[quote]blake2616 wrote:
I’m not saying Reid isn’t a jackass. I think he’s stupid. BUT. The parties have switched names over the decades. Sure, Lincoln was called a Republican, but he wanted a strong central government AND the civil war was more about State’s rights than it was about slavery. Which means that Lincoln held the ideals of the current Democrats. So he doesn’t fall into the same party as the current Republicans. It is much easier to think of this in terms of ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal.’
Also, “southern democrats” were about as conservative as you can get. States Rights, low regulations, proponents of Christian faith in the laws(scopes, anyone?), etc.
That being said, it doesn’t relieve the failings of the democratic party. And comparing slavery to covering a minority of the population with health care is completely asinine. [/quote]
But, you also have to realize terms like conservative and liberal are as relative and party labels. A conservative in a communist country would be the opposite of a conservative in an anarchist country.
Even being pro-fed or pro-state is a little short sited when dealing with the absolutes of a party or politicianâ??s actual philosophy.
For example, if we look at Hamilton (though never president) vs. Jefferson. If I held the exact idea of federal/state power of either of them, today Iâ??d probably end up voting libertarian (I donâ??t say conservative here, because their ideas would require vast change to the current system which is technically anti-conservative). Yes, Hamilton was pro-federal authority, in respect to his day, but he was arguing for things like the ability of the fed to maintain a standing army. You can apply the same type argument to guys like Lincoln. He may have been “pro fed” in his day, but his platform today is still closer to the republican party (even more ironically, to the far far “right” of modern republicans). So even in that respect, the republicans are the political descendants of the abolitionists.
