Just when did the two parties flip-flop?

[The Yosemite Bear]

first there was the Federalist and Anti-federalist, then we had, whigs, democrats, shriners (anti-masons), and Republicans.

since just before the civil war we have had two major parties. The Republicans and the Democrats. Originally the Republicans were pro small business, pro-individual rights, for conservation, regulation of business abuses, heavily in favor of trade restrictions, sufferage, and freeing the slaves.

The democrats were currupt, in the pockets of the big industrials in the north, and the slave owners in the south, reducing trade restictions, etc.


so exactly at which point did they swich their positions...

[Quadlok]

It was a gradual process. During the late nineteenth century both parties were basicly dedicated to business to the exclusion of almost everything else. By the time Wilson was elected in 1912, this had been abandoned in for progressive fever. After Harding came into office, the Republicans were apparently sick of reform cut government spending ruthlessly and decided to be big business's bitch. Once you factor in Roosevelt's New Deal, which firmly set up the Democrats as the big government party, and the 1948 break off of the 'Dixiecrats' (who subsequently joined the Republicans), which destroyed the Solid South, you have the situation about where it is today.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Which is not to say that's the end of the story. After '48 there was a rather strong wing of the Democratic party in the line of FDR, et al, best represented by Senator Henry M. "Scoop" Jackson and whom the first Kennedy showed most of the traits of (strong on defense, willing to cut taxes when necessary, etc). But the leftist intelligentsia turned away from those views and embraced the pacifistic and green--oriented focus of the McGovern/Carter faction. That caused a split in the Democratic party which Reagan (himself a former democrat) exploited to great success.

Clinton smoothed things over though the general trend was to the left, especially as many of the men responsible for the "Hawk" side of the DNC died off. The end result is that the Democrat party has solidified further to the left and everyone who doesn't like it has either moved to the RNC (further acceleration a trend towards certain issues like a populist christianity message and government spending for social programmes under the guise "compassionate conservatism") or is a single man named Zell Miller.

Really, when you look at the number of high level men in the Republican Party's internal organs and in the Bush administration today, it seems almost like looking at a Democratic Party who's who list from thirty-five years ago.