As most Americans familiar with political history are aware, the Republican and Democratic Parties used to have very different Party platforms than they do today. Some people like to say it was the complete reverse of what it came to be later. But of course it is not that simple. So what was the Democratic Party all about back then? I came across one speech that gives us some very telling insights. It is by a former governor of North Carolina, Charles Aycock, who was a prominent figure in the State during his time. The following excerpts are from a 1910 campaign stump speech: Our Republican friends have been for some years asking scornfully, 'What is a Democrat?' I can tell you what a Democrat is. [ ] A Democrat is a man who believes that our national Government has the powers which were granted to it in the Constitution and none other. A Democrat is a man who believes that the powers not granted to the national Government in the Constitution of the United States are reserved to the people or to the States. A Democrat is a man who believes that the power of taxation is the power to destroy, and that this power was never vested in any Government by a free people except to defray the expenses of the Government economically administered. A Democrat is a man who believes in the individual and thinks that his rights ought not to be restricted in any respect save only so far as is essential to the peace and progress of his neighbors. A Democrat believes in order to be responsive to the quick demands of the people the Government should be as close to the people as it is possible to bring it. A Democrat believes that when you have centralized your Government and made it strong and put it far away from the people, that the great mass of the people cant put their hands upon that Government and enforce the will of the multitude. [ ] We are making more progress, and have made more in the past ten years, under Democratic rule than any other State in the American Union. [ ] Strong, educated, virile, we have the bravest men and the purest women, and are therefore capable of accomplishing more than men less brave and women less pure. Let us maintain the benefit of this ancient government bequeathed to us by our forefathers, and may God bless you every one! Connor, R.D.W, and Poe, Clarence. The Life and Speeches of Charles Brantley Aycock. Garden City, New York: Doubleday, Page & Company, 1912. Because of his support for universal education, Aycocks name adorns school buildings and university halls across the State built in the early 20th Century. Aycock was also a staunch proponent of maintaining racial segregation, which is the reason why public statues of this historical figure have recently been removed from parks under public pressure (this happened at the same time the State stopped displaying the Confederate battle flag honoring Civil War heroes). Not to get distracted from the topic here, of course; this information is merely included to give a little more context. If we look at this speech, it appears decidedly Conservative, in the modern day, something that could only come out of the Republican Party platform. But there are a few unique elements. Aycock was a progressive in the sense that he supported public education and wanted to expand it; he saw this as key to ensuring a well-functioning democracy that would involve the public. The other big facet is his view on the structure of democracy. The Democratic Party platform at the time favored a more direct democracy, where politicians would be more directly accountable to the voting citizens. This was in contrast to the Republican Party. This is perfectly understandable, because at the time the Northern States had a much higher white immigrant population, many poor and uneducated. The Northern Republicans were less comfortable with the concept of the masses directly electing public figures to power. This had an elitist aspect to it, of course. The Southern States simply had different types of societal divisions than in the North. So it can be clearly seen why the Democratic and Republican Parties were originally given the names they have. Yet, ironically today the Republican-style form of government has now become more associated with Conservatives. Or rather, the Conservatives jumped boat (this was around the time of Nixon, but goes back to Barry Goldwaters failed election bid), but the Republican Party platform has always been in favor of a more republican-style form of government. Yet, if we look at the progressives in the Democratic Party today, they do not seem to trust public opinion. They want to use politicians drawn from within their ideological group, but who gain public support from certain groups. This creates a sort of monopoly on power, some would say elitist. And of course, getting judges to implement progressive policies when getting new laws passed would not be possible, or politically expedient. We can even see repeated instances where progressive politicians and judges have ignored public ballot initiatives. This sounds more like the Republican-style from the distant past, not the Democratic platform of Aycock. More hypocrisy? Or is it rather because, just like in the past, the areas under Democratic control today have had a much larger immigrant influx, like the Northern Republican States from so long ago. The Party wants the votes, but does not really want these groups to have too much influence when it comes to implementing particular policies. History really does repeat itself, but manifests in new forms.
