AH Challenge: "The Party of Eisenhower"

The challenge here, with a divergence sometime after the election of Dwight Eisenhower as President of the United States, is to keep the Republican Party under the control of the Eisenhower/Dewey wing of the party over the long term, and to eventually make the GOP's ideology indistinguishable from that of President Eisenhower. In other words, the challenge is to make the GOP "the party of Eisenhower" rather than "the party of Reagan" ideologically speaking.

Given all of the organizational advantages the conservatives were starting to have by the late fifties/early sixties at the latest, this is a tough order, so good luck.
 
instead of nixon being picked as v.p in 1952. harold stasin is. he run in 60 lose and gets it in 68.After two terms. with no major scanel. his v.p gets the nomination and wins the presidency. he only gets one term reagan the bushs never get it.
 
Have it rain in certain states on November 8th 1960

Nixon becomes president early and his Southern Strategy is butterflied away
 
Ike was more conservative than people remember. What gets him counted as a moderate to liberal is his incrementalism when it came to reforming 20 years of substantial policy change under his immediate predecessors.
 
Ike was more conservative than people remember. What gets him counted as a moderate to liberal is his incrementalism when it came to reforming 20 years of substantial policy change under his immediate predecessors.

Eisenhower certainly was a Conservative, but hardly a member of the far-right. He had a real sense of playing to the middle, and expressed disdain for extremists on both sides. At one point, he said about his nomination of Wareen to the Supreme Court, that one of his brothers had written him claiming that Warren was a comunist, and another brother had written complaining that the California governor was a reactionary; Ike joked that if he was being attacked from both sides, he must be doing the right thing (of course, Warren's transformation from a centerist as governor to a liberal on the bench caught Eisenhower by surprise).

As President, Eisenhower saw himself firmly opposed to the Midwest conservative elements within the party (i.e. the Taftites) due to their isolationist foreign policy as well as their economic and social goals (he was, generally, a bit more sympathetic in these matters, but still felt that they were unlikely to coem to fruitition). To Eisenhower's mind, he appears to have felt that one can not turn back the clock, the New Deal had happened and could not be undone. Furtermore, as the cold War deepened, Eisenhower was not completely opposed to a stronger federal government, as well as it was well managed.

The problem is that Eisenhowerism was never met with a great deal of excitement by the party base, or those Republicans in Congress (Republican governors, who generally seemed to be more liberal than Republican congressmen during this era, were a bit more inline with Eisenhower's ideas).

If you are going to get a more moderate Republican Party, I think you are going to have to keep the Eastcoast wing of the party firmly in control; which means no influx of southern conservatives, and the John Birch-ilk. Having Nixon win in 1960 is a good start; Nixon was a moderate himself (in fact, there are those who claim Nixon was the last President of the Liberal Consensus). If Nixon is able to win two terms, that gives us 16 years of moderate Republican rule, and might have some last impact upon the party's ideology.
 
What's funny is that I've just started reading a book called Rule and Ruin which is about the collapse of the moderate/liberal wing of the GOP in the 1960s.

One potential POD is, as already mentioned, the victory of Nixon over Kennedy in 1960. Perhaps Nixon does better at the televised debates, perhaps he does something else to win. Conservatives in the late 1950s were looking for a home, and some talked about the Democratic Party being a better vehicle than the GOP. If Nixon wins, maybe they finally decide to go after the Democratic Party in terms of a home, especially if Nixon somehow pushes through Civil Rights reforms.

I wonder if there's a way for Goldwater to be stopped in 1964? Nelson Rockefeller was a big favorite until he married someone twenty years younger than himself...after just getting a divorce.
 
On one of the weekend news programs they were talking about the new book The Presidents Club and said that Eisenhower encouraged Reagan to expand his political role and mentored him. Focusing on his role could turn 'The party of Reagan' to 'The Party of Eisenhower'
 
Eisenhower certainly was a Conservative, but hardly a member of the far-right. He had a real sense of playing to the middle, and expressed disdain for extremists on both sides. At one point, he said about his nomination of Wareen to the Supreme Court, that one of his brothers had written him claiming that Warren was a comunist, and another brother had written complaining that the California governor was a reactionary; Ike joked that if he was being attacked from both sides, he must be doing the right thing (of course, Warren's transformation from a centerist as governor to a liberal on the bench caught Eisenhower by surprise).

As President, Eisenhower saw himself firmly opposed to the Midwest conservative elements within the party (i.e. the Taftites) due to their isolationist foreign policy as well as their economic and social goals (he was, generally, a bit more sympathetic in these matters, but still felt that they were unlikely to coem to fruitition). To Eisenhower's mind, he appears to have felt that one can not turn back the clock, the New Deal had happened and could not be undone. Furtermore, as the cold War deepened, Eisenhower was not completely opposed to a stronger federal government, as well as it was well managed.

The problem is that Eisenhowerism was never met with a great deal of excitement by the party base, or those Republicans in Congress (Republican governors, who generally seemed to be more liberal than Republican congressmen during this era, were a bit more inline with Eisenhower's ideas).

If you are going to get a more moderate Republican Party, I think you are going to have to keep the Eastcoast wing of the party firmly in control; which means no influx of southern conservatives, and the John Birch-ilk. Having Nixon win in 1960 is a good start; Nixon was a moderate himself (in fact, there are those who claim Nixon was the last President of the Liberal Consensus). If Nixon is able to win two terms, that gives us 16 years of moderate Republican rule, and might have some last impact upon the party's ideology.

You make good points, but at the same time Eisenhower has had more influence on the modern GOP than is often remembered. If anything, the party's Taftites are (unfortunately in some regards) still sidelined. The biggest differences between Eisenhower's Republican Party and that of today is on spending policy and social issues. The former has done irreparable harm to the Republicans of today in my opinion, but the latter emerged as points of concern really only after Eisenhower.

In essence, have the SCOTUS pass on Roe, and butterfly the 1980 campaign to get George H.W. Bush the presidential nod, and you've saved the party of Eisenhower. Pragmatic conservatism, blended with moderate social policy stances (and some swing left or right on mostly local issues), and fiscal responsibility could well be the ideology of the Republican Party.

My problem with your Nixon idea is that he's too big a thinker and too big a personality to be subsumed by Eisenhower. What we would have with your ideas is the Party of Nixon, never mind the challenges of getting the Republicans to hold on to the presidency for 16 years straight without there being a transformative war and/or presidential assassination along the way.
 
Have it rain in certain states on November 8th 1960

Nixon becomes president early and his Southern Strategy is butterflied away

Have it rain, or maybe have Kennedy forget to take painkillers for his scholiosis immediately before the televised debate between himself and Nixon. Audiences cannot choose who won the debate, between Nixon's sweaty anger and Kennedy's grimaces of pain.
 
Have it rain, or maybe have Kennedy forget to take painkillers for his scholiosis immediately before the televised debate between himself and Nixon. Audiences cannot choose who won the debate, between Nixon's sweaty anger and Kennedy's grimaces of pain.
The rain is for election day, have a very slightly smaller turnout in one or to states and Nixon wins, it was a close election
 
Ike does not help Reagan in 66 to become Governor of California. Or he pushes really hard for Scranton to get the nomination in 68.
 
The reason the Republican Party is conservative as it is now, as opposed to during Eisenhower's days, has nothing to do with Ike or Reagan per se.

It has to do with the 1970s, and the backlash against what was seen as liberalism causing crime, high taxes, allowing welfare cheats, and losing the war in Vietnam. That was caused by the radicalization that occurred because of resistance to the draft during the Vietnam War, and the demoralization of the traditional liberal/moderate elites of the Democratic Party which lead to the left wing radicals/New Left/SDS types that turned the FDR's Democratic majority into the perenially losing McGovern Democrats.

To keep the Republicans as the part of Eisenhower, you need to prevent the Democrats from overreaching (the worst aspects of the Great Society policies) and prevent Vietnam from radicalizing the left wing. If the Democrats remains the party of middle America, the Republicans never become as conservative because people wouldn't flock to the conservativism as a solution to problems that don't exist in the ATL.

Most likely, you need to prevent American invovement in the Vietnam War, or at least keep US involvement very low. Likely this means Nixon must win in 1960. A Nixon victory in 1960 likely means:

1 - Civil Rights is seen as a bipartisan effort, not tied to a single powerful figure like LBJ. The black population remain in play for both parties which provides broad support for civil rights efforts. It also neutralizes the clout of southerners in both parties, and also makes internal black politics more normal (since black moderates and conservatives could be a distinct voice in the black populace and not be seen as traitors to the community)

2 - Involvement in Vietnam is avoided. Nixon would likely have kept Ike's policy there and not escalated things like JFK did. It is also extremely unlikely that Nixon would have ever assasinated Ngo Diemh Dinh.

3 - No Kennedy myth about how liberal he was.

4 - No Goldwater nomination. Nixon would have been the nominee in 1964.

5 - The worst aspects of the Great Society would have been avoided. Anything passed would have required compromise, and the less well thought out aspects or the completely stupid would have never have been passed.

Overall, America is less radicalized. With less radicals, they aren't able to distort the Democratic Party (whether by policies or image). Nor do bad policy decisions drive people to leave the Democratic party and become conservative Republicans in reaction.
 
Another option is to have Ike stronger on Civil Rights, he was a good man but he had some old southern prejudices in him too. Have Ike meet with some old vets from the war who persuade him to be stronger for equality and position the GOP as the party of civil rights versus the Dems split between factions
 
Top