Why Did the Democratic and Republican Parties Switch Platforms?

[GMDino]

Saw a post today on Facebook about how the GOP is "really" the party of racial reform because the late 1800's they banned the KKK and did a lot of good things.  The list included how if it wasn't for the Republicans the 1964 Civil Rights Act never would have passed.

Brought me back to this:

http://www.livescience.com/34241-democratic-republican-parties-switch-platforms.html

Quote: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; again, Democrats largely opposed these expansions of power.


Sound like an alternate universe? Fast forward to 1936. Democratic president Franklin Roosevelt won reelection that year on the strength of the New Deal, a set of Depression-remedying reforms 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.

So, 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. How did this switch happen?

Eric Rauchway, professor of American history at the University of California, Davis, pins the transition to the turn of the 20th century, when a highly influential Democrat named William Jennings Bryan blurred party lines by emphasizing the government's role in ensuring social justice through expansions of federal power — traditionally, a Republican stance. [How Have Tax Rates Changed Over Time?]

Republicans didn't immediately adopt the opposite position of favoring limited government. "Instead, for a couple of decades, both parties are promising an augmented federal government devoted in various ways to the cause of social justice," Rauchway wrote in a 2010 blog post for the Chronicles of Higher Education. Only gradually did Republican rhetoric drift to the counterarguments. The party's small-government platform cemented in the 1930s with its heated opposition to the NewDeal.

But why did Bryan and other turn-of-the-century Democrats start advocating for big government? According to Rauchway, they, like Republicans, were trying to win the West. The admission of new western states to the union in the post-Civil War era created a new voting bloc, and both parties were vying for its attention.

Democrats seized upon a way of ingratiating themselves to western voters: Republican federal expansions in the 1860s and 1870s had turned out favorable to big businesses based in the northeast, such as banks, railroads and manufacturers, while small-time farmers like those who had gone west received very little. Both parties tried to exploit the discontent this generated, by promising the little guy some of the federal largesse that had hitherto gone to the business sector. From this point on, Democrats stuck with this stance — favoring federally funded social programs and benefits — while Republicans were gradually driven to the counterposition of hands-off government.

From a business perspective, Rauchway pointed out, the loyalties of the parties did not really switch. "Although the rhetoric and to a degree the policies of the parties do switch places," he wrote, "their core supporters don't — which is to say, the Republicans remain, throughout, the party of bigger businesses; it's just that in the earlier era bigger businesses want bigger government and in the later era they don't."

In other words, earlier on, businesses needed things that only a bigger government could provide, such as infrastructure development, a currency and tariffs. Once these things were in place, a small, hands-off government became better for business.

[Benton]

Interesting topic (although you're going to get a few people who say the GOP is still the party of the civil rights movement).

I think it's a natural shift to the majority that happens over time. And it's happening now, has been since the 80s. There's always going to be a minority of folks who say "I've got mine, I need laws to make sure I can keep it." And there's always going to be a majority saying "I don't have enough, I need laws to help me get more." The "mine" and "enough" are whatever — money, religion, civil rights, boobs, property, jobs. So you're always going to have a group that has things the way they want it, and a group that wants things they don't have.

The GOP — riding with changes in the base by Nixon — did a lot of changing in the 80s. None of it was small government, but a lot of it was about protecting what some people had and were losing because of slow economic growth. Bush II furthered that. Bigger government, more spending, more intrusion all in the name of getting rid of drugs, or immigration reform, or the war on terror.

But I think you're coming to the end of that time. The GOP swelled because there were enough people who wanted something (mostly religious based laws and tax breaks). That's caused a lot of other people to be on the other end, not having what it is they're looking for (a lack of government involvement in their daily life and jobs). GOP made messes like Kansas and Louisiana are pushing people to another party because they need jobs (or money, or civil rights or whatever.

[fredtoast]

The industrial revolution changed everything.  There have always been rich powerful people in the United States, but their power and influence was multiplied by the rise of large corporations and businesses in the second half of the 19th century.

But the racial element of the switch in platforms is much more complicated.  It was based on regional influence more than policy.  For example, you often hear how the Republicans were the ones that supported the Civil rights Act, but outside of the South a higher percentage of Democrats supported it than republicans.  That was 100 years after the Civil War and politics in the south were still controlled by that conflict and the reconstruction that followed.  Then Barry Goldwater invented the use of the victim card by the white majority and things flipped quickly.

[*bfine32*]

I've heard a lot about this platform change; however, I have never seen an old-timer tell me they have switched from Democrate to Republican.

[fredtoast]

(04-19-2016, 12:49 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I've heard a lot about this platform change; however, I have never seen an old-timer tell me they have switched from Democrate to Republican.

How many people do you know that were voting in the early 1900's?

[*bfine32*]

(04-19-2016, 01:02 PM)fredtoast Wrote: How many people do you know that were voting in the early 1900's?

My family has been in local politics as far back as we know and they have always been Democratic.

WTS, I was unaware the the Civil Rights Movement occured in the early 1900s

[SteelCitySouth]

(04-19-2016, 01:02 PM)fredtoast Wrote: How many people do you know that were voting in the early 1900's?

0.0

[*bfine32*]

(04-19-2016, 01:07 PM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: 0.0

Well some families don't have a political background I guess. My family has always active for generations.

[fredtoast]

(04-19-2016, 01:09 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Well some families don't have a political background I guess. My family has always active for generations.

So what you really meant was that you don't know anyone who came from a Republican family who voted Democrat?

I know plenty of people like that.

[*bfine32*]

(04-19-2016, 01:14 PM)fredtoast Wrote: So what you really meant was that you don't know anyone who came from a Republican family who voted Democrat?

I know plenty of people like that.

Nope, it's pretty much been down the lines as to those who are active; it seems those that are casual are the ones that go back and forth (not that that is a bad thing or present in this forum).

Hey but at least Kim Davis was elected as a Democrate; not sure it was the early 1900s though.

[*Nately120*]

(04-19-2016, 12:49 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I've heard a lot about this platform change; however, I have never seen an old-timer tell me they have switched from Democrate to Republican.

I believe Strom Thurmond was around long enough to have to switch.

[jmccracky]

All of my racist old ass uncles switched from Democrat to Republican when Obama ran. Friend me on Facebook, and you will see, lol. My mom, who is still a Democrat and very religious (Christian) fights those bafoons every day. My wife and I just laugh and hit "like". Lol

[jmccracky]

(04-19-2016, 01:17 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Nope, it's pretty much been down the lines as to those who are active; it seems those that are casual are the ones that go back and forth (not that that is a bad thing or present in this forum).

Hey but at least Kim Davis was elected as a Democrate; not sure it was the early 1900s though.

Wait....you mean there are idiots who vote Democrat?!?! Wow, didn't know that Republicans like everyone who votes Republican.

[jmccracky]

(04-19-2016, 08:44 PM)CharvelPlaya Wrote: Wait....you mean there are idiots who vote Democrat?!?! Wow, didn't know that Republicans like everyone who votes Republican.

Ahhhhh...I read your post wrong, bfine. My apologies man. I need to slow down, lol.