Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 17, 2018, 01:53:05 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: New features added! Click here for more information. Click here to configure new features.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
| |-+  U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderator: Torie)
| | |-+  When did the parties switch platforms?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] Print
Author Topic: When did the parties switch platforms?  (Read 14143 times)
Senator-Elect Nelson
politicalmasta73
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,685
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #150 on: April 14, 2018, 02:20:41 am »

Hard to pinpoint exactly, but if I had to I would say it started in 1896 with the Democratic nomination of William Jennings Bryan, alienating the Bourbon Democrats, and finished in 1964 passage of the Civil Rights Act and the Republican nomination of Goldwater.

Every new responder to this topic should have to read every single word of NC Yankee's posts in this thread.
My opinion is democrats became a truly liberal party(neither party was   before 1896) with William Jennings Bryan taking over the party and with exception of Alton Parker , John Davis , and Bill Clinton the have not had a nominee since then who wasn’t a solid liberal

But a "switch" implies a time when the Republican Party was decidedly to the "left" of the Democrats, and given that we can't just place simplistic things like "states' rights" or "racism" on some simplified political spectrum that transcends hundreds of years and several eras (the way we can, arguably, do with class issues, immigration and moralism), this is an assertion that I flatly reject and contend that you have to be - at best - very misinformed to accept.

Yah both parties did not flip (your right about that)


What I think happened was that the Republican party has always been the party of Business and Industry and for the first part of the Industrial Revolution(until say around the mid 1870s) being the party of Industry was considered more "liberal" because the Democratic party was dominated by agrarians which was considered more conservative.

Basically, after that system collapsed the Democrats spent 20 years basically being Republican lite(1876-1896) then Labor and Populists in 1896 decided to basically give up on trying to take over the GOP and move to take over the Dems and they were successful because the dems really didnt have anything strong enough to prevent that from happening(since the agrarians long had been gone by that point).


That basically made the democrats the more leftist party and have been since then.


The GOP though has basically stayed constant the whole time(in their core base)
what? every trump southern deplorable is usually the equivalent of a 1940's dem. Actually, I can't think of a single group of people who have stayed completely loyal to Republicans since the forming of the party, besides whites. Ideologically, Dems have completely flipped, but they still have the same loose coalition, in those who are low income earners. Also, Republicans have always been free market capitalists.
Logged

My Political Compass

Economic Left/Right: -6.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.36

Favorite Republican- John McCain
Favorite Democrat- Blanche Lincoln
Favorite Presidents- LBJ, FDR, JFK, Carter
Favorite President who never was- Al Gore
President North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 40,199
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #151 on: April 14, 2018, 03:02:30 am »

Hard to pinpoint exactly, but if I had to I would say it started in 1896 with the Democratic nomination of William Jennings Bryan, alienating the Bourbon Democrats, and finished in 1964 passage of the Civil Rights Act and the Republican nomination of Goldwater.

Every new responder to this topic should have to read every single word of NC Yankee's posts in this thread.
My opinion is democrats became a truly liberal party(neither party was   before 1896) with William Jennings Bryan taking over the party and with exception of Alton Parker , John Davis , and Bill Clinton the have not had a nominee since then who wasn’t a solid liberal

But a "switch" implies a time when the Republican Party was decidedly to the "left" of the Democrats, and given that we can't just place simplistic things like "states' rights" or "racism" on some simplified political spectrum that transcends hundreds of years and several eras (the way we can, arguably, do with class issues, immigration and moralism), this is an assertion that I flatly reject and contend that you have to be - at best - very misinformed to accept.

Yah both parties did not flip (your right about that)


What I think happened was that the Republican party has always been the party of Business and Industry and for the first part of the Industrial Revolution(until say around the mid 1870s) being the party of Industry was considered more "liberal" because the Democratic party was dominated by agrarians which was considered more conservative.

Basically, after that system collapsed the Democrats spent 20 years basically being Republican lite(1876-1896) then Labor and Populists in 1896 decided to basically give up on trying to take over the GOP and move to take over the Dems and they were successful because the dems really didnt have anything strong enough to prevent that from happening(since the agrarians long had been gone by that point).


That basically made the democrats the more leftist party and have been since then.


The GOP though has basically stayed constant the whole time(in their core base)
what? every trump southern deplorable is usually the equivalent of a 1940's dem. Actually, I can't think of a single group of people who have stayed completely loyal to Republicans since the forming of the party, besides whites. Ideologically, Dems have completely flipped, but they still have the same loose coalition, in those who are low income earners. Also, Republicans have always been free market capitalists.

There were a hell of a lot more protectionist Republicans in 1940's then there are now.

Well the idea of measuring "loyalty" across 160 years is that it ignores a simple reality. No one lives 160 years. Tongue

Logged

President of the Atlasian Republic


"A majority held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations, and always changing easily with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people." - Lincoln's First Inaugural Address, emphasis mine.
President North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 40,199
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #152 on: April 14, 2018, 03:09:02 am »

I would also encourage you to look up Ralph Owen Brewster (R-ME) who was alleged to have ties to the KKK.

Also this guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_E._Jenner
and this guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_Welker
Logged

President of the Atlasian Republic


"A majority held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations, and always changing easily with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people." - Lincoln's First Inaugural Address, emphasis mine.
BenBurch
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 441
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.10, S: 7.22

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #153 on: April 14, 2018, 07:19:44 am »

The Dems were always the party of the poorer, and the Reps the party of the richer.  Their parties stances depended on what their base wanted.  The poor (whites) in the 1800-early 1900's wanted Jim Crow.  So the Dems pandered to that.  See James Cox, the Dem presidential nominee in 1924.  He was a real racist POS.


This is an important point, though Cox was the nominee in 1920.

The Democrats were also more populist owing to their position as a classically liberal party and thus they were also very majoritarian in their view.

This is emphasized in the debates between Lincoln and Douglas were Douglas essentially relegates whether or not you can enslave follow human beings to "popular sovereignty" even if the Supreme Court ruled contrary, which was a term promoted by Lewis Cass before him as well.

This was also a similar basis behind the Trail of Tears. The Democrats ignored the court and pursued what they wanted anyway.

The poor whites enfranchised by the Democrats, were very racists, especially again those ones living in the black belt, in the cities and along the rivers of the South. The ones in the mountains were more passively racist, but were so disconnected from this economic circle, that they voted differently, feeling excluded by the Democrats. They thus voted against secession as well, since they didn't benefit from the slave economy, they weren't going to vote to secede to preserve it.

Yeah, I don't know why I said 1924.  Anyway, I'm not just talking about down South, I'm talking about the factory workers in the North, the Working Class.  They were also racist.  I've seen pictures of lynchings, and race riots from Chicago and the Iron Ring in AP US History.  Those weren't done by Southerners. 
Logged

Huey Would Have Won!
Erect for Kolchak
President North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 40,199
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #154 on: April 14, 2018, 03:37:34 pm »

The Dems were always the party of the poorer, and the Reps the party of the richer.  Their parties stances depended on what their base wanted.  The poor (whites) in the 1800-early 1900's wanted Jim Crow.  So the Dems pandered to that.  See James Cox, the Dem presidential nominee in 1924.  He was a real racist POS.


This is an important point, though Cox was the nominee in 1920.

The Democrats were also more populist owing to their position as a classically liberal party and thus they were also very majoritarian in their view.

This is emphasized in the debates between Lincoln and Douglas were Douglas essentially relegates whether or not you can enslave follow human beings to "popular sovereignty" even if the Supreme Court ruled contrary, which was a term promoted by Lewis Cass before him as well.

This was also a similar basis behind the Trail of Tears. The Democrats ignored the court and pursued what they wanted anyway.

The poor whites enfranchised by the Democrats, were very racists, especially again those ones living in the black belt, in the cities and along the rivers of the South. The ones in the mountains were more passively racist, but were so disconnected from this economic circle, that they voted differently, feeling excluded by the Democrats. They thus voted against secession as well, since they didn't benefit from the slave economy, they weren't going to vote to secede to preserve it.

Yeah, I don't know why I said 1924.  Anyway, I'm not just talking about down South, I'm talking about the factory workers in the North, the Working Class.  They were also racist.  I've seen pictures of lynchings, and race riots from Chicago and the Iron Ring in AP US History.  Those weren't done by Southerners. 

Well obviously, but there is only so much you can fit in one post. Tongue

You had the dynamic of competition for jobs, and this brewed racist sentiments and even pro-slavery ones among Irish backed Democrats in the North. For instance you had the draft riots in NYC, and copperhead activity espoused by some of those "Non-Yankee" white rural in places I talk about and Irish immigrants in the mines of like OH and PA.

These sentiments typically helped the Democrats but by 1860, the combination of the South going too far (Dred Scott), and Lincoln's moderation "Keep slavery to where it is now" basically, enabled them to flip the script and take some of these voters. This is how he narrowly carried IN , PA and ILL and won the election.

You had a second wave of this kind of working class racism, during the early 20th century during the Great Migration because you had African Americans moving from the rural South to the urban North to work in the factories.
Logged

President of the Atlasian Republic


"A majority held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations, and always changing easily with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people." - Lincoln's First Inaugural Address, emphasis mine.
BenBurch
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 441
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.10, S: 7.22

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #155 on: April 14, 2018, 03:39:03 pm »

The Dems were always the party of the poorer, and the Reps the party of the richer.  Their parties stances depended on what their base wanted.  The poor (whites) in the 1800-early 1900's wanted Jim Crow.  So the Dems pandered to that.  See James Cox, the Dem presidential nominee in 1924.  He was a real racist POS.


This is an important point, though Cox was the nominee in 1920.

The Democrats were also more populist owing to their position as a classically liberal party and thus they were also very majoritarian in their view.

This is emphasized in the debates between Lincoln and Douglas were Douglas essentially relegates whether or not you can enslave follow human beings to "popular sovereignty" even if the Supreme Court ruled contrary, which was a term promoted by Lewis Cass before him as well.

This was also a similar basis behind the Trail of Tears. The Democrats ignored the court and pursued what they wanted anyway.

The poor whites enfranchised by the Democrats, were very racists, especially again those ones living in the black belt, in the cities and along the rivers of the South. The ones in the mountains were more passively racist, but were so disconnected from this economic circle, that they voted differently, feeling excluded by the Democrats. They thus voted against secession as well, since they didn't benefit from the slave economy, they weren't going to vote to secede to preserve it.

Yeah, I don't know why I said 1924.  Anyway, I'm not just talking about down South, I'm talking about the factory workers in the North, the Working Class.  They were also racist.  I've seen pictures of lynchings, and race riots from Chicago and the Iron Ring in AP US History.  Those weren't done by Southerners. 

Well obviously, but there is only so much you can fit in one post. Tongue

You had the dynamic of competition for jobs, and this brewed racist sentiments and even pro-slavery ones among Irish backed Democrats in the North. For instance you had the draft riots in NYC, and copperhead activity espoused by some of those "Non-Yankee" white rural in places I talk about and Irish immigrants in the mines of like OH and PA.

These sentiments typically helped the Democrats but by 1860, the combination of the South going too far (Dred Scott), and Lincoln's moderation "Keep slavery to where it is now" basically, enabled them to flip the script and take some of these voters. This is how he narrowly carried IN , PA and ILL and won the election.

You had a second wave of this kind of working class racism, during the early 20th century during the Great Migration because you had African Americans moving from the rural South to the urban North to work in the factories.

I see your point.  Thanks for putting a lot of effort into your answer! 
Logged

Huey Would Have Won!
Erect for Kolchak
Senator-Elect Nelson
politicalmasta73
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,685
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #156 on: April 14, 2018, 03:50:16 pm »

I would also encourage you to look up Ralph Owen Brewster (R-ME) who was alleged to have ties to the KKK.

Also this guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_E._Jenner
and this guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_Welker
yes, there is a myth that reps were perfect on civil rights, while they were just more "moderate" on it.
Logged

My Political Compass

Economic Left/Right: -6.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.36

Favorite Republican- John McCain
Favorite Democrat- Blanche Lincoln
Favorite Presidents- LBJ, FDR, JFK, Carter
Favorite President who never was- Al Gore
President North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 40,199
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #157 on: April 14, 2018, 04:33:05 pm »

I would also encourage you to look up Ralph Owen Brewster (R-ME) who was alleged to have ties to the KKK.

Also this guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_E._Jenner
and this guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_Welker
yes, there is a myth that reps were perfect on civil rights, while they were just more "moderate" on it.

The point is though, there were actually substantial numbers of Representatives and Senators in the GOP in 1940's, among whom Trump would move comfortably, especially among those in the Midwest and some parts of rural New England. Ironically, the very places that Trump made substantial pro-GOP trends happen in 2016. Trumps views are very much in line with the Paleocon beliefs espoused by a large number of voters in the 1940's in rural Midwest and rural New England, in terms of opposing trade, opposing immigration and so forth.

At the same time the Democrats were almost universally for free trade, it was even a key part of the New Deal, and split on immigration.
Logged

President of the Atlasian Republic


"A majority held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations, and always changing easily with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people." - Lincoln's First Inaugural Address, emphasis mine.
darklordoftech
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,882
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #158 on: April 14, 2018, 04:53:48 pm »

Am I correct to notice similarities between the term "Bourbon Democrat" in the second half of the 19th  century and the term "neoliberal" today?
Logged
President North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 40,199
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #159 on: April 14, 2018, 05:36:12 pm »

Am I correct to notice similarities between the term "Bourbon Democrat" in the second half of the 19th  century and the term "neoliberal" today?

Most certainly, as both have ties to financial elites and support in New York for instance. Both are opposed by more populist forces within the party.
Logged

President of the Atlasian Republic


"A majority held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations, and always changing easily with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people." - Lincoln's First Inaugural Address, emphasis mine.
darklordoftech
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,882
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #160 on: April 14, 2018, 05:52:05 pm »

Am I correct to notice similarities between the term "Bourbon Democrat" in the second half of the 19th  century and the term "neoliberal" today?

Most certainly, as both have ties to financial elites and support in New York for instance. Both are opposed by more populist forces within the party.
Indeed, and both are accused of pandering to immigrants to distract voters from class issues.
Logged
darklordoftech
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,882
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #161 on: April 24, 2018, 02:41:05 pm »

"The GOP has always been xenophobic and business-friendly, therefore the parties didn't switch" = slund argument

"Robert Byrd, therefore the Democrats are still racist" = unsound argument

I wonder: In 1924, it was clear from the Democratic Convention that there were major differences between the Northern and Southern Democrats. The Northern Democrats, such as Al Smith and FDR, were urban, Catholic, "wet", and anti-Klan while the Southern Democrats were rural, anti-Catholic, "dry", and pro-Klan. When did the Northern and Southern Democrats become so different?
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines