Until 20 years ago there were Democrats all over the political spectrum, super conservative to ultra liberal?

Question

Did the Democrats who ran a political dynasty in the 60's have the same fighting between ideolgical factions as the Republicans do now? There are moderate, conservative and the ultra-right Republicans and they constantly fight over the direction of the party. Before becoming a homogenous party representing the left, did the Democrats fight amongst themselves like the Republican factions do now?

I think I'll end this now since all I keep getting are comments about other posts. WTF? You guys never heard of private messages?

PITAC: I speak English, Italian, French and Spanish but only write in English and Spanish... I write French as poorly as you write english.

ANSWER MAN: its not a reversed pic, someone came up behind me with a camera and surprised me. Go to the 360 page and you'll see the full frame.

Answer 1

The answer to your question is a resounding YES!!! ~ In fact, the late, great, American humorist, Will Rogers is quoted, as saying: "I belong to no political organization; I'm a Democrat!!!!"

Doc

P.S. ~ I'm with Will!!!

Answer 2

Thats a very good question you ask and I shall answer it.
But first I wanted to ask you about your picture. It shows your head turned sharply to the left. Is that really the way you are facing or is that a reverse image and you were actually looking to the right? Also, doesn't that make your neck sore to be so far right or far left? Just a little question of mine, thanks.
Now for your question ---Democratic Political Dynasty's----
I did a yahoo search on the subject but couldn't turn anything up. All I found was the Adams dynasty, the Harrison dynasty, and the Bush dynasty. None of them were republicans.

During the 60's there was a big riot at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago. The party was split between Democrats Eugene McCarthy and Hubert Humphrey. McCarthy was the anti-war candidate and Humphrey was more in line with Johnson's policies.
Many of the college students were anti-war protestors and heavily supported McCarthy. In 1970 four students were killed and nine others were wounded by ohio national guard troops at Kent State University.
So yes, there was a lot of infighting during the sixties but this time I wouldn't expect to see any of the college republicans being gunned down by the national guard.

Answer 3

Twenty years ago the democrats had Kennedy as their posthumous lexicon, Communism was still in existance, and nobody wanted to be seen as a Commie. Consequentially the hard left faction, and the socialist faction were considered pariahs.

With that said, the Democratic party had some standing in that they supported the working party, which was honorable enough then. The abortion issue was there main special interest.

Now they have every special interest under the sun, it's so hard to tell what, who, or where they stand on anything. The litmis test as I see it, is does it (the ideal) supports homosexuals, is it against Bush, is it anti-war or have an anti American stance, is it pro jesse Jackson's idea of black justice, or in justice., the list goes on.

Right now the only reall fight ing w/i the Republican party is the Boarder issues, this is going to be the real downer, because the democrat that (Hillary) comes out against a porous boarder is going to get the nod by fence riding republicans, Who can blame them, I would consider it myself if it weren't for the fact that I am so repulsed by the ideals of the democratic liberals these days.
Unless we control these boarders, we are going to lose this country, I'll bet w/i twenty years.

Answer 4

If any Democrat had ever been as far to the left as Bush is to the right, he probably would have been shot for treason. Don't forget that the period you're talking about was at the height of the Cold War. By the way, neither party is truly conservative in the traditional sense these days. The Political Compass web site (http://politicalcompass.org/questionnaire?page=1) interestingly describes the new far right as "neoliberals", which makes sense when you consider that they love big government and spend far more money than Democrats do. As coragryph so eloquently explained, the Democrats don't take much of a unified stand on anything these days, so I don't understand why you feel so threatened by them. They're actually pretty moderate compared to the Bush administration, but I wouldn't expect you to agree when you're so conservative you actually think Hitler was a communist.

For the record, Hitler hated communists as much as he hated Jews, and in fact he went after the communists first because they were more of a threat to his regime. He only used "socialist" in his party name as a ploy to initially win them over and lull them into a false sense of security. Haven't you read Martin Niemoller's famous "...and then they came for me" essay, which begins with, "First they came for the communists"? The second link below describes in detail how Hitler set up the communists as scapegoats and declared, "The German people have been soft too long. Every Communist official must be shot. All Communist deputies must be hanged this very night. All friends of the Communists must be locked up. And that goes for the Social Democrats and the Reichsbanner as well!"

I realize some of this is slightly off-topic, but I couldn't let your smugly ignorant "best answer" to Shiraz' earlier question go unchallenged (see http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AsU8PCjgE6.MaZnrmysH9Mjsy6IX?qid=20060829081059AAN7G8i).

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

-- George Santayana

Answer 5

The democrats were all about getting elected, not about working together. They all shared the beliefs of the people who elected them, which is why so many career democratic politicians appeared, they were loved by their constituents.

Then the Democratic party started to get organized and took that to mean they needed to take control fo the party by putting forth a platform that all members must swear an alligiance to.

P.S. PAFC, did you read the question? What the hell are you trying to say? Most other people who ignored the question are playing politics and ignoring the issue, you're just babbling!

Answer 6

I would hardly call the democrats a left leaning party "Before becoming a homogenous party representing the left," as you say

The difference between the Democrats and the republicans in the US is so subtle, perhaps it's why your democracy is threatened, so everone has a vote but you all may only use it to vote in the same despotic type regime, whether it's the Clinton administration or the BUSH fiasco.

Answer 7

The Democrats are scattered and disorganized.

Some of them, like Clinton, became Republicrats.

The newer ones, like Barrack Obama, haven't established themselves as anything besides Clintoncrats.

Many of them should have formed a strong 3rd party which could win seats in Congress and break the stranglehold between the GOP and the remnants of the Democratic party.

Answer 8

Most people will jump on the bandwagon if it will get them more votes. As they say “Everybody loves a winner!” It is unfortunate that we are limited to basically two choices at every election. I have always split my ticket because I find it hard to follow any party line. If you observe any party primary where there is a serious challenge to the incumbent most likely it will be dirtier campaign then the election in November against the other parties candidate.

Answer 9

its all kind of both new and old now.
you made some great points.
unfortunately, i think, its 2 sides of the same corrupt coin now.
dems and repubs both are just out for themselves.
there is no more sense of civic pride, or national duty, or the will to represent the people.
just the grab for money and power.

im voting 3rd party all the way from now on. at least they are idealogical and have some morals.

the so called moral right are so corrupt in scandals i cant vote for them in good conscience anymore.
the democrats used to have wonderful ideas about how to help people out. now they are just all screaming about stuff they are just as guilty of.

constitution first party for me.
im too sick of the criminals in power now.

Answer 10

Actually, what happened is that many of the conservative Democrats starting applying the Democratic model of big-government and high-federal spending to accomplish their social and political agenda.

That was the formation of the Neo-Conservative movement, which later merged into and largely took over the Republican party, forcing out or diminishing the fiscal conservatives who wanted small govt.

Following that, many of the rational liberal elements of the Democratic party, who also favored small government, left the party to become independents, because they opposed funding the Democratic social programs though big government / big spending.

That left only just the big-govt folks within the Democratic party, without any rational liberal or conservative supporters. They lost their moderate base. Which in turn caused the party to just flounder and become incoherent because they lacked any rational goals toward which they could apply their big-govt model.

There's not enough coherence left in the Democratic party to fight amongst themselves, because they've been largely abandoned by the rational core of both conservative and liberal voters.

Answer 11

Yes, but the Vietnam War destroyed the Democratic Party. Reasonable politicians like Humphrey had to veer left to try and keep the anti-war wing of the party in...unfortunately, it meant sacrificing the South and middle America, who viewed the hippies as dirty, unpatriotic bums. The civil rights movement also facilitated some migration from Dems to Republicans in the South.