Pro-Life Democrats and Pro-Choice Republicans

Not necessarily. Many were Trotskyites (Irving Kristol, for example).

The intellectuals were Trotskyites or members of the Socialist Party. The elected office holders were Democrats, former Democrats, or Reaganite Republicans.
 
The neoconservatives weren't hippies. They were the New Deal liberals who hated the hippies and jumped ship because of them.
Those were the later additions. The intellectual foundations of the neoconservative movement come from a loose cadre of disillusioned Trotskyists and other left-wing socialists, But, regardless, the rank and file of the New Left are largely the rank and file of the Tea Party and other cranky factions of the Republican Party.
 
Those were the later additions. The intellectual foundations of the neoconservative movement come from a loose cadre of disillusioned Trotskyists and other left-wing socialists, But, regardless, the rank and file of the New Left are largely the rank and file of the Tea Party and other cranky factions of the Republican Party.

Okay, about that... why in the world would former hard leftists become what Neo-Cons are? I'm very curious how that evolution of ideals occurred to say the least.

Additionally, is their a bizarre equivalent with radical rightists that I don't know about?
 
Okay, about that... why in the world would former hard leftists become what Neo-Cons are? I'm very curious how that evolution of ideals occurred to say the least.

Additionally, is their a bizarre equivalent with radical rightists that I don't know about?
Well, Goldwater Republicans have a tendency to become left-wing anarchists or Deep Ecology style greens, just not as pronounced.

It was a very natural evolution actually, on the part of most Trotskyists. American Trotskyism evolved quite a bit, especially after Trotsky got the ice ax. Many of them, particularly those associated around C.L.R. James or Max Schactman, came to reject Trotsky's analysis that the Soviet Union was a "degenerated workers' state". Instead, they came to argue that the Soviet Union was simply indefensible totalitarian "state capitalist" or "bureaucratic collectivist", and that communists should simply stop defending the Soviet Union or opposing the Cold War from a pro-Soviet perspective.

Some, such as Schactman, turned into Pro-West Cold Warriors in the process, and the ultimate collapse of most American Trotskyist groups into factional squabbles disillusioned a lot of them, and many turned into cold warriors in the process.
 
Well, Goldwater Republicans have a tendency to become left-wing anarchists or Deep Ecology style greens, just not as pronounced.

It was a very natural evolution actually, on the part of most Trotskyists. American Trotskyism evolved quite a bit, especially after Trotsky got the ice ax. Many of them, particularly those associated around C.L.R. James or Max Schactman, came to reject Trotsky's analysis that the Soviet Union was a "degenerated workers' state". Instead, they came to argue that the Soviet Union was simply indefensible totalitarian "state capitalist" or "bureaucratic collectivist", and that communists should simply stop defending the Soviet Union or opposing the Cold War from a pro-Soviet perspective.

Some, such as Schactman, turned into Pro-West Cold Warriors in the process, and the ultimate collapse of most American Trotskyist groups into factional squabbles disillusioned a lot of them, and many turned into cold warriors in the process.

So... if they somehow how didn't go into factional infighting(uniting event/person of some type perhaps?) then Neo-Cons wouldn't exist? But otherwise, interesting, to say the least.

Now, for those Goldwater Republicans becoming Anarchists... I WANT EXAMPLES!!!:)
 
Without changing much else how could you get a timeline where the two parties positions on abortion are reversed?

You can't do this without changing other stuff--for instance, making the Democrats the generally more socially conservative party.
 
So... if they somehow how didn't go into factional infighting(uniting event/person of some type perhaps?) then Neo-Cons wouldn't exist? But otherwise, interesting, to say the least.

Now, for those Goldwater Republicans becoming Anarchists... I WANT EXAMPLES!!!:)
They'd exist, but not as we know them, even if the Trotskyist movement didn't collapse, which I consider it highly unlikely to be avoided. But the there'd still be different flavors of the same theme.

Karl Hess is probably the most prominent example, and he influenced some of his former colleagues. Dave Foreman is a bit of a lesser known example.
 
They'd exist, but not as we know them, even if the Trotskyist movement didn't collapse, which I consider it highly unlikely to be avoided. But the there'd still be different flavors of the same theme.

Karl Hess is probably the most prominent example, and he influenced some of his former colleagues. Dave Foreman is a bit of a lesser known example.

Interesting how these movements evolve, to say the least. Although, sounds like Karl Hess has shades of Anarcho-Capitalism, but I definitely see the ecology elements there too.
 
Prevent/reverse Roe v. Wade, and then use butterflies to land Henry "Scoop" Jackson in the White House as a rwsult of the 1976 election.
 
A socially conservative fiscally liberal party would have absolutely dominated US politics for the last 40 years. They'd only loose the Presidency if they ran an epically bad candidate.


I don't know. The corporate money (at least with today's corporations, in the '60s Corporate America was much more O.K. with big government for various reasons) doesn't care much about social issues, and would support heavily the "fiscally conservative, socially liberal (libertarian?)" party en masse. And at times these past 40 years, there has been a lot of antigovernment sentiment - I'd argue that Reagan wasn't elected by social conservatives, but by people fed up with the post-New Deal consensus and willing to try something radical.
 
Top