Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Republican Party Platform of 1956 is a fascinating document to read through as it shows how political parties can drastically change over time. Reading it you'll notice stances that are to the left of the modern Democratic Party and is anathema to the modern GOP, especially in light of the platform adopted in Tampa last week.
Some of the Republican stances from 1956: "We shall continue vigorously to support the United Nations."
"Continuance of the vigorous SEC policies which are providing maximum protection to the investor and maximum opportunity for the financing of small business without costly red tape."
"The record of performance of the Republican Administration on behalf of our working men and women goes still further. The Federal minimum wage has been raised for more than 2 million workers. Social Security has been extended to an additional 10 million workers and the benefits raised for 6 1/2 million."
"All workers have gained and unions have grown in strength and responsibility, and have increased their membership by 2 millions."
"Assure equal pay for equal work regardless of Sex;"
"We recommend to Congress the submission of a constitutional amendment providing equal rights for men and women."
"We shall continue to seek extension and perfection of a sound social security system."
There are many, many more extolling the virtues of good governance, protecting the environment, broadening workers rights, enforcing financial regulation and all sorts of other ideas that will get you labeled a socialist around here. So what happened to the GOP? Is there a disdain of Eisenhower within the party, or is there a collective loss of memory on what the GOP used to stand for?
The Sixties and the civil-rights movement happened, and the backlash eventually inspired millions of evangelical Christians, who had previously abstained from politics, to become enthusuastic participants. Result: Reaganism, neoconservatism, and the complete takeover of the party by a toxic alliance of plutocrats and theocrats. The Tea Party is much more than a reaction to the election of Barack Obama -- it's just the most recent symptom of a very long illness.
first you have to start with an understanding that there is a difference between liberals..democrats...republicans...and conservatives
second you would have to see that the democrats were MUCH farther to the left...as were the republicans
third you would have to see that the 1960's changed a lot of things...liberals pushed the democrats further to the left, so far that they are practily socialist..and the conservatives pushed the republicans further to the right..and then you also got a mixedbag with the neo-cons(religous super-social conservatives, but quite liberals in their spending)
forth you would have to understand that the progressives (liberals) started with the same boat as the nazi's and the fascists
politics from all sides has evolved, that's why dictonary definations dont work
first you have to start with an understanding that there is a difference between liberals..democrats...republicans...and conservatives
second you would have to see that the democrats were MUCH farther to the left...as were the republicans
third you would have to see that the 1960's changed a lot of things...liberals pushed the democrats further to the left, so far that they are practily socialist..and the conservatives pushed the republicans further to the right..and then you also got a mixedbag with the neo-cons(religous super-social conservatives, but quite liberals in their spending)
forth you would have to understand that the progressives (liberals) started with the same boat as the nazi's and the fascists
politics from all sides has evolved, that's why dictonary definations dont work
third you would have to see that the 1960's changed a lot of things...liberals pushed the democrats further to the left, so far that they are practily socialist
But that 1956 GOP party platform appears to be closely aligned with that of today's Democrats. In what respect is the Democratic Party "socialist" as compared to Eisenhower's party?
The Republican Party Platform of 1956 is a fascinating document to read through as it shows how political parties can drastically change over time. Reading it you'll notice stances that are to the left of the modern Democratic Party and is anathema to the modern GOP, especially in light of the platform adopted in Tampa last week.
Some of the Republican stances from 1956: "We shall continue vigorously to support the United Nations."
"Continuance of the vigorous SEC policies which are providing maximum protection to the investor and maximum opportunity for the financing of small business without costly red tape."
"The record of performance of the Republican Administration on behalf of our working men and women goes still further. The Federal minimum wage has been raised for more than 2 million workers. Social Security has been extended to an additional 10 million workers and the benefits raised for 6 1/2 million."
"All workers have gained and unions have grown in strength and responsibility, and have increased their membership by 2 millions."
"Assure equal pay for equal work regardless of Sex;"
"We recommend to Congress the submission of a constitutional amendment providing equal rights for men and women."
"We shall continue to seek extension and perfection of a sound social security system."
There are many, many more extolling the virtues of good governance, protecting the environment, broadening workers rights, enforcing financial regulation and all sorts of other ideas that will get you labeled a socialist around here. So what happened to the GOP? Is there a disdain of Eisenhower within the party, or is there a collective loss of memory on what the GOP used to stand for?
Wasn't the NDP backing the KKK and segregation at this time? Was the church being dismantled brick by brick? Times have changed, and to believe that any party hasn't changed (along with them) in 60 years is rediculous.
Funny how history is of major interest only when it can be used for agenda pushing.
Democrats are running on unimportant social issues. Mitt Romney is running on fixing the economy.
Democrats are forcing the discussion to be about abortion to the exclusion of all else because they cannot talk about abortion.
If these social issues are "unimportant", why do Right wing politicians such as Michele Bachmann label gay marriage as "the most important issue facing America today" (paraphrased)?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
