AHC: Keep the Republicans “the party of Lincoln”
- Thread starter Bomster
- Start date
Ian_W
Banned
The key thing was Nixon's Southern Strategy. If Nixon had gone the other way, and accepted the Solid South would stay that way but that Blacks could be separated from the Democratic Party by continuing Eisenhower's movement on Civil Rights, then that could have flipped California and Illinois to the Republicans ...
The problem with this is that the Republicans as a whole in the twentieth century have never been a "Progressive-Liberal Party." TR after all became president by accident; because of his popularity Republicans reluctantly went along with some of his reforms (and it has to be emphasized that as president TR was by no means as radical as he was in 1910-12 anyway). But the congressional Republicans were the party of Joe Cannon, not of TR. Note that Norris' anti-Cannon coup of 1910 depended primarily on Democrats for its success: "coalition of 42 progressive Republicans and the entire delegation of 149 Democrats in a revolt..." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Gurney_Cannon
It's not surprising that even in 1904, when the Democrats nominated the conservative pro-gold-standard Parker for president, the newspaper most associated with Wall Street, the New York Sun, endorsed TR: "We prefer the impulsive candidate of the party of conservatism to the conservative candidate of the party which the business interests regard as permanently and dangerously impulsive." See my post at https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...onservative-party.421348/page-2#post-15208325 on the structural differences between the parties.
Mention of the "party of Lincoln" just confuses the issue. Being the "party of Lincoln" and having the support of most African American voters was perfectly consistent with being the more conservative party economically. Most blacks who could vote voted for the Federalist, Whig, and then Republican parties--all of which also had the support of the most well-to-do whites. To quote the old post of mine cited above: "Lipset also notes that even what seems to be the most "conservative" stance of pre-New Deal Democrats--their hostile attitude toward blacks--reflected their lower-class (white) basis of support. Clement Vallandigham, for example, argued in 1861 that "The great dividing line was always between capital and labor" and that the "monied interest" used anti-slavery and sectionalism as a trick to weaken its opponents..."
Last edited:
Speaking of Norris: perhaps Conservative Democrats dominate the 1920s (Hughes wins '16, or maybe, as I've argued, Henry Ford runs and wins in '24 or '28 as the only prominent Democrat that could overcome the weaknesses of the party at the time due to his social clout, the party's desperation and his political detachment potentially destabilizing party-political polarities), a regular Republican is nominated in 32 and wins an FDR style landslide, is assassinated by Zangara. His VP -- and the President-elect -- is George Norris. Maybe then you have the building blocks for a truly progressive / New Deal Republican Party, in the sense a President in that time frame could actually reshape the party. Norris wasn't much of a racial liberal, though his successors, much like FDR, probably would be forced to be.
Last edited:
Although David T’s point made above, that
the G.O.P. has not been the liberal party during all of the 20th century, is quite correct, nonetheless as recently as 50 years ago the Republican Party actually contained quite a few liberals. But beginning in 1964, when Goldwater was the Republican’s Presidental nominee, liberal Republicans either left the party, retired, or were politically murdured. So I would make 1964
the POD. IF that year liberal Nelson Rocke-
feller- a very strong civil rights supporter
BTW- had been nominated instead of Gold-
water I think the G.O.P. would @ least maybe not hurtled so far to the right that
today it would regard Richard Nixon as a
dangerous leftist. However, IOTL Rockefeller
that year faced an uphill battle, one that be-
came, it now is obvious, impossible for him
to win when in 1962-63 he divorced his first
wife to marry Happy Murphy(no divorce,
Rockefeller is nominated?)
the G.O.P. has not been the liberal party during all of the 20th century, is quite correct, nonetheless as recently as 50 years ago the Republican Party actually contained quite a few liberals. But beginning in 1964, when Goldwater was the Republican’s Presidental nominee, liberal Republicans either left the party, retired, or were politically murdured. So I would make 1964
the POD. IF that year liberal Nelson Rocke-
feller- a very strong civil rights supporter
BTW- had been nominated instead of Gold-
water I think the G.O.P. would @ least maybe not hurtled so far to the right that
today it would regard Richard Nixon as a
dangerous leftist. However, IOTL Rockefeller
that year faced an uphill battle, one that be-
came, it now is obvious, impossible for him
to win when in 1962-63 he divorced his first
wife to marry Happy Murphy(no divorce,
Rockefeller is nominated?)
Once the Civil Rights Acts and Voter Rights Acts were passed many of the Segregationist Democrats moved to the Republican Party because there was no where else to go.
While the gains for the Republican Party was small at first, as more and more long term Democratic office holders began to retire they were replaced by younger candidates who ran as Republicans and did not use for the most part blatantly racist language.
Also when it came for the time to redraw the lines for the various different state and federal legislative offices, African-American Democrats cut a deal for more seats that were heavily African-American and that hurts white moderate Democrats as more conservative Republicans win their primaries and win in the general election.
The only way that for the Republicans to remain "The Party of Lincoln" is to reject the support of segregationist absolutely but after winning States in the deep South in 64 it was just too tempting to do.
While the gains for the Republican Party was small at first, as more and more long term Democratic office holders began to retire they were replaced by younger candidates who ran as Republicans and did not use for the most part blatantly racist language.
Also when it came for the time to redraw the lines for the various different state and federal legislative offices, African-American Democrats cut a deal for more seats that were heavily African-American and that hurts white moderate Democrats as more conservative Republicans win their primaries and win in the general election.
The only way that for the Republicans to remain "The Party of Lincoln" is to reject the support of segregationist absolutely but after winning States in the deep South in 64 it was just too tempting to do.
That's exactly what it would take, perhaps the most likely scenario. In the twenties, the parties had grown together to the point that their greatest effect was to easily narrow races to two candidates. In 1928, the Dems nominate a Christian-Evangelical compatible candidate and win after the fatigue of Harding and Silent Cal. As the electorate is quick to blame the party in the White House for economic woes, the incumbent stands little chance in 1932, the New Deal becomes a GOP program and the post-Civil War political alignments are restored. What happens later? Many OTL figures wear different colors. By the sixties, the Solid South remains in conservative Democratic hands.
Md139115
Banned
Why does everyone assume that Lincoln was such a liberal? I can see how on social issues, but on fiscal ones, he was solidly pro-business and worried deeply about the deficit the war was racking up. I know that the party demographics and based have definitely flipped, but I’m not sure that Lincoln would have had too many objections to modern Republican policies.
It is more than race the defined the Republicans as "The Party of Lincoln" it was also national infrastructure like railroads in the 1860's and the Federal Interstate Highway System in the 1950's, the idea that Federal laws took precedent over state's laws, and that we are Americans first than whatever state we are from.
Today Republican Party is almost an upside down version of that.
Today Republican Party is almost an upside down version of that.
[QUOTE="ejpsan, post: 17282364, member: 44250"
Today Republican Party is almost an upside down version of that.[/QUOTE]
How is the present Republican Party against Federal spending on infrastructure?
Federal money for highways is as big as ever; Federal grants for mass transit are huge.
Granted, the Democrats would spend even more, but the Democrats want to spend more on everything.
Are today's pro-abortion, pro-same-sex-marriage Democrats the party of William Jennings Bryan?
Today Republican Party is almost an upside down version of that.[/QUOTE]
How is the present Republican Party against Federal spending on infrastructure?
Federal money for highways is as big as ever; Federal grants for mass transit are huge.
Granted, the Democrats would spend even more, but the Democrats want to spend more on everything.
Are today's pro-abortion, pro-same-sex-marriage Democrats the party of William Jennings Bryan?
GeographyDude
Gone Fishin'
With the Republicans also retaking Congress in the ‘32 elections, maybe the R’s successful push through a program of investing for the future, not scrimping for the future.
And successfully push forward a program that we might as well do needed and useful infrastructure projects when the cost of labor, capital, and materials is relatively affordable.
GeographyDude
Gone Fishin'
Please remember Bill Clinton in his acceptance speech at the ‘92 Convention saying, Our platform is not pro-abortion. It is strongly Pro-Choice.
With this said, I still think Democrats have missed a real opportunity in not making a modal case of the 19-year-old young woman with the bad boyfriend. And going on to talk about well-mother prenatal care, early infant care, paid leave from work, etc, so that carrying the pregnancy forward is more of a realistic choice.
Most recent POD would be Nixon winning the 1960 election.
In that scenario, President Nixon won't be able to court Dixiecrats. Going hunting where the ducks are would mean courting black votes once they become available.
If Nixon takes Barnett/Wallace's challenges to federal authority personally, we may see a slightly earlier and more aggressive push for civil rights than JFK/LBJ. D Congress, but the civil rights victories are associated with an R presidency.
Bonus points if Nixon wins a second term and it resembles LBJ's full term. Urban riots occur on schedule. The Pill was invented prior to the POD and the butterflies don't affect enough Court seats to change Griswold...so the sexual revolution is about the same as OTL. If Nixon escalates Vietnam after the Gulf of Tonkin, we've effectively changed Presidents in name only. If he doesn't escalate, he'll be attacked as soft on communism.
Which creates an opening for a 1968 D nominee who rails against the collapse of law and order, the rapidly decaying morals, and the weak foreign policy under Nixon. The 36th President of the United States....George Corley Wallace.
After that sequence of events, a black Democrat is a cornball brother for a looong time.
In that scenario, President Nixon won't be able to court Dixiecrats. Going hunting where the ducks are would mean courting black votes once they become available.
If Nixon takes Barnett/Wallace's challenges to federal authority personally, we may see a slightly earlier and more aggressive push for civil rights than JFK/LBJ. D Congress, but the civil rights victories are associated with an R presidency.
Bonus points if Nixon wins a second term and it resembles LBJ's full term. Urban riots occur on schedule. The Pill was invented prior to the POD and the butterflies don't affect enough Court seats to change Griswold...so the sexual revolution is about the same as OTL. If Nixon escalates Vietnam after the Gulf of Tonkin, we've effectively changed Presidents in name only. If he doesn't escalate, he'll be attacked as soft on communism.
Which creates an opening for a 1968 D nominee who rails against the collapse of law and order, the rapidly decaying morals, and the weak foreign policy under Nixon. The 36th President of the United States....George Corley Wallace.
After that sequence of events, a black Democrat is a cornball brother for a looong time.
(1) Republican national platform, 1860: "14. That the Republican party is opposed to any change in our naturalization laws or any state legislation by which the rights of citizens hitherto accorded to immigrants from foreign lands shall be abridged or impaired; and in favor of giving a full and efficient protection to the rights of all classes of citizens, whether native or naturalized, both at home and abroad." http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29620
(2) Republican (OK, technically "Union") national platform, 1864: "8. Resolved, That foreign immigration, which in the past has added so much to the wealth, development of resources and increase of power to the nation, the asylum of the oppressed of all nations, should be fostered and encouraged by a liberal and just policy." http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29621
(3) Lincoln signed "An Act to Encourage Immigration." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Act_to_Encourage_Immigration
This is not to deny that nativists were an element in the original Republican coalition. (Indeed, their dislike of Seward may have been fatal to his nomination prospects in 1860.) But Lincoln certainly was not one, they did not get a position on the national ticket (one reason Henry Winter Davis didn't get the vice-presidential nomination is that German-Americans objected to his nativist record), and the policy of the national Republican government can certainly not be called hostile to immigration. (Of course one reason for this was a desire to get immigrant votes, and another was precisely because it was a pro-business party.)
Last edited:
After Roosevelt, have someone like a Robert M La Folette or a similarly liberal minded person win the 1908 primary or even third term of Theo Roosevelt. If you prevent a defection, maybe you can get FDR or someone like that to be a Republican (not sure if he was originally a democrat), especially if the Democrats keep going for southern conservatives or just conservatives in general (I believe Hoover was someone that was considered for the Democrats). I think that's enough to start changing things where conservative republicans start moving to the democrats and vis versa for liberal democrats to the republicans (at least in the long run).
Have the Republicans be the party of civil rights and the one to pass reforms. So in otl you had the conservative democrats go to the republicans, i think it would be the opposite here. Also if Nixon for whatever reason is still a Republican in this timeline, then have him instead of going for southern conservatives, go for the recently enfranchised african-americans, especially as they are the party of civil rights here.
I think those two alone get it over the line but if that isn't enough. Something like Rockerfeller (Republican) vs George Wallace (democrat). Not that it really ties in together but that certainly would be something.
Have the Republicans be the party of civil rights and the one to pass reforms. So in otl you had the conservative democrats go to the republicans, i think it would be the opposite here. Also if Nixon for whatever reason is still a Republican in this timeline, then have him instead of going for southern conservatives, go for the recently enfranchised african-americans, especially as they are the party of civil rights here.
I think those two alone get it over the line but if that isn't enough. Something like Rockerfeller (Republican) vs George Wallace (democrat). Not that it really ties in together but that certainly would be something.