The Instigator
Packers49
Con (against)
The Contender
DStallman
Pro (for)

Did the Republican and Democrat values change over time since the 18th century until now?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
Packers49 has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/6/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 480 times Debate No: 98729
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

Packers49

Con

2nd debate ever.... very exciting. This is a very common idea that Republican and Liberal values have switched over time. I am currently studying this time period right now, so it made me ask this question. Did the values of republican and Democrats switch?

Don't get me wrong the states definitely switched. The main argument people bring up is that the Republicans used to favor bigger government which technically is true and now Republicans favor a small government. Democrats also used to support more state power and little to no federal government. Which is also true. This is what you would think if you focused mainly on views directly on the federal government without comparing it to why they support and stand against these positions.

I believe the true fact is that Republicans have always wanted a balance between the states and the government; therefore, corruption would be a lot harder to accomplish because of the equal power throughout the "system." This would be accomplished by the idea that the federal government should enforce any laws that they states cannot do or that protect the rights of people. This can also be true if you look at how Democrats "balance" the federal government with the state governments.

Back then Democrats viewed state governments as better because these were the Southern slave states. They wanted slaves and they didn't want anyone to stop them (federal government) because nobody within their state would ever stop slavery because of the Democrats racism and so they could make profit on their business especially after the cotton gin.

This is where it gets the argument gets very lets call it "controversial." Today most of the poorer people and citizens in America make up the Democrat. The Democrats also support a bigger federal government because they get more benefits from it. A lot (not all) of these people have no jobs and a lot of them (not all) are quite lazy when it comes to work. Look at all the people protesting Trump right now in America. Do you think people with professions are going to be doing that or people who have no job? I do understand that a lot of these people are from colleges (different conversation), but a lot of people are not. These people are told by the corrupt media (fox news is corrupt too) that the rich are evil and just trying to benefit themselves when those media companies are definitely in that top 1%. What they are saying is that all other rich people are only in it to help themselves except them. they try to say they are on your side. Okay I'm pretty off topic. Sorry.

Anyways, this is why Democrats support the Federal government who takes money from the job creating, economy growing business owners and gives it to the poor and lazy (not everyone is lazy but a lot are). This would definitely be considered an unbalance considering how high the taxes go and that throughout history low (not too low) taxes do generally create jobs and help the economy. This proves that the Democrats do support a stronger Federal Government despite the unbalance.

In conclusion, Democrats support views that benefit themselves without thinking about others.

P.S. I could go on and on but I had to wrap it up... so just say some things are not true and I can prove you wrong. :)
DStallman

Pro

While certain aspects of the Democrats and Republicans have remained characteristics of the respective parties from their inception to today, it is reasonably clear that the parties have exchanged stances on certain issues, and for interesting reasons.

Given that the Republican Party was founded by abolitionists, Free-Soilers, and Whigs, it is clear that the party came to power due to its antislavery stance. The Democrats, then, came to represent the slave states of the South leading into the Civil War. After the Civil War, not much changed, save for the addition of big business support to the Republican platform; this was due to the party taking credit for the rise of multiple industries in post-Civil War America (a credit they rightfully deserved in my personal opinion). However, around the turn of the century, Theodore Roosevelt and his successor Taft both pushed many anti-big business policies to break up monopolies and reduce the power of the elites. Note that this is the exact opposite of the view of the Republican Party today.

Meanwhile, the Democrats became the party of the South, and by default the party of slavery and incidentally racism (while their platform may not have been inherently racist, they were viewed as such by many at the time and did little to dismiss this view). This first began to change throughout the presidency of Franklin Roosevelt, a man whose alignment with the Democratic Party gained him the support of the Southern states, and whose policies to draw the country out of the Great Depression and through World War II garnered him near universal support. The trend of universal Southern support for Democrats continued until the 1968 presidential election, in which several Southern states' electoral votes went to George Wallace, who was running as an Independent. However, the Democratic Party had, during the Great Depression, added entitlements to its possible platform, and this would return during the presidency of Lyndon B. Johnson, whose Great Society programs garnered much support from minorities, most notably blacks, who due to many economical and societal reason found themselves disproportionately poor compared to whites at the time.

Southern support of Democrats then continued until the 1980 presidential election, in which Ronald Reagan won a landslide victory, winning every state except for seven. During his presidency, the policies of both parties didn't change, but the stances that had gradually swapped over the years became apparent.

Thus, the list of major swaps of party aspects is as follows: Republicans went from enemies of elites to being known as the party of the elites, Democrats went from being known as the party of racism to being known as the party for minorities, and the Southern states went from being a mostly Democratic region to a mostly Republican region. While many stances of both have remained on their platforms since the beginning, it is undeniable that many of the primary beliefs have swapped sides over time.
Debate Round No. 1
Packers49

Con

Round #2: Debate round 1

The republicans are definitely not the party of the rich elite. They are the party based mostly on balance between the federal government and the state governments, having a strong military to defend ourselves, and having a strong economy. A strong economy does not mean that the 1% has all the wealth. That is how it works in Communism (China). The Republicans are also not made up by the rich elites. These people value business owners big and small. There are a lot of rich movie stars, singers, and other types of "arts" that are made up by democrats. Even some business owners are Democrats! Lots of the media stations are very rich and the criminal Clinton's are also very rich. Don't mess up this fact. Republicans support hard-working business owners and not as much comedians, media, "arts, etc. The Republicans are not the party of the rich.

Republicans are known to be for freedom and against corruption. This is why they support the Electoral college and a balanced government. The Democrats always want to have an imbalance to benefit themselves (as explained in round 1) which can either end up in less rights for people or a potentially corrupt federal government depending which one they want more of. Hillary Clinton is a great example of this. The only reason she isn't in jail is because they don't know if "she intended to do it." This proves how corrupt the system is right now and it is because of the Clinton's and Democrats. The Republicans did push many anti-corp. and business policies not because they were not for big businesses but because they didn't want corruption.

Both parties blame each other for racism today, but you only here media saying Republicans are racist and that's because most of the media is liberal Democrats. I do think a lot of (not all) of the democrats are racist. recently there has been a story in the news and twitter which is called #BLMKidnapping. Theses people never had ties to BLM movement but these people are still black. These 18 year olds kidnapped a white person with special needs and beat him and repeat the words "F**k Donald Trump" and "F**k all white people" this is very racist and the corrupt media said that they were just being stupid kids. This is obviously not true. This is one of many examples of democrats being racist towards white people. Lots of white people are still Democrats as well.

In conclusion, the Republican party has always opposed corruption and supported freedom. The Republicans have always been opposed to racism as well and always support hard-working business owners (not the wealthy). Lastly the Republicans stand for freedom, a good economy, and no corruption.

P.S. Round 3 will be about final points and debating round 2.
DStallman

Pro

I realize that in many ways, the Democratic party may be corrupt (as is the nature of all politics), but the question is whether or not their respective platforms changed. This being the case, I would certainly say that both parties have switched their positions from the 18th century to today.

I see now that I was wrong in saying that the Republicans are typically viewed as the party of the rich elite. I do believe many people see them as this, but the reason they are viewed in this way is due to the Republican philosophy of supply-side, or "trickle down" economics, which, as I am you you are well aware, focuses on helping businesses grow and produce more, which allows citizens to spend more, which allows businesses to make more revenue and pays higher wages to workers, and so on. While we are not here to debate the validity of this philosophy, it is obvious that during the late 19th century and early 20th century, the Republicans in office were opposed to big business and monopolies, most notably Theodore Roosevelt and William Taft. As such, the Democrats of the time were seen as supporting big business, largely due to Democrat Woodrow Wilson using the war effort to grow many industries, which in turn led to the "Roaring Twenties." For this reason, it is clear that the Republican stance on aiding business and industry has changed since then; whether for better or worse is a matter of opinion.

Also, in regards to the argument about race, the fact that the majority of black voters have switched from the Republican Party to the Democratic Party indicates that there must have been some change in the policy of the two parties. I do not mean to imply that the Republicans are a party of racism, nor do I believe that all Democrats seek civil rights and equality for all. As you stated, the media plays a major role in the perception of each party, which in turn affects the voters. However, it seems to me that the Republican Party began to focus more on promoting the economy in order to create more opportunities for all people, regardless of race or gender, while the Democratic Party focused more on the civil rights aspect. Since passing Civil Rights laws is a more blatant way of promoting equality than using economic methods, the perception of the Democrats was that they sought equality more strongly than the Republican Party. As such, voters who placed an emphasis on equality switched to the Democratic Party.

Also, I neglected to source anything in the first round, but here are some sources from that round and this one:
http://www.nytimes.com...
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by evanjfarrar 1 year ago
evanjfarrar
The Democratic-Republican Party does not really reflect the origins of the Democratic Party, as the Dem-Reps split into the National Republicans headed by John Quincy Adams and the Democrats led by Jackson. Either way, I think Con is going to have a really tough time grappling with the historical facts.
Posted by DStallman 1 year ago
DStallman
@evanjfarrar For the purpose pf the debate, I assumed we were tracing the Democratic Party back to its roots as the Democrat-Republican Party founded by Thomas Jefferson in 1792. However, I tried to mainly focus on the Party in the mid-19th century going forward, as that is when it actually became the Democratic Party.
Posted by evanjfarrar 1 year ago
evanjfarrar
The Democratic Party did not exist in the 18th century. Check your facts.
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.