The info is good, but your graphics want labels, especially when multiple new badges pop up at the same time, and it would be cool if you provide more anchoring information (Presidents/major figures/historical events, or perhaps even a timeline showing the year or decade) that coincides with the rise of each ideological change. Thanks for sharing this!
Hoover didn't fail to address the depression. He did a lot, it's just that nothing worked and he became very unpopular. Here is a quote from one of Hoover's speeches: "We might have done nothing. That would have been utter ruin. Instead we met the situation with proposals to private business and to Congress of the most gigantic program of economic defense and counterattack ever evolved in the history of the Republic. We put it into action."
You are quite accurate there. On the other hand, from the perspective of the public and the other political parties, he did do nothing, so the effect on history remains the same. Its a tragic fact that people dont really take much notice of the hard work you put in mearly traing to fix something or preventing a terrible situation from getting worse.😢 For a lot of people its not even what good or bad your doing in general, but just how much good or bad its effecting my cyrcle specificly😢
@@viktormadzov5286 I learned in AP history that his plans did indeed failed and that WWII was the reason the US got out of the depression. But why is that. Sure the the US sold a lot of equipment to the Allies but what led to that. I mean how did the US manage to build so much when we were in the Worst economic event ever.
@@paladin773 Well it helps Europe tore itself to shreds in both World Wars and Britain and France lost their overseas empires for cheap labor and resources.
@@paladin773 - America built the greatest industrial power through Protectionism (High Tariffs, Subsidy to Industry etc.). The Depression did not wipe out all of this and thus when Governement went full throttle in WWII we were able to meet the needs. The opposite exists today. We let our industrial power go through Free Trade.
He makes Robert E. Howard Secretary of War. The creator of Conan, btw. Note: Secretary of Defense was established after Lovecraft's death. Howard died in 1936. Lovecraft died in 1937.
@@Fact-fiend_1000ASMR. Oh hell yes. Now we're talking. President Howard P. Lovecraft Vice President N-word man (his cat) Secretary of War Robert E. Howard P.S. The Secretary of War is way better than the Secretary of Defense.
@@AmericanImperium1776 "I will crush America's enemies, drive them before me and hear the lamentations of their women."- Robert E. Howard, Secretary of War. Probably.
It’s actually impressive how little you mentioned slavery, Jim Crow and race generally when discussing Andrew Jackson, the Democratic Party, “Dixiecrats” and American ideology generally.
Too visceral. A more fair representation of the Civil War is that South and the New York cotton merchants blocked the abolitionists, so New England realigned with Chicago to end chattel slavery.
That's because slavery and Jim Crow were policies of a group that no longer exists and to conflate Conservative Republicans with the Conservative Democrats of 1830-1964 is disingenuous at best and maliciously dishonest at worst, you can't go anywhere without hearing about slavery, jim crow and race generally and it's ties to the Democratic party, Dixiecrats and American ideology generally except to somehow tie it all to the Republican party itself because while the Democrats are responsible for most of it being the original "white man's party" leading to the Jim Crow laws, the creation of the KKK, the ending of reconstruction and the longest fillibuster in senate history trying to kill the civil rights act which was voted overwhelmingly yes by Republicans (82% of senate Republicans and 80% of house Republicans voted yes on both the house and senate versions) where as Democrats were much more split (61% of house Democrats and 66% of Senate Democrats voted yes on the house's version versus 63% of house democrats and 69% of Senate Democrats voted yes on the Senate version) for raw numbers it was 96 house Democrats and 34 house Republicans that voted no on the house version versus 152 Democrats and 138 Republicans votes yes and 23 Democrat senators and 6 Republican senators that voted no on the house version while 44 Democrat senators and 27 Republican senators voted yes contrasted with 21 dem senators and 6 rep senators voted not for the Senate version versus 46 Dem and 27 Rep senators voting yes and 91 Dem representatives and 35 Rep representatives voted no on the Senate version and 157 Dems and 137 Rep representatives voted yes, so while it was democrats who pushed it over by numbers, by percentages of the party a bit over a half to a little over 2/3 of Democrats voted yes while 4/5 Republicans voted yes, and none of the Republicans left the party while only a couple of dixiecrats joind the Republican party to spite the Democrats not because the Republicans were welcoming
My guess is the Trump-style populist paleo-conservatism will be the next dominant ideology, but things are very uncertain right now. Not only the liberal faction, but many of our foreign allies don’t want us to go down that path, and would rather we stay neoliberal and neocon.
Dont think this will be the case. Trumpism as i like to call it only works cuz trump is a very charismatic person. I personally dont belive trump will be there in four years (wheter he wins or loses this election). Therefor its gonna fail cuz the movement he started will be handed over to people like jd vance or ron desantis. Which are both way less sucsesfull in being populist.
@@MonsieurDeanAnd that also depends on the legitimacy of the elections. If the last one 4 years ago was legit, then heck, maybe Trump’s chances are lower than I thought. But if it wasn’t legit, who’s to say it won’t happen again this year?
@@morsecode980I think something to keep in mind is that women vote more than men and women HATED Trump. Combine this with being in charge during a disaster like Covid and it’s very possible he did lose legit.
This is a very informative and well-researched video. Given the nature of current U.S politics, I don't think we are likely to see any new ideologies in the near future. Moreso that Populist-Paleoconservative branches and Neo-progressive will take hold while Neocon and Neolib ideologies become less popular. This will especially happen as there are less and less people alive who were born in ColdWar era US politics. Basically, funny radical internet anti-fed ideologies will gain traction in mainstream US politics. Expect more Bernies and Trumps.
Didn’t Agrarian Populism also directly lead to Progressivism? WJB didn’t run for election in 1900 because he thought Theodore Roosevelt already represented his policies.
Great video man! I've enjoyed watching you for a while and this kind of content has been super helpful in my research and learning on the history of ideology. Keep at it!
I really loved this video. It was also a lot to process though. Would love a longer introduction and conclusion to help process all of the information in here. But really great job on the video!
I’d love to see an explanation of what Ideology each president subscribed too. It would also be neat to see a timeline of what political party members of each ideology ran under over time
Correction: "American ideology came from one core idea: a purer application of the Puritan-Whig ideology of government than could be found in the motherland. But, not surprisingly, the inhabitants of 13 radically different colonies had differing ideas of what 'purer' really meant..."
Puritanism only applied to New England though. Albion's Seed is a fantastic book that discusses 4 different distinct British origins for different regions of the country.
@@Burgermeister1836 By 1776, it applied everywhere north of the Mason-Dixon line. The Quakers had effectively diversified themselves out of existence in Pennsylvania and New York was a mix of Dutch and Puritans, all bathed in Whiggish philosophy. Even the South, Anglican as it was, went along with the Whiggery up to a point - that point being 1860.
@@alfrancisbuada2591Theoretically, I’d guess Trump-style populist paleo-conservatism might win out the current ideological battle, but the liberal faction and many of our allies abroad don’t seem to want that. Hard to predict fs, but I’d definitely say we’re transitioning into a new era.
I’m currently writing my own political party, it’s predominantly economic focus, in it those who are found guilty of corruption are equal to that of treason. Also redefining terrorism to include economic manipulation/ fraud. (Those who work full time should be guaranteed decent living quarters, it’s expensive to have homeless out on the streets than it is to house them. Use Hemp to build apartment complex to solve homelessness).
@@viktormadzov5286 “right leaning” or Jeffersonian’s will argue it’s not government responsibility/ their taxes going up, usual bs arguments they like to give. So I’m taking that argument away because it’s not “a mansion” as they’ll slander, it’s compromised because it still gives them a bone in classism. Essentially though it’s to get people off the streets, and motivation to participate into the system.
Not too shure about the viabilaty of the hemp house project, but I am loveing your policies. Add reasonable pro-enviromental policies that dont come at the detramental expence of the working class, and you get my everlasting vote ❤ Also, despite its negative popularity, investment in fusion power would be vital for the current climate crisis. Cracking the code for a combined fusion and solar energy grid will solve so much, not only for climate, but also for undermining Russia and the need for US interventionism in the you know where
@@alex4863For people to participate as functioning contributing members of the system, they need to have feith IN the system. As long as there is reasonable doubt in it, nothing other then tyrany can be done about it😅
I appreciate the explanation of the two American parties on a much deeper and ideological scale, as simply saying that the democrats and republicans have changed over the years does well in the classroom. This video by contrast works perfectly in real world politics.
And so much better than the claim :the parties flipped". Yes their ideologies have evolved over time, but it is much nor complicated than saying they flipped.
@@BenjaminWirtz You are correct! The parties really never “flipped” the two parties were always coalitions of different ideologies/values and different factions were dominant during different eras of each party. Usually what would happen was one faction within a party become such a minority faction that they might switch teams and the switch lead to policy changes within the other party. You are seeing that today with more socially conservative, anti-war, working class voters leaving the Dems for the GOP (they became a neglected faction in the Dem party) and bushite/mccain internationalists who are more white collar fiscal conservatives (usually more education) with social liberal leanings now merging with the Dems. Trump is largely responsible for these shifts.
Thank you, this was hugely helpful. It's the first coherent explanation of the term "neo-liberal" that I have seen. It shows how much it is an idea that makes sense in a US context, but probably not elsewhere.
Hi, I really enjoyed this video. Would it be possible to get a full picture or visualization of the ideologies (perhaps with names)? It would be useful and maybe I’ll hang it in my office. Keep up he good work :)
I think it must be understood that Jefferson, while definitely being more for the common man, still supported the idea of a natural aristocracy quite strongly. While he saw politics as a game for everyone (well, white landowning men at least), he still thought it should be in the hands of a better trained few for the most part
So, no one asked, but here's my political leanings based on this evolution- Democratic Republicans-->Whigs-->Republicans-->Bourbon Democrats-->The fiscal conservatives-->The anti new deal coalition-->Neo Liberals So in general, the ideology is classical liberalism.
Note that the whigs and republicans are votes I make with a heavy heart. Their protectionism hurts me but I have to vote with the north and against the south, until slavery is abolished. The only reason I voted Jefferson was because the split between Jeffersonians and Federalists was much less about slavery and much more about economics
Federalist -> Whigs -> Republicans -> New Deal Democrats -> Reform/Perot based -> MAGA Republicanism. I understand that the ideas of Hamilton, Clay, Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Perot, and now Trump are the policies that build Great Nations with extreme wealth and productivity and the opposite does not. It is evidenced everywhere.
@@kfiraltberger552 Thank you for sharing. I generally agree with free and FAIR trade. But I do believe in protectionism when it comes to enemies. (Not too high Tariffs but enough to make a difference) And I also believe that businesses should be fined for doing business with nations like China. I'm no hawk, but we've helped China rise by moving business there because it's cheaper. I hate the mentality: "The cheaper the better." Also, no offense but I'm not a fan of Neo-liberalism. P.S. Obviously, things shouldn't be outrageously expensive either. There's a balance.
@@kfiraltberger552 People forget that the largest slaveholders residing in such areas as the Southern Lowcountry and Black Belt were very often Federalists and Whigs during the first two party systems due to their respect for traditional class hierarchy.
I think it’s also fair to note among all this that while a line can be drawn between these many ideological positions, the passage of time and the people in power also play a major role. As the founding generation made way for the next and so on, the older ideas of what was best, of what worked, and overall political worldviews changed as well.
I'm so confused... So every few years, all platform positions get put into a big bag, shaken up, and new factions randomly pick from the bag. Not sure if the evolution lines are drawn based on the people who drew from the bag's histories, or on which random policies were most similar to a previous ideology.
My ideology in a nutshell: Jacksonian-Heinleinian-Federalist-Localism P.S. Can you do a video on Fritz G.A. Kraemer, the Godfather of the foreign policy of the Neo-Conservatism? He's quite unknown, mainly because he prefered to stay behind the scenes and influence those in public. I'm reading "The Forty Years War: The Rise and Fall of the Neo-Cons from Nixon to Obama" by Leo Colodny
@@niicopanda Basically we combine elements of each: From Jacksonianism: We take the Anti-Central Banking/Get out debt under control mindset. From Heinlein: We'll establish a Republic of Volunteer Citizen Soldiers (Farmers and Laborers will also be important as well) From Federalism: I mean we'll be a Federation of States & have a strong executive enact tariffs on our enemies. From Localism: The Executive will protect the status quo of a Localist structure based on Distributism & Subsidiary.
@@niicopanda What I take: From Jacksonianism: Anti-Central Banking and Agrarianism. From Heinlein: Citizen Soldier Republic with added emphasis on farmers & laborers as well. From Federalism: A Federation of states, protectionism against our enemies, and a strong executive. From Localism: A nation of autonomous localities/counties influenced by Distributism & Subsidiary. All protected by the executive.
Well, i’m more of a Bonapartist, albeit a more peaceful one. Napoleon III himself said that a strong government can be both democratic and progressive, but it doesn’t have to be Republican. And Sudhir Hazareesingh said that such a belief means the usage of a strong leader such as an emperor to bring about meaningful change, be it environmental, social or economic.
I kinda like to see a political test on this and see where people fall under. This is far more educational than the political square that we normally use for politics.
The world before 1929 would have also needed to be a very different place for the stock market to never have crashed then Barring that, it might have crashed sooner or later...but it would deffinetly have crashed 😅
Good view of politics, assuming that viewers see it as one person’s view and don’t let someone else do their thinking for them. Ultimately, those capable of thinking for themselves should see a view and argue with it to come up with their own conclusions. Unfortunately, “No one ever went broke underestimating the American people.” Some people are too lazy to think and others are not capable of thinking.
I have some relatives that traditionally vote conservative, but during a period of time in the early 2000s joined a party called The Tea party after so called “Rhinos” became the candidates for the Republican Party. What ideology would Rhinos and The tea party be considered?
Fascinating how you mentioned the evolutionary successor to paleo-conservatism, but didn't say Trumpism or MAGAism out loud and simply put a symbol of Trump's hair.
Ok I understand what you’re saying about Herbert Hoover. Idealistically, he did envision a balance between business, labor, and government (corporatism), but in practice he was really just small government and fiscally conservative, like a bourbon democrat in the gilded age or a non-radical republican in the gilded age.
Hoover was good at running charities, not so good at entire countries. If it hadn’t been for the Great Depression, you probably would’ve just been considered just a president, like Harris.
When you combined personal/civil liberty on hyper drive with economic management through Subsidy, High Tariffs, workers rights, full employment policies, Conservation (wise use), and a strong Social Security system (old age pensions, disability, wage subsidy) you get a Middle Class Society where wealth in concentrated in the many and not the few.
Eh, you really can’t ignore the manufacturing advantage of not being destroyed by WW2 while the rest of the world was combined with a demographic pyramid rather than inverse pyramid. Pensions are cool until people don’t replace themselves and live decades into retirement bc they stopped smoking
My fear is that all of those things combined would require a stronger central government, which I don't want. It would also trade freedom (of the market, at the very least, if not also freedom in other domains) for increased protection.
@@MonsieurDean really appreciate the content and deep dives into political theory that you do. Keep up the good work. I may not always have something to say, but I will always try to boost your algorithm! Edit: grammar
I agree with Washington in principle, but ultimately it was inevitable for parties to be formed. They’re just convenient ways to organize and spread its ideas.
I like how Republican Party evolved into Democratic Party, but the Democratic Party before it just died and was replaced by the new Republican Democratic Party. Really shows why it's called "New Democrats" and "Old Democrats" - it's because one is the old iteration of the Democratic Party, while the other is a the new iteration of the Democratic Party
This video ignores the enlightenment philosophy that the ideas of the american revolution and the constitution derive from, and the variety of ideas that existed around the time of the american revolution. Also while it recognizes that socialism/communism exists in the united states it doesnt recognize it as a distinct ideology which is very strange.
I think the scope of the video was just a super short summary. If you expand into elaborate explanations you're looking at an hour minimum over 15 minutes
@fshhh What? The nullification crisis and tariff of 1828 and 32 and later compromise completely go against that. Andrew Jackson fucking loved tariffs and I stand with him. Fuck the world economy and their foreign goods.
@@EmperorDionxSmart. Wouldnt have needed a pearl harbor to save the economy. FDR and Kainsian economics have been a blight on this country, even in the modern day.
Your genealogy is wrong on several points. There is no Continuity between Paleoconservative any any faction of the Democratic Party. Northern Republicans already had people opposing Civil Rights on States Rights Grounds even in 1937. And Republican Lazize Fair Fiscal Conservatives goes back at least to Calvin Coolidge. I also object to the Notion that the Whig ideology ever had any Jeffersonians elements to it. Henry Clay was by far the most significant founding Whig who'd never been a Federalist and yes his American System as as Hamilton as it gets, I think he quietly abandoned any devotion to Jeffersonianism after living through the War of 1812. The Whigs never had any ideology opposition to a strong President, they only uses such Rhetoric when they were the opposition Party.
Yeah. Making it look like the Normalcy Men Republicans, Harding and Coolidge, were basically a direct outgrowth of the Democrats and conversely that the New Deal Democrats were such from the Republicans both felt pretty wrong to me.
Neat stuff!! I kind of wish you had fit MAGA in there. Its not like anything else, (sort of like the radical wing of the conservatives) and it seems it isnt going away anytime soon.
No discussion of MAGA Populism? In fact no mention of isolationist Populism in general? Maybe it is refered to as Paleo-Conservatism here. But no one uses that term. Odd and suspicious, I detect bias.
@@QwsgwxTrumpism is more of a brand centered around a specific guy who can wildly change his opinions on a dime rather than any especially coherent ideology.
Isn't that more like twenty ideologies?
Well, the title says "7 distinct US ideologies", so maybe he does think there are 20+ ideologies, but he only considers 7 of them to be 'distinct'
Actually there are 5896, but we should just focus on the 7 for now.
@@MonsieurDean was an ATLA reference…?
You bet!
Слава Донбасс 🙋
The info is good, but your graphics want labels, especially when multiple new badges pop up at the same time, and it would be cool if you provide more anchoring information (Presidents/major figures/historical events, or perhaps even a timeline showing the year or decade) that coincides with the rise of each ideological change.
Thanks for sharing this!
The title says "7 ideologies"; the thumbnail shows 9 ideologies; the video goes through "32 ideologies" without making them very distinct.
I think the 7 "DISTINCT" ideologies are the ones in the timestamps
Hoover didn't fail to address the depression. He did a lot, it's just that nothing worked and he became very unpopular. Here is a quote from one of Hoover's speeches: "We might have done nothing. That would have been utter ruin. Instead we met the situation with proposals to private business and to Congress of the most gigantic program of economic defense and counterattack ever evolved in the history of the Republic. We put it into action."
That might’ve been a misspeak on my part, what I meant was he failed to solve it.
You are quite accurate there.
On the other hand, from the perspective of the public and the other political parties, he did do nothing, so the effect on history remains the same.
Its a tragic fact that people dont really take much notice of the hard work you put in mearly traing to fix something or preventing a terrible situation from getting worse.😢
For a lot of people its not even what good or bad your doing in general, but just how much good or bad its effecting my cyrcle specificly😢
@@viktormadzov5286 I learned in AP history that his plans did indeed failed and that WWII was the reason the US got out of the depression. But why is that. Sure the the US sold a lot of equipment to the Allies but what led to that. I mean how did the US manage to build so much when we were in the Worst economic event ever.
@@paladin773 Well it helps Europe tore itself to shreds in both World Wars and Britain and France lost their overseas empires for cheap labor and resources.
@@paladin773 - America built the greatest industrial power through Protectionism (High Tariffs, Subsidy to Industry etc.). The Depression did not wipe out all of this and thus when Governement went full throttle in WWII we were able to meet the needs. The opposite exists today. We let our industrial power go through Free Trade.
Samuel Adams was John Adams's cousin, not his brother
My bad 😅
Yeah, second cousins, actually
It's the same in Hebrew.
@@Ggdivhjkjlno it’s not?
@@bb24711you didn't get it, it's ok.
most American ideologies are the rural early English settler lifestyle applied universally.
Which apparently doesn't work past a couple million people.
@@MeanBeanComedy because English culture is English, incompatible with most others.
What if the 23d President of the United States was a man called Funny Valentine
That’d be funny
@@MonsieurDean Yes, but you can call him Mr. Valentine
what if h.p. lovecraft became the president of the usa?
He would make his cat VP. 👍
Good one
He makes Robert E. Howard Secretary of War. The creator of Conan, btw.
Note: Secretary of Defense was established after Lovecraft's death.
Howard died in 1936.
Lovecraft died in 1937.
@@Fact-fiend_1000ASMR. Oh hell yes. Now we're talking.
President Howard P. Lovecraft
Vice President N-word man (his cat)
Secretary of War Robert E. Howard
P.S. The Secretary of War is way better than the Secretary of Defense.
@@AmericanImperium1776 "I will crush America's enemies, drive them before me and hear the lamentations of their women."- Robert E. Howard, Secretary of War. Probably.
Ideology store just got a restock.
It’s actually impressive how little you mentioned slavery, Jim Crow and race generally when discussing Andrew Jackson, the Democratic Party, “Dixiecrats” and American ideology generally.
Too visceral. A more fair representation of the Civil War is that South and the New York cotton merchants blocked the abolitionists, so New England realigned with Chicago to end chattel slavery.
What do you expect from a Paleocon?
That's because slavery and Jim Crow were policies of a group that no longer exists and to conflate Conservative Republicans with the Conservative Democrats of 1830-1964 is disingenuous at best and maliciously dishonest at worst, you can't go anywhere without hearing about slavery, jim crow and race generally and it's ties to the Democratic party, Dixiecrats and American ideology generally except to somehow tie it all to the Republican party itself because while the Democrats are responsible for most of it being the original "white man's party" leading to the Jim Crow laws, the creation of the KKK, the ending of reconstruction and the longest fillibuster in senate history trying to kill the civil rights act which was voted overwhelmingly yes by Republicans (82% of senate Republicans and 80% of house Republicans voted yes on both the house and senate versions) where as Democrats were much more split (61% of house Democrats and 66% of Senate Democrats voted yes on the house's version versus 63% of house democrats and 69% of Senate Democrats voted yes on the Senate version) for raw numbers it was 96 house Democrats and 34 house Republicans that voted no on the house version versus 152 Democrats and 138 Republicans votes yes and 23 Democrat senators and 6 Republican senators that voted no on the house version while 44 Democrat senators and 27 Republican senators voted yes contrasted with 21 dem senators and 6 rep senators voted not for the Senate version versus 46 Dem and 27 Rep senators voting yes and 91 Dem representatives and 35 Rep representatives voted no on the Senate version and 157 Dems and 137 Rep representatives voted yes, so while it was democrats who pushed it over by numbers, by percentages of the party a bit over a half to a little over 2/3 of Democrats voted yes while 4/5 Republicans voted yes, and none of the Republicans left the party while only a couple of dixiecrats joind the Republican party to spite the Democrats not because the Republicans were welcoming
What's more impressive is how you commented this instead of just looking up a video about slavery (since you're so interested in the subject)
@@EliBlackWaves it's the error of all political analysis... looks for repeating patterns in wildly changing populations and economies
My guess is the Trump-style populist paleo-conservatism will be the next dominant ideology, but things are very uncertain right now. Not only the liberal faction, but many of our foreign allies don’t want us to go down that path, and would rather we stay neoliberal and neocon.
Dont think this will be the case. Trumpism as i like to call it only works cuz trump is a very charismatic person. I personally dont belive trump will be there in four years (wheter he wins or loses this election). Therefor its gonna fail cuz the movement he started will be handed over to people like jd vance or ron desantis. Which are both way less sucsesfull in being populist.
That answer is only months away.
@@MonsieurDeanAnd that also depends on the legitimacy of the elections. If the last one 4 years ago was legit, then heck, maybe Trump’s chances are lower than I thought. But if it wasn’t legit, who’s to say it won’t happen again this year?
@@morsecode980
Democracy is illegitimate anyway.
We're not voting our problems away. 🔥
@@morsecode980I think something to keep in mind is that women vote more than men and women HATED Trump. Combine this with being in charge during a disaster like Covid and it’s very possible he did lose legit.
I want this entire thing as a poster
@@robotron8588 Same. 👍
Well you got it
us-of-z-shop.creator-spring.com/listing/evolution-of-american-ideology?product=623&variation=102446
This is a very informative and well-researched video. Given the nature of current U.S politics, I don't think we are likely to see any new ideologies in the near future. Moreso that Populist-Paleoconservative branches and Neo-progressive will take hold while Neocon and Neolib ideologies become less popular. This will especially happen as there are less and less people alive who were born in ColdWar era US politics.
Basically, funny radical internet anti-fed ideologies will gain traction in mainstream US politics. Expect more Bernies and Trumps.
I think you are right. I wish Sanders didn't get pushed to the side as he did.
No it isn't. It's progressive narrative.
A Sanders Vs Trump ticket would have felt like a boxing match that was fun to watch but knowing the country will be good hands either way.
Thank you for laying this out so plainly so that we see where and when ideas would have originated and how they evolved over time.
I’m glad you enjoyed it! Can you believe some folks in the comment section thought this was too complicated?
I'd argue that there is a split in libertarianism on the progressive and conservative kind.
Maybe, but I've found actual Progressive Libertarianism to be as rare as a Rockefeller Republican or Blue-Dog Dem.
there's lots of factions: paleolibertarianism, libertarianism, hoppeanism, anarcho-capitalism, agorism etc
@@MeanBeanComedy You are on the internet far too much then. You saw who was selected as their presidential candidate.
Didn’t Agrarian Populism also directly lead to Progressivism? WJB didn’t run for election in 1900 because he thought Theodore Roosevelt already represented his policies.
Bryan did run in 1900
That was 1904.
@@themainmanborah Yeah, Alton Parker was the Democratic nominee in 1904, not William Jennings Bryan
Which is why I mentioned elements of the movement being amalgamated with the Half-Breed Republicans.
@@jakubpociecha8819 i meant 1904
I’m glad that Monsieur Z is correctly using the term ‘economic liberalism’ now
Great video man! I've enjoyed watching you for a while and this kind of content has been super helpful in my research and learning on the history of ideology. Keep at it!
This was an incredible video. It was helpful to see at the end how the different ideologies led to the two mainstream movements today
Awesome! Lovt these different phases videos! Keep up the good work ❤❤❤❤
I really loved this video. It was also a lot to process though. Would love a longer introduction and conclusion to help process all of the information in here. But really great job on the video!
Incredible video, Mr Z! 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
I’d love to see an explanation of what Ideology each president subscribed too. It would also be neat to see a timeline of what political party members of each ideology ran under over time
Correction: "American ideology came from one core idea: a purer application of the Puritan-Whig ideology of government than could be found in the motherland. But, not surprisingly, the inhabitants of 13 radically different colonies had differing ideas of what 'purer' really meant..."
Puritanism only applied to New England though. Albion's Seed is a fantastic book that discusses 4 different distinct British origins for different regions of the country.
@@Burgermeister1836 By 1776, it applied everywhere north of the Mason-Dixon line. The Quakers had effectively diversified themselves out of existence in Pennsylvania and New York was a mix of Dutch and Puritans, all bathed in Whiggish philosophy.
Even the South, Anglican as it was, went along with the Whiggery up to a point - that point being 1860.
Am I the only one that thinks that America would have been better off if Puritanism never made it to the continent before the foundation of the USA😅
@@viktormadzov5286 No.
@@viktormadzov5286 Yes. Thankfully.
As a socialist this video is extremely interesting and informative, thanks Z
The question remains what is the future of the American Ideology?
What about Distributism, Libertarian, or Nationalist politics
@@ebenezeronile yeah well, let's see where the road leads huh?
Communism, just like the future of the world.
@@alfrancisbuada2591Theoretically, I’d guess Trump-style populist paleo-conservatism might win out the current ideological battle, but the liberal faction and many of our allies abroad don’t seem to want that. Hard to predict fs, but I’d definitely say we’re transitioning into a new era.
I have a video on precisely that!
I’m currently writing my own political party, it’s predominantly economic focus, in it those who are found guilty of corruption are equal to that of treason. Also redefining terrorism to include economic manipulation/ fraud. (Those who work full time should be guaranteed decent living quarters, it’s expensive to have homeless out on the streets than it is to house them. Use Hemp to build apartment complex to solve homelessness).
@@viktormadzov5286 “right leaning” or Jeffersonian’s will argue it’s not government responsibility/ their taxes going up, usual bs arguments they like to give. So I’m taking that argument away because it’s not “a mansion” as they’ll slander, it’s compromised because it still gives them a bone in classism. Essentially though it’s to get people off the streets, and motivation to participate into the system.
Not too shure about the viabilaty of the hemp house project, but I am loveing your policies.
Add reasonable pro-enviromental policies that dont come at the detramental expence of the working class, and you get my everlasting vote ❤
Also, despite its negative popularity, investment in fusion power would be vital for the current climate crisis. Cracking the code for a combined fusion and solar energy grid will solve so much, not only for climate, but also for undermining Russia and the need for US interventionism in the you know where
@@alex4863For people to participate as functioning contributing members of the system, they need to have feith IN the system. As long as there is reasonable doubt in it, nothing other then tyrany can be done about it😅
What ever you call it make sure you don't call it anything relating to national socialism that's a cover up for nazi
Social values?
Nobody tops the Bull Moose, except the lack of said Bull Moose
I appreciate the explanation of the two American parties on a much deeper and ideological scale, as simply saying that the democrats and republicans have changed over the years does well in the classroom. This video by contrast works perfectly in real world politics.
And so much better than the claim :the parties flipped". Yes their ideologies have evolved over time, but it is much nor complicated than saying they flipped.
@@BenjaminWirtz You are correct! The parties really never “flipped” the two parties were always coalitions of different ideologies/values and different factions were dominant during different eras of each party. Usually what would happen was one faction within a party become such a minority faction that they might switch teams and the switch lead to policy changes within the other party. You are seeing that today with more socially conservative, anti-war, working class voters leaving the Dems for the GOP (they became a neglected faction in the Dem party) and bushite/mccain internationalists who are more white collar fiscal conservatives (usually more education) with social liberal leanings now merging with the Dems. Trump is largely responsible for these shifts.
Thank you, this was hugely helpful. It's the first coherent explanation of the term "neo-liberal" that I have seen. It shows how much it is an idea that makes sense in a US context, but probably not elsewhere.
Hi, I really enjoyed this video. Would it be possible to get a full picture or visualization of the ideologies (perhaps with names)? It would be useful and maybe I’ll hang it in my office. Keep up he good work :)
Sure, I’ll share this to the Reddit and channel store sometime
us-of-z-shop.creator-spring.com/listing/evolution-of-american-ideology?product=623&variation=102446
@@MonsieurDean Thank you so much :))
This video could be improved with the addition of a timeline to the graphic.
I think it must be understood that Jefferson, while definitely being more for the common man, still supported the idea of a natural aristocracy quite strongly. While he saw politics as a game for everyone (well, white landowning men at least), he still thought it should be in the hands of a better trained few for the most part
True!
There has been a longstanding tension between democracy and technocracy in the Liberal tradition up to this very day.
So, no one asked, but here's my political leanings based on this evolution-
Democratic Republicans-->Whigs-->Republicans-->Bourbon Democrats-->The fiscal conservatives-->The anti new deal coalition-->Neo Liberals
So in general, the ideology is classical liberalism.
Note that the whigs and republicans are votes I make with a heavy heart. Their protectionism hurts me but I have to vote with the north and against the south, until slavery is abolished. The only reason I voted Jefferson was because the split between Jeffersonians and Federalists was much less about slavery and much more about economics
Federalist -> Whigs -> Republicans -> New Deal Democrats -> Reform/Perot based -> MAGA Republicanism. I understand that the ideas of Hamilton, Clay, Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Perot, and now Trump are the policies that build Great Nations with extreme wealth and productivity and the opposite does not. It is evidenced everywhere.
@@kfiraltberger552 Thank you for sharing. I generally agree with free and FAIR trade. But I do believe in protectionism when it comes to enemies. (Not too high Tariffs but enough to make a difference) And I also believe that businesses should be fined for doing business with nations like China. I'm no hawk, but we've helped China rise by moving business there because it's cheaper. I hate the mentality: "The cheaper the better." Also, no offense but I'm not a fan of Neo-liberalism.
P.S. Obviously, things shouldn't be outrageously expensive either. There's a balance.
My ancestors were Alabama slaves.
@@kfiraltberger552 People forget that the largest slaveholders residing in such areas as the Southern Lowcountry and Black Belt were very often Federalists and Whigs during the first two party systems due to their respect for traditional class hierarchy.
I think it’s also fair to note among all this that while a line can be drawn between these many ideological positions, the passage of time and the people in power also play a major role. As the founding generation made way for the next and so on, the older ideas of what was best, of what worked, and overall political worldviews changed as well.
I believe these are generally called the 7 party systems, rather than the 7 ideologies
I'm so confused... So every few years, all platform positions get put into a big bag, shaken up, and new factions randomly pick from the bag. Not sure if the evolution lines are drawn based on the people who drew from the bag's histories, or on which random policies were most similar to a previous ideology.
I think it just shows the political evolution of America and the philosophies behind each movement/party/coalition.
The mid 20th century is such a cluster of ideologies
That's what happens when you kill religion.
I would love to know what sources you are getting this from! Studying the history of political ideologies in the United States has been fascinating.
My ideology in a nutshell:
Jacksonian-Heinleinian-Federalist-Localism
P.S. Can you do a video on Fritz G.A. Kraemer, the Godfather of the foreign policy of the Neo-Conservatism? He's quite unknown, mainly because he prefered to stay behind the scenes and influence those in public. I'm reading "The Forty Years War: The Rise and Fall of the Neo-Cons from Nixon to Obama" by Leo Colodny
AgriMilitarianism wrapped in a blue blood led tribalism?
I DO WANT to "know more."
@@niicopanda Basically we combine elements of each:
From Jacksonianism: We take the Anti-Central Banking/Get out debt under control mindset.
From Heinlein: We'll establish a Republic of Volunteer Citizen Soldiers (Farmers and Laborers will also be important as well)
From Federalism: I mean we'll be a Federation of States & have a strong executive enact tariffs on our enemies.
From Localism: The Executive will protect the status quo of a Localist structure based on Distributism & Subsidiary.
*Federalist
@@revinhatol Thanks 👍🏻
@@niicopanda
What I take:
From Jacksonianism: Anti-Central Banking and Agrarianism.
From Heinlein: Citizen Soldier Republic with added emphasis on farmers & laborers as well.
From Federalism: A Federation of states, protectionism against our enemies, and a strong executive.
From Localism: A nation of autonomous localities/counties influenced by Distributism & Subsidiary. All protected by the executive.
Thank you for this video! I was having problems with understanding the political eras of the USA and this gives me a framework to study from!
Well, i’m more of a Bonapartist, albeit a more peaceful one. Napoleon III himself said that a strong government can be both democratic and progressive, but it doesn’t have to be Republican.
And Sudhir Hazareesingh said that such a belief means the usage of a strong leader such as an emperor to bring about meaningful change, be it environmental, social or economic.
The federal government only had authority over the states limited areas until, the Supreme Court decided to expand those areas in the 20th Century.
Samuel Adams was not John Adams’s brother, he was his cousin
I know, I ad-libbed that part, and misspoke. 😅
@@MonsieurDean Wow u actually responded, I love ur content dude
Well thanks, pal :)
I kinda like to see a political test on this and see where people fall under.
This is far more educational than the political square that we normally use for politics.
The best political compass test needs three axes: Economic, Social, and Cultural.
What if the 1929 stock market never crashed?
The world would be VERY different
The world before 1929 would have also needed to be a very different place for the stock market to never have crashed then
Barring that, it might have crashed sooner or later...but it would deffinetly have crashed 😅
There would have been no world war 2 as the money masters wouldn't have needed it.
Maybe "What if it recovered like under Coolidge?"
Love your content z! You're amazing! Hearth please ❤❤❤❤
Good view of politics, assuming that viewers see it as one person’s view and don’t let someone else do their thinking for them. Ultimately, those capable of thinking for themselves should see a view and argue with it to come up with their own conclusions. Unfortunately, “No one ever went broke underestimating the American people.” Some people are too lazy to think and others are not capable of thinking.
Hamilton and Adams can catch these hands.
Well, that went off the rails about halfway through.
What do you mean?
So did American politics
I have some relatives that traditionally vote conservative, but during a period of time in the early 2000s joined a party called The Tea party after so called “Rhinos” became the candidates for the Republican Party. What ideology would Rhinos and The tea party be considered?
Rhinos are actually the conservatives. The Tea Party started as hyper-libertarian, but switched to neo-fascist pretty quickly.
RINO's are often considered neo-conservatives, while the Tea Party was a mix of paleo-conservatives, populists, and libertarians.
It's "RINO," or Republican In Name Only. It's a silly term, but the guy above me is right.
@@MeanBeanComedy Thanks for catching that
I disagree with the branches, but it's servisable.
Fascinating how you mentioned the evolutionary successor to paleo-conservatism, but didn't say Trumpism or MAGAism out loud and simply put a symbol of Trump's hair.
Amero-fascist
Thanks for the neutral summary of the history of US ideological movements.
This seems extremely similar to your American history series.
Fun fact, the Republicans, Democrats, Greens, Libertarians, and Constitutions all have the same common roots
song names?
Could Hamiltonian Federalist ideology be applied to today’s electorate and who would support it?
I have opened the video for After the End (CK3 Mod)
Revive the Bull Moose Party
Samuel Adams was not John Adams’s brother, he was his distant cousin.
My mistake 😅
Ok I understand what you’re saying about Herbert Hoover. Idealistically, he did envision a balance between business, labor, and government (corporatism), but in practice he was really just small government and fiscally conservative, like a bourbon democrat in the gilded age or a non-radical republican in the gilded age.
@@ayushbajaj2360 Actually Hoover did intervene not as much as FDR, but it was something.
@@ayushbajaj2360 Wouldn't a balance between business, labor and government be corporatism?
Hoover was good at running charities, not so good at entire countries. If it hadn’t been for the Great Depression, you probably would’ve just been considered just a president, like Harris.
@@Fact-fiend_1000ASMR. Yes. Monsieur Z has a video on if the Depression never happened and Hoover is free to experiment with his moderate Corporatism.
@@AmericanImperium1776 Oh. Thank you. Hooverian Corporatism>Rooseveltian New Dealism.
@MonsieurDean We have seen lots of shorts about what if x became president. Can we have a short on what if Dean Moseley became president?
Yes! 👍
Fascinating
One minor criticism: you probably ascribed the qualities of early federalism with too modern of a mindset.
The fact that both Progressives and Trumpism both descend from the Confederacy Party is an eye opener.
🔶Patreon www.patreon.com/monsieurz/membership
🔴Merch us-of-z-shop.creator-spring.com/
🔷Facebook facebook.com/people/Monsieur-Z/100086678611994/
🟣Discord discord.gg/bsbxG9XFGc
🔶Reddit www.reddit.com/r/MrZ_Official/
@@MonsieurDean Great video Z. 👍 Have you thought about getting on Substack?
@@AmericanImperium1776 What's substack?
@@MonsieurDean It's a site where you can write and upload articles, stories, practice writing etc. You've never heard of it?
@@AmericanImperium1776 Why do that when I can make fun videos?
@@MonsieurDean Just a suggestion. You can stick with videos. I was just saying it would be another outlet for growth and creativity.
We should dismantle the two party system. There are more than two parties.
Take a shot every time Neo is said.
Just kidding, don't!
When you combined personal/civil liberty on hyper drive with economic management through Subsidy, High Tariffs, workers rights, full employment policies, Conservation (wise use), and a strong Social Security system (old age pensions, disability, wage subsidy) you get a Middle Class Society where wealth in concentrated in the many and not the few.
Eh, you really can’t ignore the manufacturing advantage of not being destroyed by WW2 while the rest of the world was combined with a demographic pyramid rather than inverse pyramid. Pensions are cool until people don’t replace themselves and live decades into retirement bc they stopped smoking
My fear is that all of those things combined would require a stronger central government, which I don't want. It would also trade freedom (of the market, at the very least, if not also freedom in other domains) for increased protection.
@@fhengal I'm sorry but a strong central government is just inevitable with the rise of automation and the implications of late-stage capitalism.
Obligatory comment for the algorithm
🫡
@@MonsieurDean really appreciate the content and deep dives into political theory that you do. Keep up the good work. I may not always have something to say, but I will always try to boost your algorithm!
Edit: grammar
Washington said to not have political parties did they listen no
I agree with Washington in principle, but ultimately it was inevitable for parties to be formed. They’re just convenient ways to organize and spread its ideas.
Political factions will always exist. Even if they don’t exist on paper. Same reason that a true separation of powers is impossible
Let's go porcupines!
And then Americans turn around and tell us that _our_ political factions are complicated 💀
"MY stupid crap that doesn't matter is better than YOUR stupid crap that doesn't matter!"
@@smokeyplane3285 Cope.
@@HighFlyingOwlOfMinerva
Political ideology is the ultimate cope.
@@smokeyplane3285 Cope _and_ seethe.
@@smokeyplane3285 Cope and sneed.
Sitting here waiting for the SocCon branch to merge with the progressive labour branch in the 8th ideological expansion.
Wait you never got to the modern Donkey...?
Sam was a Cousin I believe not John's brother
Is it just me or did he forget Technocracy?
Bummer, man...
I like how Republican Party evolved into Democratic Party, but the Democratic Party before it just died and was replaced by the new Republican Democratic Party. Really shows why it's called "New Democrats" and "Old Democrats" - it's because one is the old iteration of the Democratic Party, while the other is a the new iteration of the Democratic Party
This video ignores the enlightenment philosophy that the ideas of the american revolution and the constitution derive from, and the variety of ideas that existed around the time of the american revolution. Also while it recognizes that socialism/communism exists in the united states it doesnt recognize it as a distinct ideology which is very strange.
I think the scope of the video was just a super short summary. If you expand into elaborate explanations you're looking at an hour minimum over 15 minutes
MURICA 🇺🇸🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅
🦅
Which ideology would i support:
1. Anti-Federalism
2. Jeffersonism
3. Whigs
4. Republicans
5. Labor Party
6. New Deal Coalition
7. Neoprogressivism
What If Canada 🇨🇦 became a superpower
Lol
Lol
Lol
lol
lol
I’m a postliberal. I don’t believe in the fundamental ideological assumptions of the Enlightenment, and I see both parties as the same.
I just want Jacksonian thought to be popular again. Id switch from a Republican to a Democrat in heartbeat.
@@honkykong610 …. like opposing tariffs?
@fshhh What? The nullification crisis and tariff of 1828 and 32 and later compromise completely go against that. Andrew Jackson fucking loved tariffs and I stand with him.
Fuck the world economy and their foreign goods.
You failed to mention alt-centrism
not so simple as left and right
Background music is annoying.
isn't this the party systems of usa history
Quite unclear what you are counting as the 7 Distinct Ideologies.
We follow Jefferson not Hamilion The Holy Trinity of Washington, Jefferson and LaFayette
The new dealers were the worst period of American political ideology
What would YOU have done about the Great Depression?
@@Blaqjaqshellaq ride it out and let free market capitalism work
@@EmperorDionxSmart. Wouldnt have needed a pearl harbor to save the economy. FDR and Kainsian economics have been a blight on this country, even in the modern day.
There are more inaccuracies and lack of understanding in this video than a Snapchat class for Boomers.
Care to educate us then?
Marge
Thanks for clearing things up for us peons.
You said Andrew Jackson wirhout playing the song. Dislike.
In 1814, We took a little trip...
Your genealogy is wrong on several points. There is no Continuity between Paleoconservative any any faction of the Democratic Party. Northern Republicans already had people opposing Civil Rights on States Rights Grounds even in 1937. And Republican Lazize Fair Fiscal Conservatives goes back at least to Calvin Coolidge.
I also object to the Notion that the Whig ideology ever had any Jeffersonians elements to it. Henry Clay was by far the most significant founding Whig who'd never been a Federalist and yes his American System as as Hamilton as it gets, I think he quietly abandoned any devotion to Jeffersonianism after living through the War of 1812. The Whigs never had any ideology opposition to a strong President, they only uses such Rhetoric when they were the opposition Party.
Yeah. Making it look like the Normalcy Men Republicans, Harding and Coolidge, were basically a direct outgrowth of the Democrats and conversely that the New Deal Democrats were such from the Republicans both felt pretty wrong to me.
I’m so tired of these Kamala ads.
Neat stuff!! I kind of wish you had fit MAGA in there. Its not like anything else, (sort of like the radical wing of the conservatives) and it seems it isnt going away anytime soon.
“Naturally there were some caveats” read: slavery lol
No discussion of MAGA Populism? In fact no mention of isolationist Populism in general? Maybe it is refered to as Paleo-Conservatism here. But no one uses that term. Odd and suspicious, I detect bias.
Plenty of people use paleo-conservatism especially paleo-conservatives themselves.
Trumpism shows up at the very end of the line, it’s there if you look. He actually supports Trump, I think.
More like maga could be called “Christian nationalism” or “neo-paleo-conservatism”
@@QwsgwxTrumpism is more of a brand centered around a specific guy who can wildly change his opinions on a dime rather than any especially coherent ideology.
I'm a southern nationalist and a proud confederate (and I'm only half white)
May I ask what the other half is?? Just wondering 😅😅😅
@@justfrank5661black probably
@@justfrank5661 Asian and I'm 23 lol
@@thirty-sevenkeys2774 lol no I'm asain more exactly Filipino
American by law, Virginian by birth, southern by the grace of God