By today's standards would J.F.K. be considered a moderate Republican?

Would you consider J.F.K. to be a "moderate Republican" by today's standards? Eisenhower certainly would be considered that but I think that would apply to J.F.K. as well.

I think I would like to see one of the two major parties remake themselves into a "moderate" party and it wouldn't really make any practical difference if it was the current Democrats or Republicans.

There was a lot to like regarding the Democrats of that era.

What are your thoughts?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Until the Republican party breaks away from Trumpism, it is hard to see anyone being a moderate Republican. JFK and probably DDE would be moderate Democrats.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

everyone wants a 3rd option when they only have 2 options

'us or them' game as a personal ideological forced social & professional reality is quite harsh as a social indoctrination & abuse model on children and teenagers

the overt duality of the 2 primary partys whilst having no true democratic independent party as a liberal democrat representing a non racist liberal modern progressive secular equal rights human rights
type of morality would seem obvious

but you have to keep in mind the vast majority of people are raised in an indoctrinated manner
indoctrination is far easier than true education
be that private elite schools or public low money schools.
indoctrination always wins when you dont have intellectual progressive democrats running the education system.

so while you play with different flavours of political bent, the party created will still fall victim to the subconscious programming of its fascists communists and sheep
& predators etc

JFK was a socialist by modern USA political standards
same with Eisenhower
but they balanced their socialism with private elitism which enabled large monopoly private ownership of key industrys
that works well with tight sensible progressive regulation
but usa has far too little regulation to drive a balanced market reality
its all about tipping the scales to a class group
so regulation is made to not change anything while playing the victim game to the loosing 50% of the us versus them indoctrination game

your looking for a solution but you need to know what type of question your asking about what specifically YOU are saying is broken AND which your openly admitting that YOU seek to fix.

most people claim nothing is broken so it doesn't need fixing as long as the obvious brokenness is working in a way that does not negatively impact them financially.
and when you have a society built on money before people
money comes before all social issues
which is why you cant solve the racial issue without first solving the money(economic social services system) issue

keep in mind the majority dont want it to change(thats the indoctrinated sheep, which is driven by the education & entering the job market social & economic reality including college pricing)

if you want to try and balance that against Eisenhower & kennedy
you need to realize there was no job shortage in their day and government spending was unlimited.
imagine that
no job shortage
& no body cared about government spending billions on a whim
& no one cared about private monopoly's being handed out like candy at a fair to the megga wealthy elite.

imagine[its the reality] for a moment your trying to build a new better world
and 99% of high school graduates lack the intellectual stamina and mental discipline to read the length and language of my post)

see how that donkey rides an elephant in todays level of greed and us versus them morality

usa needs to want to admit its broken and then admit it needs fixing
long way to go before it gets there
like the smack junky, you cant cure a junky who wont admit they dont have a problem

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Any candidate is a candidate for the party they belong to, on whose platform they stand and whose membership they have to woo.
The mood of the party at any given time determines what kind of candidate they'll endorse and support.
Right now, the Republican party has no moderates (and very few vertebrates), because it's exiled them all to the hinterland of book authorship - and since Republicans mostly don't read anything longer than a tweet, that means being heard only by the liberals who watch late-night television.
Whatever flavours Democrats come in these days, a moderate is probably a nonentity or president - nothing in between.

 

the question posed shows a mind boggling ignorance over how the parties ideologies have shifted since the early 60's. the democrats have shifted a moderate degree to the right economically and massively to the left socially while the republicans have gone all in on being a far right anti democracy party. realistically kennedy would have probably straddled the divide between the moderate dems and the progressive wing. in no universe would he have been a republican.


seriously thinking a person whose ideas were part of the civil rights act of 1964 would belong to the party of fuck you if you not white.

 

Or, those who are just waiting to emote, get to emote.

My post had nothing to do with support for the Republican Party. It was to (have a discussion) point out that liberal thinking of the 60's (a time of rapid social change) was actually rather moderate and to my mind more thoughtful than liberal thinking of today.

After all Kennedy said "Ask not what your country can do for you but rather what you can do for your country".

For that matter Nixon would be more moderate than conservatives of today much less than Republicans of today. Even traditional Republicans have largely left the Republican Party of today and just call themselves Independents.

Continue to emote however if it works for you.

 

im sorry you don't like being called on your stunning ignorance to utter the question you did. you continuing to try and whitewash the right wing in this country and absolve it of its sins. no politician from the 60's would be a republican today except maybe the dixiecrats who you know became republicans. you are showcasing the typical american right wing ignorance of where american political parties sit ideologically and where the us as a population does.

 

Are you dense? Just asking?

I'm not "white washing", defending or in support of the right wing today.

 

"No really" as a phrase can be overused ...no really.

What do your comments are health care and Bob Dole have to do with JFK?

 

Twix you and I, tis a matter of understanding how the economy functions. No really, it's not a matter of redistributing wealth. Wealth isn't something that just appears and that is available to "redistribute".

To the one, excess wealth only exists outside of subsistence economies. To the other, redistributing it from those who created it to those who didn't is a surefire way of ending up with a smaller economy. No one wins under that scenario. No really.

Increasing national debt year after year can't continue. You can't mail everyone a check, spend trillions on "infrastructure", continue to fund the current size of the military and expect things to do well indefinitely.

Common sense is lacking. You never had any it seems but others it appears have lost any that they once possessed.

 

I agree. In that sense, since the debt grows faster under republicans and slower under democrats, there is at least a less-bad choice.[/QUOTE]

 

I don't know that that's the case but they both have a bad track record and if the Democrats are better then I would agree. I've never been for the Bush nor Trump administrations so that's not the point (for me).

Given the current spending of the Biden administration I don't think that will be the case (although I'm still glad to have Biden vs Trump). It's going to be an issue however.

 

You seem like a pleasant enough fellow. What went wrong?

 

No one would accuse you of being dysfunctional, right?

 

Deficit is the difference between spending and income. If spending and income both increase at similar rates, then there's no increase in deficit.

That being said, Biden's spending plan is not sustainable under any of his taxation proposals. If the plan works to get us out of the pandemic, it has to be cut shortly afterwards.