A Cliche That Needs Curtailing

It seems to me that, in the recent annals of post-1900, an idea that was rather implausible to begin with has become so widespread that it is now an overused cliche. This is the theory that the US will immediately fall apart at the drop of a hat if TR's reforms fail to happen, or if the labor movement is treated slightly more harshly. Frequently, not only is the government overthrown (to be replaced with socialism, syndicalism, or what have you), America flat-out balkanizes into around six independent nations. Even discounting the fact that this idea so widespread that it is sucking the creative oxygen out of the period, it is implausible to begin with. The US had a strong national identity, and most were satisfied with the current order of things. Did Bryan's defeat in 1896 cause massive disorder and violence? I thought not. Secondly, the proposed PODs (in most cases) aren't enough to cause a rapid de-legitimization of the federal government. A few unchecked robber barons here, a few suppressed strikes there, and five years later there's another Civil War? Real collapses stem from a multitude of factors, and in this case, most of the usual ones (like foreign defeat, economic decline, and the erosion of government capacity) simply aren't present. Even if we allow for widespread discontent, no alternative to the liberal democratic capitalist system was popular enough to be viable as the basis for a revolution. Finally, even if all the factors for civil war were present, there isn't enough time to go from business as usual in 1900 to total collapse in around 1910 or so, which is the average date chosen in these maps and TLs. The factors for internal strife take time to develop, and to go in around decade from a stable democratic government to revolution and possible balkanization where the PODs are usually nothing but the continuation of the economic structure of the 1890s, with a bit more labor unrest, seems very implausible to me. Thoughts?
 
Last edited:
As someone who's been very dumbfounded every time I read about the US going socialist after the "failure of the New Deal", I agree with this.
 
Examples of nations that got through the 1930's as democracies with centrist or center-right governments: The UK, France (except for the relatively brief Popular Front period), Australia, the Netherlands. Now I'm not saying these were necessarily *good* governments. One can argue that for example Colijn's conservative economic policies were bad for the Netherlands. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hendrikus_Colijn (And of course the *foreign* policy of the governments of the UK in the 1930's ended in disaster, but that's another matter...) But still all these countries survived the decade as capitalist democracies, and there is no reason to assume the US couldn't have done so as well.
 
Examples of nations that got through the 1930's as democracies with centrist or center-right governments: The UK, France (except for the relatively brief Popular Front period), Australia, the Netherlands. Now I'm not saying these were necessarily *good* governments. One can argue that for example Colijn's conservative economic policies were bad for the Netherlands. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hendrikus_Colijn (And of course the *foreign* policy of the governments of the UK in the 1930's ended in disaster, but that's another matter...) But still all these countries survived the decade as capitalist democracies, and there is no reason to assume the US couldn't have done so as well.
Good points, but that's not the matter at hand.
 
It seems to me that, in the recent annals of post-1900, an idea that was rather implausible to begin with has become so widespread that it is now an overused cliche. This is the theory that the US will immediately fall apart at the drop of a hat if the Rooseveltian reforms fail to happen, or if the labor movement is treated slightly more harshly. Frequently, not only is the government overthrown (to be replaced with socialism, syndicalism, or what have you), America flat-out balkanizes into around six independent nations. Even discounting the fact that this idea so widespread that it is sucking the creative oxygen out of the period, it is implausible to begin with.

I agree. If Theodore Roosevelt's reforms didn't happen (as in Reds!) and both parties remained identical in regards to economic issues, I believe we'd see a leftist third party seriously challenge the other two parties, but democratically. As for the New Deal not happening, I have no doubt there would be rioting and unemployment surpassing thirty-five percent, but this is not enough to see civil war.

Did Bryan's defeat in 1896 cause massive disorder and violence?

Well, he was more of an agrarian radical type and was disliked by many workers, and his platform (other than Free Silver) was, in many ways, co-opted by the progressive movement.


But I agree, it takes more to cause a second civil war.
 
Well, it's one of the few POD's that are available to create a revolution, civil war, or any other violent insurrection in the US. So of course it's going to be overused. As to Balkanization, while I generally agree, periods of chaos are the best opportunity to create the highly improbable. So even if its near ASB, this scenario is the only way to have it happen, even if the explanations offered in TLs dont necessarily reach the threshold to create such an event.
 

Wallet

Banned
Yeah, this is ASB. But it follows the pattern of Germany and Itay falling into dictatorship
 
Plausibility check? This is alternative history! We like to think that all that is written here and discussed on this site is heavily based on fact, but in the end all time lines are at the end of the day fiction. No one wants to write or read about a POD where nothing interesting happens, like things were a little worse and got better slower than OTL, but a second American civil war, sign me up.
 
Plausibility check? This is alternative history! We like to think that all that is written here and discussed on this site is heavily based on fact, but in the end all time lines are at the end of the day fiction. No one wants to write or read about a POD where nothing interesting happens, like things were a little worse and got better slower than OTL, but a second American civil war, sign me up.
Alternate history is supposed to be plausible.
 
Some AH timelines are more plausible than others, though.
I agree, but my intent with this thread is to show that this cliche is very implausible. A line must be drawn somewhere between implausibility that's ok, and over-the top. The thing discussed here is the latter, especially factoring in its commonness on the board.
 

cpip

Gone Fishin'
I have to ask, is it really that common? I mean, aside from Reds! and The Falcon Cannot Hear, does this trope keep appearing in TLs? I haven't much seen it. I've seen more recently the appearance of "George Wallace and the Dixiecrats launch a Civil War" somewhere between '48 and '68, which I think is even more ridiculous even once you allow for the "Battle of Oxford".
 
I think it's more akin to sports fans.

Here's my reasoning.

I saw in "What Are But Two Votes" a number of people anxious to see the US split apart by the British, even at the expense of creating an independent CSA that would continue slavery. However, I think that everyone knows, in reality, that would be a horrible thing. So, they just expend their bluster at a thread where they know it's not really going to happen.

Now, why i see a sports analogy is this. They're not really wishing a slavocracy would survive, they are just like sports fans rooting agaisnt the biggest, baddest team, one that wins all the time. So, instead of really continuing to support something they know is awful, they instead decide they will seek out something else that will allow the US to not be so big and powerful. The Great Despression is the perfect thing for them, and they can be satisfied with the fact that even if the US balkanizes, no part of it would ever reinstitute slavery. (Maybe conditions nearly as awful, but parts of the South OTL were, anyway.)

So, the instant breakup of the US isn't really a cliche people think is realistic. I suspect that most are just the lowly Senators fans hoping that by some strange, supernatural (if evil) method, they can bring down the "damn Yankees," just like in the play.
 
I have to ask, is it really that common? I mean, aside from Reds! and The Falcon Cannot Hear, does this trope keep appearing in TLs? I haven't much seen it. I've seen more recently the appearance of "George Wallace and the Dixiecrats launch a Civil War" somewhere between '48 and '68, which I think is even more ridiculous even once you allow for the "Battle of Oxford".
I've seen in a lot in maps of the period.
 
Long established democratic republics are pretty stable. If there is a lot of call for the government to move to the left one of the parties are almost certain to move that way to win elections.
 
I think it's more akin to sports fans.

Here's my reasoning.

I saw in "What Are But Two Votes" a number of people anxious to see the US split apart by the British, even at the expense of creating an independent CSA that would continue slavery. However, I think that everyone knows, in reality, that would be a horrible thing. So, they just expend their bluster at a thread where they know it's not really going to happen.

Now, why i see a sports analogy is this. They're not really wishing a slavocracy would survive, they are just like sports fans rooting agaisnt the biggest, baddest team, one that wins all the time. So, instead of really continuing to support something they know is awful, they instead decide they will seek out something else that will allow the US to not be so big and powerful. The Great Despression is the perfect thing for them, and they can be satisfied with the fact that even if the US balkanizes, no part of it would ever reinstitute slavery. (Maybe conditions nearly as awful, but parts of the South OTL were, anyway.)

So, the instant breakup of the US isn't really a cliche people think is realistic. I suspect that most are just the lowly Senators fans hoping that by some strange, supernatural (if evil) method, they can bring down the "damn Yankees," just like in the play.
This is fine. I agree that it is the motivation. However, people need to be aware that it is a rather implausible option. It isn't ASB-level impossible, but the authors of such scenarios should realize that it's not the natural course of events.
 
It seems to me that, in the recent annals of post-1900, an idea that was rather implausible to begin with has become so widespread that it is now an overused cliche. This is the theory that the US will immediately fall apart at the drop of a hat if the Rooseveltian reforms fail to happen, or if the labor movement is treated slightly more harshly. Frequently, not only is the government overthrown (to be replaced with socialism, syndicalism, or what have you), America flat-out balkanizes into around six independent nations. Even discounting the fact that this idea so widespread that it is sucking the creative oxygen out of the period, it is implausible to begin with. The US had a strong national identity, and most were satisfied with the current order of things. Did Bryan's defeat in 1896 cause massive disorder and violence? I thought not. Secondly, the proposed PODs (in most cases) aren't enough to cause a rapid de-legitimization of the federal government. A few unchecked robber barons here, a few suppressed strikes there, and five years later there's another Civil War? Real collapses stem from a multitude of factors, and in this case, most of the usual ones (like foreign defeat, economic decline, and the erosion of government capacity) simply aren't present. Even if we allow for widespread discontent, no alternative to the liberal democratic capitalist system was popular enough to be viable as the basis for a revolution. Finally, even if all the factors for civil war were present, there isn't enough time to go from business as usual in 1900 to total collapse in around 1910 or so, which is the average date chosen in these maps and TLs. The factors for internal strife take time to develop, and to go in around decade from a stable democratic government to revolution and possible balkanization where the PODs are usually nothing but the continuation of the economic structure of the 1890s, with a bit more labor unrest, seems very implausible to me. Thoughts?
[Emphasis added.]

To be sure, there is great truth in this. Still, I don't think we in 2016 truly appreciate how dire the situation was in the United States circa 1931-32 politically and economically. Part of that is that those who lived through it are all now dead. My grandparents were all born around 1910, so they were young adults when the Depression hit and before they died, I did discuss the period with them. As they told it, the world truly seemed to have fallen apart. And this is from people who weren't particularly political or unusual in their views; they were all middle of the road Midwesterners who tended to vote Republican. As the Depression dragged on, people were looking for answers and as their situations grew increasingly desperate, they became less concerned where those answers came from. Some looked left, some right, but it was an unusual period in which the conventional wisdom was discredited and it was widely believed that a novel approach was needed. So, in that sense, the 1930s were unusual. Imagine if the 2008 financial crisis was still ongoing with no end in sight. If you think 2016 politics are weird, think through how things might be even weirder if unemployment was north of 15%. Unemployment at the height of the Depression was over 25%! So, no, people were not satisfied with the current order in 1931/32. They wanted change and FDR gave it to them. And even with FDR, there was still violence and there were still demagogic figures cropping up on the political scene.

While it may be an overused cliché of sorts here, it is not difficult to imagine the US spinning in a strange direction if FDR had not come around in 1932. More to the point, it is impossible to imagine the US continuing along on the 1920s laissez-faire course it had been on. Even my grandparents conceded that much of the FDR program was necessary and even they never really questioned its key assumptions.

I don't put much stock in scenarios where the US balkanizes, but I can easily see a situation where the US stagnates for a much longer period and where politics gets very ugly. I can also see a scenario developing where the US is so stuck in a bad economic situation such that its production capacity is much less than it was in OTL 1939 and the mood of the nation regarding Europe is one of indifference as people focus on fixing things at home.
 
Top