Interesting AH ideas that aren't commonly used
- Thread starter lerk
- Start date
-
- Tags
- alternate history
Going by the DLC/DNC's influence on democrats and what we got OTL, probably nothing good. As a guess: Privatization of both social security and the organs of poor people strike me as likely, citing "austerity" or "fiscal discipline" as the reasons.
Driftless
Donor
Depending on degree, I think the opposite might happen. IF the mess derailed the economy even worse, the under-regulated financial business is going to look even more predatory and campaign bribes/contributions are going to be looked at as poisoned money. There would be cries for public lynching of some of the worst thieves and lax watchdogs in the lot. As it was, the 2008 failures really destroyed a lot of middle-income folks.
I think @interpoltomo 's point is, it was really bad OTL, while Obama's election in 2008 coincided with quite a blue wave in Congress, both houses. As far as partisanship went the stage was set for very sweeping repudiation not just of Bush Jr's monkeying around but going all the way back to Reagan's first term--final repudiation of Reaganism and the launching of a new political paradigm. So one might conclude from counting names with D's after them in House and Senate.
Instead Obama and the House and Senate leadership blew it. It is a deep question, whether they did so inevitably because of the exact nature of the apparently monolithic Democratic majority--was it in fact a composite of radicals lacking national traction and credibility and and a bunch of deeply conservative types who might more reasonably have voted as moderate Republicans? Were they elected by an American people deeply fed up with the dysfunctional neoliberalism of Reagan and successors, wanting something more comprehensive in the way of populist state activism than Clinton ever offered, as I frankly hoped? Or was the electorate more conservative even than that that elected Bill Clinton in 1992--note that Clinton never enjoyed a popular vote majority and in '92 considerably more people voted for either Bush Sr or Ross Perot--and the tidal resurgence of the Republicans via Tea Party activism truly expressive of the authentic American mood?
In the latter case of course Obama and Democratic leadership would have merely cooked their own goose more in daring to go all FDR on Reagan's Harding-Coolidge-Hoover act. But I think that while probably the average voter of 2008 would not be prepared for deep radicalism--such as a hard push for simple Medicaid-Medicare for All universal payer medical reform, or a deeply comprehensive financial reform restoring pre-Reagan era protections and indeed revamping them to more modern conditions, massive infrastructure investments to give the "stimulus" a quicker and harder punch, etc etc--if it were done quickly and done well (almost, you know, like the Democrats might have used a near decade in the wilderness to prepare for this day with well thought out measures to both address the immediate crisis and a deep approach to anticipate the next one--or at any rate the years of meltdown between the Democrats regaining the House in 2006 and the Presidency two years later) then I think with good results benefiting real people already by November 2010, the Republican resurgence of that year might not have happened.
It is my view that the matter was not decided by the mood of the American people nor their limits, but rather that of Democratic leadership. Notably Barack Obama did not believe in the deep radicalism his foes (on the right) loved to assume. He is not, was not, will not be a socialist. He did not as I hoped rescind Bush Jr's imperial presidency powers such as declaring enemy combatants, he did not seek to throw Bush admin types behind bars for their trampling all over the Constitution. He believed and believes in business as usual. Like Clinton before him he was basically what a moderate and rational Republican president would be.
Similarly the rest of the ranking Democratic leadership was stuck in a time warp of DLC dictated triangulation, not noting the wind had shifted considerably and the smart way to make speed would involve steering in quite a different direction.
So, we don't so much need a POD of worse financial collapse as we need one of changed Democratic leadership in the mid-2000s.
One has to wonder what would have happened if Paul Wellstone's plane had not crashed in 2002 for instance.
A single leader does not a movement make though.
Easy to arrange different dem leadership. HRC runs in 2004 on a similar platform to 2016: pro-war, free trader, fiscal conservative, highly moralistic policy proposals/rhetroci, hard on feminism and loses hard.
You don't even need to make a new left split/faction. Keep the dems more like John Kerry or campaign as opposed to president obama: more focused on "bread and butter" issues and less on culture wars/idpol.
Anything related to European Union, including:
1950s/60s
1950s/60s
- Treaty of Rome is never signed in 1957 and the European Economic Community is never established. The European industry remains fragmented without a customs union, and its finances are considerably weakened.
- The French Parliament never rejected European Defence Community, creating a third and indigenous military and political alliance that largely overlaps with NATO. With the federal integration taking place across all the areas of governance, the creation of the United States of Europe is attempted ("La Grande Nation" by De Gaulle) that cuts out the US/UK influence.
- Luxembourg compromise is never reached and leads to either:
- France leaving EEC, while Benelux, W Germany, Italy initially remain. Common Agricultural Policy is never created. EEC is dissolved in the 1970s over internal north/south division.
- De Gaulle wins the dare: Germany and the Netherlands agree to dismantle all supranational EEC institutions, including the High Authority (the European Commission). Most functions are relocated to Paris. A French-dominated chain of military command is established, competing with NATO.
- President Kennedy pressures to Germany to accept Greece and/or Spain as EEC members despite their martial governments. No "Coup of Colonels" in France – De Gaulle is routinely re-elected despite becoming increasingly erratic with age. The US also forces EEC to accept Turkey (under General Gursel) as a member after the Cuban missile crisis. Denmark, Ireland, UK and Norway never finish their application processes due to a strong domestic opinions against "the fascist club". The political centre of Europe gravitates towards "Club Med" and anti-socialism for two decades.
- UK never joins the EEC – either because De Gaulle never resigned and continued to block its application; or Edward Heath never won the election. "Outer seven" of EFTA becomes a competitor to EEC; Sweden, Finland, Austria never join latter. The Baltics and some central European countries preferring to join EFTA rather than EC in the 1990s.
- Several of the initiatives attempted in the 1980s/90s failed, including the European Monetary Union or Euro (neither assets boom nor euro-crises), or the Single European Act. The Inner Market is never completed. Eurosclerosis ensues. Highly leveraged countries like Club Med or Belgium return to developing countries status after the financial & banking crises of the 80s and 90s. EU gets bogged down by internal development aid coordination.
- UNPROFOR and French forces are given/takes the mandate to fight a full war in the Balkans (while the US is bogged down in Somalia). Disagreement in the Security Council (Russia, China veto) leads to the creation of a joint-EU military force to avoid NATO deployment, as the President Clinton wants to avoid the US entangled in a conflict with Russia (that just joined G8 and Partnership for Peace). A European Defence Union becomes fully operational and becomes NATOs preferred outsourcing partner in the region. EDU becomes permanent to support a de facto EU occupation of Bosnia, Serbia and Macedonia, while domestic balkan terrorism leads to a Security & Intelligence Union and strengthened Europol. EU sees overseas deployment in 2000s (Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan, Syria) and a full-scale intervention in the Arab Spring (Libya).
- The 2004 European Constitution is ratified by the Member States. It's no change in substance, but leads to a major backlash against earlier EU reforms.
- Greece reintroduces the Drachma and leaves the currency union. The political crisis in Athens leads to Athens invoking Article 50 of the treaties to also leave the EU. Bailout of French and German banks lead to EU eager to punish Greece. The protracted Grexit negotiations silence the calls for a Brexit.
- Brexit, mismanagement of the Euro-crisis, failure of the transatlantic trade agreement and the general unwillingness to prosecute US tech firms lead to:
- A motion of no confidence against the European Commission, initiated by France and Germany. Commission President Juncker resigns for health reasons ("kidney problems"). The Council (which represents the interests of the Member States) takes full charge of the day-to-day work of the EU by appointing its puppet, the Acting President Cecilia Malmstrom.
- Failure to reform the treaties and the financial crisis divide the Euro members and non-members. The original Six (France, Germany, Italy, Benelux) and Slovakia creates a "union within the union" to fulfil the vision of a full political and monetary union.
- PM Cameron wins the Brexit referendum. EU speeds ahead on creating a Digital Single Market, signing Asian trade agreements and a common corporate tax scheme. UK concludes a highly successful chairmanship of the Council in 2017 that complete these items. PM Cameron is proposed as the European People's Party candidate to succeed Commission President Juncker.
- The Netherlands invoke the mutual defence clause after MH17 is shut down, leading to EU & NATO peace keeping mission in Ukraine. A crisis similar to Georgian Abkhazia staged by either Kiev or Donbass provocation leads to war against pro-Russia separatists involving EU troops, tit-for-tat sanctions and the cutting of Russian gas supplies – the Coldest Winter of Discontent. EU creates an Energy Union through an emergency delegated act that establish joint resources to buy LNGs and oil from Norway, the US and Iran. Meanwhile, cheap Russian gas flows to China and East Asia: an electricity grid is built from China, across the Korean Peninsula to Japan.
Last edited:
Wolf of Badenoch
Donor
There would be minor benefits for the UK Royals - fewer people would criticise the PoW and there would be little or no opposition to Camilla becoming Queen
Indeed but the line of succession remains the same - Elizabeth, Charles, William. Charles possibly doesn't get to marry Camilla at all TTL, he is put under pressure to marry another younger women and produce a spare. No Harry. But what would really have changed in British life. This would be the alternate where you don't realise that you have shifted TLs until you pick up a copy of HELLO magazine.
Wolf of Badenoch
Donor
Why would he not marry the woman he has loved since at least 1974 when he became free to so do? I can't see anyone pressuring him to marry another simpering virgin. He's produced an heir and there is a perfectly acceptable spare.But I do agree that there would be few butterflies.
Wolf of Badenoch
Donor
That could also provide some entertaining melanges - Cajun shepherd's pie, blackened cod and chips?
Wolf of Badenoch
Donor
Great idea - what about PA 103 not being brought down over Lockerbie? Who knows what the pax and crew might have contributed to history?
Wolf of Badenoch
Donor
Brilliant - what about UK giving Hong Kong independence in 1968 as a result of the '67 riots? China might still be internally obsessed by the fallout of the Cultural Revolution to respond vigorously.
How is OAS (a resourceful but extreme anti-establishment org whose interests were almost exclusively related to the colonies) related to French national attempt (a militarised EEC according to the 1950 Pleven Plan) to expunge UK influence over continental Europe? And to put France on the top of the chain in return for rearming West Germany?
Also, French bid for the EDC predates the founding of OAS by 4-5 years, and the Pleven Plan by at least a decade (!) I think we are safe to say they are unrelated. And even if they're not: how would a stronger French military control of Germany make OAS more resourceful or belligerent in their attempt to assassinate De Gaulle?
FWIW, it was a non-partisan mix of conservatives (constitutional concerns), communists (who wanted to join the Warsaw Pact) and centrists ("US/Britain are our friends") that failed the ratification. Algeria was never a part of the equation.
Last edited: