The Republican Party has been "the party of Lincoln" in name only for many, many decades. If I had to draw a line across the calendar, I'd go for the mid-1960s, when white Southern Democrats started to swarm into the Republican Party in opposition to the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts.
The Republican Party has been "the party of Lincoln" in name only for many, many decades. If I had to draw a line across the calendar, I'd go for the mid-1960s, when white Southern Democrats started to swarm into the Republican Party in opposition to the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts.
And why should we stop calling them Republicans? That's the name of the party they belong to, and -- despite the evolution of its principles and priorities -- a clear line of descent can be traced to the foundation of the Republican Party in the 1850s. Erasing or prettifying history is a surefire way to make sure we don't learn from it.
At the risk of going all historical, I suggest that the line drawn should be in March, 1877, when the party founded in opposition to slavery traded a promise to end federal troop-enforced Reconstruction for a few electoral votes in the South needed to put Hayes in the White House, not Tilden, winner of the popular vote.
And with all due respect, suggesting that the MAGAmob don't deserve the name "Republican" as originally conceived and (sporadically) practiced is not "erasing" or "prettifying" history. Quite the opposite. Think of the shame as disgraced military officers used to be publicly stripped of the uniform symbols of their rank.
Of course, in MAGAlandia, there is no shame at being what the right wing always accused liberals of: un-American.
You can draw a line there if you want, but then you've got to account for, e.g., the economic liberals in the Republican Party in the late 19th and early 20th centuries and the ways in which the New Deal placated those entrenched white Democrats from the one-party South. And Joe McCarthy -- let's not forget him.
Institutions change over time, and that includes political parties. I'm currently a registered Democrat -- does that make me part of the "party of Jackson"? I don't think so. I grew up in New England surrounded by Republicans, nearly all of whom were good people -- and many of whom, if they were alive today, would have changed their registration to "unenrolled" and be voting for Democrats. I'm old enough, and have been politically sentient long enough, to have seen the change happen on the ground in real time.
For that matter, I can *say* I'm not the same person I was at 13 or 33 or 53 or going on 73 but in reality I *am* the same person, even if the cells in my body (maybe comparable to the individuals in a political party?) aren't the same as they were a decade or two or seven ago.
The Republican Party has been "the party of Lincoln" in name only for many, many decades. If I had to draw a line across the calendar, I'd go for the mid-1960s, when white Southern Democrats started to swarm into the Republican Party in opposition to the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts.
And why should we stop calling them Republicans? That's the name of the party they belong to, and -- despite the evolution of its principles and priorities -- a clear line of descent can be traced to the foundation of the Republican Party in the 1850s. Erasing or prettifying history is a surefire way to make sure we don't learn from it.
At the risk of going all historical, I suggest that the line drawn should be in March, 1877, when the party founded in opposition to slavery traded a promise to end federal troop-enforced Reconstruction for a few electoral votes in the South needed to put Hayes in the White House, not Tilden, winner of the popular vote.
And with all due respect, suggesting that the MAGAmob don't deserve the name "Republican" as originally conceived and (sporadically) practiced is not "erasing" or "prettifying" history. Quite the opposite. Think of the shame as disgraced military officers used to be publicly stripped of the uniform symbols of their rank.
Of course, in MAGAlandia, there is no shame at being what the right wing always accused liberals of: un-American.
You can draw a line there if you want, but then you've got to account for, e.g., the economic liberals in the Republican Party in the late 19th and early 20th centuries and the ways in which the New Deal placated those entrenched white Democrats from the one-party South. And Joe McCarthy -- let's not forget him.
Institutions change over time, and that includes political parties. I'm currently a registered Democrat -- does that make me part of the "party of Jackson"? I don't think so. I grew up in New England surrounded by Republicans, nearly all of whom were good people -- and many of whom, if they were alive today, would have changed their registration to "unenrolled" and be voting for Democrats. I'm old enough, and have been politically sentient long enough, to have seen the change happen on the ground in real time.
For that matter, I can *say* I'm not the same person I was at 13 or 33 or 53 or going on 73 but in reality I *am* the same person, even if the cells in my body (maybe comparable to the individuals in a political party?) aren't the same as they were a decade or two or seven ago.
Yes