SoCon Democrats without the South?

[Nightingale]

What would it take for the Democrats to become socially conservative and keeping white working class voters without the South post-1964 Civil Rights Act?

There seems to be a running plot in AH that you an American political party can't be socially conservative if that party loses the South. What would it take for the Democrats to remain socially conservative (except perhaps on race and womens' opportunities), keeping white working class voters, whilst losing the South to the Republicans?

 

[Nightingale]

Any ideas...?

 

[overoceans]

You probably need to jiggle a bit with the larger demographics. From what I am taken to understand, northern Democratic conservatism was closely linked with blue-collar Catholic voters(Father Coughlin being an extreme representation of this, before he turned against FDR over the Klan). But IOTL, North American and western European Catholics are notorious for ignoring their church's social teachings, even if they continue to remain Catholic-identified.

So, somehow get Catholics to fall more uniformly in line with Church teaching on abortion, homosexuality, censorship etc. You probably need different patterns of immigration and/or assimilation for this to work. As it stands, you're basically fighting against one of the basic observable facts of upward mobility, ie. once previously marginalized cultural groups start climbing the ladder, they tend to shed the parocial tendencies they held to when they were just fresh off Ellis Island.

 

[Nightingale]

You probably need to jiggle a bit with the larger demographics. From what I am taken to understand, northern Democratic conservatism was closely linked with blue-collar Catholic voters(Father Coughlin being an extreme representation of this, before he turned against FDR over the Klan). But IOTL, North American and western European Catholics are notorious for ignoring their church's social teachings, even if they continue to remain Catholic-identified.

So, somehow get Catholics to fall more uniformly in line with Church teaching on abortion, homosexuality, censorship etc. You probably need different patterns of immigration and/or assimilation for this to work. As it stands, you're basically fighting against one of the basic observable facts of upward mobility, ie. once previously marginalized cultural groups start climbing the ladder, they tend to shed the parocial tendencies they held to when they were just fresh off Ellis Island.

Hmmm... Anyone one has ideas in immigration and Catholic affinity post-Civil Rights?

 

[Mr_Fanboy]

How about this?

Reconstruction goes much better, leading to Republicans dominating the South with an electoral coalition that consists primarily of African-Americans and Appalachian whites (think East Tennessee). With the loss of the South, Democrats lean harder into Bryan-style populism. Make that alignment somehow last into the present day, and between rural whites in the Midwest and the West, as well as immigrants in the cities, Democrats will consistently win the white vote on the national (though rarely by a landslide margin), but the Republican lock on the African-American vote makes them more than competitive.

And yes, it's likely that the Democratic Party coalition, in such a scenario, would likely be socially conservative by our world's standards, if economically more lefty than not.

 

[Nightingale]

How about this?

Reconstruction goes much better, leading to Republicans dominating the South with an electoral coalition that consists primarily of African-Americans and Appalachian whites (think East Tennessee). With the loss of the South, Democrats lean harder into Bryan-style populism. Make that alignment somehow last into the present day, and between rural whites in the Midwest and the West, as well as immigrants in the cities, Democrats will consistently win the white vote on the national (though rarely by a landslide margin), but the Republican lock on the African-American vote makes them more than competitive.

And yes, it's likely that the Democratic Party coalition, in such a scenario, would likely be socially conservative by our world's standards, if economically more lefty than not.

Can you do something similar post-Civil Rights Act of 1964?

 

[overoceans]

Can you do something similar post-Civil Rights Act of 1964?

Since the Civil Rights Act Of 1964 included women's rights, and since that act came to be closely identified with the Democrats, it was probably inevitable that the party would become the preferred choice of feminists. This kind of makes it hard for them to simultaneously be the party of Social Conservativism, since that is going to contradict the feminist platform on a lot of issues, abortion being just the most notable.

And even if the Act hadn't included women, the fact that the Democrats were willing to push that hard on racial equality would probably draw other aggrieved groups into the tent, expecting the party to do for them what it did for blacks. So you're still eventually gonna end up with feminists(and later gays etc) flocking into the Democrats, one way or another.

 

[Anarch King of Dipsodes]

What would it take for the Democrats to become socially conservative and keeping white working class voters without the South post-1964 Civil Rights Act?

There seems to be a running plot in AH that you an American political party can't be socially conservative if that party loses the South. What would it take for the Democrats to remain socially conservative (except perhaps on race and womens' opportunities), keeping white working class voters, whilst losing the South to the Republicans?

"Without the South" in what sense? "With little support in the South", roughly the present situation? Or "Without the Solid South", i.e. not having near 100% control of the South, but still being competitive? Because I could see an alignment where socially conservative white Southerners still hew to the Democrats, while blacks and "modern" whites support Republicans, leading to a roughly equal division of the South.

The thing is, the South is a social-conservative stronghold, and it's hard to see how the Democrats could embrace that philosophy and still not control the South.

OK, there's one way: both parties are social-conservative, splitting the white vote in the South, while blacks vote solid Republican. (Nationally, the Democrats are the "populist" party, the Republicans are the "business" party. They have to fight over something.)

 

[overoceans]

OK, there's one way: both parties are social-conservative

And that's going to be almost impossible to achieve, short of foregoing large-scale urbanization and associated trends, most of which are linked to broader economic forces. You basically need the whole of the USA to be rural(or at least small-town) and traditionally religious.

Assuming urbanization and secularization, the only way you could have both the GOP and the Dems be socially conservative is if there is another party to pick up the votes of alienated liberals. In other words, the US has to be a three-party system, with maybe each party picking up about 1/3 of the vote.

 

[Nightingale]

"Without the South" in what sense? "With little support in the South", roughly the present situation? Or "Without the Solid South", i.e. not having near 100% control of the South, but still being competitive? Because I could see an alignment where socially conservative white Southerners still hew to the Democrats, while blacks and "modern" whites support Republicans, leading to a roughly equal division of the South.

The thing is, the South is a social-conservative stronghold, and it's hard to see how the Democrats could embrace that philosophy and still not control the South.

OK, there's one way: both parties are social-conservative, splitting the white vote in the South, while blacks vote solid Republican. (Nationally, the Democrats are the "populist" party, the Republicans are the "business" party. They have to fight over something.)

Interesting. Can you do that with the reverse? Like the Democrats get Blacks and white working class-populist votes while Republicans get the whiter and the more business-oriented voters in the South?

From what I understand, I remember a thread where it was said that while the Civil Rights Act hurt, indeed, a big government, socially conservative Democratic Party can compete in the South.

But I think it is apparent that you think that there is no way for the Democrats to become socially conservative whilst having little support from the South post-Civil Rights Act of 1964. But if you do have ideas to make this happen, feel free to put it here

And that's going to be almost impossible to achieve, short of foregoing large-scale urbanization and associated trends, most of which are linked to broader economic forces. You basically need the whole of the USA to be rural(or at least small-town) and traditionally religious.

Assuming urbanization and secularization, the only way you could have both the GOP and the Dems be socially conservative is if there is another party to pick up the votes of alienated liberals. In other words, the US has to be a three-party system, with maybe each party picking up about 1/3 of the vote.

How can you do this post-1964 Civil Rights Act?

Or can Democrats keep those minority social liberals if they propose voting reform, etc.?

 

[Benjamin Allen Burch]

Interesting. Can you do that with the reverse? Like the Democrats get Blacks and white working class-populist votes while Republicans get the whiter and the more business-oriented voters in the South?

That's what happened...
As the South became less racist and richer, more suburban, the South went Republican.

 

[History Learner]

Reconstruction goes much better, leading to Republicans dominating the South with an electoral coalition that consists primarily of African-Americans and Appalachian whites (think East Tennessee).

Appalachian Whites outside of East Tennessee were largely Pro-Confederate and Democrat. I also don't think Reconstruction could go much better than it did, as the North was always going to lose interest in trying to enforce it.

 

[Chapman]

Have McGovern win in 1972 and then fail spectacularly, as President. The failure of such a left-wing President could make the case stronger for Conservative Democrats that embracing issues they considered "identity politics" would lead to ruin. The party moves further right, alienating those disadvantaged groups McGovern championed, while potentially keeping the white working class who support the economic populism.

 

[Nightingale]

Interesting. Can you do that with the reverse? Like the Democrats get Blacks and white working class-populist votes while Republicans get the whiter and the more business-oriented voters in the South?

That's what happened...
As the South became less racist and richer, more suburban, the South went Republican.

But can you keep the Democrats from becoming socially liberal in that case?

 

[Benjamin Allen Burch]

No, you can't.

 

[Benjamin Allen Burch]

Actually, if you have the South win the ACW, the Republicans would be replaced with a left-wing party, like in Harry Turtledove's books.