Party Flipping

Just a theory I'd like to put out there and get some opinions on... that Democrat and Republican, as far as parties go, change completely in cycles...

This is the basis for what I'm thinking. Granted, it needs a lot of work and is only a "theory" of what it seems like to me at the moment

Very rough outline, probably has some mistakes in it but I want to sum up the thinking process that's going on:

Jackson was the first to be called a "Democrat", before that, it was "Democratic-Republican" for the party name.
Then the "Whig" party popped up with Harrison (William Henry) and the "Democrats" of that time started going more toward what we see as the "right wing".

There was turmoil between the Democrats and the Whigs for a while, then along came Lincoln and called himself a "Republican" which would be considered very left wing in today's world. It went around and around, Grant, Hayes, Garfield and Arthur... Then there was the period of time with the other Harrison and Cleveland and they Democrats and Republicans lined up more with what we think of them today (or at least what we thought of them 15 years ago...). There were good ones and bad ones on both side, but they stabalized.

Now we have Obama and Romney and they're starting to cycle again. My own opinion is that bush was too extremist that it prompted another cycle change. Obama and Romney are both pretty "centrist" in the grand scheme of things but I see Obama as more conservative than Romney and Romney more liberal even though they stick hard to their parties.

It's flipping again, right here and right now. There are overlaps and nuances going on, but the Republican party is soon to become more of the "liberal" sense and the Democrat party is going to become more of the "conservative" sense within the next 10 years. Right now, they're about the same other than people sticking to the name. ... the "In Name Only" groups

The tea party has a lot to do with the change too, they started out as neither liberal or conservative and drew in people who were looking for something else. The extremist right wing quickly jumped in and changed them into an ultra-conservative group and that's what will make them blink out of existance. We're in a "centrist mode" not an extremist one and the tea party is going to trigger the cycle change then it will disappear like other pop up parties have done. ... in my opinion

Not sure which group will keep which name, but the ideologies are definiting swaying. I guess it depend on who wins the election what will happen.

In my opinion and opinion alone, I'd say that if Obama wins, he's going to head more toward the right wing and the ideologies are going to flip. The Democrats will be more pro-war and less human rights and the Republicans will completely eject the tea party and be more liberal in human rights, look for peaceful solutions and basically just oppose whatever Obama is doing.

If Romney wins, the tea party and fox news and the extremist right groups are going to abandon the Republican base and concentrate redefine themselves as some new party name pretty much ejecting Romney and his group of supporters. With Romney as President, the others will change the name of their "party" and a lot of the Democrats that are pro-Obama will join them.

If they choose to hold on to the names "Democrat" and "Republican", they'll be pretty much opposite what they are now and a lot of people will be "In name only" (very centrist groups) ... we've seen those numbers climbing anyway. The Republican party now is pretty much the "Southern Democrats" from 75-100 years ago, especially the more extreme right wing.

I could be wrong and completely off base, but that's my opinion for now. It's happened before and has been a while, It almost happened again between the Nixon and Reagan years....could have just been the buildup I guess, but was cut off short with Clinton so Bush was pretty much the catalyst that started it again.

Like I said, I could be wrong, it's just a theory in the stage of development and subject to change.

Think there will be any chance of moving to a three-party (or more) system or are we destined to stay in the two-party ideology?

reply to post by PurpleChiten


seems to me there is no difference.All parties have an agenda that usually winds up screwing you or me.I must applaud your fever.Exellent ...INDEPENDENT

reply to post by PurpleChiten

There are overlaps and nuances going on, but the Republican party is soon to become more of the "liberal" sense and the Democrat party is going to become more of the "conservative" sense within the next 10 years.

I don't see how that's possible, especially in such a short time frame. Romney may be more "Centrist" but look at the far-right positions he has to take to appeal to the Republican base.

I see nothing in this current crop of politicians, especially Presidential candidates on both sides, to suggest that any time soon will the parties' ideologies shift again.

Originally posted by CoolerAbdullah786
reply to post by PurpleChiten

 

There are overlaps and nuances going on, but the Republican party is soon to become more of the "liberal" sense and the Democrat party is going to become more of the "conservative" sense within the next 10 years.

I don't see how that's possible, especially in such a short time frame. Romney may be more "Centrist" but look at the far-right positions he has to take to appeal to the Republican base.

I see nothing in this current crop of politicians, especially Presidential candidates on both sides, to suggest that any time soon will the parties' ideologies shift again.

I dunno, I think it's been changing for a while now and will keep changing. It usually takes a "big one" to really show the difference but things build up to that "big one" over a long period of time and the change isn't really immediate.

Lincoln is the one that comes to mind as the biggest example. Look at his political stance compared to today's republican party. Very, very different. Today, he'd be considered a liberal democrat, maybe even an extreme left wing one.

He freed the slaves, he was POTUS during the Civil War, the war that divided the nation and the "North" that he was representing are the democrats of today whereas the "South" is more republican and they were the opposition to him.

Maybe my theory is completely off base and he was just in the wrong party or something, which may have led to his assasination, I don't know. But there really are a lot of swings and cycles that go on like I listed up there. People today are extremely into the "name" of their party more than what the party represents or says it represents.

I'm sticking to the theory for now and will look for more info to either solidify it or trash it, but that's where my mind is with it.

reply to post by PurpleChiten


Well, as I said, I just don't see Romney moving anywhere near the Left side of the spectrum, and I definitely don't see the core GOP base doing it, either.

The Republicans are extremely far-Right right now. If there is a shift it won't be for a while.

Originally posted by CoolerAbdullah786
reply to post by PurpleChiten

 

Well, as I said, I just don't see Romney moving anywhere near the Left side of the spectrum, and I definitely don't see the core GOP base doing it, either.

The Republicans are extremely far-Right right now. If there is a shift it won't be for a while.

That's just it, I don't think the Republicans are far-right...the teaparty is far right, but the basic, average republican isn't. That's where the split is going to happen and the average republicans will move more centrist and eventually leftward and the teaparty (that has now taken over the GOP) will pull it as far right as it'll go, but since they're the "teaparty", they probably won't get to keep the name... unless of course TPTB are more in line with them in which case they'll keep calling the "new group" the "Republicans" and the real republicans will slowly drift away .... and the extremist group will collapse, the extremists always do.

reply to post by PurpleChiten


What makes you think the GOP will move to the Left? Even if it is only the Tea Party that is poisoning the well of the GOP (which I strongly dispute), what would make them move to start supporting social progressivism?

As I said I don't think it's just the Tea Party that is pushing the GOP far-right. The GOP has been far-right for some time and the Tea Party is only "supposed" to be opposed to taxes so they would only affect fiscal convervatism. What about social conservatism? You still have the Christian base that will always oppose things like gay marriage.

Romney is a centrist but he is being forced to the far-right for a reason and it's not the Tea Party. They don't make up that big of a percentage of GOP support, and they also wouldn't have anything to do with his opposition to gay marriage or immigration reform. Or at least they shouldn't.

There wont be any kind of shift like there has been in the past. The Right has been dragging the Left so far to the Right over the last three decades there is little actual difference anymore. This is what happens when you have one side that is willing to make compromise and the other isn't. What really needs to happen is for people to start abandoning the two major parties to find or create some that are alot closer to them ideologically. Big tents are nice but eventually when you get so many people in them it starts to stink inside.

Originally posted by KeliOnyx
There wont be any kind of shift like there has been in the past. The Right has been dragging the Left so far to the Right over the last three decades there is little actual difference anymore. This is what happens when you have one side that is willing to make compromise and the other isn't. What really needs to happen is for people to start abandoning the two major parties to find or create some that are alot closer to them ideologically. Big tents are nice but eventually when you get so many people in them it starts to stink inside.

Good point... I'm just so darn tired of the two party system. I guess I want more choices and I want them to be choices that can actually win!

reply to post by CoolerAbdullah786


Just a theory... not trying to start arguments, just asking others what they think about it.
Do you think our two party system will stay just the way it is or will there be changes within the parties or will we get addtional parties?
Just looking for possibilities here.

reply to post by PurpleChiten
If you really want to read a good series of essays on republicans and democrats and their histories and their evolutions then look up Misoir's threads.

He's really got a good hold of it and has several well written threads.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by PurpleChiten

 

If you really want to read a good series of essays on republicans and democrats and their histories and their evolutions then look up Misoir's threads.

He's really got a good hold of it and has several well written threads.

Thanks Beezz!! I should have known you'd know where to find the good stuff!!


....still wanna give that poor lil bunny a tissue and a carrot....

reply to post by PurpleChiten


It takes more than a desire for parties to change really. First you have to understand the two major parties have what amounts to a duopoly and use their wealth and political muscle to stay on top. Which is why you see candidates like Ron Paul run under the Republican banner. So one of the tings that needs to change is how we finance elections. Switching to a public system that treats the candidates the same no matter what party they run for would be the way for it to go. But the path to that has a problem because it is dependent on those beholden to the two parties in power to draft it.

reply to post by KeliOnyx


yeah... and neither party wants to give up the power they have... it's a shame really.

In our election thread over in belowtopsecret, we had over 30 candidates say they wanted to run for the experimental election and 15 that actually stuck with it....
Now we have two clear front runners with a couple more making a good showing, but it's down to two again. One is a democrat and one is a republican in reality, but those attributes aren't being taken into it at all, we completely left liberal and conservative out of the fray.
It's been an interesting time and very enjoyable. Eve though it's low scale, it does reflect on how we, the people, react in elections.
The biggest deciding factors have been constant exposure and personality as opposed to any kind of platform. People seem to "vote" for those who stick in their mind I guess.


here's my voting thread if you want to flag it and vote for me
I'll put it down here real low so the mod can edit it out more easily if I'm not allowed to mention it
www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by PurpleChiten


Hrmm.. Bush was, imo, very Liberal. You see "party flipping" .. I see the money holders dictating a far left corporatist, statist agenda. "You'll get Fascism ..... or... you'll get Fascism. You decide."

Originally posted by PurpleChiten
Good point... I'm just so darn tired of the two party system. I guess I want more choices and I want them to be choices that can actually win!

I agree. The two-party system is ridiculous. It's like they own a monopoly on the voting system. I think every legitimate party should have fair representation and an equal chance. We should have at least a five-party system.

reply to post by CoolerAbdullah786


The two party system is what really hurt Perot in his second attempt. After his first bid they did everything they could to shut him out. As long as people keep buying into the two party mess it will be this way.