Progressivism died because the Red Scare essentially neutered the reform element of the progressives by the taint of association with communism/socialism, not because Wilson gave them everything. What did survive was the moral crusading element, which successfully pushed for Prohibition and then died out when Prohibition ended up being a disaster, and the efficiency camp, which saw the decline of the politician machines and continued anticorruption efforts into the 1940s.
Secondly, Teddy Roosevelt's New Nationalism is just as viable as a New Deal predecessor, if not even more so given that Wilson's program was a more liberal set of reforms whose goal was to enable the independent success of small businesses. In contrast, Teddy's program pushed for a strong government and a much stronger social welfare network than Wilson was proposing in his New Freedom policy. However, that's all moot with a Clark victory, since Clark's isolationism would be much more palatable than in the 1916 election, regardless of the Progressives and Republicans reuniting.
- Depends on if the Red Scare happens.
- Lots of things going on here:
- 17th amendment was passed by Congress before the 1912 elections, so it still happens. I don't think Clark would have an effect on the state ratifications of the amendment
- Wilson tried to ignore Prohibition (probably because the anti-Prohibition elements were primarily Democrat supporters) and it still passed. I imagine Clark does the same with the same results.
- It's hard to find sources about Clark's view on race and eugenics. But he was a Missouri Democrat, so I wouldn't be surprised. Eugenics is probably the same as OTL.
- Age of consent laws were a state affair, so the President really doesn't influence things that much in that area. Same as OTL
- The Democrats were generally opposed to Republican big business, so Clark would probably continue anti-trust action, at least to stick it to the GOP's biggest backers.
- War intervention is probably the biggest divergence with a Clark presidency. Clark was opposed to the US declaration of war, and without presidential support, I doubt that Congress can get the 2/3rds majority needed to veto the President and declare war. Now there's a ton of debate as to how a neutral US affects the war, but I lean towards some sort of draw, perhaps slightly favoring the Central Powers.
- Other divergences: Clark opposed the Federal Reserve Act, and I would say he's ambivalent about labor rights. This has implications for the recession that will occur in the 1920s, likely because Europe enters a depression postwar and is highly likely to default on its debts to the US. Also, I don't really think Clark was a progressive, he just wanted party united to avoid something like 1912 happening to the Democrats. As such, I imagine the conservative wing of the Democratic party becomes dominant, as opposed to the OTL progressive wing.
- Uh, the Newport Sex Scandal was a blemish on FDR's career. It didn't help him at all given that commission concluded he was unfit for public office. But honestly, things probably stay the same. Clark would probably reward FDR for opposing his cousin, and Assistant Secretary of the Navy is the ideal posting for FDR given his enthusiasm and theoretical expertise on the navy. However, the Newport Sex Scandal could be butterflied by no American mobilization into the war, but that benefits FDR's career and doesn't harm it. Also, things drastically diverging means the circumstances that led to FDR being paralyzed could be butterflied away, saving years of recovery. I think that FDR could be governor of New York by 1924, assuming no paralysis and no Newport Sex Scandal, putting him on track to be President by 1928, which would place him in the same situation as OTL given that a recession will likely hit in the early 1920s. But FDR winning the election in 1928 is contingent on a wide variety of factors. A Clark presidency likely pushes progressives more into the GOP camp, which would harm the primary. In addition, the labor unions are severely weakened by the Red Scare, further reducing FDR's support base for the New Deal Coalition. Personally, I would say Clark wins an 8 year term, his successor (hard to say, given that the internal politics of the Democrats are completely reshuffled due to the dominance of the conservative win) wins the 1920 elections, but a recession occurs on his watch (either the 1st term or the start of the 2nd term), giving the progressive Republicans room to sweep in and claim the presidency with a New Nationalism-modelled New Deal to put in place. FDR probably has to wait until the 30s or 40s for his chance at the presidency as a result.
- Now given that WWI has drastically diverged, the Russian intervention is completely different from OTL. There's a pretty good post somewhere on this forum about why in a CP victory (or a draw for that matter), Germany actually isn't likely to back a serious intervention against the Bolsheviks, and the Entente with the US wasn't able to mount a successful intervention OTL, so their chances of succeeding when they are far more exhausted by war and without US backing are much slimmer. I imagine the Bolsheviks still take power in Russia, although Brest-Litovsk means they are much less of a threat than OTL. The very existence of a successful Bolshevik revolution is still more than enough to spook Americans into a Red Scare though.
- Clark is less of an interventionist, so the Mexican revolution plays out differently. Henry Lane Wilson still remains ambassador until Clark takes power, so Madero is still assassinated and replaced by Huerta. I imagine Clark is much less likely to perform shenanigans like occupying Veracruz or imposing an arms embargo, thus not destabilizing Huerta's regime. That could either mean Huerta retains power and crushes the revolution, or the anti-Huerta coalition wins more narrowly, and the weakness and exhaustion of all factions results in a successful ruling coalition forming between Carranza, Zapata, and Villa.
