Oh conservatives, you and your wacky knowledge of American history. Where would we be without it? (We would be, collectively as a nation, much better-educated.) We always enjoy remembering, for example, that Thanksgiving celebrates the Pilgrims’ victory over the scourge of socialism,
According to the official Intense Debate Reputation thingy, 16 is average, 52 is good and 102 is awesome. So congrats to unhipcat on approaching awesomeness more closely.
Or Rt. 95 in Connecticut, in the olden days of a previous millenium. They finally admitted that the only reason they charged tolls was in order to pay the toll takers, and there was a commie socialist confiscation. People are now grumbling about the Port Authority, which seems to exist primarily for the benefit of the Port Authority.
Prior to the 1960s, the two major parties were not as ideologically polarized as they are today. Both of them had liberal and conservative wings. A shift in party affiliations and a gradual polarization of ideologies had been underway since the start of the 20th century but first WWII and then the Cold War gummed up that process for awhile. What got it unstuck and moving again were the combined effects of the civil rights movement, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Vietnam War, Watergate and the ascendancy of neoconservatism and Ronald Reagan. Other factors that also played a role, particularly in the Democratic party, were the decline of machine politics after the 1968 Chicago convention debacle and party reforms pushed through by the McGovern campaign in 1972. All of these factors greatly accelerated the Democrats' ongoing swing to the left and the Republicans' ongoing swing to the right. Those complementary swings were complete by 1980 and were in full display for the first time during that election.
There had always been adherents of conservative and liberal ideologies in American politics. In the mid-19th century conservatives dominated the Democratic party, particularly in the South. The newly-formed Republican party attracted reform-minded and anti-slavery liberals. That scheme began to break down in the latter part of the century during the Second Industrial Revolution, the rampant inequality during the Gilded Age, the huge influx of immigrants and concomitant rise in the power of urban politics and unionism. Both conservatives and liberals started to switch their allegiances to the opposite parties. The conservative Southern Democrats, almost a party-within-a-party, revolted following the Truman administration's support for integration and civil rights and for awhile tried to form a third party that was informally known as the Dixiecrats and led by Strom Thurmond. They finally bolted for good and went over to the Republican party following the Johnson administration's success in pushing through the sweeping civil rights legislation of the 1960s, and the Nixon-era Republican party welcomed them in as part of their "Southern strategy."
The biggest part of the shift actually took place during the 1970s and was largely completed by the end of that decade. The GOP conservatives today are the ideological descendants of the 19th century Democratic Party, and the liberals of the 21st century Democratic party are the ideological descendants of the Abolitionist and Radical wings of the Civil War/Reconstruction-era Republican Party (plus Progressives from both parties during that movement's heyday.)
Yes, the Democratic Party was historically pro-slavery and the Republican Party was anti-slavery, but that was the case when the two parties were clashing a century and a half ago. A major realignment has taken place since then. The mid-19th century and subsequent Jim Crow-era Southern Democrats, if they were alive today, would find more compatibility with their generally conservative-oriented outlook in today's Republican Party. The John C. Frémont wing, the Reconstruction-era Radical wing and the much later Progressive wing Republicans during that party's first few decades would find the modern Democratic Party's social liberal and active government ideologies more to their liking if they were alive today.
Re: your first paragraph. So, the Chicago tollway system?
Ronald Reagan was still a worthless bastard during the blacklist days.
According to the official Intense Debate Reputation thingy, 16 is average, 52 is good and 102 is awesome. So congrats to unhipcat on approaching awesomeness more closely.
Steely Dan LIBEL!
Or Rt. 95 in Connecticut, in the olden days of a previous millenium. They finally admitted that the only reason they charged tolls was in order to pay the toll takers, and there was a commie socialist confiscation. People are now grumbling about the Port Authority, which seems to exist primarily for the benefit of the Port Authority.
This is despite the fervent conjuring going on by some of the republicans to bring them back.
<a href="http:\/\/www.amazon.com\/Kobato-Buttock-Silicone-Computer-Pillow\/dp\/B00GV4VF8A\/ref=pd_sim_sbs_hpc_1\?ie=UTF8&amp\;refRID=14W6X5NMHRKS2YWCWPFG" target="_blank">Good grief.</a>
Autobahn envy.
Ronald Reagan was still a worthless bastard<strike> during the blacklist days</strike>.
<i>Mostly. The real lesson of 9/11 was that we didn&#039;t waterboard <b>Cheney, Bush, and Rumsfeld</b> enough.</i>
Prior to the 1960s, the two major parties were not as ideologically polarized as they are today. Both of them had liberal and conservative wings. A shift in party affiliations and a gradual polarization of ideologies had been underway since the start of the 20th century but first WWII and then the Cold War gummed up that process for awhile. What got it unstuck and moving again were the combined effects of the civil rights movement, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Vietnam War, Watergate and the ascendancy of neoconservatism and Ronald Reagan. Other factors that also played a role, particularly in the Democratic party, were the decline of machine politics after the 1968 Chicago convention debacle and party reforms pushed through by the McGovern campaign in 1972. All of these factors greatly accelerated the Democrats&#039; ongoing swing to the left and the Republicans&#039; ongoing swing to the right. Those complementary swings were complete by 1980 and were in full display for the first time during that election.
There had always been adherents of conservative and liberal ideologies in American politics. In the mid-19th century conservatives dominated the Democratic party, particularly in the South. The newly-formed Republican party attracted reform-minded and anti-slavery liberals. That scheme began to break down in the latter part of the century during the Second Industrial Revolution, the rampant inequality during the Gilded Age, the huge influx of immigrants and concomitant rise in the power of urban politics and unionism. Both conservatives and liberals started to switch their allegiances to the opposite parties. The conservative Southern Democrats, almost a party-within-a-party, revolted following the Truman administration&#039;s support for integration and civil rights and for awhile tried to form a third party that was informally known as the Dixiecrats and led by Strom Thurmond. They finally bolted for good and went over to the Republican party following the Johnson administration&#039;s success in pushing through the sweeping civil rights legislation of the 1960s, and the Nixon-era Republican party welcomed them in as part of their &quot;Southern strategy.&quot;
The biggest part of the shift actually took place during the 1970s and was largely completed by the end of that decade. The GOP conservatives today are the ideological descendants of the 19th century Democratic Party, and the liberals of the 21st century Democratic party are the ideological descendants of the Abolitionist and Radical wings of the Civil War/Reconstruction-era Republican Party (plus Progressives from both parties during that movement&#039;s heyday.)
Yes, the Democratic Party was historically pro-slavery and the Republican Party was anti-slavery, but that was the case when the two parties were clashing a century and a half ago. A major realignment has taken place since then. The mid-19th century and subsequent Jim Crow-era Southern Democrats, if they were alive today, would find more compatibility with their generally conservative-oriented outlook in today&#039;s Republican Party. The John C. Fr&eacute;mont wing, the Reconstruction-era Radical wing and the much later Progressive wing Republicans during that party&#039;s first few decades would find the modern Democratic Party&#039;s social liberal and active government ideologies more to their liking if they were alive today.
They want Zombie Conservative Reagan. I believe Satan is having a three for one sale...
I regret only that I have but one fist with which to up.
I love facts, but then I&#039;m a Libtard.
If Charlie Pierce is our boyfriend is he buying the drinks?
Almost is kind of relative.