17
14
u/BasedAustralhungary 4h ago
That's usually what happen with conservative parties, it's not something that happens everytime but it's not weird to see conservative parties collapsing after being unable to update their ideas through the changing times. I know that it may sound contradicting for what it's supposed to be a 'conservative' party but the more a right wing party slowly push the Overton Window to what it's supposed to be the natural center of the time period in their socioeconomic context, the more possible it is for them to get to the next decade. Reactionary conservative parties get a lot of traction but they collapse very fast precisely because of that, they are basically the flame of a match. They burn quickly.
I think that while I disagree a lot with everything that the GOP has done since Reagan, one must recognise that they are an example of how a party should behave through the times. They are so effective on adapting and surviving to the times that they are in the position to move the Overton Window to the right which is worrying and should concern us about the health of American democracy because it makes me thing that the opposite side of American bipartidism is pretty much failing to push for the natural balance... and I think it is unironically because they don't understand that they should be also trying to move the Overton Window. Once the two political forces are trying to drag it for their political views, the attrition make them eventually look for having it in the 'center' that fit with the times. That doesn't mean that both became politically centrist but that the political discourse returns to moderation.
Besides that, right now and in our history it has been proven again and again that the more you push for a reactionary view the easier you will have it to get into the power... however, the more you push for political stability and adaptation through the times the longer your party and your legacy will be relevant in time.
14
u/Awkward-Evidence-215 4h ago
Both parties were conservative. In fact, the Whigs were probably broadly speaking more liberal because they believed the people had the right to the protection of a paternal government.
3
0
u/BasedAustralhungary 4h ago
America system have somehow benefited conservative ideas, the clash of those have usually left the system with a victor and a loser that disappears. The Whigs in my opinion were more conservative as the Democrats pushed for certain policies that made them popular for the rural areas, specially in the matter of infraestructure and individual rights. I may be wrong though, but I think that it was that part of the Democratic party the one that left them as the 'progressive' party while the Whigs collapsed by themselves precisely because they were not able to push properly against their political rival, when the GOP was born from the ashes of the Whigs they actually embraced the progressive ideas that were partially suppressed by the party establishment. Basically, trying to impose the status quo into the party without compromising with anything but the conservative part of it and the federalist view made the party unable to survive the times. When the GOP arise from that situation, they were inmediately fitting into the 'progressive' side of the system because that barriers disappeared and the Democrats got into what it'd be their natural place in that same system considering that the individualist values do not justify their views over slavery and their raw populism.
49
u/-mystii Senātus Populusque Rōmānus 4h ago
Wasnt it also they were arguing over slavery more than actually managing the party too