The Ruins of an American Party System: From 1920 Onward

Status
Not open for further replies.

Thande

Donor
One thing I noticed while putting together the data for that 1920 map you mention is that the Farmer-Labor Party was much more widespread than I thought, being virtually a national party in terms of how many parts of the country they ran in.

New York City is vulnerable to Socialists and other up-and-comers because of how the Democrats unbelievably lost almost all of it in OTL 1920, their most reliable stronghold since the party's foundation. While I imagine there was some degree of bounceback in TTL just as in OTL 1922, they are still vulnerable. I wonder if the power of Tammany Hall will be broken earlier in TTL - OTL, despite everything that had happened to the Democrats, they were still able to get their mayoral candidate elected in a landslide in 1921.
 
I wonder how Henry C. Wallace would handle this situation. (OTL he was Harding and Coolidge's Agriculture secretary, where he'd get in conflict with Hoover.)
 
Unionist is mostly good, but it invokes images of the Civil War political system.

You may be interested in this:
In 1924, the Federated Farmer-Labor Party (FF-LP) sought to nominate La Follette as its candidate. The FF-LP sought to unite all progressive parties into a single national Labor Party.

However, after a bitter convention in 1923, the Communist-controlled Workers Party gained control of the national organization's structure. Just prior to its 1924 convention in St. Paul, La Follette denounced the Communists and refused to be considered for the FF-LP endorsement. With La Follette's snub, the FF-LP disintegrated, leaving only the Minnesota Farmer-Labor Party.
 
Almost everyone expected Warren G. Harding's presidency to be a massive success. Even his staunchest partisan critics expected him at least to be the great leader of the conservatives. How could someone elected so overwhelmingly, with such huge margins in Congress, fail? It seemed impossible. And indeed, through his tariff policy, taxation policy, budget and spending policies, and isolationism, Harding's presidency was a solid victory for the Republican Party's right wing. Meanwhile, just looking at statistics, it was clear that he fixed the economy. Most of his campaign promises had been fulfilled. Other than his civil rights failure, Harding's presidency was, by most standards, a strong success.

Or at least that is how it looked like in 1922.

As the year went on, a massive scandal began to hit the news. It was revealed that Warren Harding's Secretary for the Interior, Albert B. Fall, had accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes from his oil tycoon friends in return for Fall giving them bidding-free leases to drill in various oil reserves, such as the Teapot Dome reserve. Most Republicans were disgusted by these actions, and joined their opposition in impeaching Fall and removing him from office. Fall, and his oil friends Harry Sinclair and Edward Doheny, were all arrested, convicted, and jailed for a brief period of time for bribery and conspiracy. Harding denied any knowledge or involvement, but his approval took a massive hit, as the clean image for his administration was shaken.

Had the scandal stopped there, Harding's reputation might have recovered. But within a year, allegations that Attorney General Harry Daugherty accepted bribes from bootleggers in return for allowing them to purchase "medical alcohol" from his crony Jess Smith. Daugherty and his department soon came under investigation, where rampant abuse was revealed, including the smuggling of whiskey into the White House, unlawful searches and seizures against enemies of the administration, and manipulation of files. Daugherty soon came under congressional investigation. When Jess Smith was severely wounded in a murder attempt by another member of the Justice Department, Daugherty resigned from his position. He was later arrested and convicted on charges of corruption.

Meanwhile, it was revealed that Charles Forbes, the director of the Veterans' Bureau, turned out to have used the executive orders by Warren Harding to seize control of the Veterans hospitals. He then used these hospital contracts to amass massive funds for himself, at the expense of the veterans. These funds were used, in part, to buy bootleg liquor. Harding fired Forbes, but the damage was already done, and no sooner had the Veterans' Bureau been cleaned than another scandal erupted in the United States Shipping Board, where Harding appointee Albert Lasker resigned due to a Congressional Investigation revealing that he illegally sold US ships without an appraisal board. Numerous other appointees were convicted of accepting bribes as well.

Harding went on a long tour around the United States in an attempt to revive his fading popularity, but it was not enough to stop the once-beloved president's reputation. When a massive railroad strike occurred in early 1924 which the president failed to negotiate and Harding's veto of the Veterans' Bonus Bill was overridden by the massive Republican majority, it became apparent that his political power had been destroyed.
 
He's going to be disliked by his own party for vetoing that bill since it was overridden. Some might call him too conservative and want a middle of the roader, perhaps?

I doubt they'd prefer Robert LaFollette's Progressivism, but they might consider trying to push for someone other than Harding. Then again, even in 1924 it had been 40 years since a sitting President was denied the renomination, and Arthur had almost been chosen anyway even when he wouldn't push for it, so it might be hard for the GOP to nominate anyone else.

So, I guess it will be Harding anyway. though this Farmer-Labor Party is interesting, I wonder if LaFollette gets a lot more support by combining forces with them.
 
He's going to be disliked by his own party for vetoing that bill since it was overridden. Some might call him too conservative and want a middle of the roader, perhaps?

I doubt they'd prefer Robert LaFollette's Progressivism, but they might consider trying to push for someone other than Harding. Then again, even in 1924 it had been 40 years since a sitting President was denied the renomination, and Arthur had almost been chosen anyway even when he wouldn't push for it, so it might be hard for the GOP to nominate anyone else.
Robert LaFollette was already set on making a third-party run in '24, which left California Governor Hiram Johnson as the Progressive standard bearer. Johnson would cruise through the primaries that were held except maybe those in the Northeast (even there though he would have been competitive) which would likely have netted him more delegates than Harding; to expand on that point, Hiram Johnson would be far from a majority, but you would have more than a few favorite sons controlling their own delegations and refusing to back either Johnson or Harding, waiting to have their own name introduced (William Sproul, Frank Lowden, Nicholas Murray, Pierre Du Pont, etc). Calvin Coolidge would be put forward and be neck and neck with Johnson in terms of delegate support until Harding inevitably withdrew (with scandals of this size only the most conservative delegates would support him), at which point the nomination would most likely go to Coolidge.

Considering the stronger voice of the Progressives here the party bosses would have attempted to placate them in regards to the second-spot, while also making sure said figure was willing to represent some of their pet interests. Herbert Hoover seems to fit this bill to a T and, contrary to OTL, would almost certainly have the support at the convention to be nominated (especially one that seems liable to go on for multiple ballots).
So, I guess it will be Harding anyway. though this Farmer-Labor Party is interesting, I wonder if LaFollette gets a lot more support by combining forces with them.
As stated above LaFollette did not want to work with the Farmer-Labor party or receive its endorsement because of the participation of the Communists within it. If the Communists are intertwined with the party organization as they were in OTL then LaFollette is going to distance himself and refuse to run under its banner; with the influx of Socialists into the Farmer-Labor party that is actually going to make the ejection of the Communists even less likely, and very likely will results in the nomination of two competing Progressive tickets (LaFollette on one side, William Foster possibly on the other).

The Farmer-Labor party is liable to collapse in this election then with the taint of Communism associated with it, much like it did in OTL; the only difference is that it is liable to bring the Socialists down with it given that they will have lost all ballot access and their party organization will have been eliminated after two and a half decades of construction and maintenance.

That doesn't leave many choices for a Left alternative come '28, and most of the Republican Progressives would have united behind either Johnson or Hoover by then, defanging whatever would be left of the Progressive Party from '24 (if you could call it a party; it was almost exclusively a vehicle for LaFollette's Presidential run. Given the loss of influence Progressives experienced in '12 following Roosevelt's bolt, LaFollette was determined to keep Progressives in the Republican party and motioned for them to stay to the primary process rather than running third-party in the general).

 
Robert LaFollette was already set on making a third-party run in '24, which left California Governor Hiram Johnson as the Progressive standard bearer. Johnson would cruise through the primaries that were held except maybe those in the Northeast (even there though he would have been competitive) which would likely have netted him more delegates than Harding; to expand on that point, Hiram Johnson would be far from a majority, but you would have more than a few favorite sons controlling their own delegations and refusing to back either Johnson or Harding, waiting to have their own name introduced (William Sproul, Frank Lowden, Nicholas Murray, Pierre Du Pont, etc). Calvin Coolidge would be put forward and be neck and neck with Johnson in terms of delegate support until Harding inevitably withdrew (with scandals of this size only the most conservative delegates would support him), at which point the nomination would most likely go to Coolidge.

Considering the stronger voice of the Progressives here the party bosses would have attempted to placate them in regards to the second-spot, while also making sure said figure was willing to represent some of their pet interests. Herbert Hoover seems to fit this bill to a T and, contrary to OTL, would almost certainly have the support at the convention to be nominated (especially one that seems liable to go on for multiple ballots).
As stated above LaFollette did not want to work with the Farmer-Labor party or receive its endorsement because of the participation of the Communists within it. If the Communists are intertwined with the party organization as they were in OTL then LaFollette is going to distance himself and refuse to run under its banner; with the influx of Socialists into the Farmer-Labor party that is actually going to make the ejection of the Communists even less likely, and very likely will results in the nomination of two competing Progressive tickets (LaFollette on one side, William Foster possibly on the other).

The Farmer-Labor party is liable to collapse in this election then with the taint of Communism associated with it, much like it did in OTL; the only difference is that it is liable to bring the Socialists down with it given that they will have lost all ballot access and their party organization will have been eliminated after two and a half decades of construction and maintenance.

That doesn't leave many choices for a Left alternative come '28, and most of the Republican Progressives would have united behind either Johnson or Hoover by then, defanging whatever would be left of the Progressive Party from '24 (if you could call it a party; it was almost exclusively a vehicle for LaFollette's Presidential run. Given the loss of influence Progressives experienced in '12 following Roosevelt's bolt, LaFollette was determined to keep Progressives in the Republican party and motioned for them to stay to the primary process rather than running third-party in the general).

Wow, you did an amazing job predicting a lot of things I have planned for this next election. However, no Socialist and Farmer-Labor merger has taken place yet, and indeed if anything the Farmer-Labor Party will have less revolutionary socialists since Debs' better 1920 campaign has revived the Socialist Party compared to OTL. Meanwhile, the Farmer-Labor Party is doing a lot better OTL, giving it more mainstream support and sidelining the most radicals. Plus, there's a reason why a left alternative will be needed in the near future...
 
Wow, you did an amazing job predicting a lot of things I have planned for this next election. However, no Socialist and Farmer-Labor merger has taken place yet, and indeed if anything the Farmer-Labor Party will have less revolutionary socialists since Debs' better 1920 campaign has revived the Socialist Party compared to OTL. Meanwhile, the Farmer-Labor Party is doing a lot better OTL, giving it more mainstream support and sidelining the most radicals. Plus, there's a reason why a left alternative will be needed in the near future...
The fusion that took place in New York made me think that they had fused in a traditional form, rather than that of the fusion commonplace to the State (exclusively to the ballot).

However, I stand by my point that the Socialists will be less likely to kick out the Communists when the Federated Farmer-Labor Party, or its substitute, comes about. They may not agree with all their ideas or their methods, but they will not desire to silence them or to refuse their "support" either. By extension, as long as the Communists maintain a base within the Farmer-Labor party they are going to be labeled as Reds (and the influx of Socialists will only add to that, even if they aren't Communists themselves), and that will hurt them at the polls. I'm not sure as to the direction you are aiming for here, but as of now (in my view) the Farmer-Labor's future is far from bright, if not moribund.

As for the Democrats, I'll make a guess; given the Liberal and Northern Democrats have been sidelined in influence by a large degree, William Gibbs McAdoo is going to fairly easily attain the nomination for the Presidency, with Albert Ritchie (a major critic of the Harding Administration even in OTL) as his running-mate.
 
The Republican leaders feared that if they were seen as the party for the black man, all of their progress in winning seats in the South would be instantly undone.

OTL, the Solid South cracked somewhat in the 1920s. The one-party rule left by Reconstruction and Redemption was bound to crumble eventually, and after 60 years the emotional basis of it had started to fade. The only Republican Representative from Texas between Reconstruction and the 1950s; a Republican Governor in Tennessee; Texas and Florida voting for Hoover in 1928. The Depression killed this.

When it started again in the 1950s, the Democrats had begun to split over civil rights, and Republicans basically stayed out of the fight; the great majority of Republicans voted for civil rights acts, but the national Democrats got to carry the flag. This allowed Nixon to initiate the "Southern Strategy" of appealing to white southern conservatives without actually pandering to racism. (There was no rollback of civil rights enforcement under Nixon.)

But that would not have been possible in the 1920s or 1930s. Many Republicans (including some "progressives" like Roosevelt) accepted Jim Crow and white supremacy in the South. If the Solid South broke down in the 1920s, the Republican Party could acquire and accept a wing of Dixublicans. If the national Democrats embrace civil rights, the entire white supremacist South could flip, dragging the Republican Party into the swamp, making them the 20th century equivalent of the Doughfaces.
 
However, I stand by my point that the Socialists will be less likely to kick out the Communists when the Federated Farmer-Labor Party, or its substitute, comes about.

There was a lot of bad blood between Socialists and Communists at times. The Communists insisted that Communism was the only true socialism, and formed the Communist (Third) International to replace the Socialist (Second) International.

Also, with more Socialists active, whatever "popular front" arises will be less dependent on Communist organizers and dues.
 
But that would not have been possible in the 1920s or 1930s. Many Republicans (including some "progressives" like Roosevelt) accepted Jim Crow and white supremacy in the South. If the Solid South broke down in the 1920s, the Republican Party could acquire and accept a wing of Dixublicans. If the national Democrats embrace civil rights, the entire white supremacist South could flip, dragging the Republican Party into the swamp, making them the 20th century equivalent of the Doughfaces.
The Republicans certainly are willing to throw the blacks under the bus to gain Southern seats, as seen by their abandonment of any attempt to stop lynching. The Democrats won't become the party of Civil Rights any time soon though, since in their current state if the South flips that's the end of the Democratic Party...
 

Rstone4

Banned
So, 1929 comes around, Hoover is still president, the FED still contracts the money supply, the Smoot-Hawley tariff act is still passed, which party sweeps in 1930 and 1932?
 
Top
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top