With maybe multiple points of divergence, how left-wing could you make the United States of American in 2017?.
With maybe multiple points of divergence, how left-wing could you make the United States of American in 2017?.
With maybe multiple points of divergence, how left-wing could you make the United States of American in 2017?.
You would have to break America to make it left-wing.
Or, the revulsion against this 'left' violence helps the 'right.' And there's no middle to coalesce around.. . . food riots as mobs storm warehouses and grocery stores, murders of landlords, . . .
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.
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.
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.. . . Prevent a lot of the violence with the unions and stop the first Red Scare in the wake of WWI. . .
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.
Hubert Humphrey wins in 1968 and 1972. Reagan wins in 1976 but loses in 1980 to Ted Kennedy.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.