I appreciate the great response this video has gotten! I want to clarify two things... - The party affiliation of the Supreme Court is determined by the party of the president who appointed them, not by their judicial philosophy. For example, even though Earl Warren was a liberal justice, he was appointed by Republican president Dwight D Eisenhower, so he is labeled as a Republican. - I used some discretion with categorizing independent members of congress. If their voting records align closely with one party, I categorize them as members of that party (for example, Bernie Sanders and Angus King are considered Democrats even though they identify as independents)
Never knew that about the justices. I thought it was their party alignment and that tells me I should learn more about the government again. Either way, amazing video man!!
@@nathaniellazo5912 I think he means that's the way he analyzed them. I don't believe there's a standard way to establish the balance of power in the Supreme Court, since they don't run on a party platform.
I'm sure this took a lot of work, so thank you for that. If you ever decided to do this again, it would be nice to see it from a state government standpoint. As in showing a map of the USA and seeing what states' executive and legislative branches were controlled by which party over the years.
I like how the better part of the last decade is just "ongoing realignment in both parties" because honestly nobody has any clue what's going on anymore except the vague idea that it sucks and the elites also kind of suck.
When you think about. The last decade did see a major realignment in both parties. Republican votes moved more to the right while the party either maintained or shifted left. The Democrats saw radical elements size control of the party, while the traditional voters shift slightly right. On top of that newer parties have begin to pop up in the chaos, taking votes away from both parties. Right now America, is facing several crisis. Energy Economy and server weakness in the Military. On top of that there is a deep mistrust from the population towards the Government. As citizens are scared if either "radical" elements form either party gain control may have severe consequences towards people they consider as 'enemies'. It goes deeper then that but we could be here for days.
We are in a realignment and I think most of it comes from a new generation of voters both millennials and gen Z coming of voting age. Republicans have veered wildly to the right while Democrats have stayed marginally close to center/center-right over the past few years. The generational blocks X, Boomer, and Silent generations have voted farther right over time. While millennials have broken the age cycle and are voting more left over time. There is no data on gen Z but odds are it'll probably shift more left than millennials. In short, older generations push an already conservative county more right and closer to authoritarianism. The newer generations really want the country to push left instead which on the left side scares long time Democrats. It's a crisis as two center/center-right parties want to maintain their power. The process has taken the Republican party faster due to them already leaning more rightward. Democrats it has been slower because Democrats too also lean right, just not as right as Republicans.
@@LordChevonlier There's an excess of authoritarianism all around in politics these days. If anything the republicans might be trending slightly less down that path because the only real winning issue for them seems to be the push for local control of schools by outraged parents and the intraparty rancor surrounding the speakership has led to walking back some of the consolidation of power to the position Pelosi managed in her tenure. Both of the major parties are big tent coalitions that don't make a lot of sense trying to come up with a coherent political ideology. For what little some guy on the internet's opinion is worth, there are way more than the one axis for mapping political positions. A list of a few: Liberal/Conservative (fiscally or socially), Authoritarian/Anarchist, Isolationist/Globalist, Dove/Hawk, Capitalist/Socialist, Individualist/Collectivist, Elitist/Populist, Chauvinist/Misandrist (or you could use the different in focus egalitarian in respect to sex vs sexist)
@@grben9959 Republicans have been pretty directly opposed to the democratic process for as long as they've been losing the popular vote, I think it kinda strange to call them less authoritarian. Not to mention the specific representatives of that party who have expressed support of a Trump coup and the belief that the Rothschilds lit California on fire with space lasers (yes representative MTG did say this). Not to mention the school thing you mentioned is a minority of loud parents backed by Republicans and conservative media pushing changes in schools that are not popularly supported, quite literally the minority pushing their will on the majority i.e. authoritarian. That all alongside the whole reason Republicans are denying climate change and certain members blame it on minority groups or the "elites", and that's simply put because they get sponsored by oil companies. Those with all the money get more power and less consequences under Republicans
This is an AMAZING idea and video project. Typically these types of videos focus on individual events such as wars and battles. This video uses that popular format to instead tell the story of longer term historical/political trends, what actually makes up history. There might still be room to make something even more in depth, but awesome none the less.
Should’ve cut out the part from 2010. Democrats embraced full on communism control the media and big tech and FBI. They’re spending and destroying the country with free money for everyone and embracing communism. Never included that part so he should just cut that part out.
@@PatrickJMcF if it was a website it would be easier to go more in depth. However even in video format the same could be done simply with more footnotes, potentially in smaller font (for ex. Obama was not mentioned in detail, Reagan was not mentioned in detail, as the video creator stated it was not noted how Warren was a liberal justice)
@@PatrickJMcF maybe list the names of the top 3 people in each branch of government rather than just putting numbers on screen like this guy but yes he did include the names of president and leaders of each branch but that's of course not enough but this was a quick vid. so good enough i guess but i'd like to see these improvements added. also maybe a short reason for why things occurred both the mainstream narrative and counter narrative summed up in like 2 sentences.
@@PatrickJMcF by including the events and circumstances that caused the shifts in power and ideology. For example you could include how the stagflation of the 70s + Watergate+ Vietnam led to the election of Ronald Reagan and the rise of Neoliberalism. I'd also like it if the video was more in depth about the ideologies of the parties/coalitions at any given time. Hand in hand with this is making the visuals reflect the coalitions in power at the time instead of just the parties. The Reagan Republicans were much different than the Republicans of before. For example put "new deal control" instead of democrat control.
Balance of power videos like these are always a joy to watch, especially when well-made. Excellent visuals, just the right amount of text, and engaging background music. 10/10!
I was going to come into the comments and lavish my praises, but it looks like everyone else has said everything I was going to say. You did an incredible job here!
I noticed that they were looking away from the camera, posing, looking into the distance until 1900s. Then they started looking into it with a stern face until Gerald Ford smiled for the first time.
This is an amazing video! I especially appreciate how the pace of the years was not static, with election years having an extra second or two for easier transitions.
God, I’ve been looking for a video like this for awhile-showing presidents, the partisan controls in Congress, and the Supreme Court majority per presidency! Excellent job!
It feels weird to see Republicans and Democrats for the Supreme Court, given the fact that Republicans can nominate very progressive Justices, and Democrats conservative Justices
@@whatthefrickbro You have to consider many judges even 25 years ago held views that were out of date compared to their party affiliation due to their age and other factors.
It survived at the state/local/congressional/etc level until then. A whole lot of people were voting R for president and D on the rest of the ballot in the 70s, 80s, and early 90s. 1994, which was an enormous "red wave" election, was the year that a whole lot of those voters, particularly in the South, began voting R downballot too, which is what allowed Republicans to take full control of Congress for the first time since 1953-54 (first two years of Eisenhower's presidency). It lasted even longer at lower levels of government. Arkansas, the last "deep south" holdout, somehow managed to have Democratic majorities in its state legislature all the way to 2012.
What the commenter above me said was a great explanation. I’d also add that if you’re ever interested, you should go to the Wikipedia pages of different congressional eras and look at the house and senate maps. If you go to the 103rd congress’s page,(the congress that started after the senate and house election winners of 1992 were inaugurated or re-inaugurated on January 3, 1993, and was the first congress Bill Clinton presided over, as well as the last one before the 1994 Republican Revolution), for example, and go to the Members Section, you can get a great glimpse at just how democratic the house and senate still were in the first year of Bill Clinton’s administration. Alabama still had two Democratic senators as late as 1994.
Very awesome video, and quite informative. I love how it's completely neutral, only mentioning events for the sake of context and not for anything else, leaving the viewer to think for themselves! Very eye opening for various reasons, to be honest.
@Andrew Lantz I can explain the realignment It's mostly urban vs rural now Urban tends to heavily favor the democrats while the rural heavily favors the Republicans It's also the rich vote democrats to hold onto wealth n power n the poor vote republican overwhelming n the middle class favors democrats by 10 points Some minor factors include leadership like I know now the democrats have a significant edge in that (I hate the democrats btw) but McConnell and Mccarthy are beyond lame duck status It's not funny like it's the same exact problem the democrats had in the 80s n 90s where their leadership was a joke n couldn't win an election for the life of them Everytime the economy cratered the party lost power n the democrats will learn this the hard way unless they fix it in 2 years
@nautgamingnautgaming9949 i know this comment is a year old lol but I don't know if that was even true then. Looking at polls from a year ago, and exit polls from the 2024 election, it seems like the poorest people favor democrats, as do the richest and middle class (in general), but the people who aren't quite in poverty, but are still lower income (ie below the average income in the US) favor the Republicans a good bit, and the lower middle class does aswell by a bit. So, essentially, at least in my opinion, it's just the rural vs urban divide right there. The poorest and the richest generally live more in cities, which are more democratic. And poorer areas in general, which aren't in poverty, but also aren't by any means wealthy, favor Republicans. Its really interesting lol, the pattern. It looks like the richer somebody is, the more Republican they will be, but only until a certain point, when there's an inflection and it switches
I never seen such a setup before, great work! I hope you’ll make more in the future with other nations. It helps show executive, legislative, and judicial branch all in one basically.👌
@@ninoy4914 I think it was because of Catholics supporting Democrats more at the time, and both parties being more ideologically diverse - Republicans that would be called liberals and or libtards today (closest thing existing would be, Governor hogan?)
@@iamthinking2252_ Northern Democrats like Mondale would still be somewhat considered Conservative in today's politics with his platform at the time. The same thing went well with JFK from MA. Most of the recent known Conservative Democrats around 10 years were mostly from the north. Like Collins Peterson from MN. JV Drew from New Jersey. Dan Lipinski from Illinois. Byron White himself came from Colorado Except from such issue like abortion, both parties were fairly conservative at the time to compare with today's standard tbh.
@@Killerqueen69420 that’s the joke. Every 30 ish years one political party will landslide a couple elections and then everyone will start saying that’s the year the other political party finally dies. Happened during Jefferson, FDR, Reagan, Lyndon, Nixon, Obama, and more recently Republicans seem to be certain there going to win 2028. My point is people like to think there party is dominant but it’s normally just a couple good candidates, the election map itself changes over time and party loyalty comes and goes. Sometimes the other political party changes ideologies, sometimes they don’t, sometimes like Trump they just go more extreme.
Many other countries (western democracies) have completely other kind of system, where multiple parties are involved not just 2 and where President's main job is foreign politics and the Prime Minister is the leading figure when it comes to internal politics/affairs. Also US is the only country I know of where Supreme Court is partially political as well, because how President nominates them
@@Balnazzardi In Germany the supreme courts are actually appointed by both chambers of parliament, some of them them were actually politicians before. Interestingly in 2018 a center-rigth judge for example, didn't participate in a ruling on assisted suicide on grounds of possible bias, as he opposed it as governor of Saarland. There are term limits and judges are basically only from more centrist parties (or were nominated by them), that is Social Democrats (center-left), Liberal (Center to Center-Right), Greens (Center-Left) and Christian Democrats (center-right).
@@DGAMINGDEPolitical Spectrum in The US is very different compared to Europe, "Centrist" in Europe can easily be classified as "Radical Left" in The US lol 😂. Just look at AOC and Bernie Sanders, in Europe they would be classified as another basic Centrist to Centre-Left politicians, but in The US those 2 are classified as "Radical Left".
Words cannot describe how much I appreciate the accurate portrayal of John Tyler's political party affiliation from Whig to Independent. Sincerely, A John Tyler Fan
@@robbiestrong-morse730 Everybody was in 1841. Everyone's social views from back then would, of course, be considered horrendous today, and rightfully so, but that doesn't mean they didn't have anything worthwhile to say or accomplish anything amazing. I think John Tyler's unmatched fidelity to the Constitution and dedication to federalism during his presidency were wonderful traits that I wish we could see coupled with a present-day appreciation for the ability of anyone of any race to accomplish great things. That would be a heck of a leader.
I love John Tyler too, I got to visit his grave a few months ago in Virginia. Very underrated president whose legacy has been unfairly dismissed because of his siding with the CSA.
I sure don't want strong third parties. Now I will say I want them stronger than today but only being able to compete competitively in certain regions of states, just enough to hopefully push the major parties to adopt certain parts of the third party platform.
Fantastic video! If you ever make an update I'd love to see another side panel that includes who state legislatures & governorships are controlled by. Maybe just as a numerical value, since you can't include it all in the same screen. But of course this is very good on its own!
the USA politics is more important for the simple fact that they are a world empire functionally (the greatest to date) and soon they will take the mask off and announce the end of the republic which i would encourage so the normies can get a clue. yes i get screwed but we're all getting the same treatment anyways. LOL.
As a Brazilian who's never been to the USA, I find it odd to put Supreme Court judges as partisan, as ours are supposedly non-partisan... though it actually makes sense, now that I think of it. Our current Supreme Court in Brazil is completely dominated by the left-wing 'Workers' Party' (PT).
@@TheEclecticDyslexic Same as Brazil then. We have 20+ political parties but the corrupt left-wing populist Lula and his party have dominated the country since 2000, so pretty much all current Supreme Court judges are his puppets. They annulled his condemnation in a political move, by prosecuting the judge who condemned him rather than by actually attesting his innocence. The proof against him is just being ignored and his new judgement postponed; also the same judges control the electoral system, which is electronic and inauditable; and now they're enacting censorship about what they call 'fake news' (some of which have been confirmed less than one week after Lula' installation); so it's unlikely he'll ever face the punishment he deserves. And now he's president again, having eon a possibly illegitimate election by a very tight margin.
This video is only tracking the party affiliation of the president who nominated them to a seat on the Supreme Court. Some level of partisan bias has been present for most of the court's history. That said, the overt, coordinated partisanship of the current court is extreme. Partisan courts make poor decisions. We learned that lesson 160 years ago with Dred Scott v Sandford.
The 1994 Republican Revolution really put on display how southern conservative whites had moved on from its Dixiecrat past and more closely aligned themselves with the increasingly conservative Republican party. The old Dixiecrat voters either died or were convinced to switch by the time Reagan came around. Meanwhile, minority & youth voters kept continuously chipping away at those gains by voting Democratic, becoming known as the centrist party, endorsing social liberalism.
You can see it happen in 64 when Goldwater ran for President. He only won his home state and the Deep South, but the ideology he espoused would come to dominate the Republican Party and culminated in Reagan’s presidency. The Republican Party before Goldwater and the conservative movement was very different indeed.
@@yukihirasouma4691 The Democratic party is the centrist party. That is a fact, you have to accept it. Their social and fiscal ideology is liberalism. Liberalism is centrist. Neoliberalism is center-right. Social democracy is center-left. The Republican party's social and fiscal ideology is paleoconservative, which is far right.
@@ThunderTheBlackShadowKittyreal ones know there’s is no difference between republicans and democrats as much as Trump isn’t a fascist and Kamala isn’t a communist. They are both socially left wing and economically right wing. Supporting big government and corrpartions
Worth Including: the party breakdown of the state legislatures and governors, since those are more telling of shifting historical coalitions than the SCOTUS breakdown, since the latter is simply reflective of the party controlling the White House.
Very excellent video. I've been trying to gauge the historical-political disposition of the United States on my own for some time, but now I have a consumable and consolidated video to watch. My only complaint is that the Supreme Court composition is a little bit misleading. Yes I know you have clarified in the pined comment that it's based not on their judicial philosophy, but by the president's political affiliation, however even then, they're some justices who are a REGISTERED partisan, who were appointed by a president with the opposing affiliation. I think this needs to be reworked based on partisan registration, not on presidential appointer (I know this is hard for modern justices who keep their registration more latent, but I think with them you can use presidential appointer and circumstantial evidence to verify their partisanship, especially because in modern politics it's basically treason to appoint a opposing partisan to the court). And to make things easy, I will list those exceptions hereto: Republican Appointed Democrats: Stephen J. Field by Lincoln Howell E. Jackson by B. Harrison Horace H. Lurton by Taft Edward D. White^ by Taft Joseph R. Lamar by Taft Pierce Butler by Harding Benjamin N. Cardozo by Hoover William J. Brennan jr. by Eisenhower Lewis F. Powell jr. by Nixon Democratic Appointed Republicans: Harlan F. Stone^ by F.D. Roosevelt Harold H. Burton by Truman (^ means elevation to chief justice).
Also, I used Wikipedia as the source for these exceptions. (I know Wikipedia is not the greatest source, but I think with these, we can verify them with supporting references as well).
This is excellent! I think the captions could certainly use some work, for example they fail to mention things like suppression of black voters as a cause of republican support falling in the south (and generally focus on odd things sometimes). But overall, this is a well-made and high-quality video.
The original version had 3x as many captions but I found them to be kind of distracting. I appreciate the feedback though and might add a subtitle track with more details...
@@andrewlantz did you use vauge ongoing party realignment (true) in the last few elections to avoid more specific (but polarizing) description or is it more of a lack of clarity for what the heck is going on right now? Not meant to be offensive but the above question could be summarized was the caption inspired by fear or ignorance. I do like what you put out excellent vid
That was enjoyable. My advice would be slow down a little and have some sort of visual feedback as the numbers change. Sometimes its hard for the eye to detect the year counter incrementing as well as the year-to-year changes.
It's interesting to see how massive the victories use to be. Now it's neck in neck with only a tiny amount of seats in comparison that actually swing control. It seems like people were less ideological in the past as well and willing to try completely different ideologies.
They were just as ideologically split back then as they are today, perhaps more so actually. The difference is political parties were more Nationalistic. They weren't "anti-immigrant", just the wellbeing of U.S. citizens came first.
This is one of the only videos I’ve seen that addresses that the Republican Party and Democrat Party used to be effectively opposite compared to how they are today.
Not really true, the two parties have always been coalitions in reality, so what happened in reality is a lot more complex. For example, today’s GOP would have almost nothing in common with large elements of the democrat new deal coalition and todays Dem party is closer to a European social democrat/socialist party than any iteration of its history.
Awesome! Would be great if you included any excel data you used in the description so we could use the data to visualize our own insights too. If, you were willing to share ;)
I think a better label for the more recent decades would be the increased polarization between the parties. With both sides arguing so much, very little can really be done successfully nowadays
That was really interesting! I was surprised to see how often Congress control stayed with one party for a long time, despite the presidency flip flopping back and forth. It would be really neat to see this alongside a map that showed how each state was aligned throughout
Use to be a more populist oriented country back then, the Senate was chosen by state legislatures so political candidates HAD to fight for state control if they wanted their guys in office. Would make for a more interesting dynamic today if the 17th amendment weren't around.
@@capital_of_texasNot only that. It'a also because of unfortunate events and weak leadership coming from Republicans. They really have chances especially in the 80's I think.
You put “Ongoing realignment in both parties” I think can represent the 7th party system we are in now: Populism. The 6th was neoliberalism that began in the 1970s. Fighting corporate interests, big tech, wealth inequality is a big issue. We have big time divisions, unrest, and also dealing with war, global warming, and also technology and space travel. Recently Republicans have been gaining among Hispanic voters and white working class voters while democrats gain among suburban voters due to Anti-Trumpism.
We'll see if those trends continue once Trump is no longer the dominant political force in the Republican Party (which could be soon or in the distant future depending on how 2024 plays out)
@@andrewlantz very true but I think Trump’s populist message will have a long lasting impact on the GOP. DeSantis is a bit of the less polarizing Donald Trump
I find it intereseting that you opted to name the chief justice but neither the VP, the speaker of the house nor the senate majority leader. A map of the current states (and their political alignment) would also greatly enhance this, but also add a lot of work.
The Supreme Court of 1991 to 1993 shows it doesn't matter what your party affiliation is. There was an 8 to 1 Republican majority, but that court was very liberal.
One thing to remember about the Supreme Court is that Republican presidents used to have to get their nominees confirmed through a Democratic-controlled Senate.
Why? Democrats from California aren't anything like democrats from Georgia and Republicans from Texas aren't anything like Republicans from New York. There might be "two-parties" but the ideology among the members can swing widely. That's why there's nearly 500 caucuses.
Might be helpful to include a political compass for each party. I have no idea where the Whigs's would have fallen, for instance. But even more recently. Pre 1930s Republicans were the progressive party, but Post 1930s Democrats were the progressive party. Lots of people don't know that.
Mostly because it's not true, the parties were not uniformly idelogical back then - they both had Liberal and conservative wings well into the 70s and beyond. In the 30s themselves, Conservative southerners were a core part of the "New Deal Coalition" and Roosevelts New Deal itself was mostly segregated.
Love the detail in 2001 where it quickly switches from democratic to Republican because of the few days where Al Gore was vice president before Cheney was sworn in when it was a 50 50 senate.
Actually the cause of that was the switch of Senator Jim Jeffords, who started the congress as a Republican but switched to caucusing with the Democrats in 2001. That temporarily flipped control of the Senate from Republican to Democrat.
Good video all and all just some quick notes on slight inaccuracies. 1) Washington was independent , however during the writing of the Constitution aligned himself with the federalist and voted with them often. Video isn’t technically wrong but history books sometimes flip flop on if he was a federalist or not. 2) Economic turmoil did play a part in the Reconstruction South leaning Democrat again, but the major factor was the mass reinstitution of voting rights to southerns that fought in the war followed by the implementing of Jim Crow. A large part of black Republican dominance in the south after the war was a lot of white southerns lost their voting rights so for a short while freed slaves made up a large chunk of the electorate. 3) The new Deal coalition ended in 1948. Not sure why it continued until Clinton here but by 1948. While Democrats largely controlled the legislatures during that time the actual factions within the party changed to the progressive, and Dixiecrats. The better title for 1948-1996 would either by the post war coalition or Cold War coalition. Because that tended to be the time during politics where both parties tended to be focused on the Cold War and was statistically the most bipartisan due to unity against a communist threat, and many politicians having served in WWII together.
Well I would argue that some new deal policies went all the way through the Lyndon b Johnson and ministration but I do agree that the extension to the 90s is probably an accurate I think the final nail in any new deal concepts would be the presidencies of Nixon and then finally Reagan after that there is no illusion New deal is dead all the way and neoliberalism reigns supreme
@@tavenstrickert9658 LBJ really wasn’t new deal coalition technically, he promoted the great society and by that time . Similar beliefs with the great society, but then one could argue that Regeanism and early populism with the whigs are similar. In all honesty all political movements are based in part on an earlier movement. For that reason, I would end the New Deal Coalition after 1948 and start something new either Cold War into Great Society, followed by Reaganism and Neoliberal/Neoconservative.
On point one, you are correct that Washington was aligned with the Federalists even though he was officially an independent. For #2, I think the reason why the Panic of 1873 was so important was that it weakened Northern support for reconstruction, which left it vulnerable to the terrorism that suppressed black votes. It also pushed Scalawags to move back to the Democrats. Fair point on #3, although at the congressional and state level there is a lot of continuity between the 1930's and the early 1990's.
I'm really impressed by how overall stable and resilient the American democracy has proved to be over time. That's the way to go. But it's not a given and every generation has to work to keep democracy whole. Greetings from Germany to our US friends 🙋🏼♂️
I appreciate the great response this video has gotten! I want to clarify two things...
- The party affiliation of the Supreme Court is determined by the party of the president who appointed them, not by their judicial philosophy. For example, even though Earl Warren was a liberal justice, he was appointed by Republican president Dwight D Eisenhower, so he is labeled as a Republican.
- I used some discretion with categorizing independent members of congress. If their voting records align closely with one party, I categorize them as members of that party (for example, Bernie Sanders and Angus King are considered Democrats even though they identify as independents)
goyka
Never knew that about the justices. I thought it was their party alignment and that tells me I should learn more about the government again.
Either way, amazing video man!!
Earl Warren was a Republican…
@@nathaniellazo5912 I think he means that's the way he analyzed them. I don't believe there's a standard way to establish the balance of power in the Supreme Court, since they don't run on a party platform.
I'm sure this took a lot of work, so thank you for that. If you ever decided to do this again, it would be nice to see it from a state government standpoint. As in showing a map of the USA and seeing what states' executive and legislative branches were controlled by which party over the years.
Update for 2025-2027:
President - Donald Trump (GOP)
Senate Majority Leader - John Thune (GOP, 53/100)
House Speaker - Mike Johnson (GOP, 220/435)
I never realized just how much Democrats gerrymandered the house. They lost by only 5 seats but lost the popular vote by 4 points.
@@RifledRavenwdym they only lost by like 1.5 points
@ Actually we are both wrong. Republicans won the house popular vote by 2.6. Democrats coming that close is due to their gerrymandering.
I like how the better part of the last decade is just "ongoing realignment in both parties" because honestly nobody has any clue what's going on anymore except the vague idea that it sucks and the elites also kind of suck.
When you think about. The last decade did see a major realignment in both parties.
Republican votes moved more to the right while the party either maintained or shifted left.
The Democrats saw radical elements size control of the party, while the traditional voters shift slightly right.
On top of that newer parties have begin to pop up in the chaos, taking votes away from both parties.
Right now America, is facing several crisis. Energy Economy and server weakness in the Military. On top of that there is a deep mistrust from the population towards the Government. As citizens are scared if either "radical" elements form either party gain control may have severe consequences towards people they consider as 'enemies'.
It goes deeper then that but we could be here for days.
The real answer is that Democrats are embracing Marxism while Republicans are embracing reactionary 1776 populism.
We are in a realignment and I think most of it comes from a new generation of voters both millennials and gen Z coming of voting age.
Republicans have veered wildly to the right while Democrats have stayed marginally close to center/center-right over the past few years. The generational blocks X, Boomer, and Silent generations have voted farther right over time. While millennials have broken the age cycle and are voting more left over time. There is no data on gen Z but odds are it'll probably shift more left than millennials.
In short, older generations push an already conservative county more right and closer to authoritarianism. The newer generations really want the country to push left instead which on the left side scares long time Democrats.
It's a crisis as two center/center-right parties want to maintain their power. The process has taken the Republican party faster due to them already leaning more rightward. Democrats it has been slower because Democrats too also lean right, just not as right as Republicans.
@@LordChevonlier There's an excess of authoritarianism all around in politics these days. If anything the republicans might be trending slightly less down that path because the only real winning issue for them seems to be the push for local control of schools by outraged parents and the intraparty rancor surrounding the speakership has led to walking back some of the consolidation of power to the position Pelosi managed in her tenure. Both of the major parties are big tent coalitions that don't make a lot of sense trying to come up with a coherent political ideology.
For what little some guy on the internet's opinion is worth, there are way more than the one axis for mapping political positions. A list of a few: Liberal/Conservative (fiscally or socially), Authoritarian/Anarchist, Isolationist/Globalist, Dove/Hawk, Capitalist/Socialist, Individualist/Collectivist, Elitist/Populist, Chauvinist/Misandrist (or you could use the different in focus egalitarian in respect to sex vs sexist)
@@grben9959 Republicans have been pretty directly opposed to the democratic process for as long as they've been losing the popular vote, I think it kinda strange to call them less authoritarian. Not to mention the specific representatives of that party who have expressed support of a Trump coup and the belief that the Rothschilds lit California on fire with space lasers (yes representative MTG did say this). Not to mention the school thing you mentioned is a minority of loud parents backed by Republicans and conservative media pushing changes in schools that are not popularly supported, quite literally the minority pushing their will on the majority i.e. authoritarian. That all alongside the whole reason Republicans are denying climate change and certain members blame it on minority groups or the "elites", and that's simply put because they get sponsored by oil companies. Those with all the money get more power and less consequences under Republicans
This is an AMAZING idea and video project. Typically these types of videos focus on individual events such as wars and battles.
This video uses that popular format to instead tell the story of longer term historical/political trends, what actually makes up history. There might still be room to make something even more in depth, but awesome none the less.
Should’ve cut out the part from 2010. Democrats embraced full on communism control the media and big tech and FBI. They’re spending and destroying the country with free money for everyone and embracing communism.
Never included that part so he should just cut that part out.
How would you like to go more in depth? I'm working on a similar project
@@PatrickJMcF if it was a website it would be easier to go more in depth. However even in video format the same could be done simply with more footnotes, potentially in smaller font (for ex. Obama was not mentioned in detail, Reagan was not mentioned in detail, as the video creator stated it was not noted how Warren was a liberal justice)
@@PatrickJMcF maybe list the names of the top 3 people in each branch of government rather than just putting numbers on screen like this guy but yes he did include the names of president and leaders of each branch but that's of course not enough but this was a quick vid. so good enough i guess but i'd like to see these improvements added. also maybe a short reason for why things occurred both the mainstream narrative and counter narrative summed up in like 2 sentences.
@@PatrickJMcF by including the events and circumstances that caused the shifts in power and ideology.
For example you could include how the stagflation of the 70s + Watergate+ Vietnam led to the election of Ronald Reagan and the rise of Neoliberalism. I'd also like it if the video was more in depth about the ideologies of the parties/coalitions at any given time. Hand in hand with this is making the visuals reflect the coalitions in power at the time instead of just the parties. The Reagan Republicans were much different than the Republicans of before. For example put "new deal control" instead of democrat control.
Balance of power videos like these are always a joy to watch, especially when well-made. Excellent visuals, just the right amount of text, and engaging background music. 10/10!
Thank you sire :-)
I did not know William Howard Taft became the Chief Justice after his presidency until I watched this. Thank you.
The only former president to do so. It was the job he wanted the most even above being president.
@@MichaelWilliams-ur3te You would be correct about that.
@@MichaelWilliams-ur3te Taft was never elected to Congress.
I like how when something bad happens in a president’s term the parties completely swap in power
The age old idea among the public of "if anything bad happens at all, it MUST be the current president's and their parties fault."
Excellent video. Looking forward to more!
I was going to come into the comments and lavish my praises, but it looks like everyone else has said everything I was going to say. You did an incredible job here!
Thank you so much
I noticed that they were looking away from the camera, posing, looking into the distance until 1900s. Then they started looking into it with a stern face until Gerald Ford smiled for the first time.
This is an amazing video! I especially appreciate how the pace of the years was not static, with election years having an extra second or two for easier transitions.
God, I’ve been looking for a video like this for awhile-showing presidents, the partisan controls in Congress, and the Supreme Court majority per presidency! Excellent job!
It feels weird to see Republicans and Democrats for the Supreme Court, given the fact that Republicans can nominate very progressive Justices, and Democrats conservative Justices
It's crazy how over the last 50 years Republican presidents have nominated such an overwhelming majority of the Supreme Court justices!
That is more a thing of the past tho. The supreme court nowadays is a politically polarised institution.
@@andrewlantz not true at all, Roe was upheld in 1992 when the court was 8-1 republican yet they decided in a 5-4 decision to uphold Roe.
@@whatthefrickbro politics in 1992 is not as polarised as today.
@@whatthefrickbro You have to consider many judges even 25 years ago held views that were out of date compared to their party affiliation due to their age and other factors.
underrated video. shows literally everything and it's barely longer than six minutes. kudos
I think it'd be cool if you did this for other countries like Canada or the UK as well. It's a good format
I plan on doing that one day. Thank you for your encouragement!
@@andrewlantz if you'll do, do it for India too. 🤗
I didn't know the New Deal Coalition survived into the 90s. This video is very educational.
It survived at the state/local/congressional/etc level until then. A whole lot of people were voting R for president and D on the rest of the ballot in the 70s, 80s, and early 90s. 1994, which was an enormous "red wave" election, was the year that a whole lot of those voters, particularly in the South, began voting R downballot too, which is what allowed Republicans to take full control of Congress for the first time since 1953-54 (first two years of Eisenhower's presidency).
It lasted even longer at lower levels of government. Arkansas, the last "deep south" holdout, somehow managed to have Democratic majorities in its state legislature all the way to 2012.
What the commenter above me said was a great explanation. I’d also add that if you’re ever interested, you should go to the Wikipedia pages of different congressional eras and look at the house and senate maps. If you go to the 103rd congress’s page,(the congress that started after the senate and house election winners of 1992 were inaugurated or re-inaugurated on January 3, 1993, and was the first congress Bill Clinton presided over, as well as the last one before the 1994 Republican Revolution), for example, and go to the Members Section, you can get a great glimpse at just how democratic the house and senate still were in the first year of Bill Clinton’s administration. Alabama still had two Democratic senators as late as 1994.
The New Deal Coalition is the reason for 90% of our countries debt.
It basically survived until everyone who lived through the depression died or was super old
yes the new deal lasted like 60 years or so effectively.
Very awesome video, and quite informative. I love how it's completely neutral, only mentioning events for the sake of context and not for anything else, leaving the viewer to think for themselves!
Very eye opening for various reasons, to be honest.
I appreciate that. I tried to make my commentary neutral.
@Andrew Lantz I can explain the realignment
It's mostly urban vs rural now
Urban tends to heavily favor the democrats while the rural heavily favors the Republicans
It's also the rich vote democrats to hold onto wealth n power n the poor vote republican overwhelming n the middle class favors democrats by 10 points
Some minor factors include leadership like I know now the democrats have a significant edge in that (I hate the democrats btw) but McConnell and Mccarthy are beyond lame duck status It's not funny like it's the same exact problem the democrats had in the 80s n 90s where their leadership was a joke n couldn't win an election for the life of them
Everytime the economy cratered the party lost power n the democrats will learn this the hard way unless they fix it in 2 years
@nautgamingnautgaming9949 i know this comment is a year old lol but I don't know if that was even true then.
Looking at polls from a year ago, and exit polls from the 2024 election, it seems like the poorest people favor democrats, as do the richest and middle class (in general), but the people who aren't quite in poverty, but are still lower income (ie below the average income in the US) favor the Republicans a good bit, and the lower middle class does aswell by a bit.
So, essentially, at least in my opinion, it's just the rural vs urban divide right there. The poorest and the richest generally live more in cities, which are more democratic. And poorer areas in general, which aren't in poverty, but also aren't by any means wealthy, favor Republicans.
Its really interesting lol, the pattern. It looks like the richer somebody is, the more Republican they will be, but only until a certain point, when there's an inflection and it switches
I never seen such a setup before, great work! I hope you’ll make more in the future with other nations. It helps show executive, legislative, and judicial branch all in one basically.👌
Thank you!
I always advocate for more visualization of historical data, it makes it so much easier for people to consume.
Phenomenal project.
Thank you for your support!
5:14 Newt Gingrich go brrrrrr
Fun fact:
Among the only 2 judges that opposed Roe, 1 of them was a Democrat.
Love JFK so much.
originally, I think more republicans supported Roe than Democrats oddly enough
@@ninoy4914 I think it was because of Catholics supporting Democrats more at the time, and both parties being more ideologically diverse - Republicans that would be called liberals and or libtards today (closest thing existing would be, Governor hogan?)
@@iamthinking2252_ well that, and Dems still having a sizeable base in the South aswell. (Not saying you are wrong, just adding more)
@@iamthinking2252_ Northern Democrats like Mondale would still be somewhat considered Conservative in today's politics with his platform at the time.
The same thing went well with JFK from MA.
Most of the recent known Conservative Democrats around 10 years were mostly from the north.
Like Collins Peterson from MN.
JV Drew from New Jersey.
Dan Lipinski from Illinois.
Byron White himself came from Colorado
Except from such issue like abortion, both parties were fairly conservative at the time to compare with today's standard tbh.
So much info! I'm gonna have to watch this a few times, thanks for making this!!!
You're welcome!
Admirable work, presentation perfection is so rare and you nailed it.
Thank you so much 😀
“This is it, this is the year the other political party finally crashes, and we become dominant.”
No, the parties themselves will never disappear but they will change their ideology and identity.
@@Killerqueen69420 that’s the joke.
Every 30 ish years one political party will landslide a couple elections and then everyone will start saying that’s the year the other political party finally dies.
Happened during Jefferson, FDR, Reagan, Lyndon, Nixon, Obama, and more recently Republicans seem to be certain there going to win 2028.
My point is people like to think there party is dominant but it’s normally just a couple good candidates, the election map itself changes over time and party loyalty comes and goes.
Sometimes the other political party changes ideologies, sometimes they don’t, sometimes like Trump they just go more extreme.
Thank you very much I love this and it's better than a lot of resources on this topic
You're very welcome!
You should do ones for states and other countries
Many other countries (western democracies) have completely other kind of system, where multiple parties are involved not just 2 and where President's main job is foreign politics and the Prime Minister is the leading figure when it comes to internal politics/affairs. Also US is the only country I know of where Supreme Court is partially political as well, because how President nominates them
@@Balnazzardi In Germany the supreme courts are actually appointed by both chambers of parliament, some of them them were actually politicians before. Interestingly in 2018 a center-rigth judge for example, didn't participate in a ruling on assisted suicide on grounds of possible bias, as he opposed it as governor of Saarland. There are term limits and judges are basically only from more centrist parties (or were nominated by them), that is Social Democrats (center-left), Liberal (Center to Center-Right), Greens (Center-Left) and Christian Democrats (center-right).
@@DGAMINGDEPolitical Spectrum in The US is very different compared to Europe, "Centrist" in Europe can easily be classified as "Radical Left" in The US lol 😂. Just look at AOC and Bernie Sanders, in Europe they would be classified as another basic Centrist to Centre-Left politicians, but in The US those 2 are classified as "Radical Left".
@@byunbaekhyun2283 I am very aware of the situation in the U.S..
good video, helps give perspective on political trends
That is so awesome and informative too! I really appreciate that you took special events into consideration
Words cannot describe how much I appreciate the accurate portrayal of John Tyler's political party affiliation from Whig to Independent.
Sincerely,
A John Tyler Fan
Isn't he like super racist?
@@robbiestrong-morse730 Everybody was in 1841. Everyone's social views from back then would, of course, be considered horrendous today, and rightfully so, but that doesn't mean they didn't have anything worthwhile to say or accomplish anything amazing. I think John Tyler's unmatched fidelity to the Constitution and dedication to federalism during his presidency were wonderful traits that I wish we could see coupled with a present-day appreciation for the ability of anyone of any race to accomplish great things. That would be a heck of a leader.
I love John Tyler too, I got to visit his grave a few months ago in Virginia. Very underrated president whose legacy has been unfairly dismissed because of his siding with the CSA.
Thank you for appreciating that little detail!
Can't wait for the day that third parties are relevant in American politics.
The period just before the civil war and the populist surge in the late 1800's are the only times third parties have managed to break through.
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH OH THAT'S FUNNY AF
I sure don't want strong third parties. Now I will say I want them stronger than today but only being able to compete competitively in certain regions of states, just enough to hopefully push the major parties to adopt certain parts of the third party platform.
@ kind of like in the 1800s and early 1900s where a third party could win a state or two
the two party system is facilitated by the first-past-the-post-voting system, i highly suggest you read abt it or qatch a yt video abt it
Fantastic video! If you ever make an update I'd love to see another side panel that includes who state legislatures & governorships are controlled by. Maybe just as a numerical value, since you can't include it all in the same screen. But of course this is very good on its own!
Incredibly well made video, especially coming from someone with less than 100 subscribers! Very underrated creator right here.
Now 116
I appreciate your encouragement!
Videos like these are the reason I know more about American politics than that of my home country
the USA politics is more important for the simple fact that they are a world empire functionally (the greatest to date) and soon they will take the mask off and announce the end of the republic which i would encourage so the normies can get a clue. yes i get screwed but we're all getting the same treatment anyways. LOL.
Really good video that put contemporary events into context!
This is an awesome way to visualize history in a specific topic and criteria. Good job
Fascinating. Well done, hope to see more videos from your channel.👍🏻
Thank you! Will do!
As a Brazilian who's never been to the USA, I find it odd to put Supreme Court judges as partisan, as ours are supposedly non-partisan... though it actually makes sense, now that I think of it. Our current Supreme Court in Brazil is completely dominated by the left-wing 'Workers' Party' (PT).
They are in theory non partisan. It never really is that way in practice.
@@TheEclecticDyslexic Same as Brazil then. We have 20+ political parties but the corrupt left-wing populist Lula and his party have dominated the country since 2000, so pretty much all current Supreme Court judges are his puppets. They annulled his condemnation in a political move, by prosecuting the judge who condemned him rather than by actually attesting his innocence. The proof against him is just being ignored and his new judgement postponed; also the same judges control the electoral system, which is electronic and inauditable; and now they're enacting censorship about what they call 'fake news' (some of which have been confirmed less than one week after Lula' installation); so it's unlikely he'll ever face the punishment he deserves. And now he's president again, having eon a possibly illegitimate election by a very tight margin.
@@konradsartorius7913 Thank you very much!
This video is only tracking the party affiliation of the president who nominated them to a seat on the Supreme Court. Some level of partisan bias has been present for most of the court's history. That said, the overt, coordinated partisanship of the current court is extreme. Partisan courts make poor decisions. We learned that lesson 160 years ago with Dred Scott v Sandford.
My condolences
Curto, simples e muito bem feito, parabéns! Saudações do Brasil.
Very nice video. Simple, effective, informative.
Glad you liked it. Thank you for your support.
Been waiting for a vid like this forever
We sometimes forget, progressive Republicans mad conservative Democrats were a thing up until the 80s lol
👏 👏 👏 job well done on the video here! 🤝
Very well made video, really shows how divided we are with how closely divided congress is
This was great! Thank you for making and sharing this!
Dude this is fucking amazing, keep it up, very helpful and informative!!!
>new president
>instantly opposition control in the houses
this happened to Obama then Trump and then Biden and it’s probably gonna happen again lmao
This is amazing!
Andrew,
This is a great timelapse presentation. Thank you for doing it.
I suppose the presentation will have to be amended every two years🙂
Yes indeed! Thank you for your support.
this is an extremely well made video!
Thank you!
Underrated Video, underrated channel
I appreciate that! Thank you for your support.
I loved this!!! It was extremely informational
Most interesting is the Supreme Court
What a fascinating system
Yep. The Supreme Court has been in Republican control for most of the time that the Republican party was a thing.
Well the left is about to be locked out of there for a very very long time.
The 1994 Republican Revolution really put on display how southern conservative whites had moved on from its Dixiecrat past and more closely aligned themselves with the increasingly conservative Republican party. The old Dixiecrat voters either died or were convinced to switch by the time Reagan came around. Meanwhile, minority & youth voters kept continuously chipping away at those gains by voting Democratic, becoming known as the centrist party, endorsing social liberalism.
You can see it happen in 64 when Goldwater ran for President. He only won his home state and the Deep South, but the ideology he espoused would come to dominate the Republican Party and culminated in Reagan’s presidency. The Republican Party before Goldwater and the conservative movement was very different indeed.
Interesting opinion.
Democratic Party = centrist party? You high? 😂
@@yukihirasouma4691 The Democratic party is the centrist party. That is a fact, you have to accept it. Their social and fiscal ideology is liberalism. Liberalism is centrist. Neoliberalism is center-right. Social democracy is center-left. The Republican party's social and fiscal ideology is paleoconservative, which is far right.
@@ThunderTheBlackShadowKittyreal ones know there’s is no difference between republicans and democrats as much as Trump isn’t a fascist and Kamala isn’t a communist. They are both socially left wing and economically right wing. Supporting big government and corrpartions
this is so cool, i never realized andrew johnson was STILL in the national union DURING his presidency
Worth Including: the party breakdown of the state legislatures and governors, since those are more telling of shifting historical coalitions than the SCOTUS breakdown, since the latter is simply reflective of the party controlling the White House.
I will do a state political power video at some point.
Very excellent video. I've been trying to gauge the historical-political disposition of the United States on my own for some time, but now I have a consumable and consolidated video to watch. My only complaint is that the Supreme Court composition is a little bit misleading. Yes I know you have clarified in the pined comment that it's based not on their judicial philosophy, but by the president's political affiliation, however even then, they're some justices who are a REGISTERED partisan, who were appointed by a president with the opposing affiliation. I think this needs to be reworked based on partisan registration, not on presidential appointer (I know this is hard for modern justices who keep their registration more latent, but I think with them you can use presidential appointer and circumstantial evidence to verify their partisanship, especially because in modern politics it's basically treason to appoint a opposing partisan to the court).
And to make things easy, I will list those exceptions hereto:
Republican Appointed Democrats:
Stephen J. Field by Lincoln
Howell E. Jackson by B. Harrison
Horace H. Lurton by Taft
Edward D. White^ by Taft
Joseph R. Lamar by Taft
Pierce Butler by Harding
Benjamin N. Cardozo by Hoover
William J. Brennan jr. by Eisenhower
Lewis F. Powell jr. by Nixon
Democratic Appointed Republicans:
Harlan F. Stone^ by F.D. Roosevelt
Harold H. Burton by Truman
(^ means elevation to chief justice).
Also, I used Wikipedia as the source for these exceptions. (I know Wikipedia is not the greatest source, but I think with these, we can verify them with supporting references as well).
Good job with explaining long-term trends in politics
Thanks for not bashing one side or the other. I was expecting it. Good job 👍🏻
Gotta update this for 2024 cause boy oh boy
This is excellent! I think the captions could certainly use some work, for example they fail to mention things like suppression of black voters as a cause of republican support falling in the south (and generally focus on odd things sometimes). But overall, this is a well-made and high-quality video.
The original version had 3x as many captions but I found them to be kind of distracting. I appreciate the feedback though and might add a subtitle track with more details...
@@andrewlantz did you use vauge ongoing party realignment (true) in the last few elections to avoid more specific (but polarizing) description or is it more of a lack of clarity for what the heck is going on right now? Not meant to be offensive but the above question could be summarized was the caption inspired by fear or ignorance. I do like what you put out excellent vid
Great work!!
I appreciate your encouragement!
That was enjoyable. My advice would be slow down a little and have some sort of visual feedback as the numbers change. Sometimes its hard for the eye to detect the year counter incrementing as well as the year-to-year changes.
that was great thanks
Excellent...Most Excellent
Thank you so much 😀
This is really well done
Thank you!
It's interesting to see how massive the victories use to be. Now it's neck in neck with only a tiny amount of seats in comparison that actually swing control. It seems like people were less ideological in the past as well and willing to try completely different ideologies.
They were just as ideologically split back then as they are today, perhaps more so actually. The difference is political parties were more Nationalistic. They weren't "anti-immigrant", just the wellbeing of U.S. citizens came first.
As a non-American, I find it baffling judicial positions are so political in the USA.
This is one of the only videos I’ve seen that addresses that the Republican Party and Democrat Party used to be effectively opposite compared to how they are today.
Not really true, the two parties have always been coalitions in reality, so what happened in reality is a lot more complex. For example, today’s GOP would have almost nothing in common with large elements of the democrat new deal coalition and todays Dem party is closer to a European social democrat/socialist party than any iteration of its history.
You can literally see when the country enters a politically divided time by how frequent the swings are. Very cool!
Awesome! Would be great if you included any excel data you used in the description so we could use the data to visualize our own insights too. If, you were willing to share ;)
I think a better label for the more recent decades would be the increased polarization between the parties.
With both sides arguing so much, very little can really be done successfully nowadays
There are a lot of similarities between the polarization of today and the polarization of the late 19th century of American politics...
History has a strange way of repeating itself.
@@mathewcipriano4794 I was about to say the same thing XD
@@RoyalKingOliver That's how the world works!
As a a Japanese this was very interesting to me, getting to learn more American history
That was really interesting! I was surprised to see how often Congress control stayed with one party for a long time, despite the presidency flip flopping back and forth. It would be really neat to see this alongside a map that showed how each state was aligned throughout
Use to be a more populist oriented country back then, the Senate was chosen by state legislatures so political candidates HAD to fight for state control if they wanted their guys in office. Would make for a more interesting dynamic today if the 17th amendment weren't around.
When my skills improve I hope to create a map version.
@@andrewlantz That'd be awesome! keep up the great work :)
Wow, I had no idea that the Democrats held the house from 1954 to 1994
New Deal coalition was extremely strong for the Democrats.
@@capital_of_texasNot only that. It'a also because of unfortunate events and weak leadership coming from Republicans. They really have chances especially in the 80's I think.
Seems like the pendulum has been moving since day one. It always swings back.
Well done
You put “Ongoing realignment in both parties” I think can represent the 7th party system we are in now: Populism. The 6th was neoliberalism that began in the 1970s. Fighting corporate interests, big tech, wealth inequality is a big issue. We have big time divisions, unrest, and also dealing with war, global warming, and also technology and space travel. Recently Republicans have been gaining among Hispanic voters and white working class voters while democrats gain among suburban voters due to Anti-Trumpism.
We'll see if those trends continue once Trump is no longer the dominant political force in the Republican Party (which could be soon or in the distant future depending on how 2024 plays out)
@@andrewlantz very true but I think Trump’s populist message will have a long lasting impact on the GOP. DeSantis is a bit of the less polarizing Donald Trump
Very good video wow
really hard to find that first song, even though you've listed it. Is it on bandcamp or soundcloud or something else?
Sorry to get back to you so late, but I got it off Envato Elements.
most i've learned about past politics that wasnt specific to a war or scandel
I find it intereseting that you opted to name the chief justice but neither the VP, the speaker of the house nor the senate majority leader.
A map of the current states (and their political alignment) would also greatly enhance this, but also add a lot of work.
I am going to create separate videos that focus on Congress, the Supreme Court and state party control.
Amazing video. You deserve way more subs than me at least 20k..
Maybe one day :-) Thank you for your support!
Very good vídeo
Aha! This proves that my party has been right all along and the other side is terrible!
For shame, other side.
I hate how so evenly divided it is nowadays, and not even any independents / not republican nor democrat
There are "independents" in Congress today but yeah you are right. They are independent in name only.
Here before this goes absolutely viral
Nice!
Well done.
Great! Now pls do one for India with this same layout, this was really put together very very well! 😁
1:49 Well that explains the Dred Scott decision
The Supreme Court of 1991 to 1993 shows it doesn't matter what your party affiliation is. There was an 8 to 1 Republican majority, but that court was very liberal.
One thing to remember about the Supreme Court is that Republican presidents used to have to get their nominees confirmed through a Democratic-controlled Senate.
Cool
And this is why I'm happy my country is a multiparty democracy.
Why? Democrats from California aren't anything like democrats from Georgia and Republicans from Texas aren't anything like Republicans from New York. There might be "two-parties" but the ideology among the members can swing widely. That's why there's nearly 500 caucuses.
Honestly America needs not only a third party but to also redraw state lines to remove cities from the states.
Your national defense is likely paid for by the United States. You are welcome.
Might be helpful to include a political compass for each party. I have no idea where the Whigs's would have fallen, for instance. But even more recently. Pre 1930s Republicans were the progressive party, but Post 1930s Democrats were the progressive party. Lots of people don't know that.
Mostly because it's not true, the parties were not uniformly idelogical back then - they both had Liberal and conservative wings well into the 70s and beyond. In the 30s themselves, Conservative southerners were a core part of the "New Deal Coalition" and Roosevelts New Deal itself was mostly segregated.
@snazzle9764 Pre-30's Republicans are the party of nother and other free states. It has a conservative and progressive faction.
Props to him for including supreme court
Assuming the Supreme is court bar is based on what president appointed them.
Love the detail in 2001 where it quickly switches from democratic to Republican because of the few days where Al Gore was vice president before Cheney was sworn in when it was a 50 50 senate.
Actually the cause of that was the switch of Senator Jim Jeffords, who started the congress as a Republican but switched to caucusing with the Democrats in 2001. That temporarily flipped control of the Senate from Republican to Democrat.
@@andrewlantz oh the more you know i guess
Probably the only epic entrance. Fillmore’s ever received
Good video all and all just some quick notes on slight inaccuracies.
1) Washington was independent , however during the writing of the Constitution aligned himself with the federalist and voted with them often. Video isn’t technically wrong but history books sometimes flip flop on if he was a federalist or not.
2) Economic turmoil did play a part in the Reconstruction South leaning Democrat again, but the major factor was the mass reinstitution of voting rights to southerns that fought in the war followed by the implementing of Jim Crow. A large part of black Republican dominance in the south after the war was a lot of white southerns lost their voting rights so for a short while freed slaves made up a large chunk of the electorate.
3) The new Deal coalition ended in 1948. Not sure why it continued until Clinton here but by 1948. While Democrats largely controlled the legislatures during that time the actual factions within the party changed to the progressive, and Dixiecrats. The better title for 1948-1996 would either by the post war coalition or Cold War coalition. Because that tended to be the time during politics where both parties tended to be focused on the Cold War and was statistically the most bipartisan due to unity against a communist threat, and many politicians having served in WWII together.
Well I would argue that some new deal policies went all the way through the Lyndon b Johnson and ministration but I do agree that the extension to the 90s is probably an accurate I think the final nail in any new deal concepts would be the presidencies of Nixon and then finally Reagan after that there is no illusion New deal is dead all the way and neoliberalism reigns supreme
@@tavenstrickert9658 LBJ really wasn’t new deal coalition technically, he promoted the great society and by that time . Similar beliefs with the great society, but then one could argue that Regeanism and early populism with the whigs are similar. In all honesty all political movements are based in part on an earlier movement. For that reason, I would end the New Deal Coalition after 1948 and start something new either Cold War into Great Society, followed by Reaganism and Neoliberal/Neoconservative.
On point one, you are correct that Washington was aligned with the Federalists even though he was officially an independent.
For #2, I think the reason why the Panic of 1873 was so important was that it weakened Northern support for reconstruction, which left it vulnerable to the terrorism that suppressed black votes. It also pushed Scalawags to move back to the Democrats.
Fair point on #3, although at the congressional and state level there is a lot of continuity between the 1930's and the early 1990's.
I'm really impressed by how overall stable and resilient the American democracy has proved to be over time. That's the way to go. But it's not a given and every generation has to work to keep democracy whole. Greetings from Germany to our US friends 🙋🏼♂️
Wisely said