What caused the polar shift between Lincoln republicans and today's modern republicans?

[ITR_champion]

@Shakes

Are you being intentionally coy? Do you not understand the contrast between now and then?

It certainly seems to be that changing from being opposed to voting and other basic rights for Blacks, as the Republicans were in Lincoln’s time, to being in favor of the same, as the Republicans are now, is a positive change that everyone would look favorably upon.

[RickJay]

@ITR_champion

It certainly seems to be that changing from being opposed to voting and other basic rights for Blacks, as the Republicans were in Lincoln’s time, to being in favor of the same, as the Republicans are now, is a positive change that everyone would look favorably upon.

The question, though, is where Lincoln was relative to race relations, versus where, say, the modern party is.

By the standards of his day Lincoln was very, very strongly pro-equality (this quote, which is always trotted out to prove he was a racist, is the most racist thing the man ever said and is probably not truly representative of his actual feelings.) Lincoln was living in a country where it was a common position to hold that black people should be owned like property, and he took radical measures to not only end that position but to make it legal for black people to have the same status under the Constitution, as whites.

The 2013 equivalent to Abraham Lincoln isn’t a Republican who just says “equality is great.” It would be someone taking active, radical efforts to increase equality.

[BrainGlutton]

@ITR_champion

It certainly seems to be that changing from being opposed to voting and other basic rights for Blacks, as the Republicans were in Lincoln’s time, to being in favor of the same, as the Republicans are now, is a positive change that everyone would look favorably upon.

The change is that, of the parties in the field, the GOP was the party most friendly to racial equality in Lincoln’s time and is the least so today.

[ITR_champion]

@RickJay

The question, though, is where Lincoln was relative to race relations, versus where, say, the modern party is.

By the standards of his day Lincoln was very, very strongly pro-equality (this quote, which is always trotted out to prove he was a racist, is the most racist thing the man ever said and is probably not truly representative of his actual feelings.) Lincoln was living in a country where it was a common position to hold that black people should be owned like property, and he took radical measures to not only end that position but to make it legal for black people to have the same status under the Constitution, as whites.

The 2013 equivalent to Abraham Lincoln isn’t a Republican who just says “equality is great.” It would be someone taking active, radical efforts to increase equality.

It’s certainly true that Lincoln was pro-equality relative to his time. However, why should we say that “the question” is merely relative? I think we should have an standard aim: a government which never treats two people differently because of their race. Right now, the biggest obstacles to that aim, such as affirmative action, come mainly from the left, and Republicans are generally opposed to them. I’d agree that there may be some cases at more local levels, with issues such as racial profiling, where the Republicans are less likely to call for a stop to the problem than non-Republicans.

[Karrius]

@ITR_champion

It’s certainly true that Lincoln was pro-equality relative to his time. However, why should we say that “the question” is merely relative? I think we should have an standard aim: a government which never treats two people differently because of their race. Right now, the biggest obstacles to that aim, such as affirmative action, come mainly from the left, and Republicans are generally opposed to them. I’d agree that there may be some cases at more local levels, with issues such as racial profiling, where the Republicans are less likely to call for a stop to the problem than non-Republicans.

ITR, is there any reason you abandoned your last thread on this, here, after people had pointed out how you were incorrect and contradictory in many ways, only to repeat the same viewpoints a week later in a different thread?

[ITR_champion]

If you’d like to explain what you think I’ve said in this thread that’s “incorrect and contradictory”, I’ll do my best to respond, time permitting.

[BobLibDem]

@RickJay

So? I still hear people use the construction “I seen it” even though they’ve heard the correct term all their lives. If you take an honest and somewhat more charitable view of human behavior you’ll find the world is actually a bit less partisan and mean than you think it is.

And I again have to point out that “Democrat” is an actual word used to describe members of the Democratic Party. The party itself uses the website www.democrats.org. There is no equivalent term for the GOP; the Republican party is made up of Republicans. If you cannot honestly see how the Democratic/Democrat error could be innocently made, well, you’re kidding yourself.

It can be made innocently, but I’ve never heard anyone who wasn’t a Republican say it.

[Shodan]

[QUOTE=Shakes]
It used to be the republicans that were all for equal rights among minorities. Now, not so much.
[/QUOTE]
That’s not really reflective of a shift in the Republican party as much as it is a shift in the Democratic party. With Roe v. Wade the Democrats discovered they could get what they wanted more easily thru activist judges than by the democratic process. They adopted a strategy of simply calling whatever they want a basic civil right and trying to push it thru the courts, both as a strategy and as a rhetorical device.

Add to that the idea that the Constitution is a Rorschach inkblot where you can see whatever you want, and presto.

Regards,
Shodan

[puddleglum]

@BrainGlutton

:dubious:

From the wikipedia article on the Davis-Bacon Act

At the time of original passage, the Jim Crow Laws were in effect throughout the Southern United States. During World War I, immigration from Europe fell dramatically at precisely the time that Northern industry required additional labor for the war effort.[22] As a result, northern industry and entrepreneurs began to recruit laborers from the South.[22] This brought about or accelerated the Great Migration in which black (and white) laborers from the South came North in search of better pay and opportunity.
The migration in turn created new demographic challenges in the North. White workers were competing against new labor; in some cases, the black workers were used as pawns in an effort to break unions.[22] There were widespread efforts to recruit black workers[22][23] and in reaction, efforts to thwart recruitment.[22][24] Black migrants were restricted to specific neighborhoods in northern cities where the buildings were in poor condition and rents were high, forcing them to live in dense conditions.[22]
In that context, the protests against the Long Island hospital built with migrant labor can be seen for what they were: resistance outside of the Jim Crow South to black workers.[7] During this time, complaints about black workers taking federal construction jobs appear sporadically through the legislation history of both prior bills that anticipated Davis-Bacon, and Davis-Bacon itself.[5][25] On the floor of the House of Representatives, Congressman Upshaw said: “You will not think that a southern man is more than human if he smiles over the fact of your reaction to that real problem you are confronted with in any community with a superabundance or large aggregation of negro labor.”[7][26] John J. Cochran of Missouri reported that he had “received numerous complaints in recent months about southern contractors employing low-paid colored mechanics getting work and bringing the employees from the South”.[7] Representative Clayton Allgood reported on “cheap colored labor” that “is in competition with white labor throughout the country”.[7][27] [28]

The purpose of the minimum wage and prevailing wage laws was to limit competition between the white workers of the north, many of whom belonged to unions, and the black workers that were being transported in from the South.

[Ibn_Warraq]

@ElvisL1ves

The New Deal before that. Then the Civil Rights Act.

You think FDR was a “Lincoln Republican”?

[ElvisL1ves]

Probably better read the OP again, 'kay?

The Lincoln Republicans were overpowered by the Radical Republicans after his death, and effectively no longer existed after 1876.

[ElvisL1ves]

@astorian

People like you have been saying for decades, “The GOP is so extreme now, a moderate can’t get elected.” And yet the GOP always ends up nominating moderates for President.

And, as he says, they don’t get elected.

[2sense]

The main change in the Republican Party is that they won. Originally they were outsiders fighting the powerful Democratic Party and as such were naturally sympathetic to the downtrodden. But the Republicans won the War Between the States and with it the dominant position in American politics. Between then and the New Deal there were 33 congressional terms. Of those Republicans controlled the presidency in 24, the Senate in 28, and the House in 21. As insiders they became more and more the party of the status quo.

@Shodan

That’s not really reflective of a shift in the Republican party as much as it is a shift in the Democratic party. With Roe v. Wade the Democrats discovered they could get what they wanted more easily thru activist judges than by the democratic process. They adopted a strategy of simply calling whatever they want a basic civil right and trying to push it thru the courts, both as a strategy and as a rhetorical device.

Add to that the idea that the Constitution is a Rorschach inkblot where you can see whatever you want, and presto.

I’d ask for a cite for this dubious proposition but it is beside the point. By the 70’s the GOP had already abandoned blacks and vice versa.

[Ibn_Warraq]

@astorian

People like you have been saying for decades, “The GOP is so extreme now, a moderate can’t get elected.” And yet the GOP always ends up nominating moderates for President.

Mitt Romney, precisely the kind of liberal Repubican you insist can’t succeed in today’s ultraconservative Republican Party, DID get the nomination lat year, without working up a sweat. The extremists you insist control the party could never rally around a candidate, and ended up flirting impotently with loads of them.

The country club set controls the party, not the 700 Club set.

So in 2000, Bush was the “moderate” while McCain wasn’t?:dubious:

[Melbourne]

@Shakes

I’m posing this as a question because I really don’t know. I didn’t post this in GQ because I get the sense that it would be moved over here anyway.
Thanks for any input.

Tangentially,
Lincoln was b-partisan (more than most of his party, and to the complete rage and confusion of the south) And to the extent that his party had been captured by anti-slavery ideologs, it was cross-factional and a-political. Recently, the parties have moved farther apart, due to better analysis and control of districting. So…

The obvious explanation for both parties being so centerist from Licoln to Bush was that they represented the North/South factional devide. Now that the North/South divide has softened, the parties are finding their tribal factionalism in economic rather than regional divisions.

[Riga_Marole]

@Shakes

What caused the polar shift between Lincoln republicans and today’s modern republicans?

The military–industrial complex without restraint.

[BrainGlutton]

@puddleglum

From the wikipedia article on the Davis-Bacon Act
The purpose of the minimum wage and prevailing wage laws was to limit competition between the white workers of the north, many of whom belonged to unions, and the black workers that were being transported in from the South.

But, that’s not an “anti-black” measure, it just means blacks get paid the same as whites.

[Lumpy]

@BrainGlutton

But, that’s not an “anti-black” measure, it just means blacks get paid the same as whites.

I believe the allegation is that the minimum wage was intended to price imported former sharecroppers out of the northern labor market.

[astorian]

@Ibn_Warraq

So in 2000, Bush was the “moderate” while McCain wasn’t?:dubious:

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?

[2sense]

@Melbourne

And to the extent that his party had been captured by anti-slavery ideologs, it was cross-factional and a-political.

So to no extent whatsoever. Got it.

Recently, the parties have moved farther apart, due to better analysis and control of districting. So…

While astorian and I don’t agree on what constitutes conservative and far right he makes a good point that the electoral rhetoric of George W. Bush was a far cry from today’s Tea Party fodder. A man proposing to help Americans (in the form of a new government benefit) would be denounced as a Commie and ousted in favor of a Real Republican. Something has changed very recently and I don’t see how the blame can be laid at the feet of gerrymandering.

The obvious explanation for both parties being so centerist from Licoln to Bush was that they represented the North/South factional devide. Now that the North/South divide has softened, the parties are finding their tribal factionalism in economic rather than regional divisions.

“Centrist” in the sense that both parties contained members from all over the spectrum of politics acceptable to the overriding goal of making the rich richer. The New Deal upset the apple cart a bit on that and we are living with the results of the decades long quest to undo that deal and return to the comfortable old assumptions that government can’t help people. At least not with social programs.

The Republican Party is stuck much like the old Whig Party was wrecked on the rocks of slavery. Again there is an issue which can not be spoken aloud. “Class Warfare” they call it and try to push it down but the tide is rising. Democrats, actual elected ones, are daring to raise the issue of economic inequality. I don’t expect the GOP to go the way of the Whigs. We are more sophisticated I’d like to think these days. But it’s going to be rough sailing.