Another wingnut strategy for not looking batshit crazy: as soon as something they opposed becomes mainstream, pretend they supported it all along. Go back 150 years if you have to and pretend that the fact that Lincoln was Republican is at all relevant to the current deplorable state of the GOP. Ignore the takeover of crazy Republicans after WW2 and pretend the GOP has just been one consistent stretch of freedom and human rights since its foundation.

I can’t wait till gay rights are mainstream 50 years from now, and we get to hear Republicans pretending they spearheaded that change, too.

During a debate on the House floor today over designating 21 miles of the Molalla River as “wild and scenic,” Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC), who opposes the legislation, tried to claim a progressive environmental record for her party. “Actually, the GOP has been the leader in starting good environmental programs in this country,” said Foxx.

While this statement is pretty ludicrous in general, both in the present and the past, there is one pretty big historical anomoly in terms of enacting major environmental programs by the Republican Party.

Lisa Jackson, the current Director of the Environmental Protection Agency, might not have her job if it weren’t for the 37th President of the United States.  That’s because the EPA was created by an Executive Order signed by Richard Nixon in 1970.

That said, in general, the argument that the GOP has been the more progressive party on any particular topic in the last 100 years or so is absolutely laughable.

Though in today’s GOP, I have to think that Dick Nixon might not last long… he’d be considered a RINO by this current batch and would likely get teabagged out of the party for not being wingnutty enough for their tastes.

The Civil Rights thing is non-sense but wasn’t the EPA a Nixon initiative.  Of course he had a Demo House at the time.

Though in today’s GOP, I have to think that Dick Nixon might not last long… he’d be considered a RINO by this current batch and would likely get teabagged out of the party for not being wingnutty enough for their tastes.

And Nixon was a member of the HUAC at one point.

Another wingnut strategy for not looking batshit crazy: as soon as something they opposed becomes mainstream, pretend they supported it all along. Go back 150 years if you have to and pretend that the fact that Lincoln was Republican is at all relevant to the current deplorable state of the GOP. Ignore the takeover of crazy Republicans after WW2 and pretend the GOP has just been one consistent stretch of freedom and human rights since its foundation.

I don’t necessarily fully agree… I’d put the starting point of the “batshit crazy” era around the time of Barry Goldwater’s nomination in 1964.  But even Goldwater and then Nixon four years later had nothing on these folks, though fundamentally they were the same in many ways.

It’s been a long transition that’s still going on that got us from Lincoln to Bachmann in the GOP.  Teddy Roosevelt was certainly a great Republican POTUS; even Dwight Eisenhower was light years better than the present crop.  Actually, I heard Thom Hartmann making the observation the other day that a reasonable argument could be made that Eisenhower had a more progressive presidency than Bill Clinton.  When you consider that America’s highest earners were getting hit at 90% on their top income during during Ike’s presidency, it’s hard to say that the argument has no merit.

The Civil Rights thing is non-sense but wasn’t the EPA a Nixon initiative.  Of course he had a Demo House at the time.

The EPA was created by Executive Order, not by Congressional legislation… so it actually really was Nixon’s deal.

My point in mentioning Nixon isn’t to paint him as some great progressive (which he certainly wasn’t), but to point out that the Republican Party has gone so far off into crazyville over the past 40 years that even he may have a hard time not being called a RINO among the present crowd.

there is one pretty big historical anomoly in terms of enacting major environmental programs by the Republican Party. - DTG in STL

Actually, there used to be a pro-environment strain even amongst certain elements of what used to be considered the wingnut element of the GOP.

My dad’s maternal grandparents were politically active, rock-ribbed Republicans back in their day somewhere between “country club” and “rabid base” in terms of their politics.  They generally looked askance at big government and such things, but one of the few places where they thought government should play an active role was in terms of protecting the environment.  After all, wouldn’t a conservative want to conserve the environment?  After all, the “invisible hand” can work magic (according to the libertarian right) but even the invisible hand can’t prevent the “tragedy of the commons”, so preserving certain spaces (as well as the air we all breath, etc.) for the greater good was, even to the GOoPers back in the day, very much a role for federal government.

Of course my great-grandparents were also hardline anti-communists, but that didn’t stop them from opposing the Vietnam war, which they blamed on the military-industrial complex.  Remember, after all, Ike was a Republican.

Suffice it to say that my great-grandparents couldn’t stand Reagan, either politically or personally (evidently he snubbed my great-grandmother once).  He and his ilk drove my great-grandparents, at the very end of their lives, into the loving arms of the Democratic party.

I don’t necessarily fully agree… I’d put the starting point of the “batshit crazy” era around the time of Barry Goldwater’s nomination in 1964.

I always figured the Republican batshittery started with their conspiracy theories about the Yalta Conference. Yalta took place in 1945, of course, but if I recall correctly (could be wrong), the conspiracy theories started up at some point in the 50s.

To elaborate on my last point, it seems to me that the GOP craziness was rooted in their attempts to create enemies (Communists, atheists, water fluoridation, traitors within our own government ohnoes) to scare the American people with and thus win elections. They still do this, of course, but I feel like Yalta is when it began, and things like the HUAC were part of the same vein.

Though in today’s GOP, I have to think that Dick Nixon might not last long… he’d be considered a RINO by this current batch and would likely get teabagged out of the party for not being wingnutty enough for their tastes.

You’re probably right, although it’s ironic to note that at the time, Nixon was considered the viable conservative alternative to Nelson Rockefeller, while Ronald Reagan was dismissed as a Goldwateresque nutjob.

How far we’ve come. And not always for the better.

Yalta took place in 1945, of course, but if I recall correctly (could be wrong), the conspiracy theories started up at some point in the 50s.

The conspiracy theories were percolating for a while, but it took Joe McCarthy to really bring them to the forefront. He was perfect for the job, in that he could lie all day long about anything and everything without even blinking.

Yalta took place in 1945, of course, but if I recall correctly (could be wrong), the conspiracy theories started up at some point in the 50s.

The conspiracy theories were percolating for a while, but it took Joe McCarthy to really bring them to the forefront. He was perfect for the job, in that he could lie all day long about anything and everything without even blinking.

Good points about the evolving conspiracy theory thinking that really emerged in the GOP in the immediate aftermath of WWII.

Which leads me to believe that it was perhaps during the Eisenhower Administration that the GOP fully split into two factions - the rational faction, represented by Eisenhower, and the nutjob faction, represented by McCarthy.  McCarthy and Ike were hardly friends, and among the conspiracy wingnut crowd of the GOP, there was a lot of buzz that Ike himself was a communist.

As more time passed, the rational faction was increasingly driven out of the party, and the wingnuts gained more and more power, which has brought us to where we are today, where the wingnuts are in complete control, and the tiny remaining handful of somewhat rational folks (Snowe, Collins, Crist) are being told to go away.  Eisenhower was probably the last relatively good Republican president we’ve had, and Gerald Ford may have been the last Republican POTUS we’ve had that wasn’t completely wingnut insane, though he was totally ineffective in the brief 2.5 years that he was in office.

You’re thinking of two different things.  The GOP has always been crazy; after a certain point, you simply have to be crazy to be racist or to buy the economic ideology which was so violently disproven during the Great Depression.

But the religious right began to rise in the 70s, and that’s the current strain of crazy.

Punditus Maximus @ #13:

Also a valid point.

Though it could be argued that “angry Republicanism” really got it’s biggest push onto the national stage during the McCarthy reign of terror.

Anti-communist Bircher wingnuts were all but directly threatening President Kennedy’s life with a full page ad they placed in the Dallas Morning News on November 22, 1963.  50 minutes after Air Force One touched down at Love Field that day, Kennedy would be brutally assassinated.

“Actually, the GOP has been the leader in starting good environmental programs in this country,” said Foxx.

This is an abuse of the present perfect tense.  In recognition of the fact that the first Earth Day was in fact declared by Nixon - if only to distract attention from his Vietnam policy and various underhanded deeds - we might say:

“Actually, the GOP WAS ONCE (circa 1970) a leader in starting good environmental programs in this country.”

The present progressive tense suggests that what once WAS true still IS true.  But this is not the case with the Republican Party.  That would be like calling it the Party of Lincoln, which it really, really isn’t any more.

It is an ironic truth that in terms of actual policymaking, Nixon, despite his criminal tendencies, was often significantly to the left of the entire Republican Party as presently constituted.  In fact, he signed bills into law that our present Democrat-dominated Congress would probably not be able to pass today.  But the whole country has slouched to the right since then, and it’s a colossal lie to try to pretend that it hasn’t happened, just because it has happened to Democrats and Republicans alike.

I don’t necessarily fully agree… I’d put the starting point of the “batshit crazy” era around the time of Barry Goldwater’s nomination in 1964.

Barry “Mr. Conservative” Goldwater would be considered a raving left wing RINO now.

” you don’t need to be straight to be in the military, you just need to shoot straight”

Barry Goldwater.

The GOP has always been crazy; after a certain point, you simply have to be crazy to be racist or to buy the economic ideology which was so violently disproven during the Great Depression.

Well, there were progressive people in the Republican Party prior to the world wars, Theodore Roosevelt being the most famous. Roosevelt was no liberal paragon, but he did side with workers and against abusive monopolies. After leaving the Republican Party, he helped form a new one, called the Progressive Party, which I think says a lot. Of course, the Progressive Party didn’t survive a single election, but they tried.

The GOP has always had its crazy elements, but they weren’t always one and the same with the entire party like they are now.

But the religious right began to rise in the 70s, and that’s the current strain of crazy.

That much is true.

Nixon was hateful and crazy, but he wasn’t fundamentally disconnected from reality the way that so many GOP wingnuts are today.

I think for that we have to blame the combination of reagan wing of the party and the media who made sure another watergate would never happen again, because if it did they wouldn’t cover it.

Teddy Roosevelt was a conservationist, but it does figure you have to go back that far to find a great, vs. a merely competent, Republican president.

Good post, Amanda. Thanks.

Not only was Nixon to the left of the modern Republican party on most issues, I’d argue that Eisenhower (also a Republican) was significantly to the left of the modern Democratic party on economic and foreign policy issues, though not on civil rights, unfortunately.  Modern Democrats won’t undertake ambitious national infrastructure projects, even though they’re what we need to move into a more sustainable economy.  They certainly aren’t looking to expand Social Security, end a war, or take on the military industrial complex.  Only us fringe left-wingers are actually for any of that crazy stuff.

“Roosevelt was no liberal paragon, but he did side with workers and against abusive monopolies”

not as often as his retoric would have you believe, but compared to Woody Wilson, yeah he was vastly better

Ah yes, Dennis Cardoza. The guy I called to urge him to vote no on the Stupak amendment. He still voted yes.

Roosevelt was no liberal paragon, but he did side with workers and against abusive monopolies”

not as often as his retoric would have you believe, but compared to Woody Wilson, yeah he was vastly better

And ironically, Wilson was the Democrat.  Then again, Wilson was also a huge racist with Klan sympathizers.

“And ironically, Wilson was the Democrat”

Yep, The D’s were a southern regional party after the Civil War, like the R’s are now
Wilson was the 1st southern president since the war

“Then again, Wilson was also a huge racist with Klan sympathizers.”

And founded the national security state, his hand picked successor was trounced by a guy who didnt even campaign.  Harding’s slogan was “return to normalcy”, because the D’s wanted to keep up the wartime domestic spying, investigations, and the questioning peoples patriotism, but the American people were just plain tired of it

That’s why I think that the full time freakout by the R’s about Ft Hood, KSM’s upcomming trial, and “OMG mooselim terrist are hidin under the bed” are not going to play the way they think it will

Reagan ended communism with his bare hands; I read it on the internet. 

And we can go back to JFK’s tax rates any time you want to, Corwin.

could someone please explain the difference between “progressive “ and “liberal” to me .

Not entirely sure, (mind, I could be entirely full of shit here), but I get the idea that “progressive” was a response to un-addressed sexism/misogyny in liberal circles, a rejection of the philosophies of “my liberal identity gives me a pass and makes me immune from criticism” and “take one for the team, ladies.”  The idea being to separate feminist-friendly liberal spaces from sexist or women’s-issue-marginalizing liberal spaces—-such as the much-complained-about Daily Kos.

And then of course the title “progressive” got grabbed and passed around because “hey, this means liberal, we’re liberal, whaddaya mean, sexist? feminism is a special-interest issue, we don’t need to spend all that time paying attention to women’s issues to deserve the title ‘progressive!’” (not spoken, of course, but felt.)

But, that is solely my impression, and I could be entirely wrong; anybody know for sure?

And we can go back to JFK’s tax rates any time you want to, Corwin.

Hell, I’d be OK with going back to the tax rates of 1985 in the middle of Reagan’s presidency.  The top marginal rate was still 50% that year (he then lowered it to 28% in October 1986).

Kyra @ #29 -

I think there’s a lot involved and that might have something to do with it, but I don’t know if that’s precisely why the use of the word “progressive” became the preferred choice among many Americans on the left.  The concept of progressivism in American politics goes back more than 100 years to Teddy Roosevelt, so I’m not sure if it has a ton to do with misogyny.

Part of it, I imagine, is that the word “liberal” became so demonized in the American lexicon over the past few decades that I think a lot of people on the left began calling themselves “progressives” as a means of rebranding the positions of the left with a word that didn’t have the same cultural baggage as “liberal”.

I guess my most basic kindergarten-level understanding of “progressivism” versus “liberalism” (as they are understood in American politics) is that progressivism is a set of ideological beliefs that are further to the left than liberalism.

It should also be pointed out that some of these words don’t necessarily mean what they originally meant.  For example, I’ve heard the argument that Ronald Reagan was a “classic liberal” on economic policy.  While it may sound preposterous to some, it’s actually true, if we’re talking about it from a political science academic perspective and the root meaning of the word.

I have to be blunt - I have never seen a human being who would need less time in makeup in order to play a Demon on a show like Buffy or its ilk.

How the fuck did this woman get elected?  She’s actually evil looking.  I mean,  a lot of politicians are evil, but the insidious thing about them is usually how well they hide it with their slick exteriors.

This one has always postively amazed me.

”could someone please explain the difference between “progressive “ and “liberal” to me”

“A Liberal if 5 degrees to the left of center in the best of times, and 30 degrees to the right of center if it affects him personally” – Phil Ochs

“Progressive” as a political term came up in the early 20th century, usually associated with sanitation and hygiene and good governance and anti-corruption / pro working class (if not necessarily pro-organized labor) policies. and a lot of women’s suffrage, which is where Kyra is sort of right.

At that time, IMHO, “liberal” and “conservative” were considered to be more character traits than indications of political leanings- liberal as in “libertine” and conservative as in “constipated”.

Like DTG in STL said, “Progressive” as a sort of para-liberalism has been around for a long time.

The progressive movement was big in the northeast, still had some kind of vistigial party structure and meaning. “Liberal” and “Conservative” came to take on more entrenched meanings through the middle of the 20th century, and starting in the 1980’s, as the word “liberal” became a pejorative, more and more people started calling themselves progressives.

From my southern conservative congressional district, the two words are basically interchangeable, but I think in some places, the word “progressive” is used to distinguish oneself from the bloated assholes who run the local democratic party (read: Al Wynn vs. Donna Edwards, Maryland primary).

as to an actual ideological difference, there really isn’t one.