A United States of America that is more Social Democratc or Socialist

The Entente goes to war in 1938 over Czechoslovakia. Germany is defeated early on by Britain, France, Poland and the Czechoslovaks.

So no Cold War to drive the US towards the right or towards military interventionism.
 

Thothian

Banned
With maybe multiple points of divergence, how left-wing could you make the United States of American in 2017?.

A worse Great Depression + a staunch refusal of the Republican party to pass any of FDR's reforms, filibustering every single one of them in the Senate.

Unemployment peaked at 25% OTL. In TTL, it reaches 35-40%. Social stresses lead to food riots as mobs storm warehouses and grocery stores, murders of landlords, mobs attacking banks to rob them and burn mortgage records, politicans who voted against aid and judges who ruled against it are assassinated, and so on.
 
Might sound counterintuitive, but the POD could be that the Constitution doesn't ban nobility.

A formalized class structure would mean a lot fewer people in each generation who did better than their parents. Most people know several people who worked their way up the ladder and or 2 who were born poor and became seriously rich. Make those cases much more rare and socialism becomes more attractive.
 
The Entente goes to war in 1938 over Czechoslovakia. Germany is defeated early on by Britain, France, Poland and the Czechoslovaks.

So no Cold War to drive the US towards the right or towards military interventionism.


A worse Great Depression + a staunch refusal of the Republican party to pass any of FDR's reforms, filibustering every single one of them in the Senate.

Unemployment peaked at 25% OTL. In TTL, it reaches 35-40%. Social stresses lead to food riots as mobs storm warehouses and grocery stores, murders of landlords, mobs attacking banks to rob them and burn mortgage records, politicans who voted against aid and judges who ruled against it are assassinated, and so on.

Something very much along these lines... best way to achieve it would be some combination of a much deeper, much longer Depression, and no WWII to end it. I think we should probably toss in some social catalysts as well, just to be sure.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt agonizes over whether to run for President in 1932, but is stricken by pneumonia in the winter of 31-32. His recovery is long and slow, and between that and his polio, he reluctantly decides he does not have the strength for a Presidential campaign in 1932. The Democratic nomination goes to Al Smith, but because of his close associations with New York's Tammany Hall political machine, rural and low-income voters believe he can not be trusted to save them from the economic disaster of the Great Depression. By a narrow margin, Herbert Hoover wins a second term.

One of the things that make it possible for Hoover to win is that, in the summer of 32, Douglas MacArthur inexplicably obeys the President's orders and does not assault the Bonus Army's camp in Washington. Sensing that his Administration has narrowly averted a public relations disaster, a relieved Hoover signs an executive order in August granting the veterans their full bonuses. His show of magnanimity helps him win the election, but also establishes a dangerous precedent.

A message has been sent across the country that if groups of disgruntled citizens protest loudly enough, and threaten violence and unrest, the federal government will capitulate. As the Depression deepens in the winter of 32-33, farmers and unemployed workers begin to stage larger and more heated protests, not only in the nation's capitol but in large cities across the country. Governors of some states begin to panic, and request assistance from the National Guard. Sometime in 1933, one of those confrontations goes out of control on a scale even larger than the IOTL Bonus Army event, and a number of protesters are killed by American soldiers - including some women and small children.

Now, many of the protests take a darker, more threatening turn. Protesters begin arming themselves. The level of tension is much higher, and within days, there are gun battles between protesters and troops. To forestall a bona fide nationwide insurrection, Hoover declares martial law, and the military cracks down ruthlessly on almost any large gathering of demonstrators. The common man and woman come to learn that their government is their enemy; the Depression continues to worsen, and the country teeters on the brink of revolution by 1936. Now, FDR does run, and is swept into office by a landslide.

And, of course, no WWII. Or, at least no WWII involving the United States. Maybe Japan doesn't attack us because we're in such disarray that we pose no threat... they're more concerned about the British, and let it be known that if we keep out of it we get to keep out of it. The Soviets defeat the Germans mostly on their own, and keep going all the way to the Channel, but it takes them until 46 or even 47. The British are half-starving by then, and broken both economically and militarily. This leaves the Soviet Union standing alone as the world's preeminent military power, controlling all of continental Europe, right around the time we begin to truly emerge from the Depression in the mid to late 40s. Our resources and labor pool, untouched by the war, build and export many of the tools used to rebuild Europe, and we align ourselves more and more closely with the Soviets.
 
Last edited:
Nah you gotta go wayy further back than WWII. Prevent a lot of the violence with the unions and stop the first Red Scare in the wake of WWI. Without the Palmer Raids, I imagine it would be more likely.
 
Nah you gotta go wayy further back than WWII. Prevent a lot of the violence with the unions and stop the first Red Scare in the wake of WWI. Without the Palmer Raids, I imagine it would be more likely.

Not saying you're wrong, but what makes those things happen? We could probably create points of departure that allow for those events, but in the historical context of that era, I'm not really seeing an easy path. Without significant changes in the

And I'm also not sure it's necessary. In fact, it might even work against us. My scenario starts in the early 30s, and presumes a decade or more of considerable social conflict over communism prior to that starting point. My scenario actually requires a lengthy period of social conflict as a catalyst to drive people away from the "anti-communist" establishment, and make them more sympathetic to concepts that might otherwise have seemed too radical to contemplate. The more conflict we have around labor and communism in the decade or so prior to my POD, the more favorable the conditions.
 

RousseauX

Donor
just get rid of the vietnam war: LBJ is most successful president after FDR, the new deal coalition breaks up slower and LBJ wins in 1968. Someone passes nationalized health insurance in the 1970s or something and when the new deal coalition breaks apart the US is much further to the left and has more core programs embedded within the fabrics of American society. Reagan or someone like him still comes along but just as he failed at touching social security/medicare/medicaid he couldn't touch whatever program the left passes in the 60s-70s.

So basically the US looks more like the UK than it does US otl
 
. . . Prevent a lot of the violence with the unions and stop the first Red Scare in the wake of WWI. . .
Maybe if there had been a very savvy political understanding among early union members that if violence goes down and 5 union members are injured or killed for each 1 police officer injured or killed, the newspapers will still flash the photos and stories that overwhelmingly make the union look like the bad guys and the police the victims.

But this is not near as motivating as a religious viewpoint, for example, that undeserved suffering works a redemptive effect. So, maybe not near as long a gap between Henry David Thoreau and Martin Luther King, Jr. (MLK drew some of his beliefs from Thoreau, but not at all sure this was one of them)
 
Not saying you're wrong, but what makes those things happen? We could probably create points of departure that allow for those events, but in the historical context of that era, I'm not really seeing an easy path. Without significant changes in the

And I'm also not sure it's necessary. In fact, it might even work against us. My scenario starts in the early 30s, and presumes a decade or more of considerable social conflict over communism prior to that starting point. My scenario actually requires a lengthy period of social conflict as a catalyst to drive people away from the "anti-communist" establishment, and make them more sympathetic to concepts that might otherwise have seemed too radical to contemplate. The more conflict we have around labor and communism in the decade or so prior to my POD, the more favorable the conditions.

Oh I know. I would say that it's hard if not down right impossible. But I also think that that is what it would take to allow for it.
 
Well, if you want to go *way* back, a couple things come to mind:

The Constitution could have less separation of powers - it could be straight parliamentary, or maybe Congress is unicameral and the Supreme Court is weaker - with the result that one or two election wins for a left-wing party open the door to radical reform in a way that doesn't happen IRL.

The North and South battle to a stalemate in the Civil War, with the Confederacy remaining a separate nation (albeit eventually abolishing slavery on their own) and its attendant conservatism a non-factor in the politics of the rest of the country.
 
Here is my rough impressions based on a no World War Two scenario. For my purposes I have no rise of Nazi Germany and Japan more restrained in the Pacific.

FDR is President from 1932 to 1940, the Depression lingers and New Deal is simply not fully successful in get America to another boom cycle yet things are good enough by 1940. FDR may chose a third term if tensions still run high with Japan, if so I think he has a narrow victory, another Democrat might fare better. The toss up is if the GOP goes conservative or progressive in its candidate. I think it might be too soon for Dewey and I assume Wilkie might not have emerged to even run again. Let us assume a conservative Republican gains just enough traction to critique the New Deal and "Keynesian" economics. You get the GOP in office as early as 1940 or likely in 1944 since I think the economics drag on lackluster, no real growth until late 40s beginning 50s. Recall we have no massive military buildup or war spending, no flood of foreign debt or gold and Bretton Woods is not setting off an American hegemony. Without isolationism as a hot button issue the GOP is in better position to unseat FDR and the Democrats by 1944.

Any Republican is going to roll back the New Deal, a conservative will try to kill a lot of it, but I suspect that sparks a recession and this lets the Democrats ride out the lackluster recovery years and give the GOP another dose of seeming incompetence. The Democrats have to overcome the fracture as regards the racist Southerners who pull conservative and weaken the Coalition as I imagine they tangle with the GOP who will keep pursuing Civil Rights. At best you have a GOP President from 1944 through 1952. I think the true recovery is ready by now and the Democrats likely put forward a New Deal Democrat to go against another conservative Republican. Assuming they win the progressive policies coincide with a steady upturn in the economy as the GOP shifts back more progressive as younger folks begin to move up. This GOP is not starkly opposed to the Welfare State in concept and works with the Democrats better. The GOP is primed for a lot of cross-over voting as moderates and progressives lean pro-civil rights and are not afraid of spending on education, health care, retirement, etc. It depends on where the middle class evolves and how it gets there, recall no GI Bill, no booming Fifties or largesse Sixties here, no Baby Boom (I suspect post-Depression there is an uptick), a very different cultural backdrop overall. Long term you may still get a conservative GOP but it will be more libertarian looking rather than reactionary looking unless the social conservatives unite as one can argue has happened. But will that give them a path to power without a Cold War or WW2 to harken back to?

The outcome could be a left shift in America’s polity, marginalizing the Southern conservatives and the GOP conservatives, this likely does not mean JFK in 1960 but I think we see that generation just as assertive and future looking, perhaps more so if the economy is back to black, the USA has no foreign entanglements and the big worry is market share and exports. While the USSR remains a menace and will be active in global revolutions, the USA is not the super power “policeman”, it feels less threat domestically as only the far “left” in the Democrats are barely Social Democrats here. You might get something like a Space Race or other big spending projects that deepen the money flow from Washington outward and further weave “big government” into the equation. This is the best jumping off point for an evolution towards the sort of “liberal” government one sees ion Europe. I doubt we ever see nationalized industries or other “socialist” policies but I can see a less obstacle strewn path towards a shift left as I feel Europe steadily followed. If you allow the parties to fracture and reorder themselves you might get a new truly "Progressive" party, maybe it takes on the GOP or Democratic label, or some variation depending on who forms the core, it straddles Center to Center-left more solidly, then you truly get the objective you seek further along the path.
 

Wallet

Banned
FDR is in generally better heath. He is able to pack the Supreme Court and appoint 15 judges. He doesn't die in 1945. Since he has 90% approval ratings for winning the war, he is much more successful in growing the New Deal (OTL Truman's Fair Deal). The conservative coalition isn't as strong because southern democrats are scared of FDR's popularity.

Stalin is much more cautious because he knows FDR is a capable leader, so the Cold War is pushed back a decade, giving social reforms more strength. He gets Universal Healthcare and a Maximum Wage. FDR wins in 1948, and knowing this is his last term pushes civil rights. Eisenhower is still elected in 1952, but is even stronger on civil rights. Hubert Humphrey is elected in 1960 and finishes the job of civil rights and the Welfare State.
 

Wallet

Banned
FDR is in generally better heath. He is able to pack the Supreme Court and appoint 15 judges. He doesn't die in 1945. Since he has 90% approval ratings for winning the war, he is much more successful in growing the New Deal (OTL Truman's Fair Deal). The conservative coalition isn't as strong because southern democrats are scared of FDR's popularity.

Stalin is much more cautious because he knows FDR is a capable leader, so the Cold War is pushed back a decade, giving social reforms more strength. He gets Universal Healthcare and a Maximum Wage. FDR wins in 1948, and knowing this is his last term pushes civil rights. Eisenhower is still elected in 1952, but is even stronger on civil rights. Hubert Humphrey is elected in 1960 and finishes the job of civil rights and the Welfare State.
Hubert Humphrey wins in 1968 and 1972. Reagan wins in 1976 but loses in 1980 to Ted Kennedy.
 
Top