please help... was american politics in the 19th centure driven more by economics than democratic ideals?
965348
Hi again Mayso...\nGoing by what I have learnt (we don't exactly worry about the US here in Australia :P) American politics has never been driven by democratic ideals, rather the economics was the driving force behind many decisions made. However, these decisions were made with the American people in mind.\nI would suggest going to Google, and having a looksie...\n:)\nGood luck
1152586
I actually thought it was more Federalist/Republican, cause it gave much more big government rights than the Articles of Confederation, but I suppose it preserved and made lasting many democratic traditions (like House of Reps depending on population, voting for those in office--even though electoral college was made to protect the rich from the masses), and even though the men were very elite, they made every effort to give everybody equal rights, as long as they did not fear the danger (ie French Rev. memories) and gave the poor a chance to ascend to the top.
24220
Not only not enough horsepower (which I agree with), but also because the U.S. has a two-party system ingrained in it's politics.  It's been basically a two-party system since the revolution.
1084569
LOL!!  That's a great point, I hadn't read those statistics.  I guess it's 'cause the Lib's have made a smoke and mirror's campaign suggesting that they fight for the "working man", and since the vast majority of the population makes less then 70K per year, that's who the Dem's try to appeal to.  It makes them look good I suppose to bash people like me, who put themselves through school, worked hard, and now has a job well above the national average.  It's a snow job.  I've always thought that the major distinction between Dem's and Repubs is that Repubs believe it's the governments job to create and sustain a country where you can achieve happiness, while the Dem's of today believe its the governments job to try and provide it.  If you work towards achieving your own happiness, I think you often fall into a higher tax bracket because of your ambition and work ethic.  Good question, thanks!
952021
but the largest economies in the country (california and new york) have democratic legislature.  hmmm......kind throws a monkey wrench in your argument, doncha think?
370967
America started from a pretty bland group of Protestents who came here to get away from discrimanation in England or were shipped here as slaves (endentured servents and people from debter's prisons). Hessions who stayed after serving as mercs in the revolutionary war only reinforced this make up. Then came the aquisition of French and Spanish lands as well as large imigrations of Jewish and Catholic settlers. Before these people groups like the Dutch were minorities and suffered the same treatment that the Irish, Italians, freed slaves, and so on suffered when they first broke into American society. \n\nSo the "old blood" money formed a WASP type social structure to keep out unwanted Catholics, Jews and other ethnic groups. This formed the base group which ironically forms the core today of the "liberal" leadership. \n\nThe so called conservitive movement started as a sort of Farmer's rebellion against the corruption and lack of rural representation found in the Gov around the time of the cival war. It was born of the same problems which caused the South a mostly rural area to suceed from the union. Sorry slavery was a minor issue in the cival war. Abe Lincoln was the first Republican elected president. The Whig party disapeered almost overnight. Many of them becoming either democrats or republicans. \n\nNew money had arisen during the intervening years. The railroad barons, Catholics and Jews who had struck it rich, often initially with ilegal enterprises, imigrants from other nations who came here with money. They lived a work ethic and it became the "American dream" while the Democrats remains a party of the old blood and Whites in the South who hated the Republican party for winning the cival war and dozens of other issues. \n\nThis is pretty much where things sat for most of 50 years. The Democrats eventually lured over labor to it's party. Certain ethnic groups like the Irish and Jews who worked the docks and other interests found themselves lined up with teh Democrats who's old money leadership was trying to strike down the new money. By accident alot of good things happened in the process of the two sides fighting this war. Better wages and workplace safety being a couple of those things. \n\nToday it's still a battle between old blood and new blood money. Added to it are quite a few special interests. Big corps and small biz tends to be "conservitive". The WASP churches found affinity with Republicans while the Catholic church found affinity with the Democrats. However down the road the Democrats catered to many other groups almost forcing the Catholic church into Republican boundries with an anti-Christian flavor that took hold in the 60s. \n\nSo theologically the so called "liberals" denounce religion officially but strongly favor anti-Christian religions or the lack of religion. Part of this was the failure of the US comunist party and the movement of Comunists into the Democratic party. Comunists as a fundemental plank are athiests. Comunism officially sees religion as a form of oppression. An Opiate of the masses to quote Marx. The adoption of the Democratic party and large scale conversion to Islam by many Blacks furthor added to this. \n\nRepublicans got a swelling of Christian support as a result and suddenly they became charged with protecting Christianity, especially Protestent Christianity. Republicans welcomed the Christian factions then and still do today though they are smarting from the actions of some televangilists and some of the extreme views found in the more fanatical Christian churches. \n\nAs for values. That is not a thought in the head of either party. They will run up slogans but these are purely to satisfy various factions within their party. Both liberal and conservitive have lost all sight of the meaning of the constitution. Both pretend to fight for upholding various sections of the US Constitution. For example in issu
575623
Yes. A lot of people fail to make this distinction, but socialism is a type of economy, whereas democracy is a type of government.\n\nFrance and Mexico both have Republican democracies, both very similar to the U.S.'s form of government.
991536
I've answered this question before, but I'll answer it again.\n\n1.  I grew up in the Reagan era, watching one of our truly great Presidents in action.  Reagan was by the far the greatest President of my lifetime, and his ideas and vision resonated with me.\n\n2.  Republican ideas (that's general ideas, not necessarily the actions of the current Congress) are more in line with my beliefs than Democratic ideas.\n\n3.  I always seem to pay more taxes when Democrats are in charge.  For instance, here in Pennsylvania, we have something called the "Occupational Privilege Tax", which is $10 a year essentially for the "privilege" of being employed in PA.  Well, under current Gov. Ed Rendell (a Democrat), that number has magically soared to $52.  I got a raise a few weeks ago, but that was also the week they took the extra money out, which wiped out the extra money I made that week.\n\nThose are the main reasons for me personally.
167473
That's why I am no longer a democrate. I was one for 40 years. I am poor, but realized, I was with the party that kept people dependent on Government. With tax cuts, my kids get more money back now. And the Rich are able to start new large companies, to give more jobs for people.
1169158
LOL, that's a good one.  It's all a matter of interpretation.  The buzzword is "democracy", when people use that word they can mean either an old fashioned American Style Democracy, or a European style social democracy.  Unfortunately since the mid thirties American government has been slowly morphing into the latter.  In a social democracy voting is merged with socialist ideology that everyone deserves a "minimum" standard of living.  In the older American model people got what they deserved through hard work or not.  Success was a prize to be won, not an entitlement to be taken for granted.\n      It all comes down to ideology, and niether one of the parties is "conservative" in the original American sense of limiting government's power, taxes on the citizens, and preventing a big central authority from dictating to the States or the people.  In my opinion, both parties are social democratic parties at their face value, but also elite privilege makers to keep corporate sponsors happy and donating to the campaigns.  We have evolved a strange two faced game where politicians try to placate the poor people with programs and the rich with tax shelters, leaving the hard working economic producing classes (middle or not) holding the bag.  The only real answer is a hard look at history (which most are scared to take) that inspires a new party that believes in limited government, freedom, and letting individual people sink or swim on their own merits, helped if they need help, by their families and local communities, not uncle sam's big fat pocket book. Happy surfing, I'm out.
439686
The main one I can think of is industrialization. Following the Civil War, we witnessed the birth of corporate America and the making of Getty and Rockefeller. Fortunes were made in Oil and Steel.
913300
The south has always been typically more conservative.  The south was actually predominantly Democrat before the civil rights movement, these were called the Dixiecrats.  Now the Republicans are more interested with lessened government interference in economic matters, and many Southerners agree with these statements.  In the north the population is more condensed into cities, which tends to promote more liberal ideals, while in the south things are typically more spread out, which lends itself to more conservative thinking
1117304
You mean in the United States?\n\nThe government here has always relied on functionalism as in the 1800s and 1900s when major reform movements were carried out. Prohibition, de-segragation, quota laws.\n\nDemocratic? I'm not so sure, besides some political movements started by citizens a vast majority of "democratic" power lies in the hands of the politicians and the coporate leaders. But of course we are the ones who vote for our politicians so I guess it is democractic in some sense.\n\nHope this helps.\n\nBest WIshes, \nTony
313096
I'm not an American, and the word 'Liberal' means very different things in many countries. For you it seems roughly synonymous with 'Democrat'. But let's give it a try...\n\nDon't know about Robert Byrd but I do know about David Duke.\n\nLast time I checked Thurgood Marshall was black and Ruth Baker Ginsberg was female. Johnson appointed Marshall and Clinton appointed Ginsberg.\n\nThe Democrats who filibustered in 1964 were all Southern, and at that time the Democratic party was very much a southern institution. I don't think many of those Democratic senators, or the people who voted for and supported them, would have described themselves as 'liberal'. Anyway, the Democrats still voted 153-96 in its favour.\n\nTed Kennedy - no comment.\n\nI bet you would find 'unkind name calling' equally prevalent on both sides. It's not good when either side does it, but there you are.\n\nI wouldn't know the Liberals that you know, and more importantly I wouldn't know the shopping alternatives in the community where you live, but I also think that the Democratic Party's position on 'outsourcing' is a little bit odd. I won't try to justify it here, except to say that I think you'll find a lot of Republicans who also have a similar attitude to outsourcing.\n\nAnyway, Wal-Mart is an American shop; I would bet that their percentage of foreign-made products is similar to that of many other chain stores.\n\nAs far as being pro-choice goes, I think you'll find that allowing women control over their own bodies is quite in keeping with the general Democratic agenda (in my personal opinion, a general humanist agenda). And I would like to imagine that you do not actually believe that the things that you list in that paragraph are not worthy causes, so the comparison does not really bear further consideration.
816424
B...and imagine the shocker when Jefferson pulled the Louisiana Purchase off...that was a broad interpretation.  Federalists (conservative) died out.  Republicanism died out (is was the more liberal party.)  Eventually, the Know-nothings (that wanted to get rid of Catholic power), and the Democrats came forward.  The Kansas-Nebraska Act pretty much split the Whigs, the Democrats and the Know-nothings in half.  The Whigs faded away along with the Know-nothings, and the Democrats split to become our two major parties.
192575
Isn't the american revolution when United States got the independence? I don't think the whig party was during that time. Whig party was created years later because these people had different views from this one president at the time.
848575
10-20 years ago it was simpler...the democrats were for blue collar and more environmental...the Repupl;icans were always for big business and a bigger military budget....classic bread and butter against guns...there was a balance, both got their way once in a while....now the issue is getting clouded because the Republicans have reversed their ideology (causing the Democrats to change as well) from nothing but the economy stupid to global intervention in the name of business.  but to be fair, there are traditionalists on both sides.