5 ms·

Don’t forget the Republican and Democratic parties kinda did a flip. I’m not sure if Nixon’s 1960s Republican party was the same as it is today. It was certainl

by wil421 7y ago

Don’t forget the Republican and Democratic parties kinda did a flip. I’m not sure if Nixon’s 1960s Republican party was the same as it is today. It was certainly starting to head the way it is today in the 1960s.

danaris 7y ago
The Republican and Democratic parties did a flip around the turn of the 20th century. What's happened since the 1960s is more that the Republican party has been charging madly off into the far right (and, in some cases, simply into looney-land), while the Democratic party has shuffled nervously rightward after them. You'll note that it's far from true now to say that the Republicans are doing much of anything that the Democrats would have done in the 1960s (aside from things that were prevalent across the board at that time, like racism and sexism).
- mistermann 7y ago
  I think an argument could be made that Republicans, or at least conservatives, have now become the defenders of free speech while "the left" seems not just comfortable with but intent on increasing censorship, at least certain kinds. I will note that this isn't a complete slam dunk of an argument, I would say the left in the 60's was motivated more by the general principle of free speech, whereas I would say the right today is more motivated by self-benefit. And also I suppose it doesn't go without saying: the first amendment and the general principles of free speech / censorship are similar but distinct ideas.
  - fatbird 7y ago
    Most here at HN think of the left as wanting more censorship in order to avoid hurtful speech, but that's not generally how the left thinks of it. On the left, the view is that the practice of maximizing freedom of speech by tolerating extreme speech, has the effect of reducing the freedom of expression of the non-extreme, non-powerful constituencies. In other words, protecting freedom of expression by politely tolerating hate speech has the effect of making the targets of hate speech less free to express themselves in practice. Like a heckler's veto, the presence of hate speech dissuades minorities and the less powerful from engaging at all. It's not freedom from being offended that the left wants, it's a less corrosive public sphere that doesn't demand that the weak struggle through a painful headwind in order to be heard at all. Having a extremism-based standard for measuring freedom of expression creates a requirement that participants tolerate the material harm of extremist expression. The left wants to shift the standard of measurement to tolerating more speakers of different kinds, rather than more subjects of varying extremism. The left still believes in maximizing freedom of expression, they just recognize that there are different metrics that may apply.
    - wolco 7y ago
      They believe in maximizing group speech in the largest diverse group as possible. This is what happens with religion. Everyone is welcome and encouraged to believe these truths and questioning them will get you kicked out or ex-communicated or at best ignored and re-educated.
    - danaris 7y ago
      This is exactly correct, but unfortunately, because your first sentence is true, you're getting significantly downvoted. It is an example of the paradox of tolerance: If a group believes in tolerance, absolutely, to the point that they tolerate intolerance, then over time, those who are intolerant will tend to gain power within the group and the tolerance will be eroded (except, of course, the tolerance of those intolerant beliefs that usurp them). Absolutism of any kind is generally going to lead to problems in our imperfect, non-absolute world. Free speech maximalism is just one example of that. If we put people and their genuine needs before abstract principles, that will tend to be a better guide for how to make a society that serves everyone—and, indeed, allows the greatest freedom for the greatest number.
      - fatbird 7y ago
        The argument I made was originally formulated by Andrea Dworkin, testifying to Congress about pornography, and formulating it that way--what metric are you measuring freedom by--has done a lot to expand my thinking. Another is the saying "tolerance isn't a virtue, it's a peace treaty", which I think really cuts through the apparent dilemma you highlight.
      - wolco 7y ago
        If people put there own needs first you end up with a selfish group that doesn't serve society only themselves. People believing in an abstract idea can rally society around important causes.
        danaris 7y ago
        I'm not suggesting to put one's one needs first, but rather those of other people—or all people. To the extent a principle, abstract idea, or cause is useful, it must be examined in light of its effects, both direct and indirect, on people. Sometimes, policies that follow from abstract ideas do harm to some people, in the interests of helping others (hopefully more), or do harm in the short term, in the interests of helping in the long term. Sometimes, these tradeoffs are good to make; other times, they are not. There is no hard and fast Golden Rule that can serve as your bedrock if you treat it as something to be applied in all situations without critical analysis. The closest I can come is "care about people", but even that requires careful application, because there are situations when you must do things that hurt some people—even people you do care about—in order to do what is best for all.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- wil421 7y ago
  >So, sometime between the 1860s and 1936, the (Democratic) party of small government became the party of big government, and the (Republican) party of big government became rhetorically committed to curbing federal power. How did this switch happen? >Eric Rauchway, professor of American history at the University of California, Davis, pins the transition to the turn of the 20th century, when a highly influential Democrat named William Jennings Bryan blurred party lines by emphasizing the government's role in ensuring social justice through expansions of federal power — traditionally, a Republican stance. The article[1] goes on the state both parties started changing stances to try and win the new Western states. [1]https://www.livescience.com/34241-democratic-republican-parties-switch-platforms.html https://www.livescience.com/34241-democratic-republican-part...
liopleurodon 7y ago
Trump was a lifelong Democrat and in many ways, he's still a Democrat The flipping on the Democrat side comes from the need to oppose Trump on everything, even the stuff they agree on because Orange Man Bad
- notfromhere 7y ago
  Someone should tell him that, because his administration has been hard-right GOP.
seanmcdirmid 7y ago
Republicans have always been economic liberals even during Lincoln. Northern Democrats developed a heavy base of labor activists (unions), so started tending a bit left. Southern Democrats simply existed as “anything but Republicans” (the party of a much hated Lincoln), so catered to southern white supremicists. Johnson’s push of civil rights in the 60s simply destroyed the southern democrat wing of the party, who were welcomed into the Republican Party via Nixon’s southern strategy, and the pro-union Northern Democrats became the sole power source of the remaining Democrats. Now with Trump and his rust belt base, Republicans are losing a bit of their economic liberalism (being more against free trade).
LMYahooTFY 7y ago
I hear this referenced constantly but without source. Trying to find sources on my own has turned up nothing conclusive, nor clear enough to say that a "flip" occurred in any short period. Does anyone have decent sources for this?

by wil421 7y ago

danaris 7y ago

The Republican and Democratic parties did a flip around the turn of the 20th century. What's happened since the 1960s is more that the Republican party has been charging madly off into the far right (and, in some cases, simply into looney-land), while the Democratic party has shuffled nervously rightward after them. You'll note that it's far from true now to say that the Republicans are doing much of anything that the Democrats would have done in the 1960s (aside from things that were prevalent across the board at that time, like racism and sexism).

mistermann 7y ago
I think an argument could be made that Republicans, or at least conservatives, have now become the defenders of free speech while "the left" seems not just comfortable with but intent on increasing censorship, at least certain kinds. I will note that this isn't a complete slam dunk of an argument, I would say the left in the 60's was motivated more by the general principle of free speech, whereas I would say the right today is more motivated by self-benefit. And also I suppose it doesn't go without saying: the first amendment and the general principles of free speech / censorship are similar but distinct ideas.
- fatbird 7y ago
  Most here at HN think of the left as wanting more censorship in order to avoid hurtful speech, but that's not generally how the left thinks of it. On the left, the view is that the practice of maximizing freedom of speech by tolerating extreme speech, has the effect of reducing the freedom of expression of the non-extreme, non-powerful constituencies. In other words, protecting freedom of expression by politely tolerating hate speech has the effect of making the targets of hate speech less free to express themselves in practice. Like a heckler's veto, the presence of hate speech dissuades minorities and the less powerful from engaging at all. It's not freedom from being offended that the left wants, it's a less corrosive public sphere that doesn't demand that the weak struggle through a painful headwind in order to be heard at all. Having a extremism-based standard for measuring freedom of expression creates a requirement that participants tolerate the material harm of extremist expression. The left wants to shift the standard of measurement to tolerating more speakers of different kinds, rather than more subjects of varying extremism. The left still believes in maximizing freedom of expression, they just recognize that there are different metrics that may apply.
  - wolco 7y ago
    They believe in maximizing group speech in the largest diverse group as possible. This is what happens with religion. Everyone is welcome and encouraged to believe these truths and questioning them will get you kicked out or ex-communicated or at best ignored and re-educated.
  - danaris 7y ago
    This is exactly correct, but unfortunately, because your first sentence is true, you're getting significantly downvoted. It is an example of the paradox of tolerance: If a group believes in tolerance, absolutely, to the point that they tolerate intolerance, then over time, those who are intolerant will tend to gain power within the group and the tolerance will be eroded (except, of course, the tolerance of those intolerant beliefs that usurp them). Absolutism of any kind is generally going to lead to problems in our imperfect, non-absolute world. Free speech maximalism is just one example of that. If we put people and their genuine needs before abstract principles, that will tend to be a better guide for how to make a society that serves everyone—and, indeed, allows the greatest freedom for the greatest number.
    - fatbird 7y ago
      The argument I made was originally formulated by Andrea Dworkin, testifying to Congress about pornography, and formulating it that way--what metric are you measuring freedom by--has done a lot to expand my thinking. Another is the saying "tolerance isn't a virtue, it's a peace treaty", which I think really cuts through the apparent dilemma you highlight.
    - wolco 7y ago
      If people put there own needs first you end up with a selfish group that doesn't serve society only themselves. People believing in an abstract idea can rally society around important causes.
      - danaris 7y ago
        I'm not suggesting to put one's one needs first, but rather those of other people—or all people. To the extent a principle, abstract idea, or cause is useful, it must be examined in light of its effects, both direct and indirect, on people. Sometimes, policies that follow from abstract ideas do harm to some people, in the interests of helping others (hopefully more), or do harm in the short term, in the interests of helping in the long term. Sometimes, these tradeoffs are good to make; other times, they are not. There is no hard and fast Golden Rule that can serve as your bedrock if you treat it as something to be applied in all situations without critical analysis. The closest I can come is "care about people", but even that requires careful application, because there are situations when you must do things that hurt some people—even people you do care about—in order to do what is best for all.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
wil421 7y ago
>So, sometime between the 1860s and 1936, the (Democratic) party of small government became the party of big government, and the (Republican) party of big government became rhetorically committed to curbing federal power. How did this switch happen? >Eric Rauchway, professor of American history at the University of California, Davis, pins the transition to the turn of the 20th century, when a highly influential Democrat named William Jennings Bryan blurred party lines by emphasizing the government's role in ensuring social justice through expansions of federal power — traditionally, a Republican stance. The article[1] goes on the state both parties started changing stances to try and win the new Western states. [1]https://www.livescience.com/34241-democratic-republican-parties-switch-platforms.html https://www.livescience.com/34241-democratic-republican-part...

liopleurodon 7y ago

Trump was a lifelong Democrat and in many ways, he's still a Democrat The flipping on the Democrat side comes from the need to oppose Trump on everything, even the stuff they agree on because Orange Man Bad

notfromhere 7y ago
Someone should tell him that, because his administration has been hard-right GOP.

seanmcdirmid 7y ago

Republicans have always been economic liberals even during Lincoln. Northern Democrats developed a heavy base of labor activists (unions), so started tending a bit left. Southern Democrats simply existed as “anything but Republicans” (the party of a much hated Lincoln), so catered to southern white supremicists. Johnson’s push of civil rights in the 60s simply destroyed the southern democrat wing of the party, who were welcomed into the Republican Party via Nixon’s southern strategy, and the pro-union Northern Democrats became the sole power source of the remaining Democrats. Now with Trump and his rust belt base, Republicans are losing a bit of their economic liberalism (being more against free trade).

LMYahooTFY 7y ago

I hear this referenced constantly but without source. Trying to find sources on my own has turned up nothing conclusive, nor clear enough to say that a "flip" occurred in any short period. Does anyone have decent sources for this?