How did the party of Lincoln (GOP) end up being the Confederate Party

[Pogo]

Uh -- the party of Jefferson doesn't exist any more. Been gone about two centuries.

Yeah, you're right about that

Jefferson's "Democratic-Republican Party" isn't related to either of the contemporary ones. The terms were recycled.

But he's still considered to be the father of the Democratic Party by today's party.

That's bullshit propaganda. They're trying to make themselves older than they are, and probably more to the point trying to associate with Jefferson.

But they're not really related -- parties disintegrate (or at least, they used to) and the remnants of those parties may re-form with new coalitions but that doesn't make them the same thing. If that were the case, the Republican Party could trace itself back to the Whigs, on the basis that they absorbed many (but not all) of that party.

The Democratic Party begins with Jackson. To try to extend it back to Jefferson is Revisionism.

BUT... It's ALSO revisionist to try and apply today's modern conservative and liberal labels to parties of the past. What it amounts to is trying to grab some kind of glory from the greats in history for your own party politics. Times have changed dramatically, people are way different and our viewpoints are different as well. We don't live in 1860 or 1790... we don't live in 1948 or 1964.

Yes, it surely is. A lotta wags on this board pick some player from their "team" 100 or 150 years ago and try to come on as if they represent the same thing their "team" does now. I keep crowing, political parties are simply machines to acquire and consolidate power, and to that end they will tell you the sky is blue and tell me the sky is green, if that happens to be what you and I want to hear, and next year if you and I reverse positions -- they will too.

Even in our own lifetimes we can see shifts, e.g. the DP jettisoning its racists in the '60s, the RP infiltrated by religionists in the '70s.

 

[regent]

Uh -- the party of Jefferson doesn't exist any more. Been gone about two centuries.

Yeah, you're right about that

Jefferson's "Democratic-Republican Party" isn't related to either of the contemporary ones. The terms were recycled.

But he's still considered to be the father of the Democratic Party by today's party.

That's bullshit propaganda. They're trying to make themselves older than they are, and probably more to the point trying to associate with Jefferson.

But they're not really related -- parties disintegrate (or at least, they used to) and the remnants of those parties may re-form with new coalitions but that doesn't make them the same thing. If that were the case, the Republican Party could trace itself back to the Whigs, on the basis that they absorbed many (but not all) of that party.

The Democratic Party begins with Jackson. To try to extend it back to Jefferson is Revisionism.

BUT... It's ALSO revisionist to try and apply today's modern conservative and liberal labels to parties of the past. What it amounts to is trying to grab some kind of glory from the greats in history for your own party politics. Times have changed dramatically, people are way different and our viewpoints are different as well. We don't live in 1860 or 1790... we don't live in 1948 or 1964.

Liberalism and conservatism have core values that are consistent. The means to achieve those core values do change however, and often the means to achieve are used as core values, For example, the size of government is often cited as a core value but it is not, it can change in a few campaigns. Did Reagan reduce the size of government, Nixon and other that campaigned on the size of government. Unfortunately these tests to determine one's ideology often mix the means and core values and are indicative only for that period in time. But most of us are hybrids in that we are both liberal and conservative depending on the issue. A financial conservative might be a social liberal, in that he believes everyone should earn their way but recognizes some cannot.

 

[Boss]

Liberalism and conservatism have core values that are consistent. The means to achieve those core values do change however, and often the means to achieve are used as core values, For example, the size of government is often cited as a core value but it is not, it can change in a few campaigns. Did Reagan reduce the size of government, Nixon and other that campaigned on the size of government. Unfortunately these tests to determine one's ideology often mix the means and core values and are indicative only for that period in time. But most of us are hybrids in that we are both liberal and conservative depending on the issue. A financial conservative might be a social liberal, in that he believes everyone should earn their way but recognizes some cannot.

And this is precisely where people become confused. Conservatism is not an ideology and Liberalism is. Conservatism is an overarching philosophy of which many ideologies can be encompassed. This is why it's easy, at first blush, to view Reagan as conflicting with "core values" of conservatism. When you dig deeper, you discover that his actions were rooted in pragmatism and a more moderate approach than the radical alternative.