Policywise (excluding slavery), how were they different from the Whigs? Did they not represent the conservative side of the argument, the decendents of the Patricians if you will?
Bottom line, the (D)s will never see the complete victory the OP salavates for. But I will enjoy his frustration and drink his tears like fine wine when the realization hits him like a brick in the face in a couple years.
The Whigs were a strange bunch. They were tradition minded, somewhat progressive conservatives with some vague populist sentiments (anti-papacy, etc), who had a great deal of suspicion of expertise and elitism (anti-Mason), but also a deep seated distrust of popular democracy too. I think you could make a case that Whigism died a natural death. Jacksonian-style democracy more or less ensured universal manhood sufferage, while Irish immigration killed anti-Catholicism as a viable electoral strategy. The GOP was a single issue party (free labor) when it began, freed of all the backward and obsolete predjudices and obsessions of the Whigs, and therefor free to court the votes of immigrants, Catholics or anyone who was remotely hostile to the institution of slavery.
__________________
"The things we admire in men, kindness and generosity, openess, honesty, understanding and feeling, are the concomitants of failure in our system. And those traits we detest, sharpness, greed, acquisitiveness, meaness, egotism and self-interest, are the traits of success."
Although I must ask you, if it is true, as you and no doubt many others on this board believe, that Obama is the worst president in history, how did he ever get reelected?
the answer is simple...
two foxes and a chicken vote on what's for dinner?
The Whigs were a strange bunch. They were tradition minded, somewhat progressive conservatives with some vague populist sentiments (anti-papacy, etc), who had a great deal of suspicion of expertise and elitism (anti-Mason), but also a deep seated distrust of popular democracy too. I think you could make a case that Whigism died a natural death. Jacksonian-style democracy more or less ensured universal manhood sufferage, while Irish immigration killed anti-Catholicism as a viable electoral strategy. The GOP was a single issue party (free labor) when it began, freed of all the backward and obsolete predjudices and obsessions of the Whigs, and therefor free to court the votes of immigrants, Catholics or anyone who was remotely hostile to the institution of slavery.
Thank you. That's very interesting (no sarchasm).
Nevertheless, Conservatism didn't go away, correct?
Nevertheless, Conservatism didn't go away, correct?
Well, there was really no 100% conservative / liberal party then, but no. The Whigs were only a certain kind of conservative. There were conservative Democrats too. The GOP was certainly not "conservative" in its entirity. When roughly half the country was slave states, free labor wasnt a conservative position, per se. Guys like Seward were tempermentally conservative, you had moderates like Lincoln, and radical egalitarians like Stevens, Sumner and others.
__________________
"The things we admire in men, kindness and generosity, openess, honesty, understanding and feeling, are the concomitants of failure in our system. And those traits we detest, sharpness, greed, acquisitiveness, meaness, egotism and self-interest, are the traits of success."
Well, there was really no 100% conservative / liberal party then, but no. The Whigs were only a certain kind of conservative. There were conservative Democrats too. The GOP was certainly not "conservative" in its entirity. When roughly half the country was slave states, free labor wasnt a conservative position, per se. Guys like Seward were tempermentally conservative, you had moderates like Lincoln, and radical egalitarians like Stevens, Sumner and others.
Well, once that "slavery" stuff was wrapped up, didn't take long for the classic lines to be drawn again, would you not agree? I think you know the overall point I'm trying to make. Optimates and Populares all over again, as it is today, as it will be in 4 years and 40 and 400. Unless you're suggesting the (D)s have an Octavian up their sleeve.
Well, once that "slavery" stuff was wrapped up, didn't take long for the classic lines to be drawn again, would you not agree? I think you know the overall point I'm trying to make. Optimates and Populares all over again, as it is today, as it will be in 4 years and 40 and 400. Unless you're suggesting the (D)s have an Octavian up their sleeve.
Well, the parties were pretty much aligned as they were before and after the Civil War. Dems in the South, Pubs up North. Slavery was settled, and white Anglo supremacy was a unifying sentiment after Eastern, Southern European immigration and Chinese immigration increased, testing our commitment to equality.
Sure, in a two party system, there are always going to be 2 parties. But what they stand for will change over time, because things change. To say there will be a permanent Movement Conservative party seems unlikely, because it was a reaction to New Deal liberalism, which is dead now too. Those Movement Conservatives won (which they dont seem to realize, because they lost the culture wars), and there's really not much else they can achieve politically in their current form. But there will always be conservatives in the lower case sense, absolutely.
__________________
"The things we admire in men, kindness and generosity, openess, honesty, understanding and feeling, are the concomitants of failure in our system. And those traits we detest, sharpness, greed, acquisitiveness, meaness, egotism and self-interest, are the traits of success."
Well, the parties were pretty much aligned as they were before and after the Civil War. Dems in the South, Pubs up North. Slavery was settled, and white Anglo supremacy was a unifying sentiment after Eastern, Southern European immigration and Chinese immigration increased, testing our commitment to equality.
Sure, in a two party system, there are always going to be 2 parties. But what they stand for will change over time, because things change. To say there will be a permanent Movement Conservative party seems unlikely, because it was a reaction to New Deal liberalism, which is dead now too. Those Movement Conservatives won (which they dont seem to realize, because they lost the culture wars), and there's really not much else they can achieve politically in their current form. But there will always be conservatives in the lower case sense, absolutely.
Yes the New Deal Movement is dead and now we have the sh!t deal
Well, the parties were pretty much aligned as they were before and after the Civil War. Dems in the South, Pubs up North. Slavery was settled, and white Anglo supremacy was a unifying sentiment after Eastern, Southern European immigration and Chinese immigration increased, testing our commitment to equality.
Sure, in a two party system, there are always going to be 2 parties. But what they stand for will change over time, because things change. To say there will be a permanent Movement Conservative party seems unlikely, because it was a reaction to New Deal liberalism, which is dead now too. Those Movement Conservatives won (which they dont seem to realize, because they lost the culture wars), and there's really not much else they can achieve politically in their current form. But there will always be conservatives in the lower case sense, absolutely.
Well, the parties were pretty much aligned as they were before and after the Civil War. Dems in the South, Pubs up North. Slavery was settled, and white Anglo supremacy was a unifying sentiment after Eastern, Southern European immigration and Chinese immigration increased, testing our commitment to equality.
Sure, in a two party system, there are always going to be 2 parties. But what they stand for will change over time, because things change. To say there will be a permanent Movement Conservative party seems unlikely, because it was a reaction to New Deal liberalism, which is dead now too. Those Movement Conservatives won (which they dont seem to realize, because they lost the culture wars), and there's really not much else they can achieve politically in their current form. But there will always be conservatives in the lower case sense, absolutely.
The important point you're acknowledging is that there will always be two parties. Thank you for educating your less-learned friend who seems to think the day will come when his team will be automatic league champion every year.
I also agree somewhat with your comment that what the two parties stand for will change over time, but only as to the particular issues that will likewise come and go. However the two parties at their respective cores will always be the same type of people you find on either side now.
I've talked about this before on this forum and always begrudgingly acknowledge Chris Matthews, that tool, with coming up with one of the simplest and most fundamentally accurate observations ever made about the political divide: It's the Daddy Way of thinking versus the Mommy Way. Pragmatic and rational vs. nurturing and emotional. Irrespective of the automatic gender identification we all tend to lean more toward one or the other of those two ways of looking at the world. It has always been that way and it always will.
People always talk about the need for a third party, but no third party of wayward kids will ever successfully challenge the Mommys and the Daddys. The names may change but it will always come down to the same two groups. Look around the world at other democracies where there are more than two political parties: Come election time they inevitably form alliances and coalesce into the same two groups: The Daddy Way vs. the Mommy Way.
Sorry, all you dreamers of an everlasting Mommy World. It might not be true in a lot of those deep blue urban areas where 0bama won 100% of the votes, but in America at large, the Daddys are here and we're here to stay.
It is difficult to envision the country becoming a liberal Democrat or conservative Republican super majority. Due to the genius of the founders there will always be ways to throw rocks in the gears.
Yes, Mommy can't wait to take Daddy's assault rifle away. After all, why does he need one?
Meanwhile her and all the other Mommy's keep spending money like it grows on trees. Daddy tries to get them to spend less but all they do is ask for more. They don't understand that eventually it may run out. Then all the nice policemen who protect the Mommy's and the Daddy's might just walk off the job like many of them did in post-Katrina New Orleans when they weren't getting their paychecks.
Not only that but...guess who else won't be getting their checks? A lot of spoiled, angry kids who grew up without a Daddy's discipline and are basically subsidized by the government to not commit crimes. No more subsidy checks? No more cops? Uh oh. Now, where did Daddy put his assault rifle?
It is difficult to envision the country becoming a liberal Democrat or conservative Republican super majority. Due to the genius of the founders there will always be ways to throw rocks in the gears.
Linear Mode
