AH Challenge: Religious Left as powerful as Religious Right in the United States

Your challenge, should you attempt it, is to make the Religious Left a potent force in American politics in the same way that the Religious Right is as it currently exists.

Bonus points if the Religious Left has as much influence within the Democratic Party as the Religious Right does within the Republican Party, and double bonus points if you're able to keep together the modern Democratic coalition with the added addition of large swaths of 'Religious Left' voters.
 
MLK survives the assassination attempt on his life and becomes a massive force in progressive politics for ten or twenty more years leaving behind an even grander legacy. Among other things, he becomes known for drawing in many heavily religious people into the Democratic Party despite the eventual emergence of the religious right which itself emerged primarily as a counter to the "MLK bloc." Unfortunately, MLK's 1976 presidential primary challenge failed and he remained in the Senate until his death in 2004.
 
Bonus points if the Religious Left has as much influence within the Democratic Party as the Religious Right does within the Republican Party, and double bonus points if you're able to keep together the modern Democratic coalition with the added addition of large swaths of 'Religious Left' voters.

This is already the case in OTL. The African-American vote (90% Democrat) is mostly Religious Left and the left wing of the Roman Catholic and mainline Protestant churches are quite powerful inside the Democrat party. During the 2008 campaign, the Obama people even organized left leaning Evangelicals.
 
Thing is, while religious left churches can be organized, they don't get the same amount of media exposure that we see with the religious right.

What you'd need is a social justice minister getting his own television program at some point. The best bet would be Ted Turner (when he was still in charge) counterprogramming against PTL and Trinity on Sundays. Have this start in the 1980s, and have the minister we're talking about be relatively young, highly charismatic, and willing to frame any issue in Biblical terms.

I suspect that such a movement would end up split nowadays over the subject of gay marriage.
 
Have William Jennings Bryan become President in 1908, or maybe in a 1912 that goes differently. He pushes through a good set of reforms, but includes a far higher proportion of religious imagery in his speeches than, say, Wilson ever did. This "sets the tone" for subsequent Democratic Presidents.

Big difficulty would be to keep Catholics and Protestants onside at the same time, and (related matter) avoid a split over Prohibition.
 
Have William Jennings Bryan become President in 1908, or maybe in a 1912 that goes differently. He pushes through a good set of reforms, but includes a far higher proportion of religious imagery in his speeches than, say, Wilson ever did. This "sets the tone" for subsequent Democratic Presidents.

Big difficulty would be to keep Catholics and Protestants onside at the same time, and (related matter) avoid a split over Prohibition.

The best chance WJB had at becoming President was 1896, IMHO. He actually did his worst in 1908 against WHT, and that was in part because the Republicans adopted a moderate version of his platform. I don't think there's the will to nominate a three time loser again in 1912, and I don't think that WJB is going to end his lucrative speaking tour career to make another bid in 1912 (and if the Dems do nominate WJB, you can bet the GOP is going to nominate T.R.--no one scared the GOP more than WJB).

Other than that, though, I think you're spot on. F.D.R. used a good amount of religious imagery in his speeches, as did Truman and to a lesser extent, Lyndon Johnson.
 
The best chance WJB had at becoming President was 1896, IMHO. He actually did his worst in 1908 against WHT, and that was in part because the Republicans adopted a moderate version of his platform. I don't think there's the will to nominate a three time loser again in 1912, and I don't think that WJB is going to end his lucrative speaking tour career to make another bid in 1912 (and if the Dems do nominate WJB, you can bet the GOP is going to nominate T.R.--no one scared the GOP more than WJB).

Other than that, though, I think you're spot on. F.D.R. used a good amount of religious imagery in his speeches, as did Truman and to a lesser extent, Lyndon Johnson.


Of course, it depends how Bryan gets the nomination.

If the Convention deadlocks, as it would do later in 1924, they might turn to WJB in desperation. By then it would be too late for the Republicans to do what you suggest, as their Convention had already been held. And by then, Progressives and Taftites hated each other so much that I doubt if even Bryan would drive them back together. That aside, however, you are right that his chances were a lot better in 1896.
 
The best chance WJB had at becoming President was 1896, IMHO. He actually did his worst in 1908 against WHT, and that was in part because the Republicans adopted a moderate version of his platform. I don't think there's the will to nominate a three time loser again in 1912, and I don't think that WJB is going to end his lucrative speaking tour career to make another bid in 1912 (and if the Dems do nominate WJB, you can bet the GOP is going to nominate T.R.--no one scared the GOP more than WJB).

Other than that, though, I think you're spot on. F.D.R. used a good amount of religious imagery in his speeches, as did Truman and to a lesser extent, Lyndon Johnson.
Hmmmm... Perhaps Henry A. Wallace (who was interested in religion all his life and was the grandson of a minister) decides to study theology after Truman kicks him out. He winds up being ordained rather quickly and goes into public speaking. Any accusations of him being a Communist are blunted by his heavy use of religion.
Alternatively, there was a prominent Democrat who studied theology for a time, and he could be considered relatively liberal...a guy named Al Gore...
 
This is already the case in OTL. The African-American vote (90% Democrat) is mostly Religious Left and the left wing of the Roman Catholic and mainline Protestant churches are quite powerful inside the Democrat party. During the 2008 campaign, the Obama people even organized left leaning Evangelicals.

So is much of the Latino vote, traditional Catholic, which means antiwar, anti death penalty, and pro social justice (yes, Mr Beck). Abortion is only one of the many issues most ignore the church's teachings on.

And the relgious traditions powerful within American Indian communities tend to be liberal (esp Methodists) or outright radical by non-Native standards. The Longhouse among the Iroquois believes in virtual separation from western culture for example, and the Hopi and Zuni priesthoods and religious societies preach pacifism except in case of direct attack.

I don't know much about Asian religious traditions in the US outside of the Dalai Lama's following.

I think the main problem would be finding a POD which can affect or unite so many disparate religious traditions that are politically left of center.
 

Larrikin

Banned
MLK survives the assassination attempt on his life and becomes a massive force in progressive politics for ten or twenty more years leaving behind an even grander legacy. Among other things, he becomes known for drawing in many heavily religious people into the Democratic Party despite the eventual emergence of the religious right which itself emerged primarily as a counter to the "MLK bloc." Unfortunately, MLK's 1976 presidential primary challenge failed and he remained in the Senate until his death in 2004.

MLK was a Republican. Why, because the Repubicans treated him as a person who just happened to be black, rather than as a black who happened to be a person.

If MLK had survived the assassination you might even end up in a situation where a much larger proportion of the black vote goes to the Republicans.
 
MLK was a Republican. Why, because the Repubicans treated him as a person who just happened to be black, rather than as a black who happened to be a person.

If MLK had survived the assassination you might even end up in a situation where a much larger proportion of the black vote goes to the Republicans.

Once the Dixiecrats all switch sides that will change, believe me. The progressives on the civil rights movement were mostly on the Democrat side, as much as King probably didn't like to admit that because of the fact that he was a Republican. One idea I had was RFK not being shot in Los Angeles, him winning the 1968 Democratic nomination and running with MLK as his running mate, in the process organizing millions of African Americans to help him beat down Nixon and Agnew.
 
MLK was a Republican. Why, because the Repubicans treated him as a person who just happened to be black, rather than as a black who happened to be a person.

If MLK had survived the assassination you might even end up in a situation where a much larger proportion of the black vote goes to the Republicans.
If so, he'd be the Republican that's the most opposed to military intervention than anyone between Robert Taft and Ron Paul. Read some of the things he said about Vietnam.
 
MLK was a Republican. Why, because the Repubicans treated him as a person who just happened to be black, rather than as a black who happened to be a person.

If MLK had survived the assassination you might even end up in a situation where a much larger proportion of the black vote goes to the Republicans.

With the way the Republican Party develops after MLK's death, if MLK were not to die, I have little doubt he'd abandon the GOP.
 
Correction: MLK Sr. was a Republican who initially endorsed Nixon in 1960. Only after the two phone calls did they reverse and endorse Kennedy. (the differences between JFK and Nixon on CR were negligible) Ironically, MLK Sr. was initially opposed to JFK for religious reasons. BTW, he was pretty much a social democrat: getting involved in labour disputes and calling Vietnam an "enemy of the poor."
 
Correction: MLK Sr. was a Republican who initially endorsed Nixon in 1960. Only after the two phone calls did they reverse and endorse Kennedy. (the differences between JFK and Nixon on CR were negligible) Ironically, MLK Sr. was initially opposed to JFK for religious reasons. BTW, he was pretty much a social democrat: getting involved in labour disputes and calling Vietnam an "enemy of the poor."
More than that. MLK Jr. considered himself a "democratic socialist" in private, and was very close to going public about it. However, what that means concretely is more difficult to say. Was MLK's democratic socialism just European social democracy, or was it the belief in a fundamental restructuring of society, a la Norman Thomas (a man who MLK professed a deep admiration in)? I don't think we can say for sure, and MLK's own writing and speeches are ambiguous as to which way he leaned.
 
Thing is, while religious left churches can be organized, they don't get the same amount of media exposure that we see with the religious right.

What you'd need is a social justice minister getting his own television program at some point. The best bet would be Ted Turner (when he was still in charge) counterprogramming against PTL and Trinity on Sundays. Have this start in the 1980s, and have the minister we're talking about be relatively young, highly charismatic, and willing to frame any issue in Biblical terms.

I doubt it would be turner doing the counterprogramming, considering he's a staunch athiest.
 
Something that's not known: King planned on endorsing Robert Kennedy in 1968. That would not be a public affair for political reasons- just a private reassurance that Kennedy certainly deserved. A public endorsement would in my opinion have cost him the Presidency. Not just on race, but on a clergyman endorsing a presidential candidate.
 

Red Wolf

Banned
Your challenge, should you attempt it, is to make the Religious Left a potent force in American politics in the same way that the Religious Right is as it currently exists.

Bonus points if the Religious Left has as much influence within the Democratic Party as the Religious Right does within the Republican Party, and double bonus points if you're able to keep together the modern Democratic coalition with the added addition of large swaths of 'Religious Left' voters.

Considering how much time Democratic politicians spend catering to Black churches and African-American ministers I'd say that OTL definitely qualifies.
 
Top