I like it. But that sounds like one choice, I would see no reason there would need to be 2 parties that agreed on policy. Ireland has that, it's silly.
If not for the race issue the Bourbons and GOP conservatives might have teamed and GOP and rat socialists likewise.
The biggy back then was trade, I guess I'd be a bourbon on that. Though who knows BACK IN THE DAY I might have been in favor of tariffs. Back in the day businessmen supported protectionism.
When thing I don't get is Bourbon foreign policy, how'd the dems go from manifest destiny to non-interventionist? That was a true "switch". The Whigs had been more dovish, opposing the Mexican War.
I think one reason the Whigs weren’t hot on the Mexican War and getting Texas was because it was adding Democrat territory.
I think Ireland is a rather unique circumstance, there are two squishy right-of-center parties that agree on 90% of the issues but hate each others guts and refuse to work together or form any kind of government together because they are still butt hurt over something that happening during Irish Independence or whatever, and as a result they split the conservative vote and the leftists are able to form a government.
What fieldmarshaldj is talking about is something more akin to modern day Poland, where the two "major" parties in the country (the Law and Justice Party and the Civic Platform Party) are both conservative. They agree on 80%-90% of the issues, the main difference is the Law and Justice Party is anti-EU and Civic Platform Party is pro-EU. Voters basically get to choose between having a conservative government or having an even more conservative government (the more conservative, anti-EU party is currently in power) Left-wing parties exist in Poland as an alternative (the Democratic Left Alliance is an example) but they are minor third parties that win only a handful of seats at the local level. It's a win-win scenario for us.
I agree that would be pretty refreshing if the RATS were NEVER taken over by the William Jennings Bryan wing of the party and we had a Polish-style government from the 20th century onward. Just imagine no 1913 progressive era, no FDR court-packing scheme, no Earl Warren Supreme Court, and no "Great Society". If both parties were basically conservative, I imagine disgruntled lefties in this country would have done what they did in 1924 and formed a permanent left-wing third party in the U.S. (probably named the "Progressive Party) to oppose the Republicans and the Democrats in every election, but they wouldn't able to do much harm if they were like the Liberal Democrats in the UK and didn't have the ability to ever get in power. Most likely they'd try to push both of the "major" parties in the U.S. to the left.
>> Though who knows BACK IN THE DAY I might have been in favor of tariffs. Back in the day businessmen supported protectionism.When thing I don't get is Bourbon foreign policy, how'd the dems go from manifest destiny to non-interventionist? That was a true "switch". <<
The RATs are "non-interventionist" and "anti-war" on paper, but when they actually get in power in another story. Both Woodrow Wilson and FDR swore up and down that they'd keep us out of war, then got us into World War I and World War II, respectively. Bob Dole had a great line at a debate pointing out every major war of the 20th century was started by a Democrat. Even Obama continued AND EXPANDED every single Bush military effort and foreign policy initiative that he vehemently campaigned against and pledged to abolish.
On tariffs, however, that might indeed be a true example where "the two parties switched sides" from where they were in the 19th century. I've heard Pat Buchanan and others complain that back in the day, the Democrats were the ones pushing free trade and the GOP was the one promoting protectionism. Ironically in the late 19th century it was the ONLY major issue they fought over, since the whole civil war era stuff was old news and the Republicans couldn't get any more mileage out of "waving the bloody shirt" and reminding voters that the DemonRats were the party of slavery and treason. By the 1880s it was old news. That's one of the reasons I don't think both parties remaining right-of-center would have resulted in a situation like in Ireland where they squabble over something that happened a century ago.