I made a flow tree chart of the American political factions, cause I wanted to figure out how they evolved over time.
>>70799368
Silly goy don't dare dream of choice and unneeded complexity you simply need two thumbs, oie for the democratic party and one for the republican party. Stick one up once every four years and keep deposit your weekly shekel allowance at your local Goldstein-Lebiowitz bank.
>>70799368
pretty good OP but you missed the Socialist Party which was popular back when Eugene V. Debs was around, the Prohibition Party, and the Free Soil Party
>>70799368
What's the significance of double lines and simple arrows?
>>70799368
Playing on my peach tree, mooom!
And what about the colors? Guess I get pale blue and pale red, which are used for democrats and republicans. What about dark red? Extreme factions? Yellow? Royalists? Liberals? What's up with orange and green and gray?
Some kind of legend might help, maybe?
>>70799719
Simple arrows mean a more formal connection, double lines mean an informal, ideological relationship.
Donald Trump has a simple arrow from Reform Party because he was a member of the Reform Party. Ron Paul has a double line to the Libertarians because there's a lot of ideological overlap but he's a Republican.
>>70799888
Colors are official faction colors.
For example, any red-and-blue box was a party that actually had red and blue as its official colors.
Orange oddly enough was the official color for Constitutional Union Party.
Official Federalist colors are black-and-white, but I used a gray gradient.
I just thought gold was appropriate for Royalists.
>>70799963
>>70800133
Thanks for the explanations.
Have you thought about aligning this vertically to a proper timeline (e.g. years along the y-axis)? That could work great for such a graph.
>>70800133
also rounded corners are unofficial factions, or parties that aren't officially recognized.
Tea Party, Stalwarts, etc. are rounded b/ they're unofficial factions of the Republican Party.
Dem-Socialists and American Nazis weren't recognized as political parties I don't think.
>>70799368
The chart is accurate but poorly structured. It needs to be based on alignments rather than presidencies. The Republican Party was consistent from ~Eisnenhower to Reagan, while the Democratic Part shifted from Roosevelt to Clinton (remaining fundamentally the same during the Reagan and Bush Years.)
The earlier eras are really well done, but understand that politics back then was based on a particuliar machine dominating the other machines. So it makes more sense to talk about cities rather than necessarily movements, but only to make this chart.
Somehow. You got the fringes right. I'm floored. You should be paid to do this on that merit alone.
Just for inspiration; one of the greatest multidimensional graphs in history.
>Probably the best statistical graphic ever drawn, this map by Charles Joseph Minard portrays the losses suffered by Napoleon's army in the Russian campaign of 1812. Beginning at the Polish-Russian border, the thick band shows the size of the army at each position. The path of Napoleon's retreat from Moscow in the bitterly cold winter is depicted by the dark lower band, which is tied to temperature and time scales.
>>70800309
I might, but the trouble is with fitting everything together. I sometimes had to move boxes in weird vertical positions because they're too close on the left-right spectrum, or because they don't really represent distinct times.
Nixon, for example, represents his style of Republican from 1960 to 1970s.
>>70800654
I used presidents as labels because I wanted a political leader I could attach to each example of the faction. They're really supposed to be stand-ins for ideological alignment.
I wasn't sure what to do for the Democrats after Roosevelt, because the Cold War must've shifted them a bit rightward, but Johnson's Great Society and Civil Rights was definitely a step leftward. I wasn't sure if I'd put him left of FDR though.
>>70799368
>globalist
into the trash it goes
>>70800907
>>70800999
That's really cool
>>70801246
It's easier to put than "no borders free trade internationalist"
>>70801131
Yeah. What I mean to say is that the cities should be kept for personal reference, and the chart should demonstrate the presidents to keep it simple for the public. I wrote the wrong order by mistake.
The Early and Mid Cold War didn't particularity shift politics right ward, from a policy or rhetorical position. Nixon created the flippin EPA, AKA the Villains in Ghostbusters. It DID give room to hardliners like Goldwater or McCarthy, who THEN shifted the politics rightward as we thought it did in the 80s. But even then, both Eisenhower and Johnson conspired against McCarthy by creating the televised broadcasts. The politics back then were simpler because they were more flexible compared with today.
Now. It may be uncomfortable to create a "New Deal Democrat" block from Roosevelt to Clinton, and a "Eisenhower Republican" block from Eisenhower to Reagan, but look up men the men of this era in detail and you'll find that they were pretty Center-Left compared to today. Goldwater Republicans would be the first breakout which leads to Reaganite Republicans (somehow, the Religious Right has to be incorporated as a split out from the Democrats)
Honestly though, this is very delicate stuff to show, because unlike the centuries in the past, we are still touched by this stuff.
Democratic socialism didn't come from communism, it came from European Socialdemocrat movement.
>>70801500
you're doing good work son.
Someday I hope this gets neatly codified and spread across the masses to the normies on social media so we can illustrate to them just how in fact the two parties are really similar and we're all just shitposing and playing the game of the powers that bejuden
>>70801131
Also don't call the current group of Republicans "Globalist." There Social Conservatism was supposed to place a check on the current insanity that crawls out of academia. It's insulting and unfair to them.
>>70801246
If you got a better name for "no borders, no morals, free trade internationalism" I'll be game. The reason why I was far more open to the "standard Republicans" despite being pro free trade was because they still held up a standard that needed to be followed.
>>70801752
Honestly, this is just technical and complicated shit. Nobody gives a fuck about political autism like this. Like Demographics, things are pretty much set in stone, and I spend all day trying to put things nicely more so than anything else.
>Libertarianism related to American Nazi Party
lmao
>>70801945
You may be right. David Duke should move to the populist conservative front, while having no real relation to the Tea Party. I didn't comment on it because I actually know very little on him.
>>70801752
>Someday I hope this gets neatly codified and spread across the masses to the normies on social media so we can illustrate to them just how in fact the two parties are really similar and we're all just shitposing and playing the game of the powers that bejuden
But isn't this widely known at least since Upton Sinclair's "The jungle"?
>>70802045
I connected the two only because Duke said Tea Partiers were urging him to run for president in 2012, although he's certainly not representative of the Tea Party as a whole, who also aren't representative of Libertarians.
>>70799368
Chart is pretty gay in general, but the Democrat-Republicans were a faction of the Federalists, not of the Anti-Federalists. Many of the Anti-Federalists joined the Democrat-Republicans, but all the ones you list (and really, all the important ones overall) were originally Federalists.
>>70802222
The only endorsement that matters from the Tea Party would be from the Koch Bros. Which is why the Libertarian Party is an offshoot from the Tea Party, rather than Trump, who is quite willing to bring forth government (like Nixon.)
I really think >>70801945 is right. Move them over as a precursor to Trump, ultimately leading to them BECOMING the Republican party and then terminating the Reagan line. (Sorry guys. Demographics don't like and the decline of Christianity was ultimately the decline of the party itself. Getting free votes for prayer was just too good to last.)
>>70802376
The Democratic Republicans were made specifically to oppose Federalists. How then are they also a 'faction' of Federalists if by their very constitution they are philosophically defined against them?
>inb4 Madison used to be a Federalist.
