Party identification is a confusing mess. Republicans were Democrats, Democrats were Republicans?

[Twilight Hue]

Clarifications would be appreciated on historical myths and facts as it pertains to our core two party system. How and why did it happen the way it did?

And....

My big question is why the name's themselves did not change although political platforms seemingly flip flopped while the identifier of Democrats and Republicans did not?

It's a lot more complicated than I thought here.


Democrats and Republicans Switched Platforms - Fact or Myth?

 

[Twilight Hue]

It is a huge mess. Made even worse now with social media and the rapid spread and organization of information. The lines are blurred and, honestly, I am not sure where I stand in it all. Unfortunately, I do not see it getting any better.

EDIT: I think I misinterpreted the OP. Feel free to ignore this post if you feel it is off topic.

No. It's all good. I was surprised the changes were so recent as the 1960s.

I was born in 65.

Addum.....

Wanted to agree as well that I'm not sure what ideological platforms either party stands for.

Seems Democrats equate Communism in it's extreme and Republicans equates Fascism in it's extreme to the point it nullifies the terms Democrats and Republicans altogether. I'm wondering now if more platform changing is ongoing now as we speak.

 

[Stevicus]

The parties evolved over time. But the names of the parties themselves are essentially meaningless. It's just like the "Whig" party. What the heck is a "whig"?

The US is a democratic-republic. At one time, there was a party called "Democratic-Republican," since our Founders believed in that form of government. The Federalists and the Whigs also believed in a democratic-republican form of government, so the fact that they didn't call themselves that really didn't mean much in the grand scheme of things.

The "Democratic-Republican" party eventually just became known as the "Democratic" party, while the Whigs and Federalists were waning, soon to be replaced by a new party, which could call itself "Republican" since that name was no longer taken.

It's somewhat similar to how Spinal Tap talks about first calling themselves "The Originals" but then realized there was another band by that name, so they had to call themselves "The New Originals." That's how one should view the names of political parties in America.

 

[Quetzal]

No. It's all good. I was surprised the changes were so recent as the 1960s.

I was born in 65.

Kennedy, if I am not mistaken, was one of the tipping points into the big shift.

 

[metis]

Kennedy, if I am not mistaken, was one of the tipping points into the big shift.

It was largely LBJ, and he was aware that this was going to cause many Democrats in the South to abandon the party when he signed the Voting Rights Acts into law. Now, the vast majority of the Southern Democrats ("Dixiecrats") are now largely Republicans.

 

[columbus]

Kennedy, if I am not mistaken, was one of the tipping points into the big shift.

More like Kennedy/Johnson.
The Democrats stood strongly for civil equality between racial groups. Conservative Christian racists didn't. So the Republican Party shifted in the late 60's to appeal to conservative Christian racists. That was called the Southern Strategy. It worked and the Republican Party remained viable despite millions of new black voters staunchly voting Democrat.
Tom

 

[sun rise]

Some of the shift happens when one side adopts the position of the other side such as Romney Health Care including the mandate being OK with Republicans until President Obama adopts it at which point the right goes nuts and rejects it as anathema.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Some of the shift happens when one side adopts the position of the other side such as Romney Health Care including the mandate being OK with Republicans until President Obama adopts it at which point the right goes nuts and rejects it as anathema.

While this might be a good example as to one party adopting ideologies of another party, I respectively ask the debate be limited to the scope of party names and the nature of changes made in ideologies as they pertain to political platforms.

I ask for people to please refrain from debating issues themselves as there's enough of them going around already in other threads.

This debate is just to examine unorthodox political changes made under a particular party identifier that doesn't reflect the party platform itself as it was/is traditionally set up.

 

[Quetzal]

While this might be a good example as to one party adopting ideologies of another party, I respectively ask the debate be limited to the scope of party names and the nature of changes made in ideologies as they pertain to political platforms.

To add to this discussion, my question is this: is this the first time we have seen it? Looks like we have agreement in that Kennedy/Johnson was a catalyst, but has this happened before them?

 

[Twilight Hue]

To add to this discussion, my question is this: is this the first time we have seen it? Looks like we have agreement in that Kennedy/Johnson was a catalyst, but has this happened before them?

I'm trying to view it from a historical perspective of party changes. The how's and why's basically. We've had parties like the Federalist Party, The Whig party, Democrat Republican Party come and go split up Etc, it seemed as time progresses throughout our history the ideologies that fall under party names gets blurry and blurrier as to what a specific party actually stands for.

It seems were undergoing a significant transition right now, which is why party names seem more irrelevant as its policies and mission statements have been continually shifting even as its political identifiers stay the same.

In short, Republicans and Democrats today are not the Republicans and Democrats of yesterday which begs the question what exactly are the Republicans and Democrats supposed to be?

 

[Quetzal]

In short, Republicans and Democrats today are not the Republicans and Democrats of yesterday which begs the question what exactly are the Republicans and Democrats supposed to be?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Here's a link from Scholastic.com listing the Creed's and mission statements of each party and what they stand for.


http://www.scholastic.com/browse/article.jsp?id=4706


It's kind of an eye opener when you read this and compare the policies made today respectively with each party.

 

[Sanzbir]

It's just tribalism.

That's why when the last guy ran on pro-immigration and anti-war grounds, and then proceed to drop escalate war in Syria, Yemen, and Libya, and deport more immigrants than any president before him, virtually none of his supporters batted an eye.

And it's why when the current guy reverses his decisions in regards to Syria and Net Neutrality and the like, virtually none of his supporters bat an eye either.

No one cares about what policies are held, all that matters are "Do they use the same Tribe name as me??" If so, they are an ally, if not, they are an enemy. Blind tribalism. That is all.

It's how the past three US Presidents have all managed to run on platforms to reduce war and intervention and, despite that, increase war and intervention anyway.

 

[Stevicus]

It was largely LBJ, and he was aware that this was going to cause many Democrats in the South to abandon the party when he signed the Voting Rights Acts into law. Now, the vast majority of the Southern Democrats ("Dixiecrats") are now largely Republicans.

I thought Truman also had a role in it. The Dixiecrats started up in '48 just after Truman ordered the military to be integrated. FDR was also a big supporter of civil rights.

 

[metis]

I thought Truman also had a role in it. The Dixiecrats started up in '48 just after Truman ordered the military to be integrated. FDR was also a big supporter of civil rights.

You're probably right, but the BIG push started in the late 60's/early 70's.