Back When There Were More Liberal and Moderate Republicans in Congress

[one...two...tree 2,762]

During the overnight debate, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) emphasized the partisan nature of the health care proceedings. He reminded his colleagues that Social Security and Medicare passed with considerable GOP support, which, from McConnell's narrow perspective, necessarily means Democrats are doing something wrong now. We've been through this a few times -- it was a standard conservative talking point over the summer -- but since it's about to come up a whole lot more often, it's worth reviewing how misguided the criticism is.

McConnell may have forgotten, but FDR and LBJ led during a time when moderate and liberal Republicans were still fairly common. Neither Democratic president had trouble finding sensible GOP lawmakers who were anxious to work towards progressive policy goals. President Obama, however, is stuck trying to find common ground with a right-wing reactionary party, and not surprisingly, the GOP minority prefers to slap away the outstretched hand.

Harold Meyerson had a good piece on this in July:

ipartisanship ain't what it used to be, and for one fundamental reason: Republicans ain't what they used to be. It's true that there was considerable Republican congressional support, back in the day, for Social Security and Medicare. But in the '30s, there were progressive Republicans who stood to the left of the Democrats.... Today, no such Republicans exist.

Nicholas Beaudrot put it this way: "t's simply not meaningful to compare the present circumstances to those faced by Lyndon Johnson or Franklin Roosevelt when it comes to bipartisanship.... Barack Obama faces partisan polarization not seen since Woodrow Wilson was President."

What's more, McConnell's choice of examples is striking. Is there any doubt that McConnell and his caucus would strongly reject Social Security and Medicare if they were proposed today?

Social Security and Medicare, of course, were government-run programs paid for by straight tax increases. They were far more offensive to conservatives than the current legislation, which funds a mostly-private sector health-care expansion by trimming the budget of Medicare, America's largest single-payer health-care system. [...]

Medicare could not be passed today because there would be no Republican votes, and too few Democratic votes. Social Security would be similarly hapless.... Tonight's vote was a moment of enormous progress for social justice, but evidence of enormous regression in our political system.

McConnell's argument made it sound as if Democrats are to blame for Republicans becoming too conservative. It's hardly a compelling pitch.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/

[SMR 368]

During the overnight debate, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) emphasized the partisan nature of the health care proceedings. He reminded his colleagues that Social Security and Medicare passed with considerable GOP support, which, from McConnell's narrow perspective, necessarily means Democrats are doing something wrong now. We've been through this a few times -- it was a standard conservative talking point over the summer -- but since it's about to come up a whole lot more often, it's worth reviewing how misguided the criticism is.

McConnell may have forgotten, but FDR and LBJ led during a time when moderate and liberal Republicans were still fairly common. Neither Democratic president had trouble finding sensible GOP lawmakers who were anxious to work towards progressive policy goals. President Obama, however, is stuck trying to find common ground with a right-wing reactionary party, and not surprisingly, the GOP minority prefers to slap away the outstretched hand.

Harold Meyerson had a good piece on this in July:

ipartisanship ain't what it used to be, and for one fundamental reason: Republicans ain't what they used to be. It's true that there was considerable Republican congressional support, back in the day, for Social Security and Medicare. But in the '30s, there were progressive Republicans who stood to the left of the Democrats.... Today, no such Republicans exist.

Nicholas Beaudrot put it this way: "t's simply not meaningful to compare the present circumstances to those faced by Lyndon Johnson or Franklin Roosevelt when it comes to bipartisanship.... Barack Obama faces partisan polarization not seen since Woodrow Wilson was President."

What's more, McConnell's choice of examples is striking. Is there any doubt that McConnell and his caucus would strongly reject Social Security and Medicare if they were proposed today?

Social Security and Medicare, of course, were government-run programs paid for by straight tax increases. They were far more offensive to conservatives than the current legislation, which funds a mostly-private sector health-care expansion by trimming the budget of Medicare, America's largest single-payer health-care system. [...]

Medicare could not be passed today because there would be no Republican votes, and too few Democratic votes. Social Security would be similarly hapless.... Tonight's vote was a moment of enormous progress for social justice, but evidence of enormous regression in our political system.

McConnell's argument made it sound as if Democrats are to blame for Republicans becoming too conservative. It's hardly a compelling pitch.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/

This is hardly the start of a thread that will go anywhere. Everybody points fingers at the other side when we talk about who isn't compromising. It's really a pointless debate. On the other hand, it's a debate that politicians will continue to have.

On another note, wouldn't it be great if we didn't have this social security mess. Maybe we needed more conservatives back in the 30's.

[Danno 1,228]

I think it's fair to say both parties have changed, for instance,

would the Democrat party of even 25 years ago be fighting to make Transgendered people a protected class or

to, redesign marriage?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Reading comprehension is a dying art these days.

[Danno 1,228]

However...."Dodging" is still around.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

However...."Dodging" is still around.

When you show up to a tennis match with a beach ball, don't expect your opponent to hit it back to you.

[alienlovechild 75]

Gee, if the Democrats wanted a more moderate Republican, why didn't they vote for McCain for President?

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/spectrum.xpd

As I've said countless times before, even with majorities in both houses of Congress and control of the White House, the Democrats still always find some way to blame the GOP (or anyone else) for anything that goes wrong.

[scandal 951]

This is hardly the start of a thread that will go anywhere. Everybody points fingers at the other side when we talk about who isn't compromising. It's really a pointless debate. On the other hand, it's a debate that politicians will continue to have.

On another note, wouldn't it be great if we didn't have this social security mess. Maybe we needed more conservatives back in the 30's.

I don't know if this thread will, or should, "go anywhere".

But I don't think it's a pointless debate. I find the evolution of American political thought quite interesting, and quite revealing for our own times.

The OP is correct that there were more moderate elements in the Republican party in earlier times.

However, in fairness both parties have evolved.

The Democratic party was heavily dominated by southern conservatives from the time of Andrew Jackson right through the Civil War, Reconstruction and the 20th century pretty much until the 1980s when Reagan converted those southern conservatives into Republicans.

FDR showed tremendous political acumen in being able to hold together a coalition of southern conservatives, northern labor and union members, Jews, African Americans, Catholics under a broad Democratic tent to get the New Deal legislation, including Social Security, passed. And yes - he reached out successfully to Republicans to get that job done.

At one time in its early history, back in the 1850s, the Republican party stood for heavy government spending to develop the infrastructure needed to open up the West- canals, turnpikes, railroads, telegraphs. Abraham Lincoln was a staunch proponent of such spending. It was also a curious mix of pro- and anti- immigration sentiments. The virulently anti-immigration Know-Nows were absorbed into the Republican party, but so too were anti-slavery and pro-immigration German-Americans. At the same time, the Democratic party was largely the bastion of pro-slavery and states rights issues.

The spectrum of American opinion changes. But it has always retained certain key elements: Americans debate the desired size and power of their government, the amount and purpose of the taxes collected and spent, the interference of government in their personal lives, the power projected by America overseas. The issues have remained relatively constant through the years, but the platforms of the political parties have evolved, and continue to evolve. The association of Democrat=liberal and Republican=conservative is relatively modern and hardly static. It will evolve further.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Gee, if the Democrats wanted a more moderate Republican, why didn't they vote for McCain for President?

I might have done just that, then McCain nominated Palin, and there was not a snowballs chance in Dallas I would have voted for the man.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

The ** Party changed, too. They became even worse political deviants than they were before. JFK would consider Barry to be a socialist, too, if he were alive today. He nor Bobby were not the liberals that people who didn't live in the 1960's romanticize them to have been. And, what is this love affair with moderates, anyway? There are no moderates in the Democrat party, but I wish there were. Moderates are indecisive, easily led and not the brightest bulbs in the box. Republicans have seen enough of those to know better than to court them. If Democrats love them so much, they are free to recruit them for leadership. I hope they will.

Edited December 22, 2009 by Sofiyya

[Danno 1,228]

I might have done just that, then McCain nominated Palin, and there was not a snowballs chance in Dallas I would have voted for the man.

Well the overall reality is, McCain never gained a following, if people were truly desirous of a moderate, he should have had national appeal, fact is, if he couldn't get traction.

Palin simply gave him the only boost he had, though it came almost largely from the base.

[alienlovechild 75]

I might have done just that, then McCain nominated Palin, and there was not a snowballs chance in Dallas I would have voted for the man.

Ok, who should he have picked that would have changed your mind?