First what does it mean to be a classical liberal… I suspect you would agree that Republicans are the historical party of “capitalism”… but when you think of capitalism, you don’t think of it as “your right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”… but actually, you cannot have one without the other… and so Republicans/conservatives have as the cornerstone of their beliefs both “rights” and capitalism. Here is some historical background…

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

“Thomas Jefferson (the father of the Republican party) adopted many of the ideals of liberalism, but in the Declaration of Independence changed Locke’s “life, liberty and property” to the more socially liberal “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”.”

It is no surprise that Republicans (the North) fought the Democrats (the South) over slavery among other issues. As far back as the writing of the Constitution, the Northern colonies who would become the center of the Republican party objected to slavery, but finally accepted it with restrictions as a compromise to get the South to join. Some examples of the Republican advancing civil liberties…

When it came down to giving woman the right to vote. The vote went: “When the House of Representatives passed the 19th Amendment in May 1919 it did so by 304 votes to 89, with Democrats only 104 to 70 in favour but Republicans 200 to 19. In the Senate, Democrats were in favour only by 20 to 17 but the GOP voted for it by 36 to 8.”

People think the Democrats were the party of Civil Rights because the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed under LB Johnson. But look at the Congressional vote. “The House approved the final bill in a 288–95 vote, with 81 percent of Republicans and 59 percent of Democrats in favor.”

The Democrats have always been “the other party”. Will Rodgers once said, he was not a member of an organized party, he was a Democrat.There is a political theory that given the nature of man, there will always be the “other party” since any system even communist systems have internal conflicts. As such, the Democratic party has always been an alliance of different interest groups often incompatible with one another.

In the 60s, the internal conflict between the southern Democrats and the rest of the Democratic party boiled over. FDR had attracted the support of many socialist groups (socialism spread throughout the world as an ideology during the Great Depression and FDR harnessed their energy to give him 3 terms in office). So when LB Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act (strongly supported by Republicans and the more “socialistic” workers element of the Democratic Party), the southern Democrats abandoned the Democratic Party and supported George Wallace in 1968. But it soon became clear, that a “southern” third party would have marginal influence and this is when the “southern Democrats” joined the Republican party.

But why join the Republican party, when they were the party of civil rights, not the Democrats… the answer is simple the Republicans were also the party of “states rights and limited government”. Going back to FDR, states’ rights became a core policy of the Republican party because they were afraid FDR would keep on winning (he might have if he had not died in office). Remember he died at the beginning of his fourth term in office!

So when the unholy alliance between southern Democrats and more socialistic northern Democrats ended, a new unholy alliance between “blue Dog” Democrats and Republicans took place at the national Presidential level only. If you look at Congressional representatives and state governments, Southern Democrats remained firmly Democratic for several more decades until the existing Congressional leaders died in office or retired.

When these “Blue Dog” Democrats joined the Republican party, the Republican party got “tainted” by them and it is at that point where the Republican party began to be thought of as the party of “racists”. As one Republican historian points out… the racists of this country vote against Democrats not for Republicans and that is pretty clear when you observe what happened in Congress just this year.

Look how quickly recently the Republicans stripped Steve King of his committee assignments for his racist comments. Compare that with inability of the Democrats to do the same for the anti-Semitic comments of some of their members.

But getting back to classical liberalism. While most Republicans embrace classical liberalism, the Democratic party is split between the moderates that embrace classical liberalism and the socialists that embrace what is referred to as “progressive” liberalism (calling it outright socialism could hurt their cause). Again this socialistic part of the party is not new, but reaches all the way back to the Great Depression.

Socialism rejects capitalism, but in doing so it also subordinates civil rights, as I said they go hand in hand. Look at college campuses where socialism seems to reign today. Do they encourage free speech? Does affirmative action as a policy promote equal treatment or suggest preferred treatment to accomplish “societal goals”. Socialism is about acting collectively not individually to accomplish societal goals. It simply has no problem with subordinating individual rights if doing so promotes their social goals whatever they might be.

Let’s look at gun control, very controversial in light of the horrible tragedies of recent years. I suspect most Republicans would love to pass laws that would depress gun violence if they could do so without violating the Constitution. But to a Republican, civil liberties come first… safety second. Because if you can limit one “right” for “safety” reasons, what about when “free speech” is deemed “dangerous” or “freedom of the press” is dangerous. What if religion is perceived as dangerous (as it is in many communist countries).

Another example is “abortion” rights. Progressive think women have a “right” to have an abortion whenever they want. Classical liberals think women have “rights” and unborn babies have “rights”. Roe v Wade is a “classical liberal” decision. The Court ruled the mother’s rights prevail up to the point of “viability” and the baby’s rights prevail thereafter. In other words, there are no “abortion” rights, just conflicting civil rights which have to be reconciled.

Getting back to guns, both Republicans and Democrats agree that a “person” can lose their rights if they abuse them, but what about those that have not abused them? Can you take them away?

So if you think “civil rights” are unalienable, you are a classical liberal and you will by nature slowly gravitate towards Republican policies and capitalism. If you think “rights” are negotiable in exchange for the “greater good”, then you will gravitate towards “progressive” liberalism and socialism. If you are agnostic with respect to “rights” and instead are purely “self” driven then you will gravitate to the party that best satisfies your personal goals.