Are you a 1954 Republican?

[Pryderi]

From their 1954 platform:

Under the Republican Administration, as our country has prospered, so have its people. This is as it should be, for as President Eisenhower said: "Labor is the United States. The men and women, who with their minds, their hearts and hands, create the wealth that is shared in this country—they are America."

The Eisenhower Administration has brought to our people the highest employment, the highest wages and the highest standard of living ever enjoyed by any nation. Today there are nearly 67 million men and women at work in the United States, 4 million more than in 1952. Wages have increased substantially over the past 3 1/2 years; but, more important, the American wage earner today can buy more than ever before for himself and his family because his pay check has not been eaten away by rising taxes and soaring prices.

The record of performance of the Republican Administration on behalf of our working men and women goes still further. The Federal minimum wage has been raised for more than 2 million workers. Social Security has been extended to an additional 10 million workers and the benefits raised for 6 1/2 million. The protection of unemployment insurance has been brought to 4 million additional workers. There have been increased workmen's compensation benefits for longshoremen and harbor workers, increased retirement benefits for railroad employees, and wage increases and improved welfare and pension plans for federal employees.

In addition, the Eisenhower Administration has enforced more vigorously and effectively than ever before, the laws which protect the working standards of our people.

Workers have benefited by the progress which has been made in carrying out the programs and principles set forth in the 1952



Read more at the American Presidency Project: Republican Party Platforms: Republican Party Platform of 1956 http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=25838#ixzz1JRV2GgXs

[Avalux]

1. Eisenhower wouldn't be a Republican if he lived now.

He'd be middle of the road compared to the current Republican platform, which is:

1. Destroy the middle class
2. Consolidate wealth among the few at the top
3. De-regulate everything for capital gain
4. Use religion, race and sex to divide
5. Lie like hell

But no, I'm not a 1954 Republican. I am a progressive and probably a socialist.

[FiveGoodMen]

5. Certainly not.

Even if Ike wanted to stay in that party, they wouldn't have him.

The whole reason the pukes are so awful is that the really bad ones kicked out everyone else.

[baldguy]

7. I'm for Adlai.

Look familiar?

[DonCoquixote]

10. Hell

Reagan would not make GOP muster.

[Cleita]

8. I remember reading that Ike didn't really belong to a party

while he was a general. I believe he was an Independent. He got drafted by the Republicans for President so he joined the Party, but he really wasn't a party animal. There was no hard core ideology behind Ike's policies. My parents were Republicans back then. I was a teen. However, they were firm believers in a strong middle class and the policies it took to maintain that middle class. They also believed in peace and going to war only when we were under dire threat so they liked Eisenhower because he promised to end the Korean war, which he did, and he kept us out of war throughout his administration. My parents liked that.

[CatholicEdHead]

17. I agree

I am partway through "The Ordeal of Power", a history of the Eisenhower administrations, and Ike was seen as a person who was thrust into the job and not into party politics. The author said this even though he served on Ike's staff and was highly sympathetic to the New Deal FDR style democrats.

[BlueJac]

2. No

I am a socialist

[hifiguy]

6. Ditto, but it is clear that Ike

and maybe even ole Tricky Dick Nixon himself would be well to the left of today's Dems, much less the Repudlickers, on the basis of their written policy statements.

[CatholicEdHead]

3. We can thank FDR and the Labor movements of the previous century

for getting to that point.

[progressoid]

4. How sad that most people don't even realize how far we have shifted to the right in this country.

Of course there are those on the right that realize but prefer to pretend that "libruls" are taking over. Makes it easier to rally to troops against us.

[bvar22]

9. No. I'm a 1950's DEMOCRAT:

"We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.”<2> People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

*The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

*The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

*The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

*The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

*The right of every family to a decent home;

*The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

*The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

*The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

Americas own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for all our citizens.

For unless there is security here at home there cannot be lasting peace in the world."---FDR 1944

Today's New Democrat Centrist Party is WELL to the RIGHT of Eisenhower.



Who will STAND UP and FIGHT for THIS American Majority?

By their WORKS they will be held accountable.

[cali]

11. Nope. Adlai all the way.

[TNLib]

12. It's sad that the democrats are to the right of the 1950's gop

nt

[Dread Pirate Roberts]

13. Incredibly Interesting Question

I probably wouldn't have been a republican then but...I wouldn't have hated the republicans then either. In the 50's, except for the John Birchers and the communist witch hunters, republicans were pretty solid citizens, just not real forward thinkers. You know, the insurance agent from Main St. who got elected to the school board when the budget got out of control. People with whom it was possible to disagree with without it becoming a demonizing morality play. A little conservative and authoritarian for my taste, but not the toxin to our society that they are now. I don't know where those people went. Eisenhower was no progressive thinker but his administration did see the Civil Rights Act of 1957 passed and his admonitions about the Military-Industrial Complex were prescient. Today? You get drummed out of the republican party if you want to be reasonable or if you don't believe in working toward an ultra-conservative hegemony. The republicans of today are our own home-grown version of the Taliban. Extremely useful tools for the corporatists who are in control.

[Terra Alta]

14. I'm a 2010s socialist Democrat

It makes me angry to see my party being hijacked by conservatives masquerading as moderates and even liberals.

[xchrom]

15. Kicking for an interesting conversation. Nt

[ozone_man]

16. We've drifted steadily to the right and corporate fascism.

Ike and Nixon look like progressives now. How strange.

[deaniac21]

18. This just reminds me of how much we need Wes Clark. Wish

he would run.