As we all know, the Republican Party is the main liberal party in the United States of America while the Democratic Party is the main conservative party in the US, but what if the roles of the two parties were reversed with the Democrats being the liberal party while the Republicans are the conservative party? What PODs would make such a reversal possible? I'd think that Theodore Roosevelt losing the Republican nomination in 1912 while Woodrow Wilson wins the Democratic nomination (instead of Champ Clark) would be a good POD for that reversal.
DBWI: Conservative Republicans, Liberal Democrats
- Thread starter Whiteshore
- Start date
TR losing the GOP nomination is borderline impossible considering his popularity (to the point that the whole "third term" hassle was non-existent within the party), you need an earlier POD to somehow make him lose the nomination.
Another and later POD - Either have Franklin Roosevelt and/or Huey Long survive their assassinations. Assuming an FDR/Long presidential ticket happens, I can imagine the proposed "New Deal" and "Share the Wealth" programmes shifting the Democrats to the left.
Only on social issues -- if anything the Dems tend to be slightly to the left on economics due to their long-standing relationship with organized labor (though I'll grant this is starting to shift as the GOP relies more and more heavily on minority voters, college students, and DEMOGRAPHICS and those voters tend to support a broad social safety net).
At any rate, the Democrats' two bases -- Southerners and union "hard-hats" -- have always been more socially conservative than the cosmopolitan suburbanites in the GOP, so somehow you'd have to get one group to switch sides for this to work. Unions would be easier to flip Republican than Dixie, for obvious reasons, but not quite sure how -- maybe a Republican gets the credit for ending the Great Depression instead of Al Smith?
Yeah. Pretty much hinges on the Roosevelts. If TR doesn't swing the Republicans left and if Franklin (there's an obscure character for you) had managed to make it National office (more than Secretary of the Navy, that is), then he could swing the Democrats left, et voila
Now. Before you say 'who' or 'what about that scandal', let's take a look at Frank. (Surely, if he ran nationally he'd want a more friendly version of his name.) Frank was a rising star in New York when he got involved in that scandal, and it destroyed his electoral chances for good. So. Suppose he never meets whatshername, and the scandal never happens? He had a lot of money, and charisma, and people thought he was going places at the time, and was VERY much on the left wing of the Democrats.
Heh. I even read an ASB TL (although the author claimed it wasn't), where he got some nasty wasting disease, which knocked him out of politics long enough that the scandal abated. Eric Sanderson! Sheesh, he should have stayed with Byzzie stuff.
Now. Before you say 'who' or 'what about that scandal', let's take a look at Frank. (Surely, if he ran nationally he'd want a more friendly version of his name.) Frank was a rising star in New York when he got involved in that scandal, and it destroyed his electoral chances for good. So. Suppose he never meets whatshername, and the scandal never happens? He had a lot of money, and charisma, and people thought he was going places at the time, and was VERY much on the left wing of the Democrats.
Heh. I even read an ASB TL (although the author claimed it wasn't), where he got some nasty wasting disease, which knocked him out of politics long enough that the scandal abated. Eric Sanderson! Sheesh, he should have stayed with Byzzie stuff.
"At any rate, the Democrats' two bases -- Southerners and union "hard-hats" -- have always been more socially conservative than the cosmopolitan suburbanites in the GOP"
Southerners yes, but hard-hats? I'd say it wasn't true until roughly the 1960s. Before then, everyone was socially conservative, and the hard-hats if anything were more likely to thumb their nose at the church or "middle class morality," ect. It was only in the 1960s when the upper classes began to embrace feminism, homosexuality, ect, that the hard-hat reputation for social conservativism began. I would say a good POD would be in the early 1900s if you assume that the Catholic-dominated northern branch of the Democratic party began to take more control of the party from its Southern Protestant counterpart. By the time the Democrats nominated their first Catholic presidential candidate sectarian tensions had died down, but imagine an alternative time line when a Catholic Democrat is nominated in the early 1900s, how many votes would he get in the South? What if every nominating convention became a battle between Catholic and Protestant? You could then imagine Northern and Southern protestants uniting in reaction, under the Republican banner.
Another potential POD concerns the Civil Rights Issue. This was an issue that solidified support for the Democrats in the South, but what if it was the Republicans which were the less pro-civil rights party? You don't have to have them opposing it, the northern branches of both parties wanted it, the Democrats simply had less enthusiasm. Maybe, as part of the general Protestant-Catholic split, Northern Protestant Republicans would start to see their fellow Protestants in the South as valuable allies, with a similar problem of an alien population.
A complicating factor would be the Blacks in the South, whose historical attachment to the Republican party, and revulsion for the Democrat, has long been noted as a force resistant to change. However, I could see them potentially moving to a third party if the Republicans were more lackluster about appealing to them. It had been, from around 1880 to 1950, a somewhat illogical alliance, the richer, more protestant northern whites aligned with the poorest community in America. Perhaps they found neither party welcoming to them, so instead create a third party.
Southerners yes, but hard-hats? I'd say it wasn't true until roughly the 1960s. Before then, everyone was socially conservative, and the hard-hats if anything were more likely to thumb their nose at the church or "middle class morality," ect. It was only in the 1960s when the upper classes began to embrace feminism, homosexuality, ect, that the hard-hat reputation for social conservativism began. I would say a good POD would be in the early 1900s if you assume that the Catholic-dominated northern branch of the Democratic party began to take more control of the party from its Southern Protestant counterpart. By the time the Democrats nominated their first Catholic presidential candidate sectarian tensions had died down, but imagine an alternative time line when a Catholic Democrat is nominated in the early 1900s, how many votes would he get in the South? What if every nominating convention became a battle between Catholic and Protestant? You could then imagine Northern and Southern protestants uniting in reaction, under the Republican banner.
Another potential POD concerns the Civil Rights Issue. This was an issue that solidified support for the Democrats in the South, but what if it was the Republicans which were the less pro-civil rights party? You don't have to have them opposing it, the northern branches of both parties wanted it, the Democrats simply had less enthusiasm. Maybe, as part of the general Protestant-Catholic split, Northern Protestant Republicans would start to see their fellow Protestants in the South as valuable allies, with a similar problem of an alien population.
A complicating factor would be the Blacks in the South, whose historical attachment to the Republican party, and revulsion for the Democrat, has long been noted as a force resistant to change. However, I could see them potentially moving to a third party if the Republicans were more lackluster about appealing to them. It had been, from around 1880 to 1950, a somewhat illogical alliance, the richer, more protestant northern whites aligned with the poorest community in America. Perhaps they found neither party welcoming to them, so instead create a third party.
Best POD: In 1960, Harris Wofford tried to get Jack Kennedy to call Coretta King. Kennedy dithered and Nixon beat him to the punch. Given how close 1960 was, maybe Kennedy wins if he makes the call.
Big question is whether Kennedy would have supported civil rights as aggressively as Nixon did. Nixon was hypersensitive, and it worked out for the best where civil rights were concerned. He took Wallace and Barnett's defiance as a personal affront. His pushback against the segregationists led to the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act.
Big question is whether Kennedy would have supported civil rights as aggressively as Nixon did. Nixon was hypersensitive, and it worked out for the best where civil rights were concerned. He took Wallace and Barnett's defiance as a personal affront. His pushback against the segregationists led to the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act.
Thomas1195
Banned
No. The Republican supported strong federal power and big spending on national infrastructure programs.
OCC: This is essentially the GOP under Lincoln rather than under Calvin Coolidge.
FBKampfer
Banned
Basically the same thing. Realistically, the two parties have always been driven by the same external idealogical forces as they are in 2017. The Whigs, the Democrats, Republicans, the name doesn't matter.
The Republicans have done reversals in the past, and arguably are in the middle of another. Damn neoliberal republicans just won't follow voters on economic issues, but the two party system essentially ensures they can get away with it.
The Republicans could have pulled the Southern Strategy instead of the Democrats, and idealogical results would be almost identical at this point. We'd still have the same democratic voters denying climate change, and yelling about Christian persecution in the US, we'd still have all the same ugly crap rearing it's head, only we'd flip-flop the names. Especially with such an early POD.
The Republicans have done reversals in the past, and arguably are in the middle of another. Damn neoliberal republicans just won't follow voters on economic issues, but the two party system essentially ensures they can get away with it.
The Republicans could have pulled the Southern Strategy instead of the Democrats, and idealogical results would be almost identical at this point. We'd still have the same democratic voters denying climate change, and yelling about Christian persecution in the US, we'd still have all the same ugly crap rearing it's head, only we'd flip-flop the names. Especially with such an early POD.