Have Republicans ever been right?

[SirNitram]

Nuclear Power banned in WV isn't a 'Democratic Position'. It is King Coal's position, and if you do not fall on your knees and kiss his ring, he will end you.

[Guardsman Bass]

The Industrial Revolution was a feature of the progressive North and was pretty much ignored by the conservative South. I don't think we should really treat the 19th century Republicans as if they are equivalent to modern Republicans.

How do you think the Republican Party became the pet party of Big Business that we know and hate today in the first place?

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

I would say that since they originate in the industrialized north upon their creation, they picked up the friend of the Big Business bit up there; however, I think it got reinforced and cemented in modern times with the lazie-faire bent due to the anti-federalist ideology of the south.

They were actually a party originating in the western states in the 1850s, and sucked in the Northeast when the Whigs disintegrated. It shows in their ideology from the time period - like many western politicians, they campaigned on a "free soil" type of platform (meaning no spreading slavery to new states), combined with a pro-business and particularly pro-railroad platform.

[Lord of the Abyss]

I could go on and on naming major figures whose abolitionism was predicated on religious belief, because abolitionism was essentially a religious movement to begin with. Some anti-slavery activists, Abraham Lincoln being the most prominent example, were secular, but the movement generally and radical abolitionism specifically had very strong religious overtones. I'm seriously appalled that people don't know this, it's that basic to understanding the subject. Look it up.

I don't see anyone denying that. But the pro-slavery position was also strongly religion based.

[Knife]

They were actually a party originating in the western states in the 1850s, and sucked in the Northeast when the Whigs disintegrated. It shows in their ideology from the time period - like many western politicians, they campaigned on a "free soil" type of platform (meaning no spreading slavery to new states), combined with a pro-business and particularly pro-railroad platform.

Yes, I'm aware the Free Soilers were a big part in it's formation. Free soil, Free men. Tis why the Republicans were the anti slave in any new territory party. That said, the Free Soilers were a small group and the Republicans, backed by the abolitionists and quite frankly, the pro Union anti-south people in the north. But you are right about the railroad, probably one of the first big pro business the GOP ever did.

[Gil Hamilton]

Have you guys heard of William Wilberforce? John Brown? Harriet Beecher Stowe? Elijah P. Lovejoy? The Quakers? I could go on and on naming major figures whose abolitionism was predicated on religious belief, because abolitionism was essentially a religious movement to begin with. Some anti-slavery activists, Abraham Lincoln being the most prominent example, were secular, but the movement generally and radical abolitionism specifically had very strong religious overtones. I'm seriously appalled that people don't know this, it's that basic to understanding the subject. Look it up.

I said they were progressives, as opposed to the conservatives of the time. I said nothing about them being secular. If seems you can't read.

[Darth Wong]

The Industrial Revolution was a feature of the progressive North and was pretty much ignored by the conservative South. I don't think we should really treat the 19th century Republicans as if they are equivalent to modern Republicans.

How do you think the Republican Party became the pet party of Big Business that we know and hate today in the first place?

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

What are you talking about? They were once the party of Big American Industry, but that's not the case today. The Republican Party is not the pet party of Big American Industry any longer. They are the pet party of Wall Street, which is not the same thing. Wall Street doesn't particularly care for Big American Industry. They are happier to see Big Indian Industry with Big American Shareholders, and the Republican Party is perfectly happy to see every industrial job outsourced to third-world countries, as long as Wall Street shareholders get the money. They don't like Big Industry; they like Big Money. There's a difference. If anything, they actually seem to hate Big Industry, judging by their reaction to the bailouts of the automakers as opposed to their constant bailouts of rural farmers in the Midwest.

[Pablo Sanchez]

I said they were progressives, as opposed to the conservatives of the time. I said nothing about them being secular. If seems you can't read.

Even in issues where religious feeling really did play a strong role, like the Mexican-American War or Slavery, it doesn't work, because in both cases the overtly religious position was also the leftist position.

What are you talking about? Those were the conservative positions. The abolitionists were the progressives of the time.

If that's what you meant, "If" seems that you can't write.

You incorrectly identified the overtly religious positions as the conservative positions, but now you say that you weren't saying anything at all about the abolitionists being secular, which, though technically true, begs the question of why you even posted in the first place, since if you meant what you claim you meant, you were basically agreeing with me anyway.

I don't see anyone denying that. But the pro-slavery position was also strongly religion based.

The difference between a political movement which counts the religious apologetic among its repertoire of arguments and an overtly and essentially religious movement ought to be self-evident. However, even if your argument is accepted, my original point was that Hipper's attempt to divide American political history into a religious vs. secular dichotomy was false on its face, so if both sides of the most vigorous and violent political debate of the 19th century were religion-based, well...

[KrauserKrauser]

I'm going to add in Immigration to the list of things that I believe the Republicans have a better stance on. IIRC it was Republican opposition that stoppped the most recent calls for Amnesty, and while they do not really have that much of a plan to fix it, at least they realize that shit like Amnesty without border enforcement is a bad thing and actively oppose it.

So while their approach is not that good, at least it is better than the other party and their calls for Amnesty.

[General Zod]

I'm going to add in Immigration to the list of things that I believe the Republicans have a better stance on. IIRC it was Republican opposition that stoppped the most recent calls for Amnesty, and while they do not really have that much of a plan to fix it, at least they realize that shit like Amnesty without border enforcement is a bad thing and actively oppose it.

So while their approach is not that good, at least it is better than the other party and their calls for Amnesty.

You mean the Amnesty Bill from 2007 that was proposed by McCain and supported by Bush? Or the one granting amnesty to illegal immigrants that was signed by Reagan in 1986? Or are you talking about some other amnesty act?

[Knife]

He's saying nativism without saying it.

[KrauserKrauser]

I guess you failed to read the section that implied the measure failed due to opposition from the Republicans in the House.

I guess because the bill was co-sponsored by a Republican (oh yeah and a Democrat too, guess that makes it a Republican bill) and had more Democrat support than Republican and was in fact defeated by the Republicans make my point invalid how exactly?

I guess I should change my statement to "I prefer the stance that Republicans in general have recently taken with regards to Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants."

That seems to better resemble what my opinion is.

[Darth Wong]

Saying that you prefer something is not the same as saying that they've been proven right, which is what this thread is about. Far too often, they have taken stances which were at odds with objective reality, or recommended solutions which turned out to be totally counterproductive once the results were in.

[General Zod]

I guess you failed to read the section that implied the measure failed due to opposition from the Republicans in the House.

I guess because the bill was co-sponsored by a Republican (oh yeah and a Democrat too, guess that makes it a Republican bill) and had more Democrat support than Republican and was in fact defeated by the Republicans make my point invalid how exactly?

I guess I should change my statement to "I prefer the stance that Republicans in general have recently taken with regards to Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants."

That seems to better resemble what my opinion is.

Claiming it was defeated by "Republican opposition" when a number of top Republicans supported the bill is somewhat disingenuous, given a number of top Republicans supported it. It would be more accurate to say it didn't pass because the Republicans couldn't agree on it than because they necessarily oppposed it.

[KrauserKrauser]

Well, I can't do the googling necessary to get the vote tally breakdown by party on the bill, if nothing else the Republicans were much more vocal in their opposition to the bill.

But as DW has said if this is whether I think that the Republicans have "done" Immigration correctly, then I would have to say no. Then again I don't see any plans from the Democrats that would have been much different and I credit the Republicans with the current opposition to Amnesty.

It's more of a Amnesty as a part of their over arching Immigration policy and Nuclear power within the overarching Energy policy. I don't necessarily support or believe they have done either overarching policy correctly, but I do agree with their approach to each of the sub-issues.

If you wanted to go with the approach of has their approcah been successful at least you can say they have realized their past mistakes with the previous support of Amnesty under Reagan and their current opposition of it. IIRC McCain might have sponsored the bill in the past but was at least giving lip service to being Anti-Amnesty on the campaign trail.

[Yona]

The real ideological schism in America is not Republican vs Democrat; it is North vs South, Urban vs Rural, and it has been since the 19th century.

Make it Secular vs Religious and that gets pushed back to the 18th century.

That's because the Republican Party has focused on the Southern, Right Wing Religious part of the country for decades. Now, that is the only section of America that IS Republican.

If you take the Republican party back to the middle of the last century, it was still for "Big Business", but much more centrist in the rest of it's ideology, and attracted a much wider cross section of America.

[Gil Hamilton]

Republicans seem to actually be of two minds on the issue of immigration.

One one hand, you've got the anti-Amnesty, fill the Rio Grande with Trained Attack Hippos conservatives who are vocally against Amnesty and want to deport everyone.

On the other hand, you've got a significantly large amount of conservatives (like McCain and Bush) from border states who drag their feet and all but support illegal immigration because of big business ties... big businesses that actively rely on illegal migrant workers to keep their costs down by paying them nothing and treating them crap.

It actively depends on which crowd the particular politician in question is attempting to pander to. Remember how wishy-washy Bush was when he was in office about illegal immigration. He definitely didn't want to do anything that would hurt his buddies businesses back in Texas, but at the same time couldn't avoid the issue. Sad situation, that.

[Bellator]

The Surge in Iraq.

That said, we should never have been there in the first place.

[The Spartan]

The Surge in Iraq.

That said, we should never have been there in the first place.

To say nothing of the fact that, given that we were there, if they hadn't botched the occupation we wouldn't have needed a surge in the first place.

[Sriad]

Saying that you prefer something is not the same as saying that they've been proven right, which is what this thread is about. Far too often, they have taken stances which were at odds with objective reality, or recommended solutions which turned out to be totally counterproductive once the results were in.

This is really the problem: in those few instances where they are on the correct side of an issue they're there for the wrong reasons resulting in wrong policies being implemented.

With nuclear power and similar issues the cause of Big Money happens to fall in line with science, but Big Money also wants lax environmental regulations and safeguards, unsafe uranium mining, and Enron style price fixing. Similar problems exist with immigration policies and not-just-rhetorical-bullshit Conservatism.