What If Garfield Lives?

[Emperor Norton I]

I'm merely pointing out that the progressive movement was a complex result of a myriad of factors unique to the situation in which it arose. You can't simply jump-start something like that by changing one politician.

And those complex myriad of factors were existent already -if some not as advanced- (monopolization, big business, corruption, abuse of the working class, and so forth), save for the Recessions of the 1890's (Panic of 1893). And you can jump start "Progressivism" (we'll treat this as a relative term as this is alternate history) given that, and with a President who would be supportive of the sort of policies you'd later see under President's like TR and put them into action, which is very possible (or at least plausible) should Garfield have survived. The Progressive movement may take some time after that, but Garfield can take political action which would be "Proto Progressivist".

 

[Jaded_Railman]

And those complex myriad of factors were existent already, save for the Recessions of the 1890's. And you can jump start it given that, and a politician who would be supportive of the sort of policies you'd later see under President's like TR and put them into action, which is very possible should Garfield have survived. The Progressive movement may take some time after that, but Garfield can take political action which would be "Proto Progressivist".

The thing is, frankly, they weren't. Civil Reform was just getting kicked off. The generation that pushed Progressivism isn't even out of the house yet. I see no problem with Garfield being a 'Proto Progressive', but don't expect to be passing direct election of Senators, prohibition, or many other progressive reforms. Anti-trust might be able to be moved forward a few years, however.

It's like trying to kick-start an engine that isn't fully fueled yet.

EDIT: And Garfield was a Republican, had been since he was into politics, are you so sure he'd be a big progressive?

 

[Emperor Norton I]

The thing is, frankly, they weren't. Civil Reform was just getting kicked off. The generation that pushed Progressivism isn't even out of the house yet. I see no problem with Garfield being a 'Proto Progressive', but don't expect to be passing direct election of Senators, prohibition, or many other progressive reforms. Anti-trust might be able to be moved forward a few years, however.

It's like trying to kick-start an engine that isn't fully fueled yet.

The conditions of monopolies crushing competition, various corruptions and problems for the burgeoning working class which labored in poor conditions for lacking wages -and often with much abuse- and so forth were existent, if not as advanced as they would be by the 1890's. All I expect, at least out of the things you mentioned, is economics. I can see attempts at reforms besides and some successes, but I do see the crux here as tackling matters of business and economy. And the generation of Progressivism were born out of the lives and movements experienced prior, among them Populism which did exist in this time, as well as labor movements if I recall correctly. So there is motive and reason to it.

EDIT: And Garfield was a Republican, had been since he was into politics, are you so sure he'd be a big progressive?

Republicans were supportive of business affairs whereas the Democrats were more domestic, but such focuses were all relative and didn't mean much difference between the parties overall when you look at them beyond superficialities and minute differences (which admittedly could have, and did, affect major things, even if limited when looking at the parties nakedly). What matters is the factions. Garfield was friendly to the Half-Breeds, who would be (loosely termed) the more "Progressive" of the factions, compared to the Stalwarts. And Garfield had taken on corruption by the Stalwarts with the Port of New York affair with Conkling which, while a limited indicator of possibility, is the only one we have which leads me to suspect he could have taken on the corruption of the day elsewhere.

 

[Jaded_Railman]

You know, I do have to apologize and admit I'm immensely embarrassed. For some reason I was convinced we were talking the 1870's, not the 1880's. I hope you can forgive me, Garfield is hardly the most memorable president

My entire argument was premised on that so I'm forced to concede.

 

[Mark E.]

Garfield may not be a memorable president, but the name of his successor is hardly a household word. Asked to identify Chester Arthur, many Americans will not immediately recall his presidency. He was known for civil service reform, but couldn't even get the Republican nomination for a full term in 1884.

Suppose Garfield lives, initiates civil service reform much as in OTL, and is elected to a second term in 1884. The early part of the decade is still pre-progressive, as the country is looking more to the railroads to build an infrastructure than to regulating monopolies. What happens in the elections of 1888 and 1892 becomes more critical.

If events change in such a way that the first progressive president is William Jennings Bryan as opposed to Theodore Roosevelt, the political alignments for decades to come might be greatly altered.

 

[Emperor Norton I]

You know, I do have to apologize and admit I'm immensely embarrassed. For some reason I was convinced we were talking the 1870's, not the 1880's. I hope you can forgive me, Garfield is hardly the most memorable president

My entire argument was premised on that so I'm forced to concede.

The fact that he is forgotten today is a reason this may be the first thread concerning Garfield to get beyond 6 posts. And yay, I win!

Garfield may not be a memorable president, but the name of his successor is hardly a household word. Asked to identify Chester Arthur, many Americans will not immediately recall his presidency. He was known for civil service reform, but couldn't even get the Republican nomination for a full term in 1884.

The reason for his lack of renomination, of course, is that he PO'd every group who'd have given him the nomination.

Suppose Garfield lives, initiates civil service reform much as in OTL, and is elected to a second term in 1884. The early part of the decade is still pre-progressive, as the country is looking more to the railroads to build an infrastructure than to regulating monopolies. What happens in the elections of 1888 and 1892 becomes more critical.

If events change in such a way that the first progressive president is William Jennings Bryan as opposed to Theodore Roosevelt, the political alignments for decades to come might be greatly altered.

When are you proposing Bryan could achieve the Presidency?

 

[Mark E.]

When are you proposing Bryan could achieve the Presidency?

Given three decisive losses, it would seem difficult. But the OTL presidency was altered by two assassinations in 21 years. In this thread, we prevented the first one. Bryan's best chance might be to start with the vice presidency. Given the gold-silver currency debate of the period, it might sound impossible, but suppose you see a Cleveland-Bryan ticket in 1896.

The point is that the list of presidents from 1881 forward has changed. T. Roosevelt's presidency was among the most significant in history, yet it began with a very unpredictable event.

 

[Emperor Norton I]

Given three decisive losses, it would seem difficult. But the OTL presidency was altered by two assassinations in 21 years. In this thread, we prevented the first one. Bryan's best chance might be to start with the vice presidency. Given the gold-silver currency debate of the period, it might sound impossible, but suppose you see a Cleveland-Bryan ticket in 1896.

It might be difficult to get the Democrats to win period. As it was, the bloody shirt of Confederatism kept the Democrats from winning until the GOP slipped up with the fluke of Harrison, and then again when it split itself in 1912.

The point is that the list of presidents from 1881 forward has changed. T. Roosevelt's presidency was among the most significant in history, yet it began with a very unpredictable event.

The events of T.R.'s presidency can be carried out -albeit in a slower and gradual fashion- over the coarse of those 20 years between 1880 and 1900 with a surviving Garfield and a good list of successors, however debateably.