The Party Switch | US Political Polarization

Поділитися
Вставка
  • Опубліковано 7 кві 2021
  • This video has been demonetized by UA-cam because of audio quoted in the video, so please consider donating to my Patreon: / cynicalhistorian
    It has come to a point where it seems like the political parties live in completely separate realities, let alone the same country. In order to understand this problem, we have to go all the way back to the beginnings of the party system we inhabit today. Now technically we’re in what’s called the “6th Party System,” which began somewhere between 1968 and 1981, depending on which scholar you ask. But it’s my intent with this to show that it is much more deeply rooted. - that the 6th Party System makes the US inherently more partisan year after year, not because of some particular party, politician, or even differing beliefs - but because the system itself is founded in partisanship more than ideology. This is going to be a long journey. Honest historians argue about more substantive things like how or when the Party Switch came about and what it entails, which is what today’s episode is about.
    US political polarization playlist: • US Political Polarization
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    11:10 - workday not week (thx Liam O'Toole)
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    Connected videos:
    4:10 - WILSOOOON! playlist: • WILSOOOON!!!!
    4:25 - Lost Cause Myth: • Understanding the Lost...
    5:20 - 12 annoyances for historians: • 12 Annoyances for Hist...
    6:50 - sectional crisis: • Lincoln was a Conspira...
    11:35 - Wilson pt.1: • Woodrow Wilson (pt.1) ...
    11:35 - Wilson pt.2: • Woodrow Wilson (pt.2) ...
    11:50 - WILSOOOON! playlist: • WILSOOOON!!!!
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    See pinned comment and its replies for notes, responses, and errata
    references:
    Jefferson Cowie, The Great Exception: The New Deal and the Limits of American Politics (Princeton, N.Jer.: Princeton University Press, 2016). amzn.to/35sJX4w
    Eric Foner, Reconstruction: America’s Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877, new ed. (1988; New York: Perennial Classics, 2002). amzn.to/34lFOhq
    Lawrence Goodwyn, The Populist Moment: A Short History of the Agrarian Revolt in America (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1975). amzn.to/2tcGsAR
    Ross Kennedy ed., A Companion to Woodrow Wilson (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2013). amzn.to/2KXhGc1
    Kevin M. Kruse and Julian E. Zelizer, Fault Lines: A History of the United States Since 1974 (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 2019). amzn.to/2Zh3pxe
    Julilly Kohler-Hausmann, Getting Tough: Welfare and Imprisonment in 1970s America (Princeton, N.Jer.: Princeton University Press, 2017). amzn.to/2M2ol7j
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    SUBSCRIBE FOR MORE VIDEOS:
    ua-cam.com/users/subscription_c...
    Support the channel through PATREON:
    / cynicalhistorian
    or by purchasing MERCH: teespring.com/stores/the-cyni...
    LET'S CONNECT:
    Twitch: / cynicalhistorian
    Facebook: / cynicalcypher88
    Subreddit: / cynicalhistory
    Discord: / discord
    Twitter: / cynical_history

КОМЕНТАРІ • 1,1 тис.

  • @CynicalHistorian
    @CynicalHistorian  3 роки тому +149

    *UA-cam demonetized this* because of audio quoted in the video, so please consider supporting the channel by buying merch: teespring.com/stores/the-cynical-historian
    Or by donating to my Patreon: www.patreon.com/CynicalHistorian
    See following replies for corrections and additional info, but first, here are some related videos to check out:
    4:10 - WILSOOOON! playlist: ua-cam.com/play/PLjnwpaclU4wXmCcEx0vfIim_jFMkgtLmS.html
    4:25 - Lost Cause Myth: ua-cam.com/video/5EOhXF5lNgQ/v-deo.html
    5:20 - 12 annoyances for historians: ua-cam.com/video/4J6IPhEkYmo/v-deo.html
    6:50 - sectional crisis: ua-cam.com/video/Ff2AKILyi0o/v-deo.html
    11:35 - Wilson pt.1: ua-cam.com/video/Hm0Gzz53YJo/v-deo.html
    11:35 - Wilson pt.2: ua-cam.com/video/3hRd8B_vZiA/v-deo.html
    11:50 - WILSOOOON! playlist: ua-cam.com/play/PLjnwpaclU4wXmCcEx0vfIim_jFMkgtLmS.html

    • @CynicalHistorian
      @CynicalHistorian  3 роки тому +9

      *errata*
      11:10 - workday not week (thx Liam O'Toole)

    • @CynicalHistorian
      @CynicalHistorian  3 роки тому +5

      *references*
      Jefferson Cowie, _The Great Exception: The New Deal and the Limits of American Politics_ (Princeton, N.Jer.: Princeton University Press, 2016). amzn.to/35sJX4w
      Eric Foner, _Reconstruction: America’s Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877,_ new ed. (1988; New York: Perennial Classics, 2002). amzn.to/34lFOhq
      Lawrence Goodwyn, _The Populist Moment: A Short History of the Agrarian Revolt in America_ (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1975). amzn.to/2tcGsAR
      Ross Kennedy ed., _A Companion to Woodrow Wilson_ (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2013). amzn.to/2KXhGc1
      Kevin M. Kruse and Julian E. Zelizer, _Fault Lines: A History of the United States Since 1974_ (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 2019). amzn.to/2Zh3pxe
      Julilly Kohler-Hausmann, _Getting Tough: Welfare and Imprisonment in 1970s America_ (Princeton, N.Jer.: Princeton University Press, 2017). amzn.to/2M2ol7j

    • @forickgrimaldus8301
      @forickgrimaldus8301 3 роки тому +2

      While it would affect minorities more that Voter suppression would affect everyone, just goes to show how desperate these people (Repulicans like that) are that they basically shot themselves.

    • @RebelSandGaming
      @RebelSandGaming 3 роки тому +2

      Do you think people who vote 3rd party waste there vote or should 3rd parties be given more to make the elections more than 2 party only

    • @williamt.sherman9841
      @williamt.sherman9841 3 роки тому +10

      @@forickgrimaldus8301 claiming that being against mail in ballots is the equivalent to voter suppression is a stretch.

  • @iammrbeat
    @iammrbeat 3 роки тому +612

    Next to only Henry Clay and possibly William Jennings Bryan, Barry Goldwater is the most influential presidential candidate to lose a presidential election in American history.

    • @rgreenberg35
      @rgreenberg35 3 роки тому +69

      I'd argue Bernie is the Barry Goldwater of the Dems...or will be considered such

    • @rgreenberg35
      @rgreenberg35 3 роки тому +57

      @Egg T Did you ignore the comment I was replying to or do you think Barry Goldwater was elected president

    • @oisinoceallaigh5370
      @oisinoceallaigh5370 3 роки тому +9

      Id argue Eugene Debs is up there

    • @freal
      @freal 3 роки тому +7

      mr. breasts give me money

    • @mrrogersrabbit
      @mrrogersrabbit 3 роки тому +6

      You should do a top 10 presidential election losers video!

  • @potatomahonman5008
    @potatomahonman5008 3 роки тому +467

    Glad to see an acknowledgement that this was a slow process. I hate when people look at the 1920 and 2016 electoral maps and are like “this is clearly just because of what happened in the 60s”.

    • @charlesingram2075
      @charlesingram2075 3 роки тому +18

      That's the most basic explanation one can give to people who believe that they've never switched tbh

    • @jimland4359
      @jimland4359 3 роки тому +16

      Yeah, I always found it odd that Democrats love to talk about the party switch in the 60s, but claim FDR as a Democratic hero. Plus the two most free market presidents of the 20th century were Harding and Coolidge who were Republicans in the 20s. IMHO the parties are more different than they switched, but you can see the roots of the current bases of the parties even 100 years ago.

    • @LDIndustries
      @LDIndustries 3 роки тому +16

      @@jimland4359 You can, but like it always does, the driving force behind major political change was race relations and the history of slavery. It didn't start in the 60's but that's when the current dynamic was cemented and the majority of change took place.
      I guess you're saying "most free market" like it's a good thing, but data shows that republicans pretty much always tank the economy, leaving it to their democrat successors to clean up their mess.
      Neither party is actually good for the nation if we want to move forward from the point we are at, but the Republicans actively want to move the US backwards. Before the party switch the roles were reversed, but that's because the Democrats used to be the conservative party.
      Point me to the conservative party of a nation and you'll be showing me which party is more racist and extreme.

    • @maddoxlacy9072
      @maddoxlacy9072 3 роки тому +19

      @@LDIndustries
      Germany prior to unification saw its liberal elements so exceedingly radical that they unironically believed in the sort of lebensraum concept that hitler did later. That is a horrendous reading of history to just read conservatism as the dangerous and radical side when liberal ideologies historically have been some of the most radical and ----ed up movements out there. People quietly shove under the rug ---- like the reign of terror in france which was entirely based on enlightenment and liberal thought, the the german pan-nationalists before Bismarck that wanted greater germany, (a concept that would utterly destroy europe due to how sweeping its claims were) and situations like Spain where the liberals were the very reason Spain is such a hellhole today (they had a program of rampant centralization and forced cultural assimilation akin to the french) and how france was consistently the most unstable nation in europe, and still even today is exceedingly unstable, being on their FIFTH REPUBLIC.
      People like you point to things like tariffs and import taxes and say 'oh look this causes an economic downturn its terrible' ignoring that that is the *short term* result of tariffs, and is in no way indicative of their long term goals, which routinely see success when implimented. People forget that economic liberalism has at times completely ruined nations because they can't compete in global markets (the ottoman empire completely failed to industrialize as free trade made imported goods consistly cheaper than anything they produced, forcibly killing any home-grown businesses, and is one of the marked reasons the nation failed as a whole.)
      Liberalism and conservatism are two sides of the same coin, buddy. They can both be equally horrendous things to people. That doesnt mean one is inherently more evil or wrong than the other. Some of the best leaders in human history were die-hard conservatives, as were liberals.

    • @LDIndustries
      @LDIndustries 3 роки тому +9

      @@maddoxlacy9072 Conservatives have been on the wrong side of history every single time. Crusades, slavery, civil rights, lgbt rights, etc. Conservatism is inherently a reactionary ideology as it doesn't exist without progressives. If no one ever wanted to advance society then there would never be anything to conserve. I'm not a liberal, but I'd take a liberal over a conservative any day. At least the liberal is less likely to say "you know that time in history where only white men had rights? yeah I want to go back to then."
      Every day forward in time is better than the day before because we advance socially and technologically. Wanting to conserve old traditions instead of advance forward or to go back to the past is the mindset of a scared piss baby. The only time where the future would get worse is if conservatives are allowed unfettered control, because the past and the values that conservatives want to hang onto never existed. They're myths they tell themselves to justify their victimhood complexes.

  • @valritz1489
    @valritz1489 3 роки тому +247

    Additional complication: Until like the 60s, what candidates got nominated for president was limited by party machines. Now that primaries are binding, ideology is much more of a driver.

    • @nigeh5326
      @nigeh5326 3 роки тому +22

      Money is the real driver in US politics

    • @MajorMlgNoob
      @MajorMlgNoob 3 роки тому +2

      Primaries still aren't Democratic tho

    • @laharmo1501
      @laharmo1501 3 роки тому +17

      @@MajorMlgNoob They are way more democratic now than before

    • @MajorMlgNoob
      @MajorMlgNoob 3 роки тому +5

      @@laharmo1501 yes but Caucasus are dumb, the staggered dates weigh certain states more than others with no real logic for it, and delegates don't make much sense, and Dems have Super Delegates which are straight trash

    • @chrismoderate3495
      @chrismoderate3495 3 роки тому +16

      Technically the whole primary and convention history starts with the 1830s and such where parties were starting to hold conventions to meet up and decide their nominees. This was entirely party bosses though and very little popular input was used.
      But in 1912, due to progressive reformers the first primary systems started in which parties would hold mini state elections in a decent chunk of states around the country. Still not all states, usually only a dozen or less states held primaries each election year. On top of that party bosses still were the only ones with any real power.
      Than in 1972, caused by democratic protests and anti corruption groups springing up after Nixon's scandals, the system we have today was set up in which each state had to have a primary, and the convention delegates (mostly) had to match popular vote in the primaries.
      Today's primary systems for each party are still very corrupt and such, and often times have useless ceremonial parts to them, but it is better than before. Would be cool to get money out of politics finally though.

  • @regularamerican6034
    @regularamerican6034 3 роки тому +64

    I’m glad he approached this more as polarization than a clear switch. “Liberal” and “Conservative” are just relative terms and it means a lot more to address the ideologies in their time than who was the more left or right party.

    • @dewdecsysabz5323
      @dewdecsysabz5323 2 роки тому +2

      This is true
      I tend to be more liberal on issues but I am a republican/libertarian

  • @Paranoid_Found
    @Paranoid_Found 3 роки тому +498

    The party realignment is definitely one of the most fascinating topic of US history.

    • @ashwilliams1725
      @ashwilliams1725 3 роки тому +7

      It's kinda maddening to think about

    • @charlesingram2075
      @charlesingram2075 3 роки тому +70

      I find it fascinating that there are U.S. citizens who believe party realignment is a hoax.

    • @shinyagami8843
      @shinyagami8843 3 роки тому +31

      @@charlesingram2075 conservative idiots that listen to known propagandists like PragerU (funded by fracking billionaires Dan & Farris Wilks) do think it’s a hoax.
      Here ua-cam.com/video/g_a7dQXilCo/v-deo.html Carol Swain (known Candace-like grifter & discredited historian) shares with Republican morons the “inconvenient truth” about the Democratic Party 😂
      No wonder these “poorly educated” would worship a morally bankrupt con man like Trump.

    • @shinyagami8843
      @shinyagami8843 3 роки тому +15

      @@unsureprobablymaybe3527 you’re such an idiot you can’t even get a simple rebuttal right as there are, even by your standards, 2 genders 😂 good job proving my previous statement about the “poorly educated” right kid 😉
      Now , how anyone chooses to identify themselves it’s not my business & that’s the difference between a democrat & a conservative bigot that thinks he has a saying about how people should live their lives 😉
      Now, ask daddy Trump for some paper towels, find your safe space in your basement and cry your conservative tears there 🤡

    • @ManiacMayhem7256
      @ManiacMayhem7256 3 роки тому +3

      Nice pfp

  • @christopherjustice6411
    @christopherjustice6411 3 роки тому +111

    I was very confused when I first heard that Johnson was impeached. Then he said Andrew Jonhson and it clicked.

  • @jeffm9770
    @jeffm9770 2 роки тому +38

    I always say that the two party system is the problem. With only two parties, it inherently creates an us vs them mentality. Especially with first past the post voting it makes it almost impossible for a 3rd party to become relevant

    • @aazhie
      @aazhie Рік тому +2

      Ranked choice voting should absolutely be a thing. commenting belated for algorithm

  • @warlordofbritannia
    @warlordofbritannia 3 роки тому +396

    Joke: The party switch never happened
    Broke: The party switch happened recently
    Woke: The party switch began in the (18)50s

    • @MinuteMedia
      @MinuteMedia 3 роки тому +60

      Coke: The party switch is always happening.

    • @seymourbutts9085
      @seymourbutts9085 3 роки тому +20

      Bloke: The two party system practiced today is broken.

    • @dismurrart6648
      @dismurrart6648 3 роки тому +24

      The MOST annoying thing people can say is that 1800s gop and today are identical

    • @tbc1880
      @tbc1880 3 роки тому +6

      The parties were always the same

    • @redclayscholar620
      @redclayscholar620 3 роки тому +3

      Poke: Party Switches Bitches!

  • @ashbottlehog
    @ashbottlehog 3 роки тому +271

    At 11:10 you say Teddy wanted an 8-hour workweek, did you mean to say 8-hour workday?

    • @CynicalHistorian
      @CynicalHistorian  3 роки тому +166

      hah, good catch

    • @TroyWilson
      @TroyWilson 3 роки тому +138

      I concur with an 8-hour workweek! Make it happen, right meow!

    • @TBFSJjunior
      @TBFSJjunior 3 роки тому +3

      Yeah I caught the same. I had to listen to it twice

    • @Edax_Royeaux
      @Edax_Royeaux 3 роки тому +3

      I thought it was the radical socialist party from France who pioneered the 8-hour work day with the Matignon Agreements.

    • @Kobolds_in_a_trenchcoat
      @Kobolds_in_a_trenchcoat 3 роки тому +25

      @@TroyWilson adding no decrease in pay from a 40 hour work week and you got a deal, heck I'll be a single issue voter for that if it exists.

  • @wcdeich4
    @wcdeich4 3 роки тому +85

    I think Teddy Roosevelt wanted an 8 hour work day, not week ;)

  • @phoenixshadow6633
    @phoenixshadow6633 3 роки тому +165

    Parties are meant to change ideology. Parties, in theory, serve the people and thus change and realign their policies to fit with the times. If parties didn't realign their policies, then it would mean the politicians in the party are immortal and characteristically or the issues of the day did not change at all. Both are terrible.

    • @phoenixshadow6633
      @phoenixshadow6633 3 роки тому +1

      "characteristically static" should be in place of "characteristically."

    • @LDIndustries
      @LDIndustries 3 роки тому +10

      @@LuccianoBartolini Uh, no, if people's minds change and the issues of the day change, then parties either change or disappear. To say that a party should be advocating for the same things now as they did 100 years ago is the deny the march of time and, at least, technological progress.

    • @johanrunfeldt7174
      @johanrunfeldt7174 3 роки тому +10

      Parties have to stick to their ideologies. It's when parties change to cater to the latest populist buzz-issue that is we get parties that are impossible to oust from governmental power. That is a much greater threat to the democratic system than a party that has stuck to a certain point of view for too long. The issues may shift, but if the parties just choose which side of the issue they are going to support according to what happens to be popular at the moment, rather than their ideological compass, that's when we get the disbelief in the representative democracy that's plaguing all the Western democracies right now, with Nationalist and Populist parties springing up all over Europe and candidates of that same ilk running for office in the United States.
      What we really need is politicians who dare to say what they believe in, but the way the current media landscape is set up, that is a recipe for political suicide.

    • @LDIndustries
      @LDIndustries 3 роки тому +5

      @@johanrunfeldt7174 No, if parties were meant to stick to one ideology forever and ever then we would never see parties stay for more than a decade or so. To deny that existing structures and groups change with time is to deny that time passes and conditions change.

    • @chrismoderate3495
      @chrismoderate3495 3 роки тому +4

      I think what really caused the parties to be able to change so much in America is that the names of the parties "Democrats" and "Republicans" are so vague and meaningless that you can pretty much attach whatever ideological meaning you want to the party name. If you go to Britain the Labor and Conservative parties will generally change very little or at the very least not swap, mainly due to the obvious and simplistic meaning of the names. Labour fights for workers more, and conservatives, are for more traditional values. The US citizens can say whatever meaning for the naming of their preferred party. White Southerners after the civil war voted Democrat primarily because the party name didn't violate any of it's principles, just as how the name of the Democratic party name nowadays doesn't ruffle the feathers of The youth and minority groups in general. The cause was the vagueness of the party names.

  • @rolasmola9641
    @rolasmola9641 2 роки тому +73

    Thanks for covering this. After getting to the section on the Civil War and reconstruction in 'Lies My Teacher Taught Me', it become more and more evident to me that if the Republican party still stood for the same values as it did back in Lincoln's time, no self-respecting Republican today would EVER fly the confederate flag.

  • @starmaker75
    @starmaker75 3 роки тому +59

    *Tf2 announcer voice*: teams are being scrambled

  • @alexruddies1718
    @alexruddies1718 3 роки тому +133

    I am a simple man. I see Cynical Historian, I watch his video...

  • @aasante3437
    @aasante3437 3 роки тому +132

    Cypher:"The U.S isn't the entire world"
    Americans:*spits out water*

    • @rustym.shackelford5546
      @rustym.shackelford5546 3 роки тому +3

      🇺🇸 = 💩

    • @rustym.shackelford5546
      @rustym.shackelford5546 3 роки тому +1

      @@ErosFabbriGk2026 As they say "where there's hate there's love". I love this country but it is basically distracting itself w/ Culture War and the "Bread And Circuses" of the current Political Paradigm. What is to really say that is "American".

    • @rustym.shackelford5546
      @rustym.shackelford5546 3 роки тому

      @@ErosFabbriGk2026 Think about it though: over the generations the American People - in their wealth and decadence - have become weak. Our people prefer numbing their minds with pain killers, entertainment and ultimately have grown to detest legitimate American things or even outlaw that which was normal.
      I will concede that this country - The US - is better than most places on earth. It's just that, unfortunately, the problems with our Government will never be changed because ultimately the American People, in their complacency, have ultimately accepted and allowed for our toxic politics and governance to grow. And I see nothing valuable about any of that - which is why I am just gonna re-enlist into The US Army and live my whole life there OR I am gonna go where people haven't grown complacent. I shall see to it when I get there.

    • @macgeorge8229
      @macgeorge8229 2 роки тому

      @@rustym.shackelford5546 Yes we are not the world we are howver the superpower with enough nukes to destory any one we want if we ignore the consaqinces of mad and no we have stayed a solid qauter of the world gdp.

  • @justinalias7969
    @justinalias7969 3 роки тому +58

    11:12 “crazy progressive policies like an 8 hour work week”. Idk, I think and 8 hour work week is pretty radical 🤣.

    • @forickgrimaldus8301
      @forickgrimaldus8301 3 роки тому +3

      My God Teddy is a god amongst men lol

    • @Edax_Royeaux
      @Edax_Royeaux 3 роки тому +1

      I think the Ancient Greek citizens only worked 3 days a week under the rational that you work harder if you're we'll rested.

    • @src175
      @src175 3 роки тому +5

      @CoMPoSt MeNDeZ Yeah, Ancient Greeks had slaves. Lots of them.

  • @insertcolorfulmetaphor8520
    @insertcolorfulmetaphor8520 3 роки тому +33

    Hah! An obligatory "WILLLLLSONNNN!"
    Luv that!
    Great video dude! I love that you are talking about this very subject!

  • @williamkarbala5718
    @williamkarbala5718 3 роки тому +134

    I'm going to say it this guy has gotten so much better with his deliveries and seems a lot more comfortable behind the camera. There is a marked difference between his presentation now and his older videos. 👍

  • @Kenshiro3rd
    @Kenshiro3rd 3 роки тому +29

    I’ve been waiting on this one for MONTHS! Thank you! :)

  • @KindSparkdev
    @KindSparkdev 3 роки тому +110

    Thanks for the premier so that I can get my popcorn ready for the impending comment war. And also I can look at on the sources beforehand...

    • @gregoryf4186
      @gregoryf4186 3 роки тому +8

      I honestly just hate the name party switch, I like demographics change better but whatever

    • @MrSthotwhelz
      @MrSthotwhelz 3 роки тому +5

      @@gregoryf4186 i agree, "switch" doesn't really explain a process. "swap" doesn't do it either. sounds like just like two people trading places over an imaginary line.

    • @carlose4314
      @carlose4314 3 роки тому +1

      I'll grab my popcorn

    • @KindSparkdev
      @KindSparkdev 3 роки тому +3

      @@redzoomer483 hold on.... You mean the cat books?

    • @Kenshiro3rd
      @Kenshiro3rd 3 роки тому +3

      @@MrSthotwhelz more like switching platforms...

  • @IanQuaidHydenProductions
    @IanQuaidHydenProductions 3 роки тому +27

    4:40 Never in my life did I think The Cynical Historian would make a Metal Gear Solid reference

  • @christiannipales9937
    @christiannipales9937 3 роки тому +8

    Everyone in my generation will say modern day problems started with the death of Harambe.

  • @kensvideos1
    @kensvideos1 3 роки тому +17

    Cypher is uniquely skilled in his ability to knit Hstory to Current Affairs and still remain an historian

  • @Taken404404
    @Taken404404 3 роки тому +23

    When you mention the lack of progressive policies among Republicans in the 20s I think you should mention calvin coolidges good record on civil rights. Outside of his personal views being very much in favor of civil rights for African Americans, from what I understand the klan lost a lot of influence under his presidency. If you are talking about his economic policies not being progressive compared to teddy that's certainly true but that was the appeal for many. He was liberal in the sense of both social beliefs and the market, meaning he supported a free market with little intervention. Feel free to tell me if I'm wrong I'm no historian lol.

  • @TheModernPioneer
    @TheModernPioneer 3 роки тому +65

    I think it’s such a complicated topic because the terms ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal’ are extremely vague and dependent on the time period. There are times in history when progressivism was needed, and also times where progressing farther left pushes us further away from Constitutional freedom. For example, the revolutionary colonists in 1776 would at the time have been considered radically ‘liberal’, though supporting the same Constitutional principles today is considered ‘conservative’. I think the more important emphasis is to identify a set of political ideals you believe in, regardless of whether they’re considered ‘right’ or ‘left’ of where the bar currently sits in public society.

    • @Maintenancebay
      @Maintenancebay 3 роки тому +8

      Christ I thought I was the only one saying this. Glad I'm not alone.

    • @50733Blabla1337
      @50733Blabla1337 3 роки тому +5

      When did all that left right shit even start to matter so insanely much? I remember like 15 years ago "right" were literal racist and xenophobes and "left" were real punks and socialists. Now it seems like everyone is either right or left no center allowed. I mean gosh US democrats are barely center right on a normal scale.

    • @jackthorton10
      @jackthorton10 3 роки тому +1

      2005 was a rather interesting year for politics

    • @DanimoroZ
      @DanimoroZ 3 роки тому

      I mean they owned slaves lmao

    • @Crusader677
      @Crusader677 3 роки тому

      @@DanimoroZ yawn

  • @humanoblivion2968
    @humanoblivion2968 3 роки тому +35

    Finally, a video that can properly condense this complex topic into a multi part video series, can’t wait for the rest. 👍 10/10

  • @repposhpress1633
    @repposhpress1633 3 роки тому +4

    Good video. Looking forward to the entire series.

  • @johnathanrhoades7751
    @johnathanrhoades7751 3 роки тому +7

    Something that would be helpful to have, and that I can't find elsewhere is just a video of the time lapse of the way states voted over the last ~150 years. Love your stuff!

  • @Spiral.Dynamics
    @Spiral.Dynamics 3 роки тому +3

    That was really good. Looking forward to part 2.

  • @Wonderhussy
    @Wonderhussy 3 роки тому +4

    Which quote was it that got this demonetized?

    • @paisleepunk
      @paisleepunk 3 роки тому +2

      Hint: you hear it a lot in rap

  • @shelbyherring92
    @shelbyherring92 3 роки тому +16

    Just reading through the comments board during the outro...
    Holy Crap, where do these people find you?
    Also, that guy that said "son" I'm pretty sure is a young college student.

  • @theshenpartei
    @theshenpartei 3 роки тому +23

    Oh I have a bad feeling about the comments section

    • @forickgrimaldus8301
      @forickgrimaldus8301 3 роки тому +3

      In the grim darkness of the comments section there is only war.

    • @forickgrimaldus8301
      @forickgrimaldus8301 3 роки тому +3

      @Egg T War is Eternal, all will soon see the Emperor's light as we Crusade in his name.

    • @lamaripiazza5226
      @lamaripiazza5226 3 роки тому

      I haven’t seen those comments yet

    • @forickgrimaldus8301
      @forickgrimaldus8301 3 роки тому

      @@lamaripiazza5226 I am currently talking to one

    • @mrp4242
      @mrp4242 3 роки тому

      @@rb032682 back to cutting and pasting I see.

  • @antivalidisme5669
    @antivalidisme5669 3 роки тому +5

    That Atwater's interview summarizes it all. Great job man! On point and extremely efficient.

  • @Mahbu
    @Mahbu 3 роки тому +1

    It's a favorite topic of mine that numerous channels have touched on. Knowing better did an excellent video on this as well. I look forward to watching this at a more reasonable hour.

  • @davidingbar846
    @davidingbar846 2 роки тому +6

    "...turnabout is fair play." Fantastic quote.

  • @rr3901
    @rr3901 3 роки тому +5

    Great video! Thank you for your commitment to presenting factual information about US history! Hope this videos gets millions of views. Your video should be mandatory viewing for all Americans.

  • @juanfranciscovillarroelthu6876
    @juanfranciscovillarroelthu6876 3 роки тому +25

    Left or Right, We all hate Wilson.

  • @ContourGlobe
    @ContourGlobe 3 роки тому +1

    Just found another A1 channel. Ready to binge, thank you!

  • @erikhouston
    @erikhouston 3 роки тому +8

    Awesome video, it’s a shame these get demonetized.

  • @LogieT2K
    @LogieT2K 3 роки тому +10

    As a person from little ol NZ at the bottom of the world this is a fascinating topic. Our politics seem so simple compared

    • @westenev
      @westenev 3 роки тому +3

      I mean, our politics is interesting too in the sense that our labour and national parties tend to be so center it can be hard to tell them apart, meaning they can do weird shit like being a right wing party pushing "decent society", or our left wing party championing buisness (1990's lol)

    • @LogieT2K
      @LogieT2K 3 роки тому +2

      @@westenev thats sorta what i mean, you get the same thing with both so you sorta just pick ur favourite colour lmao

  • @speedweed6747
    @speedweed6747 Рік тому +3

    6:15 it’s worth mentioning that Martin van Buren was not only a Northerner but also an abolitionist

  • @lordcrunk4790
    @lordcrunk4790 3 роки тому +58

    5:20 Owens, derpedy derp derp, OMFG LOL

    • @Spongebrain97
      @Spongebrain97 3 роки тому +21

      Id laugh but the fact that people take her seriously its triggering to me

    • @ElectricBuckeye
      @ElectricBuckeye 3 роки тому +22

      @@Spongebrain97 because she's a black female conservative. She's a living dog whistle. And most conservatives view her as an unchallengable force, lest the challengers be called racists, backing their theory of hypocritical "demonrats".

    • @williamt.sherman9841
      @williamt.sherman9841 3 роки тому +1

      @@ElectricBuckeye sounds like a load of strawman. you are 100% wrong. What Candance Owens is more like is an attempt of conservatives to show a black woman as proof of how progressives they are. your claims are false she is simply the Republican party virtue signaling.
      What the fuck do you mean by "living dog whistle"?

    • @MrGooner9000
      @MrGooner9000 3 роки тому +8

      @@williamt.sherman9841 I think you guys are saying more or less the same thing

    • @maxbash6330
      @maxbash6330 3 роки тому +4

      The “fine folks” at the daily wire haven’t embraced Candace Owens because they want to appear progressive.
      She’s valuable to them because she echoes the same rhetoric.
      Institutional racism doesn’t exist, BLM is a Marxist radical organization, George Floyd had drug priors and broke the law, making him undeserving of empathy and so on.
      They believe having a black woman sharing their views, validates them.

  • @cooperglick4865
    @cooperglick4865 3 роки тому +5

    When he said Johnson vetoed the civil rights act in the 60s, I was so confused and was trying to look it up only to remember that we've had multiple president Johnson in the 60s

  • @socialistbatman1211
    @socialistbatman1211 2 роки тому +6

    I would argue that bipartisanship is one of the major problems in our system. Democrats should stop conceding to Republicans and actually push for favourable policies.

  • @luckylink6452
    @luckylink6452 3 роки тому +6

    ‘Tis a great episode

  • @annayosh
    @annayosh 3 роки тому +8

    In my opinion it was more of a sort than a swap - the Republican party before the 1960s, or at least before the 1930s, was *on average* more progressive than the Democrats, but there were progressive Democrats and conservative Republicans then as well. Both parties were 'big tent' parties. Conservative southern whites went from Democrat to Republican, minorities went from Republican to Democrat, but in other groups there were plenty who remained where they were.

  • @Queenofcatss
    @Queenofcatss Рік тому +1

    Your channel is awesome! Thanks for the great videos.

  • @zainy_inc154
    @zainy_inc154 3 роки тому +9

    Great timing, I was just reading about this in my american government class

  • @paulclark6988
    @paulclark6988 3 роки тому +41

    I'm conservative, but I appreciate and respect your time and effort of researching and giving your analysis even though your views differ from mine. Keep up the great work and hopefully you reach 1mil subs in the next few years!

    • @eaglewarrior7979
      @eaglewarrior7979 3 роки тому +7

      He’s losing subscribers.

    • @AP-su9oc
      @AP-su9oc 3 роки тому +17

      Yeah but that probably has a lot more to do with the youtube algorithm then the Cynical historian himself

  • @jeffsimmons7971
    @jeffsimmons7971 2 роки тому +3

    Goldwater in 1964 at an Atlanta press conference: “We're not going to get the
    Negro vote as a bloc in 1964 or 1968,
    so we ought to go hunting where the ducks are.”

  • @Wonderhussy
    @Wonderhussy 3 роки тому +35

    Huge new fan here; like your unpretentious approach! Looking forward to the rest of this 3-parter, and the rest of your back catalog. Thank you!

  • @SEAZNDragon
    @SEAZNDragon 3 роки тому +5

    An ex-high school classmate (and now a school teacher) claims the party switch never happened as only one Democratic congressman became a Republican post civil rights movement: Storm Thormond. He didn’t seem to get by saying one of the most racist congressmen switching parties probably hurt his point.
    And speaking of Storm Thormond is another example of the switch. Establishment Republicans in the 1960s wanted him out and by 2000 he had the Republican leadership wishing him a happy 100th birthday and calling him the greatest senator of all time.

  • @timteichmann6830
    @timteichmann6830 3 роки тому +5

    I love that you still explode when Wilson comes up

  • @SpcyYt
    @SpcyYt 3 роки тому

    Been waiting for this one for about a year. I'm forgetting which video it was when you said you'd make this video and collaborate with Tigerstar. Wasn't it the "Free Stuff Meme?"

  • @Spongebrain97
    @Spongebrain97 3 роки тому +31

    The fact that in 1972 Nixon had a bloc of supporters called "Democrats for Nixon" which were mostly from the South shows that the parties were indeed changing

    • @tyvernoverlord5363
      @tyvernoverlord5363 3 роки тому +5

      like I tend to think: America changes constantly, Europe has been changing ever since humanity has been in the continent, politics changes by the hour, and people aren't what they started out as originally.

    • @ccLA08
      @ccLA08 3 роки тому +3

      Are you that incompetent to understand there are ALOT of liberal progressives in the south? They still want the same thing the Democratic party wants, they just happen to live on the gulf coast, even back then.

    • @Spongebrain97
      @Spongebrain97 3 роки тому +4

      @@ccLA08 of course they existed such as Lyndon Johnson but they werent as widespread. Today they are still there as seen with how Georiga and Florida are swing states. My point is how southern conservative Democrats began rooting for Republicans with Goldwater and Nixon and eventually got won over

    • @ccLA08
      @ccLA08 3 роки тому

      @@Spongebrain97 im saying its still like that to this day. Same party line as well. Its just masked under the guise of equality

    • @Spongebrain97
      @Spongebrain97 3 роки тому +4

      @@ccLA08 well you do know that the modern day bulk of the Democratic vote is from minorities right? Especially in places like Atlanta and Miami. They've just been the driving force for the Democrats in that region especially because the Republican party basically dog whistles racism

  • @Greyareas27
    @Greyareas27 2 роки тому +10

    *I don't like the term, "switch", because that incorrectly suggests a sudden reversal. But IDEOLOGICAL CHANGE between the parties most definitely took place.* The problem is too many people think because *today,* "liberal" or "left" is automatically perceived as Democratic and "conservative" or "right" is automatically perceived as Republican, that it's always been that way. That's patently false. Decades ago, your party affiliation did not identify your ideology.
    Depending on what region you lived in, a Democrat or Republican could be liberal, conservative or moderate. All combinations existed. That is an indisputable historical fact.

    • @naitthegr8131
      @naitthegr8131 Рік тому +5

      Yes, especially back then, there were conservative, moderate and liberal wings *IN BOTH PARTIES* So many people like to claim the Ku Klux Klan for example was "Democratic" because of southern rednecks, when there were also Republican members *at the same time*, especially in the mid-west.

  • @tizioqualunque4622
    @tizioqualunque4622 3 роки тому +5

    Thank you Cypher.
    Greetings from Italy.

  • @CosmoShidan
    @CosmoShidan 3 роки тому +15

    Cypher, the reference to conservation, does that make Teddy Roosevelt an early environmentalist?

    • @MajorMlgNoob
      @MajorMlgNoob 3 роки тому +5

      Yeah he was lol

    • @CynicalHistorian
      @CynicalHistorian  3 роки тому +10

      heck yeah he was

    • @corey2232
      @corey2232 3 роки тому +1

      @@CynicalHistorian So was Nixon, but for some reason modern conservatives seem to want nothing to do with that.

    • @forickgrimaldus8301
      @forickgrimaldus8301 3 роки тому +1

      @@CynicalHistorian if so than Teddy is the Manliest Hippie to ever live 😂

  • @zainy_inc154
    @zainy_inc154 3 роки тому +2

    Great video man

  • @jasnmeade9487
    @jasnmeade9487 3 роки тому +9

    It wouldn’t be a Cypher video without a WILSOOON!

  • @caseyroberts1171
    @caseyroberts1171 3 роки тому +3

    I have to say that I love your series of videos and your viewpoint and intellectual honesty with regards to how much of how we act globally is a by-product of Wilsonian policies. Would you say that the initial shift of black laborers in the early 20th century, when the pro-business wing of the Republican Party really took hold post-Teddy Roosevelt and snuffed out the Progressives, had a significant impact on the shift of the labor movement as a whole to the Democratic party?

  • @j045ua
    @j045ua 3 роки тому

    What piano piece is being played at around 5:45 of the video??? anyone please let me know?

  • @nalisaed8725
    @nalisaed8725 3 роки тому

    Great video, as always.

  • @HistoryandHeadlines
    @HistoryandHeadlines 3 роки тому +19

    Do you think a new party will rise up to replace either of the current two main parties? Is the best party a pizza party? 🍕

    • @groovinhooves
      @groovinhooves 3 роки тому +2

      TV party!

    • @professorcube5104
      @professorcube5104 3 роки тому +1

      Cat party

    • @TBFSJjunior
      @TBFSJjunior 3 роки тому +2

      Here in Germany we have 6 parties and each party getting 5% of the votes gets into parliament, but in the UK they have a first parse the post system like the US and they also have more than 2 parties, so it should be possible even if unlikely.

    • @professorcube5104
      @professorcube5104 3 роки тому +1

      @@TBFSJjunior cgp grey made a great vid about it

    • @TBFSJjunior
      @TBFSJjunior 3 роки тому +1

      @@professorcube5104
      Yeah I think I've seen that one.
      It's a great channel.

  • @LaceyAnn
    @LaceyAnn 3 роки тому +3

    "You can't even point at one political party and blame them. That's what political hacks do." Yeeeeeooouch, haha!
    I appreciate that I learn so much here, and the shade you throw makes it so much better, especially when it's at "Wilsoooooon!"

    • @LaceyAnn
      @LaceyAnn 3 роки тому +3

      I honestly didn't know the democrats were conservative. I already didn't like Candace Owens, but that sure makes the whole "get off the democratic plantation" thing just that much more detestable.

  • @longarmsgiraffe0955
    @longarmsgiraffe0955 3 роки тому

    Is this charter thing you do new? Not sure I've seen it before. But I like that you called out the "good" acting lol. Keep making interesting videos and i'll watch them with these character or without

  • @RoyGBiv-lc8tv
    @RoyGBiv-lc8tv 3 роки тому +2

    Very informative, as always. Thanks.

  • @BradyPostma
    @BradyPostma 3 роки тому +14

    I just read a biography of Coolidge and was excited to hear how he for in... and he didn't even warrant a mention. =[

    • @BradyPostma
      @BradyPostma 3 роки тому +1

      And then the ad is a Republican vindictive against HR1. =(

    • @BradyPostma
      @BradyPostma 3 роки тому +2

      "... there is no cause that justifies a resort to violence."
      - Ronald Reagan
      Tell that to the DC protestors on Jan 6th!
      Let's see that call for order brought to bear on the boogaloos and bigots of modern domestic violence, who carry "Back the Blue" flags while killing cops!

    • @BradyPostma
      @BradyPostma 3 роки тому

      Beatings cause strokes.
      Stroke is a result of blood clot blocking the blood vessels that feed oxygen to the brain. Without oxygen, brain cells die.
      The body responds to physical trauma with blood clots to stop the blood loss. Sometimes a piece of the clot breaks off and follows the bloodstream somewhere and gets stuck.
      The more physical trauma the patient endures, the more likely it is for a piece of the clot to break off and get stuck. Blows to the head increase the odds of stroke as a result of physical trauma, because it's the vessels nearest the brain being broken.
      What physical trauma did the autopsy document?

    • @BradyPostma
      @BradyPostma 3 роки тому +1

      @@petebondurant58 That being the case, about 140 officers at the Jan 6th DC riot were injured but none of them fatally so.

    • @timnergaard3831
      @timnergaard3831 3 роки тому

      @@petebondurant58 yeah i'm sure he would have just happened to have a stroke on that day no matter what lmao

  • @banathinkehli9875
    @banathinkehli9875 3 роки тому +28

    I find this kind of history so useful to understand my own country which is a very young democracy that is still in its early twenties lol. I'm from South Africa. I have a major in history and this video really helps in providing a framework that one can use to understand things that happen in this sphere of the human condition in a democratic society. Just to illustrate, the Apartheid government used to control the media to justify the fucked up things they used to do, fast forward 20 years and the ANC under the worst president in democratic South Africa, Jacob Zuma, is using the same tactics to undermine our constitutional democracy. What changed? Hopefully using the framework this video has provided I'll be able to answer this one day XD. Thanks Cypher!!!!!!

    • @Thedimensionalwarrior
      @Thedimensionalwarrior Рік тому

      Both of these groups are similar, in that they institute policies that benefit a tiny group of elites by taking away from the majority of the population, the only difference is the change of those elites, back in the day the elites were the whites, now the elites are the corrupt officials in power

  • @gingercatqueen4368
    @gingercatqueen4368 6 місяців тому

    Recently found this channel cause a comment bumped it into my algorithm. This is my 6th 7th video I’ve watched. So I’m passing it along to the algorithm.
    It’s a demonetized video but definitely has information more people should be privy to. 😊

  • @demolition_lovers
    @demolition_lovers 3 роки тому +2

    4:38 "I guess The Patriots don't want people disagreeing with you, right?"
    Crypto must have knowledge of a weapon to surpass Metal Gear.

  • @clintnewton1115
    @clintnewton1115 3 роки тому +8

    I mean the polarization is worse now I think than ever because of the internet and media constantly putting wedges between us. Partisanship is worse now than ever.

    • @fakshen1973
      @fakshen1973 3 роки тому +4

      You should follow the advent of the media. The printing press changed the political and social landscapes. It was incredibly simple and inexpensive to communicate to a mass of people. The American Revolution was stoked by printed treatises on "rights". Many politicians, including Abraham Lincoln owned newspapers. At the time, these things were novel. With the advent of radio, motion pictures, and television we noted some major changes in our nation and their influences on politics: fireside chats, the 1960 televised presidential debates, etc. The internet is the latest change and advent in media.

  • @oaa-ff8zj
    @oaa-ff8zj 3 роки тому +6

    Here are some real party switches: 1896-1932, 1928-94

  • @Spongebrain97
    @Spongebrain97 3 роки тому +5

    Would you ever do a video on William Jennings Bryan? He is very fascinating to me and isnt much talked about.

    • @Paranoid_Found
      @Paranoid_Found 3 роки тому

      I’m fascinated by him as well. Which party do you think William Jennings Bryan would belong today? Economically left wing populist while socially very conservative.

  • @FinalFrontier101
    @FinalFrontier101 3 роки тому +6

    Waiting for part 2 so I can fully understand where the hell we are now...

  • @pennyforyourthots
    @pennyforyourthots 3 роки тому +4

    Honestly, the idea that the very structure of our political system CREATES our polarization is something I've believed for a long time, but i've always had trouble putting into words.
    I think just functionally, a multi-party government where nobody can actually get a majority and as such have to form Coalition governments incentivize compromise by their very nature and decentivize polarization since more extreme beliefs will usually form their own party rather than be infecting the rest of a more moderate left or right leaning party.
    The American political system makes for good blood sports, but not so much for getting stuff done

  • @luislebron4785
    @luislebron4785 3 роки тому +4

    Certainly the most polarized it’s been in my lifetime.

  • @Brandon-hn5jx
    @Brandon-hn5jx 3 роки тому +2

    One thing I should mention is that, the politicians don't change, the voters do. In general, the politicians don't care who votes for them, they just want votes. So even though when the party switch happened, very few politicians actually changed parties. Instead, the voters changed parties. It started on the national level, and over time, went to the state and local levels. That's why so few politicians changed parties, instead the people voting changed the party they voted for.

  • @FINNSTIGAT0R
    @FINNSTIGAT0R 3 роки тому +2

    Party switch is what is flipped from OFF to ON when someone REALLY spikes the punch bowl.

  • @jurtra9090
    @jurtra9090 3 роки тому +19

    but PragerU says that Party Switch is a Myth LOL

    • @InquisitorThomas
      @InquisitorThomas 3 роки тому +18

      PragerU also says they’re a University, they have a tenuous relationship with reality.

    • @FernandoMartinez-pv1id
      @FernandoMartinez-pv1id 3 роки тому +6

      And Cynical Histroian says no Party is calling for Segreagtion openly yet fails to mention the Segregation in College Campuses by the "Progressives."

    • @Blownkingg
      @Blownkingg 3 роки тому +7

      @@FernandoMartinez-pv1id What segregation is there on college campuses? Fun fact there literally is no segregation in college campuses, unless you're talking about segregation via degree major.

    • @Hand-in-Shot_Productions
      @Hand-in-Shot_Productions 3 роки тому +6

      @@Blownkingg I have not been in college yet, but I have yet to hear a word about that "segregation" in college campuses! Based on my experiences with these sort of claims (which, more often than not, are designed not to inform, but to associate the other party with as many historical villains as possible), I don't think I will ever get any further details on these claims, since that's not the purpose!

    • @Blownkingg
      @Blownkingg 3 роки тому +5

      @@Hand-in-Shot_Productions I agree. I am in college and can confirm there is no segregation on college campuses.

  • @matthewfarmer9500
    @matthewfarmer9500 3 роки тому +3

    The comments were turned off in the myths about slavery video.
    So I’m commenting on here.
    Good video. I think a lot of contention can be avoided if we dig deep to learn the truth about the past and about ourselves now. I was upset when I heard Abraham Lincolns quote, but not surprised. I also think his mindset was correct and allowed for greater things to happen throughout the history of the world. I hope Dr. King’s dream will one day come to pass.

  • @alexv3357
    @alexv3357 3 роки тому +2

    Does anyone know the particular version of _When Johnny Comes Marching Home_ that begins at 6:58

  • @danielruiz-camacho4138
    @danielruiz-camacho4138 3 роки тому +2

    Hey there cynical historian I like your videos and how in depth it can be on certain topics. But I am sure you are aware about president biden's decision to withdrawal all us forces by Sept 11th of this year. Since you are a vet of that theater, I was wondering your thoughts about it since some troops will have mixed feelings. I joined the reserves in 2017 and only heard stories from my unit to hearing it on the web. Maybe a video discussion about this topic could be something in the future? Just wanted to hear your thoughts.

    • @CynicalHistorian
      @CynicalHistorian  3 роки тому +3

      I'm happy, but not expecting him to follow through. He said the same thing in 2014, and it went nowhere

  • @agsilverradio2225
    @agsilverradio2225 3 роки тому +4

    3:33 Bipartisanship, in my opinion, should only be done if both parties involved, can both agree on the thing they are working together on is the right thing to do, in and of itself; not just to compromise their values to an olive-branch, that the other side probably won't reciprocate.

  • @kimwit1307
    @kimwit1307 3 роки тому +5

    The really strange thing about the talk of left and right wing in US politics is that the so-called left wing liberal democrats/social democrats are pretty much centrist when compared to the left-right divide in other democratic countries. The US political spectrum is very right leaning overall and to say that there is a socialist movement in the US today is just laughable.

    • @oklanime
      @oklanime 3 роки тому +1

      Yeah lmao. This is what happens when centrist like Bernie Sanders and AOC run around calling themselves democratic socialists when they are in fact social democrats. The true meaning of socialism is watered down to where "building roads and giving healthcare" is socialism.

    • @speedy01247
      @speedy01247 3 роки тому +6

      @@oklanime that's not the issue, the issue is calling everyone left of the republican party communist. (It makes even moderates appear radical cause people don't listen to what they are fighting for or assume those things are radical)

  • @thecosmochannel
    @thecosmochannel 2 роки тому +1

    Thank you for this video, very informative.

  • @25293Blaze
    @25293Blaze 3 роки тому +1

    I see you with that MGS reference You're pretty good.

  • @CivilWarWeekByWeek
    @CivilWarWeekByWeek 3 роки тому +13

    When will the green and libertarian parties switch

  • @JohnDeleon1997
    @JohnDeleon1997 3 роки тому +12

    As someone with a passing knowledge of the history of US politics, but not a ton of expertise, this was incredibly informative.

  • @drakealberhasky6692
    @drakealberhasky6692 3 роки тому

    What is the song that plays at 6:56?

  • @theJMBgamer
    @theJMBgamer 3 роки тому +2

    2:07 What's with the gaps in the dates for the party systems? I guess they're all election years, so do we not count the actual presidential term while the parties reconfigure?

    • @CynicalHistorian
      @CynicalHistorian  3 роки тому +1

      It's more that we don't how to classify those years. They're transitional

  • @johnweber4577
    @johnweber4577 3 роки тому +5

    There is an instinct to trace political evolution backward from now rather than to start at the beginning. That’s how notions like Conservatism being innately about small government and Liberalism a big one arise. The associations were reversed in fact at the Founding. The Hamiltonian Federalists represented a kind of Classical Conservatism which saw a strong national government as essential to preserving order. The Jeffersonian Republicans espoused a rigorous Classical Liberalism which perceived it to be an oppressive tool of the elite. As liberal teachings had informed the American Revolution, both camps were influenced by them. They reached consensus on recognizing natural rights, constraining government power, abandoning hereditary titles of nobility as well as the separation of church and state.
    The Hamiltonians, however, maintained conservative attitudes on central banking, protectionism, restricting immigration and property requirements for the vote. The Jeffersonians championed the liberal ideals of laissez-faire, free trade, open immigration and extending political suffrage to the common man. A nationalist versus internationalist divide emerged which shaped a lot of their disagreements. Perhaps the fiercest ensued when looming conflict around England and France aggravated tensions. Contrary to conventional wisdom, the federal over state position was used for conservative purposes when Federalists passed the Alien and Sedition Acts. Efforts to thwart radicalism that involved putting foreigners under scrutiny. And the anti-federalist stance, albeit complicated by later battles, was applied for liberal ends when Republicans retaliated with the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions. Decrying them as violations of civil liberties, they asserted that the states could declare federal laws that they deemed unconstitutional void. A big deal in an age of centralized empires.
    Though the sectional question of slavery shook up the political landscape in a variety of ways, those concepts carried on in essence as the guiding orthodoxies for the modern Republican and Democratic leaderships. But the distinction has been obscured in memory. Take two icons for limited government types who embodied the competing intellectual traditions. Hamiltonianism in the Republican Calvin Coolidge and Jeffersonianism in the Democrat Grover Cleveland. Cleveland vetoed an immigration bill which featured a literacy test as a barrier in 1897 while Coolidge signed into law such a proposal in 1924. Cleveland ran on reducing tariffs while Coolidge kept tariff rates high. Cleveland opposed national banks while Coolidge let the Federal Reserve be. Cleveland set in motion the landmark antitrust lawsuit known as the Sugar Trust Case while Coolidge ended a string of administrations that had launched many of them.
    Cleveland put into place the Interstate Commerce Commission to protect consumers by overseeing trade while Coolidge appointed to it and the subsequent Federal Trade Commission hands-off commissioners to facilitate economic growth. It is their shared commitment to individualism, low taxes, sound money, balanced budgets and fiscal restraint that attracts the overlapping fans. Increasing demand for government intervention ignited during the Progressive Era blurred the line between the old-fashioned conservatives and liberals weary of it. Their ideas, regardless of the historical rivalry, now tend to get lumped together in the conservative category and pit against Progressivism. It also treated as one thing, usually under the name Liberalism, despite the initial disharmony there as well.
    The Republican Theodore Roosevelt and Democrat Woodrow Wilson were the first progressive presidents from their parties. Though it was their successors who coined the terms Progressive Conservatism and Progressive Liberalism for their ideologies, each described himself with the pair of labels. Both differed from their classical counterparts with respect to the scope of government, but there are parallels in how they contrasted each other. Comparing Roosevelt and Wilson helps in differentiating between them. Roosevelt akin to Coolidge signed off on measures to curb immigration which included a literacy test in 1903 while Wilson like Cleveland before him rejected legislation of that sort in 1917. As expressed in his 1902 State of the Union Address, Roosevelt advocated protectionism. Wilson, on the other hand, favored free trade. A goal propounded in his Fourteen Points.
    Both pursued economic regulation. But though dubbed the Trustbuster, Roosevelt was not hostile to monopolies on principle. Approving of what he called good trusts like U.S. Steel. Wilson pushed for the Clayton Antitrust Act in a bid to level the playing field by breaking them all up. The argument between nationalism and internationalism gained a new dimension with their foreign policy opinions. TR believed in the superiority of Anglo-Saxon societies and, as affirmed by his Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, their duty to police the world. Conversely, Wilson claimed that no nation was fit to sit in judgement of another. His ultimate aim was global governance through the League of Nations. Much like Classical Liberalism, Progressive Conservatism is largely overlooked in these discussions. Observing them can illuminate trends which go back to the First Party System.
    Conditions created by the Second Industrial Revolution prompted the re-examination of accepted conservative and liberal precepts. Elements of both parties became convinced that government action was needed to remedy escalating unrest. Especially after the rise of the Populist Movement which fought for agrarian and industrial labor interests. The Populists coalesced into the People’s Party until rallying to the Democrat William Jennings Bryan to defy the rich and aid the poor. Republicans such as Roosevelt concluded that reform was necessary to prevent the country from descending into chaos. The key difference was that Bryan’s party selected him as its presidential candidate three times while Roosevelt’s gave him the vice presidency because it was thought that he couldn’t rock the boat there. Only taking office by chance after the assassination of William McKinley. And a greater number of delegates lent their support to the moderate William Howard Taft instead when he attempted to go for a third term.
    Admirers of Cleveland left to form the National Democratic Party when Bryan came out on top in 1896. Likewise, Roosevelt and his followers walked out to organize the original Progressive Party after Taft received the nomination in 1912. Each split benefited the other major party and they quickly declined. Internal debates persisted, but precedents were set. Though Bryan never won, Wilson acted on several of his causes. And Franklin Roosevelt actually endorsed Wilson, not Teddy, in 1912. He built on his prototypical administrative state with the New Deal. An agenda of then unmatched government activism. In keeping with Warren G. Harding and Coolidge’s Post-Wilson Return to Normalcy, Republicans led by Robert Taft worked at rolling it back. The election of Dwight Eisenhower marked a truce. His philosophy of Dynamic Conservatism made peace with the New Deal zeitgeist, but he sought to rein in any excesses.
    The further turns within the Democratic and Republican parties are clear-cut. The New Left and New Right adopted by George McGovern and Ronald Reagan both challenged the popular assumptions of their day. Focusing on social issues and government control. The Third Way and Compassionate Conservatism advanced by Bill Clinton and George W. Bush both moved toward the center. Reflecting upon the free market and social justice. Each establishment now confronts a populist wave. Democratic Socialism and National Conservatism are embraced by those that Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump have emboldened. Fed up with the ruling class, both aspire to tilt the balance of power.
    Granted, each from early on housed factions that spanned the political spectrum. Of note are those epitomized by the Democrat John C. Calhoun and Republican Horace Greeley. Calhoun defended the status quo for Southern planters while Greeley promoted Utopian Socialism. The two served as prominent party figures up until they, alongside other dissidents, were faced with critical disputes which drove them apart. Calhoun set up the Nullifier Party after a bitter falling-out with Andrew Jackson due to him standing by the federal government in a mounting crisis with South Carolina over the Tariff of 1828. Greeley ran as the Liberal Republican Party nominee against Ulysses S. Grant in the election of 1872 in protest of scandals in his administration tied to big business. But not even allying with their partisan adversaries, the Nullifiers with the Whigs and the Liberal Republicans with the Democrats, was enough to defeat Jackson or Grant. Most of their members soon dispersed among them both.
    Friction lingered between right-leaning Republican and left-leaning Democratic national parties and the left-wing Republicans and right-wing Democrats holding considerable sway at the state level with whom they compromised. The La Follette Wisconsin Republican and Talmadge Georgia Democratic machines were examples which came to blows with the Coolidge Campaign and FDR Administration. More infrastructure development coupled with gradual modernization led to the regions converging economically and culturally. That resulted in Republicans and Democrats amassing vast majorities of conservatives and liberals. Broadly speaking, along small town and big city lines. Both have indeed changed with time, quibbled over details and contained shifting coalitions. But their values remain fundamentally rooted in Hamiltonian pro-business conservative nationalism and Jeffersonian anti-elitist liberal internationalism.

  • @jimmyyu2184
    @jimmyyu2184 3 роки тому +3

    Very much looking forward to episodes 2 and 3, and maybe a Star War-like Episode 0 or Episode 4?! 👍👍

  • @claireripley4892
    @claireripley4892 5 днів тому

    Do you have an instagram? I didn't see it in the links on your UA-cam account.

  • @mikeedwards2384
    @mikeedwards2384 3 роки тому +2

    Great stuff

  • @Jraskal.
    @Jraskal. 2 роки тому +4

    The Roosevelts were ahead oh their times, still arguing today over basic human rights

  • @while.coyote
    @while.coyote 3 роки тому +6

    I bet ranked choice voting could fix it almost instantly.

    • @WhatAboutThemApples
      @WhatAboutThemApples 3 роки тому +2

      Rank Choice voting will only help in places where stuff is close(ie 49-48), people who win in districts that are 7-30 or 80-20 will still win. All that being said yeah maybe Trump would have lost in 2016 if every state enacted rank choice voting

    • @WhatAboutThemApples
      @WhatAboutThemApples 3 роки тому +1

      @@viviancooper5892 Look at the amount of 3rd party votes in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan, in each state if all the Green Party votes went for Hillary she would have won, but beyond that even Gary Johnson voters said they would more likely vote Clinton if given only 2 options(by like a 2 to 1 margin)

  • @monkeyman321
    @monkeyman321 3 роки тому

    Can anyone tell me which was the quote that caused this video to be demonetized? Thanks in advance.

  • @verbulent_flow6229
    @verbulent_flow6229 3 роки тому

    What are your thoughts on Anarchism? Like, Kropotkin or Makhno?