I disagree. Teddy Roosevelt was certainly no conservative icon but I would say he was well to the right of full-fledged socialist Woody Wilson. Liberals might have been very happy with some of T.R.'s policies like his zeal for busting corporate monolonies, but certainly no liberal alive today would stand and applaud Teddy's "warmonger imperialism", especially in building up national defense and invading other countries, nor would they support his staunch promoting of hunting and gun rights, or his immigration policies ("there's no room for hypthenated americanism in this country" for that matter). It was Teddy who denounced Wilson's scheme to nationalize the railroad industry in 1912 as "rank socialism" and who returned to the GOP fold and endorsed conservative Charles Hughes in 1916 after seeing Wilson's "New Freedom" program had been diasasterous for America. And not all the "reforms" we associate with the "progressive" era are necessarily bad, for instance many conservative support the idea of Recall of public officials, which was introduced during 1910s "progressive" era.
>>> Most of the states that were Democratic in 1900 are Republican today and vice-versa. That shows that the parties switched. In 1900, Republicans were liberals and Democrats were conservatives. Today, that is reverse. <<
Absolutely wrong. Go back to the 1900 election and look at the top of the ticket and see what the two parties are advocating. William Jennings Bryan was a socialist loon who continually bashed the GOP as mean-spirited, heartless, "party of the rich" (sound familar?). McKinley supporters said Bryan was a demagoguing, socialist, naive peacenik who appealed to statist Euroweenies (again, which party is associated with that today?) McKinley was the conservative pro-market traditionalist and Bryan was a radical leftist nut. The same was true in most cases (but not all cases) further down the ticket. I doubt any credible historian would accept the argument that McKinley and his followers were the liberals in that race.
>> And if Lincoln were alive today he’d be a Democrat. Same for Grant and same for all of the radical Reconstruction guys. <<
I disagree. Lincoln had been a corporate lawyer for the railroad industry and was a social conservative. He would not be too fond of today's Democrats. Lincoln certainly wasn't a "radical reconstructionist", the radical Republicans in Congress were rivals of Lincoln in the GOP and constantly complained about his policies being too wimpy. Lincoln was a moderate (anti-slavery, but not obsessed with it) trying to placate every faction of the GOP at the time, and none were too happy with him.
>>> There has never been a more liberal president than Lincoln till now and there has never been a more liberal program than Radical Reconstruction <<
Absolultely disagree. Wilson, FDR, and Johnson (and now Obama) instituted far more liberal policies than Lincoln ever did. And again, Lincoln DID NOT SUPPORT the "radical reconstruction" policies. In fact, Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee both mourned the death of Lincoln as disastrous because it was the death of someone who wanted a consolatory mild reconstructive policy towards the south. Read your history books.
Lincoln was a damn near communist. He would regularly decide over dinner whether or not captured Confederate soldiers would be summarily shot. He approved William T. Sherman committing the kind of war crimes that would have gotten him tried at Nuremburg if they were attempted in modern times
And when during Reconstruction and for decades after it the Democratic Party appeared on the ballot in this state as the Conservative Democratic Party. That should tell you exactly who the conservatives were 100 years ago and who weren’t.
A lot of people don’t like that the parties switched but the parties did switch. Thats why liberal formerly staunch Republican areas in the Northeast are now Democrat and its why the South is now Republican. The parties switched. That’s just the way it is.