A socially liberal Republican Party by 2010?

Is this at all possible? For a Republican Party that broadly supports gay rights, gun control and abortion rights, while at the same time sticking firmly to free market principles? How would modern American politics look had this happened? I presume a 1960s or 1970s POD is needed. Not being an American expert I'll ask the stupid question- is "no Reagan" enough for this?
 
Is this at all possible? For a Republican Party that broadly supports gay rights, gun control and abortion rights, while at the same time sticking firmly to free market principles? How would modern American politics look had this happened? I presume a 1960s or 1970s POD is needed. Not being an American expert I'll ask the stupid question- is "no Reagan" enough for this?

There's a couple of possibilities, mostly centered around Rockefeller. Of course, both Reagan and the Buckley wing would have to fall out of favor or be otherwise marginalized, and it would be important to have the Religious Right not be as powerful a player.
 
There's a couple of possibilities, mostly centered around Rockefeller. Of course, both Reagan and the Buckley wing would have to fall out of favor or be otherwise marginalized, and it would be important to have the Religious Right not be as powerful a player.
Well, or Teddy Roosevelt and the Progressives.
 

Deleted member 1487

Maybe this is too late, but what about a McCain victory in 2000? McCain was still able to draw the majority party vote in 2008, so why not have him win over Bush and draw the party toward the center? Sure the religious right would still be part of the Republican party, but wouldn't be the sole base. Also, then the religious left would side with the Democrats, as they wouldn't have an anti-abortion candidate to flock to, spreading out the social conservatives to both parties, further keeping the Republicans in the mainstream.
 
The Conservative turn is actually a bit odd. It'd be like if the Democrats had gotten taken over by the Dixiecrats and everyone else got booted out of the party.

Certainly it can continue as a Moderate/Liberal controlled party, but whether or not you can get them to support the things you list is up in the air. Frankly, as I've said before, those are part of the political muck of distinction among factions. None of those are necessarily Liberal or Conservative, although they are features shared by the average member of either faction respectfully. You can oppose gay rights and abortion, and be a New Deal Liberal extraordinaire and a supporter of the Welfare state and whatever. They've only become part of a litmus test really from generalization.

The parties, first off, were also big tents with factions. Whatever faction or alliance of factions was in control was that which lead the party plank. In the Democrats, you had the Northern Liberals, the Conservative Dixiecrats, and the Southern Democrats who were New Dealers and not foaming at the mouth about segregation (whether they were against it or just pragmatic segregationists). In the GOP, you had the Liberals/Moderate alliance, and the Conservatives. In both parties, the Liberals/Moderates were the mainstream and dominant, they just approached issues from different vantage points between the parties. It is important to point out that the political consensus post-WW2 up to the Reagan era was solidly Liberal. The Dixiecrats were marginalized, often pain in the butts, and were only placated through some concessions and their own hatred of the Republicans. The Conservatives in the GOP were the Goldwater and later Reagan lead faction; they were limited and in the west. As factions were generally common in the past, the current state of polarization between the parties now is a bit odd and testament to the increasing weakening the parties have undergone in the past few decades.

If you want to avoid a Conservative takeover, it'd be good to stave off the fallout of the late 1960's. Basically the whole evolution of modern politics evolved from Vietnam, radicalization, disillusion, and so forth that snowballed on from there until everybody broke down and were willing to open the door to Nixon and Reagan, with all the muck inbetween complicating things up further.
 
No, no Reagan is not enough for this.

I have an idea: Nixon isn't put on the 1952 ticket. He fades into obscurity, and the ticket probably ends up being Eisenhower/Lodge. Either ticket would beat Adlai pretty easily. Eisenhower almost didn't run for reelection in 1956 due to his health. If Henry Cabot Lodge spent 4-8 years as a GOP President, he'd probably anger just about every social conservative and southerner in the country (perhaps a Civil Rights Act of 1957 with real teeth?).

I don't want to give away too much detail, because I've been working on and off on a timeline with that basic premise, but if the 60s become a battle between the GOP under Lodge and a (presumably moderate-to-liberal) successor and the Dems under the Dixiecrats or the Proto-neocons like Scoop Jackson, you could get a socially liberal GOP by the late 70s.
 
1. Elect a Democratic president in 1928.

2. At that time, according to journalist HL Mencken, "there wasn't a dime's worth of difference between the two parties." They had grown together.

3. After the market crash, a Republican proposes a recovery alternative, a version of the New Deal, returning the GOP to the political left in 1932.

Sounds simplistic, but the GOP was known as the party of Lincoln and civil rights from 1860 until WWI. Simply stop the OTL reversal.
 
Sounds more like the Libertarian Party; fiscally conservative, socially mind-your-own-business.

Indeed. Or more like the British Conservative party, of which I am myself a member. As a Brit, I find it difficult to empathise with either American party, as the Democrats are generally to my Left, while the Republicans are embarrasingly to my Right on a lot of issues that simply shouldn't matter in modern political discussion. There are a few modern day Republicans I quite like, the moderates mostly, but I dread to think what could happen if the religious fruitcakes continue taking control: a permanent left wing US government that behaves like Obama does? Perish the thought!
 
Thomas Dewey is elected President in 1948. He serves out two terms, is followed by Adlai Stevenson, who is in turn followed by Nelson Rockefeller. Both parties marginalize their socially conservative wings, which in turn unite around George Wallace in 1968, forming the American Independent Party (shortened to the 'American Party' in 1972).

The seventies are divided between the GOP and the Democrats, the former of whom adapt neoliberal economics but keep their social liberal views on abortion and other issues. The Democrats remain firmly in the center-left on economics, and take a pragmatic approach to issues such as abortion, with mainstream Democrats that are solidly pro-choice and that are solidly pro-life (Dick Gephardt, Jesse Jackson) taking center stage. By 2010, both parties are still rather big tent parties, and the American Party has faded into obscurity, though it does still have a small following in the South.
 

kenmac

Banned
No, no Reagan is not enough for this.

I have an idea: Nixon isn't put on the 1952 ticket. He fades into obscurity, and the ticket probably ends up being Eisenhower/Lodge. Either ticket would beat Adlai pretty easily. Eisenhower almost didn't run for reelection in 1956 due to his health. If Henry Cabot Lodge spent 4-8 years as a GOP President, he'd probably anger just about every social conservative and southerner in the country (perhaps a Civil Rights Act of 1957 with real teeth?).

I don't want to give away too much detail, because I've been working on and off on a timeline with that basic premise, but if the 60s become a battle between the GOP under Lodge and a (presumably moderate-to-liberal) successor and the Dems under the Dixiecrats or the Proto-neocons like Scoop Jackson, you could get a socially liberal GOP by the late 70s.

Sounds interesting.
 
Sure, Switch the parties names. Because one of the two is going to court the social conservatives as a voting bloc.
 
Perhaps the Socons (social conservatives) get blamed for Obama's victory? Sarah Palin might have unified the GOP behind McCain, but she ground a lot of people's gears.

Also, how socially-liberal is socially liberal? I would imagine Socons would more readily agree to legalizing drugs than not fighting against abortion.

After all, the Socon argument against abortion is that it's murder. Smoking the reefer is nothing in comparison, and the Drug War is expensive and conducive to police abuses (planting drugs on people they don't like, asset forfeiture, etc).
 
A sucessful third party in the 1960's could cause the GOP to turn socially liberal by the 1980's. This would require the Dems go further to the left to te point of being social democrats by 1980. It would almost force the GOP to turn to the left socially to keep in competition. The third party would be moderate to conservative. Something like this in the 1980s

Democrat Party: Social Democrat, economically liberal, social far liberal: Dennis Kucinnich Ted Kennedy

Republican Party: Socially center/left economically center/right Foreign policy Hawks, some DLC: Bill Clinton, Nelson Rockafeller, Evan Bayh, John McCain, Mitt Romney

Union Party: Socially Center/Right, Economically libertarian, noninterventionism, Just War Doctrine, shrink government, End the Fed, Abolish the Departments of Education, Energy, CIA: Ronald Reagan, Bobby Kennedy, Barry Goldwater, John Hostetller, John F. Kennedy, Dan Quayle, Bob Barr, Chuck Baldwin
 
Top