Fanatical Right or Radical Left: Which Party is Really More Extreme?
With the presidential conventions over, the 2020 political campaign season enters its home stretch. From now until election day, we will hear, over and over again, that one party consists of radical socialists seeking the end of American freedom, while the other represents the extreme right wing trying to recreate the era of robber barons, child labor, and Jim Crow. Each, we are told, is so far outside the mainstream that adopting their policies would represent an unprecedented threat to the way of life Americans have known for generations.
Hyperbole, of course, is a well-used tactic in politics. And labeling your opponent as extreme and dangerous has consistently proven remarkably effective. Repeatedly hearing such claims, however, can desensitize us to their truth and obscure the real scope of the policies proposed by the two parties. In an ideal republic, voting would be based on an understanding of the actual proposals, and not fear inflamed by triggering words and phrases.
As a result, I thought it would be a useful – if not critical – exercise to try to strip away the rhetoric and see whether the professed goals of the Republicans and the Democrats in 2020 are as unprecedented and perilous as their respective opponents would have us believe. Does either party actually represent a radical deviation from America’s past?
Adjudging the accuracy of claims that one party or the other represents an unprecedented extreme, however, is made difficult as there are, in fact, no easy and universally agreed categories of extreme positions. What seems a logical next step to one person may seem an unacceptable leap into the void to another. So how do we identify what each party stands for, and whether its goals are without precedent?
As to the first question, I think the best guide to a party’s policies is the campaign platform adopted for its presidential convention. Of course, it is often the case that the goals set forth in these platforms are never in fact achieved (or even attempted), and each newly elected president has usually defined his own agenda as he enters into office. And as political, rather than legal, documents, the platforms are often designed to assuage certain constituencies that may not in fact receive real attention once the election is over. But I think nevertheless that the platforms form a basis for identifying the principles that guide the adopting party, and the methods they will use and goals they will seek should they obtain power.
Since the Republican Party elected not to adopt a new platform this year, I have looked to their platform from 2016, and to the 2020 platform adopted by the Democratic Party.
Defining what should be considered left, right, far left, far right, or centrist, however, is more challenging. Even defining the axes by which left and right are measured has evaded social scientists. But a comprehensive definition isn’t really necessary for our purposes.
In order to categorize current Republican and Democratic policies, I suggest we look back to the platforms of those same parties from the 1956 and 1960 election years. Those platforms represent the views of the parties’ mainstream politicians after World War II and its immediate aftermath, but before the more radical movements of the 1960s (both of the left and of the right) began to redefine American politics. A policy set forth in the Republican platform for one of those years (or something that represents a modest evolution of such a policy) could reasonably be called mainstream conservative, while a policy found in or evolved from one of those Democratic platforms would be mainstream liberal. Policies common to both parties’ platforms would be centrist.
Classification of modern positions that aren’t found in the platforms of 1956 or 1960 and aren’t modest evolutions of those positions is a bit harder, and requires judgment calls with which not everyone will agree. To the extent a policy seems to be based on clear principles set forth in one of those earlier platforms and to arise from a continuation along a spectrum, I would consider them either right or left, as the case may be. Those that seem more revolutionary than evolutionary would be deemed far right or far left. As a further filter, I would only classify a policy as far right or far left if it represents a position not currently common in developed western European countries.
Needless to say, this methodology isn’t perfect. Certain issues of great concern in the 1950s (such as the expansion of Communist states) are no longer of much relevance, while many matters that currently divide the nation (such as abortion rights and the rights of LGBTQ+ persons) were effectively unknown 60 years ago. Even more, comparing foreign relations over six decades of vast changes in the international environment is nearly impossible. As a result, I have focused my analysis on domestic matters. Where new issues have arisen, I have attempted to categorize them by comparison to earlier concepts to the extent possible, but in some cases reasonable minds may differ.
I also limit my analysis to actual policy proposals, not the behavior of our politicians. There is much that President Trump says and does that is without precedent, but that is not the focus of this post. Further, I am not attempting to address whether any given policy is a good idea or a bad idea, whether radical or otherwise. Rather, the question is solely whether a party’s position on an issue is or is not a radical departure from the goals envisioned back in the 1950s.
Finally, while the party platforms of 1956 and 1960 were lengthy, those of 2016 and 2020 are degrees longer, with much more detail, brimming with platitudes, principles, and plans. Any analysis by definition will have to consolidate and simplify, to some degree, the statements contained in the platforms.
With those caveats out of the way, let’s look at various issues addressed in the platforms and see how today’s parties come out.
Wage and Labor Conditions
The 1956 Republican platform noted that during the immediately preceding four years, the federal minimum wage had been raised for more than 2 million Americans, and noted that “the Eisenhower Administration has enforced more vigorously and effectively than ever before, the laws which protect the working standards of our people.” Among other things, the platform called for: the continuation or expansion of programs to assist older workers, handicapped workers, members of minority groups, and migratory workers; the assurance of equal pay for equal work regardless of sex; the extension of the protection of the Federal minimum wage laws to as many more workers as was possible and practicable; the elimination of discrimination in employment because of race, creed, color, national origin, ancestry or sex; and providing assistance to improve the economic conditions of areas faced with persistent and substantial unemployment.
In 1960, the Republican platform called for “[r]elating wage and other payments in production to productivity—except when necessary to correct inequalities—in order to help us stay competitive at home and abroad.” The balance of the platform, much like that of 1956, celebrated worker protections provided under federal law and encouraged by the Eisenhower administration.
Interestingly, the Democratic platforms of 1956 and 1960, though differing in syntax, were largely similar in substance to the Republican platforms. The Democrats did call for increasing the minimum wage to $1.25 per hour, and for the extension of the Fair Labor Standards Act to all employees engaged in interstate commerce.
The 2016 Republican platform called for the minimum wage to be handled at the state and local level, and did not mention worker protection at all. Instead, the main focus of the platform was on creating flexibility in employment relations and protecting the franchise business model.
The 2020 Democratic platform called for an increase in the minimum wage to $15 per hour by 2026, and the implementation of a program providing for paid sick days and a paid family and medical leave system.
A clear trend can be drawn from the platforms of both parties in 1956 and 1960 to the Democratic platform of 2020. It would not be hard to imagine most of the modern-day Democratic proposals slotted into the earlier platforms, with minor changes to reflect inflation.
On the other hand, the 1956 and 1960 platforms of both parties have little or nothing in common with the Republican platform of 2016. Rather than a focus on protecting workers, it looked to reduce restrictions on how employers could engage employees without legal impediments. This is also largely inconsistent with current governmental policies in western Europe.
Verdict:
2016 Republican Platform: Right to Far Right
2020 Democratic Platform: Center to Mainstream Liberal
Unions
The 1956 Republican platform provided that “[t]he protection of the right of workers to organize into unions and to bargain collectively is the firm and permanent policy of the Eisenhower Administration.” It notes that, in the preceding four years, “[a]ll workers have gained and unions have grown in strength and responsibility, and have increased their membership by 2 millions.” The platform commends the Eisenhower administration for not intervening in disputes between labor and management, and further calls for clarifying and strengthening “the eight-hour laws for the benefit of workers who are subject to federal wage standards on Federal and Federally-assisted construction, and [to] maintain and continue the vigorous administration of the Federal prevailing minimum wage law for public supply contracts”.
The 1960 Republican platform further provided that “Republican policy firmly supports the right of employers and unions freely to enter into agreements providing for the union shop and other forms of union security as authorized by the Labor-Management Relations Act of 1947 (the Taft-Hartley Act ).”
The 1956 Democratic platform called for the repeal of the Taft-Hartley Act in full, while their 1960 platform called for the repeal of anti-labor provisions in that law, including provisions permitting states to adopt "right-to-work" laws, and limitations on the rights to strike, to picket peacefully, and to tell the public the facts of a labor dispute.
The 2016 Republican platform calls for the repeal of the Davis-Bacon Act, which requires government contractors to pay prevailing wages to their employees, and seeks the de-unionization of the Transportation Security Administration. It calls for laws requiring union transparency, the right of workers to form union alternatives (usually, employer-sponsored groups), and preventing unions from being able to veto compensation or benefits given to specific employees. It supports the adoption of “right to work” laws by the states.
The 2020 Democratic platform seeks the repeal of what they view as anti-labor provisions in the law, including prohibitions on the right to launch secondary boycotts and the authorization for “right to work” laws. It further seeks to extend wage and hour protections to workers not currently covered by such laws, including domestic workers and farmworkers. It calls for strengthening unions though recognition by majority sign-up (“card check”) and banning mandatory meetings imposed by employers.
The Democratic policy goals of 2020 are in many ways very similar, if not identical, to those in 1956 and 1960, where the restrictions imposed by the Taft-Hartley Act continue to be a focus. The Republican platform, on the other hand, exhibits a hostility to unions that was not evident in either party’s platforms in those earlier years. While the Republican party of the 1950s wanted limitations on the power of unions, they also asserted that strong unions were on balance a positive.
Verdict:
2016 Republican Platform: Right to Far Right
2020 Democratic Platform: Mainstream Liberal
Monopolies
In their 1956 platform, the Republican party called for legislation that would enable “closer Federal scrutiny of mergers which have significant or potential monopolistic connotations”. It also called for procedural changes in antitrust laws to facilitate enforcement. Their 1960 platform was even more brief, only calling for the continued active enforcement of the anti-trust laws.
The Democratic platforms of those years included much more extensive text relating to monopoly power. Their 1960 platform pledged vigorous enforcement of the antitrust laws, requiring corporations to file advance notice of mergers with the anti-trust enforcement agencies, and permitting all firms to have access at reasonable rates to patented inventions resulting from government-financed research and development contracts.
The 2016 Republican party platform was entirely silent on monopoly and anti-trust. One can either interpret this to mean that they intended no change to the applicable laws and enforcement, or that they did not endorse the adoption or the use of such laws. Actual enforcement proceedings during the current term of the Trump Administration suggests that anti-trust enforcement (as opposed to rhetoric) is not a priority of the administration.
The 2020 Democratic platform said they would “direct regulators to consider potential effects of future mergers on the labor market, on low-income and marginalized communities, and on racial equity, as well as on consumer prices and market competition.” Further, “as a last resort, regulators should consider breaking up corporations if they find they are using their market power to engage in anti-competitive activities.”
Verdict:
2016 Republican Platform: Right or Far Right (or Incomplete)
2020 Democratic Platform: Mainstream Liberal
Infrastructure
The 1956 Republican platform noted that to “meet the immense demands of our expanding economy, we have initiated the largest highway, air and maritime programs in history, each soundly financed.” In 1960, it said the Republican party favored “[c]ontinued improvement of our vital transportation network, carrying forward rapidly the vast Eisenhower-Nixon national highway program and promoting safe, efficient, competitive and integrated transport by air, road, rail and water under equitable, impartial and minimal regulation directed to those ends.”
The 1956 Democratic platform called for “the development and maintenance, under the competitive free enterprise system, of a strong, efficient and financially sound system of common-carrier transportation by water, highway, rail, and air”. In 1960, the Democrats promised to “establish a national transportation policy, designed to coordinate and modernize our facilities for transportation by road, rail, water, and air.”
The 2016 Republican platform celebrated the reauthorization of the Highway Trust Fund and promised to advance a comprehensive reform of the Federal Aviation Administration. It proposed removing from the Highway Trust Fund programs that should not be the business of the federal government, such as mass transit, bike-share programs, sidewalks, recreational trails, landscaping, historical renovations, ferry boats, the federal lands access program, scenic byways, and education initiatives. They also proposed removing legal roadblocks to public-private partnership agreements to provide investment in the carrying capacity of roads and bridges.
The 2020 Democratic platform called for federal investment in infrastructure, including “a clean energy revolution through historic investments in clean energy, clean transportation, energy efficiency, and advanced manufacturing.”
While the current Republican platform extols the highway trust fund, it seeks to refocus investment in infrastructure through the private sector and to reduce or eliminate funding for rail. The Democratic platform, in turn, seeks to extend direct government funding to include areas outside traditional infrastructure, including energy efficiency and manufacturing.
Verdict:
2016 Republican Platform: Mainstream Conservative to Right
2020 Democratic Platform: Mainstream Liberal to Left
Taxation
In their 1956 platform, the Republican party pledged to seek further “reductions in taxes with particular consideration for low and middle income families”, to initiate “a sound policy of tax reductions which will encourage small independent businesses to modernize and progress”, and to “study . . . additional ways to correct inequities in the effect of various taxes.” In 1960, the platform called for an improvement of the tax structure “to provide greater incentives to economic progress, to make it fair and equitable, and to maintain and deserve public acceptance.”
The 1956 Democratic platform called for tax relief for small and independent businesses. They also sought “to correct the inequities in the tax structure which reflect the Republican determination to favor the few at the expense of the many”. In 1960, they pledged to “close the loopholes in the tax laws by which certain privileged groups legally escape their fair share of taxation”, including special treatment for dividend income and deductions for extravagant business expenses. They also expressed a willingness to increase taxes should the needs of the 1960s so require.
The 2016 Republican platform called for lowering tax rates that penalize thrift or discourage investment, and to eliminate special interest provisions and loopholes and curb corporate welfare. It also sought simplicity in the tax code, and the reduction of corporate taxes.
In their 2020 platform, the Democratic party pledged to reverse the tax cuts in the 2017 law that benefited the wealthy and corporations, and to “crack down on overseas tax havens and close loopholes that are exploited by the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations”. They also promised to “make sure investors pay the same tax rates as workers and bring an end to expensive and unproductive tax loopholes, including the carried interest loophole”, to raise corporate tax rates, and raise estate taxes to their historical norm.
Needless to say, the tax laws of 2020 are vastly different than those of 1956 or 1960. However, the rhetoric of the two parties has stayed remarkably consistent over the years. The only difference appears to be less attention paid by today’s Republican party to inequities in the tax code.
Verdict:
2016 Republican Platform: Mainstream Conservative to Right
2020 Democratic Platform: Mainstream Liberal
Healthcare
The 1956 Republican platform touted Republican leadership in the construction of new hospitals and increases in medical research, and said they “encouraged a notable expansion and improvement of voluntary health insurance, and urge that reinsurance and pooling arrangements be authorized to speed this progress”. Their 1960 platform proposed a program of health insurance for seniors based on the purchase of private coverage, and providing block grants to states to help the needy who otherwise could not afford healthcare.
The 1956 Democratic platform pledged federal aid to medical training and the construction of hospitals. In the 1960 platform, they proposed medical care benefits for the aged through the Social Security insurance system, or from general revenue for those not otherwise covered by Social Security.
The 2016 Republican platform sought to reform the Medicare program to provide a private option for seniors, and raise the age at which people are eligible for Medicare benefits. They also sought to eliminate mandates for Medicaid, giving a freer hand to states to modify the programs as they desire. They further proposed enhancing price transparency for medical care, and the creation of purchasing pools to expand the availability of coverage.
The 2020 Democratic platform encouraged states to expand Medicaid coverage, and to invest in community and rural health centers. It also proposed making available to all citizens a public option for health insurance provided by the government, with minimum required benefits and federal administration.
In many ways, the Republican position on healthcare has remained unchanged over the last 60 years. The current Democratic platform includes many of the same concepts as their predecessors (expanding Medicare coverage for seniors, building medical care facilities), but includes a public insurance option for all people. While such an option would be unprecedented in the US, it would be less radical than the universal care common in most other developed countries.
Verdict:
2016 Republican Platform: Mainstream Conservative
2020 Democratic Platform: Mainstream Liberal to Left
Social Security
The 1956 Republican platform promised to “continue to seek extension and perfection of a sound social security system”, noting that during the first four years of the Eisenhower administration, “Social Security has been extended to an additional 10 million workers and the benefits raised for 6 1/2 million”. The 1960 platform touted even further expansion of Social Security enrollment and payments, and noted “increases in payments to those on public assistance, both for their basic needs and for their health and medical care; and a broad expansion in our federal-state program for restoring disabled persons to useful lives”.
The 1956 Democratic platform celebrated the lowering of the retirement age for women and the disabled, and pledged “to broaden and strengthen this program by increasing benefits to keep pace with improving standards of living; by raising the wage base upon which benefits depend; and by increasing benefits for each year of covered employment”. The 1960 platform proposed additional expansions to Social Security benefits.
The 2016 Republican platform said that Social Security needed to be reformed and modernized, but other than noting that all options should be considered, did not specify any actions. It did state that “we oppose tax increases and believe in the power of markets to create wealth and to help secure the future of our Social Security system.” Though it was unspoken, a partial or full privatization of Social Security appears to be the intention of the platform.
In its 2020 platform, the Democrats promised to “make Social Security more progressive, including increasing benefits for all beneficiaries, meaningfully increasing minimum benefit payments, increasing benefits for long-duration beneficiaries, and protecting surviving spouses from benefit cuts.” This little differs from the policies of the party from 60 years earlier.
Verdict:
2016 Republican Platform: Far Right
2020 Democratic Platform: Center to Mainstream Liberal
Housing
The 1956 Republican platform noted that their party has “supported measures that have made more housing available than ever before in history, reduced urban slums in local-federal partnership, stimulated record home ownership, and authorized additional low-rent public housing.” In the 1960 platform, they promised to take certain actions, supplementing and not supplanting private initiative, that would clear slums; promote rebuilding, rehabilitation, and conservation of cities; stimulate development of specialized types of housing; find ways to reduce housing costs; provide adequate authority for the federal housing agencies to assist the flow of mortgage credit into private housing; and assist in urban planning.
In their 1956 platform, the Democratic party pledged to revive and expand the Housing Act of 1949, and to adopt additional legislation to provide housing for middle-income families and aged persons. They promised to redirect the housing insurance and mortgage guarantee programs to the benefit of homeowners, and to keep the availability of low-interest housing credit consistent with expanding housing needs. In their 1960 platform, the Democrats supported a housing construction goal of more than two million homes a year, priced for middle and low-income families, including both rental property and ownership. To encourage this, they would provide “special mortgage assistance, with low interest rates, long-term mortgage periods and reduced down payments. Where necessary, direct Government loans should be provided.”
The 2016 Republican platform promised to “scale back the federal role in the housing market, promote responsibility on the part of borrowers and lenders, and avoid future taxpayer bailouts. Reforms should provide clear and prudent underwriting standards and guidelines on predatory lending and acceptable lending practices.” Further, they vowed to “end the government mandates that required Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and federally insured banks to satisfy lending quotas to specific groups.” Other reforms included removing federal mandates on local zoning laws.
In its 2020 platform, the Democratic Party argued that “the government should take aggressive steps to increase the supply of housing, especially affordable housing, and address long-standing economic and racial inequities in our housing markets.” They committed to provide Section 8 housing support for eligible families, and to enact protections to keep landlords from discriminating against voucher recipients. They further promised to increase investments in public housing to expand availability and improve and upgrade existing public housing.
The current Republican policies would provide for less involvement in housing than the party’s positions of the 1950s. The Democratic positions are largely consistent with that party’s historical views.
Verdict:
2016 Republican Platform: Right
2020 Democratic Platform: Mainstream Liberal
Education
The 1956 Republican platform applauded the Eisenhower administration’s five-year program of federal assistance in building schools to relieve a critical classroom shortage. In the 1960 platform, while noting that primary responsibility lies with local and state government, the Republicans affirmed that the federal government should assist selectively in strengthening education, including equalizing educational opportunities. They noted that, “[u]nder the Eisenhower-Nixon Administration, the federal government will spend more than a billion dollars in 1960 to strengthen American education.”
Noting that the resources of states and localities were already strained to the limit, the 1956 Democratic platform promised to provide federal aid and action to promote education, within the traditional framework of state and local control. Among other things, they proposed federal financing to assist states and local communities to build schools, to provide essential health and safety services for all school children, and to educate and train teachers. In their 1960 platform, the Democrats asserted that “America can meet its educational obligations only with generous Federal financial support, within the traditional framework of local control. The assistance will take the form of Federal grants to states for educational purposes they deem most pressing, including classroom construction and teachers' salaries.”
In its 2016 platform, the Republican party did not advocate for any specific funding for schools, but did note support for block grants and the repeal of federal regulation that interferes with state and local control of public schools. Most of the platform addressed eliminating federal governmental involvement in education. It supported the parental right to direct a child’s education without governmental interference, providing a broad range of choices, and opposed the imposition of national standards. On the other hand, the Republican platform opposed the use of federal funds for mandatory or universal mental health, psychiatric, or socio-emotional screening programs, as well as school-based clinics that provide referral or counseling for abortion and contraception.
In their 2020 platform, Democrats promised to “work with states to offer pre-K for all three- and four-year-olds and expand Head Start and Early Head Start.” They also proposed to close “the school funding gap by tripling Title I funding, which benefits schools that serve low-income students, and incentivizing states to adopt progressive funding formulas that direct resources to the schools that need it most.” They proposed to ban private for-profit schools from receiving federal funding, and to increase the transparency and accountability of charter schools. They further opposed private school vouchers.
The current Republican policy represents a dramatic turn away from federal funding of education, while rejecting any federal imposition of requirements on local schools and parents, other than with regard to abortion, contraception and mental health programs (where federal mandates are appropriate). The Democratic platform of 2020, on the other hand, remains largely in line with that party’s policies of 60 years ago.
Verdict:
2016 Republican Platform: Far Right
2020 Democratic Platform: Mainstream Liberal
Consumer Protection
Neither party’s 1956 platform expressly considered consumer protection. In the Republican platform of 1960, they noted that “[i]n safeguarding the health of the nation the Eisenhower-Nixon Administration's initiative has resulted in doubling the resources of the Food and Drug Administration and in giving it new legal weapons. More progress has been made during this period in protecting consumers against harmful food, drugs, and cosmetics than in any other time in our history. We will continue to give strong support to this consumer-protection program.”
The 1960 Democratic platform, on the other hand, criticized the Republicans for weakening the FDA. They promised to provide additional funding to strengthen that agency, and also proposed the establishment of “a consumer counsel, backed by a suitable staff, to speak for consumers in the formulation of Government policies and represent consumers in administrative proceedings.” They further promised to “enact Federal legislation requiring the vendors of credit to provide a statement of specific credit charges and what these charges cost in terms of true annual interest.”
In their 2016 platform, the Republican party said that, because “regulations are just another tax on the consumers, Congress should consider a regulatory budget that would cap the costs federal agencies could impose on the economy in any given year.”
The 2020 Democratic platform stated that, “Consumers, workers, students, retirees, and investors who have been mistreated by businesses should never be denied their right to fight for fair treatment under the law. Democrats will support efforts to eliminate the use of forced arbitration clauses in employment and service contracts”.
Verdict:
2016 Republican Platform: Right to Far Right
2020 Democratic Platform: Mainstream Liberal
Immigration
Under their 1956 platform, the Republican Party “supports an immigration policy which is in keeping with the traditions of America in providing a haven for oppressed peoples, and which is based on equality of treatment, freedom from implications of discrimination between racial, nationality and religious groups, and flexible enough to conform to changing needs and conditions.” Under their 1960 platform, the Republicans noted that the Eisenhower administration had “given refuge to over 32,000 victims of Communist tyranny from Hungary, ended needless delay in processing applications for naturalization, and has urged other enlightened legislation to liberalize existing restrictions”. They further promised to double the annual number of immigrants accepted, and to use the 1960 census rather than the 1920 census to determine quotas.
In their 1956 platform, the Democratic party vowed to eliminate all quotas from the immigration system. While asserting that safeguards needed to be included to protect against subversive elements, they favored “more liberal admission of relatives to eliminate the unnecessary tragedies of broken families”, as well as “innocent, defenseless and suffering people, the victims of war and the aftermath of wars”. The 1960 Democratic platform continued to push for the elimination of national quotas, and asserted that “protections provided by due process, right of appeal, and statutes of limitation, can be extended to non-citizens without hampering the security of our nation.”
The 2016 Republican platform stated that “America’s immigration policy must serve the national interest of the United States, and the interests of American workers must be protected over the claims of foreign nationals seeking the same jobs.” They sought to reform the guest worker program, and insisted that “it is indefensible to continue offering lawful permanent residence to more than one million foreign nationals every year.” In addition, “[a]sylum should be limited to cases of political, ethnic or religious persecution”, and “refugees who cannot be carefully vetted cannot be admitted to the country, especially those whose homelands have been the breeding grounds for terrorism.”
The 2020 Democratic platform called to “reinstate, expand, and streamline protections for Dreamers and the parents of American citizen children to keep families together in the communities they have long called home.” It further promised to “reverse Trump Administration policies that prevent victims of gang and domestic violence, as well as LGBTQ+ people who are unsafe in their home countries, from being eligible to apply for asylum.” It proposed ending the prosecution of asylum seekers at the border and policies that force them to apply from “safe third countries,” and providing for a roadmap to citizenship for undocumented people within the US. It also called for a recommitment to family-based policies in immigration.
The current Republican program is, at least in rhetoric and likely in substance, substantially more restrictive than the policies of either party in the 1950s. The Democratic platform is in most ways consistent with historical trends, though there isn’t precedent in the 1950s for providing citizenship to those who are undocumented. However, given that Ronald Reagan signed a law in 1986 providing for amnesty for some 3 million undocumented immigrants, such a proposal is at most mainstream liberal.
Verdict:
2016 Republican Platform: Right to Far Right
2020 Democratic Platform: Center to Mainstream Liberal
Civil Rights
In its 1956 platform, the Republican Party supported a constitutional amendment providing for equal rights for men and women, and the enactment of a civil rights program. It further noted that regulatory agencies under the Eisenhower administration moved vigorously to end discrimination in interstate commerce, and ended segregation in the active Armed Forces of the United States, in veterans' hospitals and among civilians on naval bases. In their 1960 platform, the Republicans noted that the Eisenhower administration supported school desegregation before the Supreme Court, and supported civil rights legislation in both 1957 and 1960. The platform further pointed out that the Eisenhower Department of Justice had acted to ensure thousands of Blacks previously disenfranchised could vote. The platform applauded the administration’s “initial steps toward the elimination of segregation in federally-aided housing; the establishment of the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, which enforces federal civil rights laws; and the appointment of the bi-partisan Civil Rights Commission, which has prepared a significant report that lays the groundwork for further legislative action and progress.”
The 1956 Democratic platform vowed to continue efforts to eradicate discrimination based on race, religion or national origin, and expressed support for a constitutional amendment providing equal rights for women. In their 1960 platform, Democrats asserted that “[i]t is the duty of the Congress to enact the laws necessary and proper to protect and promote . . . constitutional rights [to vote and equal protection].”
While the 2016 Republican platform asserts the protection of civil rights, the only ones actually mentioned are “the right of the people to conduct their businesses in accordance with their religious beliefs” (specifically in reference to the recognition of traditional marriage), ending the use of disparate impact theory in the enforcement of anti-discrimination laws, and ending government mandates for lending to specific groups. It does note that “we oppose discrimination based on race, sex, religion, creed, disability, or national origin and support statutes to end such discrimination.”
The 2020 Democratic platform committed to end “discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, language, gender, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability status.” They promised to respect and enforce precedents such as Brown v. Board of Education and Roe v. Wade, to restore the Voting Rights Act, and to ensure every citizen can access the ballot box. They further pledged to enforce and strengthen the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, and end racial and religious profiling in law enforcement.
The only civil rights policies favored in the 2016 Republican platform address discrimination against religious conservatives, whites or other historically favored classes. Other than a simple disclaimer, it fails to identify a single policy goal intended to protect minorities. The Democratic platform, on the other hand, largely reflects the goals that were reflected in both the Republican and Democratic platforms of the 1950s. However, its expansion to include the rights of the LGBTQ+ community is well beyond any concept of civil rights in that era. Nevertheless, since such rights are now recognized in many western nations, policies protecting such people cannot be considered far left.
Verdict:
2016 Republican Platform: Far Right
2020 Democratic Platform: Center to Left
Final Verdict
We have looked at twelve different issues addressed to one degree or another in the party platforms of 1956, 1960, 2016 and 2020. Tallying the number of times that I classified the current party platforms’ positions as far right, right, mainstream conservative, center, mainstream liberal, left and far left, we find the following:
2016 Republican Party Platform 2020 Democratic Party Platform
Far Right 8 0
Right 8 0
Mainstream Conservative 3 0
Center 0 4
Mainstream Liberal 0 11
Left 0 3
Far Left 0 0
While several of my classifications could likely be moved one category over one way or the other, the overall conclusion is evident. Based on this analysis, today’s Democratic Party remains largely a mainstream liberal party, with many parallels to its traditional positions. On the other hand, the Republican Party has moved decisively right since the 1950s, with comparatively few of its policies continuing the traditions espoused by its predecessors.
One can also see from this why compromise has become more difficult. While I classified three positions of the Democratic Party as being center, every Republican policy position is mainstream conservative, right or far right. None are centrist.
The rightward shift of the Republican Party is further evidenced by sections of the 2016 platform that were not included in this analysis, as they had no parallel in either party’s platforms of 1956 or 1960 or the Democratic platform of 2020. An entire section of the 2016 Republican platform was dedicated to extolling the Bill of Rights and the need to protect citizens’ rights under those amendments. While it could be argued that in the modern era such rights are more under threat than ever, this seems a hard claim to maintain given the 1950s was the period of Senator Joseph McCarthy and legal segregation. The 2016 Republican platform also repeatedly emphasizes the need to protect religious rights, but by implication almost exclusively those of conservative Christians. The protection of such rights is found nowhere in the platforms of the 1950s, despite, for example, arguments in favor of segregation by many religious figures of the time.
Undoubtedly, there are other ways to analyze the policies of today’s political parties. And one can certainly argue that certain policies that may not have precedent back to the 1950s are essential to address today’s concerns. But if the question is which party is taking positions that are, by historical standards, radical or unprecedented, the answer is the Republican Party.