|           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 23, 2020, 06:46:02 pm
News:
If you are having trouble logging in due to invalid user name / pass:

Consider resetting your account password, as you may have forgotten it over time if using a password manager.

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderator: ON Progressive)
  Most consequential presidential election?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Author Topic: Most consequential presidential election?  (Read 7239 times)
Intell
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 6,540
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: -6.71, S: -1.24

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: October 03, 2018, 08:15:25 pm »

Here's a wild card: 1976.

Ford wins and all the woes of the late 1970's get pinned on the GOP. Watergate, vietnam, "malaise," Iranian hostage crisis, all perceived as a 12-year Republican orgy of incompetence and corruption. There is never a Reagan Revolution (with all that entails) in this timeline! Ted Kennedy (or someone very much like him) wins a landslide in 1980, opening the door for a second Great Society with Democratic super-majorities in Congress.

For all we know if Dewey had won in 1948, it would have prevented the Republican resurgence with Ike, Nixon and Reagan.

At least one historian has suggested that a Dewey victory would have prevented the resurgence of the southern strategy; stopped the GOP from adopting its intense Red-baiting campaign; and led to a much more liberal Republican Party in the long term. It's interesting to imagine a United States divided, today, between an anti-elitist, know-nothing "populist" Democratic Party anchored in the South (but with support from working-class whites nationwide)... and a business-oriented "progressive" Republican Party drawing support from educated whites and minorities across the country! Basically an extension of the 19th century's voting patterns.

Imagine a 2012 Democratic platform calling for single-payer healthcare and constitutional amendments banning abortion and same-se marriage.

That's idiotic and anyone with a basic knowledge of world politics 101 and ideology 101  would know that would never ouccr.

I guess a "basic knowledge of world politics" requires you to ignore everything outside the anglosphere or before 2000.

Please tell me which country had a left-wing party that was less socially left-wing than the right-wing party???
Logged
Old School Republican
Computer89
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,617


Political Matrix
E: 3.61, S: -0.10

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: October 03, 2018, 08:18:53 pm »

Here's a wild card: 1976.

Ford wins and all the woes of the late 1970's get pinned on the GOP. Watergate, vietnam, "malaise," Iranian hostage crisis, all perceived as a 12-year Republican orgy of incompetence and corruption. There is never a Reagan Revolution (with all that entails) in this timeline! Ted Kennedy (or someone very much like him) wins a landslide in 1980, opening the door for a second Great Society with Democratic super-majorities in Congress.

For all we know if Dewey had won in 1948, it would have prevented the Republican resurgence with Ike, Nixon and Reagan.

At least one historian has suggested that a Dewey victory would have prevented the resurgence of the southern strategy; stopped the GOP from adopting its intense Red-baiting campaign; and led to a much more liberal Republican Party in the long term. It's interesting to imagine a United States divided, today, between an anti-elitist, know-nothing "populist" Democratic Party anchored in the South (but with support from working-class whites nationwide)... and a business-oriented "progressive" Republican Party drawing support from educated whites and minorities across the country! Basically an extension of the 19th century's voting patterns.

Imagine a 2012 Democratic platform calling for single-payer healthcare and constitutional amendments banning abortion and same-se marriage.

That's idiotic and anyone with a basic knowledge of world politics 101 and ideology 101  would know that would never ouccr.

I guess a "basic knowledge of world politics" requires you to ignore everything outside the anglosphere or before 2000.

Please tell me which country had a left-wing party that was less socially left-wing than the right-wing party???

America from 1896-1920
Logged
RoboWop
AMB1996
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,881
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.06, S: 5.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: October 03, 2018, 08:49:11 pm »
« Edited: October 03, 2018, 08:55:41 pm by AMB1996 »

Here's a wild card: 1976.

Ford wins and all the woes of the late 1970's get pinned on the GOP. Watergate, vietnam, "malaise," Iranian hostage crisis, all perceived as a 12-year Republican orgy of incompetence and corruption. There is never a Reagan Revolution (with all that entails) in this timeline! Ted Kennedy (or someone very much like him) wins a landslide in 1980, opening the door for a second Great Society with Democratic super-majorities in Congress.

For all we know if Dewey had won in 1948, it would have prevented the Republican resurgence with Ike, Nixon and Reagan.

At least one historian has suggested that a Dewey victory would have prevented the resurgence of the southern strategy; stopped the GOP from adopting its intense Red-baiting campaign; and led to a much more liberal Republican Party in the long term. It's interesting to imagine a United States divided, today, between an anti-elitist, know-nothing "populist" Democratic Party anchored in the South (but with support from working-class whites nationwide)... and a business-oriented "progressive" Republican Party drawing support from educated whites and minorities across the country! Basically an extension of the 19th century's voting patterns.

Imagine a 2012 Democratic platform calling for single-payer healthcare and constitutional amendments banning abortion and same-se marriage.

That's idiotic and anyone with a basic knowledge of world politics 101 and ideology 101  would know that would never ouccr.

I guess a "basic knowledge of world politics" requires you to ignore everything outside the anglosphere or before 2000.

Please tell me which country had a left-wing party that was less socially left-wing than the right-wing party???

Look to countries with a strong religious presence, which are typically outside the Anglosphere today.

It's somewhat common in countries with high Catholic populations. Juntos Haremos Historia, for example, is a coalition based on "left-wing" economics with "right-wing" social theory. Marina Silva, a socialist who briefly was the leading left candidate for president of Brazil, has expressed conservative Christian principles in the past. Christian social democracy is a very real thing and you should read up on it – start with integralism.

Some Islamic parties also debatably lean left on economic theory while being strongly authoritarian on social matters. The Muslim Brotherhood is anti-communist but also bases its agenda on Islam including zakat al-mal, meaning that while it might not be a strictly statist redistributive party, it clearly defines economic redistribution as part of its political aim.

On the other side of that coin we have BJP – not strictly redistributive but populist and interventionist, with an extreme hard-line right view of social issues and hierarchy. However, its economic views are nationalist and illiberal rather than redistributive. It might qualify for hard liberals but not most.

So there – not only do these situations exist, these are currently active parties. Going back further in history to a more religious period, I'd guess you'd find even more examples. So it does "ouccr" no matter how idiotic you think it is.
Logged
Old School Republican
Computer89
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,617


Political Matrix
E: 3.61, S: -0.10

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: October 03, 2018, 09:14:21 pm »

Here's a wild card: 1976.

Ford wins and all the woes of the late 1970's get pinned on the GOP. Watergate, vietnam, "malaise," Iranian hostage crisis, all perceived as a 12-year Republican orgy of incompetence and corruption. There is never a Reagan Revolution (with all that entails) in this timeline! Ted Kennedy (or someone very much like him) wins a landslide in 1980, opening the door for a second Great Society with Democratic super-majorities in Congress.

For all we know if Dewey had won in 1948, it would have prevented the Republican resurgence with Ike, Nixon and Reagan.

At least one historian has suggested that a Dewey victory would have prevented the resurgence of the southern strategy; stopped the GOP from adopting its intense Red-baiting campaign; and led to a much more liberal Republican Party in the long term. It's interesting to imagine a United States divided, today, between an anti-elitist, know-nothing "populist" Democratic Party anchored in the South (but with support from working-class whites nationwide)... and a business-oriented "progressive" Republican Party drawing support from educated whites and minorities across the country! Basically an extension of the 19th century's voting patterns.

Imagine a 2012 Democratic platform calling for single-payer healthcare and constitutional amendments banning abortion and same-se marriage.

That's idiotic and anyone with a basic knowledge of world politics 101 and ideology 101  would know that would never ouccr.

I guess a "basic knowledge of world politics" requires you to ignore everything outside the anglosphere or before 2000.

Please tell me which country had a left-wing party that was less socially left-wing than the right-wing party???

Look to countries with a strong religious presence, which are typically outside the Anglosphere today.

It's somewhat common in countries with high Catholic populations. Juntos Haremos Historia, for example, is a coalition based on "left-wing" economics with "right-wing" social theory. Marina Silva, a socialist who briefly was the leading left candidate for president of Brazil, has expressed conservative Christian principles in the past. Christian social democracy is a very real thing and you should read up on it – start with integralism.

Some Islamic parties also debatably lean left on economic theory while being strongly authoritarian on social matters. The Muslim Brotherhood is anti-communist but also bases its agenda on Islam including zakat al-mal, meaning that while it might not be a strictly statist redistributive party, it clearly defines economic redistribution as part of its political aim.

On the other side of that coin we have BJP – not strictly redistributive but populist and interventionist, with an extreme hard-line right view of social issues and hierarchy. However, its economic views are nationalist and illiberal rather than redistributive. It might qualify for hard liberals but not most.

So there – not only do these situations exist, these are currently active parties. Going back further in history to a more religious period, I'd guess you'd find even more examples. So it does "ouccr" no matter how idiotic you think it is.


lol no they are clearly to the right of the INC on Economic Issues.

Modi Rand on a pretty Thathcerite type platform
Logged
Intell
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 6,540
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: -6.71, S: -1.24

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: October 04, 2018, 08:54:07 am »

Here's a wild card: 1976.

Ford wins and all the woes of the late 1970's get pinned on the GOP. Watergate, vietnam, "malaise," Iranian hostage crisis, all perceived as a 12-year Republican orgy of incompetence and corruption. There is never a Reagan Revolution (with all that entails) in this timeline! Ted Kennedy (or someone very much like him) wins a landslide in 1980, opening the door for a second Great Society with Democratic super-majorities in Congress.

For all we know if Dewey had won in 1948, it would have prevented the Republican resurgence with Ike, Nixon and Reagan.

At least one historian has suggested that a Dewey victory would have prevented the resurgence of the southern strategy; stopped the GOP from adopting its intense Red-baiting campaign; and led to a much more liberal Republican Party in the long term. It's interesting to imagine a United States divided, today, between an anti-elitist, know-nothing "populist" Democratic Party anchored in the South (but with support from working-class whites nationwide)... and a business-oriented "progressive" Republican Party drawing support from educated whites and minorities across the country! Basically an extension of the 19th century's voting patterns.

Imagine a 2012 Democratic platform calling for single-payer healthcare and constitutional amendments banning abortion and same-se marriage.

That's idiotic and anyone with a basic knowledge of world politics 101 and ideology 101  would know that would never ouccr.

I guess a "basic knowledge of world politics" requires you to ignore everything outside the anglosphere or before 2000.

Please tell me which country had a left-wing party that was less socially left-wing than the right-wing party???

Look to countries with a strong religious presence, which are typically outside the Anglosphere today.

It's somewhat common in countries with high Catholic populations. Juntos Haremos Historia, for example, is a coalition based on "left-wing" economics with "right-wing" social theory. Marina Silva, a socialist who briefly was the leading left candidate for president of Brazil, has expressed conservative Christian principles in the past. Christian social democracy is a very real thing and you should read up on it – start with integralism.

Some Islamic parties also debatably lean left on economic theory while being strongly authoritarian on social matters. The Muslim Brotherhood is anti-communist but also bases its agenda on Islam including zakat al-mal, meaning that while it might not be a strictly statist redistributive party, it clearly defines economic redistribution as part of its political aim.

On the other side of that coin we have BJP – not strictly redistributive but populist and interventionist, with an extreme hard-line right view of social issues and hierarchy. However, its economic views are nationalist and illiberal rather than redistributive. It might qualify for hard liberals but not most.

So there – not only do these situations exist, these are currently active parties. Going back further in history to a more religious period, I'd guess you'd find even more examples. So it does "ouccr" no matter how idiotic you think it is.

Juntos Haremos Historia is based on two left-wing parietes (PT, MORENA) that are left-wing both socially and economically. This is the vast majority of the party. PES is a distributist party that is socially conservative and yes they are in the coalition, but overall the coalition is still more socially and economically left-wing than their rival political parties (PRI, PAN).

Of course Islamic (like Christian) parties will be of a socially conservative-fiscally distributist economic stance. Economic Distributism is not inherently left-wing and in these cases we are talking about countries that don't have a defined left or right.

BJP is more right-wing economically and socially than the INC in every respect possible.
Logged
RoboWop
AMB1996
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,881
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.06, S: 5.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: October 04, 2018, 10:30:53 am »
« Edited: October 04, 2018, 10:33:56 am by AMB1996 »

Nobody said anything about a defined left or right, which is an impossibly subjective standard. You claimed it was impossible for a strong coalition to hold economically redistributive beliefs and socially traditional ones. (explicitly, you said it would be impossible for Democrats to support single-payer but oppose abortion.) There was neither a claim that the party must be aligned as a binary left-right grouping or that the party must be relatively more conservative or liberal or leftist than its opposition.

Your claim is obviously untrue to anyone with "a basic knowledge of world politics 101 and ideology 101". Thanks for playing.

(And for OSR, yes, I said don't buy BJP as an option, but I included it as a contrast to MB. Don't really know why. Guess I was on a comparative roll.)
Logged
Intell
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 6,540
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: -6.71, S: -1.24

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: October 04, 2018, 10:59:06 pm »
« Edited: October 04, 2018, 11:57:26 pm by Intell »

Nobody said anything about a defined left or right, which is an impossibly subjective standard. You claimed it was impossible for a strong coalition to hold economically redistributive beliefs and socially traditional ones. (explicitly, you said it would be impossible for Democrats to support single-payer but oppose abortion.) There was neither a claim that the party must be aligned as a binary left-right grouping or that the party must be relatively more conservative or liberal or leftist than its opposition.

Your claim is obviously untrue to anyone with "a basic knowledge of world politics 101 and ideology 101". Thanks for playing.

(And for OSR, yes, I said don't buy BJP as an option, but I included it as a contrast to MB. Don't really know why. Guess I was on a comparative roll.)

Yes and I claimed that case as it is the case throughout the world. Social and Economic issues tie into each other. It's not impossible to hold those views but a party with the left-wing views on economic issues will have views that are more left-wing on social issues that the right-wing parties. The cases in which this is not the case are countries without a defined left-wing or right-wing (in Islamic Countries etc).

This is the case in every democratic country throughout Europe, Asia and Latin America (including Mexico in which the coalition a vast majority of it anyway is left-wing socially and economically)

Defining Left and Right is also not that hard, it's a moral philosophy that you hold (equality as goal  vs equality not being a whole).

If the Democrats held those set of beliefs they would not be a major party, same with the Republicans with the same beliefs. So yes, it would be impossible for that to occur if they were the major two parties of the US.
Logged
morgankingsley
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,589
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: August 01, 2019, 05:34:50 am »

Forgive me for bumping this again

But I would argue 1980 is the most important election in modern history. I mean, really think about the what ifs for that one, and all the ones you can get just from Carter winning that one, which was a bit more deceiving than first sight with how razor thin many states were and how you can create a realistic case in which the incumbent wins a second term despite losing the popular vote
Logged
brucejoel99
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,744
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -3.30

P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: August 01, 2019, 12:54:41 pm »

Of the presented options, 1932, purely because of the Great Depression.
Logged
morgankingsley
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,589
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: August 01, 2019, 10:16:13 pm »

Of the presented options, 1932, purely because of the Great Depression.

I would say all of Roosevelts elections were equally important
Logged
MillennialModerate
MillennialMAModerate
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,617
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: August 04, 2019, 08:51:45 am »

Here's a wild card: 1976.

Ford wins and all the woes of the late 1970's get pinned on the GOP. Watergate, vietnam, "malaise," Iranian hostage crisis, all perceived as a 12-year Republican orgy of incompetence and corruption. There is never a Reagan Revolution (with all that entails) in this timeline! Ted Kennedy (or someone very much like him) wins a landslide in 1980, opening the door for a second Great Society with Democratic super-majorities in Congress.

Makes me sick to read. Not just because that’s the seemingly 9th different scenario that could’ve easily saw the Kennedy’s back in the White House (which I would love although not nearly as much as if it had been a second JFK term, RFK of JFK Jr) - but because the electoral map would be a lot more favorable to Democrats and so many policies which have made our economy imbalanced & unfair - would not have been enacted - we would be far better off today

Oh what could have been
Logged
Vittorio
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 477
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: August 04, 2019, 01:22:27 pm »

Here's a wild card: 1976.

Ford wins and all the woes of the late 1970's get pinned on the GOP. Watergate, vietnam, "malaise," Iranian hostage crisis, all perceived as a 12-year Republican orgy of incompetence and corruption. There is never a Reagan Revolution (with all that entails) in this timeline! Ted Kennedy (or someone very much like him) wins a landslide in 1980, opening the door for a second Great Society with Democratic super-majorities in Congress.

Makes me sick to read. Not just because that’s the seemingly 9th different scenario that could’ve easily saw the Kennedy’s back in the White House (which I would love although not nearly as much as if it had been a second JFK term, RFK of JFK Jr) - but because the electoral map would be a lot more favorable to Democrats and so many policies which have made our economy imbalanced & unfair - would not have been enacted - we would be far better off today

Oh what could have been

The only problem with this is that the supermajorities would consist of Watergate Babies elected in 1974. That Democratic Congress inaugurated the neoliberal era.


https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/10/how-democrats-killed-their-populist-soul/504710/

Quote
... Indeed, a revolution had occurred. But the contours of that revolution would not be clear for decades. In 1974, young liberals did not perceive financial power as a threat, having grown up in a world where banks and big business were largely kept under control. It was the government—through Vietnam, Nixon, and executive power—that organized the political spectrum. By 1975, liberalism meant, as Carr put it, “where you were on issues like civil rights and the war in Vietnam.” With the exception of a few new members, like Miller and Waxman, suspicion of finance as a part of liberalism had vanished.

Over the next 40 years, this Democratic generation fundamentally altered American politics. They restructured “campaign finance, party nominations, government transparency, and congressional organization.” They took on domestic violence, homophobia, discrimination against the disabled, and sexual harassment. They jettisoned many racially and culturally authoritarian traditions. They produced Bill Clinton’s presidency directly, and in many ways, they shaped President Barack Obama’s.                     

The result today is a paradox. At the same time that the nation has achieved perhaps the most tolerant culture in U.S. history, the destruction of the anti-monopoly and anti-bank tradition in the Democratic Party has also cleared the way for the greatest concentration of economic power in a century. This is not what the Watergate Babies intended when they dethroned Patman as chairman of the Banking Committee. But it helped lead them down that path. The story of Patman’s ousting is part of the larger story of how the Democratic Party helped to create today’s shockingly disillusioned and sullen public, a large chunk of whom is now marching for Donald Trump.

IRL, Carter himself contributed to the neoliberal turn for the same reasons.

https://www.salon.com/2011/02/08/lind_reaganism_carter/

These things are historically determined, because Capital is historically conditioned. Just as Herbert Hoover's Republicans anticipated the New Deal in response to the Depression, so too did 70s Democrats contribute to the rise of neoliberalism well before the "Reagan Revolution". It may have been married to socially liberal policies, but the results would have been largely the same.
Quote
Logged
beesley
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 916
United Kingdom
Political Matrix
E: 2.02, S: 4.49

P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: August 06, 2019, 04:29:25 am »

1932
Logged
morgankingsley
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,589
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: August 06, 2019, 06:13:59 am »

I would say 2012 was the most important of my lifetime due to hindsight factor
Logged
dw93
DWL
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,474
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: August 06, 2019, 07:12:40 pm »

I would say 2012 was the most important of my lifetime due to hindsight factor

For the elections of my lifetime, it would be 2000 due to the hindsight factor.
Logged
mianfei
Rookie
**
Posts: 234
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: September 11, 2019, 08:58:11 am »

Here's a wild card: 1976.

Ford wins and all the woes of the late 1970's get pinned on the GOP. Watergate, vietnam, "malaise," Iranian hostage crisis, all perceived as a 12-year Republican orgy of incompetence and corruption. There is never a Reagan Revolution (with all that entails) in this timeline! Ted Kennedy (or someone very much like him) wins a landslide in 1980, opening the door for a second Great Society with Democratic super-majorities in Congress.

For all we know if Dewey had won in 1948, it would have prevented the Republican resurgence with Ike, Nixon and Reagan.

At least one historian has suggested that a Dewey victory would have prevented the resurgence of the southern strategy; stopped the GOP from adopting its intense Red-baiting campaign; and led to a much more liberal Republican Party in the long term. It's interesting to imagine a United States divided, today, between an anti-elitist, know-nothing "populist" Democratic Party anchored in the South (but with support from working-class whites nationwide)... and a business-oriented "progressive" Republican Party drawing support from educated whites and minorities across the country! Basically an extension of the 19th century's voting patterns.

Imagine a 2012 Democratic platform calling for single-payer healthcare and constitutional amendments banning abortion and same-sex marriage.
Could you tell me which historian suggested that a Dewey victory would have prevented the resurgence of the “southern strategy” which began with Hoover in 1928?

Regarding a Ford victory in 1976, I’ve often imagined a more liberal Democrat (Alan Cranston is one name I have had on my mind of late) winning in 1980 and trying to push forward the social liberalism that swept America’s urban cores during the 1980s with the growth of heavy metal and rap music. I have always imagined, though, that if a wave of social liberalism swept the country during the 1980s, there might have been an extreme reaction if the Republican Party did regain power at some point during the last two decades of the twentieth century. Imagine Pat Buchanan becoming the Republican nominee in 1992 or 1996 and winning – and being able to get a majority of seats in the House without a majority of votes due to a 2020-like concentration of Democratic votes in urban areas.
Logged
Vittorio
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 477
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: September 11, 2019, 09:10:56 am »

the “southern strategy” which began with Hoover in 1928?

It began with McKinley and the Lily-Whites in 1896.
Logged
mianfei
Rookie
**
Posts: 234
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: September 11, 2019, 09:17:17 am »

the “southern strategy” which began with Hoover in 1928?

It began with McKinley and the Lily-Whites in 1896.
I had forgotten about that, but it is true that the Republicans did try to capture the South’s lily-white electorate from the time of disfranchisement, although until Ben W. Hooper became Governor of Tennessee in 1911 and Harding carried Oklahoma and Tennessee in 1920 it did not have any tangible results. Moreover, in the Border States the Republicans did make many tangible gains during the “System of 1896.”
Logged
morgankingsley
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,589
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: September 15, 2019, 09:58:24 pm »

the “southern strategy” which began with Hoover in 1928?

It began with McKinley and the Lily-Whites in 1896.

That was the first real attempt, but it failed miserably. 1928 was the first time it had any grounds
Logged
darklordoftech
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 7,508
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: September 16, 2019, 08:16:38 pm »

Here's a wild card: 1976.

Ford wins and all the woes of the late 1970's get pinned on the GOP. Watergate, vietnam, "malaise," Iranian hostage crisis, all perceived as a 12-year Republican orgy of incompetence and corruption. There is never a Reagan Revolution (with all that entails) in this timeline! Ted Kennedy (or someone very much like him) wins a landslide in 1980, opening the door for a second Great Society with Democratic super-majorities in Congress.

For all we know if Dewey had won in 1948, it would have prevented the Republican resurgence with Ike, Nixon and Reagan.

At least one historian has suggested that a Dewey victory would have prevented the resurgence of the southern strategy; stopped the GOP from adopting its intense Red-baiting campaign; and led to a much more liberal Republican Party in the long term. It's interesting to imagine a United States divided, today, between an anti-elitist, know-nothing "populist" Democratic Party anchored in the South (but with support from working-class whites nationwide)... and a business-oriented "progressive" Republican Party drawing support from educated whites and minorities across the country! Basically an extension of the 19th century's voting patterns.

Imagine a 2012 Democratic platform calling for single-payer healthcare and constitutional amendments banning abortion and same-sex marriage.
Could you tell me which historian suggested that a Dewey victory would have prevented the resurgence of the “southern strategy” which began with Hoover in 1928?

Regarding a Ford victory in 1976, I’ve often imagined a more liberal Democrat (Alan Cranston is one name I have had on my mind of late) winning in 1980 and trying to push forward the social liberalism that swept America’s urban cores during the 1980s with the growth of heavy metal and rap music. I have always imagined, though, that if a wave of social liberalism swept the country during the 1980s, there might have been an extreme reaction if the Republican Party did regain power at some point during the last two decades of the twentieth century. Imagine Pat Buchanan becoming the Republican nominee in 1992 or 1996 and winning – and being able to get a majority of seats in the House without a majority of votes due to a 2020-like concentration of Democratic votes in urban areas.
Pat Buchanan getting elected President would require a very different alignment from the one that got Reagan and two Bushes elected. In a President Buchanan alignment, the GOP’s views on trade and war would be flipped, No Child Left Behind wouldn’t be a thing, etc.
Logged
Bland Neoliberal Consensus Democrat
Beef
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 8,494
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.77, S: -8.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: September 18, 2019, 03:56:55 pm »

Close election counterfactuals:

Since the 2000 election was technically in the 20th century, I'm going to include that one.

The entire history of the country (and the world) post-9/11 would have been radically different.

Ford winning in 1976 might have prevented the Reagan Revolution from ever happening. Even if Reagan beat Ford for the GOP nomination in 1980 (likely), he would have been a tough sell after 12 years of Republicans, during which we saw inflation, economic stagnation, losing an overseas war, and several energy crises. Americans would have wanted something new, even if that meant Ted Kennedy.

If Nixon won in 1960, he would have presided over the civil rights movement and the ramp-up in Vietnam. I wrote a story about this, "Only Nixon Could Have Gone to Selma," in which he becomes a champion of civil rights and the Southern Strategy never happens. When abortion is politicized, the Democrats are the party of southern born again Protestants and Northern urban Catholics, both of whom oppose abortion rights. Republicans fall back on their social progressive, albeit elitist, roots. The party of educated whites and big business. How things play out from there I have no idea.

But the most consequential:

If TR won the 1912 GOP nomination, he would have cleaned Wilson off the map. The US would have joined the Entente in WWI much earlier, resulting in a rapid victory. The provisional Russian government wouldn't have collapsed, and the Bolsheviks never would have taken power. Germany would have avoided such a harsh peace, which means no Hitler. Meanwhile, many of TR's progressive, socialist ideas would have been seen as perfectly acceptable without the specter of Soviet Communism. Old age insurance, national health, and a much more activist government would have been spearheaded by a progressive GOP. The Democrats would have remained the party of Southern reactionaries. The USA also wouldn't have been dominated by Wilsonian foreign policy ideology for 100 years.

A much, much better world.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.13 seconds with 13 queries.