You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
0

[–] FuckYouReddit- ago 

The Democratic party started as the conservative party (the guys that liked slavery) while the Republicans were the liberal party and they ended up switching stances between the end of the 19th and the early 20th centuries.

Dude you actually believe that shit?

REALLY?

ONE, I say again ONE republican switched sides. His name was Strom Thurmond. The rest continued to do the things that FREED THE FUCKING SLAVES. Like the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments. All amendments that republicans overwhelmingly voted for and that democrats overwhelmingly voted against.

0
0

[–] LinoleumFulcrum ago 

There is a large body of historical evidence that appears to support this claim:

"...During the 1860s, Republicans, who dominated northern states, orchestrated an ambitious expansion of federal power, helping to fund the transcontinental railroad, the state university system and the settlement of the West by homesteaders, and instating a national currency and protective tariff. Democrats, who dominated the South, opposed these measures.

After the Civil War, Republicans passed laws that granted protections for African Americans and advanced social justice; Democrats, largely in the south, opposed these expansions.

These two positions remained more or less stable until the Great Depression when Democratic president Franklin Roosevelt won reelection that year on the strength of the New Deal, a set of Depression-remedying reforms and expansions of federal power including regulation of financial institutions, founding of welfare and pension programs, infrastructure development and more. Roosevelt won in a landslide against Republican Alf Landon, who opposed these exercises of federal power.[1]

Sometime between the 1860s and 1936, the (Democratic) party of small government became the party of big government, and the (Republican) party of big government became rhetorically committed to curbing federal power. This ideological change was partly due to President Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal..." from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_switching_in_the_United_States

LiveScience

"...In other words, as the Democratic Party became more progressive in the progressive era, it attracted progressives from the Republican party and alienated the small government socially conservative south. Meanwhile, as the Republican party “conserved” toward Gilded Age politics in the 20th century, and embraced socially conservative single-issue voter groups and individualism, it attracted the “solid south” (their leadership and voter base) and alienated progressives. These two factors, and many more explained in detail below, substantially changed the party platforms, seats held in congress, and the voting maps over the course of the 20th century (AKA the 20th century reversal, or the 20th century political realignment, or “the switch”)..." from FactMyth

Quora

Medium

It does not matter which label is applied to the party - that is irrelevant and an attempt to distract from the actual discussion; the behaviour of the party is what is being discussed here (re. D'Souza's comment). The Democrats used to be the right wing and the Republicans used to be the left, now they have switched places.

0
0

[–] FuckYouReddit- ago 

OK, first off, I gotta argue some of your points, because you're using wikipedia, and it's become a den of lies. Just consider the different interpretations of Black Power and White Power. That's as biased as you can get.

Sometime between the 1860s and 1936, the (Democratic) party of small government became the party of big government, and the (Republican) party of big government became rhetorically committed to curbing federal power.

Good. Not sure how the republican party can SUDDENLY become the party of big power sometime between the 1860's and 1936 when the RNC was only formed in 1854. So they were one way for as little as 6 years before suddenly shifting.....or possibly 80 years later? Seems pretty weak to me.

Meanwhile, as the Republican party “conserved” toward Gilded Age politics in the 20th century, and embraced socially conservative single-issue voter groups and individualism, it attracted the “solid south” (their leadership and voter base) and alienated progressive

So why is it that it wasn't until 1992 that the RNC had more seats in the south than the Dems?

During the 1860s, Republicans, who dominated northern states, orchestrated an ambitious expansion of federal power, helping to fund the transcontinental railroad, the state university system and the settlement of the West by homesteaders, and instating a national currency and protective tariff.

Well settling the west and the transcontinental railroad seems like good things, don't you agree? While we can argue over the state university system (I prefer a private system myself), why are those continental expansionist policies a bad thing?

But the biggest thing I see is this:

After the Civil War, Republicans passed laws that granted protections for African Americans and advanced social justice; Democrats, largely in the south, opposed these expansions.

That is the conservative stance that they've always believed in and something I've always supported. Individual freedoms. Something the Dems opposed all along the way.