How could America get a socialist president?

I'm curious as to how a socialist president could be elected in the early 1900s, ideally Eugene V. Debs, but I'll take nearly any socialist.

Does anyone have any idea how this could happen?
And what effect would it have on America politics later on?
 
FDR was a Socialist he just never bothered to tell anyone.

That's a simplification but it holds more than a kernel of truth. Barring a social and economic upheaval worse than the Great Depression, there is virtually no way a "Socialist Party" presidential ticket could prevail over the two main parties in a national election. However, given the fact in some states the Socialists and Farmer/Labor Parties often collaborated with the Democratic Parties, and out-and-out Socialist could conceivably be named as the Democratic Party's presidential candidate.
 
That's a simplification but it holds more than a kernel of truth. Barring a social and economic upheaval worse than the Great Depression, there is virtually no way a "Socialist Party" presidential ticket could prevail over the two main parties in a national election. However, given the fact in some states the Socialists and Farmer/Labor Parties often collaborated with the Democratic Parties, and out-and-out Socialist could conceivably be named as the Democratic Party's presidential candidate.

Possibly the socialist president was preceded by several pro-business presidents that drove the economy into the ground.
 
the simplest way would probably be to butterfly the Cold War. without the mentality that socialists/communists are the enemy, people would be more inclined to vote for one. that's obviously an oversimplification, but it's a start.
 
Perhaps we could make Bryan win in 1896. For all that he was left-wing and the first left-wing Democratic candidate, he was an agrarian populist. In a backlash, the Republicans would move to the right. This means no action is done against the severe Gilded Age inequality in urban regions (although in rural regions it's a whole other story), leading to a socialist movement.
 
One major thing, stop the USSR from existing. Sith the bolsheviks threatening "a world revolution", this caused much discredit to socialist parties. Most socialists were revolutionary socialists (Labour party, SDP, etc) so they adapted to get out of the Marxist spectrum. In the USA, opposition to WW1 and the Marxist part led to them being unable to grow. In 1912 Eugene Debs got 6% of the vote. In 1920 with the sam amount of votes they got 3%.
 
Perhaps we could make Bryan win in 1896. For all that he was left-wing and the first left-wing Democratic candidate, he was an agrarian populist. In a backlash, the Republicans would move to the right. This means no action is done against the severe Gilded Age inequality in urban regions (although in rural regions it's a whole other story), leading to a socialist movement.

Not a bad idea. I'll look into Bryan.
 
One major thing, stop the USSR from existing. Sith the bolsheviks threatening "a world revolution", this caused much discredit to socialist parties. Most socialists were revolutionary socialists (Labour party, SDP, etc) so they adapted to get out of the Marxist spectrum. In the USA, opposition to WW1 and the Marxist part led to them being unable to grow. In 1912 Eugene Debs got 6% of the vote. In 1920 with the sam amount of votes they got 3%.

I get this idea of a Cold War where the Americans are moderately socialist, the Chinese are nationalist, and the Russians are basically just looking out for themselves.
 
I get this idea of a Cold War where the Americans are moderately socialist, the Chinese are nationalist, and the Russians are basically just looking out for themselves.

You would need there to be no USSR with promises of "world revolution" if you want the Socialists to survive past 1920.
 
You would need there to be no USSR with promises of "world revolution" if you want the Socialists to survive past 1920.
No, if you really look at the things that killed the American left, fear of the Soviets doesn't really become a factor until after WW2, and that's because of the end of isolationism, America taking a commanding role on the world stage, and most importantly, the existence of atomic weapons.

There were many things that conspired together to kill the American left. But the mere existence of a self-proclaimed revolutionary socialist state half a world a way didn't really figure. The First Red Scare was entirely about domestic subversives, and was more focused on the cliche of the bomb throwing anarchist than Bolshevik fifth columns. What hurt the American left was an inability to overcome tension between immigrant and native born workers, the ever present race issue, the battle between reformists and revolutionists being the most fratricidal of any nation, the poor timing of the First World War, which hit during a very critical development phase in the movement, and the immense level of violence by both the state and private actors against leftists.
 
No, if you really look at the things that killed the American left, fear of the Soviets doesn't really become a factor until after WW2, and that's because of the end of isolationism, America taking a commanding role on the world stage, and most importantly, the existence of atomic weapons.

There were many things that conspired together to kill the American left. But the mere existence of a self-proclaimed revolutionary socialist state half a world a way didn't really figure. The First Red Scare was entirely about domestic subversives, and was more focused on the cliche of the bomb throwing anarchist than Bolshevik fifth columns. What hurt the American left was an inability to overcome tension between immigrant and native born workers, the ever present race issue, the battle between reformists and revolutionists being the most fratricidal of any nation, the poor timing of the First World War, which hit during a very critical development phase in the movement, and the immense level of violence by both the state and private actors against leftists.

Would America staying out of WWI help socialist movements stay alive?
 
FDR was a Socialist he just never bothered to tell anyone.

If you're going to define the term "socialism" so broadly that it includes "any departure from laissez-faire capitalism" or "any reform that socialists *among other people* had advocated" it becomes such a broad term as to be meaningless. Virtually every nation is socialist by that definition.

Incidentally, nothing annoyed Norman Thomas more than conservative claims that FDR had carried out the Socialist Party platform of 1932. "Roosevelt did not carry out the Socialist platform, unless he carried it out on a stretcher" was his verdict... https://books.google.com/books?id=fq8pY-vThDUC&pg=PA246

To give an obvious example: Would a socialist, open or disguised, have passed up the opportunity to use the banking crisis of 1933 as an occasion for nationalizing the banks? For saving the banks instead of nationalizing them, FDR was attacked not only by avowed socialists but by left-liberals like Bronson Cutting and Robert La Follette, Jr. Cutting even said that FDR could have nationalized the banks "without a word of protest." https://books.google.com/books?id=9jVHNn5qASQC&pg=PT73
 

Asami

Banned
No, if you really look at the things that killed the American left, fear of the Soviets doesn't really become a factor until after WW2, and that's because of the end of isolationism, America taking a commanding role on the world stage, and most importantly, the existence of atomic weapons.

There were many things that conspired together to kill the American left. But the mere existence of a self-proclaimed revolutionary socialist state half a world a way didn't really figure. The First Red Scare was entirely about domestic subversives, and was more focused on the cliche of the bomb throwing anarchist than Bolshevik fifth columns. What hurt the American left was an inability to overcome tension between immigrant and native born workers, the ever present race issue, the battle between reformists and revolutionists being the most fratricidal of any nation, the poor timing of the First World War, which hit during a very critical development phase in the movement, and the immense level of violence by both the state and private actors against leftists.

There was also the idea that for most people, they weren't poor and would always be poor -- they were just temporarily non-wealthy. That's the whole American Dream at work.
 
There was also the idea that for most people, they weren't poor and would always be poor -- they were just temporarily non-wealthy. That's the whole American Dream at work.

Socialism can adapt to that. American socialists can state that their policies will lead to a quicker "recovery" from poverty. It all depends on how they sell themselves.
 
Socialism can adapt to that. American socialists can state that their policies will lead to a quicker "recovery" from poverty. It all depends on how they sell themselves.

Exactly. I see the socialists changing their image to fit the American temperament. A sort of 'success for all' ideology.
 
Top