Hey, let's play Twister! Seriously though, how much do you really know about the evolution of American political parties?

 

or, perhaps this:

Come on baby...let's do the twist!

Because, folks, let's be clear--whenever you write about politics, it's a game of perception and/or lies.  But, we should also ask the philosophical question:  what is truth?  You know, this brings to mind a story my first bro-in-law told me once, about how he'd aced his philosophy final.  On the test paper, the instructor wrote one word:  "why?"  He laughed, and wrote "why not?"  He told me he got an A.

I believe it.  This story calls to mind some of the more extraordinary machinations I've observed over my long life watching the American political process--facile practices coupled with Machiavellian tendencies.  However, one could say that about any system of politics, right?  

What follows, are issues I have dealt with in previous posts, but with the upcoming presidential nuptials, perhaps it’s' a good thing if we cover this topic from another perspective....  

Benjamin Franklin once (oh ye Gods! How many times have we all heard quotes from this guy?) wrote/said/tweeted "politics is the art of the possible." Well, OK, I guess so.  But, then he also said that house guests were like three day old fish.  Whenever I think about the American political 'process,' I suppose the point is, that pragmatism and compromise have been the American political ideal.

I keep coming back to the game of Twister.  Red! Twist over and under your opponent's kidneys! Blue! Try to balance a foot off the ground, defying the force of gravity!

For the purpose of this post, I’m going to confine myself to tracking the evolution of both the Republican, and Democratic Parties, from approximately 1790ish, to the 1960s.  No, this is not gonna be another Tolstoy-ian long post, I promise.

Well, not too long. : )!

Let's begin in the 1790s (give or take a lie or two), with the Democratic Republican Party.  No, I'm not on acid, this new party was Thomas Jefferson's 'answer' to the more conservative Federalist party.  Think about it in this way:  John Adams/Federalist;  Jeffie baby/Democratic Republican.  It was Jeff's contention, that the Federalists were infatuated with giving the preponderance of power to the government in Washington City, rather than in each state--where the tall Virginian believed it belonged.  Tragically, this argument of state's rights, over federal rights, would never be adequately solved (can you say the "Civil War"?).

One of the first issues dividing the partiess was slavery.  Specifically, there was an argument about whether or not the enslavement of human beings should be extended into the western territories.  Everyone (i.e. both North and South) were concerned about representation in Congress, and whether the majority of that body would favor or disfavor the peculiar institution.  

Before we continue, it's necessary for you to understand that the majority of Dem/Repubs were comprised white slaveholders.  Yeah, that's right.  The Democrat/Republicans...were the party of southerners--and slavery, while the Federalists were, uh, not.  To put it in simpler terms, Jeff's party were interested in maintaining the status quo, whereas the Federalists and its' affiliated groups, were mainly concerned with, (well sort of) phasing slavery out, and definitely not extending it into new western territories.  Later, the Dem/Repubs would shorten their name to, simply, "Democrats."

Pretty weird, huh? 

So:  Democrat Republicans = conservatives

       vs.

Whatever progressive and liberal party that opposed them.  By the late 1850s, the opposing party to the Democrats were known as "Republicans."  So, the so-called 'Grand Ole Party' was (at first blush), the liberal element in American politics.

Shit, maybe I am on hallucinogenic mushrooms.

So, Abe Lincoln was a Republican, which was known as the party of the people, while the Democrats remained the party of southerners who supported slavery.

And thus it remained, with a few minor glitches, with both parties dominating the field, over third parties which never had a chance against the two goliaths.

Now, Dear Reader, I am glossing over momentous 'twists' in this story.  My question was always this:  when did the Democrats make the leap from conservative, to liberal? Well, I believe that the change solidified with the election of FDR in the 1930s, and continued its' gradually progressive trend, culminating with the election of Kennedy in 1960.

Who was it who created a conservative identity for the Republicans? Again, it was a gradual revolution, and yet I think that the change became a reality with the presidency of Dwight D. Eisenhower in the 1950s.

But, I could be wrong, Dear Reader. I just thought you might be interested....