Did the U.S. political parties switch sides?
Added 2024-06-27 23:12:48 +0000 UTCIt is sometimes claimed that the two major political parties in U.S. politics, the Democrats and the Republicans, used to be on opposite ends of the political spectrum. It's actually more complicated than that.
Comments
Matt Christman has an outstanding Inebriated Past episode on this topic.
Warren Commission Test Skull
2024-10-24 20:04:52 +0000 UTCYes, but mainly early U.S. history (18th and 19th centuries). I don't have any current plans to do more recent stuff on the main channel. But I wouldn't rule it out sometime down the road.
Premodernist
2024-10-06 19:45:09 +0000 UTCI think with the Greens and the Libertarians nowadays the purpose of a presidential campaign is to increase name recognition of the party, and if they are going to influence the election it'll be by nudging one of the major parties closer to their position. In situations like 1948 and 1968, it was disaffected members of one of the major parties who felt ignored by the national party. In that case, members of the congressional delegations from those states would feel similarly. I agree with you that the Greens and Libertarians today would get no benefit from forcing the election into the House of Representatives.
Premodernist
2024-10-06 19:43:29 +0000 UTCGreat video I was wondering if you will post more videos on the history of US politics on the main channel
Inan Singh
2024-10-04 01:52:02 +0000 UTCGreat video. Something you said as an aside made me think. In contingent elections, how does the third party extract concessions? I never quite understood what power they have to broker with once the contingent election happens.The House of Representatives votes as state delegations for President and Senators votes individually for Vice President. With there being no third party in either house currently, I would expect their influence on the Contingent elections to be limited. Is the premise predicated on the idea that candidates/platforms popular enough to have forced President/Vice President contingent elections would have sympathic allies in Congres? It seems to me, that success in denying an electoral college win, doesn't necessarily translate to power in deciding Contingent elections. With the example of the Dixiecrats, supposing they forced contingent elections, I could see them having enough support in Congress to make it difficult to elect a President and Vice President without their agreement because there was support for their ideas in the House and Senate.Though would a Libertarian or Green have that support in a Contingent election? I don't think so.I feel Democrats and Republicans would vote their own candidate first. If their candidate didn't make it in the contingent election, I feel the electoral calculus would be determined the interest of the establishment party itself rather than an upstart Third Party. I think the idea of contingent election king-making makes more sense when there is more ideological diverse and like coherent factions within the parties.
Lirisa
2024-10-02 23:29:38 +0000 UTCReally good video. I appreciate the timelines and context why each group of people aligned as they did, it even puts the current political climate perspective and reminds me that changing political identities and ideologies are the norm. The static monolithic parties that are often portrayed can really erode our sense of “why”.
Techscw
2024-07-27 02:52:46 +0000 UTCFirst, thank you for that great answer. This quote made me think and have some question "Hardly anyone today really fits into the factions that existed back then." When did the shift in language/common perception change of the meaning of left wing really change? In my country of Sweden the formerly known as the Communist Party changed it's name to "The Left Party" in 1990. And i have never heard of anyone with some sort of Marxist beliefs (from Anarchists to Socialists) having a problem with being labeled as left, but i have heard mixed feelings about that label from liberal or progressive minded people. I just really find political labels interesting since they actually have so much more influence and power then the perception they give off at a first glance when you look at it from a historical perspective.
Dakapo
2024-07-16 15:16:03 +0000 UTCYes, that's right. The Marxists got included with the left because the left was seen as those who wanted to disrupt the hierarchical status quo and reform society in some way to make it more equal or egalitarian. Politics has changed a lot since the French Revolution. Hardly anyone today really fits into the factions that existed back then.
Premodernist
2024-07-15 21:15:45 +0000 UTCThis is also my take on it. And since, in lack of better word Marxist(?) ideas was from late 1900 and early 2000 radical towards the states the two were combinded? Since the radical left-side of the National Assembly was not really Marxist (sorry i can't think of a better word for this) but more liberal.
Dakapo
2024-07-11 23:38:30 +0000 UTCMy understanding is that it comes from the time of the French Revolution. The more moderate members of the National Assembly sat on the right-hand side of the chamber and the more radical members sat on the left-hand side. I don't know if there's more to the story than that; that's just what I've heard.
Premodernist
2024-07-08 23:35:04 +0000 UTCBe careful what you wish for.
Premodernist
2024-07-08 23:32:44 +0000 UTCthank you as always!!
Ruby
2024-07-03 12:15:39 +0000 UTCA fast abridged verson.
Dakapo
2024-07-02 20:23:30 +0000 UTCA history of where the term/s "left and right" came from would have been appreciated for context
Dakapo
2024-07-02 20:16:16 +0000 UTCAbsolutely. The same could be said for the other politicians I mentioned. All of them had more complicated relationships with the civil rights issue than I could cover in the video.
Premodernist
2024-07-02 01:45:44 +0000 UTCThe only distinction I can think of is the right of labor to organize. Going back earlier, in the mid-nineteenth century, the rights of Blacks to not be enslaved and to vote was a partisan issue.
Premodernist
2024-07-02 01:43:52 +0000 UTCThat was a great! These "factions" explained for the first time a lot of what is weird about the US system to me...that and how they have to arrange themselves into this two-party setup (which I understand is mostly an artifact of the voting system)...
Martin Tepper
2024-06-30 07:27:49 +0000 UTCI think LBJ's relationship with racial issues and civl rights is a little more complicated than you portray here. He was instrumental in the (admittedly inadequate) civil rights acts of 1957 and 1960 while in the senate. Its plausible that this was just part of his broader cynical strategy to become president, but I think there are a few other incidents in his political life which makes it difficult to think it can be reduced purely to strategy
FederalFarmer
2024-06-30 05:21:25 +0000 UTCGreat video as always. As a Brit not very well versed in US political history i have to ask what was the main distinction in rights-based beliefs between the two parties prior to the civil rights act and the new left? What rights were the two main parties supportive and not supportive of?
Silas Martin
2024-06-29 12:50:49 +0000 UTCLet the tangents free!
Steven Rausch
2024-06-28 22:35:04 +0000 UTCYeah
ty zj
2024-06-28 00:54:04 +0000 UTC“It’s more complicated than that” is a great way to answer pretty much all of these cookie cutter talking points that used in American politics
Solitaire Pilot
2024-06-28 00:34:24 +0000 UTCGreat content! Your voice is spooky close to Louis CK’s and I can’t be the first to make that connection; your channel was recommended to me after watching him speaking about the founding fathers.
DP Workman
2024-06-27 23:32:08 +0000 UTCGreat!
ty zj
2024-06-27 23:14:39 +0000 UTC
