Why didn't Republicans become the progressive/ liberal party?

[Clarence Boddicker]

Basically as the title says. The party was founded upon anti-slavery and internal improvements. Plus the first "modern" progressive president was the Republican Teddy. It seems the Democrats would have been a more natural home for the conservative party with its base in the South.

Was it the combo of Bull Moose/ Republican divide in 1912 leading to the progressive Wilson presidency, which was followed by the conservative Harding/ Coolidge/ Hoover presidencies? Or does it go back further to the Jacksonian distrust of big banks? I suppose William Jennings Bryan played a big part as well?

[RINO Tom]

This same topic has been covered a lot in this sub-forum, but the obvious flaw I see in your premise is the simplified assertion that (A) supporting abolition of slavery is INHERENTLY "progressive" in our modern political sense, and (B) it's even more ridiculous to act like supporting something as broad as "internal improvements" was inherently progressive - something Democrats at the time (understandably) derided as effectively corporate welfare, given American society at the time.  This amounts to the thinking that anything that led to positive ~progress~ has to be "progressive" in a left/right sense.  This is circular logic that just applies all of the good outcomes of history to the "progressives" and assigns anyone who opposed the "good" outcomes (which we view with 20/20 hindsight) as "conservative."  There were obviously left-wing GOPers who supported both abolition and internal improvements for "progressive" reasons, but there were also right-wing GOPers supporting both for "conservative" reasons.

To give a more "good faith" (if overly brief) answer, the GOP descended from the Whigs for a reason.  Once the big tent issue of opposing the expansion of slavery was out of the picture, the main two things tying the party together were nationalism and a generally pro-business attitude.  While there were obviously extremely left wing people in the GOP because it opposed slavery, it would be a mistake to think that had set the party on a natural path to be some left wing party.  The GOP was a unifying party of anti-slavery Democrats and anti-slavery Whigs ... and it seems clear that the Whig political influence was stronger.  In fact, it seems patently obvious that once slavery and Reconstruction were no longer at the forefront, the GOP very naturally and rather quickly showed its coalition's true colors.

If people want to try to argue the Whigs were to the left of the Democrats before this ... eh, I find that to be a super weak argument that is of the intellectual quality of "I just saw Hamilton and since I liked Alexander the most when it comes to race issues, he was obviously the progressive in that play."

[All Along The Watchtower]

1896.

[katelyn not caitlin]

This same topic has been covered a lot in this sub-forum, but the obvious flaw I see in your premise is the simplified assertion that (A) supporting abolition of slavery is INHERENTLY "progressive" in our modern political sense, and (B) it's even more ridiculous to act like supporting something as broad as "internal improvements" was inherently progressive - something Democrats at the time (understandably) derided as effectively corporate welfare, given American society at the time.  This amounts to the thinking that anything that led to positive ~progress~ has to be "progressive" in a left/right sense.  This is circular logic that just applies all of the good outcomes of history to the "progressives" and assigns anyone who opposed the "good" outcomes (which we view with 20/20 hindsight) as "conservative."  There were obviously left-wing GOPers who supported both abolition and internal improvements for "progressive" reasons, but there were also right-wing GOPers supporting both for "conservative" reasons.

To give a more "good faith" (if overly brief) answer, the GOP descended from the Whigs for a reason.  Once the big tent issue of opposing the expansion of slavery was out of the picture, the main two things tying the party together were nationalism and a generally pro-business attitude.  While there were obviously extremely left wing people in the GOP because it opposed slavery, it would be a mistake to think that had set the party on a natural path to be some left wing party.  The GOP was a unifying party of anti-slavery Democrats and anti-slavery Whigs ... and it seems clear that the Whig political influence was stronger.  In fact, it seems patently obvious that once slavery and Reconstruction were no longer at the forefront, the GOP very naturally and rather quickly showed its coalition's true colors.

If people want to try to argue the Whigs were to the left of the Democrats before this ... eh, I find that to be a super weak argument that is of the intellectual quality of "I just saw Hamilton and since I liked Alexander the most when it comes to race issues, he was obviously the progressive in that play."

Plus, it's often left out by modern day progressives -- including ones that are people of color -- that thinking blacks should not be enslaved is NOT the same as thinking blacks should be equal.

Non-white academics also tend to deliberately make whites who opposed racism seem more numerous, substantial and effective than they actually were (notably in the recent critique of Dr. Seuss).

Such deliberate fabrications and exaggerations discredit attempts to draw attention to the real unpleasant facts of history.

As even TV Tropes notes, there were far more people that tried to be a Schindler than Schindler -- but they were caught early and they and the persecuted they were trying to save were killed -- and nobody makes a movie about *them*.

tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Fridge/SchindlersList

[°Leprechaun]

The Democratic party wasn't always as liberal as it is now, but that doesn't mean that the GOP had to be liberal.

The Democrats were once the establishment party and the Whigs anti establishment; many Whigs became Republicans.

Being anti establishment isn't the same as being liberal.

I do think Bryan was liberal for his time although obviously very conservative religiously.

[RINO Tom]

The Democratic party wasn't always as liberal as it is now, but that doesn't mean that the GOP had to be liberal.

The Democrats were once the establishment party and the Whigs anti establishment; many Whigs became Republicans.

Being anti establishment isn't the same as being liberal.

I do think Bryan was liberal for his time although obviously very conservative religiously.

Curious what you mean about the Whigs?  Most contemporary attack ads against them from Democrats seem to have painted them as a party of monied interests (in bed with Wall Street and the railroad companies), anti-immigration and morally judgmental.

[katelyn not caitlin]

How were the U. S. Whigs related to the British Whigs (the latter are the direct ancestor of today's Liberal Democrats)?

[wnwnwn]

1896

[OSR stands with Israel]

I mean Teddy Roosevelt was never someone who was really backed by the GOP establishment. He was only put in as VP because the Republicans thought that would be the best possible way to appease his base and sideline him at the same time.

Also despite the fact he was a progressive he utterly despised Woodrow Wilson and his side of the family went on to despise FDR too. I would actually say Teddy Roosevelt was more of a populist than he was a progressive and Wilson 100% fit the progressive label far more.

[°Leprechaun]

The Democratic party wasn't always as liberal as it is now, but that doesn't mean that the GOP had to be liberal.

The Democrats were once the establishment party and the Whigs anti establishment; many Whigs became Republicans.

Being anti establishment isn't the same as being liberal.

I do think Bryan was liberal for his time although obviously very conservative religiously.

Curious what you mean about the Whigs?  Most contemporary attack ads against them from Democrats seem to have painted them as a party of monied interests (in bed with Wall Street and the railroad companies), anti-immigration and morally judgmental.

I think that Whigs were formed as an opposition party to Jackson and that Jackson was seen as an establishment President.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

It's important to identify what the Republican Party of the era was. It was a nationalist developmentalist coalition with an aim to unify, industrialise and purify the American nation. Its planks were patriotism, Protestant moralism and the protective tariff. One could in a way compare the 19th century GOP to the interwar KMT in China: both had progressive elements, both set themselves against pre-industrial landlordism, but the parties were not "left" as a whole.

The Democratic Party represented everyone who felt threatened and left out of this drive for national modernisation: urban ethnics, labour unions, southern sectionalists, poor farmers and so on. They saw the Republican vision for America as exclusivist and hierarchical: a corrupt nexus of big business and federal government steamrolling the common man under the presumption that everyone should be a good, obedient, industrious Yankee. In this context it's easy to understand why the Democratic Party absorbed the new left and the Republican Party did not.

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

How were the U. S. Whigs related to the British Whigs (the latter are the direct ancestor of today's Liberal Democrats)?

The US Whigs appear to have taken their name because of opposition to "King" Andrew Jackson, drawing a parallel to the patriots of the American Revolution who had revolted against King George III and were sometimes known as Whigs (because of course, Whigs on the British mainland were the faction opposed to absolute monarchy).

[RINO Tom]

The Democratic party wasn't always as liberal as it is now, but that doesn't mean that the GOP had to be liberal.

The Democrats were once the establishment party and the Whigs anti establishment; many Whigs became Republicans.

Being anti establishment isn't the same as being liberal.

I do think Bryan was liberal for his time although obviously very conservative religiously.

Curious what you mean about the Whigs?  Most contemporary attack ads against them from Democrats seem to have painted them as a party of monied interests (in bed with Wall Street and the railroad companies), anti-immigration and morally judgmental.

I think that Whigs were formed as an opposition party to Jackson and that Jackson was seen as an establishment President.

Ah, gotcha, that makes sense.  However, I would argue that it in the minds of the Whigs (and quite possibly even the Democrats, with a much more positive spin, of course!), it was Jackson who was the anti-establishment figure, and his reign as President was effectively the "inmates running the asylum."  So, "anti-establishment" sentiment among the Whigs seemed to have a flavor much more comparable to "bring back the good ole days!" than "tear down the system!"

It's important to identify what the Republican Party of the era was. It was a nationalist developmentalist coalition with an aim to unify, industrialise and purify the American nation. Its planks were patriotism, Protestant moralism and the protective tariff. One could in a way compare the 19th century GOP to the interwar KMT in China: both had progressive elements, both set themselves against pre-industrial landlordism, but the parties were not "left" as a whole.

The Democratic Party represented everyone who felt threatened and left out of this drive for national modernisation: urban ethnics, labour unions, southern sectionalists, poor farmers and so on. They saw the Republican vision for America as exclusivist and hierarchical: a corrupt nexus of big business and federal government steamrolling the common man under the presumption that everyone should be a good, obedient, industrious Yankee. In this context it's easy to understand why the Democratic Party absorbed the new left and the Republican Party did not.

Great response and a much more eloquent articulation of some of the things I was at least trying to say, haha.

[°Leprechaun]

Religion is probably one of the big factors.

It is also useful to look at the maps of POTUS elections.

The southeastern, northeastern and western states are a good example.

Start with Vermont once the most Whigs/GOP state.

Today only DC is more Democratic than Vermont.
The best example is 1976. The west was very GOP.
The southern states for the most part went for Carter.
A lot changed from 1876-1976.
Obviously the GOP has moved to the right over the last 100 years.

Although FDR was more liberal than the GOP today, but I think Dewey was liberal for his time. There are probably few Rockefeller (who was VP) Republicans today.

[wnwnwn]

Southerns favored initially currency populism (silver) and later fiscal spending. The latter started to change in the Old Right late 30s/early 40s years, but by then the northern democrats had enough of a base with labor unions and urbans.