Abraham Lincoln, the 16th U.S. President and a Republican (left), and Franklin Roosevelt, the 32nd U.S. President and a Democrat. The Republican and Democratic parties effectively switched platforms between their presidencies. (Image credit: Public domain)
The Republican and Democratic parties of the United States didn't always stand for what they do today.
During the 1860s, Republicans, who dominated northern states, orchestrated an ambitious expansion of federal power, helping to fund the transcontinental railroad, the state university system and the settlement of the West by homesteaders, and instating a national currency and protective tariff. Democrats, who dominated the South, opposed those measures.
After the Civil War, Republicans passed laws that granted protections for Black Americans and advanced social justice. And again, Democrats largely opposed these apparent expansions of federal power.
Sound like an alternate universe? Fast forward to 1936.
Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt won reelection that year on the strength of the New Deal, a set of Depression-remedying reforms including regulation of financial institutions, the founding of welfare and pension programs, infrastructure development and more. Roosevelt won in a landslide against Republican Alf Landon, who opposed these exercises of federal power.
So, sometime between the 1860s and 1936, the (Democratic) party of small government became the party of big government, and the (Republican) party of big government became rhetorically committed to curbing federal power.
Eric Rauchway, professor of American history at the University of California, Davis, pins the transition to the turn of the 20th century, when a highly influential Democrat named William Jennings Bryan blurred party lines by emphasizing the government's role in ensuring social justice through expansions of federal power — traditionally, a Republican stance.
But Republicans didn't immediately adopt the opposite position of favoring limited government.
Read more at https://www.livescience.com/34241-democratic-republican-parties-switch-platforms.html
That's not what the genetic fallacy is.
Yes, I did. I explained how the two parties haven't changed since their founding. The Demonkkkrat Party is still as pro-slavery today as it was in 1828 (although they've since moved away from physical slavery and shifted over to mental slavery as well as other forms of compulsive control over others) and the Republican Party is still as anti-slavery (and anti-compulsive control over others) today as it was in 1854. The parties did not "switch"; they have remained exactly the same.
I asked you why ANY history of the first 100 years of the Demonkkkrat Party's existence isn't mentioned on their own website? Are they ashamed of their history? I mean, of what they DID include on their website, they attempted to take credit for women's suffrage and civil rights even though those things were prior advocated for by Republicans and Republicans had to fight tooth and nail against Demonkkrats to get them done, especially civil rights.
No they weren't. The parties did not switch, as I have already explained.
Yes. Republicans freed them (Demonkkkrats opposed, forming the KKK). Republicans gave them some reparations (Demonkkkrats opposed). Republicans granted them citizenship and voting rights (Demonkkkrats opposed both things). Republicans chose and elected the first black representatives and senators (Demonkkkrats opposed).
While blacks made a lot of progressions during that time, ENTIRELY due to Republicans btw, there were still some lingering issues (such as Jim Crow and segregation). Jim Crow and segregation were both in effect ENTIRELY due to DEMONKKKRATS. It was DEMONKKKRATS who implemented and supported such laws and Republicans were the ones fighting against that racist crap. Those things ended in the 1960s, once again, entirely due to REPUBLICANS fighting for black people's rights.
