Also, the Whigs couldn't apply their founding principles to new circumstances because the Whigs didn't have any founding principles. There were principled Whigs and a Whig agenda, but there was no agreed set of Whig principles. eg, the party's embarrassed incoherence on slavery.https://twitter.com/NateBell4AR/status/1152217017405100033 …
-
Show this thread
-
Republicans are different. Unlike the Whigs, unlike the Federalists, unlike the Democrats, Republicans were explicitly founded around a set of ideas rather than just an agenda or a collection of interest groups. Those ideas have both defined & disciplined the party for 160 years.
14 replies 10 retweets 56 likesShow this thread -
Nobody who knows the history of the Republican Party would claim that it has always been 100% faithful to its founding principles, or that it has been immune to catering to its constituent groups or pandering to baser voter sentiment. But the gravitational force of ideas matters.
2 replies 5 retweets 56 likesShow this thread -
The Democratic Party has veered all over the place in terms of ideology & which voters' resentments & rent-seeking it is catering to at any given time or place. But its history as a collection of interest groups nakedly pursuing their own narrow agendas is the real continuity.
2 replies 12 retweets 69 likesShow this thread -
Republican history is, by contrast, far more consistent over time back to the 1850s - in outlook, culture, and temperament as well as ideas - than is typically acknowledged. What is portrayed as Republican change is often simply the contrast presented by Democratic shifts.
88 replies 23 retweets 103 likesShow this thread -
The challenge in the Trump era is preserving the things that kept the Republican Party constrained by, even inspired by, its founding principles for a century and a half. Elements like Trump were there from the start, but the party's never been led by them.
7 replies 10 retweets 55 likesShow this thread -
Anybody who tells you that Lincoln's party would not have tolerated Know-Nothing nativists in its ranks is historically illiterate. The party forged a majority by doing literally that. Lincoln despised the Know-Nothings, but kept his mouth shut, had an ex-Know-Nothing as his AG.
5 replies 11 retweets 64 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @baseballcrank
Not that complicated. Know Nothings were anti-immigrant/Catholics, but also anti-slavery.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @yeselson
Hence, Lincoln's willingness to bite his tongue - which he privately admitted doing - about their deplorable nativist attitudes in order to build a coalition on areas of agreement drawn from the party's first principles. That's my point.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @baseballcrank
Ok—I just wanted it made explicit that the Know Nothings were a mixed bag and there was space for them to work with Lincoln.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Indeed. Mixed bags and how to work them into the party without watering its principles down to nothing has been an issue Republicans have been wrestling with since the 1850s.
-
-
Replying to @baseballcrank
Given two major parties, it’s a recurrent issue for both of them.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.