I believe the Bull Moose Progressives scored one of the biggest victories for a third party in the 1912 elections. However, they dissolved soon after since not many local leaders were elected, and Theodore Roosevelt declined to run in 1916, for fear of splitting the Republicans' vote once again. What if he decided to run, and LaFollete, Hiram Johnson, and other progressives inspired a greater following? Would the Progressive Party survive?
WI Progressives Survive?
- Thread starter Strategos' Risk
- Start date
Grey Wolf
Donor
Strategos' Risk said:
Maybe your first part is where the POD needs to be - the election of strong local leaders to give the party a national face and a collective leadership, as well as a voice in the senate etc.
Then, come 1916 Roosevelt would not so much fear that Hughes would lose to Wilson but hope that he could beat the both of them. After all, at that time, Wilson was running on the platform that he was the man who had kept the USA out of the war (highly ironic considering what he did almost as soon as he was installed!). This is a sort of negative message; Roosevelt could have countered it with a POSITIVE one of his own
Grey Wolf
David S Poepoe
Banned
On the whole the Progressives would fall prey to the same thing Third Parties do in the United States, their platform, or portions of it, will be coopted by the larger more established parties. They will be out-campaigned and out-spent. All parties adapt and evolve in order to stay in power that the Democrats or Republicans wouldn't do the same (in fact they appear to have switched positions at least once in the past) is illogical.
Grey Wolf
Donor
David S Poepoe said:
Up until the Civil War parties evolved frequently, new ones would be born, old ones would collapse, a significant part would coalesce and become someone else. The Progressive trend, and indeed the birth of the Socialists, appear to be showing that this is not a dead process in the later nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth century. IMHO it was WW1 which killed this
So, I don't think it impossible or that inertia is preventing it in 1912-1916 if sufficient advances have been made in the 1912 election across the nation
Grey Wolf
David S Poepoe
Banned
Grey Wolf said:
I do agree with you, at least, that Socialism in Europe was certainly put back several years by the Great War. However, in the US I think it would have had a much harder time becoming established and that may be just through the way elections are arranged (locally, statewide and nationally) and held. Not to mention the existence (Thank God) of the Electoral College. I think Progressivism would have been fairly similar to the Green Party and the Libertarians - a fringe group that gets its best ideas stolen by stronger parties.
It's probably easiest to have the Democrats destroyed during this period, for one reason or another, at which point the Progressive Party becomes the main opposition to conservative Republicans. Conincidentally, this is what I plan on having happen in the ALB TL I'm working on at the moment.
Grey Wolf
Donor
David S Poepoe said:
Even with TR running it twice in a row ? The POD here, as adopted by me haha, is that the Progressives DO establish a presence nationally in 1912, and can build on there
I mention WW1 and the Socialists because Wilson locked up Debs, treason charges were thrown about, and after the war the rise of Communism in the USSR made socialists seem guilty by association
Grey Wolf
Xen
Banned
Perhaps TR wins, the Republicans never fully recover and are forced to either join the Democrats, or the Progressives or remain members of a third party that has some local offices and some senate seats. If its in 1912, the US could throw its weight in earlier, avoiding the Russian Revolution with the First World War ending in 1916.
If he wins in 1916, then he could take the sides of the Whites in the Russian Civil War keeping the Soviets from coming to power. Eventually the Socialist and Progressives will merge, they did in OTL, though its not exactly the same Progressive's, perhaps FDR will run on the Progressive ticket in 1932 and the Socialist throw their lot in behind him, during the 1950's the two parties basically merge. The Progressives will then be America's Social Democrats. The actual Democrats will remain the conservative party but more like their pre-1960s party. Liberals in the north, conservatives in the south.
If he wins in 1916, then he could take the sides of the Whites in the Russian Civil War keeping the Soviets from coming to power. Eventually the Socialist and Progressives will merge, they did in OTL, though its not exactly the same Progressive's, perhaps FDR will run on the Progressive ticket in 1932 and the Socialist throw their lot in behind him, during the 1950's the two parties basically merge. The Progressives will then be America's Social Democrats. The actual Democrats will remain the conservative party but more like their pre-1960s party. Liberals in the north, conservatives in the south.
David S Poepoe said:
I got the idea for this ATL from a review of a recent book about the 1912 election. That's exactly what happened- Wilson and the Democrats took up the Progressives' ideas in order to attract their supporters. The ideas also appeared again under FDR.
Another point- TR didn't create the Progressives, La Folette did and TR hijacked it. When he ran for president under the Progressive League in 1924 (a different party with more farmer support, since the original party died in 1917), he took on a more leftist position, and was supported by the Socialist Party. So, maybe the Socialists continue being an even more-leftier group (after the Progressives, Democrats, then finally the pro-business Republicans), and don't support the Progs.
Another point- TR hated socialism, and believed in selectively busting the trusts, as well as selectively conserving natural resources. Thus, he's more center than the Socialists.
Last edited:
