AHC: A One-Party Democracy in America

[Kerguelen]

From 1955–1993, the Liberal Democratic Party governed Japan under what was known as the one and a half party system. Thanks to foreign influence and relative economic prosperity, the party managed to weather the massive Lockheed bribery scandals. However, the LibDems would fall from power after the economic bubble popped and government officials were accused of insider trading, ending a half-century of party rule.

Could something similar happen in the US of A? Could a single political party control the American government for a long period of time, or does the constitution make this impossible? In such a scenario, the United States should, nominally, remain a democracy. No fascist coups or communist revolutions overthrowing the government, just good old fashioned democracy. Of course, corruption, gerrymandering, and support from powerful institutions could make this possible, similar to what goes on in Putin's Rusia. A divided opposition delegitimized by a state-friendly media also helps, but what changes could be made to American history to make this scenario a possibility?

 

[M79]

*McCarthyism runs even more amok until one party rules them all?

*Ford replaces Agnew who replaced Nixon and all bungle so badly that no one wants to hear the name Republican for a generation?

*Reverse of that with Carter replaced by Teddy Kennedy replaced by Walter Mondale or Ferraro (the latter could be a great President and still be perceived as ineffective following an SES-like reaction to her)

*Socialists find a demagogue who takes advantage of the political doldrums, does well, and the momentum keeps going

*Same for Libertarians or Greens

 

[AussieHawker]

From 1955–1993, the Liberal Democratic Party governed Japan under what was known as the one and a half party system. Thanks to foreign influence and relative economic prosperity, the party managed to weather the massive Lockheed bribery scandals. However, the LibDems would fall from power after the economic bubble popped and government officials were accused of insider trading, ending a half-century of party rule.

Could something similar happen in the US of A? Could a single political party control the American government for a long period of time, or does the constitution make this impossible? In such a scenario, the United States should, nominally, remain a democracy. No fascist coups or communist revolutions overthrowing the government, just good old fashioned democracy. Of course, corruption, gerrymandering, and support from powerful institutions could make this possible, similar to what goes on in Putin's Rusia. A divided opposition delegitimized by a state-friendly media also helps, but what changes could be made to American history to make this scenario a possibility?

The US system has a lot of weaknesses. It is very easy to have a one-party system. The country has often had multiple one-party states and regions, just one that hasn't taken hold of the entire nation for too long. The Dixiecrats had an iron grip on the south for decades.

You could have either main party take supremacy.

The Democrats had a very lengthy control of the House and a still fairly long control of the Senate. They held the House for 40 years, and before that, the Republicans had only two, two-year-long control of the house.

The Depression+New deal really damaged the Republicans. Just like the civil war damaged the Democrats. But neither party actually played to reshift the board as much as needed. Republicans stacked a bunch of small states to build their Senate majority but left the solid south alone.

The issue was more the Presidency after the New Deals. LBJ's presidency could have gone better, and not been derailed by Vietnam. Or maybe instead of Eisenhower, a failed Republican just poisons their brand, allowing the Democrats to have a continued control, without being checked by the Republicans, or the Conservative coalition from within the party checking it.


As for the Republicans, they have a lot of natural advantages, resulting from the masses of low population states created in the interior, rural advantage, democratic self-sorting, and conservative advantage during self-sorting etc. They could have created a proper majority if they actually played for a majority instead of riding with a minority. They've blown a lot of chances.

 

[Maeglin]

In the twentieth century, I think the best shot at this is finding ways to screw the Republicans after 1936, leading to Democratic hegemony even more extensive than OTL.

The Republicans don't have a similar opportunity, since the Democrats - even at their lowest ebb - could count on the Solid South.

 

[Kerguelen]

In the twentieth century, I think the best shot at this is finding ways to screw the Republicans after 1936, leading to Democratic hegemony even more extensive than OTL.

The depression ending up screwing the Republicans for over two decades, so it would be pretty hard to find a way for them to fail even harder than in OTL. Maybe Warren G. Harding ends up living longer and is succeeded by a member of his "Ohio Gang" when a grieving Coolidge refuses to run. Eventually, the Depression arrives and the Teapot Dome Scandal is revealed, causing the Republican Party to splinter between rival factions.

 

[David T]

Short answer: No. If

(1) Three years after the end of the ACW the Democrats could get 47 percent in a presidential election against a war hero in 1868 and get control of the House by 1874; and if

(2) The Republicans could do respectably in the House elections of 1938, only six years after Herbert Hoover left office at the depths of the worst depression in US history--and actually got a majority of the vote, though not control of the House, in 1942 and get actual control of both houses of Congress only fourteen years after Hoover left office--

then, it seems pretty clear that no party is secure in power, and no major party that is not actually dead and replaced as the major opposition party (like the Whigs) is incapable of making a comeback within a relatively brief period of time.

The period of Democratic-Republican dominance from 1800 to 1828 (all the candidates in 1824 considered themselves D-R's including Adams; only in 1828 did a two-party system begin to re-emerge) is just too far in the past to have much relvance to modern conditions.

 

[Maeglin]

(2) The Republicans could do respectably in the House elections of 1938, only six years after Herbert Hoover left office at the depths of the worst depression in US history--and actually got a majority of the vote, though not control of the House, in 1942 and get actual control of both houses of Congress only fourteen years after Hoover left office--

So do something that screws the Republicans between 1936 and 1938. Ideally, a party split.

 

[manav95]

Simple: have FDR or Huey Long seek to strengthen the New Deal coalition and Democratic urban machines, and throw a bone to farmers in the South and West with even more agricultural subsidies. This guarantees control until the 1970s, when racial tensions and rising laissez-faire support would cause this de facto regime to collapse

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

The Japanese lib-dems are the product of the two most prominent political parties in post-war Japan merging and pooling their political machines.

Now is there anything that can get the Republicans and the Democrats to merge...

 

[David T]

Simple: have FDR or Huey Long seek to strengthen the New Deal coalition and Democratic urban machines, and throw a bone to farmers in the South and West with even more agricultural subsidies. This guarantees control until the 1970s, when racial tensions and rising laissez-faire support would cause this de facto regime to collapse

Eventually, middle class taxpayers who are paying for the benefits given to farmers and urban workers are going to get dissatisfied--as they did to varying degrees in 1938, 1942, 1946, and 1952 in OTL.

In any event, there are always going to be bad things happening eventually, whatever the administration and its policies. There are going to be recessions. There are going to be periods of inflation. There are going to be wars and even if there aren't, there are going to be foreign policy setbacks. People take those out on the party in power--period. Even people who had benefitted from the New Deal voted Republican in 1946 and 1952.

 

[David T]

Twp things to remember about the Liberal Democratic party's long period of dominance in Japan. First, it was greatly facilitated by apportionment overrepresenting rural areas in the Diet. Second, the opposition was split between the Socialist Party, Democratic Socialist Party, Komeito and Communists. Not only was the left divided (Komeito was the only non-left opposition party) but the leading opposition party, the Socialists, often took foreign policy positions that were too left-wing for Japanese voters during the Cold War: Only in 1989 did the Socialists finally acquiesce in the Japan-US security pact. https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...e-right/6d06523c-0ec7-4ecb-baa9-9824b81b61bf/ These are conditions unlikely to be duplicated in the US, where the trend toward two-partyism has been strikingly durable, despite all attempts (1912, 1924, 1948, etc.) to overcome it.

 

[Deleted member 109224]

From 1932 to 1994, Democrats controlled the house 60/64 years and the Senate 54/64 years. It's only at the presidential level that there was variation.
The GOP holding the White House 38/64 years from 1932 to 1994 is a bit of an outlier compared to the Congress.

Humphrey came close to winning in 68. Have him win and then get reelected in 72. Republicans pick up the White House in 76, which TTL proves to be almost as much of a poisoned chalice as OTL. Democrats win in 1980 and hold the White House. That Democrat's VP gets elected president in 88 and is reelected in 92.

Also, without the Reagan Revolution the GOP doesn't regain the Senate in 1980 TTL.

1932-1994...
Democratic House for 60/64 Years.
Democratic Senate for 60/64 Years.
Democratic Presidency for 56/64 Years.



I think also, if Humphrey is President Wallace may not rejoin the Democratic Party in 72, perhaps being content to continue doing his own thing. If the AIP doesn't dissolve and many folks who joined the GOP OTL go to the AIP TTL, I can see the Democrats being the big party with the opposition divided between the Conservative-leaning GOP and the populist-reactionary AIP. If the country is 50% Democrats, 35% Republicans, 15% AIP, you're gonna get semi-permanent Democratic Control of the whole process.

It's not like it was inevitable that the GOP would pick up law and order politics. The reaction OTL was pretty bipartisan.

 

[David T]

From 1932 to 1994, Democrats controlled the house 60/64 years and the Senate 54/64 years. It's only at the presidential level that there was variation.
The GOP holding the White House 38/64 years from 1932 to 1994 is a bit of an outlier compared to the Congress.

Humphrey came close to winning in 68. Have him win and then get reelected in 72. Republicans pick up the White House in 76, which TTL proves to be almost as much of a poisoned chalice as OTL. Democrats win in 1980 and hold the White House. That Democrat's VP gets elected president in 88 and is reelected in 92.

Also, without the Reagan Revolution the GOP doesn't regain the Senate in 1980 TTL.

1932-1994...
Democratic House for 60/64 Years.
Democratic Senate for 60/64 Years.
Democratic Presidency for 56/64 Years.



I think also, if Humphrey is President Wallace may not rejoin the Democratic Party in 72, perhaps being content to continue doing his own thing. If the AIP doesn't dissolve and many folks who joined the GOP OTL go to the AIP TTL, I can see the Democrats being the big party with the opposition divided between the Conservative-leaning GOP and the populist-reactionary AIP. If the country is 50% Democrats, 35% Republicans, 15% AIP, you're gonna get semi-permanent Democratic Control of the whole process.

It's not like it was inevitable that the GOP would pick up law and order politics. The reaction OTL was pretty bipartisan.

(1) Even in your scenario, it is not true that there is a Democratic president for 56/64 years. You have the GOP winning the White House in 1976 for four years--so combined with the eight Eisenhower years that's at least 12 Republican years out of 62 (not 64).

(2) The AIP just didn't amount to anything in non-presidential races--it's like the Progressive Party of 1912, only even more top-heavy and dependent on a single personality. There will of course still be a considerable number of conservative Democrats in Congress, mainly from the South, but there is no doubt that nationally the only effective alternative for those to the right of the Democrats will be the Republican Party. Indeed, the GOP may turn to the right earlier than in OTL due to dissatisfaction with the way the "moderate" Nixon had been defeated in two presidential elections (1960 and 1968) and a desire to win the 1968 Wallace vote.

(2) In general, it's been hard for a party to win a third term in the White House after 1948, and just because the GOP managed to do so in 1988 in OTL does not necessarily mean the Democrats would be able to do so after being in power for eight years.

 

[manav95]

From 1932 to 1994, Democrats controlled the house 60/64 years and the Senate 54/64 years. It's only at the presidential level that there was variation.
The GOP holding the White House 38/64 years from 1932 to 1994 is a bit of an outlier compared to the Congress.

Humphrey came close to winning in 68. Have him win and then get reelected in 72. Republicans pick up the White House in 76, which TTL proves to be almost as much of a poisoned chalice as OTL. Democrats win in 1980 and hold the White House. That Democrat's VP gets elected president in 88 and is reelected in 92.

Also, without the Reagan Revolution the GOP doesn't regain the Senate in 1980 TTL.

1932-1994...
Democratic House for 60/64 Years.
Democratic Senate for 60/64 Years.
Democratic Presidency for 56/64 Years.



I think also, if Humphrey is President Wallace may not rejoin the Democratic Party in 72, perhaps being content to continue doing his own thing. If the AIP doesn't dissolve and many folks who joined the GOP OTL go to the AIP TTL, I can see the Democrats being the big party with the opposition divided between the Conservative-leaning GOP and the populist-reactionary AIP. If the country is 50% Democrats, 35% Republicans, 15% AIP, you're gonna get semi-permanent Democratic Control of the whole process.

It's not like it was inevitable that the GOP would pick up law and order politics. The reaction OTL was pretty bipartisan.

The AIP would probably merge with Republicans in 1976 after acting as a huge spoiler for Republicans in 1972. The Republicans had been pursuing a Southern Strategy, the conservative wing was ascending, the Democrats were facing momentum to become more socially progressive, and the South was open to the laissez-faire economic ideology of Republicans.

After 4 terms of progressive, integrationist administrations, Southern whites and other folks forming the AIP base would be open to joining the Republicans. The Southern whites would be convinced through the political alliance of the GOP and evangelicals, while the Northern blue collar whites would be attracted by a GOP commitment to tariffs and protectionism to address the inevitable deindustrialization that would have started. Throw in economic recession and voter fatigue towards Democrats, and someone like Ronald Reagan could handily sweep the country. Ofc, what happens next could result in a 1980 defeat for Reagan a la Carter, but the alliance would have solidified by then

 

[Maeglin]

Eventually, middle class taxpayers who are paying for the benefits given to farmers and urban workers are going to get dissatisfied--as they did to varying degrees in 1938, 1942, 1946, and 1952 in OTL.

In any event, there are always going to be bad things happening eventually, whatever the administration and its policies. There are going to be recessions. There are going to be periods of inflation. There are going to be wars and even if there aren't, there are going to be foreign policy setbacks. People take those out on the party in power--period. Even people who had benefitted from the New Deal voted Republican in 1946 and 1952.

With sufficient screwing of the Republicans and Democrat-wanking, it's possible that by 1946/1952, the protest option (outside New England) are rogue Democrats, or else it's a split opposition between reformist Republicans and anti-New Dealers, plus various regional oddities. I mean, the South operated under a One Party State for nigh-on a century.

 

[Aisha Clan-Clan]

GOP botches things worse 1928-32. Rockefeller republicans move D decades early, expanding the new deal coalition.

Net effect is a long period of one party dem rule.

 

[Jellico]

Typically the "opposition" has to stuff itself up otherwise an "its time" factor kicks in and the government will be kicked out no matter how well it is performing. Unless of course there is some kind of gerrymander in play.

Association with whatever ideology is currently out of fashion (Communism, slavery, etc) is usually effective in keeping a party out of power. It is why wedge politics is such a well used tool today

 

[TastySpam]

The Japanese lib-dems are the product of the two most prominent political parties in post-war Japan merging and pooling their political machines.

Now is there anything that can get the Republicans and the Democrats to merge...

Well, the two most prominent political parties of prewar Japan. The Socialists definitely gave both a run, especially in the early elections under the American occupation.

Twp things to remember about the Liberal Democratic party's long period of dominance in Japan. First, it was greatly facilitated by apportionment overrepresenting rural areas in the Diet. Second, the opposition was split between the Socialist Party, Democratic Socialist Party, Komeito and Communists. Not only was the left divided (Komeito was the only non-left opposition party) but the leading opposition party, the Socialists, often took foreign policy positions that were too left-wing for Japanese voters during the Cold War: Only in 1989 did the Socialists finally acquiesce in the Japan-US security pact. https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...e-right/6d06523c-0ec7-4ecb-baa9-9824b81b61bf/ These are conditions unlikely to be duplicated in the US, where the trend toward two-partyism has been strikingly durable, despite all attempts (1912, 1924, 1948, etc.) to overcome it.

1. True, the pre-1994 lack of fair apportionment greatly helped the LDP - but the old SNTV-MMD system actually bolstered the numbers of JSP representatives (by being relatively proportional, I guess). Under the modern post-1994 system, pretty much every election except 2009 has been a big LDP win, even in elections where the LDP doesn't actually have that much popular support (such as the 2012 elections).

The pre-1994 electoral system IMO doesn't explain the LDP's ability to keep winning elections, because ultimately, between 1958-1990, they bounced between 59% and 42%, a record that is comparable to the Swedish Social Democrats.

2. Komeito was probably a left-leaning party under the Cold War-era political spectrum, since they're actually quite left-leaning on security issues/foreign policy, which is why Komeito generally supported the JSP during the Cold War. One of the reason Soka Gakkai grew so explosively after WW2 was that where many Buddhist denominations had discredited themselves by vehemently supporting the war, Soka Gakkai was one of the most ferociously anti-war denominations.

That being said, splitting the left vote wasn't actually that devastating until 1994 because of how the Japanese electoral system worked.

 

[Derek Jackson]

Republicans run an out nad out liberty leauger/ isolationist in 1940

 

[Anglocalvinist67]

Have Taft beat Eisenhower for the GOP nomination in 1952, then lose to Stevenson. The GOP would be in despair ... They ran me-too candidates and lost, then ran a true conservative and lost. They might fragment, extending Democratic control of the White House and helping the Dems control Congress for years to come.