155
The origins of the Republican party (lemm.ee)
submitted 3 days ago by cm0002@lemmy.world to c/historymemes@lemmy.world
22 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 22 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 25 points 2 days ago

Yes, there were people who were anti-slavery for moral reasons.

Let's not forget that there were plenty of people who thought that Africans were inferior who wanted slavery ended for economic reasons.

A slaveowner would rent out his slaves to do work for less money than any free man. Many slaveowners would bring skilled workers over from Europe and pay them for their jobs, and also to train some slaves. After the master carpenter moved on, the slaveowner had a dozen carpenters on his plantation. When they weren't working for him, he'd rent them out. That meant that it was impossible for any local carpenters to earn a living.

[-] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 10 points 2 days ago

Which is why I expect to see unions fighting for prison labor reform.

[-] negativenull@lemmy.world 37 points 3 days ago

The Republican party pledged to fight the “twin relics of barbarism”: slavery and polygamy

Ironic that Mormons now overwhelmingly vote Republican

[-] SplashJackson@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 days ago

What beef did they have with polygamy?

[-] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 3 points 1 day ago

Jeebus

Generally speaking it's also not wise to have polygamy (as opposed to polyamory) in cultures without a lot of young males dying. Tends to lead to a bunch of horny and angry incels.

The Mormons had it strictly because Mormonism is a cult that was designed for Joseph Smith to get child "brides."

[-] Shardikprime@lemmy.world 6 points 2 days ago

What's savery

[-] Glytch@lemmy.world 7 points 2 days ago

Also called Umami, it's one of the 5 basic flavors, along with salty, bitter, sweet, and sour.

[-] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 19 points 3 days ago

And clowns today will tell you that a third party is doomed to fail because of the scawy two party system and first past the post.

[-] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 11 points 2 days ago

FPTP ultimately results in a two-party system. That doesn't mean it's a two-party system 100% of the time. If a party truly screws up, that party can die and be replaced. You'll still end up with two parties for the vast majority of the elections.

And that's exactly what happened. Reality lines up with the math.

[-] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 2 points 2 days ago

Yeah that's what I'm trying to say. It's what I call the two-party fallacy.

[-] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago

Where the fallacy

[-] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 2 points 2 days ago

The idea that just because FPTP mathematically guarantees a two-party system third parties can never succeed under it, usually invoked to get out of having to consider making a third party as a viable solution to the chokehold the establishment has on American politics and more recently Trumpian fascism.

[-] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 6 points 2 days ago

The math says I can't fly, so I discount that as an escape route.

I'm serious. 30% of voters self identify as Republicans. 30% more as Democrats. These people aren't thinking. They vote their party because daddy voted that party. Just look at how few people change their party affiliation. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2020/08/04/voters-rarely-switch-parties-but-recent-shifts-further-educational-racial-divergence/

So any 3rd party would have to capture literally everyone else to be viable. And that's from both extreme ends of the spectrum as well as the middle. Those people who actually think about politics and consider who is running and might change.

It's literally impossible. You'd have more luck doing what the tea party did. Get a chunk of people then invade the Republican party.

[-] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 1 points 2 days ago

The math says I can't fly, so I discount that as an escape route.

As you literally said yourself, third parties can still succeed in a two-party system if they can cannibalize one of the two major parties.

These people aren't thinking. They vote their party because daddy voted that party. Just look at how few people change their party affiliation.

Huh? The article says more than 10% changed party affiliation in less than two years. That's not "few", that's a lot. It's proof people are, to some extent, thinking about their party affiliation.

[-] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago

But the third party can't win, that's my point.

Maybe I don't understand, but I feel like the tea party wasted years being outside the Republicans. Once they got inside they were able to change things. So why follow in their failures? Why not jump right to their success?

10% is very low, is my point.

[-] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 2 points 2 days ago

Maybe I don't understand, but I feel like the tea party wasted years being outside the Republicans. Once they got inside they were able to change things. So why follow in their failures? Why not jump right to their success?

The tea party had two advantages that the progressive movement doesn't. First is a party leadership that knew it was floundering and was willing to let the public have the final verdict on the candidates they wanted (for more notice the difference between how the GOP treated Trump vs how the DNC treated and still treats Bernie). Second is billionaire money, lots of billionaire money. The progressive movement has a much harder task ahead of it than the tea party did, so expecting the same methods to work doesn't make sense. I'll copy part of my reply to someone else in this thread:

If that was the only problem then maybe, but the issue is the triple whammy of Dem leadership: Their economic policy is horrible, they lack the spine to do much of anything and they'll fight you to the death if you try to change that. Any one—or even two—of these alone would've been solvable, but with all three it's easier to just start from scratch. The the pre-existent party apparatus and brand recognition are very attractive, but the price you'll pay is a bunch of gerontocrats who will keep demanding concessions so they keep you in the party and giving absolutely nothing in return, which among other things will lose you legitimacy with your base (see: Bernie and AOC) while dampening the speed of expansion of both your political base and footprint within the party. Hell, if they're successful they just might be able to take enough of you to their side to permanently cripple your movement.

I've actually seen someone here argue that the left's tea party happened in 2016 with Bernie's candidacy in the primary and appearance of The Squad, and that it simply didn't take hold for a number of reasons.

10% is very low, is my point.

In two years? No it's not. For example if we assume that's a constant rate that'd be more than a quarter of the whole party leaving in six years. And that's with only the political establishment; actually make people's lives better and you should be looking at a lot more than 10% every two years.

[-] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

There's no reason to assume it's a constant rate. 10% during a time of absolute turmoil. That seems low to me. How many times have you changed your political leanings in your life? For me it was two changes in 25 years of voting. But let's say we can swing that ten percent every two years. We'll be ready to win something in 2033? We need to be faster.

And your point about tea party funding just means a progressive party would have even less success, wouldn't it?

I still think getting progressive candidates into low level positions within the Dems is a quickly achievable goal. Next year even. Then we push mid level and up.

[-] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 1 points 2 days ago

There's no reason to assume it's a constant rate. 10% during a time of absolute turmoil.

Why would a time of absolute turmoil mean people would switch parties more? Democrats wouldn't go to the GOP for competent pandemic management (remember that Biden won in part because of Trump's mishandling of the pandemic) and Republicans wouldn't even acknowledge the damn virus existed. If anything you'd expect both sides to stick to their side with small minorities switching sides (Democrats because of lockdowns and Republicans because of the pandemic).

We'll be ready to win something in 2033? We need to be faster.

If your point is that you need to be faster to stop fascism, then sorry to rain on your parade but electoral politics won't stop fascism either way. That ship sailed in 2024, or in 2020/2016 depending on how you look at it. If you're trying to organize a resistance you should be fighting for the hearts, minds and fucks to give of the people and pushing them into the streets; by the time you're going to the polls it'll all be over one way or the other.

And your point about tea party funding just means a progressive party would have even less success, wouldn't it?

No? The DNC will never give your progressive candidates funding anyway, by "giving absolutely nothing in return" I meant absolutely nothing. You get all the shackles and compromises and none of the benefits until your hostile takeover is complete in the far future (at which point you'll be already in concentration camps).

Next year even. Then we push mid level and up.

If you push one level per election you'll take at least those same six years before you're running for Congress so... uh... yeah.

[-] Diddlydee@feddit.uk 19 points 3 days ago

Savery is bad

[-] theLaLiLuLeLol@kbin.earth 6 points 3 days ago

"Wrong, I deserve to own other human beings!"

-Pieces of shit

[-] SolacefromSilence@fedia.io 17 points 3 days ago

Since then it looks like the Republicans became Democrats and Democrats became Whigs.

Get in loser, we're starting a new party

this post was submitted on 30 Mar 2025
155 points (100.0% liked)

A Comm for Historymemes

2235 readers
884 users here now

A place to share history memes!

Rules:

  1. No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, assorted bigotry, etc.

  2. No fascism, atrocity denial, etc.

  3. Tag NSFW pics as NSFW.

  4. Follow all Lemmy.world rules.

Banner courtesy of @setsneedtofeed@lemmy.world

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
PugJesus@lemmy.world
PugJesus@lemmy.dbzer0.com