Challenge: semi-libertarian republican party and populistic democrat party

[Straha]

your challenge is to make a US with a semi-libertarian republican party and a populistic democrat party. The more recent the POD the better.

[hammo1j]

I think the US Republican Party is an uneasy alliance between big business, libertarians and the Christian Right. We need to get rid of 1/3rds of the Triangle since big business will probably come along with the Libertarians.

How about a drug that induces religious estacy being introduced and endorsed by the Christians as a legitimate form of worship. This establishes the self as separate from the body and thus allows abortion, birth control, stem cell research. In addition to avoid skewed legislation all other drugs are legalised because the Christians want others to experience what they did with this new drug. Also this new drug allows some form of telepathy so that Christians no longer have this big guilt thing about sex.

[Wendell]

On a more realistic note...Barry Goldwater waits until 1968 to run for President. William Scranton is nominated by the Republicans in 1964, but loses to the incumbent Johnson. 1968 rolls around, and the Goldwater-McKeldon ticket cleans up. Goldwater and McKeldon win reelection in 1972 along with both houses of Congress and victory in SE Asia. McKeldon decides NOT to run for President, allowing the Republicans to back Dole, who loses to...Carter?

[Wendell]

bump. I doubt I'm the only one with an answer to this query.

[MerryPrankster]

In more general terms, keep the Religious Right aligned with the economic left. It used to be that way with the Populists and Democrats in the late 1800s (the Populist candidate Bryan, who later represented the creationists at the Scopes trial, was also the Democratic nominee).

When did the "conservative religious people" start becoming a GOP-only (mostly) constituency?

[Stalin]

Originally Posted by MerryPrankster

When did the "conservative religious people" start becoming a GOP-only (mostly) constituency?

Tough to say, but probably around the 1970's. Roe v. Wade and a backlash against cultural liberalism definitely helped form the modern Religious Right.

[jolo]

Clinton pulls the religious string similar to OTL W. He's pretty good in getting religious leaders on his side by mixing leftist populism with religious morals.

He's also good in undermining conservative causes this way, so that the right rediscovers economic liberalism, separation of state and church, human rights, and so on.

W doesn't even try the religious populism of OTL, and instead finds himself pretty much in opposition to most churches. Therefore, he looks more to the Libertarians and similar minorities for his votes.

This might even avoid big arms spending, the iraq war, OTL version of homeland security, and so on.

[Wendell]

Originally Posted by POTUS P.Diffin

Tough to say, but probably around the 1970's. Roe v. Wade and a backlash against cultural liberalism definitely helped form the modern Religious Right.

I think it was during Carter's presidency.

[Wendell]

Originally Posted by jolo

Clinton pulls the religious string similar to OTL W. He's pretty good in getting religious leaders on his side by mixing leftist populism with religious morals.

He's also good in undermining conservative causes this way, so that the right rediscovers economic liberalism, separation of state and church, human rights, and so on.

W doesn't even try the religious populism of OTL, and instead finds himself pretty much in opposition to most churches. Therefore, he looks more to the Libertarians and similar minorities for his votes.

This might even avoid big arms spending, the iraq war, OTL version of homeland security, and so on.

Well, the "Republitarian" outlook would allow those things. Who even said that Bush would run?

[Lord Douglas]

Originally Posted by MerryPrankster

In more general terms, keep the Religious Right aligned with the economic left. It used to be that way with the Populists and Democrats in the late 1800s (the Populist candidate Bryan, who later represented the creationists at the Scopes trial, was also the Democratic nominee).

When did the "conservative religious people" start becoming a GOP-only (mostly) constituency?

I think that in many state legistatures, especially in the South, there still are a lot of conservative Democrats around, and even still some in Congress. To have this, you probably need to get rid of Lyndon Johnson who was a liberal, and probably Carter as well. You need some conservative Southerners as the Democrat presidential candidates. But I think that the Democrats would have to be a bit more right wing on economic issues, since the 'religious right' also tend to be middle class and therefore opposed to high taxes.

[Wendell]

Originally Posted by Lord Douglas

I think that in many state legistatures, especially in the South, there still are a lot of conservative Democrats around, and even still some in Congress. To have this, you probably need to get rid of Lyndon Johnson who was a liberal, and probably Carter as well. You need some conservative Southerners as the Democrat presidential candidates. But I think that the Democrats would have to be a bit more right wing on economic issues, since the 'religious right' also tend to be middle class and therefore opposed to high taxes.

What if that one Liberal minister that went to Yale with Bush 41 held more clout?

[MerryPrankster]

Originally Posted by Lord Douglas

I think that in many state legistatures, especially in the South, there still are a lot of conservative Democrats around, and even still some in Congress. To have this, you probably need to get rid of Lyndon Johnson who was a liberal, and probably Carter as well. You need some conservative Southerners as the Democrat presidential candidates. But I think that the Democrats would have to be a bit more right wing on economic issues, since the 'religious right' also tend to be middle class and therefore opposed to high taxes.

Hmm...one of my high school history books says that the Religious Right consisted of lower-class rural southerners (who're somewhat more inclined to fundamentalism) who'd been brought into the middle class by "the great capitalist expansion of the 1950s."

However, in the late 19th Century, many of these people were allied to the Left on economic issues. Perhaps the POD required would be one that would keep these people poor (and thus more inclined to vote Democrat) for a longer period.

[Wendell]

Originally Posted by MerryPrankster

Hmm...one of my high school history books says that the Religious Right consisted of lower-class rural southerners (who're somewhat more inclined to fundamentalism) who'd been brought into the middle class by "the great capitalist expansion of the 1950s."

However, in the late 19th Century, many of these people were allied to the Left on economic issues. Perhaps the POD required would be one that would keep these people poor (and thus more inclined to vote Democrat) for a longer period.

Maybe William Jennings Bryan beats Wilson for the Dem. nod in 1912, and goes on to win thw White House?

[jolo]

Originally Posted by Wendell

Well, the "Republitarian" outlook would allow those things. Who even said that Bush would run?

While some might still be the same (especially after 9/11), I suppose there'd be more emphasis on a small state - though OTL Republicans also promised that...

[Wendell]

Originally Posted by jolo

While some might still be the same (especially after 9/11), I suppose there'd be more emphasis on a small state - though OTL Republicans also promised that...

A small state with a large army does not have to be an impossibility.

[jolo]

Originally Posted by Wendell

A small state with a large army does not have to be an impossibility.

In the long run, I believe that'll spell trouble - and the US would have the worlds most costly army even if they spent half of what they do today.

[Wendell]

Originally Posted by jolo

In the long run, I believe that'll spell trouble - and the US would have the worlds most costly army even if they spent half of what they do today.

But, the army would be reduced if every corner of the globe was democratic.

[jolo]

Originally Posted by Wendell

But, the army would be reduced if every corner of the globe was democratic.

I'm not sure if a libertarian government were that concerned with spreading democracy, and if so, whether they'd go mainly the military way. Also, I believe there'll always be reasons to keep a big army for presidents wanting to go this way...

[Wendell]

Originally Posted by jolo

I'm not sure if a libertarian government were that concerned with spreading democracy, and if so, whether they'd go mainly the military way. Also, I believe there'll always be reasons to keep a big army for presidents wanting to go this way...

The thread says "Semilibertarian," as such, this would not be an impossibility.

[MerryPrankster]

Originally Posted by Wendell

A small state with a large army does not have to be an impossibility.

Yes, but as a wise man said, "war is the health of the state."

When the US entered WWI, the gov't took control of much of the nation's economy and sent dissidents to prison (Debs ran for President from jail b/c he was jailed for opposing WWI). In WWII, the same (although no dissidents were jailed, there's the Japanese Internment).