Pre 1960s, almost everyone was a social conservative of some sort – there was no organised socially-progressive movement centred around issues like gay marriage, minority rights and peace like we have today, and therefore no real religious right (which is essentially an answer to that movement). The division between the parties was more based on economics and geography.yovargas wrote:The Fake Republicans is kinda how I think about 'em. Cuz, you know, real Republicans were supposed to favor smaller government. And I may be wrong, but I don't think the older Republicans (pre-Reagan?) were so pro-war or so dominated by the religious conservatives. But what do I know.
The progressive movement of the early 20th century, which is associated with Presidents like Theodore Roosevelt and causes like trust-busting and women’s rights, had adherents in both major parties (and sparked several minor parties).
As to River’s point, the term ‘liberal’ was only given its current meaning in North American politics by FDR (who needed a word to describe his set of policies before labels like ‘communist’ and ‘fascist’ which his opponents were applying to them started to stick). Prior to that, it seems to me to mean something along the lines of ‘moderate’ (the liberal Republicans were what the opponents of radical Republicans called themselves during reconstruction, for example).
