You would have to go back to 1900 -- the time of Jim Crow and lynchings -- to discover the period when anti-imperialism was actually an explicit electoral issue and the Democratic Party, having absorbed populists into the party through the politics of fusion, was arguably less imperialist than the Republican Party:
***** Anti-Imperialists and the 1900 Presidential Campaign By Jim Zwick
After the Treaty of Paris was ratified in February 1899, the 1900 presidential election became the anti-imperialist movement's next major opportunity to reverse the policy of imperialism. The Anti-Imperialist League shifted its focus from lobbying congress to broader political organizing aimed at defeating the policy of imperialism at the polls. "We propose to contribute to the defeat of any person or party that stands for the forcible subjugation of any people," its platform declared. "We shall oppose for re-election all who in the white house or in congress betray American liberty in pursuit of un-American ends." Both the Anti-Imperialist League and the Democratic Party sought to make imperialism the "paramount issue" of the campaign.
The Democratic Party included an anti-imperialist plank in its platform but its nomination of William Jennings Bryan alienated many anti-imperialists. Bryan had supported ratification of the Treaty of Paris, and his campaign was seen as having two primary issues: imperialism and free silver. His relationships with racist Southern Democrats also alienated many anti-imperialists who opposed the disfranchisement of African Americans and the increase in racial violence then occuring in the South. At its Liberty Congress of Anti-Imperialists held in Indianapolis in August, the Anti-Imperialist League ultimately supported Bryan as the most effective means of defeating William McKinley, the Republican candidate. For many of the League's key officers and supporters, though, Bryan himself became the "paramount issue," and the anti-imperialist vote was ultimately divided.
During the summer of 1900, a third party movement was organized to oppose both McKinley and Bryan. Calling for the independence of all U.S. colonies, it situated itself as more anti-imperialist than the Democrats while also opposing Bryan's financial policies. Many anti-imperialists who initially supported the idea of forming a third party in 1900 ultimately rejected it because it was not able to get a prominent Republican to lead the ticket. Without that, they believed it would have helped McKinley's chances of reelection by drawing most of its support from the Democrats.
The presidential election of 1900 was the last time the anti-imperialist movement tried to make imperialism the "paramount issue" of a political campaign. By the next election, the United States had established firm control over most of the Philippines and the issue was receding into the background of public consciousness. The Democratic Party continued to advocate Philippine independence in its campaign platforms, however, and the Anti-Imperialist League endorsed that party in every subsequent presidential election until its dissolution in 1921.
<http://interact.boondocksnet.com/ai/ail/election1900.html> *****
That was also the time when the Republican Party was less racist than the Democratic Party:
***** African Americans in the Anti-Imperialist Movement By Jim Zwick
. . . Along with African American troops from the regular army, two regiments of African American volunteers served in the Philippines from 1899-1902 during the Philippine-American War. They served in a war of conquest abroad that was often defined in racial terms during a period of accute racism at home. The war took place while Jim Crow laws were being established in the South and a resurgent wave of racially motivated violence against African Americans was spreading throughout the country. Many of the racial prejudices, stereotypes and slurs prevalent within the United States were exported to the Philippines during the war. This put African Americans in a particularly difficult position: should they support the war and imperialism to prove that they were patriotic citizens who deserved respect at home? or should they oppose policies that they thought would result in the extension of oppressive Jim Crow laws over other peoples of color in the colonies? Should they continue to support the Republican Party because of its former role in ending slavery despite its new commitment to imperialism? or should they support the Democrats with their anti-imperialist position even though they were leading efforts to disfranchise Black voters in the South? . . .
<http://www.boondocksnet.com/ai/ail/afamhist.html> *****
Until the mid-1970s, between the two dominant parties, the political party that had a claim to be a more progressive party on the domestic front, be it the Republican Party or the Democratic Party, was more imperialist than the other. Since then, both parties have been equally imperialist, the difference between them being that the Democratic Party has become more of a party of fiscal discipline than the Republican Party. -- Yoshie
* Bring Them Home Now! <http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/> * Calendars of Events in Columbus: <http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html>, <http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php>, & <http://www.cpanews.org/> * Student International Forum: <http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/> * Committee for Justice in Palestine: <http://www.osudivest.org/> * Al-Awda-Ohio: <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio> * Solidarity: <http://www.solidarity-us.org/>