When and why did the Democratic & Republican parties switch roles?

Question

I'm not that familiar with American history. But I understand before the Civil War the Republican party was anti-slavery, more pro-immigration, pro-European, less socially conservative; and the Demo party was pro-slavery, states-rights (anti-federal), anti-immigration, and more allied with Protestant fundamentalists (socially conservative) and dominated the South. Sometime after the Civil War there was a switch in basic values between the 2 parties. I read that in the rural South until recently you had people who were still Democrats because their ancestors were and they simply hadn't gotten the new message (Clinton's bio said this & he benefitted from this). So when & why did the parties reverse?

Answer 1

The switch took place between the presidencies of the two Roosevelts. After Teddy, the reformer and progressive who was responsible for some of the most sweeping labor and environmental reforms in American history, the Republican party turned face and embraced big business, immigration reforms/quotas and a more distant federal government.

At the same time, the Democrats started their reforming era with William Jennings Bryant. Though he lost to McKinnley and it took Wilson to return the Dems to the White House, they used the time wisely to redefine their party. By the time of Franklin Roosevelt (and isn't ironic that he and Teddy were cousins and he married Teddy's niece, but is the icon of the Democratic party?), the Democrats embraced the working class and immigrants, worked for labor reforms, and challenged the economists to keep us from returning to roller coaster periods of extreme inflation and economic depressions.

I guess in a way, you could say one Roosevelt started the American Reformation and the other Roosevelt cemented it. Then the two parties vascillated on who was the best at keeping that part of the dream alive.

Answer 2

The shift was mainly with Nixon in the 1968 election. In response to the hippie movement the Republican party successful created a new coalition. A major part of it was the Silent Majority that vocal minority of leftist had become to radical, especially with the riots and destruction of campuses. They wanted to restore normalcy and Nixon ran on a platform that was very much based on law and order. This very much appealed to Southern Conservatives who had traditionally voted Democratic. This coalition was solidified under Reagan and Bush.

Also, many Republicans feel The Civil Rights Movement achieved the bulk of its goals and that today programs such as affirmative action and school busing go too far and are inherently racist. The overwhelming majority of Republicans are still anti-slavery (obviously) and anti-segregation. Many Republicans see people such as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton as Martin Luther King wanna-be's who mistakenly see racism in eager to cry racism for their own attention and to feel important.

Democrats left the States Rights platform with Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal which heavily centralized the country. But even after Franklin D. Roosevelt the South was dominated by racist Democrats, Fabus and Wallace, who fought for racial segregation and against Martin Luther King into the 1950s and 1960s. A higher percentage of Republicans voted for the 1964 Civil Rights act than did Democrats, though President Johnson, a Democrat, signed it.

Answer 3

i think of you're lacking the ingredient, that is not approximately "R"s or "D"s, yet theory and context. What defines a democrat or a republican isn't in accordance with historic references or judgements made by using former politicians which perceive themselves as being a member of a definite occasion. once you do away with American politics faraway from the ideologies of conservatism and liberalism, you have the words itself. those concepts themselves have not replaced, roles weren't switched - possibly in call, yet not in theory. And specific, you are able to nicely be democrat or republican by using call, however the suggestions you're making variety with connection with the political spectrum. i'm specific you're accustomed to it. have you ever seen all the different rules of Wilson or the previous presidents you have reported?

Answer 4

They didn't. It's rhetoric that the Dems want you to believe.

Answer 5

A proper answer would require a whole political history of the nation!! (It may look like I'm attempting that below, but I AM trying to be selective. I hope it helps.)

I know that when you are using the set of labels you gave it LOOKS like a simple "flip flop" of the parties. But this is in many ways very misleading.

(As a conservative Northern Republican, descended from a line of the same --not a 'redneck'-- I do NOT believe the basic values of the party have changed from those of my forebears. . . And by the way, perhaps you miswrote, but Republicans have NEVER EVER been "pro-slavery"! And I believe MOST -- one would hope ALL-- of the Republican party is committed to true equal rights and equal opportunity, MORE than in the party's earliest days.)

One reason the labels mislead is that they SOUND the same, but they are applied to very different situations.

The major labels "liberal" and "conservative" have themselves changed meaning. (This may be obvious with "conservative" -- since if all depends on WHAT system it is you are trying to 'conserve'! As for "liberal" -- before the 1920s-30s this label referred to beliefs in the exercise of personal and democratic liberties [now called "classic liberalism" to distinguish it], which typically meant LESS government control. New style liberals advocated MORE government programs and regulation in the interest of the public good.)

Another problem (related to the first) is that quite arguable that some key things that NOW differentiate the national (not always the local) GOP and Dem parties were things about which there was much AGREEMENT in the 19th century. In other words, it is meaningless to speak about EITHER side "flipping". Rather ONE side (and which may vary) developed a position that NO PARTY (at least major party) had held. (Consider, for instance, that there was no great "left-wing" component of the Whig Party or early GOP.)

Finally, don't forget that not only are these major parties always a bit fluid, but they are internally diverse (how else could you have just TWO major national parties?) This diversity and shifting coalitions helps explains SOME of the shift you're referring to, but it also means we need to be careful not to pigeon-hole either party with convenient labels, esp. ones that try to simplify comparisons across eras.

__________________

Let's take a look at some of these labels and points --

A) business, labor, immigration --

The Republican party --like the Whig Party that formed a major party of its base--- was "pro-business" from the very start. It also had, and STILL has a lot of support in the farming regions.

The Democrats of the 1850s --at least the Northern wing of the party-- was strongly supported by the 'working class' in the cities, including a number of new immigrants, e.g., Irish Catholics. When labor later became more organized (unionization, beginning after the Civil War), it continued to have strong ties to the Democratic party

On the "immigration" issue --"anti immigration" is EXTREMELY misleading. You are equating concerns about ILLEGAL immigration in certain parts of the Republican party are opponents of LEGAL immigration. Some may be, but that is not the dominant position. (I do not entirely blame you, because many Democratic and media reports use language that blurs these distinctions.)

Actually, there are many in the GOP who support MORE immigration --but legally and thoughtfully done-- because they believe that it can, like free trade (almost as an aspect of free trade) greatly enrich the nation.

Insofar as there IS some more negative "nativism", you might look back to the "nativist" movement of the 1840s (concerned about the influx of Irish Catholics, for example), though it was generally concerned about certain TYPES of immigrants, by no means all. And note that the "Know Nothings" did not all end up in the Republican Party (AND that the Republican Party RATHER than the Know Nothings replaced the Whigs.)

Note that many Whig, then GOP policies related to what they believed would help BUSINESS (and thereby, they believed, all people) grow and prosper. This included tariffs to protect young American industries (Note how this helps explain the shifted more toward "free trade". The "pro-business" AS the notion that removing such barriers would be better for American prosperity). In other words, a BASIC conviction may continue (need to support business) while ideas of how best to do so change.

By the way, the Progressivism of the early 20th century was diverse -- it was perfectly in keeping with a pro-business stance for sections of the GOP to fight against monopolistic practices that they believed were harmful.

________

B) Religion ("fundamentalism", as you put it)

Now here's one of "both sides" things. Though religious liberalism did indeed sprout up in Northern cities in the 19th century, MANY were "evangelicals" (including those who spear-headed abolitionism, for example, BECAUSE of their faith) whose faith was quite "fundamentalist" in doctrine (though no such GROUP even existed until the late 19th century). And if you look at the many "separatist" groups and those that split off from the larger denominations over such issues as slavery, you would find that a larger proportion of these are TODAY solidly "conservative" politically.

In other words, NEITHER party was "anti"-religious. Insofar as one tends more than the other to be home to the 'unreligious' today, THAT is a shift.

(You might also compare some of the rhetoric used by those in the South objecting to the religious/moral crusade of Northern abolitionists with the language used in many liberal quarters in response to the moral-social concerns of the "religious right". Whether you agree that the issues themselves are parallel or not -- this sort of 'religiously-based activism' is not something new for the GOP... it had roots in the anti-slavery and abolitionist movements, most members of which ended up Republicans.)

________

C)"Federalism" and "states rights"

There may have been some shift here, as realignments an the influx of new groups and members (who came because they shared OTHER concerns) changed the emphases of each party.

But more than that, the tossing about of these TERMS has caused much confusion about current AND former positions. If you look at the "states rights" debates of the period before the Civil War you find that much of it is tied to PARTICULAR issues, esp. those touching on slavery.

And in fact this was in some ways a BOGUS argument of Southern slaveholders. They actually DOMINATED the federal government from its founding to the Civil War (and seceded when they lost the Presidency), they pressed the federal government to force Northern states to enforce the fugitive slave laws, to accept a bogus pro-slavery constitution for Kansas, to build the first national railroad across the SOUTH (a project of Secretary of War Jefferson Davis in the early 1850s)... In other words, they wanted the federal government to take strong action in support of THE interest of THEIR region and esp. its "peculiar institution", and the economic system dependent on it. (Thus it was also more about SECTIONAL rights, than those of individual rights.)

Consider Lincoln -- he exercised power over more areas than other Presidents had. But he did so MAINLY because of and in relation to the crisis of the Civil War. (Once the war ended, much of the power the federal government, esp the President, had exercised, began to dissipate.) Neither he nor his successors, nor for that matter his Whig forebears, had advocated anything like the federal government having THE dominant role.

Note that the GOP, like the old Whigs (and Federalists before them) had always advocated CERTAIN types of federal spending and oversight of matters of common interest to the states, esp in the area of "public improvements". Thus we can see a continuity between the Whig advocacy of federal support for canals, the early Republican support of a Transcontinental Railroad, and Eisenhower's support for the interstate highway system.

Of course, there is not always a simple, clear-cut line between such "improvements" to benefit all, and the federal government USURPING local control. But most now agree with SOME areas in which a 'federal solution' is best. (Here the bigger shift is by the Democratic side, which initially fought against nearly ALL federal projects. This may be explained in part by larger 20th century changes, esp those caused by the Great Depression, but also . And, as noted above, even the Democratic South had NOT stood consistently against federal projects.)


What much of the GOP now opposes is a TYPE of centralization -- handing certain types of powers to the federal government that it NEVER had in the 19th century, or in fact, not until the GREAT DEPRESSION.

This last event doesn't stand alone, but it is many ways THE key to the shift -- not so much a flip flop as the entrance into ONE of the parties (Democratic) of views and policies that NEITHER party had espoused before. True, some IN the parties (some "progressives", "socialists" and admirers of the Soviet "experiment") had advocated a much larger role for the federal government, including higher, more 'progressive' taxes and regulation of many areas. To some extent Herbert HOOVER believed in a more 'activist' government. But the big swing came under FDR and the policies he adopted to attempt to overcome the depression.

The "federal" policies he implemented --advocated by his academic "brain trust" -- were far beyond what EITHER party had ever advocated the federal government ought to be doing. (This is not to pass judgment on whether or how much of this was good, just to note what sort of change it all was.)

One major mark of this -- the total expenditures of the federal government were MUCH smaller than the combined spending of state and local governments UNTIL this period. So, it's not as if the Whigs or early Republicans had EVER advocated the sort of "big government" developed by 20th century Democrats.