Display:
... that part of our economic history, but I'd say with reasonable confidence that the answer is, "yes, directly and precisely correct".

Even during the 1930's, the New Dealers were constantly accused of being communists, and the reason Truman was on the ticket in 1944 was because of the effort to cast the previous VP as being a radical and closet communist. While the governor of CA won election against the socialist, nominated as Democratic candidate, Upton Sinclair under the deal that if FDR did not endorse Sinclair, the governor would not block New Deal programs in California ... that was just a temporary bargain. There never was an acceptance of the New Deal by the conservative wing of the Republican Party, and McCarthy was definitely from that wing.


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Fri Dec 11th, 2009 at 05:22:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]
But as late as the Eisenhower administration those people were considered "crazy" by mainstream Republicans. Then they took over the party.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
by Starvid (arvid.hallen at gmail.com) on Fri Dec 11th, 2009 at 05:41:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It may look that way from the outside, but you are defining the mainstream by which wing of the party won the fights, not by the support behind each wing. 60% of the national party establishment may have seen the Conservative Wing as crazy and 40% as potentially useful allies, but an American political party is a loose coalition of state parties, and even in the 50's they were either the dominant or second strongest wing in a number of Inner Western State Republican parties.

And taking over the party was mostly a matter of driving the race-liberal, fiscally conservative Republicans that had been part of the Republican coalition since its founding into the Democratic party while attracting the racist, military-Keynesians from the Democratic party into the Republicans ... and driven as much by the LBJ administration ramming through the Civil Rights and Great Society programs and establishing the massive Democratic advantage in the black vote as by anything that was done inside the Republican party. A modus videndi was sorted out between big government racists conservatives and anti-New Deal reactionaries on who got what say on what issues, and away they went. Nixon was the bridge figure, not a Movement "Conservative" reactionary in his own right, but plenty unethical enough to rely on dogwhistle racist appeals to break the former Solid South in the Electoral College.

Obviously for the professional party establishment that simply wanted power, an inside track in the Electoral College for candidates with "R" after their name was far more important than the reckless and irresponsible policies that the Movement "Conservative" reactionaries actually wanted to enact. Those who were principled moderate Republicans rather than moderate Republicans because that was the path to electoral victory were likely always a minority, perhaps since the decline of the Garfield wing of the party in the late 1800's if not earlier.


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Fri Dec 11th, 2009 at 06:12:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series