Will the Republican and Democrat parties ever switch conservative/liberal roles again ?

[deftron]

Just wondering, if anyone thinks that will ever happen again..

It's fascinating that the party that stated with Abraham Lincoln led to
Ronald Reagan, Newt Gingrich, Pat Robertson, and the Bushes.

Lincoln and the original Republican party was ultra liberal (abolished slavery)
and follwers were also very liberal and pro government, like Theodore Roosevelt, who established many goverment
programs to regulate big business (mostly railroads) and passed enviromental and forest conservation acts.


Most Democrats were very conservative back then... mostly by trying to block the civil rights movement, still campaigning states rights
Democrats at that time decended from the Southern democrats of the Confederacy.

I think it was the election of 1960, with Kenedy as as very liberal democrat that brought liberals
to the democrat pary in large numbers, and moved the Southern conservatives to the Republican party, along
with conservative Republican Barry Goldwater's run in 1964.


Anyways, does anyone think there will ever be another about face in these paties ideals, where they will pretty
much swith roles ?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: deftron
Just wondering, if anyone thinks that will ever happen again..

It's fascinating that the party that stated with Abraham Lincoln led to
Ronald Reagan, Newt Gingrich, Pat Robertson, and the Bushes.

Lincoln and the original Republican party was ultra liberal (abolished slavery)
and follwers were also very liberal and pro government, like Theodore Roosevelt, who established many goverment
programs including welfare.


Most Democrats were very conservative back then... mostly by trying to block the civil rights movement, still campaigning states rights
Democrats at that time decended from the Southern democrats of the Confederacy.

I think it was the election of 1960, with Kenedy as as very liberal democrat that brought liberals
to the democrat pary in large numbers, and moved the Southern conservatives to the Republican party, along
with conservative Republican Barry Goldwater's run in 1964.


Anyways, does anyone think there will ever be another about face in these paties ideals, where they will pretty
much swith roles ?

I am not so sure the parties have switched ideals. Republicans have always had very strong voiting record in racial equality legislation.

 

[BDawg]

Originally posted by: deftron
Just wondering, if anyone thinks that will ever happen again..

It's fascinating that the party that stated with Abraham Lincoln led to
Ronald Reagan, Newt Gingrich, Pat Robertson, and the Bushes.

Lincoln and the original Republican party was ultra liberal (abolished slavery)
and follwers were also very liberal and pro government, like Theodore Roosevelt, who established many goverment
programs including welfare.


Most Democrats were very conservative back then... mostly by trying to block the civil rights movement, still campaigning states rights
Democrats at that time decended from the Southern democrats of the Confederacy.

I think it was the election of 1960, with Kenedy as as very liberal democrat that brought liberals
to the democrat pary in large numbers, and moved the Southern conservatives to the Republican party, along
with conservative Republican Barry Goldwater's run in 1964.


Anyways, does anyone think there will ever be another about face in these paties ideals, where they will pretty
much swith roles ?

There wasn't so much of a role switch as there were lots of Christian Conservatives from the south in the Democratic party because they still held a grudge against the Republicans for the Reconstruction.

 

[Zenmervolt]

You've got the wrong Roosevelt as being responsible for welfare. It was FDR, not TR.

From this site.
"Welfare was first established as a federal program during the Great Depression. In 1935, Congress enacted Aid to Dependent Children (ADC), a relatively modest program focused primarily on widows, orphans, divorced or deserted mothers and their children. By 1939, ADC covered only about 700,000 people, and at least two-thirds of eligible children were not covered."

ZV

 

[deftron]

And now most of those conservatives are in the Republican party.

I don't know how charrison claims that Republicns don't traditionally vote against racial equity progression, but they do.

Also, it would be very hard to deny that Republicans claim to be anti big governemt and try to downsize social programs, when
they are the ones who created them (Teddy Roosevelt), while most Democrats now embrace these programs.

 

[ElFenix]

the democrats have always been for the little guy against monied interests since andrew jackson. the republicans were much of the whig party, which was those monied interests. it was FDR that switched the democrats from the states rights party to the socialists they are now in the 1930s.

 

[deftron]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
You've got the wrong Roosevelt as being responsible for welfare. It was FDR, not TR.

From this site.
"Welfare was first established as a federal program during the Great Depression. In 1935, Congress enacted Aid to Dependent Children (ADC), a relatively modest program focused primarily on widows, orphans, divorced or deserted mothers and their children. By 1939, ADC covered only about 700,000 people, and at least two-thirds of eligible children were not covered."

ZV

Youre right, my bad.. and FDR was a Democrat.

but Teddy (Rep.) did do alot to regulate big corporations.. while the big corps today seem to line the Republicans pockets (moreso than the Dems)

 

[Zenmervolt]

Teddy may have been known as the trust-buster, but that's not at odds with the current Republican platform.

ZV

EDIT: There is a common misconception that to be Conservative you must be completely Laissez Faire (sp?). The fact is that without regulation, most big business degenerates into stagnant cartels and there isn't as much incentive for advancement. Plus large cartels create barriers to entry in the market, which also stifles innovation from new entrants. While some Libertarians might advocate a completely free market, but most current Republicans would agree with TR's stand that there need to be some baseline regulations in order to prevent excessive barriers to entry.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: deftron
And now most of those conservatives are in the Republican party.

I don't know how charrison claims that Republicns don't traditionally vote against racial equity progression, but they do.

Also, it would be very hard to deny that Republicans claim to be anti big governemt and try to downsize social programs, when
they are the ones who created them (Teddy Roosevelt), while most Democrats now embrace these programs.

You only have too look at the voting records of the republican party. More often than, the republicans outvoted the democrats on civil rights bills.

 

[feralkid]

Will the Republican and Democrat parties ever switch conservative/liberal roles again ?





Just an F.Y.I. It's called the DEMOCRATIC Party, not the "Democrat Party".

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Teddy may have been known as the trust-buster, but that's not at odds with the current Republican platform.

ZV

EDIT: There is a common misconception that to be Conservative you must be completely Laissez Faire (sp?). The fact is that without regulation, most big business degenerates into stagnant cartels and there isn't as much incentive for advancement. Plus large cartels create barriers to entry in the market, which also stifles innovation from new entrants. While some Libertarians might advocate a completely free market, but most current Republicans would agree with TR's stand that there need to be some baseline regulations in order to prevent excessive barriers to entry.

Nice post.

deftron
You seem to be implying that Republicans are against all civil rights. I don't think that is the case from what I have seen. Republicans are for equality. The bills that democrats like to pillory them over are the affirmative action bills. The exact opposite of equality for all.

 

[uibd]

I've gotta start spending more time in OT. This is something that I've actually been wondering about myself lately. Dem's back in the day were largely states' rights and Rep. were fed. control. The changing of political parties slowed. At first, there were many parties (not saying all at once, but over time), such as the Federalists, Republican-Democrats, Whigs... etc.. Makes me wonder if there will ever be another strong party beyond the Dems and Reps.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: uibd
I've gotta start spending more time in OT. This is something that I've actually been wondering about myself lately. Dem's back in the day were largely states' rights and Rep. were fed. control. The changing of political parties slowed. At first, there were many parties (not saying all at once, but over time), such as the Federalists, Republican-Democrats, Whigs... etc.. Makes me wonder if there will ever be another strong party beyond the Dems and Reps.

Not really, there have only been 2 major parties at any given time.

 

[uibd]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: uibd
I've gotta start spending more time in OT. This is something that I've actually been wondering about myself lately. Dem's back in the day were largely states' rights and Rep. were fed. control. The changing of political parties slowed. At first, there were many parties (not saying all at once, but over time), such as the Federalists, Republican-Democrats, Whigs... etc.. Makes me wonder if there will ever be another strong party beyond the Dems and Reps.

Not really, there have only been 2 major parties at any given time.

That's why i said not saying all at once, but over time.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

What I expect is a lessing in differences as the science of polling improves. Parties will adopt whatever stance gives them the greatest popularity. You would then see even less participation in the voting process, and people scratching their heads wondering why people dont vote.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: uibd

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: uibd
I've gotta start spending more time in OT. This is something that I've actually been wondering about myself lately. Dem's back in the day were largely states' rights and Rep. were fed. control. The changing of political parties slowed. At first, there were many parties (not saying all at once, but over time), such as the Federalists, Republican-Democrats, Whigs... etc.. Makes me wonder if there will ever be another strong party beyond the Dems and Reps.

Not really, there have only been 2 major parties at any given time.

That's why i said not saying all at once, but over time.

All of those parties you mentioned were the Dems and Repubs though. It's just the evolution of the names of the parties.

Federalists -> Whigs -> Republicans
Anti-Federalists -> Democratic-Republicans -> Democrats

ZV

 

[uibd]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: uibd

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: uibd
I've gotta start spending more time in OT. This is something that I've actually been wondering about myself lately. Dem's back in the day were largely states' rights and Rep. were fed. control. The changing of political parties slowed. At first, there were many parties (not saying all at once, but over time), such as the Federalists, Republican-Democrats, Whigs... etc.. Makes me wonder if there will ever be another strong party beyond the Dems and Reps.

Not really, there have only been 2 major parties at any given time.

That's why i said not saying all at once, but over time.

All of those parties you mentioned were the Dems and Repubs though. It's just the evolution of the names of the parties.

Federalists -> Whigs -> Republicans
Anti-Federalists -> Democratic-Republicans -> Democrats

ZV

Somewhat yes... but in reality, new parties came from old parties splitting. For instance, there wasn't much of a two party system when the Democrat-Republicans were around. Only when they split into the Whigs and the Democrats. The Democratic-Republicans were actually a split from the Federalists. But you are right, the ideas of the parties have basically followed the path you outlined.