Was a Conservative GOP inevitable?

[LastMcGovernite]

This is a question many alternate timelines on this forum address- yet, it might be good to air this query out in the open.  Is there a plausible scenario, some kind of outcome, that would have led to the GOP becoming either a party that is to the left of the Democrats, or at least noticeably less conservative than it is now?


And how far back do you have to do to make this outcome possible?  1980?  1968?  1960?  1932? 

[Alexander Hamilton]

1896.

[Хahar 🤔]

Nothing is inevitable, but the last time the GOP ran to the left of the Democrats in a presidential election was 1960.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Nothing is inevitable, but the last time the GOP ran to the left of the Democrats in a presidential election was 1960.

1976, actually. But 1896 is where it all comes from.

[Psychic Octopus]

1896.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

You basically have to come up with some scenario that results in Al Smith winning in 1928, or (more realistically) him not being nominated and a right wing Democrat being nominated and winning. No FDR and the equivalent of the New Deal gets implemented by whatever Republican wins in 1932.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Economically, yes it was inevitable.  The Democrats needed to find a core principal to hew to after the American Civil War that the Republicans would decline to coopt.  In 1896 they at last found one by embracing the radical idea of economic populism, which they have done with varying degrees of enthusiasm ever since.

A socially conservative GOP was not inevitable.

In the wake of the Civil Rights Era of the 1960's, the Democratic coalition could have moved to embrace the religious left.  After all, traditionally the Democratic Party had been the one to embrace religion and religiously imagery moreso than the Republicans after their core religious issue of abolition had been achieved.  Instead the Democrats were hijacked by the secular left to the point of being largely antagonistic to religion in the 1970's and 1980's.

Possibly if Carter had been a successful two-term president the rise of the religious right to the point of dominating the GOP could have been prevented.

[Alexander Hamilton]

You basically have to come up with some scenario that results in Al Smith winning in 1928, or (more realistically) him not being nominated and a right wing Democrat being nominated and winning. No FDR and the equivalent of the New Deal gets implemented by whatever Republican wins in 1932.

Hoover was unbeatable in 1928.

[Хahar 🤔]

Nothing is inevitable, but the last time the GOP ran to the left of the Democrats in a presidential election was 1960.

1976, actually. But 1896 is where it all comes from.

Eh, that's debatable.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Nothing is inevitable, but the last time the GOP ran to the left of the Democrats in a presidential election was 1960.

1976, actually. But 1896 is where it all comes from.

Eh, that's debatable.

Then debate it, please.

[Stranger in a strange land]

After the Crash of 1929 and the ensuing Great Depression, it was inevitable. The Republicans, not only Hoover but also Harding and Coolidge, were blamed for the Depression. Afterwards it became inevitable that the Democrats would become the pro-government intervention party and the Republicans would become the anti-government intervention party in response.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Nothing is inevitable, but the last time the GOP ran to the left of the Democrats in a presidential election was 1960.

Depends on what you define as "left" and "right" (Look at who voted for Kennedy after all). Ditto for 1928. The last time that you could say the GOP actually ran a more "progressive" (in the modern sense) campaign than the Democrats was imo 1904 - though one could make a case for 1924, especially all that is known about Davis now, but was probably the election with the two most conservative big two party choices ever.

Otherwise agree with Ernest.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Nothing is inevitable, but the last time the GOP ran to the left of the Democrats in a presidential election was 1960.

1976, actually. But 1896 is where it all comes from.

Eh, that's debatable.

Then debate it, please.

Xahar?

[Хahar 🤔]

Nothing is inevitable, but the last time the GOP ran to the left of the Democrats in a presidential election was 1960.

1976, actually. But 1896 is where it all comes from.

Eh, that's debatable.

Then debate it, please.

Xahar?

Don't know enough about 1976 to do so.

[Badger]

Nothing is inevitable, but the last time the GOP ran to the left of the Democrats in a presidential election was 1960.

1976, actually. But 1896 is where it all comes from.

These may be the 20th century elections when the major party candidates were relatively closest in ideology, but by no means were Ford or Nixon more liberal--even as candidates--than Kennedy and Carter respectively, notwithsatnding the "missle gap" and all that.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Sure, everything is inevitable...

[Orser67]

Obviously William Jennings Bryan, FDR, and Johnson led the Democrats to the left, but the I think the Republicans definitely had a path to being not-particularly conservative up until at least 1980 when Reagan took his party to the right.  Also, if Carter had won a second term or if the Republicans hadn't succeeded so strongly in the South, the Democrats might have relied more on the South and the Republicans less so, which would perhaps moderate both parties.

[rebeltarian]

Socially/culturally, it started in the 60s/70s and became sustained in the 80s/90s.  Economically, I agree with others in this thread that the Democrats were heading left well before FDR.  In fact, I think Woodrow Wilson broke more ground in government interventionism than FDR.  Republicans were clearly heading right with Harding and Coolidge.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Socially/culturally, it started in the 60s/70s and became sustained in the 80s/90s.  Economically, I agree with others in this thread that the Democrats were heading left well before FDR.  In fact, I think Woodrow Wilson broke more ground in government interventionism than FDR.  Republicans were clearly heading right with Harding and Coolidge.

Woodrow Wilson is one of the reasons I hate the South. Taft, of course, is the other.

[Bo]

No. Read Kalwejt's timeline Gorgeous George. It is very realistic.