Why would Truman be a Republican today?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

This is possibly one of the silliest things I've ever heard. There's only reason anyone who makes this claim can give: he's a hawk

guess what, there's always been hawkish Democrats. Anyone who thinks Joe Lieberman is in the wrong party needs to seriously examine his entire voting record (and by the way, I HATE HATE HATE Lieberman, this being one of the reasons). Plus I dare you to find a politician from the era who wasn't a hawk.

Then there was the fact he vetoed Taft-Hartley. supersoulty's argument was at the time unions weren't bad, it's just that today they are evil corrupt spawns of satan and the corporations they fight are perfect little angels who mean no harm to anyone. Assuming Truman would agree is rather naive, but look at his other positions. He nationalized the steel mills for a brief period of time. He desegregated the military, which was considered social liberalism at the time. He advocated NATIONAL SOCIALIZED HEALTH CARE. He won in 1948 running on class warfare issues. He fired MacArthur. Fair Deal. Does that sound like a Republican to you?

Saying that Truman would be a Republican is revisionist history of the lowest and cheapest level.

[12th Doctor]

Then there was the fact he vetoed Taft-Hartley. supersoulty's argument was at the time unions weren't bad, it's just that today they are evil corrupt spawns of satan and the corporations they fight are perfect little angels who mean no harm to anyone. Assuming Truman would agree is rather naive, but look at his other positions. He nationalized the steel mills for a brief period of time. He desegregated the military, which was considered social liberalism at the time. He advocated NATIONAL SOCIALIZED HEALTH CARE. He won in 1948 running on class warfare issues. He fired MacArthur. Fair Deal. Does that sound like a Republican to you?

Saying that Truman would be a Republican is revisionist history of the lowest and cheapest level.

Well, i think that you win the prize for bending my words, twisting my beliefs, ignoring the obvious and the down right asinine action of putting words into my mouth.

First off, I am not 100% against unions and I'm not 100% pro-business.  As I was telling Nym last night in a long conversation, the two sides of my family come from both traditions.  On one side, my Uncle Mike is a Union president.  On the other, my family has owned it's own small business for the past 60 years.

I find it sad that you feel so threatened that you must twist what I said to attack me.  You must be desperate.  What I said is that organizaed labor isn't what it was inthe time of Truman.  Taft/Hartley came in an era when there was more curruption on the business end then there was on the labor end.  Today, it's equal, but the advantage does sway towards labor.  I related stories to Nym last night that I have been given by my uncle, who is once again an union president about corruption and less than scrupulous deeds commited by organized labor.  Does this mean that it is bad in principle?  No it doesn't, but there must be control on the part of both parties involved.  I think Truman would understand this view.

"Truman nationalized the steel mills".  True, he did, but this was during a time of war when labor unions were threatening a strike.  It was done for purposes of nation security, because there was a national emergency.  One can hardly condem him for doing so.

"Truman desgregated the military".  And your point is?  So what?  I think that 99.9% of Republicans would do the same if presented with such a situation today.  That might have been liberal then, but who gives a rats ass.  Where the Republican Party stands today is to the Left of where the Dems were 50 years ago.

"National Socialized Health Care".  Can you say Nixon, anyone?

"Class Warfare".  There are plenty of populist Republicans today.  Also, once again, you fail to understand that most Republicans today would support the issues Truman addressed in his "class warfare" campaign.

"He fired MacArthur".  Ike would have done the same.  I think that if the current Bush had a rouge general commanding the armed forces, he would probably fire his ass too.

"The Fair Deal".  The Fair Deal was basically a mch smaller version of the New Deal.  The Fair Deal was designed to cut down on a lot of waste (enormous waste) caused by the New Deal, while offering basic social services.  We would have been fine if we stuck to this.  Most Republicans wouldn't arguee aginst the basic social safety net provided by the Fair Deal.  Things didn't start ot go over board until the "Great Society".

So what's your point?  You clearly misunderstood the context of whatI was saying.  What I said was "If Truman ran today with the same beliefs he had then, he would be a Republican".  He would be a populist neo-con, just like Lamar Alexander.

Instead you decided to contort what I said to make me look like an idiot.  Well, I'll let the forum members judge who the real idiot is, but I would certainly appriciate it if from now on you did stuff words into my mouth.

[The Duke]

Lets compare Harry Truman to Republican John Ford

Truman nationalized the steel mills-I the extreme circumstance Truman faced, I'd have done the same.

Truman desegregated the military-I'd have done the same, and remember, at the time more Republicans supported Civil Rights than Democrats.
 
National Socialized Health-I support national health care, read my posts in the national health care thread started by StatesRights.

Class Warfare-If you listen to my critics, they'd say I use class warfare to oppose a flat -tax.

He fired MacArthur-I'd have done the same.  He was crazy.

The Fair Deal-I'd have supported most of the Fair Deal programs.

Truman vetoed Taft/Hartley-I would have too, anything that prevents workers from freely organizing is a disruption in the free market (in this case, the labor market), and therefore should be studiously avoided where possible.

Am I a Democrat?  No.

[12th Doctor]

Lets compare Harry Truman to Republican John Ford

Truman nationalized the steel mills-I the extreme circumstance Truman faced, I'd have done the same.

Truman desegregated the military-I'd have done the same, and remember, at the time more Republicans supported Civil Rights than Democrats.
 
National Socialized Health-I support national health care, read my posts in the national health care thread started by StatesRights.

Class Warfare-If you listen to my critics, they'd say I use class warfare to oppose a flat -tax.

He fired MacArthur-I'd have done the same.  He was crazy.

The Fair Deal-I'd have supported most of the Fair Deal programs.

Truman vetoed Taft/Hartley-I would have too, anything that prevents workers from freely organizing is a disruption in the free market (in this case, the labor market), and therefore should be studiously avoided where possible.

Am I a Democrat?  No.

Thank you, Ford.  You basically just proved my point.  Most Republicans would support the same possitions that Truman ran on.

I would have done everything Truman had done, it I was in office.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Well, i think that you win the prize for bending my words, twisting my beliefs, ignoring the obvious and the down right asinine action of putting words into my mouth.

First off, I am not 100% against unions and I'm not 100% pro-business.  As I was telling Nym last night in a long conversation, the two sides of my family come from both traditions.  On one side, my Uncle Mike is a Union president.  On the other, my family has owned it's own small business for the past 60 years.

I find it sad that you feel so threatened that you must twist what I said to attack me.  You must be desperate.  What I said is that organizaed labor isn't what it was inthe time of Truman.  Taft/Hartley came in an era when there was more curruption on the business end then there was on the labor end.  Today, it's equal, but the advantage does sway towards labor.  I related stories to Nym last night that I have been given by my uncle, who is once again an union president about corruption and less than scrupulous deeds commited by organized labor.  Does this mean that it is bad in principle?  No it doesn't, but there must be control on the part of both parties involved.  I think Truman would understand this view.

"Truman nationalized the steel mills".  True, he did, but this was during a time of war when labor unions were threatening a strike.  It was done for purposes of nation security, because there was a national emergency.  One can hardly condem him for doing so.

"Truman desgregated the military".  And your point is?  So what?  I think that 99.9% of Republicans would do the same if presented with such a situation today.  That might have been liberal then, but who gives a rats ass.  Where the Republican Party stands today is to the Left of where the Dems were 50 years ago.

"National Socialized Health Care".  Can you say Nixon, anyone?

"Class Warfare".  There are plenty of populist Republicans today.  Also, once again, you fail to understand that most Republicans today would support the issues Truman addressed in his "class warfare" campaign.

"He fired MacArthur".  Ike would have done the same.  I think that if the current Bush had a rouge general commanding the armed forces, he would probably fire his ass too.

"The Fair Deal".  The Fair Deal was basically a mch smaller version of the New Deal.  The Fair Deal was designed to cut down on a lot of waste (enormous waste) caused by the New Deal, while offering basic social services.  We would have been fine if we stuck to this.  Most Republicans wouldn't arguee aginst the basic social safety net provided by the Fair Deal.  Things didn't start ot go over board until the "Great Society".

So what's your point?  You clearly misunderstood the context of whatI was saying.  What I said was "If Truman ran today with the same beliefs he had then, he would be a Republican".  He would be a populist neo-con, just like Lamar Alexander.

Instead you decided to contort what I said to make me look like an idiot.  Well, I'll let the forum members judge who the real idiot is, but I would certainly appriciate it if from now on you did stuff words into my mouth.

Union corruption never hurt anyone. No pollution or the type of abuses you hear about at Wal-Mart came from it. I will always support unions over business.

Now do you think Bush or Reagan would've done such a thing with the steel mills?

The point about desegregating the military is at the time that was considered socially liberal, the same way wanting to abolish slavery was in the 1860s. Social liberalism changes and grows with the times. Truman today would've certainly been pro-choice and pro-gay rights considering how socially progressive he was for the time, I don't know how he stood on those issues but they weren't issues at all at the time.

Give me a Republican today, not one from 30 years ago that has advocated socialist health care. You say Truman would be a Republican TODAY, not 30 years ago.

Populist Republicans? I can't think of any unless you're counting Lincoln Chaffee. McCain is not one either, he is simply a TRUE fiscal conservative who opposes both Bush's giveaways to the rich and insane spending, which is still a far more respectable stance than idiots like Bush who keep cutting taxes for the rich and then spend like a drunken sailor.

As for the MacArthur point, is Rumsfeld looking for a new job yet?

Grover Norquist says his goal is to (paraphrased) "shrink the government to the size where it can be drowned in a bathtub." Yes, most Republicans today would be against such basic programs. You think Newt or DeLay would support them?

And you think Lamar Alexander is a populist? ha.

2003   According to the National Journal - Conservative on Economic Policy's calculations, in 2003, Senator Alexander voted more conservative on economic policy issues than 77 percent of the Senator

2003   According to the National Journal - Liberal on Economic Policy's calculations, in 2003, Senator Alexander voted more liberal on economic policy issues than 18 percent of the Senators.

He's in the rightmost 20%. Truman on the other hand would be the left of pretty much everyone aside from a few Progressive Caucus members.

[minionofmidas]

This is possibly one of the silliest things I've ever heard. There's only reason anyone who makes this claim can give: he's a hawk

guess what, there's always been hawkish Democrats. Anyone who thinks Joe Lieberman is in the wrong party needs to seriously examine his entire voting record (and by the way, I HATE HATE HATE Lieberman, this being one of the reasons). Plus I dare you to find a politician from the era who wasn't a hawk.

Henry Wallace

You're right of course, except for the expletives at the end...Claiming Nixon showed good grace in 1960 is even worse.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

you're right about Wallace I suppose, but he was one huge exception. Truman was really no more hawkish than FDR, and I really hope no one would actually argue FDR would be a Republican.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

btw, does anyone honestly think a President opebo would've fired MacArthur?

[The Duke]

The point about desegregating the military is at the time that was considered socially liberal, the same way wanting to abolish slavery was in the 1860s. Social liberalism changes and grows with the times. Truman today would've certainly been pro-choice and pro-gay rights considering how socially progressive he was for the time, I don't know how he stood on those issues but they weren't issues at all at the time.

Give me a Republican today, not one from 30 years ago that has advocated socialist health care. You say Truman would be a Republican TODAY, not 30 years ago.

Populist Republicans? I can't think of any unless you're counting Lincoln Chaffee. McCain is not one either, he is simply a TRUE fiscal conservative who opposes both Bush's giveaways to the rich and insane spending, which is still a far more respectable stance than idiots like Bush who keep cutting taxes for the rich and then spend like a drunken sailor.

As for the MacArthur point, is Rumsfeld looking for a new job yet?

Grover Norquist says his goal is to (paraphrased) "shrink the government to the size where it can be drowned in a bathtub." Yes, most Republicans today would be against such basic programs. You think Newt or DeLay would support them?

And you think Lamar Alexander is a populist? ha.

2003   According to the National Journal - Conservative on Economic Policy's calculations, in 2003, Senator Alexander voted more conservative on economic policy issues than 77 percent of the Senator

2003   According to the National Journal - Liberal on Economic Policy's calculations, in 2003, Senator Alexander voted more liberal on economic policy issues than 18 percent of the Senators.

He's in the rightmost 20%. Truman on the other hand would be the left of pretty much everyone aside from a few Progressive Caucus members.

Desegregating the military may have been socially liberal at the time, but the Republicans at the time were more inclined to favor civil rights than Democrats, you haven't addressed that.

You want a Republican today who support universal health care?  Me.

Most southern Republicans are pro-big government, anti-free trade, populists.  Almost no Democrats are true populists since they are not socially conservative.  Lamar Alexander is a populist, so are Richard Burr and Lauch Faircloth.

Just because Bush never fires anyone doesn't mean most Republicans wouldn't, I'v been calling for Rumsfeld to resign since he got hired.  He is a crazy man.

[KEmperor]

He wouldn't.  Trick question, I see.

[12th Doctor]

you're right about Wallace I suppose, but he was one huge exception. Truman was really no more hawkish than FDR, and I really hope no one would actually argue FDR would be a Republican.

To answer your shorter question first.  No I don't believe that FDR would be a Republican today, because he was a socialist.  Truman wasn't.  I'll try to answer your other point in some detail later on, I have work to do at the moment.

[Gustaf]

you're right about Wallace I suppose, but he was one huge exception. Truman was really no more hawkish than FDR, and I really hope no one would actually argue FDR would be a Republican.

To answer your shorter question first.  No I don't believe that FDR would be a Republican today, because he was a socialist.  Truman wasn't.  I'll try to answer your other point in some detail later on, I have work to do at the moment.

FDR wasn't very hawkish. He was very anti-Nazi, which I'm happy about, but he didn't understand the threat of communism. At all.

[12th Doctor]

you're right about Wallace I suppose, but he was one huge exception. Truman was really no more hawkish than FDR, and I really hope no one would actually argue FDR would be a Republican.

To answer your shorter question first.  No I don't believe that FDR would be a Republican today, because he was a socialist.  Truman wasn't.  I'll try to answer your other point in some detail later on, I have work to do at the moment.

FDR wasn't very hawkish. He was very anti-Nazi, which I'm happy about, but he didn't understand the threat of communism. At all.

Another good point.

[12th Doctor]

Union corruption never hurt anyone. No pollution or the type of abuses you hear about at Wal-Mart came from it. I will always support unions over business.

Now do you think Bush or Reagan would've done such a thing with the steel mills?

The point about desegregating the military is at the time that was considered socially liberal, the same way wanting to abolish slavery was in the 1860s. Social liberalism changes and grows with the times. Truman today would've certainly been pro-choice and pro-gay rights considering how socially progressive he was for the time, I don't know how he stood on those issues but they weren't issues at all at the time.

Give me a Republican today, not one from 30 years ago that has advocated socialist health care. You say Truman would be a Republican TODAY, not 30 years ago.

Populist Republicans? I can't think of any unless you're counting Lincoln Chaffee. McCain is not one either, he is simply a TRUE fiscal conservative who opposes both Bush's giveaways to the rich and insane spending, which is still a far more respectable stance than idiots like Bush who keep cutting taxes for the rich and then spend like a drunken sailor.

As for the MacArthur point, is Rumsfeld looking for a new job yet?

Grover Norquist says his goal is to (paraphrased) "shrink the government to the size where it can be drowned in a bathtub." Yes, most Republicans today would be against such basic programs. You think Newt or DeLay would support them?

And you think Lamar Alexander is a populist? ha.

2003   According to the National Journal - Conservative on Economic Policy's calculations, in 2003, Senator Alexander voted more conservative on economic policy issues than 77 percent of the Senator

2003   According to the National Journal - Liberal on Economic Policy's calculations, in 2003, Senator Alexander voted more liberal on economic policy issues than 18 percent of the Senators.

He's in the rightmost 20%. Truman on the other hand would be the left of pretty much everyone aside from a few Progressive Caucus members.

Union corruption never hurt anyone!?!?  AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA  That statement just proves either your ignorance or blindness on this matter.  Like I said, my uncle is a union President.  I would relate to you some of the stries that he has told me, but I'm not certain to what level I can trust everyone here, so... plus you probably wouldn't believe me anyway.

"I will always support unions over business".  Of course.  Your a socialist.  That is to be expected.

In a time of national emergency, I think that any president would take order the take over of vital resources needed to combat the crisis.

It is a pretty big leap to say that supporting desegregation of the military is the same as supporting abortion or gay marriage.  I think that any logic professor would probably hand your ass to you on a platter it you came pushing that argueement.

As for socialized medicine, well Bush did just push for a huge prescription drug benefit.

Populist Republicans:  Tom Ridge, Phil English, Lamar Alexander (yes, he is), Zell Miller (according to Democrats), Tommy Thompson, just about every southern Republican to make things short.  You see, because populism is not just an economic attitude.  Populism also comes with a certain degree of social conservatism: belief in the traditional family, believing in the importance of faith/church/religion in community.  Belief in the importance community.  Since you seem to ignore the obvious (the Democrat Party has become the party of the elite) I'll just move on.

Rumsfeld is a rouge commander?  I don't think I must responde to the idiocy of that claim.

As for your final comments about Grover Norquist.  It would appear that, like a typical extremeist, you charecterize those that don't agree with you by pointing out the most extreme possitions taken on their side of the aisle.  I used to do this, but I grew-up, clearly you still have some more growing to do, my marxist friend.  You should learn that charecterizing people by the most extreme views of their compatriots and not the veiws that they themselves hold (as you have continued to do to me throughout this disscussion) lends absolutly no crediability to your possition.  But liek I said, most extremeists do this, so you can hardly be blamed.  But is it not true that the whole point of Marxism is "us versus them", without any regard to the idea of individuality?  I'll let you ponder on that for now.  Like I said, I have work to do.

[opebo]

The only good thing about Harry Truman was his willingness to use the atomic bomb - that one ruthless decision was one of the pillars of post-war U.S. power.   Other than that he was just another corrupt leftist/union Democrat, typical of the New Deal era.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

going by the definition you folks are using, a populist is basically a conservative.

Populism means liberal on economic issues and moderate-to-conservative on social issues. None of the people you are mentioning are liberal on economic issues. An example of a populist is Rep. James Oberstar from our 8th district or Bob Casey.

Ford may support socialist health care, but he's definately a huge fluke, like angus's support of gay marriage.

and please don't say Bush's Medicare plan is even close to a socialist health care system.

as for the desegregating the military point, it's simple, while that's a very mainstream view today, at the time it was considered SOCIALLY LIBERAL. therefore, Truman was a social liberal, and it's silly to think he would've had a 1940s worldview today. Remember, Wallace grew out of his racist views, he evolved with the times. Since Truman was already far ahead of him, he would be a very liberal person socially today, probably like Kerry.

opebo's summary is basically correct, slanted as it is. Truman was to the left of the Democratic party at the time, and since the party has since them moved to the center, today he would be considered even more liberal than he was at the time.

[The Duke]

Ford may support socialist health care, but he's definately a huge fluke, like angus's support of gay marriage.

I don't support socialist health care, I support a universal health care system taht would turn the federal employee insurance plan into a national program with the government paying the majority of the premiums.  This is a very free market approach to providing universal health care, not a socialist one.  I just wanted to point out the difference.

[Huckleberry Finn]

Ford may support socialist health care, but he's definately a huge fluke, like angus's support of gay marriage.

I don't support socialist health care, I support a universal health care system taht would turn the federal employee insurance plan into a national program with the government paying the majority of the premiums.  This is a very free market approach to providing universal health care, not a socialist one.  I just wanted to point out the difference.

One thing which I have learnt from this forum is that many Republicans are surprising moderate. (John D. Ford, Htmldon, Angus, Supersoulty, Wildcard, Andrew and even Kemperor and Statesright on some issues) Though whole Republican Party is much more conservative both economically and socially than its European equivalents, it seems to be much more moderate than most people in Europe think.

Btw. I completely support idea which Ford and Statesrights suggested in the "National healthcare"-thread. Very much same idea what I support in Finnish Politics. Funny thing is that such plan would be revolutionary conservative in Finland. (or in most European countries) Is there any chance that Republican will move to the John D. Ford/Statesright's position on this issue?

[The Duke]

One thing which I have learnt from this forum is that many Republicans are surprising moderate. (John D. Ford, Htmldon, Angus, Supersoulty, Wildcard, Andrew and even Kemperor and Statesright on some issues) Though whole Republican Party is much more conservative both economically and socially than its European equivalents, it seems to be much more moderate than most people in Europe think.

Btw. I completely support idea which Ford and Statesrights suggested in the "National healthcare"-thread. Very much same idea what I support in Finnish Politics. Funny thing is that such plan would be revolutionary conservative in Finland. (or in most European countries) Is there any chance that Republican will move to the John D. Ford/Statesright's position on this issue?

I don't think so, unfortunately.  There is a heavy anti-government strain in the Party and that side is backed by significant corporate money.  If we can get more campaign finance reform, we can do it, but until the 527s are gone and the PACs, I don't think there will be a change in the Republican Party.

Not to let the Democrats off the hook on sleazy money.  We all know John Kerry took more PAC money than any other Senator and that his convention stunt is driven by money.

[??????????]

Ford may support socialist health care, but he's definately a huge fluke, like angus's support of gay marriage.

I don't support socialist health care, I support a universal health care system taht would turn the federal employee insurance plan into a national program with the government paying the majority of the premiums.  This is a very free market approach to providing universal health care, not a socialist one.  I just wanted to point out the difference.

One thing which I have learnt from this forum is that many Republicans are surprising moderate. (John D. Ford, Htmldon, Angus, Supersoulty, Wildcard, Andrew and even Kemperor and Statesright on some issues) Though whole Republican Party is much more conservative both economically and socially than its European equivalents, it seems to be much more moderate than most people in Europe think.

Btw. I completely support idea which Ford and Statesrights suggested in the "National healthcare"-thread. Very much same idea what I support in Finnish Politics. Funny thing is that such plan would be revolutionary conservative in Finland. (or in most European countries) Is there any chance that Republican will move to the John D. Ford/Statesright's position on this issue?

I wish it would happen but this nation is to deadlocked to get anything done. We need a third party to come and break it up a little.

[??????????]

Fellow the thread about National Health Care is over in the US General Discussion area. I bumped it for all to read.

[jokerman]

BRTD.

You are making some very good and legitiment arguments in here.

Why did you devolve?

[Nym90]

He wouldn't. He's basically Joe Lieberman as far as I can see, and would hold pretty similar positions if he were still around today. Truman was pretty liberal for his time socially, and was certainly not at all right wing economically either (fairly left wing even for his day, and by today's standards would be quite leftist overall). He would lean to the right on foreign policy, but that's just one small part of the overall picture.

[MaC]

This is possibly one of the silliest things I've ever heard. There's only reason anyone who makes this claim can give: he's a hawk

guess what, there's always been hawkish Democrats. Anyone who thinks Joe Lieberman is in the wrong party needs to seriously examine his entire voting record (and by the way, I HATE HATE HATE Lieberman, this being one of the reasons). Plus I dare you to find a politician from the era who wasn't a hawk.

Then there was the fact he vetoed Taft-Hartley. supersoulty's argument was at the time unions weren't bad, it's just that today they are evil corrupt spawns of satan and the corporations they fight are perfect little angels who mean no harm to anyone. Assuming Truman would agree is rather naive, but look at his other positions. He nationalized the steel mills for a brief period of time. He desegregated the military, which was considered social liberalism at the time. He advocated NATIONAL SOCIALIZED HEALTH CARE. He won in 1948 running on class warfare issues. He fired MacArthur. Fair Deal. Does that sound like a Republican to you?

Saying that Truman would be a Republican is revisionist history of the lowest and cheapest level.

OMG, Truman shoulda joined the Nazi Party!

[MaC]

BRTD.

Why did you devolve?