Welcome to Gaia! ::

Why do people say being a republican is different today versus like 50-100 years ago? Whats the difference now versus then? I have heard that a lot from my VERY liberal grandmother and from basic history classes. History is my absolute WORST subject so I was wondering if anyone can clear that up thanks!
Wendigo's avatar

Manly Explorer

8,750 Points
  • Invisibility 100
  • Money Never Sleeps 200
  • Super Tipsy 200
Well, originally, the Republican party (to wit, the "party of Lincoln" ) was defined by abolitionism. Since abolitionism comes into conflict with "states' rights" and with the property 'rights' of slave-owners, it's a form of big government.

The one thing I ever hear consistently from Republicans NOWADAYS is that "big government" is bad. Reagan, for example, said that "government isn't the solution, government is the problem." And Grover Norquist, the evil wizard who holds the entire House of Representatives in his thrall, once suggested that he just wants the government to shrink down small enough that he can "drown it in a bathtub."

The one and the other would not appear to be consistent.
What I don't get is why people would vote for people running for government office that claim that government is the problem. It would seem to me they would work their asses off to make that a self-fulling prophesy, and pretty much have.

There is a role for government out there and making it small enough to drown in a bathtub isn't it.
Ammo Amy
What I don't get is why people would vote for people running for government office that claim that government is the problem. It would seem to me they would work their asses off to make that a self-fulling prophesy, and pretty much have.

There is a role for government out there and making it small enough to drown in a bathtub isn't it.

If only people wouldn't vote like that, these runners would have to hide the motive until they're elected, which totally prevents them from...wait no, it's more like it doesn't make a lick of difference.
I understand that pretending representative democracy works as intended is fun, so just purge this from your memory. I'm just musing, not trying to spoil the 'MURICAN DREAM.
Eyerunny
Ammo Amy
What I don't get is why people would vote for people running for government office that claim that government is the problem. It would seem to me they would work their asses off to make that a self-fulling prophesy, and pretty much have.

There is a role for government out there and making it small enough to drown in a bathtub isn't it.

If only people wouldn't vote like that, these runners would have to hide the motive until they're elected, which totally prevents them from...wait no, it's more like it doesn't make a lick of difference.
I understand that pretending representative democracy works as intended is fun, so just purge this from your memory. I'm just musing, not trying to spoil the 'MURICAN DREAM.


Because republicans try to hope that they can actually get the people elected who actually want to show some financial sense and do NOT want the feds involved in every inch of our lives, telling us what is and isn't acceptable? And yeah, I am bitching about their involvement from both sides on issues of privacy they shouldn't have any damn say in.
Anyone that votes FOR more big government obviously isn't capable of tending their own issues and wants big sis up their a** with a flash light.
Ban's avatar

Jeering Regular

Awkward Turtle Life
Why do people say being a republican is different today versus like 50-100 years ago? Whats the difference now versus then? I have heard that a lot from my VERY liberal grandmother and from basic history classes. History is my absolute WORST subject so I was wondering if anyone can clear that up thanks!
Just to be very circumspect:

Back during 1940s and 50s, everyone was still pretty racist in the South, what with segregation and racially restrictive covenants and all of that. And the Democrats held power in the South, because they were the party that supported Labor interests, and the vast majority of people who had the vote in the South were working class folks. However, Southern Dems and Northern Dems were sharply divided over the issue of segregation and enfranchisement of blacks. So, in 1948, when Northern Dems pushed for civil rights to be added to the Party's platform, a lot of those conservative, racist Southern Democrats went over to the Republicans, who were, at the time, more classical liberals; that is, they were about individual freedom, limited government, and laissez faire economic policies.

And, though it took time, the Republican demographics began to change as they started to gain power by playing towards their expanding Southern base. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 caused huge defections in the Democratic Party over to the Republicans, and Republican strategists played off the Southern antipathy towards blacks with the "Southern Strategy" to win a huge amount of support from, well, racists.

The second change I would point to would be the alignment with the Moral Majority and other Evangelical political groups in the 80s, which firmly cemented the Republican Party as the Party that wanted to legislate religion. Which, in a roundabout way, is why you have Republicans trying to explain to women what rape is, which I can't imagine Dwight Eisenhower ever attempting. That man had some ******** dignity.
I always love how the GOP says the government is incompetent when they themselves make it that way. Government isn't incompetent, they are.
Prince Ikari 's avatar

Conservative Hero

Since I am the only Republican posting here I will try my best to give you a brief summary of the Party. The truth is, those who talk about the Party 50 or 100 years ago have no clue as to what they are talking about. The Party was not radically different back then than it is now. Geographical differences are the most noticeable change, and underlying that are demographic differences as well. It is true that the Republican Party is much more conservative now than it was in the past, but the Republican Party has always had a conservative wing especially in the Midwest. Ohio Senator Robert Taft who served for decades stretching as far back as the Great Depression is probably the most prominent conservative from back then. He and other conservative Republicans worked with Southern Democrats to control Congress from the 1930s to the 1960s.

Usually when people think of the Republican Party of the past they think about the moderate wing of the Party that dominated the North for about a century without remembering that there was just as strong a conservative wing. From the founding of the Party in 1856 to the time of Eisenhower the South was solidly Democrat. Occasionally Republicans could narrowly flip states like Tennessee because Eastern Tennessee, was always loyal to the United States even during the Civil War. The Republican Party has dominated that area even to this day.

But the Republican Party was founded by former Whigs and abolitionists in the North. Ripon, Wisconsin is believed to be the birthplace of the Party. The Party believed in free soil for those who wanted to settle out West, free labor, and free men, a reference to abolishing slavery once and for all. The base of the Party back then was primarily Protestant, Anglo-Americans, women, African-Americans, and those a part of the business community. African-Americans were solidly behind the Party of Lincoln from the Emancipation until the 1930s given the Party's support of civil rights for African-Americans. And women supported the Party because the Party supported women's suffrage and was instrumental in giving women the right to vote. Susan B. Anthony, one of the most if not the most prominent women's suffragist at the time noted proudly that during the 1872 elections, that she voted straight ticket Republican, even though it was illegal at that time for women to vote. And the Party had always supported businesses and laissez-faire capitalism.

During that time the Party was also strong in many large American cities such as Philadelphia. Even Chicago at one time voted Republican and had Republican mayors. Protestants in the North were strongly behind the Republican Party, and pushed for prohibition, as opposed to Catholics which were strongly Democrat.

By the early 1900s a new political ideology came into the fold as a result of deplorable inequality and living conditions in the cities - progressivism. Progressivism is modern liberalism today. Liberalism back then known as classical liberalism, was more closely aligned with conservatism and libertarianism today. The main push behind progressivism is this notion of social justice. Progressivism had established itself as a wing in both major parties. Theodore Roosevelt being the most prominent progressive Republican. He was a staunch advocate of environmental conservation, used executive orders to by-pass Congress, supported anti-trust legislation that broke up monopolies, and at one point even supported the creation of a national health service to provide all Americans with universal access to affordable healthcare. The most prominent progressive Democrat was Woodrow Wilson, who created the Federal Reserve and signed into law the Federal Income Tax. But the conservative wing of the Republican Party eventually kicked the progressives like Roosevelt out and they either went off to the Progressive Party or to the Democratic Party. They would never return to the Republican Party.

By the 1920s Americans had grown sick of progressivism. Under progressivism the economy had stagnated, and America had become involved in a world war. During the 1920s conservative Republicans promised economic prosperity and a return to normalcy for all Americans. The 1920s was dominated by pro-business fiscal conservatism. The symbol of that philosophy was Republican Calvin Coolidge. A native of Vermont and later Governor of Massachusetts, once President he would intervene in the affairs of the economy as little as possible. The Federal Income Tax for the richest dropped from 70% to 25% and the United States saw an explosion of wealth. New millionaires were popping up overnight as a result of this boom. And like all Republicans before him, he deplored racism. It was under his presidency that the KKK, whom he despised lost all of its glory. It has never seen the membership rate it had back then even to this day. He believed the government should play as little a role as possible, and greatly inspired later Republican and conservative champion Ronald Reagan.

During the 30s progressive policies came roaring back. The only check to the New Deal and the Great Society there was, was the coalition of conservative Republicans and Southern Democrats which dominated Congress for 30 years. It was during this time that the Republican Party's base began to change. The immigration of Irish Catholics to New England saw the decline of Protestant Anglo-American Republicanism which most people associate the past Republican Party with. Those moderate and conservative New England Republicans would eventually fade away and be replaced by liberal Irish Catholic Democrats. The immigration of Italians to Chicago would see the end of the Republican machine there and perpetual Democratic dominance. African-Americans hit particularly hard during the Depression flocked to the New Deal Democrats to help alleviate their poverty. The Republicans have never won a majority of them in an election since. And once they moved to the cities starting during World War II, and the whites fled, all of the Republican support in most major cities disappeared with it and moved to the suburbs.

The modern Republican Party can trace its roots to the 1960s. Liberals in the Democratic Party joined Republicans and passing civil rights legislation in Congress, which alienated the South which championed racial segregation. Libertarian-minded Republicans such as Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater who did not believe in the federal government intervening in issues he saw as states ones, appealed to those Southerns and only won a handful of Southern states in the Johnson landslide of 64. Sensing on this dissatisfaction, Richard Nixon came up with what is known as the "Southern Strategy" to try and gain support from those who were upset about desegregation and ever since the South has supported the Republican Party. Northern Republicans who were more moderate and had supported civil rights for African-Americans were upset about the Party appealing to those disenfranchised Southerns and slowly began moving away from the Republican Party as Southerns joined and began steering the Party in a more conservative direction. One of the last prominent moderate/liberal Republicans was New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller.

Under Ronald Reagan, the modern-day champion of conservatism, returned the Party to the principles of men like Coolidge who believed in free-market capitalism and limited government intrusion. Like Coolidge, Reagan went after the unions and had some successes. Reagan a strong believer in American exceptionalism, waged the ideological war against the Soviets and was instrumental in defeating the Soviets and freeing Eastern Europe. To this day most Republicans try and follow in his mold. Republicans of the past were more isolationist, while neoconservatives, former liberals who believed in using the power of the United States to spread democracy abroad changed the face of the Party on foreign policy. The Party now enjoys more support from whites than the Democratic Party, is split with the Democrats 50/50 with Catholics, and is still the majority Party for Protestants, especially evangelical ones who have come to represent the social conservative wing of the Party. The Party is also still the party of business, at least that is the perception, is still staunchly opposed to progressives, and is well under-represented among minorities who once saw the Party as a champion for civil rights.

While the Party in the past had both a strong conservative and a strong moderate wing, most moderates no longer support the Party, and states like Vermont, which had voted Republican in every presidential election from 1856 to 1992, with the exception of 1964, moved into the Democratic column as liberals from New York moved in. A Democrat had not won the governor's seat in Vermont for 108 years. Vermont along with Maine were the only two states that voted against FDR all four times. In fact George W. Bush in 2000 was the first Republican to ever win election without Vermont. Now both of those states are solidly Democrat. Vermont, once a deeply New England bastion of Republicanism is now served in the Senate by the only self-proclaimed socialist in the entire body. In short, the only real difference in the Party is that the moderate wing has disappeared, leaving the Party more conservative, with many libertarian elements as well. The Party now dominates the South and continues to draw strong support in the Midwest, while it has nearly lost all of its support in New England and out on the Pacific Coasts.

The Party went from half and half to 70% conservative, 30% moderate, while at the same time the Democratic Party has lost its conservative wing, and much of its moderate wing is disappearing as its liberal one grows. So that is the state of the parties currently.
GunsmithKitten's avatar

Aged Lunatic

Awkward Turtle Life
Why do people say being a republican is different today versus like 50-100 years ago? Whats the difference now versus then? I have heard that a lot from my VERY liberal grandmother and from basic history classes. History is my absolute WORST subject so I was wondering if anyone can clear that up thanks!


Google a political phenomenon called the "Southern Strategy". That was a big turning point as well.
Ban
Awkward Turtle Life
Why do people say being a republican is different today versus like 50-100 years ago? Whats the difference now versus then? I have heard that a lot from my VERY liberal grandmother and from basic history classes. History is my absolute WORST subject so I was wondering if anyone can clear that up thanks!
Just to be very circumspect:

Back during 1940s and 50s, everyone was still pretty racist in the South, what with segregation and racially restrictive covenants and all of that. And the Democrats held power in the South, because they were the party that supported Labor interests, and the vast majority of people who had the vote in the South were working class folks. However, Southern Dems and Northern Dems were sharply divided over the issue of segregation and enfranchisement of blacks. So, in 1948, when Northern Dems pushed for civil rights to be added to the Party's platform, a lot of those conservative, racist Southern Democrats went over to the Republicans, who were, at the time, more classical liberals; that is, they were about individual freedom, limited government, and laissez faire economic policies.

And, though it took time, the Republican demographics began to change as they started to gain power by playing towards their expanding Southern base. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 caused huge defections in the Democratic Party over to the Republicans, and Republican strategists played off the Southern antipathy towards blacks with the "Southern Strategy" to win a huge amount of support from, well, racists.

The second change I would point to would be the alignment with the Moral Majority and other Evangelical political groups in the 80s, which firmly cemented the Republican Party as the Party that wanted to legislate religion. Which, in a roundabout way, is why you have Republicans trying to explain to women what rape is, which I can't imagine Dwight Eisenhower ever attempting. That man had some ******** dignity.

You have some of the most informative posts. I didn't know a whit about any of that.
Also the Overton Window has shifted toward the right for some time. Many things that were seen as downright conservative and republican ideas just 20 years ago are now seen as "liberal" concepts. That will cause a lot of people to talk about how most liberals are really just centrist as well.

A great example of this is Obamacare, which is clearly not seen as a republican concept these days, despite the fact that the vast majority of its roots came from the plan Newt Gingrich and the Heritage Foundation produced in response to Hillary Clinton's far more liberal Universal Health Care solution in the 90's.
Old Blue Collar Joe
Eyerunny
Ammo Amy
What I don't get is why people would vote for people running for government office that claim that government is the problem. It would seem to me they would work their asses off to make that a self-fulling prophesy, and pretty much have.

There is a role for government out there and making it small enough to drown in a bathtub isn't it.

If only people wouldn't vote like that, these runners would have to hide the motive until they're elected, which totally prevents them from...wait no, it's more like it doesn't make a lick of difference.
I understand that pretending representative democracy works as intended is fun, so just purge this from your memory. I'm just musing, not trying to spoil the 'MURICAN DREAM.


Because republicans try to hope that they can actually get the people elected who actually want to show some financial sense and do NOT want the feds involved in every inch of our lives, telling us what is and isn't acceptable? And yeah, I am bitching about their involvement from both sides on issues of privacy they shouldn't have any damn say in.
Anyone that votes FOR more big government obviously isn't capable of tending their own issues and wants big sis up their a** with a flash light.


What I don't understand is that if Republicans are for small government and not wanting the feds involved in every inch of our lives then why are they anti-gay marriage and pro-drug war? Both laws on marriage and drugs are the government overstepping greatly.
Mei tsuki7
Old Blue Collar Joe
Eyerunny
Ammo Amy
What I don't get is why people would vote for people running for government office that claim that government is the problem. It would seem to me they would work their asses off to make that a self-fulling prophesy, and pretty much have.

There is a role for government out there and making it small enough to drown in a bathtub isn't it.

If only people wouldn't vote like that, these runners would have to hide the motive until they're elected, which totally prevents them from...wait no, it's more like it doesn't make a lick of difference.
I understand that pretending representative democracy works as intended is fun, so just purge this from your memory. I'm just musing, not trying to spoil the 'MURICAN DREAM.


Because republicans try to hope that they can actually get the people elected who actually want to show some financial sense and do NOT want the feds involved in every inch of our lives, telling us what is and isn't acceptable? And yeah, I am bitching about their involvement from both sides on issues of privacy they shouldn't have any damn say in.
Anyone that votes FOR more big government obviously isn't capable of tending their own issues and wants big sis up their a** with a flash light.


What I don't understand is that if Republicans are for small government and not wanting the feds involved in every inch of our lives then why are they anti-gay marriage and pro-drug war? Both laws on marriage and drugs are the government overstepping greatly.


Said many times send every married couple a civil union certificate, and marriage no longer exists as far as a government tax bracket. You have Civil Union instead.
Marriage reverts back to a strictly religious institution and is true separation of church and state.
As for drugs? Pot I would have legalized and taxed. The rest? I'd still wage a war against because it does a lot more harm than good.
Old Blue Collar Joe
Mei tsuki7
Old Blue Collar Joe
Eyerunny
Ammo Amy
What I don't get is why people would vote for people running for government office that claim that government is the problem. It would seem to me they would work their asses off to make that a self-fulling prophesy, and pretty much have.

There is a role for government out there and making it small enough to drown in a bathtub isn't it.

If only people wouldn't vote like that, these runners would have to hide the motive until they're elected, which totally prevents them from...wait no, it's more like it doesn't make a lick of difference.
I understand that pretending representative democracy works as intended is fun, so just purge this from your memory. I'm just musing, not trying to spoil the 'MURICAN DREAM.


Because republicans try to hope that they can actually get the people elected who actually want to show some financial sense and do NOT want the feds involved in every inch of our lives, telling us what is and isn't acceptable? And yeah, I am bitching about their involvement from both sides on issues of privacy they shouldn't have any damn say in.
Anyone that votes FOR more big government obviously isn't capable of tending their own issues and wants big sis up their a** with a flash light.


What I don't understand is that if Republicans are for small government and not wanting the feds involved in every inch of our lives then why are they anti-gay marriage and pro-drug war? Both laws on marriage and drugs are the government overstepping greatly.


Said many times send every married couple a civil union certificate, and marriage no longer exists as far as a government tax bracket. You have Civil Union instead.
Marriage reverts back to a strictly religious institution and is true separation of church and state.
As for drugs? Pot I would have legalized and taxed. The rest? I'd still wage a war against because it does a lot more harm than good.


I would take it a step further and just dissolve any type of government sponsored union altogether. The government should not be saying who is married/in a union at all. Such a thing is between the couple and their god if they have one.

I will say this though, marriage was never strictly religious. At it's oldest it was always political and/or financial.

But it's still something that we should have a choice in doing isn't it? I mean, we should get to choose what we do to our own body's. Getting a tattoo on your forehead tends to do more harm than good but we're not going to tell people they can't do it. I just think the actions done while on drugs should be what's illegal or not. Not the action of taking them.
Mei tsuki7
Old Blue Collar Joe
Mei tsuki7
Old Blue Collar Joe
Eyerunny
Ammo Amy
What I don't get is why people would vote for people running for government office that claim that government is the problem. It would seem to me they would work their asses off to make that a self-fulling prophesy, and pretty much have.

There is a role for government out there and making it small enough to drown in a bathtub isn't it.

If only people wouldn't vote like that, these runners would have to hide the motive until they're elected, which totally prevents them from...wait no, it's more like it doesn't make a lick of difference.
I understand that pretending representative democracy works as intended is fun, so just purge this from your memory. I'm just musing, not trying to spoil the 'MURICAN DREAM.


Because republicans try to hope that they can actually get the people elected who actually want to show some financial sense and do NOT want the feds involved in every inch of our lives, telling us what is and isn't acceptable? And yeah, I am bitching about their involvement from both sides on issues of privacy they shouldn't have any damn say in.
Anyone that votes FOR more big government obviously isn't capable of tending their own issues and wants big sis up their a** with a flash light.


What I don't understand is that if Republicans are for small government and not wanting the feds involved in every inch of our lives then why are they anti-gay marriage and pro-drug war? Both laws on marriage and drugs are the government overstepping greatly.


Said many times send every married couple a civil union certificate, and marriage no longer exists as far as a government tax bracket. You have Civil Union instead.
Marriage reverts back to a strictly religious institution and is true separation of church and state.
As for drugs? Pot I would have legalized and taxed. The rest? I'd still wage a war against because it does a lot more harm than good.


I would take it a step further and just dissolve any type of government sponsored union altogether. The government should not be saying who is married/in a union at all. Such a thing is between the couple and their god if they have one.

I will say this though, marriage was never strictly religious. At it's oldest it was always political and/or financial.

But it's still something that we should have a choice in doing isn't it? I mean, we should get to choose what we do to our own body's. Getting a tattoo on your forehead tends to do more harm than good but we're not going to tell people they can't do it. I just think the actions done while on drugs should be what's illegal or not. Not the action of taking them.


As far as which came first marriage or government? Yeah. I'm not getting into a never ending argument that is based on beliefs. Suffice it to say at best I'd just separate the two.
You are aware that there are states where it is actually illegal to tattoo above the neck or below the wrist/ankle, right?
And one of the reasons I am against the drugs? You wind up with idiots before it's all said and done. They can talk about no side effects, but realistically, they can't see them. Every doper I've known (and NONE admit to being 'dopers', they all call themselves casual users) but every damn one? They get dumber by the year. Memory starts going, three of them are on disability because they literally can't do a damn thing any more.
They are significantly more destructive than a tattoo.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get Items
Get Gaia Cash
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games