political party position reversals over time

There have been several post in the sandbox about old-time Republicans and Democrats. But both parties have traded sides on most issues over the years. A Republican from 1890 is a different creature from a Republican today. A Southern Democrat from 1950 is different from a Illinois Democrat today.

Instead, I'd like to look at the parties through the conservative/progressive lens. Republican Teddy Roosevelt was progressive. So was (former Whig) Abe Lincoln in his own way.

I think Republican President Gerald Ford said it best, "If Lincoln were alive today, he'd be turning over in his grave."

When you have to say "in his own way" then you have just lost your argument.

I mourn for the liberal president who wanted a strong military, lower taxes, a strong foreign policy, and a capitalistic economy. Yes, I'm talking about John F. Kennedy who in his day was a liberal. Today he would be a conservative battling against the social/communists masquerading as democrats.

Even Hubert Humphrey, known in his day as a very liberal, warned against too many welfare programs, out of wedlock births, and the plantation mindset that democrats wanted for black people.

John_Galt,
JFK was NOT a liberal in the sense of a liberal today. If you're into economic history, when he was president, he was the most conservative president since William McKinley. He did extend tax breaks for the rich, but the rich weren't greedy like today's ultra wealthy. Today, every rich person wants to be the next billionaire, no matter whose life is destroyed in the process. It's all about power and greed. This attitude started with Reaganomics and hasn't ceased.

JFK was NOT a liberal in the sense of a liberal today. If you're into economic history, when he was president, he was the most conservative president since William McKinley. He did extend tax breaks for the rich, but the rich weren't greedy like today's ultra wealthy. Today, every rich person wants to be the next billionaire, no matter whose life is destroyed in the process. It's all about power and greed. This attitude started with Reaganomics and hasn't ceased. Originally Posted by N2SEX46

Hate to break it to you and your biased opinion, but in the early '60s, JFK was considered a liberal. Yes, by today's standards he would be defined as an economic conservative and a social liberal - but he would have still been defined as a liberal. As far as his tax breaks, they weren't strictly for the rich - JFK proposed across-the-board tax cuts. And the rich have always wanted to get richer, regardless of the time period they are in - and I have no problem with that. Just like I want to get richer. This attitude has been around longer than Reagan - in fact (if you believe the stories in the oldest fictional book ever written, the Bible) this attitude has been around since Homo sapiens walked the earth.

"but the rich weren't greedy like today's ultra wealthy"

...are you talking about George Soros or Al Gore?

I'd like to hear how Reagonomics made rich people greedy...but really I'd rather not. I would encourage you to read up on Vanderbilt, JP Morgan, etc., though. Knowledge is power.

Back to the subject, the biggest historical flip I can find is civil rights. The Democrats almost blocked the civil rights act...and now they consistently get over 90% of the black vote. Truly amazing.

N2SEX46, I guess the irony of my words was lost on you. I defer to Fritz for my rebuttal.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed with a greater percentage of GOP votes than democrat votes. LBJ gave credit for it's passing to GOP Senator Everett Dirkensen of Illinois and blasted the democrats for their filibuster by people like Robert Byrd (WV), Al Gore Sr. (TN), and Fulbright (AR) who was acknowledged as Bill Clintons mentor.

John_Galt,
JFK was NOT a liberal in the sense of a liberal today. If you're into economic history, when he was president, he was the most conservative president since William McKinley. He did extend tax breaks for the rich, but the rich weren't greedy like today's ultra wealthy. Today, every rich person wants to be the next billionaire, no matter whose life is destroyed in the process. It's all about power and greed. This attitude started with Reaganomics and hasn't ceased. Originally Posted by N2SEX46

Did you never hear about John D Rockefeller, founder of Standard Oil Company? Greed is not new.

Fellas, you have to understand that the new progressive movement has to sell the idea that greed is new, see it was this "new" excessive greed which almost caused the collapse of the united states and plunged us into our current recession/depression. This has to be a recent phenomenum in order to justify changes and controls being implimented thus beginning the end of Capitalism and the slide towards socialism. If this greed was in fact something that has been around for ever and the driving force in inovation and technological advancement (every businessman wants the new hot and better product in order to get richer, it is greed that drive inovation), if people new this than it would be harder to sell the need for the implimentation of policies that punish the greedy corperations. So the game plan must include creating a public perception that this greed is new and must be immediately controled. Why do you think that has been the big media and administration push to paint all large companies as greedy evil empires.

When you have to say "in his own way" then you have just lost your argument.

I mourn for the liberal president who wanted a strong military, lower taxes, a strong foreign policy, and a capitalistic economy. Yes, I'm talking about John F. Kennedy who in his day was a liberal. Today he would be a conservative battling against the social/communists masquerading as democrats.

Even Hubert Humphrey, known in his day as a very liberal, warned against too many welfare programs, out of wedlock births, and the plantation mindset that democrats wanted for black people. Originally Posted by john_galt

Just to play devil's advocate, liberals could mourn the president who founded the EPA, negotiated the first nuclear arms control treaty, boasted of being the first president to spend more on social programs than the military, and gave William F. Buckley a conniption by breaking the ice on a 25 year freeze in relations with the most populous Communist nation on Earth. Yes, I'm talking about that infamous socialist, Richard Nixon.

Both sides have moved away from the center in the last 20 years.

Well, monikers like "liberal" and "conservative" have to be taken in the context of their days. I just finished "John Adams" by McCullough. By the standards of his day, Adams was not only liberal, he was radical. But he also believed in, and helped create, the 3 branch governing system we have today specifically to keep any one branch from controlling the other. He was also devoutly religious and believed wholeheartedly that God had given us our freedoms as divine providence. Jefferson, who was the "Republican" candidate had serious misgivings about God in general and his role in government in particular.

Moving on to Truman (also by McCullough..that guy is FANTASTIC to read), he was a Democrat. And he was a strong advocate of the New Deal and party politics. He feared big business, believed the government had not only the right, but the responsibility, to reign in big businesses, especially when they threatened the economy. All very liberal for his time. However, he would NEVER have supported anything like gay rights or abortion. He favored the farmer and fought the unions several times. He had the utmost respect for the military and called Marshall one of the greatest American in history. He was also devoutly loyal to his cabinet (and friends), even when it cost him political capital or bad PR.

That was just a little over 50 years ago! But, as a contrast to today. Truman spent almost 30 years as an officer in the National Guard (several of those on Active Duty and serving in combat in WWI). 8 years as a County Judge (when they were more like administrators), 10 years as a US Senator, less than a year as VP and almost 8 as the President. But when he walked out of office, after almost 30 years in public office, 19 of it at the Federal level, he had no pension, no Secret Service protection (even though there'd been an assassination attempt on him during office), no public funds for his Presidential Library, no secretaries, office help, no health care or anything! He had to raise his own money to pay for the library and had to sell his biography to Time Books to pay for his own security and secretaries!

As opposed to today when a Senator gets a pension after only 5 years service (even if he leaves dishonorably) at age 62. If he serves 20 years he can get it at 50 (which almost a given they'll be over 50!). A president gets almost $200,000 for life after one-term and a LOT of money for a library. Interestingly enough, only Presidents Clinton and before get lifetime Secret Service. W is only going to get 10 years protection!

Our politicians have definitely become a "separate" class unto themselves. And, back to my point, Adams feared that more than ANYTHING! He feared a government run by people that were removed from their constituents that would fail to properly represent their needs in governing. Both he and Jefferson agreed that when THAT happened, the people had a RIGHT to revolt against that government. And while Jefferson actually thought an armed revolution every now and then was a good thing, Adams would have been more inclined to say that we can revolt by throwing out those that fail to uphold their sworn duties. I hope we all do that in November, regardless of your leanings.

N2SEX46, I guess the irony of my words was lost on you. I defer to Fritz for my rebuttal.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed with a greater percentage of GOP votes than democrat votes. LBJ gave credit for it's passing to GOP Senator Everett Dirkensen of Illinois and blasted the democrats for their filibuster by people like Robert Byrd (WV), Al Gore Sr. (TN), and Fulbright (AR) who was acknowledged as Bill Clintons mentor. Originally Posted by john_galt

Thank you, JG. As well as pointing out the fact the Dems were the party primarily against the Civil Rights Act.

In addition, Nixon, Ford and Bush 41 were not conservatives - they were moderates ("RINO"s) and were more concerned with what the Washington Post would write about them and what the Washington elite thought about them. They campaigned as most presidents have - appeal to the core for the primary, move to the center for the general election and govern from the center to show they are "balanced".

Our politicians have definitely become a "separate" class unto themselves. And, back to my point, Adams feared that more than ANYTHING! He feared a government run by people that were removed from their constituents that would fail to properly represent their needs in governing. Both he and Jefferson agreed that when THAT happened, the people had a RIGHT to revolt against that government. And while Jefferson actually thought an armed revolution every now and then was a good thing, Adams would have been more inclined to say that we can revolt by throwing out those that fail to uphold their sworn duties. I hope we all do that in November, regardless of your leanings. Originally Posted by Sens55

I'm all for either armed rebellion or for throwing out the bums, all the bums, in November. I hope the latter is the preferred method of rebellion, for if it doesn't work, and the Dems are still in charge come Jan. 2011, then the former may just take place.

I am not for armed rebellion yet... but I would support massive civil disobedience campaigns. I would like, and I think I will, see a governor REFUSE to obey federal mandates and force Obama's hand. I don't know if that counts as rebellion and it was a favorite tactic of the left in the 70s. What do you do if a state does not resist but does not obey? For all you Trekkers out there, think the last episode of Star Trek. Dr. Janice Lester was occuping the body of our favorite Captain and everyone assumed that was indeed the Captain issuing unlawful orders. The junior officers did not desert their posts but they refused to follow orders.

Sens55, for the benefit of other readers, there was not Republican party in the days of Jefferson and Adams. There was a school of thought that wanted a strong central government and another group that wanted a more state centric government. It is important to note that neither side advocated absolute power by one side or the other. Adams and Jefferson both recognized the need for a centrol government and both recognized the need for individual state experiments. How much is the basis of our political system.

When you have to say "in his own way" then you have just lost your argument.

I mourn for the liberal president who wanted a strong military, lower taxes, a strong foreign policy, and a capitalistic economy. Yes, I'm talking about John F. Kennedy who in his day was a liberal. Today he would be a conservative battling against the social/communists masquerading as democrats.

Even Hubert Humphrey, known in his day as a very liberal, warned against too many welfare programs, out of wedlock births, and the plantation mindset that democrats wanted for black people. Originally Posted by john_galt

1. I will have lost my argument sometime after you have offered proof that Lincoln was not progressive, not before, and not just because you say I have.

2. The idea of JFK being a conservative is laughable. So is your accusation about Democrats. (BTW, Democrats is capitalized.)

3. Dixiecrats are what you're talking about, not northern Democrats. Dixiecrats lived in the South and are an extinct species. As we all know, the South has always been a problem for the United States. From the Civil War era to the hillbilly GOP backers that live in the South today, the South is always looking for a way to stall progress.

"2. The idea of JFK being a conservative is laughable. So is your accusation about Democrats. (BTW, Democrats is capitalized.)"

point of order Mr. Chairman, this committe owes my client an appology errr... sorry wrong thread, LOL anyway actually compared to todays Dem party Kennedy would in fact be a blue dog Democrat.

"From the Civil War era to the hillbilly GOP backers that live in the South today, the South is always looking for a way to stall progress. "

Ah excuse me but last I checked Florida was in the south and there are not a lot of hillbillys running around, there a large number of old Jewish woman.

But the reality is until your party decides to kick the grand cyclops out of office in Carolina, then you party has zero credibility with me. I did some reading on Mr. Byrd and I find it amazing that he admits "I left the clan because it would be easier to get elected" I would have liked to hear him denounce the actions of the clan, but hey he's a Dem so I guess all is forgiven.