Interesting, but how exactly are the Socialists attracting so many voters? It takes a lot for a third party in America to break the 1-EV barrier. Surely it's not simply personality or issues, there must be other factors working for them (like ahistorical events putting them in the right place at the right time, positive press attention, or high-profile/factional endorsements, such as the Progressives?)
Reds: A Revolutionary Timeline
- Thread starter Aelita
- Start date
One major factor is that the Socialist Party has become the outlet for the Progressives and their discontent since the major parties have effectively shut them out of having any influence. Like I noted earlier, there is not a lot of difference between the type of moderate, reformist socialism espoused by Victor Berger and the mainstream of the Progressive movement.
While the moderates are chafing under the leftist leadership, they can't afford to alienate them because the party's base is among the radicalized sector of the working class that commands the lionshare of the party's vote totals. Without so-called "Progressives" in office like Theodore Roosevelt, who at least made some concessions to the industrial workers, class conflict is going exactly the same way it did in the rest of the world: straight to socialism of some sort.
Furthermore, the growth of the Socialist party has essentially pushed the Democratic Party into being a completely regional party. Historically, northern class conflict tended to bring workers to the Democratic Party, who exploited this issue with populist rhetoric and causes to remain competitive at the national level. That strategy has largely been rendered untenable. In a lot of districts in Northern states in this period, Democrats won't even appear on the ballot anymore.
1912 General Election
Congressional Elections
US House of Representatives†
Democratic Party...................................274 (+44)
Republican Party....................................141 (-24)
Socialist Party.......................................18 (+17)
Independent..........................................2 (+2)
US Senate‡
Democratic Party...................................51 (+7)
Republican Party....................................43 (-9)
Progressive/Socialist Party.......................2 (+2)
In spite of setbacks in the Presidential office, 1912 was heralded as a return of good fortune for the Democratic Party. Long the out party, the Democrats now controlled both houses of the Congress with a rather commanding lead.
The Republican Party was now at its lowest point since the post-Reconstruction electoral disaster of 1876, and also faced the high-profile defection of a large cohort of its progressive members, including the Senator Robert M. LaFollete (WI) to the the Socialist camp.
The Progressive/Socialist alliance gained another seat from Washington with the election of Maxwell Poindexter to the Senate on a joint Socialist/Progressive ticket.
† House seats were reapportioned for the 1912 election, increasing the size of the body to its now fixed size of 435 voting members. Hence, the change spread does not equal zero in this election.
‡ At this point, roughly half of all states used some form of electoral component in the selection of their Senators, though only a handful had a true direct election for Senators. Unless the Constitution is amended, this state of affairs is likely to persist.
Congressional Elections
US House of Representatives†
Democratic Party...................................274 (+44)
Republican Party....................................141 (-24)
Socialist Party.......................................18 (+17)
Independent..........................................2 (+2)
US Senate‡
Democratic Party...................................51 (+7)
Republican Party....................................43 (-9)
Progressive/Socialist Party.......................2 (+2)
In spite of setbacks in the Presidential office, 1912 was heralded as a return of good fortune for the Democratic Party. Long the out party, the Democrats now controlled both houses of the Congress with a rather commanding lead.
The Republican Party was now at its lowest point since the post-Reconstruction electoral disaster of 1876, and also faced the high-profile defection of a large cohort of its progressive members, including the Senator Robert M. LaFollete (WI) to the the Socialist camp.
The Progressive/Socialist alliance gained another seat from Washington with the election of Maxwell Poindexter to the Senate on a joint Socialist/Progressive ticket.
† House seats were reapportioned for the 1912 election, increasing the size of the body to its now fixed size of 435 voting members. Hence, the change spread does not equal zero in this election.
‡ At this point, roughly half of all states used some form of electoral component in the selection of their Senators, though only a handful had a true direct election for Senators. Unless the Constitution is amended, this state of affairs is likely to persist.
Zimmerwald1915
Banned
I'd be very interested to see how the Progressive/Socialist Party reacts to WWI (is there a WWI? Internal American politics wouldn't seem to effect many of the causes). The Progressives IOTL were generally for "preparedness"; might this cause the PSP to lose some of that anti-war edge?
/me stops looking ahead and continues enjoying the TL.
/me stops looking ahead and continues enjoying the TL.
I'm guessing TTL WWI will have a strong negative impact in the economy.
Zimmerwald1915
Banned
You have saddened me by not answering my question, though I understand your reasons.
It's not that JB didn't answer your question on purpose but he probably doesn't want to spoil what he has planned for TTL lol.
A War to End All Wars?
It is a sweltering September day on the Kent State University campus, as hungover and exhausted college students gratefully retreat into the air-conditioned confines of Norman Thomas Hall. Noon is far too early to be discussing modern history, they collectively mumble; but it's better than being outside, and the comfy chairs in the lecture hall will make napping easy.
For the professor, today is another great day in the academy, only slightly spoiled by ungrateful students. Dr. Demetriades quickly hangs up his fedora on the coat rack before scrawling on the white board in bold "WORLD WAR I". There's a murmur of groans from the lecture hall; World War I was so last century. The professor turns to the class and jokes, "I'm sure I can confidently assume that you've all read Chapter 14 of Zinn's People's History and the first three chapters of Hobshawn's Age of Extremes that I assigned on Friday..."[1]
It's a tough crowd for the professor-cum-comedian. He points out at random to one of the students, and asks "Can you tell me at least one of the principle causes of World War I?"
The spiky haired youth scoffs, "Shit no. This stuff is boring, reading about 'historical matrimony' and stuff."
"Historical materialism" the professor corrects him. "It may be boring to you, but these events aren't just dusty pages in a book--they actually happened, and they continue to affect where we are today."
The youth shrugs, clearly not caring.
"Okay then, what would you rather be learning about, then?"
"I dunno, something exciting, like when General Patton[2] led the Bonus Army to take Debs D.C. during the Revolution. Something like that, you'know."
The professor resists the urge to correct the young man about how Patton was only a Lieutenant Colonel at the time, and that the 'Bonus Army' and the many volunteers, militiamen and deserters that marched with them had restyled itself as the Red Army months before, and that Debs D.C. was still called Washington at the time. Instead, he points out the fact that should be so obvious: "But without his experiences in the trenches of the First World War, Patton would have just been any other career military officer. He'd have been with MacArthur shooting the strikers in Pennsylvania, not defending them. We're reading his war diaries later this week--it's all right on the syllabus.
"We study history because it tells us about how we got where we are today. This is why I can say that the German Reich's decision to build a railroad from Berlin to Baghdad is just as important to American history as the Second Revolution was. The millions of American soldiers who died in the mud of Northern France from 1914 to 1918 radicalized American workers at home and vindicated the Socialists opposition to the war. That is why I'm asking you, humbly, to please pay attention in my class. College education may be free in this country, unlike in the Anglo-French Union, but that doesn't mean you should waste this opportunity."
The professor stepped off his soapbox, and turned to the whiteboard, and busily sketched down some important bullet points.
1. Howard Zinn's A People's History of America, the ITL counterpart to A People's History of the United States, and Eric Hobshawn's The Age of Extremes: The Short 20th Century. In OTL, very good books, btw.
2. Yes, that George Patton.
It is a sweltering September day on the Kent State University campus, as hungover and exhausted college students gratefully retreat into the air-conditioned confines of Norman Thomas Hall. Noon is far too early to be discussing modern history, they collectively mumble; but it's better than being outside, and the comfy chairs in the lecture hall will make napping easy.
For the professor, today is another great day in the academy, only slightly spoiled by ungrateful students. Dr. Demetriades quickly hangs up his fedora on the coat rack before scrawling on the white board in bold "WORLD WAR I". There's a murmur of groans from the lecture hall; World War I was so last century. The professor turns to the class and jokes, "I'm sure I can confidently assume that you've all read Chapter 14 of Zinn's People's History and the first three chapters of Hobshawn's Age of Extremes that I assigned on Friday..."[1]
It's a tough crowd for the professor-cum-comedian. He points out at random to one of the students, and asks "Can you tell me at least one of the principle causes of World War I?"
The spiky haired youth scoffs, "Shit no. This stuff is boring, reading about 'historical matrimony' and stuff."
"Historical materialism" the professor corrects him. "It may be boring to you, but these events aren't just dusty pages in a book--they actually happened, and they continue to affect where we are today."
The youth shrugs, clearly not caring.
"Okay then, what would you rather be learning about, then?"
"I dunno, something exciting, like when General Patton[2] led the Bonus Army to take Debs D.C. during the Revolution. Something like that, you'know."
The professor resists the urge to correct the young man about how Patton was only a Lieutenant Colonel at the time, and that the 'Bonus Army' and the many volunteers, militiamen and deserters that marched with them had restyled itself as the Red Army months before, and that Debs D.C. was still called Washington at the time. Instead, he points out the fact that should be so obvious: "But without his experiences in the trenches of the First World War, Patton would have just been any other career military officer. He'd have been with MacArthur shooting the strikers in Pennsylvania, not defending them. We're reading his war diaries later this week--it's all right on the syllabus.
"We study history because it tells us about how we got where we are today. This is why I can say that the German Reich's decision to build a railroad from Berlin to Baghdad is just as important to American history as the Second Revolution was. The millions of American soldiers who died in the mud of Northern France from 1914 to 1918 radicalized American workers at home and vindicated the Socialists opposition to the war. That is why I'm asking you, humbly, to please pay attention in my class. College education may be free in this country, unlike in the Anglo-French Union, but that doesn't mean you should waste this opportunity."
The professor stepped off his soapbox, and turned to the whiteboard, and busily sketched down some important bullet points.
1. Howard Zinn's A People's History of America, the ITL counterpart to A People's History of the United States, and Eric Hobshawn's The Age of Extremes: The Short 20th Century. In OTL, very good books, btw.
2. Yes, that George Patton.
If WWI were a maneuver war, that could be safely assumed. But having warm bodies at the front wouldn't have made a lick of difference until the British start massing enough tanks to break the German lines. By the time American troops start arriving in any numbers, the gridlock of trenches will have already choked out any hope for maneuver war. Attacking machine gun emplacements and fortifications with the chests of infantrymen is a losing proposition.
Yay, Zinn makes a cameo.
I'm interested in the geopolitical terms you've mentioned, as well. Is it safe to assume a Central Powers victory and some sort of consolidation of Britain and France as a result? Or does the latter come after the defeat of the Entente?
He'll likely be making a lot more appearances in later installments
I will reveal this much: World War I will go very similarly ITTL as it did OTL. That means Allied "victory" and a punitive peace measure enforced on Germany. More than that I cannot say.
Patton become a radical, and Washington D.C. gets renamed. This WW1 was definitely more bloody and painful than OTL.
The mention to an Anglo-French Union means that at least part of Europe recovered reasonably well from WW1 and the possible future conflicts, although we see a reverse educational policies in effect when comparing the USA and the Anglo-French Union.
The mention to an Anglo-French Union means that at least part of Europe recovered reasonably well from WW1 and the possible future conflicts, although we see a reverse educational policies in effect when comparing the USA and the Anglo-French Union.
Last edited:
President Al Bundy
Banned
What did the socialists have against Washington? I hate Debs D.C. this sounds so...soviet, although the USSA seems to me democratic socialist...I guess.
Just a bit of speculation on my part, but couldn't one see Washington as an entrenched member of the landowning, slave-holding aristocracy that eventually gave birth to the Civil War?
Hmm...So it's Patton that starts this whole thing off...I had a feeling that the Socialist Revolution would happen in an ATL form of the Bonus Riots. It's really a shock that our Government didin't get toppled over during the riots in OTL. I guess the question is know was old Patton the brains of the operation or was he just a flunky. Hows the Fairbanks Presidency going JB?
Quite. I've always wondered what effect a prolongued WWI experience in the trenches would had on the US. Now I get a sandbox to figure that out.
Washington led the bourgeois revolution, which while important, was a different epoch. He gets to move aside after the socialist revolution. That's the basic public spin.
There's a bit of that too. But in a Marxian sense, Washington was a progressive in his day even though he represents the current enemy. Very dialectical.
Patton is one of a cadre of leaders, some of them were socialists in OTL and others that weren't. You'll find more of the dramatis personae appearing in later additions.
Fairbanks' presidency ended in 1913. It was a period of steady economic growth but also rising inequality and greatly heightened class conflict.
I meant lol Are there any significant differences between the later Taft Presidency and OTL Wilson's?