Summary of When and why did Democrats and Republicans switch platforms? by Natalie Wolchover

In the second half of 1800s Republicans stand for strong federal government, passed laws for protecting Black americans and advanced social justice, while Democrats opposed these policies.

In 1936 Franklin Roosvelt, a democrat who won a presidential seat, won a presidential seat as a democrat with the same agenda. This date symbolizes completed process of platform switch caused by political turmoil connected to great depression and introduction of West states as a new voting bloc.

Both parties tried to exploit the discontent this generated, by promising the general public some of the federal help that had previously gone to the business sector. From this point on, Democrats stuck with this stance — favoring federally funded social programs and benefits — while Republicans were gradually driven to the counterposition of hands-off government.

During the 1860s, Republicans, who dominated northern states, orchestrated an ambitious expansion of federal power, described by the Free Dictionary as "a system of government in which power is divided between a central authority and constituent political units." This helped to fund the transcontinental railroad, the state university system and the settlement of the West  by homesteaders, and instating a national currency  and protective tariff.

After the United States triumphed over the Confederate States at the end of the Civil War , and under President Abraham Lincoln, Republicans passed laws that granted protections for Black Americans and advanced social justice (for example the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (opens in new tab) though this failed to end slavery). Again Democrats largely opposed these apparent expansions of federal power.

Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt won reelection that year on the strength of the New Deal. This was a set of reforms designed to help remedy the effects of the Great Depression … (market crash on "Black Thursday," October 24, 1929.")  The reforms included regulation of financial institutions, the founding of welfare and pension programs, infrastructure development and more. It was these measures that ensured Roosevelt won in a landslide against Republican Alf Landon, who opposed these exercises of federal power.

A highly influential Democrat named William Jennings Bryan blurred party lines by emphasizing the government's role in ensuring social justice through expansions of federal power — traditionally, a Republican stance.

Only gradually did Republican rhetoric drift toward the counterarguments. The party's small-government platform cemented in the 1930s with its heated opposition to Roosevelt’s New Deal.

Democrats seized upon a way of ingratiating themselves to western voters: Republican federal expansions in the 1860s and 1870s had turned out favorable to big businesses based in the northeast, such as banks, railroads and manufacturers, while small-time farmers like those who had gone west received very little.

Both parties tried to exploit the discontent this generated, by promising the general public some of the federal help that had previously gone to the business sector. From this point on, Democrats stuck with this stance — favoring federally funded social programs and benefits — while Republicans were gradually driven to the counterposition of hands-off government.

earlier on, businesses needed things that only a bigger government could provide, such as infrastructure development, a currency and tariffs. Once these things were in place, a small, hands-off government became better for business.

Antithesis: Knowing very little on this I disbelieve. This wouldn’t explain why Republicans where passing civil right acts and protecting Black americans. I would rather see politics as an algorithm of influence that works in if this than that mechanic and when republicans change some positions they were forced to change others.