Mediaboss Marketing

Did the Democrats and Republicans Switch Parties?

The American political parties, now called Democrats and Republicans, switched platform planks, ideologies, and members many timesin American history. These switches weretypically spurred on by major legislative changes and events, such as the Civil War in the 1860s, and Civil Rights in the 1960s. The changes then unfolded over the course of decades to create what historians calltheParty Systems.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]

Bottomline: The parties changed over time as platform planks, party leaders, factions, and voter bases essentially switched between parties. Third parties aside, the Democratic Party used to be favored in the rural south and had a small government platform (which southern social conservatives embraced), and the Republican party used to be favored in the citied north and had a big government platform (which northern progressive liberals embraced). Today it is the opposite in many respects. Although what happened is complex and some voter bases and factions never switched, you can see evidence of the big switches by looking atthe electoral map over time(where voter bases essentially flipped between1896and2000). Or, you can see it by comparing which congressional seats were controlled by which parties over time (try comparingthe 115th United States Congress under Trumptothe 71st United States Congress under Hooverfor example). Or, you can see the solid conservative south switch specifically by looking at the electoral map of the solid south over time. Or, you can dig throughthe historic party platforms. Any of those links will give you a look at the basics of what did and didnt change, but the details are as complex as U.S. party history. Below we cover the details of what changes occurred and what they mean in context and explain the history of the Democratic and Republican party in the process. To do that, well start with an overview of the party systems.

The party systems, AKA eras of the United Statespolitical parties, can be describedas follows (where the main things that switch in each party system are key factions, party leaders, geographical voter bases, and specific planks of party platforms):[13]

In other words, as the Democratic Party became more progressive in the progressive era, it attracted progressives from the Republican party and alienated the small government socially conservative south. Meanwhile, as the Republican party conserved toward Gilded Age politics in the 20th century, and embraced socially conservative single-issue voter groups and individualism, it attracted the solid south (their leadership and voter base) and alienated progressives. These two factors, and many more explained in detail below, substantially changed the party platforms, seats held in congress, and the voting maps over the course of the 20th century (AKA the 20th century reversal, or the 20th century political realignment, or the switch).

TIP: If you want to see some quick visual proof of party switching, see the images on our Summary of How the Major Parties Switched page. This page leads with explanations (which require reading), that pageleads with images and videos (which dont).Belowis an essay that explains American history in depth, so bookmark it for further study.

It isnot a myth that the parties switched,just look at the voting map over timeor at the historic party platforms(or check out Lincolns1860 election, Democrat-Populist Bryans 1896 election, LBJs1964 election, Nixons1968 election, and the corresponding platforms of all parties in those races and compare them to the 2016 election).

The problem isnt proving specificchanges (for example showing thatthesouthern bloc used to vote Democratic Party and now they vote Republican), the problem is that so much changed that it is difficult to summarize (especially from a centered standpoint that tries to to justice to all of Americas diverse factions; here ill apologize for any bias below, feel free to comment with questions orchallenge anything).

The truth is the Solid South switch(the Southern realignment) is one of the easiest to spot (as one can see it on the map), and debunking its related mythsdetracts from the equally important stories ofProgressive Dixies like LBJ and Gore Sr. and their refusal to signthe Strom led Southern Manifesto,Teddy and his Progressives, Bryan and how he changed the Democratic Party, the tension between Federalists like Hamilton and Anti-Federalists like Jefferson,the one-party Democratic-Republicans in the era of Good Feelings (andthe tension between Jackson, Clay, Calhoun, Van Buren, Adams that ended the era), and thecountless other stories of Expansion and Compromise in themid-1800s, Third Parties like the Peoples Party, Free Soilers, and Libertarians,the Difference between Southern Democrats and Know-Nothings (and their relation to the modern Tea Party),Reconstruction, the Gilded Age, the World Wars, the Great Migrations, the evolution of the Monroe Doctrine, the strategy that helped createFox News, and the rise of Progressivism.

This is to say, I want to jump right in and explain that in Lincolns day there were fourparties (not two),and that Lincoln was no Know-Nothing AND no Southern Democrat

Still, I get that this is about first and foremost debunking the Big Switch, so lets split the difference.

Firstwell offer a quick summary in the form of an introduction (in order to quickly go over key points as a service to the reader who doesnt want to read the whole thing; that will be about different factions and their relation to the groups at the heart of the Big Switch).

Then well explain the generalstory, which showsthat the main theme here is one of factions switching parties in a two-party system as America progressesand modernizes (with voter bases and key members typically switchingfirst, usually over single voter issues or specific legislation, and then everything elsechangingslowly over time as new members are elected).

Then we move on to the details of the Big Switch(where the Southern blocSouthern Democrat Dixiecrats switched from favoring the increasingly progressive Democratic party to the increasingly conservative Republican party following1964, slowly, over time, from 1964 to the 1990s and beyond, thus causing the big switch (flipping the map) as one can see in the congressionalvoting records of the contemporary era; see the Southern strategy).

Then well tell the full history of both major parties, noting each switch, each President, and major events.

First, a bit more on the Solid South (which is explained by the following image in many ways).

Visual Proof the parties switched(source).Remember, we are discussing majority wins in a two-party system here. On an individual level,America is less red-state vs. blue-state or city vs. rural, and more purple, meanwhile on a state and national level it seems polarized due to party politics and majorities being needed to win. Here we can note that America is today and has always been comprised of diverse individualswith different tastes who support single-voter issue factions, who thenform coalitions as two big tents still, a city is not a farm,the media can be loud, Citizens United and Gerrymandering are loud too, the two-party system is an epic feedback loop, and majorities do win the day.Very real factors divide us in very real ways in any era, but electoral-based maps and even county-maps can be misleading (as they only show majorities). The Solid South is a force when it acts as a one-party voting bloc in any era, but it isnt like everyone in the south has the same politics. Seethe ways in whichAmerica is purple, the nitty grittytruth is very telling.

LOOKING FOR PROOF IN 2017: Keeping in mind we today are new generation. If one is still confused, today we can see some recent and major proof, that isCharlottesville 2017. In Charlottesville we saw the Dixie battle flag of the Southern Democrats being waved by Republican Trump voters who were standing up to protect the statue of the Southern Democrat rebel army leader General Lee. Meanwhile, the progressive American liberal-ish antifascists marched against these groups with the progressive social justice movement Black Lives Matter in abolitionist spirit. In ye old terms, the socially conservative right-wing populist America First Know-Nothing nativists and Solid South radicals marched against the populist Reformers, Progressives, and left-wing anarchists. In the old days all those factions were in the Democratic party except the old Progressives of Republican party who would have marched with MLK, voted for Teddy, or stood with Hamilton or Lincoln, and the Know-Nothings who have always been Republican, Whig, Federalist, or Third Party. Today the socially conservative factions generally vote Republican and the progressive factions generally vote for the Democratic party. That is the main switch spurred on by shifts toward big government welfare state social justice and free-enterprise states rights small government. Here we cant act like decedents of the Confederates are Confederates any more than a descendent of a progressive is progressive, but spiritually some of these factions switched parties and the alliances of the other factions subsequently changed (and regional voter bases and platform planks changed with them as the parties evolved). So yes, Thurmond and Goldwater are fine places to look, but 2017 is as fine as any other place. History is complex enough without twisting the story of the South and the progressive factions into a modern pretzel. Some factions have always been for small government, some for big government, the parties and times changed and the factions changed along with them, all of this is interconnected. Also party loyalty is a factor.

I cant stress this enough, amajor thing that changes in history is the SouthernSocial Conservative one-party voting bloc (because in an electoral system, 11 states who often votelock-step always matter and oftenpaint the map clear as day, for example when they vote for Breckenridge in 1860,Goldwater in 1964, or George C. Wallace in 1968).

This is the easy thing to explain given the conservative Souths historically documented support of figures like Calhoun,John Breckenridgeand his Socially Conservative Confederates of theSouthern Democratic Party,Byrd (the who didnt switch), the other Byrd who ran for President,Thurmond, C. Wallace,Goldwater (the Libertarian States Rights Republican), and later conservative figures like Reagan, Bush, and Trump (rather than progressive southerners like Carter and Bill Clinton).

The problem isnt showing thechanges related to this, or showing the progressive southerners like LBJ, the Gores, and Bill Clinton arent of the same exact breed as the socially conservative south, the problem is that the party loyalty of the conservative southis hardly theonly thing that changes, nor is it the only thing going on in American history (to say the least).

Not only that, but here we have to note thatthe north and south haveits own factions, Democrats and Republicans have their own factions, and each region and state has its own factions and that gives us many different types of Democrats and Republicans.

Consider,Lindsey Graham essentially inheritedStrom Thurmonds seat, becoming the next generation of solid south South Carolina conservative, now solidly in the Republican party.

When we note that Grahams stance on key issues tends to be rather liberal for a right-wing conservative Republican[14] (and is generallydifferent than his northern Republican counterpartslike Trump; who is also rather liberal for a Republican) we can see some real evidence of what I am saying. Both Trump and Graham are liberal Republicans, but they are from two different parts of the country and dont exactly share all the same interests.

A southern conservativefrom South Carolina used to vote Democrat, supportingfigures like Bryan and Wilson, now they generally vote Republican, supporting figures like Trump. However, that doesnt make them exactly the same as their counterparts in other parts of the country, that just makes them part of the same coalition in this era (they support the same platform and oppose the other party together).

In other words, itisntjust party interests that define a politician, there are state interests, regional interests, monied interests, single voter issue interests, and more to grapple with here. Add to that the fact that some of those interests change, and we have a rather complex situation.

Consider also, Martin Luther King Jr. (MLK). Although MLKwasnot directly affiliated with a party, he supported Southern Democrats [among other factions], just like Thurmond would have been before he switched However,he didnt just support any Southern Democrats, he supported the progressive ones like theMississippi Freedom Democratswho stood against Goldwater and for Civil Rights.We are talking about different factions duking it out district-by-district, not cartoon characters.

Birmingham was [speaking loosely] all about a Democrat spraying a firehose at a Democrats, while the Democrats sent in the national guard to stop the protestors, whilea Democrat told the guard to stand down.

Civil Rights 1964 and Voting Rights 1965 had strong Republican support (remember the change happens over time; this being the point of our story here), but in respect to MLK, Civil Rightswasnt a story ofRepublicans (like it had beenin Lincolnsday or prior to 1877). It was a story of different factions of Democrats from anti-war Hippies, to Northern liberals like Kennedy, to Progressive Southern Freedom Democrats, to Socially Conservative ones(who areno longer with the Party today, which again you can see on any voter map and seereflected in the party platforms and States Rights third party splits).

In other words, the Republican party was still supporting Civil Rights under Eisenhower and Nixon, that is very clear.

However,the struggle in the Democratic Party that happened under Kennedy and then would flip the map under LBJ and Goldwater in 1964 andHumphrey, C. Wallace, and Nixon in 1968 was amain theme of the 1960s.

As the Democrats shifted to the progressive left, with figures like MLK supporting Kennedy and LBJ (to some extent), the Republicans shifted to the socially conservative right supporting figures like Goldwater, and this hada profound effect on the parties over the years from Reagan, to Clinton, to Bush, to theObama era.

A socially liberal progressive Democrat certainly voted for FDR and Kennedy, and they might support LBJ, but they werentgoing for Goldwater or George C. Wallace, they weregoing for liberals like Humphrey from this point forward.

Still, I dont want to demonize Northern or Southern conservatives in any party system (it isnt my stance at all if you read carefully), or discount important figures like Eisenhower, Reagan, Nixon, or Bush, or downplay the role of left-wing orsocially progressive Republicans, or the impact of America First Know-Nothingsin the North, or the role ofthird parties (States Rights, Free Soil, orProgressive), or the role of other Democratic party figures and factions (like Bourbons and CarpetbaggersandTammany Hall), or those Republican factions like Civil Service Republicans and Stalwarts, or the countless single-issue voter factions I havent noted yet (like the Religious Right) and what about the originalsingle-issue party, the nativist Anti-Masons,or the originalcronySpoils system?! How about the Alien and Sedition Acts that show the different types of Federalists? There is truly a lot to cover here!

Thus, not only will we debunk the myths of the Solid South below,well also explore other specifics changes in each Party System from 1789 to 2017 (like the start and end of the one-party era of Good Feelings, the split over States Rights in the 1850s,the changes of Reconstruction and the Gilded Age,Bryans effect on the Democrats, Theodore Teddy Roosevelts exit from the Republican Party in 1912, the changes under Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover that turned the GOP to a small government party in the 1920s, landslide wins by FDR, LBJ, Nixon, and Reagan which changed the nation, and finally the polarizingeffects of the eras of mass media and Bush and Clinton) to show the many changes that define the Party Systems.

With all the above pointsin mind, we can say:the Democrats used to bethe party of the Rural South, but that changed from FDR in 1932, to LBJ in 1964, to Clinton and Obama with their second rights safetynet legislation.

The effect has been aSouthernizationof the Republican Party and an Urbanization of the Democratic Party.

TIP: With all of that said, for the reader who doesnt want to read a long essay (that explains things like the difference between a progressive Dixiecrat liberal ally like LBJ who didnt switch and a staunchsouthern Conservative Democrat like Strom who did), consider watching the following videos.

TIP: Today onlyone party displays the Confederate Battle Flag.The flag of the Southern Democrats is now flown by the southern Republican. That is a big hint when all else fails to sway someone. From there one only needs to understand that the old conservative Southern Democrat and the old Know-Nothing America First Northern Tea-Party-like Republicanare not the same thing. Both are right-wing populists, but one is a southern populist and used to be Democrat, the other is a northern anti-immigrant populist who allies with elitist pro-business conservatives and was always of the Republican line. One is more like a Bill the Butcher nativist, and the other is more like aDeep South agrarian. They are very different types of Americans, only united on some social issues, and they actually used to be on different teams, even though today we may think of both as Republican Tea Party voters. The progressive direction of America really changed things.

Today the Republican party doesnt have a notable progressive left-wing and the Democratic Party doesnt have a notable socially conservative right-wing.

Instead both parties have establishment and populist wings and the parties are divided by stances on social issues.

In other words, regional interests and the basic political identities of liberal and conservative didnt change as much as factions changed parties as party platforms changed along with America.

The modern split is expressed well bythe left-right paradigm Big Government Progressivism vs. Small Government Social Conservatism, wheresocially conservative and pro business conservative factions banded together against socially liberal and pro business liberal factions, to push back against an increasingly progressive Democratic Party and America (and programs like the New Deal).

This tension largely created the modern parties of our two-party system, resulting in two Big Tentswho disagree on the purposes of governmentand social issues. This tension is then magnified by thecurrent influence of media and lobbyists, and can be understood by examiningwhat I callthe Sixth Party Strategy and by a tactic called Dog Whistle Politics).

The result is that today the Democratic Party is dominated by liberal Democrats and Progressives.

Meanwhile, most of those who would have been the oldsocially conservative Democrats (Dixiecrats) now have a R next to their name.

Just look atthe 115th United States Congress under Trump(without naming names, look at Trumps administrationand the current Houseand Senate, pick out modern conservatives from the south, then compare those seats tosay,the 71st United States Congress under Hoover).

Dont try to oversimplify this to what Strom did, most of the changes happened over time, and the proof is in the platforms and voting records.

Today things are still changing, Berniecrats are new, and so are Trumpians, even the Tea Party has been changing. The two parties are constantly changing Big Tents of factions, they arent static things.

With the above covered,there is a reason the Northern Coasts and Cities are in one party and the Rural South and Mid-West arein the other party in almost any era (taking into account winner-take-all at least), with this beingtrue even when the parties switch.

Thisis because amajor divide is between the political, economic, and social interests of rural regionsand citied regions (and between theirrelatedinequalitiesand cultural differences, and between the interests of the Bosses, Cronies, and Corporations who sway the vote in given regions).

Learn more about How the Tension Between City Interests and Rural Interests Affects Politics, not just on a national level, but on a state and regional leveltoo (and make sure to read up on VO Key).

The better you understand this tension, the better youll understand that age-old Federalists / Anti-Federalist, Republican / Democrat, or North / South split in any era (which is really a North and Coast vs. South and Mid-west split where notably the North and Coasts have more cities).

We are all Democrats, we are all Republicans, we are all Federalists, and we all love liberty.

We are all Americans.

We simplydisagree on specifics (sometimes only split regionally by a slim gerrymandered margin or a single debate over a single voter issue), and thus we form factions and voting blocs around those differences (in Democratic spirit).

The changing factions responding to newly arising voter issues isthe main thing that changed the parties.

Still, not everything changed (for example the Republican stance on trade and the Democratic Party stance on immigration). That is explained in excessive detail below.

Now that you know about the rural vs. city split, and the big changes like those of Lincolns time, those of Teddys time, and the shifting Solid South (and how that is different from a Bryan or FDR or Kennedy),take a look at thetime-lapse video below which shows the U.S. Presidential election results map, both by state and by county, from 1789 to 2016.

Here you can see the solid voting blocs that switch, oddities like the Black Belt, and proof that the country is more diverse and complicated than party politics orthe electoral map elude.

TIP: Seea Summary of How the Major Parties Switched, the New Deal Coalition and Conservative Coalition(the two factions that help tell the story of the big switch), andour otherworks on the subject of party switching(which include the story of Lincoln,the history the Democratic party and slavery, a Fact-Check of Hillarys America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party,the anti-Federalists and Federalists, and the Republicans of Reconstruction) for additional perspectives.

NOTE: This page is more like a long essayand less like a blog post, you can get away with just reading the first part, but consider skipping around to different partsor book-marking it and coming back.Each section tells a different part of the story.Wewill answer any and all questions posted below. Feel free to comment (even if you didnt read the whole thing).

FACT: If the above didnt make it clear, thetension between the States Rights Conservatives of the Southern Bloc and the Rest of the Democratic party essentially starts 1789 with tension in the anti-Federalist party, continues to Jackson, splits the party in Civil War, doesnt exactly help Bryan, results in Wilson, and is partof the story of FDR, but it really picked up steam after WWII over Brown v. the Board. From there we start getting the States Rights third parties.Then Civil Rights 1964 and Voting Rights 1965 is the tipping point. Yes, many Republicans voted for Civil Rights and Voting Rights. Indeed. The parties really did change from 1964 to the 1990s to today, that is kind of the point of this whole thing. Explaining that slow transition and what it meansis one of many reasons this page is long and not short. Still, if you get that we are talking about factions first, and Big Tents second, you get thegist of what the specific details below will explain.

If you can convince the lowest white man hes better than the best colored man, he wont notice youre picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and hell empty his pockets for you. LBJ had a mouth on him, but all his faults aside, the Progressive Southern Democrat ended up on the right side of history in terms of his Great Society programs. Todaymanyplanks of the Republican Party seek to undoLBJs work (and Lincolns, and Wilsons, and FDRs, and Obamas etc).

In the 1850s, inequality in the Northern big government cities, northern immigration in the big cities (and the related racism and classism), and African slavery in the small government south (and the related racism and classism) all existed side-by-side. and in ways, so it is today (minus the slavery). Northern cities still favor bigger government, and they still have problems of racism and inequality, Rural South still favors small government (and they still have issues of racism and inequality). This does not make the North of today equatable to the slave economy of the South of yesterday however.

There is this idea that welfare is equatable to slavery in this respect, as in both cases a societal structure is providing basic essentials for a class of people (who some would claim are oppressed by the situation to the benefit of some elite). This argument, often presented in tandem with the claim the parties didnt switch/change is essentially a red herring that misses the nuances we describe on this page (I hear it enough that I want to address it here before moving on).

The southern conservatives who held slaves and fought for the Confederacy essentially switched out of the Democratic party starting in the 1960s, and even continuing to the modern day (although the changes had most occurred by 2000), in response to LBJs welfare programs (after forming a coalition with Republicans in response to Wilson and FDRs welfare programs prior). In other words, if the southern conservative had wanted to oppress a class of people with welfare, one would logically assume they wouldnt have switched out of the Democratic party over time in response to welfare programs.

What we see in the cities of the north is instead more like what we have seen since before the Civil War, it is the inequality capitalism breeds, and the related state-based solutions generally favored by cities (like welfare). When African Americans migrated to northern cities in the Great migrations, they (much like the European and other immigrants) were subject not only to the inequalities of a capitalist melting pot, but to the general racism and classism that exists outside of party lines. Thus, it should be little surprise that the modern Democratic party is a coalition of those who immigrated in those times, urbanites, and party leaders who remained after the switch.

It is important to understand that bourbon liberals (pro-business factions who came to the South after the Civil War to become Democrats), neoliberals, neocons, progressives, conservative pro-business Republicans, liberal Democrats (like Kennedy), classical liberals (like the Free-Soilers or Jeffersonians), social conservative Know-Nothings, social conservative southerners (like the old Confederates), etc are all different ideological factions that have existed in history and have been in one of the two major parties or a third party at different times. The social conservative south were the ones who dragged slavery with them up to the Civil War and then combated Civil Rights from the Democratic party up until they were pushed out of the party by the progressive movement which had gained traction since the Gilded Age.

Thus, although it is complex to explain (and vastly under-explained right here), equating chattel slavery and wage slavery, and then tying it back to the 1850s-1860s, really misses the nuances of history (again it is red herring as it sounds like it applies to the argument, but doesnt). Think of all the nations on earth with welfare states, in all cases are they not generally spurred on by the progressive factions to strive for social equality? Are the small government and conservative factions not the ones who oppose this?

Today it is a Southern Republican who flies to Confederate flag, today it is a Republican who champions small government in America. Yesterday, it was a Southern Democrat.

TIP: Remember, this does not speak to the many other factions and why they did or didnt ally with this faction in any era. Nor does this truism or the claim we are addressing speak directly to people alive today (as we are tracing parties and ideologies over time, no person alive today was alive in 1850, and very few were adults in 1950 plus, people like parties change).

TIP: There is more on this subject below, I dont want to offer too much space to any one aspect of this long discussion at any point, so keep reading for more proofs.

Above we did an introduction, this next section takes a very general look at how the major parties changed and how factions changed parties.

To sum things up before we get started discussing specific switches, both major U.S. parties used to have notableprogressive socially liberal left-wingand socially conservative right-wingfactions, and now they dont.

Originally, like today, one party was for big government (originally the Federalists, Whigs, and Republicans) and one party was for small government (Anti-Federalists, Democratic-Republicans, and then Democrats).

However, unlike today, party lines were originally [very roughly speaking] drawn overelitism and populism(by class / by rural vs. citied interests) and preferredgovernment type more than by theleft-right socialissuesthat define the parties today, as the namesake of the parties themselves imply(where Democrats favored a moreliberal democracy, and the Republicans favored a more aristocratic liberal republic).

In those days both parties had progressive and conservative wings, but the Southern Anti-Federalist, Democratic-Republican, and then Democratic Party was populist and favored small government, and the Northern Federalist, Whig, and then Republican Party was elite and favored bigger central government.

However,from the lines drawn during the Civil War, to Bryan in the Gilded Age, to Teddy Roosevelt leaving the Republican Party to form the Progressive Party in 1912, to FDRs New Deal, to LBJs Civil Rights, to the Clinton and Bush era, the abovebecame less and less true.

Today, the Republican Party doesnt have a notable Progressive Socially Liberal Federalist Elitist Hamilton, Lincoln, Roosevelt wing, and the Democratic Party doesnt have a notable Socially Conservative Anti-Federalist Populist Jackson, Calhoun, George C. Wallace wing. TIP: Each party still has a left and right, and certainly both have classically liberal and classically conservative values, but the Democrats lack a prominentsocially conservative wing and the Republicans lack a prominent socially liberal wing (and this is a thing that has notably changed).

Instead, today the parties are polarizedby left-right social issues, andeach party (each Big tent Coalition of single voter issue factions) has a notable populist and elitist wing.

TIP: There are more factors to consider, such as the fact that party members and factions generally come inconservative, moderate, liberal, progressive, and radical formsand stances can change per issue. For example a progressive left-wing social liberal populistwill generally be to the left of even a moderately liberal right-wing pro-business conservative on most social issues, and thus they will likely be in the Big Tent Democrat.

Although nothing that happened is simple or singular, generally, what happened is the aforementioned elite northern socially liberal progressive and southern socially conservative populist factions effectively switched parties (along with their voter base and fellow politicians) over party stances on key voter issues (like Civil Rights and Globalization; the history of switches is all about single-voter-issue factions), as can be seen in the New Deal Coalition and Conservative Coalition,and that was enough to flip the party platforms and the voter map geographically (as can be seen by comparing1896to2000, and generally here).

Essentially, one can explain this by saying the progressivism and modernization of the 20th century under figures like FDR, LBJ, Clinton, and Obama resulted in conservative factions in both parties banding together and pushing back under Hoover, Nixon, Regan, Bush, and Trump.

Today, withthe effects symbolized by the New Deal and Conservative Coalition having already taken place, we can say the Republican Party is generally a coalition of socially conservative and pro-business right-wing movements previously found in both parties, and the Democratic party is generally a coalition of socially liberal and pro-business left-wing movements previously found in both parties. In reality, their stance on the state changes voter issue to voter issue, but generally it is this left-right split over social issues that results in the parties being Big Government andSmall Government respectively.

What didnt changeis the left-wing Democratic PartyAnti-Federalist populists (like Jefferson, Bryan, or Bernie) and conservative right-wing Republican Federalists (both know-nothing and pro-business) never changed parties (they justgot new allies and new platforms). Likewise Bourbon liberals have essentially been with the Democrats since Reconstruction (although one can argue some went to the Republicans over time). Also, the big city Democratic Party machines have long been a part of the Democratic Partys story. Also, the parties have been in their current big-government / small-government (rhetorically at least) forms since the 1920s with Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover. Furthermore, Republicans have always been strict on immigration and protectionist, and the Democrats always pro-immigrant (and had historically been for free-trade before becoming neoliberal; which adds complexity). FACT: Lincoln dislikedFree-Trade, implemented the first income tax, created the first free colleges in the U.S., and used the Federal Power of the State to restore the Southern rebels to the Union; Lincoln is a good place to look for what did and didnt change (as isHamilton who inspired both Lincoln and Clay and Theodore Roosevelt). On the other side Jackson, Van Buren, Jefferson, and Calhoun are good Democrats to look at for similar reasons (each representing a different type of Democrat).

Thus, although many things change over time, in modern times one of the main things that switches is the socially conservative Democrats (notably including many Dixiecrats) switched from the 1960s to the Bushera (very slowly; Thurmond aside, not in a clear all-at-once switch; partly due to the SixthParty Strategy, partly due to changing times and self interest).

One last note before moving on, it is important to understand that we are discussing intergenerational switches, so there is a complexity to consider which is: general ideological factions switch over the course of generations more than all-at-once (in most cases, not in the 1850s and 1860s as much, that happened quickly). When we pair this with the fact that the times and parties have generally themselves changed, we can understand how oversimplifying this to all the racists became Republicans is an underwhelming simplification given the fact thatso many different things changed (we have barely scratched the surface here yet).

Thus, to summarize the basics: some [not all] thingschange, but regardless, entire party platforms and much else changed as the key voter issues the factions were ralliedaround ebbed and flowed in importance in state and national politics (consider not only does the nation as a whole have political factions which form the basis of the nationaltwo-party systemand third parties, but each state has its own internal political factions that form around key voter issues, identity, and general ideology).

If you got this far, do yourself a favor and watch the two next videos from VOX. VOXexplains large parts of the story, including the connection between progressivism, conservatism, the minority vote, and the historicmajor parties and their policies.

NOTE: While I have your attention third parties like Know-Nothings, States Rights, Populist, Progressive, American Independent, Southern Democrat, and Constitutional Union tell the story of switching platforms well. Each denotes a major faction who is emblematic of a single voter issue (or two) and otherwise major changes. You can see major third partyplatforms here. It is no mistake that we see third parties in years like 1856,1860,1892,1912, 1948, and 1968, they are symbolicof major changes.

Now that we have the basics down, letsrestate this all before moving on to notable specific switches.

Originally,the Populist Anti-Federalists, Democratic-Republicans, and then Democratic Party Platforms were about Small Government (as their names imply), Free Trade, and States Rights and were favored in the rural-South, and the more elite aristocratic Federalists, Whigs, and then Republican Party Platforms were about Big Government (as their names imply), protectionism, taxes, and CollectiveRightsand were favored in the citied-North. However, today this has mostly switched (NOTE: some key stances on some key issues havent changed, for example the Republican party has almost always been stricter on immigration and have generallyfavored trade protectionism; we cover nuances like this below).

In simple terms, whathappened was both parties became pro-business in the Gilded Age after Reconstruction following the divisive Civil War which forced all factions to take sides, and then both parties became progressive in the Progressive era, and this and a series of events led to the Republican party becoming the party of small government over time (despite the partysaristocratic roots) and the Democrats becoming the party of big government (despite their populist roots).

Today business-minded NeoConservatives (establishment conservatives) ally with Tea Party Social Conservatives (populist conservatives) in the Right-Wing Republican Party, both agreeing that less Government is best, and business-minded NeoLiberals(establishment liberals) and Progressive Social Liberals (populist liberals) ally in the Left-Wing Democratic Party, both agreeing on the use of the State.

Each party essentially still has the Gilded Age business factions they have had since Reconstruction, but since the States rights faction joined the Republican party, and since the modern Right political machine pushed conservative Populism, they have gained a more prominent populist wing.

The basic types of people still exist, they just exist withmodern stances on key voter issuesand in different coalitions.

The real storyhere, to distill it to one line, is that of a tug of war betweenbig-state social justice liberals progressing toward a modern future and conservatives pushingto returning to a past age when things were great (that age is 1900 for modern conservatives, roughly 1775 for the Confederate era, and the 1820s for the old Young America movement).

The underlying basic ideology of people didnt change, it is just that the factions, tactics, and party stances have changed, and whichparty and factions wanted the above have changed.

This is to say, some things are consistent in our history, butthe platforms (collections of official and unofficial stances on key voter issues AKA planks) and the partys socially minded factions have essentially switched to create the modern populist and neo-business wings of the parties (the major, but not only national wings we havent even got to the importance of state factions, other factions, and third parties yet).

Go here to see the original:
Democrats and Republicans Switched Platforms - Fact / Myth