AHC Make Democrats the Conservative party

[Copperhead]

So I saw an article on Louisiana's governor on how he was firmly pro gun and pro life which is weird for a Democrat politician and it got me thinking. I also remembered seeing something that as late as like 2014 protecting Confederate monuments was actually bi partisan to a degree in south Carolina. On top of that I've also had people tell me that Bill Clinton was rather conservative by today's standards.

So this begs the question, What if the Democrat party stayed the conservative party?

For this challenge the Democrats still have to get the majority of the minority votes as they do today but they also have to get the rural and conservative white vote as well.

The only good POD I can think of is to just make clinton more pro military and conservative any other ideas?

 

[mial42]

The Republican party of the 90s was well to the right of Clinton. If Clinton were more conservative then the Republicans of the time, he would've been a Republican, not a Democrat. He's only "conservative" relative to today's Democratic party, which has moved significantly to the left. The Democrats have been the economically left wing party since just after the Civil War (before then, slavery took up all the oxygen in the room), they never were the conservative party. In order to turn them into one, you'd need a POD before FDR at a minimum.

 

[Intergallactic]

Hughes wins in 1916. Dems hold White House through 20s easily. 1932 a Republican is elected who begins a New Deal type program and moves the party left. 1990s is way too late to make the GOP go left

 

[Thisisnotausername]

So this begs the question, What if the Democrat party stayed the conservative party?

The Democratic Party was never really the more conservative party, not in the 20th century and certainly not by the 90s. Clinton's conservatism is relative to the modern Democratic Party, not to the Republicans he ran against, who were very much to his right.

For this challenge the Democrats still have to get the majority of the minority votes as they do today but they also have to get the rural and conservative white vote as well.

The problem with this is that the conservative white vote is to a large extent defined by its hostility towards the interests of the non-white electorate. You're not going to win the overwhelming majority of the black vote and the kind of white voter who gets worked up about crackheads and welfare queens, not consistently at any rate.

 

[marktaha]

Surely.they were in the 19th century?

 

[gaitskellitebevanite]

The latest POD I can think of is if Zangara had shot FDR, with John Nance Garner becoming President in 1933 instead. Garner was an arch-conservative who wouldn't have implemented the New Deal. Landon and Willkie were both quite liberal OTL, and supported the early New Deal programmes, so you could see the GOP become the centre-left party in US politics and the Democrats the centre-right.

Bare in mind FDR ran against Hoover in 1932 from the right, accusing Hoover of spending too much and being too interventionist.

 

[Copperhead]

The Democratic Party was never really the more conservative party, not in the 20th century and certainly not by the 90s. Clinton's conservatism is relative to the modern Democratic Party, not to the Republicans he ran against, who were very much to his right.

The problem with this is that the conservative white vote is to a large extent defined by its hostility towards the interests of the non-white electorate. You're not going to win the overwhelming majority of the black vote and the kind of white voter who gets worked up about crackheads and welfare queens, not consistently at any rate.

I mean there were a ton of blue dogs in the south while minorities voted blue consistently. I maybe they just need to fire up evangelicals more and make religion a big factor.

 

[mial42]

Surely.they were in the 19th century?

No, they were "socially conservative" thanks being largely a South-based party, but they were economically left-wing compared to the Republicans, who were considered the party of business, hence why they nominated William Jennings Bryan three times.

 

[Ellis MacVey]

Easy: Taft decides not to run in 1912 and Teddy Roosevelt becomes the Republican candidate. The Progressives never split from the Republican party, and eventually come to dominate it while the Democrats stay a firmly right wing political force.

 

[GDIS Pathe]

The latest POD I can think of is if Zangara had shot FDR, with John Nance Garner becoming President in 1933 instead. Garner was an arch-conservative who wouldn't have implemented the New Deal. Landon and Willkie were both quite liberal OTL, and supported the early New Deal programmes, so you could see the GOP become the centre-left party in US politics and the Democrats the centre-right.

Bare in mind FDR ran against Hoover in 1932 from the right, accusing Hoover of spending too much and being too interventionist.

Garner was hardly an Arch Conservative, he historically co-sponsored the Garner-Wagner Relief Bill (Veotoed by Hoover), he supported Deposit Insurance, the Rural Electrification Act, helped push TVA Legislation through Congress, while other major Legislation like Social Security was pushed through Congress with veto-proof majorities.

 

[Hugh Third of Five]

No, they were "socially conservative" thanks being largely a South-based party, but they were economically left-wing compared to the Republicans, who were considered the party of business, hence why they nominated William Jennings Bryan three times.

Towards the end of the 19th century and in the early twentieth century yes, that shift had begun, but even then there were the progressive republicans like Teddy and before him the "silver republicans." Don't forget the Democrats were largely the party of the planter class for much of the 19th century. The GOP had a large conservative pro-business component, but it also had a sizeable progressive one. Teddy didn't get the nickname "trustbuster" for nothing.

I suggest having Teddy seek his 3rd term in 1908. That should attract more economic progressives to the party and alienate more of the pro-business wing. Have Taft either die or sit on the SCOTUS. Make LaFollette become the next Republican POTUS.

 

[mial42]

Towards the end of the 19th century and in the early twentieth century yes, that shift had begun, but even then there were the progressive republicans like Teddy and before him the "silver republicans." Don't forget the Democrats were largely the party of the planter class for much of the 19th century. The GOP had a large conservative pro-business component, but it also had a sizeable progressive one. Teddy didn't get the nickname "trustbuster" for nothing.

I suggest having Teddy seek his 3rd term in 1908. That should attract more economic progressives to the party and alienate more of the pro-business wing. Have Taft either die or sit on the SCOTUS. Make LaFollette become the next Republican POTUS.

Both parties had wings we would describe as "liberal" and "conservative" in the 19th century, but it would be incorrect to describe the Democrats as more conservative. After all, TR was not the mainstream of the Republican party and only became president due to outside factors. The Democrats were the party of the planters, but also of small farmers and urban immigrants.
I do think that Teddy thoroughly taking over the party is a decent POD to achieve this though.

 

[Time Enough]

The GOP had a large conservative pro-business component, but it also had a sizeable progressive one. Teddy didn't get the nickname "trustbuster" for nothing.

Even then Teddy was doing from what could be best described as doing it in the ‘Bismarckian’ Conservative sense, there was a strong fear amongst much of the establishment in particular the GOP that the Working Class would raise up and bring about Socialism etc.

Progressivism was more a way to nip the potential of Marxist/Socialism in the bud if anything, so in a way, it was still Right Wing nature (though folks would see state intervention as Left now, I guess).

Of course Progressivism changed when folks like LaFollette was driving, but he was always considered rather more Leftfield than much of the Republican Party.

 

[Copperhead]

Okay so what would it take for the conservative wing to dominate the democrats like it did for Rs?

 

[dw93]

Okay so what would it take for the conservative wing to dominate the democrats like it did for Rs?

A Republican President signing Civil Rights on top of the GOP becoming the economically center left party sometime between 1908 and 1932.

 

[FightingBob24]

A little before 1900 so forgive me, but one POD I can think of is to have Harrison defeat Cleveland in 1892. The Panic of 1893 would still occur, this time discrediting tariffs and McKinley, and in the 1896 election the Bourbons would most likely keep control of the party, preventing the rise of Bryan, who brought the Populists into the Democratic fold and strengthened its left wing.

Then all you need to do is have a Republican analogue to OTL Bryan in 1900 or 1904 (Possibly La Follette?😉 Obviously I'm biased as you can see in my username, but having non-interventionist Bourbons in control during 1898 most likely butterflies the Spanish American War, and with it the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt). Alternatively, the party could do what they did OTL and try to sideline a progressive as the VP like they did with Teddy, leaving La Follette or whoever it is one Leon Czolgosz away from the presidency🙂 With a progressive in control of the party, it's possible this would bring the Populists into the Republican fold instead.

Of course the butterflies here would be intense, especially regarding WWI, but if America still enters the war, for this scenario let's say under a Republican, followed by a Democratic Roaring 20s, a Republican wins during the Great Depression and implements a Republican New Deal, and decades later a Republican president signs the Civil Rights Act, making the Party of Lincoln firmly progressive in every way, and keeping the Democrats socially conservative and at least somewhat economically conservative.

This may not fit all your criteria and there may be some issues regarding butterflies here (there would be a lot, this is assuming everything stays at least somewhat the same on the world stage which it probably wouldn't) but off the top of my head this seems like a plausible way to switch the parties views.

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

I think that in order to make the Democrats the conservative party, you probably need to stop William Jennings Bryan from winning the nomination in 1896.

The only alternative I can imagine is if a left-wing third party is really successful (as in, with an actual chance at winning the presidency). This left-wing party will need to take votes from progressives in both parties. If this is accomplished early enough, you could get a situation where Republicans are left as the party of Northern conservatives and moderates while Democrats are largely the party of southern conservatives (Catholic conservatives might also be Democrats, giving the party a presence in the North). In this situation, the Democrats could very well become more right-wing than Republicans.

 

[Hcira1]

A little before 1900 so forgive me, but one POD I can think of is to have Harrison defeat Cleveland in 1892. The Panic of 1893 would still occur, this time discrediting tariffs and McKinley, and in the 1896 election the Bourbons would most likely keep control of the party, preventing the rise of Bryan, who brought the Populists into the Democratic fold and strengthened its left wing.

Then all you need to do is have a Republican analogue to OTL Bryan in 1900 or 1904 (Possibly La Follette?😉 Obviously I'm biased as you can see in my username, but having non-interventionist Bourbons in control during 1898 most likely butterflies the Spanish American War, and with it the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt). Alternatively, the party could do what they did OTL and try to sideline a progressive as the VP like they did with Teddy, leaving La Follette or whoever it is one Leon Czolgosz away from the presidency🙂 With a progressive in control of the party, it's possible this would bring the Populists into the Republican fold instead.

Of course the butterflies here would be intense, especially regarding WWI, but if America still enters the war, for this scenario let's say under a Republican, followed by a Democratic Roaring 20s, a Republican wins during the Great Depression and implements a Republican New Deal, and decades later a Republican president signs the Civil Rights Act, making the Party of Lincoln firmly progressive in every way, and keeping the Democrats socially conservative and at least somewhat economically conservative.

This may not fit all your criteria and there may be some issues regarding butterflies here (there would be a lot, this is assuming everything stays at least somewhat the same on the world stage which it probably wouldn't) but off the top of my head this seems like a plausible way to switch the parties views.

Well thats assuming the Great Depression, roaring twenties, and other things would still happen and wouldn't be butterflied away

 

[FightingBob24]

Well thats assuming the Great Depression, roaring twenties, and other things would still happen and wouldn't be butterflied away

I did address that, I do think they would most likely be butterflied away, but were still possible. For the sake of this challenge I thought that keeping events relatively similar would be the best way to achieve this goal. Requires some controlling of the butterflies but still doable.

Although without those events, the parties switching already has groundwork laid out by 1910, so I still think it would be possible, but that would require a bit more planning out for specifics since this was just off the top of my head🙂

 

[VoidTemplar]

A Republican President signing Civil Rights on top of the GOP becoming the economically center left party sometime between 1908 and 1932.

A little before 1900 so forgive me, but one POD I can think of is to have Harrison defeat Cleveland in 1892. The Panic of 1893 would still occur, this time discrediting tariffs and McKinley, and in the 1896 election the Bourbons would most likely keep control of the party, preventing the rise of Bryan, who brought the Populists into the Democratic fold and strengthened its left wing.

Then all you need to do is have a Republican analogue to OTL Bryan in 1900 or 1904 (Possibly La Follette?😉 Obviously I'm biased as you can see in my username, but having non-interventionist Bourbons in control during 1898 most likely butterflies the Spanish American War, and with it the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt). Alternatively, the party could do what they did OTL and try to sideline a progressive as the VP like they did with Teddy, leaving La Follette or whoever it is one Leon Czolgosz away from the presidency🙂 With a progressive in control of the party, it's possible this would bring the Populists into the Republican fold instead.

Of course the butterflies here would be intense, especially regarding WWI, but if America still enters the war, for this scenario let's say under a Republican, followed by a Democratic Roaring 20s, a Republican wins during the Great Depression and implements a Republican New Deal, and decades later a Republican president signs the Civil Rights Act, making the Party of Lincoln firmly progressive in every way, and keeping the Democrats socially conservative and at least somewhat economically conservative.

This may not fit all your criteria and there may be some issues regarding butterflies here (there would be a lot, this is assuming everything stays at least somewhat the same on the world stage which it probably wouldn't) but off the top of my head this seems like a plausible way to switch the parties views.

The GOP was always, always, the Party of Business going all the way back to the Civil War, and always had that cushion to fall back on, just as the Democrats had the Solid South to run to when they were given a bloody nose. They cannot leave this core pole of support, financial and societal. The Democrats never had that rock-solid pole and were forced to cobble hodgepodge majorities together wherever they could (Which is why in 1932, you had a strange mix of racist Southeners, immigrant machines in Chicago and NYC, amongst others and disgruntled farmers that hung around from the times of Bryan.) The GOP would need to fundamentally break from their key source of funds and support to become the Centre-Left Party.

And the Panic of 1893 discrediting tariffs would just embolden the Populists in the Democrats. Bryan was out of the rural Democratic faction that loathed tariffs and the Gold Standard, both of which would be attacked tenfold under a Republican administration.