Maybe I’m also reading in my own political beliefs, but in my view anyways the Democratic Party is still more of an old-style “big tent” party. Practically every position the party has is opposed by some faction or other, so describing one’s political beliefs as “Democrat” (staunch or otherwise) doesn’t really tell you much.
The Republicans have their factions too, but they’re much smaller and the doctrinal differences are much less. I think there is enough of a core platform there that is agreed on by a large enough portion of the party that saying you are a “Republican” (staunch or otherwise) does convey a basic outline of someone’s political beliefs.
Yes… as in it’s usually spelt stanch, like I said. And the adjective meaning is, these days, only used in very limited circumstances; I have actually seen it used with ‘supporter’ as well as Republican, but it’s not used as a free adjective, IYSWIM - you wouldn’t expect it see it with any old word.
So the answer to the OP is really just that people are notoriously un-creative in their speech and writing and “staunch republican” just happened to be a phrase that stuck.
I can’t imagine most Republicans ever voting for a Democrat. Have any of you?
But I’ve voted for a Republican for the Senate at least twice. My Democrat mom voted for one Republican candidate for President – Nixon. (She never did it again.)
I too think that Democrats tend to be a little more open to change and negotiation and therefore aren’t as “staunch.” But I don’t think that all Republicans are staunch and all Democrats willing to accomodate.
There are straight party line voters in both parties. There are also people who take the time to consider legislation (and candidates) on a case-by-case basis.
Look at Montana, where I live. It’s considered a “red” state, with both houses controlled by the Republicans; yet both of our U.S. Senators, our Governor, and our Secretary of State are Democrats. At least here, the Republicans are perfectly willing to elect a Democrat if they feel he (or she) is the better candidate for the job.
As to the OP, it doesn’t sound like there are no “staunch Democrats.” Chalk the difference up to slight subcultural differences or to a quirk of statistics? I don’t know if “staunch Republican” became a repeated phrase in its own right so much as “yellow dog Democrat” doesn’t have a GOP corollary.
Oh, that was good information, Sam, but it doesn’t really answer why “staunch supporter” is very common (much more so than “staunch Republican”), but “staunch dissenter” isn’t – or why “staunch” would attach itself so much more to Republican than Democrat. You can’t get much more “staunch” than a Southern Democrat, right?
At this point in the thread, it’s all speculation…
He was a Republican. But it might be a valid argument to say that the Republican Party stood considerably further to the left in those days than it does now. Or, at least we can say Taft himself took a left-leaning position on several issues, albeit not with uniform success.
Huh. I could have sworn he was a Democrat. Oh well. Of course back then, the Dems were on the right, and the Repubs were on the left, to put it simply.
You might be remembering him running against Teddy Roosevelt, who served as President under the Republican label. But in the election where Taft and Roosevelt were running against each other, Roosevelt was running under the Progressive (AKA Bull Moose) party label. In practice, they ended up splitting the Republican vote (with Roosevelt actually getting a larger share of it), giving the election to the Democrat, Woodrow Wilson.
“Staunch” implies loyalty to an organization more than to a cause. Since societal progress takes multiple directions, often even conflicting ones, a party that is essentially an alliance of progressives will have multiple agendas, often even conflicting. Loyalty in the context of such an alliance is therefore to the notion of the benefits of progress rather than to the alliance itself, which is essentially only a flag of convenience.
But, to an adherent of an organization whose appeal is to those who oppose, or simply fear, societal change on the basis that their own position in it, or perhaps the quality of society overall, might somehow be diminished find their strength in the organization itself, which helps reinforce that view. There are no differing or competing visions that make it into a tactical alliance; it’s only about saying No and telling each other that’s good.
ETA: I would say more that TR was running against Taft than vice versa. If the GOP used primaries then, there never would have been a Bull Moose Party, but that was how an incumbent was challenged by a disaffected fellow party member then.
Other than political references, “staunch” is used for loyalty to universities, such as a “staunch Boilermaker.”
The counterpart to the “yellow dog Democrat” who would rather vote for a yellow dog than a Republican is the “Second Coming Republican,” who would vote against Jesus Christ Himself, if he came back and ran as a Democrat.
And the adjective meaning is, these days, only used in very limited circumstances; I have actually seen it used with ‘supporter’ as well as Republican, but it’s not used as a free adjective, IYSWIM - you wouldn’t expect it see it with any old word.