So, what ever happen to Republican goals?

[Zkribbler]

IIRC, at the beginning of the 20th Century, most Republicans were liberals (like Teddy) and most Democrats were conservatives.

When the Great Depression hit, there was a massive reorganization, with FDR putting together a coalition of liberals, the working class and southern conservatives. The Republicans ended up a mostly center-right party.

However, for decades, both parties were represented along the whole spectrum, when the Dems having a strong left and the Republicans a strong right.

In 1964, Goldwater managed to grab the Republican nomination from the center. That came as a surprise because the center was still strong, and Republican liberals like Nelson Rockefeller were still powerful.

When Nixon ran against Humphrey in 1968, Nixon successfully employed a "Southern Strategy," which peeled off the southern conservatives and added them to the Republicans. By then, the Republican left had almost completely withered away. So, the Republicans were a center-right party and the Democrats a center-left party.

Reagan dealt the death-blow to the remnance of the FDR coalition when he recruited the white working class (the so-called Reagan Democrats) to the Republican cause and turned the Republican Party sharply to the right.

I think the Republicans "really began to suck" following Gingrich's attempt to radically cut back on Medicare, the EPA, and the Depts. of Energy and Education. That took the Party way too far to the right and drove the working class back into the waiting arms of Bill Clinton.

[Sava]

Republicans began to suck with Nixon... IMO... Reagan effectively tipped the scales over to "the evil greedy 4sswipe party"

[Imran Siddiqui]

I think the Republicans "really began to suck" following Gingrich's attempt to radically cut back on Medicare, the EPA, and the Depts. of Energy and Education. That took the Party way too far to the right and drove the working class back into the waiting arms of Bill Clinton.

But they came back to Bush . And the unions were already pro-Dem.

[Lancer]

Zkribbler, my father in law just arrived a couple of days ago from the Phils, first time he's been away.
Anyway, we were discussing our next trip back and he said, "not in 2004". Why says I. "that's election" Oh, who do you think will win? "a rich one"



Like many poor, few words, great wisdom.

[Thud]

he was a Republican then... but today, he'd be a Democrat.

Perhaps this is because America is moving more and more right. Besides Lincoln was a racist, and everyone knows that the Republican party is the party of racists!

[MrFun]

double post

[MrFun]

Originally posted by SlowwHand


I was just wondering, if Lincoln was a water-walker, when exactly did the Republican Presidents begin to suck ?
Not than I count myself as a Republican, as I say, just wondering.

I really find the history of the political changes of the Republican party, and the Democratic party very interesting.

In 1877, the Republican party made a deal -- their candidate would be given the presidency in the closely disputed, questionable election, and in return, they promised Southern Democrats that Union troops would be withdrawn. That was the beginning of the Republican party's betrayal of blacks and white Southern liberals. By the 1890's, the Republican party was really as much of a white supremacist party as the Democratic party already had been.

The Democratic party began to appeal to blacks under the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt, when he began to inch somewhat towards racial equality, and through Eleanor's activism concerning women and blacks. White Southern Democrats felt betrayed by this movement towards liberalism, so they formed the temporary party, the Dixiecrats. Franklin Roosevelt was the first Democratic president to have appealed to popular support of blacks.

That is a summary of what I know -- anyone know more about the political changes of these two parties?

Lincoln was not as blatant of a racist as others, in my opinion -- he did, however, state that the society's appeal to racism would not make it possible for the Republican party to advocate more progressive proposals in race relations.

[Imran Siddiqui]

In 1877, the Republican party made a deal -- their candidate would be given the presidency in the closely disputed, questionable election, and in return, they promised Southern Democrats that Union troops would be withdrawn. That was the beginning of the Republican party's betrayal of blacks and white Southern liberals.

Would you rather a President entered into office with a VP who was an out and out racist and KKK member? Hell, you want to see rollbacks in civil rights for blacks? Imagine if Tilden was elected.

By the 1890's, the Republican party was really as much of a white supremacist party as the Democratic party already had been.

Proof please. Even in 1900, the Republicans were the party of the North (Teddy Roosevelt, William McKinley, Howard Taft). They were much more tolerant of blacks than the Democrats of the Deep South (and the Dems that made Woodrow Wilson President in 1912).

[SlowwHand]

MrFun, at least your hero isn't Castro. That's all I can say.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

In 1877, the Republican party made a deal -- their candidate would be given the presidency in the closely disputed, questionable election, and in return, they promised Southern Democrats that Union troops would be withdrawn. That was the beginning of the Republican party's betrayal of blacks and white Southern liberals.

Would you rather a President entered into office with a VP who was an out and out racist and KKK member? Hell, you want to see rollbacks in civil rights for blacks? Imagine if Tilden was elected.

By the 1890's, the Republican party was really as much of a white supremacist party as the Democratic party already had been.

Proof please. Even in 1900, the Republicans were the party of the North (Teddy Roosevelt, William McKinley, Howard Taft). They were much more tolerant of blacks than the Democrats of the Deep South (and the Dems that made Woodrow Wilson President in 1912).

Just because there were some Republicans who were not racists, does not deny the fact that the Republican party was a white supremacist party by the 1890's. A minority of Republicans remained egalitarian afterwards, yes. For instance, Theodore Roosevelt invited Booker T. Washington to dine with him at the White House on equal terms, much to the disgust of white supremacists -- that was an exception among Republicans.

The decades of 1890's through the 1920's is called the nadir of race relations -- the period where blacks had no political party to look after their interests.

And yes -- in spite of the Republican betrayal by retreating from racial equality, we ended up with lesser of the two evils in 1877.

[Ramo]

Proof please. Even in 1900, the Republicans were the party of the North (Teddy Roosevelt, William McKinley, Howard Taft). They were much more tolerant of blacks than the Democrats of the Deep South (and the Dems that made Woodrow Wilson President in 1912).

The Republicans didn't have any power in the South and blacks didn't live in the North in any great number, so that's pretty much irrelevent. After the Compromise of '77, the Republicans guaranteed a hands off federal policy with respect to blacks in the South, so they were effectively just as racist as the Democrats during the late 19th century.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Just because there were some Republicans who were not racists, does not deny the fact that the Republican party was a white supremacist party by the 1890's.

I asked for proof and got another opinion. Par for the course, MF?

After the Compromise of '77, the Republicans guaranteed a hands off federal policy with respect to blacks in the South, so they were effectively just as racist as the Democrats during this era.

There is no such thing as 'effectively being racists'. Just because you don't pass legislation to benefit blacks doesn't mean that you are racists (in that case Democrats today can be called racists ). This is witnessed by the fact that blacks in MASSIVE numbers voted Republican until the 1930s. You can't be a racist party if a majority of the minority votes for you.

[Ramo]

The Republicans allowed Southern Democrats to steal the liberties of blacks, hence they were racist. If the Democrats today did nothing while the Southern states started taking away the liberties of blacks, the Dems would certainly be racist.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The Republicans allowed Southern Democrats to steal the liberties of blacks, hence they were racist. If the Democrats today did nothing while the Southern states started taking away the liberties of blacks, the Dems would certainly be racist.

That's piss poor logic, Ramo, and you know it.

Standing aside during a racist act (ie, some blacks may say that removing Affirmative Action is racist) does not make you racist. That's just silly.

[Ramo]

Affirmative action (which I don't support personally) is not the issue. Things much more significant were at stake during the late 19th century and partiuclarly during the 1890's. The fundamental liberties of blacks were being taken away from them. When the Republicans chose not to enforce the Constitution in the South to protect blacks, that was racist.

If tomorrow, the Democrats stand by while Southern states start taking away the votes of blacks, honestly, do you think that wouldn't be racist?