2
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 9:
Line 9: + + + + + + + + + + + +
no edit summary
:Yes. (Another edition of simple answers to simple questions.)--[[User:Jack|Jack]] 04:43, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
:Yes. (Another edition of simple answers to simple questions.)--[[User:Jack|Jack]] 04:43, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
I agree with some of the other criticisms. First off, I am very conservative and was looking forward to coming here to find some truth about the history of our political parties.
A year or two ago, I read [http://www.amazon.com/History-Money-Banking-United-States/dp/0945466331 A History of Money and Banking in the United States, by Murray Rothbard]. For the first time, I realized the parties had changed over the years. My specific observation was that the Democrat and Republican parties seemed to be virtually reversed now compared to what they were in the mid-19th century. I recently decided to dig into it a little more and found that things were much more complicated than I had thought, but that what I had observed in Murray Rothbard's book had some truth to it.
Let me give you a few examples. First, the Whig Party (successor to the Federalist Party [Alexander Hamilton] and predecessor to the Republican Party): pro central bank, more debt, higher taxes, high tariffs, federal aid to the states, paper currency, economic expansion through an activist government, and so on. And the early-20th-century Republican party: in favor of prohibition (think people control).
Second, we have the Democrat Party up until about the end of the 20th century (successor to the Democratic-Republican Party [Thomas Jefferson & James Madison], and eventually morphing into the modern-day Democratic Party): less debt, lower taxes, pro-hard money, distrusted the federal government, opposed to a central bank (Jackson called it a monopoly), pro States' rights, viewed the central government as the enemy of individual liberty, and so on.
These are all simple facts, not subjective and not open to interpretation. Anyway, I just wanted to express my disappointment at this article. I don't know that the author was attempting to deceive anyone, but if not, he just didn't do very good research. It's a shame that someone would be so committed to the name "Republican" that they wouldn't be truthful or committed to adequate research, especially since so many Republican politicians don't care about the Constitution and limited government, anyway. Why be committed to them?
--[[User:Birdus|Birdus]] 18:19, 7 July 2015 (EDT)
== Some of these? ==
== Some of these? ==