AHC: Dixie out, Labor in the Democratic Party

With a POD at the end of the War in Europe in WWII, your challenge is to have labor control the Democratic Party instead of later more counterculture McGovernites during the Democratic power struggles of the 1960s and 1970s. However, much of the South should move away from the Democrats (though inevitably some of the South will remain due to Democratic labor strength).

Civil rights must also be enacted, btw.
 
I'm tempted to say No Vietnam War butterflies away the influence of the counterculture(broadly defined), but youthful insurgencies were an aspect of centre-left parties the world over, not just the Democrats. Mind you, the more officially socialist ones(UK Labour, just for example) tended to maintain a designated role for unions, that I don't think they usually maintained for youth, even post 1960s.
 
I'm tempted to say No Vietnam War butterflies away the influence of the counterculture(broadly defined), but youthful insurgencies were an aspect of centre-left parties the world over, not just the Democrats. Mind you, the more officially socialist ones(UK Labour, just for example) tended to maintain a designated role for unions, that I don't think they usually maintained for youth, even post 1960s.
So I guess the question is how you get youth movements more aligned with the labor movement. Maybe somehow prevent or lessen the rise of higher education after WW2?
 
Part of the issue is that the same forces that drove the Dixiecrats out of the party over time also will marginalize and antagonize labor.

Labor elements were generally socially conservative, less educated, and (of course) working class. The Social Progressives tended to dislike these folks in a similar manner as they did the Dixiecrats. Unmentioned in the broader discussion is that much of labor rallied for Wallace in 1968.

A mid-September AFL-CIO internal poll showed that one in three union members supported Wallace, and a Chicago Sun-Times poll showed that Wallace had a plurality of 44% of white steelworkers in Chicago.

Look at the below quote from New Leftist Jack Newfield:

I cannot recall either Johnson in 1964 or Humphrey in 1968 campaigning on any positive or exciting ideas that might excite the almost-poor workers, whose votes they took for granted ... In contrast, George Wallace has been sounding like William Jennings Bryan as he attacked concentrated wealth in his speeches ...

From 1960 to 1968 liberal Democrats governed the country. But nothing basic got done to make life decisively better for the white workingman. When he bitched about street crime, he was called a Goldwaterite by liberals who felt secure in the suburbs behind high fences and expensive locks. When he complained about his daughter being bused, he was called a racist by liberals who could afford to send their own children to private schools. Meanwhile, the liberal elite repeated their little Polish jokes at Yale and on the Vineyard; and they cheered when Eugene McCarthy reminded them that the educated people voted for him and the uneducated people voted for Robert Kennedy.

Liberal hypocrisy created a lot of Wallace votes in 1968.
 
Stalin gives a hard go order in 45. Rail and Coal general and indefinite strikes break and destroy the union left. Yellow dog unions suck the Democrats teat through a Democratic Ike 50s and are deliberately grown to control labour for the bosses.
 
Part of the issue is that the same forces that drove the Dixiecrats out of the party over time also will marginalize and antagonize labor.

Labor elements were generally socially conservative, less educated, and (of course) working class. The Social Progressives tended to dislike these folks in a similar manner as they did the Dixiecrats. Unmentioned in the broader discussion is that much of labor rallied for Wallace in 1968.

A mid-September AFL-CIO internal poll showed that one in three union members supported Wallace, and a Chicago Sun-Times poll showed that Wallace had a plurality of 44% of white steelworkers in Chicago.

Look at the below quote from New Leftist Jack Newfield:

Under this scenario is there a way for the Dems to remain socially conservative but lose the South altogether? After all, WWC exist as well in the Midwest, Northeast, Mountain West, West Coast, and AK-HI.

@Sam R. what do you mean?

As for the others, how do we get the youth on the labor train? I understand the Vietnam War and counterculture should be butterflied away for this to happen (perhaps a liberal Democratic 1950s that keeps the youth placated).
 
You know institutionally created right wing unions? Unions that basically serve state interest more or less directly and therefore capital? We call these bosses unions or yellow dog unions in the American contexts.

Labor is as often controlled by its institutions as it controls them. Unions in particular stop wildcat actions. Often this involves a slight kind of great society pay off.

If American communism publicly castrates itself long before the Red Scare, and if an institutional centrist such as Ike sees a need to control labour through unions, and if Ike took up the democrats offer then you may get labour inside the democrats. But with the whip in the horses hand.

The right of the NSW labor party to 1983 is a good case of unions controlling the party but the unions being so neutered that the party controls the unions.
 
Perhaps this is possible in a world where there is substantially less immigration to the United States after the Second World War.
 
You know institutionally created right wing unions? Unions that basically serve state interest more or less directly and therefore capital? We call these bosses unions or yellow dog unions in the American contexts.

Labor is as often controlled by its institutions as it controls them. Unions in particular stop wildcat actions. Often this involves a slight kind of great society pay off.

If American communism publicly castrates itself long before the Red Scare, and if an institutional centrist such as Ike sees a need to control labour through unions, and if Ike took up the democrats offer then you may get labour inside the democrats. But with the whip in the horses hand.

The right of the NSW labor party to 1983 is a good case of unions controlling the party but the unions being so neutered that the party controls the unions.

Wait, this is actually like the Eastern Bloc unions which weren't really independent from their socialist parties.

Perhaps this is possible in a world where there is substantially less immigration to the United States after the Second World War.

How does this help the OP?
 
Top