4 ms·

It was never the party of fiscal conservatism. Notions to the contrary were a neo-conservative retcon. It never stopped being a party of bibles and social-con

It was never the party of fiscal conservatism. Notions to the contrary were a neo-conservative retcon. It never stopped being a party of bibles and social-conservatism.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
learc83 7y ago
The low taxes/low spending rhetoric started about the same time as the party embraced the religious right.
seanmcdirmid 7y ago
That really isn’t true, the republicans of Lincoln and even TDR’s time were fairly progressive socially (though they have always been pro big business). They didn’t become social conservatives until the mid 20th century. Claims like “they were never the party of” or “always the party of” need to be heavily qualified given how positions shifted over the last hundred years.
- liability 7y ago
  Opposition to slavery happens to be a case in which imposing morality on others is justified. But my point here is whether they're on the right side or the wrong side of an issue, one thing has always been true of the Republican party; they seek to regulate morality. We could have a conversation about "parties switching", the southern policy, etc. But I don't think that's needed because no matter which way you slice it, the Republican party was never hands off on matters of society and morality. Some people like to pretend it was once some sort of live-and-let-live libertarian party, but that was never the reality of the party.
  - seanmcdirmid 7y ago
    That is nowhere near accurate, nor very useful. Slavery was an institution that the Lincoln era republicans felt very strongly about eradicating, and they were otherwise fairly hands off. The progressive movement of the early 20th century (mostly TDR-style Republicans)was even more socially liberal. And really it’s all irrelevant to who the republicans are today, no longer the party of Lincoln or TDR or even Ike.
    - liability 7y ago
      > Slavery was an institution that the Lincoln era republicans felt very strongly about eradicating, and they were otherwise fairly hands off The same people fighting to free the slaves also typically thought it would be ridiculous to let women vote. They simply were not the libertarians you imagine them to be. Social deregulation was not on the agenda.
      - seanmcdirmid 7y ago
        > The same people fighting to free the slaves also typically thought it would be ridiculous to let women vote. Not unusual sentiment for their time. Progress is relative to a current state in time, obviously. > They simply were not the libertarians you imagine them to be. Social deregulation was not on the agenda. They wouldn’t have to be social progressives (until TDR of course), just not regressive. However the republicans were back then, the democrats were worse.

It was never the party of fiscal conservatism. Notions to the contrary were a neo-conservative retcon. It never stopped being a party of bibles and social-conservatism.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

learc83 7y ago

The low taxes/low spending rhetoric started about the same time as the party embraced the religious right.

seanmcdirmid 7y ago

That really isn’t true, the republicans of Lincoln and even TDR’s time were fairly progressive socially (though they have always been pro big business). They didn’t become social conservatives until the mid 20th century. Claims like “they were never the party of” or “always the party of” need to be heavily qualified given how positions shifted over the last hundred years.

liability 7y ago
Opposition to slavery happens to be a case in which imposing morality on others is justified. But my point here is whether they're on the right side or the wrong side of an issue, one thing has always been true of the Republican party; they seek to regulate morality. We could have a conversation about "parties switching", the southern policy, etc. But I don't think that's needed because no matter which way you slice it, the Republican party was never hands off on matters of society and morality. Some people like to pretend it was once some sort of live-and-let-live libertarian party, but that was never the reality of the party.
- seanmcdirmid 7y ago
  That is nowhere near accurate, nor very useful. Slavery was an institution that the Lincoln era republicans felt very strongly about eradicating, and they were otherwise fairly hands off. The progressive movement of the early 20th century (mostly TDR-style Republicans)was even more socially liberal. And really it’s all irrelevant to who the republicans are today, no longer the party of Lincoln or TDR or even Ike.
  - liability 7y ago
    > Slavery was an institution that the Lincoln era republicans felt very strongly about eradicating, and they were otherwise fairly hands off The same people fighting to free the slaves also typically thought it would be ridiculous to let women vote. They simply were not the libertarians you imagine them to be. Social deregulation was not on the agenda.
    - seanmcdirmid 7y ago
      > The same people fighting to free the slaves also typically thought it would be ridiculous to let women vote. Not unusual sentiment for their time. Progress is relative to a current state in time, obviously. > They simply were not the libertarians you imagine them to be. Social deregulation was not on the agenda. They wouldn’t have to be social progressives (until TDR of course), just not regressive. However the republicans were back then, the democrats were worse.