ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 26 พ.ค. 2016
- The story of the GOP, from Abraham Lincoln to Donald Trump.
Free audiobook: www.audibletrial.com/TheDailyC...
Subscribe to TDC:
/ thedailyconversation
Taibbi's full article: www.rollingstone.com/politics/...
Like our page on Facebook
/ thedailyconversation
Join us on Google+
plus.google.com/1001349258045...
Follow us on Twitter
/ thedailyconvo
Script:
To understand the context of Republican voters settling on Donald Trump, let's take a look at the history of the GOP.
The Grand Old Party was formed by antislavery forces in the 1850’s. Back then, the Republican party was actually the progressive party in American politics. The first Republican President was Abraham Lincoln, who was elected in what political scientists say was the first of three critical elections in American history. Before Lincoln was even inaugurated, seven southern slaveholding states had seceded from the Union, setting the stage for the Civil War. Lincoln and the Republicans in congress who controlled the Union won that war and freed the slaves. But after Lincoln was assassinated, during reconstruction, the Republican Party punished former leaders of the Confederacy by not allowing them to vote or hold office, and gave former slaves the right to vote. This turned whites in the south against the Republican Party for the next 100 years and led to the creation of Jim Crow laws that enforced segregation and took the vote away from blacks.
In 1896 the second critical election in American history gave William McKinley the presidency and the Republicans large majorities in both houses of congress. This time-period cemented the Republicans as the party of low taxes, conservative social policies, and anti-government intervention in the economy, although legendary President Theodore “Teddy” Roosevelt tried to push the Party in a more progressive direction.
Fast-forward to after the stock market crash of 1929 when the country was in the depths of the Great Depression, but the Republicans refused to take direct government intervention to help the economy, leading to the third critical election in American history, in 1932, when Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt and his New Deal Coalition defeated incumbent Republican President Herbert Hoover by 413 electoral votes. “That the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” Roosevelt then enacted the most progressive social programs in history, won reelection three times, and led the US to an eventual victory in WWII.
The Republican-controlled congress never wanted to be out of power for that long again, so they approved the twenty-second amendment to the constitution, which limited presidents to just two terms in office.
After the war Roosevelt’s Democratic successor Harry Truman integrated the U.S. military - a move that angered many white southern Democrats who began switching to the Republican Party.
In 1952, Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower - the World War II Supreme Allied Commander - became President. His centrist governing style went a long way toward normalizing Roosevelt’s expanded role for the federal government.
In 1964 Democratic President Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act which was intended to end discrimination, especially in the south. This moment, more than any other, defined the parties as we still know them today, with the Democrats coming full circle from being the party of the Confederacy 100 years earlier, to ultimately embracing diversity and equal rights; whereas the Republican Party shifted significantly to the right on social issues as it happily took in the many white voters abandoning the Democrats.
This shift was on full display, as 11 southern states voted for the Republican Richard Nixon.
Six years after Nixon’s Presidency ended in disgrace after the Watergate scandal, the Republicans finally had a leader they could be proud of in the former actor and Governor of California Ronald Reagan. Reagan took advantage of a bad economy and the Iran hostage crisis to defeat sitting President Jimmy Carter in a landslide and became the father of modern conservatism with deep tax cuts and a massive buildup of the U.S. military that helped facilitate the fall of the Soviet Union.
Reagan was followed by his Republican Vice President, George H.W. Bush, who helped cement many of Reagan’s signature policies.
Bill Clinton’s democratic presidency was dangerous for Republicans in that he was a charismatic white southerner capable of making inroads with the Republican base, so to counter his appeal, they highlighted his infidelities, a tactic that was largely successful in tainting his presidency despite Clinton’s success in building a strong economy and securing a relatively peaceful world...
![[#SHORTS CLIP] ครูอึ้ง กรรมการอึ้ง ฮ่าๆ l ซานิเบาได้เบา l One Playground](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/qeBTuMJs4t0/mqdefault.jpg)
This channel is so far left
And?
+Solomon Pervez it's cancer
It doesn't recognize it's own biases.
And there's nothing wrong with that
+Joseph Salvi
I agree, I was digging this less and less the closer it got to the end.
As a historian, I love how they skirt over the many social advances of the Republican party and then say that the Democrats embraced social diversity while the Republicans did not. Not accurate at all and I love how they embrace various red herrings.
These parties did not switch sides on supporting minorities and still maintains on their platform the rights of individuals (and not social groups) and equality under the law. The rise of Donald Trump is not the fall of the GOP; it was based upon a return to the traditional anti-establishment platform as a result of seeing politicians on both parties abuse the constitution while acting above the law. The second cause of the Donald Trump movement was watching how the liberal globalism movement, which started in the '60 & '70s, continued to take apart this nation while embracing a corrupt and abusive United Nations which is represented by governments (tyrannical or benevolent), not people, as the ideal world government where key people can control the many worldwide.facebook.com/notes/warbard/what-are-the-political-party-platforms/1644352178914211
Yes it is especially under Trump
Hi, Political Scientist here. Something I’ve come to find over my many years of experience is that historians’ analyses of political issues is always incorrect. Like, 100% of the time.
TDC is SO biased...
Stfu
TDC...
The Disulussional Clintonists
The bias is incredible in this video
The reason why I disliked this video was because of the Trump criticism. I cam to watch a video about the history of the GOP, not a Trump Bashing video.
Me too, all I got was leftist Trump bashing.
Royce Shey
That's the problem with the right they only want to hear what they want to hear.
Yessss!
@@mattrussillo4587 people that want to be in their echo champer. But then again some are TFG
its cause he's really a leftist scumbag.
this video need to highlight a lot of other important things. the slant to the left is felt.
I appreciate your comment. My point was to present the party as a serious one that veered wildly off course, thus the change in tone in the middle of the video.
Seems to me the change in tone comes only from the content. The Reagan message was perhaps a surprisingly trite bill of goods and then grows reckless and self-serving as the GOP agenda focuses on conservative obsessions rather than a national agenda.
What is missing? It is overall remarkably straightforward and avoids bias. I note the lack of an editorial bias shaped by the conservative agenda in the media is generally perceived by Republicans as evidence of liberal bias. That is, objectivity is liberal bias, as they see it, contrary to their claims.
There will be a lot of deplorables crying after nov 8. I got my popcorn ready
deplorables lol, funny word.
This is kinda bias
Jonathan BooBookerke which part? use your big words
What a load of crap. Many convenient omissions.
I normally respect The Daily Conversation, but how do they think that they can get away with making such biased and unsubstantiated claims? They use "thinly veiled racial attacks" to describe the tea party movement. and then that article at the end is a joke. You can either claim to be non-biased, or support or oppose certain political candidates. You can not do both. The biases and omissions in your video are glaring, and then in the comments section, as if to remove all doubt, you say "#NeverTrump" . You lost a lot of credibility in my eyes with this video, and with some of your other videos relating to this years election. The title of one of them is "Is Donald Trump mentally ill?", and aside from the obvious ad hominem, how can you expect us to think that you are non biased?
Jos Meid then dont watch
I didn't know that it was going to be biased before I watched it. As I said in my comment, "I normally respect The Daily Conversation", however even if I did know that It was going to be biased, I still would have likely watched it, as I like learning, even from those who disagree with me. I was not flat out going after The Daily Conversation with that comment, but rather offering a constructive criticism, as one should do in the comment section of a video if it is applicable.
Yeah, this channel is just more lefty propaganda. Nothing non-biased or balanced about it. And the "Dixiecrat" argument has been debunked thoroughly and often.
my sentiments exactly. the activist on this dude is real.
Sorry way to much bias dude tone it down.
biased television is bad television
I can't even watch this shot... It's so FN slanted there's hardly any factual truth in it.
Well you can add Trump to the list of presidents now
Where is the Democratic Party downfall video or are they the pillar of all things good?
smoll1124
This wasn't categorized as "downfall" what's more they were very generous where Reagan was concerned considering he left us in a then record deficit outdone only by Bush 2- and we've yet to see what Trump will do in the end.
Why is it that I cant find one TH-cam channel that doesn't oppose the republican party
Prager U
Maybe there's a message in there.
Because most young people follow trends, unfortunately.
Unfortunately PragerU is fake.
@@K.C.-Games Dah
This "deplorable" thanks you for your clearly unbiased and honest appraisal of the GOP. *sarc*
Hint: People like you are a large reason why Trump won.
So you then
@@Ajourneyofknowing Thank you for proving my point.
@@ianchapman6254 - also why he lost in a landslide
@@Ajourneyofknowing Not true. He won in 2016 and as little as 30,000 ballots in three states would have had him win in 2020. That is not "losing in a landslide". The Trump Derangement Syndrome is strong with you.
don't let this guy fool you into thinking the Republican party has always been the party of racism. that idea was spread in both parties for years. also the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was pushed by Republicans before being signed by LBJ. And surprisingly you forgot to mention that the Koch Brothers give millions of dollars to BOTH parties, not only the Republicans like you said. take the bias out of your videos please
Jared Olson it didn't say Republican was place for racism, he actually argues that LBJ put southern whites off the Democrats, then Barry goldwater put a nail in coffin after he ran to end the civil rights, and was selected as the party's representative. which led to black people leaving the Republican party in droves.
Jared Olson and Koch mostly gives to Republicans, now I bet you won't say it's even. They'll support liberal idea like fixing the prison system and donating to NAACP, but they're most conservative donors..like Soros
@@marengoczar5035 Dinesh D'Souza explains Goldwater and when blacks switched parties during FDR's presidency in one of his videos. Watch it and you will learn.
Jared Olson
He didn't say that! But they have been for at least the last century! And that's being generous!
This is false. Look at the votes for the Civil Rights Act of 1964:
By party and region
The House of Representatives:
Southern Democrats: 8-83 (9-91%)
Southern Republicans: 0-11 (0-100%)
Northern Democrats: 145-8 (95-5%)
Northern Republicans: 136-24 (85-15%)
The Senate:
Southern Democrats: 1-20 (5-95%)
Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0-100%)
Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98-2%)
Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84-16%)
The reality is, the parties used to be regional and big tent. Both parties had liberals and conservatives. It was mostly the northerners who were liberal and supported social progress. That includes democrats and republicans.
uh FDR won 4 times
Yep, that's why I say "won reelection 3 times." He wasn't reelected in his first win, he was simply elected. Good looking out, Roosevelt was the man.
it was kinda hard to hear "re-election" because the "re" wasn't that loud
+The Daily Conversation Nice speech awareness shown bro.
They didn't get that wrong. They said he "won the reelection 3 times." The first time wasn't a reelection. The headline they showed said 4
+RiechMarshall Nimitz I heard it
your argument would be stronger if you weren't so biased.
"Thinly-veiled, racially-motivated attacks."
the claim that trump plays the media despite the media being firmly in Hillarys pocket.
is the media in Hilarys pocket tho... IS IT? IS IT REALLY? please do your research... LOOK AT WHO IS ADVISING HIM. Idiot
SWAGDOG what crack are you smoking? The media is in full blown damage control over the DNC leaks.
Rape Jokes Prevent World War 3 Dude, Roger Ailes is Trumps advisor...
Mostly one-sided "spin" with some outright untruths.
Mitt isn't a Republican. He's a classical Democrat, hence why he's a RINO.
Non sequitur, doesn't matter what you call him but Mitt Romney is offically affiliated with the Republican Party.
This video started quite neutral - then at the end it just turned into a diatribe against the Republican party! lol
Wow! The bias is churning my stomach!
so biased lol
The level-headed Republican party came around in 1954, gained the House majority in 1958 (ticking off democrap slavers) and then also gained the senate in 1960 (also ticking off democrap slavers some more) and if this still didn't send a strong message to the other side, the Republican presidential candidate also won the election in 1960 as an amazing first for the GOP party. So, the Republican Abraham Lincoln was elected, but before he was inaugurated, the insanely butt-hurt democraps seceded from the union and moved toward war likely chanting "he's not my president". These old time elite democrap socialists used slaves to create their own early version of equality -- that is, an equality of wretchedness among only the slaves who were mandated to "share all" their output to their elite masters.
This current herd of new time democrap socialists -- newly "progressed" to include many more folk classes in their older version of equality, were ticked off after losing the house in 2010 and also the senate in 2014; then, they were also insanely butthurt after also losing the presidency in 2016. They were so rekt, melted down, and in denial, perhaps there is a reason why they too did not also move to war like the 1860 democraps. (??)
So, by that thinking. Since Whigs started back up in 2007. That's like saying they would be the same as they were in 1850's before they collapsed. "Party's don't always stay stagnant.
And I'm an unaffiliated voter btw. Since we don't have to register in this state :)
There were 4 candidates in the 1860 election. Can you name them? Can you tell me who the Northern Democrat candidate was? Are you aware that the Northern Democrats fought for the union and that a union general was the 1864 democratic presidential candidate? Can you tell me the difference between a copperhead and a war democrat?
Of course not, because you are eliminating all nuance and historical complexity to fit your political agenda.
When the Democrats were first founded in 1828, they supported states rights and opposed federal power, opposed a national bank, opposed public education because they supported christian private schools, etc. Does that sound like the modern democratic party today?
@@Brandonmw1901So, I would like to further elaborate upon the first point and push back a little on the second. People tend to see the Republicans as straightforward successors to the Whigs given the presence of such figures as Abraham Lincoln, William Seward and Horace Greeley when they had perhaps just as strong of a Jacksonian strain in there. It was an eclectic alliance which drew from various disaffected partisans and fell apart after the issues uniting them of slavery and secession were effectively resolved. The political groupings subsequently re-sorted again gradually before long.
Their premiere presidential candidate John C. Fremont, the chairman Chairman of the Republican Party platform committee David Wilmont and Lincoln’s running mate in the election of 1860, Hannibal Hamlin, were prominent members who started out as Democrats to name a few. Now to mention how the Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men mantra associated with it originated with the anti-slavery Democrats who created the Free Soil Party. The Southern-wing also still ultimately found the national Democratic Party to be unreliable allies in defending the institution, due to its standard-bearer Stephen Douglas championing popular sovereignty above all else including their perceived property rights, and the latter relied on the urban immigrant vote to stay afloat given how many of their supporters defected to the growing Republican and breakaway Southern Democratic parties. And by 1876, they even nominated the old anti-slavery Barnburner turned Free Soiler Samuel Tilden.
How the major parties interacted with the slavery debate very often gets oversimplified seemingly because there is a desire to believe that there are always clear-cut heroes and villains to root for or against. Every one of them prior to the emergence of the existing Republican Party contained a pro-slavery Southern faction. In fact, the largest slaveholders tended to be Federalists and Whigs, the predecessors of the modern GOP roughly speaking, rather than Jeffersonian Republicans and Jacksonian Democrats. Former Southern Whigs actually managed to dominate the Confederate Congress following their 1863 midterms and went on to rule the Post-Reconstruction landscape of the region as Bourbon Democrats who disenfranchised not only blacks but plenty of poor whites as well. The Southern Democrats within the anti-New Deal Conservative Coalition were mostly comprised of their successors while those of the Jacksonians generally embraced it. This is not to pin the blame entirely on any single party for the bad stuff, but to illustrate how nuanced the topic really is.
As things pertain to public education, the opposition to it by Democrats had more to do with the fact that they saw it as serving the interests of Mainline Protestantism in a similar manner to how they viewed government intervention in the economy as being for the benefit of big business. There is a reason that Protestant Dissenters, Catholics, Jews and Freethinkers usually leaned toward the Democrats historically. The party held to a neutral secularism which led to a number of conflicts with Pietistic Protestants whether they be the Sabbatarian or Temperance movement as prime examples. Another was centered around the distinctly Protestant character of early public education systems at the local level which involved the mandatory usage of the King James Bible in religion classes as part of a wider effort to convert unassimilated students. Catholics in particular resisted these demands which prompted clashes with the now infamous nativist Know Nothings. That was why having parochial schools of their own was considered important as an alternative.
It can be argued that the new deal extended the great depression and in fact the end of the great depression was World War II
An Elephant represents a life-balance between Predator vs Prey
And now Trump is President and is currently re-establishing American pride, patriotism and is giving the GOP a status similar to that of Reagan times and the beginnings of the party(Lincoln)
Former Vanderbilt Professor of Political Science Carol Swain explains, the Republican Party was actually responsible for nearly every advancement for minorities and women in U.S. history-and remains the champion of equality to this day.
No, it was liberals who were responsible for social advancements. There was a time when liberal Republicans exist - see Teddy Roosevelt proposing universal healthcare - but they have been purged.
I was raised GOP, dad listened to Rush since I was a toddler and I did for a long time as well. I resonate with the economic policies of the Republican Party though I feel as though they do not represent me largely. Soon I will register as a Libertarian though many of them are in many ways indistinguishable from Democrats that maybe care about personal liberty a little more. I wish the GOP would learn to be proactive when it comes to race relations. It doesnt matter to me personally that the party is mostly white, but what does matter is,.. I think it's ridiculous for someone to think they can't be part of the party because of the color of their skin. It's a huge problem. If you're black, there is a good chance you'll never hear why republicans believe what works. It has absolutely nothing to do with race.
I love how they just say the 22nd amendment was just passed. Like dude you need 2/3 of both congress and senate. It wasn’t just something republicans did. There was real need and reason for it.
Haha you were you so wrong 😂
I thought you said Donald trump wasn't going to be the republican nomination
Well said Tomas.
If your not already a Novelist or a writer you should become one
If Cruz had stayed in, Trump wouldn't have gotten it.
The Daily Conversation You are obviously a bias liberal commentator. The rise of Trump isn't just bad trade deals, but it is also illegal immigration, multiculturalism, PC crowd, safe space for liberal college or high school pussies, over 94 millions out of the labor force, you idiot, $19.5 trillions debt from $10 trillions Bush administration, ISIS was produced in Obama's administration where he could have destroyed them before the cancer grew and underestimated them and call them JV team, apology tour, bad trade deals, not enforcing the illegal immigration laws and I can go on but it would be waste of time.
Tomas M Multiculturalism is a failure, you moron. With various cultures makes it difficult to communicate and get along because they can't speak English or wherever country they live in and can't speak their native language. Every culture has their own beliefs, religion, mentality, and their way of life that may not be compatible with natives or other race or culture. And many European countries is experiencing that as they are rebelling and America will eventually will do the same, maybe not the entire country but major part of this stupid country will.
It is now 2017, time to update this video and complete 2016 with the victory of Trump.
This guy is so left leaning
If this is biased, please link to an unbiased explanation!
Some people consider the election of 1800 a critical election because we went from pro-administration pro-Hamilton policies to smaller government, but considering how that was so early in the country's forming, I can see why you wouldn't include it in the history.
Wow, just watched all the way through. You still don't get it, and that's why you'll lose in 2020.
I like how the party magically changed. Like the cops all the sudden became the criminals lmao....
That's only a small part of the democratic party tbh
Everyone said that Trump was going to loose, that he had no chance...well sucks to be that guy who said Trump had no chance.
You can be socially progressive and economically conservative. Republican Party would be wise in filling that role as they would probably win a lot of elections.
Which is the establishment dems... basically the kids of the Eisenhower to say the Rockafeller types. Since they would be 50-60 years old as a voter today.
that ad at the end was nicely done
You left out Dwights attempts at integration.
Doesn't fit our Left-wing Propaganda.
@@firstname105 Makes you wonder what people on the right would say today? He would be way out there by 2023 standards.
History is best served informative and not biased
Can we cover the ideals of the 3rd party as well? I'd love to see the history in that.
Lincoln was not the first Republican to run for president, the first one to run was in 1856. The first Republican to run for President was John C. Fremont.
You left out how it took an assassination to get Teddy in office to stop the monopoly.
I didn't want to get too bogged down in specifics or this video would've been a 2 hour long documentary.
Why so biased to the left
Hi, Happy Hoildays My name is Rhonda Pickett I just wanted to inform the HOP that I relocated to Jackson Mississippi from Lansing Michigan Michigan. Things are going ok and hopefully things will get better I heard some people from Michigan followed but I'm not sure I didn't leave on good terms however wishing you a happy holidays (we rock)!!!!
Rhonda Lynn Pickett
04:13 - 04:18 can someone explain pls? I never really understood how Bush could win while actually getting less votes than his opponent ...
Its called the Electoral College. They vote for the next president not you and I directly. We vote for the president indirectly. It us a stupid system and we need to get rid of it. Our votes don't count individually.
The Electoral College consists of 538electors. A majority of 270 electoralvotes is required to elect the President. Your state's entitled allotment ofelectors equals the number of members in its Congressional delegation: one for each member in the House of Representatives plus two for your Senators
80schampion So Bush did get more of those electors? But for what reason did they need a Supreme Court decision?
www.wikiwand.com/en/United_States_presidential_election,_2000#/Florida_recount
Electoral congress
He won states with more points. Each state has elector count based on population. Each state has atleast 3.
I miss progressive republicans :'(
It's kind of crazy how - in a lot of areas - guys like Teddy Roosevelt were similar to Obama.
Makes you wonder who else at the time was one. Weather in congress and/or a Gov at the time.
wow!! i think you forgot or are purposely misleading..
My favorite lie in this video was after republicans freed the slaves we denied the south the right to vote and gave it to the new African Americans.
why don't u search
A decent video, though I think too much attention was put on the Democrats, even though there is a need for their inclusion to explain for changes in the Republican party.
Towards the end though, the content became more biased against the Republicans, which detracted from the previous objectivity.
Fair point, thanks for your comment.
As a Black Conservative and growing student of history and Civil Rights, I'm pretty astonished that The Daily Conversation would put something as biased and slanted as this piece is on the web. Katie Curric (sorry for the spelling) Just got slammed for doing the very same thing.
Not only are Democrats still the same ole Democrats of old but they've gotten better. They've traded in white KKK clothes for political maneuvering. I'll have to give it to em, to get an entire culture of people to vote for them was brilliant.
The main problem with Republicans is that they aren't as calculating as Dems. Dems are 20yrs out in front of the GOP and the GOP is on its heels not knowing what to do.
Hoover could only be called a non interventionist by comparing him to FDR.
There was no party switch
So I started watching this, but when I got to the Obama part your commentary became way to bias for comfort. I almost felt like I was reading Huffington Post..
Did you really just say the party that had business owners put up signs in their shops that said "Vote Republican or lose your job" was progressive?
There is an instinct to trace political evolution backward from now rather than to start at the beginning. That’s how notions like Conservatism being innately about small government and Liberalism a big one arise. The associations were reversed in fact at the Founding. The Hamiltonian Federalists represented a kind of Classical Conservatism which saw a strong national government as essential to preserving order. The Jeffersonian Republicans espoused a rigorous Classical Liberalism which perceived it to be an oppressive tool of the elite. As liberal teachings had informed the American Revolution, both camps were influenced by them. They reached consensus on recognizing natural rights, constraining government power, abandoning hereditary titles of nobility as well as the separation of church and state.
The Hamiltonians, however, maintained conservative attitudes on central banking, protectionism, restricting immigration and property requirements for the vote. The Jeffersonians championed the liberal ideals of laissez-faire, free trade, open immigration and extending political suffrage to the common man. A nationalist versus internationalist divide emerged which shaped a lot of their disagreements. Perhaps the fiercest ensued when looming conflict around England and France aggravated tensions. Contrary to conventional wisdom, the federal over state position was used for conservative purposes when Federalists passed the Alien and Sedition Acts. Efforts to thwart radicalism that involved putting foreigners under scrutiny. And the anti-federalist stance, albeit complicated by later battles, was applied for liberal ends when Republicans retaliated with the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions. Decrying them as violations of civil liberties, they asserted that the states could declare federal laws that they deemed unconstitutional void. A big deal in an age of centralized empires.
Though the sectional question of slavery shook up the political landscape in a variety of ways, those concepts carried on in essence as the guiding orthodoxies for the modern Republican and Democratic leaderships. But the distinction has been obscured in memory. Take two icons for limited government types who embodied the competing intellectual traditions. Hamiltonianism in the Republican Calvin Coolidge and Jeffersonianism in the Democrat Grover Cleveland. Cleveland vetoed an immigration bill which featured a literacy test as a barrier in 1897 while Coolidge signed into law such a proposal in 1924. Cleveland ran on reducing tariffs while Coolidge kept tariff rates high. Cleveland opposed national banks while Coolidge let the Federal Reserve be. Cleveland set in motion the landmark antitrust lawsuit known as the Sugar Trust Case while Coolidge ended a string of administrations that had launched many of them.
Cleveland put into place the Interstate Commerce Commission to protect consumers by overseeing trade while Coolidge appointed to it and the subsequent Federal Trade Commission hands-off commissioners to facilitate economic growth. It is their shared commitment to individualism, low taxes, sound money, balanced budgets and fiscal restraint that attracts the overlapping fans. Increasing demand for government intervention ignited during the Progressive Era blurred the line between the old-fashioned conservatives and liberals weary of it. Their ideas, regardless of the historical rivalry, now tend to get lumped together in the conservative category and pit against Progressivism. It also treated as one thing, usually under the name Liberalism, despite the initial disharmony there as well.
The Republican Theodore Roosevelt and Democrat Woodrow Wilson were the first progressive presidents from their parties. Though it was their successors who coined the terms Progressive Conservatism and Progressive Liberalism for their ideologies, each described himself with the pair of labels. Both differed from their classical counterparts with respect to the scope of government, but there are parallels in how they contrasted each other. Comparing Roosevelt and Wilson helps in differentiating between them. Roosevelt akin to Coolidge signed off on measures to curb immigration which included a literacy test in 1903 while Wilson like Cleveland before him rejected legislation of that sort in 1917. As expressed in his 1902 State of the Union Address, Roosevelt advocated protectionism. Wilson, on the other hand, favored free trade. A goal propounded in his Fourteen Points.
Both pursued economic regulation. But though dubbed the Trustbuster, Roosevelt was not hostile to monopolies on principle. Approving of what he called good trusts like U.S. Steel. Wilson pushed for the Clayton Antitrust Act in a bid to level the playing field by breaking them all up. The argument between nationalism and internationalism gained a new dimension with their foreign policy opinions. TR believed in the superiority of Anglo-Saxon societies and, as affirmed by his Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, their duty to police the world. Conversely, Wilson claimed that no nation was fit to sit in judgement of another. His ultimate aim was global governance through the League of Nations. Much like Classical Liberalism, Progressive Conservatism is largely overlooked in these discussions. Observing them can illuminate trends which go back to the First Party System.
Conditions created by the Second Industrial Revolution prompted the re-examination of accepted conservative and liberal precepts. Elements of both parties became convinced that government action was needed to remedy escalating unrest. Especially after the rise of the Populist Movement which fought for agrarian and industrial labor interests. The Populists coalesced into the People’s Party until rallying to the Democrat William Jennings Bryan to defy the rich and aid the poor. Republicans such as Roosevelt concluded that reform was necessary to prevent the country from descending into chaos. The key difference was that Bryan’s party selected him as its presidential candidate three times while Roosevelt’s gave him the vice presidency because it was thought that he couldn’t rock the boat there. Only taking office by chance after the assassination of William McKinley. And a greater number of delegates lent their support to the moderate William Howard Taft instead when he attempted to go for a third term.
Admirers of Cleveland left to form the National Democratic Party when Bryan came out on top in 1896. Likewise, Roosevelt and his followers walked out to organize the original Progressive Party after Taft received the nomination in 1912. Each split benefited the other major party and they quickly declined. Internal debates persisted, but precedents were set. Though Bryan never won, Wilson acted on several of his causes. And Franklin Roosevelt actually endorsed Wilson, not Teddy, in 1912. He built on his prototypical administrative state with the New Deal. An agenda of then unmatched government activism. In keeping with Warren G. Harding and Coolidge’s Post-Wilson Return to Normalcy, Republicans led by Robert Taft worked at rolling it back. The election of Dwight Eisenhower marked a truce. His philosophy of Dynamic Conservatism made peace with the New Deal zeitgeist, but he sought to rein in any excesses.
The further turns within the Democratic and Republican parties are clear-cut. The New Left and New Right adopted by George McGovern and Ronald Reagan both challenged the popular assumptions of their day. Focusing on social issues and government control. The Third Way and Compassionate Conservatism advanced by Bill Clinton and George W. Bush both moved toward the center. Reflecting upon the free market and social justice. Each establishment now confronts a populist wave. Democratic Socialism and National Conservatism are embraced by those that Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump have emboldened. Fed up with the ruling class, both aspire to tilt the balance of power.
Granted, each from early on housed factions that spanned the political spectrum. Of note are those epitomized by the Democrat John C. Calhoun and Republican Horace Greeley. Calhoun defended the status quo for Southern planters while Greeley promoted Utopian Socialism. The two served as prominent party figures up until they, alongside other dissidents, were faced with critical disputes which drove them apart. Calhoun set up the Nullifier Party after a bitter falling-out with Andrew Jackson due to him standing by the federal government in a mounting crisis with South Carolina over the Tariff of 1828. Greeley ran as the Liberal Republican Party nominee against Ulysses S. Grant in the election of 1872 in protest of scandals in his administration tied to big business. But not even allying with their partisan adversaries, the Nullifiers with the Whigs and the Liberal Republicans with the Democrats, was enough to defeat Jackson or Grant. Most of their members soon dispersed among them both.
Friction lingered between right-leaning Republican and left-leaning Democratic national parties and the left-wing Republicans and right-wing Democrats holding considerable sway at the state level with whom they compromised. The La Follette Wisconsin Republican and Talmadge Georgia Democratic machines were examples which came to blows with the Coolidge Campaign and FDR Administration. More infrastructure development coupled with gradual modernization led to the regions converging economically and culturally. That resulted in Republicans and Democrats amassing vast majorities of conservatives and liberals. Broadly speaking, along small town and big city lines. Both have indeed changed with time, quibbled over details and contained shifting coalitions. But their values remain fundamentally rooted in Hamiltonian pro-business conservative nationalism and Jeffersonian anti-elitist liberal internationalism.
Great video but you left out the Republican Revolution of 1994.
More Republicans proportionally voted for the civil rights and voting rights act
that's a pretty good history, except for the last year and a half
7:24 Hold this L
Did you know that Woodrow wilson a democrat watched the first movie in the White House that movie was about the KKK and all the good things they were doing also he Resegregated the armed forces of the United States military. and FDRs new deal may have extended the Great Depression by a few years and the only reason America got back on its feet was its war economy
That last quote from Rolling Stone more accurately describes Hillary's Democrat Party than the GOP but then again, whats the difference between establishment Republicans and establishment Democrats anyway.
No one realizes that until the 1930s the Republican Party was liberal and the democrats were conservative, so presidents like Teddy R and Lincoln were strong left wingers. It flipped back to modern day ideology during FDR's time
This current situation is a disaster! Republicans must change this for the sake of the country. It may require a radical step like forcing all state primaries to be open primaries and explicitly encouraging Democrats and Independents to vote in them. They must wrest the GOP from the glitching, sweating palms of bitter old white men. Otherwise, he risk the prospect a one-party, race-party apartheid state. This is disastrous state of affairs for any society, this is what leads to blood civil wars!!!
Was good up until Matt's sermonizing at the end.
Thanks for the feedback. I struggled with whether to end it after explaining the history, but I felt it needed more context/analysis. You should've seen how much editorializing by Matt and myself that I had at the end, but ultimately cut out :\
I got a gun holster commercial. Huh.
Let's all hope Trump is a good president.
Key word: "hope"
So is this where the switch happened or is it a myth?
Ugh. Just watching this a second time a year and a half later - past you didn't even know the half of it.
This video should be called A Democrats History of the Republican Party
Well that went from 100 to 0 real quick
I just recently heard about the party switch and I can't seem to find unbiased videos. I'm tired of this.
If you look around the world the political right is going nuts. In Europe they have right wing parties that are becoming more vocal (ie France, Germany and Austria), in the US you have the republicans, in Australia you have the Liberals (they are not 'liberal" like the way they are in the US). Also there is so much more hate for the other party. Chances are if you told a republican that you are a democrat the tension in the conversation just rose.
Still hold the same perspective?
Do I still have hope for the Republican party and it's politicians? Yes I do. But I'm renouncing my political views as a Republican voter and renew my political views as Democrat. And becoming a Democratic voter. I have to admit that both political parties managed to keep our country safer and peaceful. And they won various past wars.
1. War World I.
2. War World II.
3. The Vietnam War.
4. The Gulf war
5. The Cold War.
I thought I would be the only one in the comment section destroying you but it has been all the top comments so far It sucks to be so wrong all the time huh?
I detected a slight Democratic slant there at the end. ;o)
It’s more complicated than that. 🤦♂️
According to a Republican :
An anonymous 20 year old carries a machine gun into a preschool: No problem
A trans-woman walks into a women's room: MAN YOUR STATIONS!!! RED ALERT!!! RED ALERT!!!!
but yet we still won...... 30% latinos and 13% blacks and 55% white
Yes! and the latino and black support for Trump is increasing. He's up to almost 40% of the black vote.
Pretty spot on nothing else to be said
Thanks John.
Cheers! It's not that hard to to get - the GOP was the liberal party back when it started and the DNC was the conservative party. They switched over the last 150 years. Now the GOP is the conservative party and the DNC is the Liberal party. End of Story - so far.
not even close to the real history...
Why are you guys so against globalization and free trade ? That's what made the US what it is today...
Yeah, GMO's, tasteless and unhealthy Food, exploitation of the poor, extreme capitalism, polluted environment and dozens of wars for oil. Be proud of your U.S. dude!
Not to forget about your "Democracy". You only have 2 parties and the same families are at power for 200 years
+Catalin Balcau Now when you talk about the wars and the false democracy, you're talking about government. There you're right. But that's not a fault of globalization or free trade, that a fault of the political system.
+Catalin Brazil and Mexico do have capitalist systems, but capitalism by itself is not enough. For a country to develop, it needs the free market system. If you check the free trade index, you'll see that Brazil is waaay down. The developed countries are the ones in which government doesn't interfere in people's work and liberty. About the gmo's , the majority of studies show that it's safe. If you want to believe, it's up to you - there are people that also don't belive in climate change till this day... So believe in what you choose, just know that 99% of all evidence shows that gmo's are safe, and more, they show that gmo's may be the solution for problems like hunger and vitamin deficiencies.
4:41 damn he wild lol
This should say the history as told by a biased source. By most historical accounts and documentation this is the very least a well slanted left history of the Republican party.
By now, it should be time for African Americans to turn their portrait
of President Lincoln back over so that they can show him that they've
“seen the light” once again.
You get to Obama and you say he jump started the economy. Yet his GDP was terrible less than 1 percent and never exceeding 2. His unemployment numbers were super high. Trump has decreased the unemployment for everyone with record high of employment for blacks and Hispanics. And his GDP has been over 4 percent for three quarters
This is such a biased video, you've lost all credibility. Talk about Koch and not Soros?
One fact, followed by a biased opinion, repeat. That's the whole video.
Little rock nine wasnt a thing ?
this is incredibly one sided and biased. are you going to elaborate on the democratic history from a objective non biased angle? i bet it would be much uglier than this...
Moral of the Story beyong this liberal video with some major flaws. And now Trump is doing way better than Obama.
1:53 4 times, not 3
I'm not a fan of Republicans, but this video was EXTREMELY biased
so the political platform was switched...🤔. Kinda figured that
reading first 2 comments saved me 9 minutes and 29 seconds.