Republicans past and present

There was a lot of talk about the 2014 Republican sweep, particularly how it was the largest R majority in the House since 1928.  Michael Barone points out that the Republican and Democratic parties of today are quite different from their early 20th-century incarnations.  The earlier Republican party was dominated by Northerners, political heirs to 19th-century Republicans who pushed for the Civil War.  After WWII, they backed the expensive Marshall Plan.  They passed the Taft-Hartley bill over Truman's veto, limiting the power of labor unions in ways that have lasted to the present.

The modern R-D split is still geographical, but characterized by a thin strip of D on each coast and a huge field of R in between.  The Democrats by and large favor a strong central government; the Republicans are uneasy about the size of government but lack a unified strategy to alter it.

I see a 3-way split:  big-tent strong government (populist/nanny state), small-tent strong government (crony capitalist oligarchs), and big-tent small government (libertarian/free marketists).

10 comments:

Grim said...

Why not small-tent small-government (free market except for opposition to mass immigration/amnesty)? Do you think the crony capitalists are strong enough just to force them out of the party leadership / candidacies?

Texan99 said...

I mean "small" or "big" tent in relation to the whole country, not the whole world. If we were voting on a government for the whole world, we could then argue about whether a big tent should encompass every human being in the world who would like to come here and become eligible for welfare benefits. I guess we could do it now, too, but we'd need infinite resources.

E Hines said...

I don't see much problem with free and easy immigration, subject to secure borders so we decide how free and easy.

Most immigrants are, by and large, risk takers with strong family values and work ethic--natural conservatives.

Amnesty? The pejorative gets bandied about, but I've not seen any immigration reform of a serious nature that proposes amnesty for the illegals currently (or in future) present. Other than the Democrats' proposals.

Eric Hines

Grim said...

Well, I meant small tent in the sense of the country, too: opposition to immigration is supposedly going to keep Republicans from reaching out to Latinos with any success, for example.

Eric Blair said...

Pushed *for* the Civil War? Why bless your heart. Don't you mean *won* the civil war? I think that's what you mean, right?

Anyway, it's really more of 4 way split between the party establishments (that resemble each other waaaay too closely) and each party's discontents/reformers/rebels/whatever and their adherents.



E Hines said...

the party establishments (that resemble each other waaaay too closely)

I'm not sure I'd say the bomb-throwing, yet senile, Pelosi and Reid very much resemble Boehner and McConnell.... Their policies (or in the case of Pelosi and Reid, their staff's policies) don't resemble each other very much, either.

Eric Hines

Texan99 said...

I was quoting Michael Barone, but he seemed to be referring to the Republican party's favoring going to war in the first place, rather than winning it once it started.

Eric Blair said...

Barone said the Republicans "backed the war" which altogether a different thing than what you've said. Twice.

Texan99 said...

I'm sure you're right, and that I was inadvertently lying to you, or something. Anyway, offending you enough to inspire you to be unusually unpleasant, while incomprehensible.

Ymar Sakar said...

That's not unusual though. Depends on the person, of course.


Democrat culture transcends political nature, in the same sense that Islamic Jihad's political theocratic and Caliph style management has changed somewhat over the years. But Islam is still Islam, and Democrat culture of slavery and racial superiority, is still Democrat culture.

People are fooled into thinking the Democrats and Republicans were purely about politics, while ignoring the theology, the religious, the spiritual, and the cultural attachments.

That results directly in them electing Hussein Obola. They ignored the past because they couldn't understand the past.