AHC: DLC Democrats, Populist GOP

[Nightingale]

I saw this thread: https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/challenge-populist-gop-dlc-democrats.129719/ and I was interested with the OP, so I decided to revive this in a new thread.

With a POD starting from 1961, have the Dems be DLC (Economically centrist, Third Way on social issues), while the GOP is Populist (Socially Conservative, economically liberal). Would you like some specific things to follow? Here it is:


1.) JFK lives
2.) Reagan becomes US president as in OTL, 1981-89
3.) Bill Clinton becomes President as OTL, but with Perot not withdrawing from the campaign, thus raking in more votes from Bush and resulting into a Democrat supermajority, passes many economically liberal laws, thus preventing 2008 Financial Crisis
4.) GOP Populist wins in 2001
5.) Have Hillary become President in 2009-17

 

[Expat]

I mean we're so close to that IRL. True, after 20 years of drift the Democrats are feeling some pull back to the left. And while Trump's not exactly economically leftist one gets the feeling he could have been, and that his supporters would have followed him there. Plus, he's protectionist and has made positive statements about certain big chunks of the welfare state (I'm not vouching for his reliability, just saying he's said some things and it hasn't made him un-viable).

So even though it's not set in stone, we could easily have this with a POD in the near future or near past. But to get it earlier? I think you'd need someone other than Reagan to take up the conservative mantle. Starting with the populists of the 1930s and 40s would probably be a better bet- Father Coughlin, maybe the Kingfisher. You form a movement that challenges the two-party system, the GOP suffers the most in the churn, there's a merger where a much-reduced Republican Party gets to keep its name but sees its leadership in the hands of populists, who utterly change the nature of the party over the course of the next 30 years.

But if it's after 1961, you have a problem. It took business interests in the GOP to align with emerging conservative forces for the party to gain southern and western populists. Those business interests are crucial and at the heart of the GOP by 1961. Whether it's the Rockefeller faction with its moderate social policy or the conservative faction with its relative unconcern with social policy, both are heavily committed to business interests. I'm not sure how you cause the business interests to lose their influence any quicker. Worse racial violence and fusion ticket laws that allow Wallace to campaign as a Republican?

 

[Indicus]

5.) Have Hillary become President in 2009-17

She basically ran on the exact same policies as Obama in 2008.

If you want a DLC Democratic Party permanently, you need to drive the Democratic Party to desperation. Make the Republicans win supermajories after President xxxx fails to deal with the Great Recession, and the desperate Democratic Party will be driven rightward by sheer necessity to survive.

 

[tenthring]

Pat Buchanan

 

[TRH]

Even with a Democratic Congress through Clinton's presidency, you'd have seen deregulation anyways. The Glass-Steagall repeal passed the Senate almost unanimously. That was "centrism" at the time.

 

[kichinichini]

Paul Tsongas would be a good candidate to make the Democratic party "pro-business" in the popular conception.

 

[Indicus]

Paul Tsongas would be a good candidate to make the Democratic party "pro-business" in the popular conception.

He was also a social liberal - not a DLC Democrat.

 

[kichinichini]

He was also a social liberal - not a DLC Democrat.

What issues are you talking about specifically? DLC was very economics-focused. Where would he disagree with this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Leadership_Council#Positions

 

[Indicus]

What issues are you talking about specifically? DLC was very economics-focused. Where would he disagree with this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Leadership_Council#Positions

One part of the DLC was social moderation. Bill Clinton, for instance, made the execution of a mentally ill black man part of his campaign. Tsongas ran as a social liberal.

 

[kichinichini]

One part of the DLC was social moderation. Bill Clinton, for instance, made the execution of a mentally ill black man part of his campaign. Tsongas ran as a social liberal.

I really don't think that is central to the organization's ethos, though. The DLC was a lot more than Bill Clinton so he shouldn't necessarily be the plumb line. There will be a moderate range of ideologies, just like in the OTL Democratic party.

Anyway, Paul Tsongas also supported the death penalty, and I don't think he said anything about the Rector execution. Of course as Senator (and from Massachusetts), he never presided over any execution.

Senator Bob Kerrey of Nebraska and Paul E. Tsongas, a former Massachusetts Senator, have also embraced the death penalty.

 

[Gonzo]

Perhaps have Pat Buchanan emerge victorious in the 1990's or in 2000 as a Republican to get them rather populist?