# What caused the polar shift between Lincoln republicans and today's modern republicans? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 19, 2013, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-caused-the-polar-shift-between-lincoln-republicans-and-todays-modern-republicans/676739 "2013-12-19T17:46:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 17\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2013, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-caused-the-polar-shift-between-lincoln-republicans-and-todays-modern-republicans/676739/61 "2013-12-25T20:12:14Z")
> [@astorian](#): > > Yes. Or, rather, there WASN’T a conservative running in 2000. NEITHER Bush nor McCain ran as a representative of the Right. Bush ran as a “compassionate” conservative. His Cabinet was filled with Ford administration holdovers. Think about it- apart from John Ashcroft, who in the Bush Cabinet looked like a man of the far Right? Cheney, for certain values of “far right.” From the Nixon Admin on he fought for an unaccountable, unitary-executive Imperial Presidency. And also for . . . well, see post #56. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2013, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-caused-the-polar-shift-between-lincoln-republicans-and-todays-modern-republicans/676739/62 "2013-12-25T20:13:49Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > I believe the allegation is that the minimum wage was intended to price imported former sharecroppers out of the northern labor market. Seems to me the effect would be to prevent the abundance of former sharecroppers in the job market from driving down the market-wage. It does not (alone) make it any harder for them to find jobs than for whites to find jobs; it just makes the jobs worth having when they do find them. ---
**Author:** ![BrokenBriton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4bbf92/32.png) [@BrokenBriton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrokenBriton)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2013, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-caused-the-polar-shift-between-lincoln-republicans-and-todays-modern-republicans/676739/63 "2013-12-25T20:33:04Z")
Allowing untempered capitalism to become the state religion. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2013, 1:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-caused-the-polar-shift-between-lincoln-republicans-and-todays-modern-republicans/676739/64 "2013-12-26T13:17:13Z")
> [@BrokenBriton](#): > > Allowing untempered capitalism to become the state religion. 😕 It was much, much less tempered back in the 19th century. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2013, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-caused-the-polar-shift-between-lincoln-republicans-and-todays-modern-republicans/676739/65 "2013-12-26T13:39:16Z")
> [@Melbourne](#): > > Tangentially, > Lincoln was b-partisan (more than most of his party, and to the complete rage and confusion of the south) If you mean he knew that politics is the art of the possible, then yes. He went as far as he could to end slavery, but it was a stepwise process, and he had the parallel goal of reuniting the country. That required “letting 'em up easy” \*after \*the goal of ending slavery had been achieved. > [@](#): > > And to the extent that his party had been captured by anti-slavery ideologs, it was cross-factional and a-political. You seem unfamiliar with the party’s origins. It was founded around the purpose of fighting, and eventually eliminating, slavery. The “ideologues” (a loaded word in any circumstance, and inappropriate now that we have settled the matter morally as well as politically) did not “capture” the party, they founded it and \*were \*it. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2013, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-caused-the-polar-shift-between-lincoln-republicans-and-todays-modern-republicans/676739/66 "2013-12-26T15:29:03Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Now there’s certainly no Republican politician today who opposes the right of blacks to vote, serve on a jury, or marry interracially. [Careful](http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/09/23/gop-abandons-congressional-nominee-anti-integration-essay/) [with](http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/12/rand-paul-endorse-greg-brannon-secessionist-rally) those blanket statements. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2013, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-caused-the-polar-shift-between-lincoln-republicans-and-todays-modern-republicans/676739/67 "2013-12-26T16:11:12Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > [Careful](http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/09/23/gop-abandons-congressional-nominee-anti-integration-essay/) [with](http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/12/rand-paul-endorse-greg-brannon-secessionist-rally) those blanket statements. The first actually illustrates **ITR** ’s point, as that fellow is no longer a Republican politician - once his essay came to light, the party rescinded their endorsement. The second (who is one of four candidates in a primary, and has never been elected to anything), going off that article, is a crackpot, but doesn’t seem to oppose the rights of blacks to vote, serve on a jury, or marry interracially. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2013, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-caused-the-polar-shift-between-lincoln-republicans-and-todays-modern-republicans/676739/68 "2013-12-26T16:33:36Z")
The county party rescinded its endorsement. The New York State Republican Party apparently [didn’t](http://www.jimrussell2010.com/). ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2013, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-caused-the-polar-shift-between-lincoln-republicans-and-todays-modern-republicans/676739/69 "2013-12-26T16:49:41Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > The county party rescinded its endorsement. The New York State Republican Party apparently [didn’t](http://www.jimrussell2010.com/). It’s still on his website, but I find references to the state party withdrawing it: [History Commons](http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=new_york_state_republican_party_1) > [@](#): > > The New York State Republican Party denounces a Republican candidate for the House after learning that he has espoused racist and anti-Semitic views. [Russell sues journalists, GOP leaders](http://www.lohud.com/article/20101006/NEWS01/10060322/Russell-sues-journalists-GOP-leaders) > [@](#): > > Republican Jim Russell, 56, is seeking $9 million in damages, or $1 million from each person named in the lawsuit. > > He claimed various members of The Journal News, News 12, Regional News Network and the state and local GOP defamed his character, ruined his reputation and caused him emotional distress. > > Russell, who has run for Congress five times, including his latest candidacy, last month lost the GOP’s backing in his race against Democratic Rep. Nita Lowey. > > The Republican Party dropped its support of Russell after it was reported that some of his past works included racist and anti-Semitic themes. > > … > > The lawsuit names Journal News columnist Phil Reisman, reporter Leah Rae and political cartoonist Matt Davies. It also named John Goff of News 12, Richard French of RNN, Justin Elliott of [Salon.com](http://Salon.com), Douglas Colety of the Westchester Republican Party, Alexander Carey of the state Republican Party and Mark Weitzman of the Simon Wiesenthal Center. Russell v. Lowey - Fair Campaign Practices Committee > [@](#): > > COMPLAINT: > Mr. Russell complained that Congresswoman Lowey “Has authorized the mailing of a campaign document (Paid for by Nita Lowey for Congress) that inaccurately states ‘Westchester and New York State Republicans Reject Congressional Candidate Jim Russell’ and that Congressional ‘Candidate Jim Russell \*has lost the Westchester County and New York State Republican Party’s endorsements \*…’. This statement is inaccurate and misleading. : > > FINDING: FAIR CAMPAIGN PRACTICE > Given the documentation provided by Lowey’s campaign representatives, the Committee found the mailer does not contain statements which are either inaccurate or misleading. Seven articles were provided to the committee from various sources including the Associated Press, [Lo.Hud.com](http://Lo.Hud.com), [FoxNews.com](http://FoxNews.com) and News 12, all affirming that the GOP was no longer supporting Candidate Russell. The wording used on the mailer falls within the realm of normal political discourse. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2013, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-caused-the-polar-shift-between-lincoln-republicans-and-todays-modern-republicans/676739/70 "2013-12-26T17:46:55Z")
I did see that History Commons thing but I couldn’t find anything that was actually _from_ the state party. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2013, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-caused-the-polar-shift-between-lincoln-republicans-and-todays-modern-republicans/676739/71 "2013-12-26T18:00:13Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > I did see that History Commons thing but I couldn’t find anything that was actually _from_ the state party. The New York State Republican Party website returns 0 hits for “Jim Russell”, and I haven’t found a press release or anything like that. I did find this [Salon](http://www.salon.com/2010/09/21/ny_gop_distances_from_jim_russell/) piece with direct quotes from a state GOP official: > [@](#): > > “There are kooks attracted to any parties,” state party spokesman Alex Carey told Salon today, asked why he thinks Russell is running as a Republican. “I don’t think it has anything to do with the Republican Party. Certainly it has nothing to do with Republican Party principles.” > > Carey said GOP leaders were not previously aware of Russell’s essay, adding, “We strongly condemn all of Jim’s comments and certainly stand by none of what he wrote, which was racist and ethnocentric.” > > He said that the chair of the GOP in Westchester County is going to meet with Russell soon, “and if he can explain this somehow they’re going to continue looking into this — and if he can’t they’ll cut him loose.” Carey said that even if the GOP drops Russell from its line on the ballot, he will still be a candidate. …which also implies that the decision to drop Russell or not would be made by the county, and not state, party. Based on all the sources available, it’s pretty clear that Russell lost local and state party support. The only evidence that he enjoyed the state party’s endorsement is that he didn’t remove that item from his website; against that we have statements by a party official, the finding of a Fair Campaign Practices Committee, and the fact that Russell sued a state party official for defaming his character. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2013, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-caused-the-polar-shift-between-lincoln-republicans-and-todays-modern-republicans/676739/72 "2013-12-26T18:09:06Z")
Fair enough. The point still stands, though; Russell is a “Republican politician” who opposes miscegenation. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2013, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-caused-the-polar-shift-between-lincoln-republicans-and-todays-modern-republicans/676739/73 "2013-12-26T19:06:16Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Fair enough. The point still stands, though; Russell is a “Republican politician” who opposes miscegenation. In the technical sense that Russell **was** a Republican who opposed miscegenation, sure. Note the ‘was’, he’s is no longer a Republican politician. In the larger sense that I believe **ITR** was trying to convey - that such views are unacceptable to today’s Republican Party - the point does not stand, because Russell was booted from the party days after his views became known. That’s as near as makes no difference to “no Republican politician today…opposes the right of blacks to vote, serve on a jury, or marry interracially”. IMHO, at least. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2013, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-caused-the-polar-shift-between-lincoln-republicans-and-todays-modern-republicans/676739/74 "2013-12-26T21:44:01Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Now there’s certainly no Republican politician today who opposes the right of blacks to vote, serve on a jury, or marry interracially. [Not in those words, anyway . . .](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Dog_whistle) ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2013, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-caused-the-polar-shift-between-lincoln-republicans-and-todays-modern-republicans/676739/75 "2013-12-28T02:29:11Z")
It may be clearest to think of the basic divide in American politics, right from independence, as being big government / urban vs. small government / rural, Hamilton vs. Jefferson if you’re so inclined (the Louisiana Purchase notwithstanding). That was the basic fault line between the Whigs and the Democrats, and it resumed after the war. The war and the run-up to it was only a temporary realignment caused by the immediacy of resolving the slavery problem. Lincoln’s Republicans were essentially a temporary alliance of factions of the former parties. The institution only became permanent because there was no remaining Whig party to re-form the old big government / urban interests around, the “cotton Whigs” having thrown in with the Copperhead Democrats, the “conscience Whigs” controlling the Republicans, and the Know-Nothings having little left to fight for. Since the war, the switch of the former anti-slavery party to having its base in the region, and culture, that supported slavery, Jim Crow, segregation, black voting right suppression, and institutional of unequal economic opportunities … er, excuse me, “states’ rights” … (and excuse me again, I put that in the past tense, didn’t I?) can be seen as reactions to the stepwise and equally total switch of the Democrats from standing for those things to opposing them. The Southern Strategy certainly was an example. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2013, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-caused-the-polar-shift-between-lincoln-republicans-and-todays-modern-republicans/676739/76 "2013-12-30T17:36:55Z")
> [@Shakes](#): > > Thanks. This is the answer I was looking for. I vaguely remember hearing this explained to me but I couldn’t remember the particulars. To add details to that explanation: The Republicans were hated in the South after the Civil War for obvious reasons, so the Democrats dominated there (the origin of the term “Solid South,” as in solidly Democratic). As a result, the Democratic primary became the de facto election in Southern states, because no Republican could win in November. When the civil rights movement finally let blacks vote in large numbers in the South, they voted in the Democratic primaries like everyone else. That caused Democratic candidates to become more liberal. That in turn drove many conservative whites to seek alternatives in the GOP, and the dominance (and conservatism) of the Democratic Party in the South finally ended. That was a significant driver of the flip-flop. Sometimes people who don’t understand this history in full who find out I’m a Democrat will attack me, trying to associate me with the racist past of the Democrats. They’ll say things like “back in the 50s and 60s, the Democrats fought civil rights.” I respond by saying, “Sure, and back in the 50s and 60s, I would probably have been a Republican. But now it’s 2013.” ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2013, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-caused-the-polar-shift-between-lincoln-republicans-and-todays-modern-republicans/676739/77 "2013-12-30T17:40:31Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > To add details to that explanation: > > The Republicans were hated in the South after the Civil War for obvious reasons, so the Democrats dominated there (the origin of the term “Solid South,” as in solidly Democratic). As a result, the Democratic primary became the de facto election in Southern states, because no Republican could win in November. For essentially the entire rest of the 19th century, the reminder on Election Day was “Vote the way you fought”. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-caused-the-polar-shift-between-lincoln-republicans-and-todays-modern-republicans/676739.md?page=3)