We’re not seeing it now?
When normal republicans hold power, we don’t see how bad they can be.
She’s not (entirely) wrong
FWIW, I meant the Right portraying the Democrats/Left as morally bankrupt, not the other way around.
I’m late to this thread, but this was my immediate reaction to the OP.
As far as Republican/Democratic party distinctions, it may seem bizarre today, but in the mid-19th century when the Republican party formed, they were the liberal party. However, by the early 20th century, the two parties had become very similar and the distinction was mainly tribalness. That is, one was D or R because one’s parents were D or R. Much like one’s religion. FDR moved the Ds to the left and that’s the way it’s been since.
Of course they eventually became enemies, with emphasis on “eventually.” 1792 was the last year of Washington’s first term, not Day 1.
And they fought the way gentlemen did back then, by writing vicious letters that were published in partisan newspapers and badmouthing them at dinners. No fist fights, not even nearly fist fights. In fact, I know of no record of either man ever getting into a fist fight at any point in their lives.
Don’t get history from skimming Reddit.
Civil rights was another big factor.
True, they formed as the anti-slavery party. Today’s definitions of liberal and conservative are hard to apply to that. The South was broadly conservative in most ways but being anti-slavery was both a moral stance and a regional stance fighting Southern power. Their first platform for the 1856 presidential election barely mentions any other subject. The 1860 platform that Lincoln ran under makes few changes, although one paragraph upholds the rights of immigrants.
After Reconstruction ended in 1876, the party became the tool of business interests and therefore conservative. A faction in the early 20th century tried to added Progressive priorities but little happened until FDR conquered the country.
Breaking up Standard Oil, the creation of the Department of Commerce and Labor, the Pure Food and Drug Act, and conservation efforts to protect nature and natural resources were not small things. Yes, FDR did more, but it was in response to a crisis that he took as a mandate to increase the power and authority of the federal government. But TR was no slouch in advancing the agenda of the Progressives.
Give Teddy full credit for his accomplishments, made against kicking and screaming members of his party. Also remember that Taft, his hand-picked successor and supposedly a progressive, backed off so quickly that Teddy ran against him for president in 1912. Teddy’s stay in office is an anomaly in Republican history and the party as a whole remained the voice of conservatism throughout and after.
The Caning of Charles Sumner is arguably worse, since it was entirely one-sided. And naturally, it was by a right winger.
The beating nearly killed Sumner and contributed significantly to the country’s polarization over the issue of slavery. It has been considered symbolic of the “breakdown of reasoned discourse”[1] and willingness to resort to violence that eventually led to the Civil War.
That was the “red scare” era and the age of McCarthy and Hoover. Not nice.
OK, but, of course, as pointed out, no period in U.S. politics was truly nice. I’m just asking for comparison. If we can’t say “nice,” then - what was the least-nasty era?
Again: It was the Era of Good Feelings in the Monroe administration, which had less nastiness than any other era.
Monroe’s visit to Boston elicited a huge outpouring of nationalist pride and expressions of reconciliation. New England Federalists were especially eager to demonstrate their loyalty after the debacle of the Hartford Convention. Amidst the festivities – banquets, parades, receptions – many took the opportunity to make the most “explicit and solemn declarations” to remove, as Monroe wrote afterwards, “impressions of that kind, which they knew existed, and to get back into the great family of the union”. Abigail Adams dubbed the catharsis an “expiation”.
Here, in the heart of Federalist territory, Monroe gained the primary goal of his tour; in effect, permitting “the Federalists by solemn public demonstrations to reaffirm their loyalty to the government and their acceptance of Republican control”. Even in this atmosphere of contrition, Monroe was assiduous in avoiding any remarks or expressions that might chasten or humiliate his hosts. He presented himself strictly as the head of state, and not as the leader of a triumphant political party.
Both parties agreed that communism was evil. They both voted to censure McCarthy. JFK was about as liberal as they come in that era. He was pretty adamant during the Cuban missile crises.
Interesting post. I am reminded of our neighbors how own a local bank. In style and substance, the family is like something out of a Norman Rockwell painting, or a Jimmy Stewart film – very mid-20th-C American. They have been very careful to not make their political opinions known (around the neighborhood, say) – uncommon here in 50-50-split, swing-state Wisconsin – mainly because it’s bad for business.