Democrats were the most liberal in the 30's through the 70's (Rockefeller, parties)
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.
My opinion is that in the 30's through the 70's, MOST Democrats, with the exception of the Southern Bloc Democrats, wanted everyone to have a good life (meaning success through good jobs) and no blatant discrimination toward U.S. citizens. However, now it seems to me that Democrats want to lift up the disadvantaged at the expense of those of us in the middle class who are successful due to our own hard work and making good choices in life.
I do completely agree that life is unfair, and I have always "railed" against the fact that wealthy "C" students can attend prestigious universities and be guaranteed continued wealth, whereas a poor "B" student had little chance of a college education (at least in the past), but I am truly disgusted with how the middle and working classes are getting less and less, while the undeserving poor and the over-privileged rich are getting more and more.
Before 2009, I was a moderate Democrat, but now I lean more to being a moderate Republican. (I hate the fact that someone like Trump is POTUS.)
There seems to be a meme among many of the cons and republicans these days that democrats are nowadays practically communists, whereas in Days of Yore they were actually OK or at least tolerable.
This meme is a myth. In fact, the truth is practically the opposite.
Democrats nowadays, Obama included, are mostly left-of-center establishment types. Maybe Bernie Sanders and a few others are more liberal. I suspect the cons and republicans think they're more liberal now than they were back then because the issues now are different than back then.
For example ...
Cons complain about illegal immigrants. This is an issue only in the past few decades. LBJ and Adlai Stevenson did not talk about them back in the 50s-60's because it simply wasn't a big issue (or an issue at all) back then. If it had been, those 2 likely would have had similar sympathy to their plight as democrats do in recent years.
Cons complain about gay rights. This is an issue only in the past few decades. LBJ and Adlai Stevenson did not talk about them back in the 50s-60's because it simply wasn't a big issue (or an issue at all) back then. If it had been, those 2 likely would have had similar sympathy to their plight as democrats do in recent years.
If you want some REAL liberals, you have to go back to the entire FDR through Jimmy Carter era (Carter was basically the end of the era, being more moderate). This is the era of not only FDR, LBJ and the Kennedy's (mostly Ted and Bobby), but also Adlai Stevenson, Hubert Humphrey, George McGovern (from South Dakota of all places!), Warren Magnuson, and many others.
These were the men who proposed, and got passed, major legislation on civil rights, environmental issues, all kinds of business regulations, were all strongly pro-union, and so on. For the most part, they were not averse to complaining about the excesses of capitalism.
I just encountered this article in Politico from November and it touched upon a lot of the themes I described in the OP and elsewhere in this thread. So I decided to bump it up.
What’s fueling this argument? For one, more Democrats have rallied, either noisily or cautiously, around such policy innovations as “Medicare for all,” universal college and a universal basic income. That a smattering of Democratic candidates have elected to call themselves “democratic socialists” has only fueled the claim that such programs are “socialist.” “The center is Harry Truman and Daniel Patrick Moynihan, not Eugene Debs and Michael Harrington,” warned New York Times opinion columnist Bret Stephens recently. (Debs and Harrington were self-identified socialists.)
But there’s something wrong with this historical interpretation: Truman strongly supported single-payer health care. Moynihan supported a universal basic income in the 1960s. Dating back to World War II, Democrats sought to make a government-paid education available to as many Americans as possible. If Democrats are marching to the left, that road leads directly back to platforms and politicians who, in their day, commanded wide support and existed firmly in the mainstream of political thought.
It occurs to me that post #1 actually debunks the often-made claim that the Southern segregationist Democrats of the 1940s-1960s were "conservatives." I've seen this claim made on CD numerous times, most recently in the thread about 'conservative race hustlers.'
Very few of them were actually conservative. They were New Dealers and tax and spenders. Robert Byrd(D, WV), for example, was king of pork as a segregationist, and remained so later when he disavowed segregation. Sam Ervin (D, NC) was a segregationist, and a particular hero to the left during the Watergate hearings.
It occurs to me that post #1 actually debunks the often-made claim that the Southern segregationist Democrats of the 1940s-1960s were "conservatives." I've seen this claim made on CD numerous times, most recently in the thread about 'conservative race hustlers.'
Very few of them were actually conservative. They were New Dealers and tax and spenders. Robert Byrd(D, WV), for example, was king of pork as a segregationist, and remained so later when he disavowed segregation. Sam Ervin (D, NC) was a segregationist, and a particular hero to the left during the Watergate hearings.
It depends on whether or not you are talking about social conservatism or economic conservatism. The Southern Democrats were economic liberals all the way, but they were social conservatives. Not only were they social conservatives but they were at the far-right end of the spectrum. If today's social issues would have been with us in the 50s, you would have a Democratic Party largely split between the Northern and Southern factions. Both sides would support Medicare for All, higher taxes for the wealthy, tighter regulations on banks and Wall Street, student loan forgiveness, environmental regulations, and everything else Democrats typically support. Where they would differ is the Southern Democrats would be anti-abortion, anti-LGBT, and would align with the Christian Right on issues pertaining to separation of church and state. Northern Democrats would be largely secular.
Republicans on the other hand were socially conservative but not as much as the Southern Democrats and they were economically moderate. Reagan actually had an uncomfortable alliance with Jerry Falwell. It was really after 9/11, in the George W. Bush era, that the current partisanship solidified. A big part of this that it was around this time that the gay marriage debate started to be taken more seriously. Same-sex marriage was pretty much a pipe dream as recently as 2000. I would say the absorption of the Southern Democrats into the Republican Party has made it the radical far-right party it has become.
Liberals back then would stroke out If they saw today's insane Democrat party.
You see, you are mistaken.
As I've pointed out before, and as the article I linked in my last post above said, as far back as Harry Truman, we've had democrats talking about universal health care, which is one of the democrats' current hot issues.
In the 1940s, Senators Robert Wagner and James Murray and Congressman John Dingell Sr. introduced legislation that would have established a national program for hospital and medical insurance. It was stymied by a coalition of Southern Democrats and conservative Republicans, as was also the case with Truman’s efforts after 1949 to achieve the same result. But it was central to the party’s core ambition for many years after.
So, one of the hot button current issues that make conservatives of today regard the democrats of today as "socialist" is in fact an issue that democrats as far back as the 1940's were trying to push.
Another one would be gay rights. First of all, I should point out that many gay rights issues have already become mainstream, with even many republicans supporting gay marriage. But that aside, one only needs to watch the speech by Hubert Humphrey in my first post, where he is talking about civil rights (for blacks and, presumably, other minorities) all the way back in 1948. There can be no doubt that, if the HH of 1948 were around today, he would be making speeches in favor of civil rights for gays.
I would be curious to hear what other issues conservatives who think my thesis is incorrect think makes the democrats of today screaming liberals compared to the democrats of the 30's through 70's.
There seems to be a meme among many of the cons and republicans these days that democrats are nowadays practically communists, whereas in Days of Yore they were actually OK or at least tolerable.
This meme is a myth. In fact, the truth is practically the opposite.
Democrats nowadays, Obama included, are mostly left-of-center establishment types. Maybe Bernie Sanders and a few others are more liberal. I suspect the cons and republicans think they're more liberal now than they were back then because the issues now are different than back then.
For example ...
Cons complain about illegal immigrants. This is an issue only in the past few decades. LBJ and Adlai Stevenson did not talk about them back in the 50s-60's because it simply wasn't a big issue (or an issue at all) back then. If it had been, those 2 likely would have had similar sympathy to their plight as democrats do in recent years.
Cons complain about gay rights. This is an issue only in the past few decades. LBJ and Adlai Stevenson did not talk about them back in the 50s-60's because it simply wasn't a big issue (or an issue at all) back then. If it had been, those 2 likely would have had similar sympathy to their plight as democrats do in recent years.
If you want some REAL liberals, you have to go back to the entire FDR through Jimmy Carter era (Carter was basically the end of the era, being more moderate). This is the era of not only FDR, LBJ and the Kennedy's (mostly Ted and Bobby), but also Adlai Stevenson, Hubert Humphrey, George McGovern (from South Dakota of all places!), Warren Magnuson, and many others.
These were the men who proposed, and got passed, major legislation on civil rights, environmental issues, all kinds of business regulations, were all strongly pro-union, and so on. For the most part, they were not averse to complaining about the excesses of capitalism.
Great post thank you! As I was reading it and recalling some of those people and their great work and efforts and words, the lyrics and music of a song came to mind. I apologize for being off the thread topic, strictly speaking, but can't get it out of my head and just thought I'd share:
Has anybody here seen my old friend Abraham?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
He freed a lot of people
But it seems the good die young
But I just looked around and he's gone
Has anybody here seen my old friend John?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
He freed a lot of people
But it seems the good die young
But I just looked around and he's gone
Has anybody here seen my old friend Martin?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
He freed a lot of people
But it seems the good die young
But I just looked around and he's gone
Didn't you love the things that they stood for?
Didn't they try to find some good for you and me?
And we'll be free
Someday soon, it's gonna be
One day
Has anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin'
Up over the hill
With Abraham, Martin and John
It depends on whether or not you are talking about social conservatism or economic conservatism. The Southern Democrats were economic liberals all the way, but they were social conservatives....
I'd argue that during the 1950s and early 1960s (the period under discussion) virtually the whole country, which is to say both parties, were 'social conservatives.'
For example, when Nelson Rockefeller thought of running for president, there was much discussion of whether a divorced man could be president. I'm guessing that at least one of the 17 GOP hopefuls in 2016 had been through divorce, but we heard ZERO about it.
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.
