Grover Cleveland and the Democrats Who Saved Conservatism

[TBoneTX 45,570]

If you like reading about American history as much as I do, you should enjoy this thoughtful article about Grover Cleveland and the transformation of the Democratic party.  I learned some interesting things.  The article is couched as food for thought for "today's Right," qualifying it for the CEHST forum.

Quote

 Grover Cleveland and the Democrats Who Saved Conservatism

by Daniel Bring - August 28, 2019

 

Known at the moment for its full-throated acceptance of socialism, it’s worth noting that the Democratic Party once represented the most conservative elements of American politics. The memory of those long-gone Democrats can serve conservatives very well at a moment when it seems like everything is up in the air.

 

From 1861 to 1913, only one Democrat, Grover Cleveland, took office as president of the United States. Best known for [...]

 

Continues here:  https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/grover-cleveland-and-the-democrats-who-saved-conservatism/

 

Edited August 29, 2019 by TBoneTX

[Dashinka 24,628]

So the Democrats actually had one conservative at one point in history :).  Well, two actually if you count Tilden, but of course he was shafted in his election.

 

This could be repeated in the near future.  I am a fan of President Trump and most of what he does, but I disagree with him on the tariffs item.  Now, he is taking on China, and that is needed, but he also threw up tariffs on the EU, Canada, Mexico, etc. that were not necessary IMO.  I hope he can work things out with China soon, but honestly, the Chinese government has time on their side whereas President Trump needs something positive to come from these tariffs within the next 6-12 months.  He also needs to stop saying that China is paying the cost of the tariffs, that is patently false.

 

When the Democratic Party nominated ex-president Cleveland in 1892, their platform was the diametric opposite of Harrison’s. The recession of the early 1890s had vindicated Cleveland’s rejection of tariffs, and Harrison’s high spending had done little to improve economic conditions. The pragmatic and restrained Cleveland offered the opposite of those policies.

Edited August 29, 2019 by Bill & Katya

[Steeleballz 7,550]

5 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

So the Democrats actually had one conservative at one point in history :).  Well, two actually if you count Tilden, but of course he was shafted in his election.

 

This could be repeated in the near future.  I am a fan of President Trump and most of what he does, but I disagree with him on the tariffs item.  Now, he is taking on China, and that is needed, but he also threw up tariffs on the EU, Canada, Mexico, etc. that were not necessary IMO.  I hope he can work things out with China soon, but honestly, the Chinese government has time on their side whereas President Trump needs something positive to come from these tariffs within the next 6-12 months.  He also needs to stop saying that China is paying the cost of the tariffs, that is patently false.

 

When the Democratic Party nominated ex-president Cleveland in 1892, their platform was the diametric opposite of Harrison’s. The recession of the early 1890s had vindicated Cleveland’s rejection of tariffs, and Harrison’s high spending had done little to improve economic conditions. The pragmatic and restrained Cleveland offered the opposite of those policies.

 

   The Democrats were the conservatives at one point in history.  

 

    Why Did the Democratic and Republican Parties Switch Platforms?

[Dashinka 24,628]

2 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   The Democrats were the conservatives at one point in history.  

 

    Why Did the Democratic and Republican Parties Switch Platforms?

Yes they were.  It is interesting to ponder how things switched.  There are actually quite a few conservative Democrats amongst the electorate even today; they may be pondering their party affiliation now as well.

[TBoneTX 45,570]

12 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

Why Did the Democratic and Republican Parties Switch Platforms?

Another very interesting article.  However (and, admittedly, without having fully researched things), I suspect that the changeover might have happened before the New Deal -- such as when Pres. Taft ran for re-election.  Teddy Roosevelt entered the race at the last minute on the Bull Moose third-party ticket; this split the Republican vote and put the Democrat, Woodrow Wilson (whom I loathe more than any other U.S. president), in the White House.

 

As a footnote, Pres. Taft came in third in that 3-man race and tearfully said, "I don't see how I could have done any differently than I have done."  Sad, but classy, in defeat.

 

Conversely, if Pres. Trump is re-elected, I predict violent riots in the streets by the other side.  I've spoken with quiet Trump supporters who hesitate, even right now, to wear a MAGA cap or shirt, from fear of physical attack.  I predict that next year we'll see fewer Trump yard signs than there are Trump supporters.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

10 hours ago, TBoneTX said:

Another very interesting article.  However (and, admittedly, without having fully researched things), I suspect that the changeover might have happened before the New Deal -- such as when Pres. Taft ran for re-election.  Teddy Roosevelt entered the race at the last minute on the Bull Moose third-party ticket; this split the Republican vote and put the Democrat, Woodrow Wilson (whom I loathe more than any other U.S. president), in the White House.

 

As a footnote, Pres. Taft came in third in that 3-man race and tearfully said, "I don't see how I could have done any differently than I have done."  Sad, but classy, in defeat.

 

Conversely, if Pres. Trump is re-elected, I predict violent riots in the streets by the other side.  I've spoken with quiet Trump supporters who hesitate, even right now, to wear a MAGA cap or shirt, from fear of physical attack.  I predict that next year we'll see fewer Trump yard signs than there are Trump supporters.

 

    The history of our political system is fascinating. Over time, especially in the early years, it evolved into a system much better and more functional than it started out as. Then it unfortunately devolved into what we currently have.

 

  I do think the current iterations of the Democrats and Republicans are heavily invested in maintaining the status quo of a system that is not quite functional rather than trying to actually fix it. The last thing either party wants to see is a viable 3rd option. Especially a moderate one. Many of the paths that might lead to having the political system actually working for the people again would also lead the end of the current Democrat/Republican hegemony.  

[laylalex 7,293]

2 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

I do think the current iterations of the Democrats and Republicans are heavily invested in maintaining the status quo of a system that is not quite functional rather than trying to actually fix it. The last thing either party wants to see is a viable 3rd option. Especially a moderate one. Many of the paths that might lead to having the political system actually working for the people again would also lead the end of the current Democrat/Republican hegemony.  

As the saying goes, it's hard to get turkeys to vote for Thanksgiving. What will it take to get a viable third party in this country? Which politicians with actual political capital will be willing to step away from their parties and all the clout and money of their parties' machines to try something new and transformative? It requires a kind of bravery that's kind of hard to fathom as being possible right now. 

[Steeleballz 7,550]

11 minutes ago, laylalex said:

As the saying goes, it's hard to get turkeys to vote for Thanksgiving. What will it take to get a viable third party in this country? Which politicians with actual political capital will be willing to step away from their parties and all the clout and money of their parties' machines to try something new and transformative? It requires a kind of bravery that's kind of hard to fathom as being possible right now. 

 

   I always feel that 75% of the population would probably come to a consensus on most things, so it really amazes me sometimes that we have managed to get to a point where 2 parties go back and forth splitting that consensus up into 2 diametrically opposite points of view, and then alternate between electing one party and then the other.   

[TBoneTX 45,570]

Hmmm... might we not effectively have a third party now?

 

Old groups/parties:  Democrats, "establishment" Republicans

New group (party-within-a-party):  Trump supporters (many from existing Republicans, some from Democrats)

 

New party-within-a-party, if it doesn't ultimately transform the existing Republican party, should be called the "Anti-Establishment" party, or similar.