The movement to the left has been going on since the mid-1990s when people started to see the full affect of the GOP vision for American (and rejected it). The GOP has always had more money than the Democrats. In the 1896 election the GOP outspent the Democrats 10-1 (and that is the OFFICIAL spending, GOP newspapers and other support is NOT in that number). Even in that election the Democratic candidate came close to winning (and thus the GOP had to cheat to win). This money advantage has always helped the GOP even when it was in the minority. In my opinion the GOP would have disappeared decades ago except for that money advantage.
While I ignored the issue of Money in my previous thread, it is an important factor. Fortunately for most people they do have long memories so the greed of the GOP of the 1920s was remembered by people till they started to die off in the 1970s. The baby-boomer's did NOT know the Depression first hand and received most of the advantages of the Democratic Reforms of the New Deal. The GOP used they money to convince the Baby-Boomer's that they best choice was the GOP not those wacky Democrats. The Democrats have to overcome this money advantage by being better and they generally are.
One way the Democrats are better is shown in the Scoop's Monkey Trial of 1925. Before I go into why this trial shows the difference between Democrats and Republicans I have to first get the reader to understand that their concept of the trial is WRONG if that concept is based on the movie and play "Inherit the Wind". The Play is based on a book written by a Republican which attacked Bryan and his performance in the Trial. Even in the 1931 when the book was published, the GOP still feared Bryan, six years in his grave by then. Anyway what most people think of that trial is based on GOP propaganda for the GOP word machine by 1925 had been Anti-Bryan for 30 years and when it came to the trial kept on that attack (There is a quote of one reporter when asked how can he call in his report while the trial was on, retorted "I know what my editor wants").
Since the Trial the attacks on Bryan has continued for people REMEMBER what they war told and the GOP is good at repeating things over and over till you accept them as true even when they are not. Some example of the errors most in the play:
1. Scopes while arrested, never spend a day in Jail.
2. All the attorneys involved were referred to a "Colonel" it was a title to ANY attorney in Tennessee at that time.
3. BOTH sets of Attorneys were greeted by the Town with a dinner (Two dinners, Bryan spoke at one, Darrow the second).
4. Bryan never complained by the sentence for a Fine was all that could be assessed against Scoops (And Bryan had earlier offered to pay it if Scopes did not have the money AND had also wrote a letter to the Tennessee Legislature NOT to put a fine in the Stature the year before).
5. Scopes was actually offered a renewal of his contract with the School after the trial (and would later say he meet greater bigotry in academia then he ever faced in the hills of Tennessee). The scene in the play is based on McCarthy's attack on those opposing him, not on anything that happened in Dayton in 1925.
6. Remember the Trial was a made up case to bring money into the City of Dayton Tennessee. Scopes agreed to be the Defendant after the town had told him he would have his job back, the town would pay the fine etc.
7. No preacher in town said anything to anyone involved in the Trial (The Preacher in the Play is 100% fictional, no such character existed in Dayton in 1925).
If you missed any of the above, join the club, most people have for it was the result of a massive GOP propaganda program against Bryan and was internalized by so many people that when the Play came out in the 1950s no one really remembered the Trial so no one objected to the inaccuracy of the Play compared to the Trial.
While the perception of Bryan is a product of GOP smear campaign, the point I want to make is the make up of the two sets of Attorneys. Scopes lead attorney was Hall who was the ACLU attorney and had been Bryan's Assistance Secretary of State under Wilson (When Bryan had been Secretary of State). Darrow came in late to the fight, only volunteering his services once Bryan agreed to appear for the Prosecution. Thus you had the situation where a Trial involving what the parties thought was an important legal and social debate, occurring in a Republican County, in front of the Republican Judge, with a Republican Jury (and paid for by a Republican Chamber of Commerce as a money making plan for the City of Dayton) when both sets of Attorneys were members of the Democratic Party.
Why the debate? Because Democrats ALWAYS DEBATE POLICY, Republicans never do. The Debate was simple, When it comes to PUBLIC Schools paid for by Public Taxes, do the Public have the right to decide what is to be taught in such Public Schools? If yes, what limitation is on that right? Both Bryan and Hall wanted that Debated and that was the whole thrust of the Trial from those two long time Democrats. Even Darrow was a caught up in this spirit, agreeing to be a Witness for Bryan after he had examine Bryan (This was canceled by the Judge who ruled the whole concept, including Bryan's testimony, was irrelevant to the issue at trial). In Bryan's eyes and the eyes of the ACLU the trial was to start a debate, a debate that never occurred for the book publishers chicken out and quickly removed Darwinism from most if not all Biology books. This is NOT want Bryan wanted, and NOT what the ACLU wanted. Bryan wanted Darwin out of High School Biology only as to Human evolution but based on a belief that teaching evolution made people less charitable to their fellow man (Social Darwinism was big in the 1920s, and Social Darwinism was something a progressive like Bryan always opposed). Bryan knew Darwinism had to be taught to a degree, the debate in his mind is first who makes that decision AND what are the limits to such restrictions and how to correct for the harm of teaching it (i.e. how do you address the problem of Social Darwinism).
The Scopes Monkey trial shows the difference between Democrats and Republicans, Democrats want to discuss policy, both good and bad, and hope that out of that debate a good policy will come out. Republicans want to make money even of that is the result of bad policy and as long as they are making money, the policy must be good.
If you want more on the Scoop's Monkey Trial go here:
http://www.bradburyac.mistral.co.uk/tennes15.html#tbdchttp://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=3645http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0603.kilgore.htmlFor Speeches of Bryan (He wrote some great anti-Imperialism Speeches in his 1900 Campaign):
http://www.boondocksnet.com/ai/ail/bryan.htmlHis Speech on the "The Religious Argument" for imperialism is still accurate today:
http://www.boondocksnet.com/ai/ailtexts/bryan041230.html