AHC: Earlier "Liberal-Conservative" axis in US politics

Thomas1195

Banned
Well, IOTL, both main parties in the US had their own conservative and liberal wings for a long time. The Liberal-Conservative axis only really came into existence in 1964.

Your challenge is to have this division occur earlier, even from the 19th century.

Bonus if the abolitionist party (OTL it is the Republicans) would be the "liberal" party.
 
Having Benjamin Harrison be reelected in 1892 would keep Cleveland's Bourbons alive and well in the Democratic Party and weaken the power of the Populists in the Democratic Party.

Harrison's reelected would mean the Lodge Bill would have teeth, protecting black voting rights in the south. The GOP remaining interested in the voting rights of southern blacks could lead to them being more invested in racial liberalism.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Having Benjamin Harrison be reelected in 1892 would keep Cleveland's Bourbons alive and well in the Democratic Party and weaken the power of the Populists in the Democratic Party.
Well, but replace Harrison with McKinley and we would also weaken the Gold Republicans and strengthen the Silver faction.
 
The modern left-right economic axis wasn't much of a thing until the Civil War, so you can start there. From the start, the Republicans were dominated by business interests, but there were still some pro-labor leaders, like Benjamin Wade, and former Democrats like Benjamin Butler and Nathaniel P. Banks. If they had more influence, the progressive-conservative divide within the Republican Party could open sooner, leading to populist Democrats defecting from their Bourbon-dominated party.

I'm not sure about plausibility, but this could be a possible pathway: according to Wikipedia, Lincoln considered picking Benjamin Butler as his running mate in 1864. Butler was formerly a pro-labor Massachusetts Democrat who would go on to support women's suffrage and greenback currency and serve as the Anti-Monopoly/Greenback nominee in 1884. While he initially supported Southern appeasement, once the war started, he became a hardcore Radical Republican who wanted to destroy the old Southern identity, drafted the Second Enforcement Act of 1871 (which allowed the president to suspend habeus corpus for Klansmen), co-sponsored the Civil Rights Act of 1875 (which forbade government discrimination against African-Americans; however, it was rarely enforced and struck down by the Supreme Court), and appointed Massachusetts's first African-American judges.

President Butler would get along great with the radical Congress and could probably win a second term in 1868. From there, he could enact some generally progressive economic policies, mainly regarding currency. Meanwhile, a more successful Reconstruction could lead to African-Americans and poor whites being a more permanent Republican voting bloc. Populist Democrats would trickle over to the Republican Party, while people like Butler himself (who was a Democrat before the Civil War, became a Republican, then shifted back to the Democrats over economic policy) would never leave the party in the first place. The Dmeocrats, meanwhile, would continue to be dominated by Bourbons, with their base of Northern businessman and whatever is left of the Southern aristocracy.

The problem is conservative Republicans; they actually didn't have too much in common with conservative Democrats. Both of them generally supported the gold standard, were okay with monopolies, and opposed labor unions, but the Bourbon Democrats were laissez-faire while conservative Republicans tended to support a mercantilist/quasi-corporatist relationship between government and industry. As late as Herbert Hoover, Republicans supported infrastructure spending and higher tariffs, which is why they opposed progressive influences in the party but never really allied with conservatives on the other side of the fence. At best, conservative Republicans in this scenario would remain a marginalized force in the party who occasionally ally with the Democrats before dying out in the early 1900s.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
The problem is conservative Republicans; they actually didn't have too much in common with conservative Democrats. Both of them generally supported the gold standard, were okay with monopolies, and opposed labor unions, but the Bourbon Democrats were laissez-faire while conservative Republicans tended to support a mercantilist/quasi-corporatist relationship between government and industry.

Maybe some changes in the foundation of the Republican Party, but this could lead to a more powerful Know Nothing. Wank the influence of the 1848 German Radicals inside the GOP, causing the party to have a genuinely radical platform and hence discourage fundamental conservatives from joining the Republicans. These conservatives instead flock to Know Nothing (moderates like Lincoln who despised the Know Nothing would still join the GOP).

The modern left-right economic axis wasn't much of a thing until the Civil War, so you can start there. From the start, the Republicans were dominated by business interests, but there were still some pro-labor leaders, like Benjamin Wade, and former Democrats like Benjamin Butler and Nathaniel P. Banks. If they had more influence, the progressive-conservative divide within the Republican Party could open sooner, leading to populist Democrats defecting from their Bourbon-dominated party.

I'm not sure about plausibility, but this could be a possible pathway: according to Wikipedia, Lincoln considered picking Benjamin Butler as his running mate in 1864. Butler was formerly a pro-labor Massachusetts Democrat who would go on to support women's suffrage and greenback currency and serve as the Anti-Monopoly/Greenback nominee in 1884. While he initially supported Southern appeasement, once the war started, he became a hardcore Radical Republican who wanted to destroy the old Southern identity, drafted the Second Enforcement Act of 1871 (which allowed the president to suspend habeus corpus for Klansmen), co-sponsored the Civil Rights Act of 1875 (which forbade government discrimination against African-Americans; however, it was rarely enforced and struck down by the Supreme Court), and appointed Massachusetts's first African-American judges.

President Butler would get along great with the radical Congress and could probably win a second term in 1868. From there, he could enact some generally progressive economic policies, mainly regarding currency. Meanwhile, a more successful Reconstruction could lead to African-Americans and poor whites being a more permanent Republican voting bloc. Populist Democrats would trickle over to the Republican Party, while people like Butler himself (who was a Democrat before the Civil War, became a Republican, then shifted back to the Democrats over economic policy) would never leave the party in the first place. The Dmeocrats, meanwhile, would continue to be dominated by Bourbons, with their base of Northern businessman and whatever is left of the Southern aristocracy
Economically, a surviving Lincoln would allow his Greenback plan to take off. Such thing could have made the GOP anti-Gold.

Among the Northern business, there were the Wall Street faction, which was of course conservative, and the manufacturing interest, which might consist of certain progressive elements and might accept certain liberal reforms such as public education or patent laws (this was also true in Europe). We can somehow drive a wedge between two factions and push the latter towards the GOP, while the former would merge with Bourbon Democrats.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
But I am not sure that the Jacksonian Democrats and Populists could be considered as liberals. Their anti-modernization, anti-industrialization and agrarian stance was non-starter for a liberal political party in European definition.
 
This is actually pretty easy. The election of 1924 was Calvin Coolidge, a conservative Republican, vs John Davis, a conservative Democrat, and Robert Lafollette, a Progressive. If Teddy Roosevelt doesn't die in 1919, he gets reelected president in 1920, fusing the Republicans with the Progressives. This leaves the conservative wing in charge of the Democrats.
 
But I am not sure that the Jacksonian Democrats and Populists could be considered as liberals. Their anti-modernization, anti-industrialization and agrarian stance was non-starter for a liberal political party in European definition.
The Bourbon Democrats of the Third/Fourth Party System probably had more in common with the Jacksonians in terms of policy than the populists and progressives did. For example, Benjamin Butler's Anti-Monopoly Party wanted progressive taxation, anti-trust regulations, and labor protections, whereas the Bourbons stuck to the old Jeffersonian tradition of limited government. I'm not sure whether you'd classify that as pro- or anti-modernization, but it definitely fits with the American definition of liberal.
 
This is actually pretty easy. The election of 1924 was Calvin Coolidge, a conservative Republican, vs John Davis, a conservative Democrat, and Robert Lafollette, a Progressive. If Teddy Roosevelt doesn't die in 1919, he gets reelected president in 1920, fusing the Republicans with the Progressives. This leaves the conservative wing in charge of the Democrats.

Actually, I think a better way to do it would have been to get LaFollette elected Governor of Wisconsin in 98 instead of 1900. Then have the Stalwarts in the state, such as Spooner, maneuver into being named McKinley's VP in 1900 instead of TR. McKinley and LaFollette had known each other in the House and had gotten along well, and LaFollette had actually come out publicly in favor of the Spanish-American War, so he might be a good personal fit. Anyway, McKinley has his run-in with a bullet in Buffalo and and you have President Robert M. LaFollette.

Now, as much as I adore TR (and, lets throw him a bone and assume he ends up being elected to the Senate where he becomes a prominent Progressive leader), LaFollette was the far superior machine and party builder. Putting him at the head of the national Republican Party is going to mean he'll be throwing his energy into stumping nationally for Progressive Republicans and also working to undermine the Stalwarts, and using every tool available to do so. I suspect that he might see less legislation passed than TR in OTL, but he's probably going to leave a much more liberal GOP when he leaves office in 08.

This won't destroy the Stalwarts overnight, but should start a process of liberalization in the Party. If you can get the Democrats to get into power during the 1920s under their more conservative wing and the Great Depression occurs on schedule, you have the GOP primed and ready to retake power in 32 with a liberal mandate (if you want to really be ironic, have Hoover be the candidate).
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Benjamin Butler's Anti-Monopoly Party wanted progressive taxation, anti-trust regulations, and labor protections,
Depending on situation, President Benjamin Butler might butterfly away Liberal Republican Party if he also supported civil service reforms.

Actually, I think a better way to do it would have been to get LaFollette elected Governor of Wisconsin in 98 instead of 1900. Then have the Stalwarts in the state, such as Spooner, maneuver into being named McKinley's VP in 1900 instead of TR. McKinley and LaFollette had known each other in the House and had gotten along well, and LaFollette had actually come out publicly in favor of the Spanish-American War, so he might be a good personal fit. Anyway, McKinley has his run-in with a bullet in Buffalo and and you have President Robert M. LaFollette.

Now, as much as I adore TR (and, lets throw him a bone and assume he ends up being elected to the Senate where he becomes a prominent Progressive leader), LaFollette was the far superior machine and party builder. Putting him at the head of the national Republican Party is going to mean he'll be throwing his energy into stumping nationally for Progressive Republicans and also working to undermine the Stalwarts, and using every tool available to do so. I suspect that he might see less legislation passed than TR in OTL, but he's probably going to leave a much more liberal GOP when he leaves office in 08.

This won't destroy the Stalwarts overnight, but should start a process of liberalization in the Party. If you can get the Democrats to get into power during the 1920s under their more conservative wing and the Great Depression occurs on schedule, you have the GOP primed and ready to retake power in 32 with a liberal mandate (if you want to really be ironic, have Hoover be the candidate).

Well, you must butterfly away the party bosses' need to lock TR away, since his governor term in NY directly damaged their power in the Northeast. Wisconsin and the Midwest were not much of their problems.

You can also have TR succeeding President LaFollette in 1908 instead of William Howard Taft, and then Charles Evans Hughes/Hiram Johnson succeeding TR.
 
Fun fact: The 1840's seems to be the earliest time when political factions actually started to refer to themselves as "progressive" and "conservative."

See Michael F. Holt's *The Rise and Fall of the American Whig Party*--was the dispute within the New York Whig Party in the 1840's the first time in US history that polotical factions actually used the *words* "conservative" and "progressive" to refer to themselves?

"Since 1844, New York's self-consciously "progressive" Whigs led by Weed and Seward had clashed with their self-styled "conservative" rivals over nativism, state constitutional revision, Anti-Rentism, black suffrage, and what seemed to conservatives the increasingly radical antislavery stance of the Weed-Seward wing. Yet neither faction was monolithic, and the contest for the presidential nomination jumbled alignments still further. Although Seward and Weed had allies in New York City's wealthy mercantile, banking, and legal community like Simeon Draper and Moses Grinnell, that community, along with wealthy busi-nessmen and lawyers in Brooklyn and in towns along the Hudson River, provided the heaviest concentration of conservative opposition to them. Many of these Whigs had been National Republicans in the early 1830s, rather than Antimasons, and many of their fathers had been Federalists. Millard Fillmore and his Buffalo associates Nathan Kelsey Hall, Solomon G. Haven, and the editor Thomas Foote cooperated with these eastern conservatives but were distinct from them. Like Seward and Weed, Fillmore began his political career as an Antimason, but over the years he and his friends had grown increasingly disillusioned with Weed's control over Whig nominations, state patronage, and canal contracts. The two conservative groups, therefore, were united by common antagonism to Seward and Weed, not by common economic or policy interests or common presidential preferences.”

https://books.google.com/books…

There was likewise a split in the New York Democratic Party at that time, but I think that in the Democratic party the factions were called Conservatives and Radicals. E.g., Silas Wright to John Dix in 1846: "I do not think it impossible that we may have a majority of sound radical democrats in the convention; but the chances are against it, in consequence of the variety of factions, and the distinct effort of the conservatives to throw the convention into whig hands." https://books.google.com/books?id=KwEFAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA1716

Interestingly, the term "the Progressive Democracy" seems to have been used largely by Whigs as a term of scorn, but proudly adopted by Democrats, as in the following speech by J. M. Niles of Connecticut in 1848:

"I have said that Democracy is progressive. Federalism has wagged her head, and in reproach and derision called us “the progressive Democracy,” and we have not taken the saying as a reproach, but as praise. Monarchy has progressed from that which was despotic to that which is limited. Kings "progress' as the people demand of them, or, in default, have “progressed” into exile, leaving the place where a throne was, to be occupied by the tribune. Literature, science, philosophy, the arts, and belles-lettres “progress,” and their adaptation to use “progresses.” Moral and physical man “progresses.” Animals, by culture and the crossing of breeds, “progress” in beauty and useful qualities. The moral world and the physical terra firma keep moving; the planets roll on in their courses; systems career through immense space; nature, and art, and mind, are in progress. Even religious creeds-—not religious truths-—undergo modification, and, for good, “progress.” . Federalism alone is stationary. She changes her name, and may blink her favorite ideas for a time, till an election can be carried upon an “availability;” but in creed, opinion, principle, wish, and instinct, she changes not. Unchanged, except in mere externals, since 1787, she stands in her ancient and murky temple, and grows dizzy as she looks out, in amazement, upon the whirl of all things as they flit past her in their PROGRESS. Aware that her principles are, generally, unacceptable, the late Federal-—I beg pardon, Whig I believe is the word now—-convention adjourned without the formal or informal declaration of any creed or platform. Resolutions having a squinting that way were declared to be out of order by the presiding officer. A novel, but prudent decision, without precedent or reason, was this. The emergency called for it. . Like the bird of the wilderness, our friends of the Whig party hid their head in the bush, and fancied the world would fail to see their tail. The precaution was vain. The absurd alliance between the political party which pronounced the late war unnecessary and unjust, and the general who led one wing of our conquering army, has excited a burst of ridicule and disgust from one end of my district to the other. It will, if I mistake not, give occasion for loud guffaws of derision from Maine to Texas, from Oregon to California, and the *quidnunc*s and wits of Europe will join in the cachinnatory chorus. Even if the great Federal, National Republican, Whig party had not estopped itself from a resort to the supposed availability of military reputation, the Democratic party, always ready to honor *Democratic* heroes, has blundered upon a couple of availabilities in that line which cannot be defeated. The day is not now when radical Democracy, represented in the persons of two “volunteers” of 1812, will be even endangered. The people will remember Jackson's Secretary of War [Cass] and Jackson's aid-de-camp [Butler], and will endorse the preferences of “the Man of the Age.”" https://books.google.com/books?id=7Eo2AQAAMAAJ&pg=RA46-PA7
 
Well, you must butterfly away the party bosses' need to lock TR away, since his governor term in NY directly damaged their power in the Northeast. Wisconsin and the Midwest were not much of their problems.

You can also have TR succeeding President LaFollette in 1908 instead of William Howard Taft, and then Charles Evans Hughes/Hiram Johnson succeeding TR.

@David T Would you be able to offer any insight here? You know far more about internal party machinations than I do, during the later 19th century?
 
To the OP, much of what I'd wanted to talk about has already been covered by other posters, though I can say it would be very interesting to see what kind of effects an earlier development of this phenomenon might have had on U.S. history(for example, in regards to immigration, be it Irish, Italian, or otherwise....liberals, with a few exceptions, tended to be a fair bit more accepting of said immigrants than conservatives for the most part, and vice versa).*

*Please note that I'm using these terms according to the modern American definition, not the classical one.
 
To the OP, much of what I'd wanted to talk about has already been covered by other posters, though I can say it would be very interesting to see what kind of effects an earlier development of this phenomenon might have had on U.S. history(for example, in regards to immigration, be it Irish, Italian, or otherwise....liberals, with a few exceptions, tended to be a fair bit more accepting of said immigrants than conservatives for the most part, and vice versa).*

*Please note that I'm using these terms according to the modern American definition, not the classical one.

That's not entirely true. For instance there was a strong anti-immigrant, nativist wing amongst the Progressive Republicans, and there were also Conservative Democrats who realized that their coalition was built on urban immigrants (and visa-versa, of course.). Prohibition, for instance, could be argued to be a Progressive cause, but had strong anti-immigrant, Americanization tendencies. Though it pains me to admit it (as I consider myself an old school Progressive, there were even eugenic elements to the Progressive Movement. See, for example, the force-sterilization laws passed by many Progressive states, such as Minnesota, Wisconsin and Washington)

Although the modern divide certain evolved from that era, and even before, it would be wrong to totally read today's politics back into the past.
 
That's not entirely true. For instance there was a strong anti-immigrant, nativist wing amongst the Progressive Republicans, and there were also Conservative Democrats who realized that their coalition was built on urban immigrants (and visa-versa, of course.). Prohibition, for instance, could be argued to be a Progressive cause, but had strong anti-immigrant, Americanization tendencies. Though it pains me to admit it (as I consider myself an old school Progressive, there were even eugenic elements to the Progressive Movement. See, for example, the force-sterilization laws passed by many Progressive states, such as Minnesota, Wisconsin and Washington)

Oh, that's true, Dan, these blocs certainly did exist in a notable number, no doubt about that.

(And yes, also true that the Progressive Movement did, unfortunately, have a fair number of staunch advocates of eugenics-including a fair number of the racialist variety-as well)
 
Top