilson supported child labor laws. But Taft was a trust buster. And even if McKinley and Taft were more economically conservative than Bryan and Wilson, they were exceptions. For the most part, before the 1928 election during the Progressive Era, Republicans were more economically liberal than Democrats. This is shown by Roosevelt and Taft being trust busters, and the Sherman Antitrust Act, whose author was Republican John Sherman. The bill was signed by President Benjamin Harrison, a Republican, and opposed by Grover Cleveland, a Democrat. Also, most progressive politicians during the Progressive Era were Republicans, such as Robert M. LaFollette Sr., Hiram Johnson, and countless others.

Bryan was probably the Bernie Sanders of the day. I mean one of his campaign plans is this " the democratic position is to enrich the working class while the Republican position is to give money to the top and hope it falls on the rest" . That literally is a modern democratic talking point. Read his 1900 democratic platform and it sounds word to word what the Left supports and the accusations against the GOP sound word to word what the left said about Bush in 04.


One thing is on the campaign trail game select 1916 and play as both Wilson and Hughes and you will see the advice they give to Hughes is that if you take the liberal positions on issues you will lose your base while for wilson if you take conservative positions on issues you will lose support.  On Trust Busting Wilson was more liberal then Taft.

Ok Here is a list from 1896 -1924 and seeing what nominee is more conservative

1896,1900: McKinley is clearly more conservative then Bryan
1904: Parker is slightly more conservative then TR
1908: Taft is Clearly more conservative then Bryan
1912: Taft is more conservative then Wilson
1916: Hughes is more conservative then Wilson
1920: Harding is clealry more conservative then Cox
1924: Coolidge is more conservative then Davis(Davis may have been most conservative dem since Cleveland and yet he was still more liberal then Coolidge)

[angus]

I think you have to take it one plank at a time, and even those planks weren't switched in a single year.  Think about immigration reform, and illegal immigrants, for example.  When I was young it was always the Left the talked about it.  Blue-collar workers and union representatives wanted to get tough on it.  Toffs and estate owners wanted to keep the border relaxed, and to be able to find day laborers to scrub their toilets and fold their clothes cheaply.  The result was that the Republicans and Democrats generally had opposite views compared to what they hold today regarding a more open versus more closed border.  What year did this switch occur?  One cannot point to a single year, or even a single four-year period.  It happened gradually during about a three-decade epoch.  And that's just one plank of a party's platform.  

[RINO Tom]

I think you have to take it one plank at a time, and even those planks weren't switched in a single year.  Think about immigration reform, and illegal immigrants, for example.  When I was young it was always the Left the talked about it.  Blue-collar workers and union representatives wanted to get tough on it.  Toffs and estate owners wanted to keep the border relaxed, and to be able to find day laborers to scrub their toilets and fold their clothes cheaply.  The result was that the Republicans and Democrats generally had opposite views compared to what they hold today regarding a more open versus more closed border.  What year did this switch occur?  One cannot point to a single year, or even a single four-year period.  It happened gradually during about a three-decade epoch.  And that's just one plank of a party's platform.  

And for every one of those, there's a basic principle that's stayed the same since each party's founding and an issue that just literally doesn't exist anymore.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

It is below my paygrade to be forced to try to explain what others can and what others have regarding the historical positions of the parties. In simpler terms, read a description of the 1904 election; Roosevelt's relative radicalism and Parker's relative conservatism were viewed as exceptions, and were thus surprising. Like, seriously, eff this 7th grade level garbage.

[OSR stands with Israel]

It is below my paygrade to be forced to try to explain what others can and what others have regarding the historical positions of the parties. In simpler terms, read a description of the 1904 election; Roosevelt's relative radicalism and Parker's relative conservatism were viewed as exceptions, and were thus surprising. Like, seriously, eff this 7th grade level garbage.

Read my list I was telling him that 1904 was the exception and every other election since 1896 has had the GOP more conservative then the Dems

[angus]

And for every one of those, there's a basic principle that's stayed the same since each party's founding and an issue that just literally doesn't exist anymore.

That's a valid argument as well.  Since its first national convention in Philadelphia in 1856, the Republican Party has been the party of abject nationalism.  This has not changed.  "Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord; He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored; He hath loosed the fateful lightning of His terrible swift sword; His truth is marching on."  The Republicans were wrapping themselves up in God and The Flag 150 years ago and they still are.  I don't think that has changed.  Lincoln and Bush were not so different.  True, Trump is a wildcard, but he may be just an aberration.  We don't know yet.  Similarly, the "latte liberals" aren't so different than the Sons of Saint Tammany, especially considering that Tammany Hall's base lay predominantly with New York's burgeoning immigrant constituency.  That was as true in 1817 as it is in 2017.  Boss Tweed may have been more successful than today's Democrats, but the system of patronage that he exploited through the petitions system is not so different than the union contracts of today, and their wholesale delivery of votes to the Democrats in local and state races.

I don't agree that this is strictly seventh-grade history, though.  It is potentially an interesting discussion.

[RINO Tom]

To the OP, let's just try to challenge two premises that seem to be bedrocks of your little theory here: 1) that big government vs. small government is roughly analogous to liberal vs. conservative and 2) that opposing the expansion of slavery and/or supporting its abolition was a "liberal" position.  The following two quotes, which can be found on as simple of a source as the Wikipedia page for "History of conservatism in the United States" (I think it's totally fine to use Wikipedia as a source, as it literally gives its source, which people are welcome to go look at if they want), show that these assumptions are, IMO, lazy and try to very foolishly transpose our political norms and customs onto societies that were drastically different:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_conservatism_in_the_United_States

1) "... the newly formed Federalist Party ... used the presidency of George Washington to promote a strong nation capable of holding its own in world affairs, with a strong army and navy able to suppress internal revolts (such as the Whiskey Rebellion), and a national bank to support financial and business interests.[25]  Intellectually, Federalists, while devoted to liberty, held profoundly conservative views attuned to the American character.  As Samuel Eliot Morison explained, they believed that liberty is inseparable from union, that men are essentially unequal, that [voice of the people] is seldom if ever [the voice of God], and that sinister outside influences were busy undermining American integrity.[26] Historian Patrick Allitt concludes that Federalists promoted many conservative positions, including the rule of law under the Constitution, republican government, peaceful change through elections, judicial supremacy, stable national finances, credible and active diplomacy, and protection of wealth."

That is pretty clearly, IMO, the basic philosophies and attitudes and world views of conservatives of most eras which just happened to be in an era where a centralized government benefited conservative causes and hurt liberal causes; the fact that this is somewhat reversed now really isn't overly relevant to the ideologies of either era's parties.  Motive is much, much, much more important than method.  Sometimes, like the examples of free trade or internationalism vs. isolationism, we can even have two opposing sides arrive at the SAME policy position for completely opposite reasons.  Why is this important?  It should, in an intellectual conversation, take the "was this guy for limited government?" question off the table when analyzing the political ideology of historical figures.  Saying "Republicans were for big government" says nothing whatsoever about their "liberalism" or lack thereof.

2) "The chief and real purpose of the Republican party is eminently conservative. It proposes nothing save and except to restore this government to its original tone in regard to this element of slavery, and there to maintain it, looking for no further change in reference to it than that which the original framers of the Government themselves expected and looked forward to." - Abraham Lincoln, 1859

The article goes on to say that Republicans viewed the very idea that slavery was a good thing as a "radical innovation that violated American ideals."  The idea that there weren't tons of very conservative abolitionists or that one couldn't combine his conservatism with his support for abolition VERY coherently is just a slap in the face to a wealth of primary texts and great research by historians.  Lincoln argued constantly that it was clearly the intent of the Founders for slavery to have died out by the 1860s and it was the NEW bastardization of their wishes coming from the slaveholders that threatened the traditional ideals of the Republic.  Hardly a liberal way to argue his position, if you ask me.

None of this is to claim that the Federalists and 1860s Republicans or whatever were strictly *conservative* as if that carries some type of meaning and legitimizes modern conservatives' views or something (though, I think when one looks at the more timeless elements of left vs. right like class issues, immigration, nationalism, the balance of egalitarianism and rewarding talent, etc., there's a clear strain from FED to WHIG to GOP and DR to DEM), but it's just as ridiculous to call them "liberal," and it's ALWAYS ridiculous to believe two political parties could quite literally EVER completely switch their platforms, let alone in ONE YEAR.  As angus said, there are some interesting examples that are fun and interesting to explore, and I would love to have that conversation ... if only it didn't so often turn into one more like the OP, which is ... no offense ... completely wrong and unbelievably lazy.

[darklordoftech]

If Grover Cleveland were alive in November 2012 or November 2016, he would vote for Gary Johnson. The Democrats were libertarians until 1896, when William Jennings Bryan turned them into liberals.