AHC: Have America Adopt a "Sargeist" Foreign Policy From the 50s Onwards

With a POD of 1953, how could America plausibly adopt a "Sargeist" (i.e, using democracy rather than capitalism as a litmus test for its allies, reining in its multinationals, and keeping a short leash on the CIA), without ASB intervention?
 
Ironically then several democratically elected people would be Soviet allies. Or would they if the US refuses to support dictators? Castro might be pro-US since the US won't be supporting Batista; Allende doesn't turn to the Soviets and Pinochet doesn't come to power. South Africa turns to the USSR since the US won't support it due to your requirement of democracy (I assume apartheid disqualifies it as a democracy? Please nobody argue that it doesn't). Even South Korea and the RoC would not in 1953 qualify as democracies, something would have to change there. At many times Thailand and the Philippines have not qualified (seriously don't want arguments, you don't agree, fine, that's your opinion, dont want to be tagged, responded to, or hear it!)
 
Ironically then several democratically elected people would be Soviet allies. Or would they if the US refuses to support dictators? Castro might be pro-US since the US won't be supporting Batista; Allende doesn't turn to the Soviets and Pinochet doesn't come to power. South Africa turns to the USSR since the US won't support it due to your requirement of democracy (I assume apartheid disqualifies it as a democracy? Please nobody argue that it doesn't). Even South Korea and the RoC would not in 1953 qualify as democracies, something would have to change there. At many times Thailand and the Philippines have not qualified (seriously don't want arguments, you don't agree, fine, that's your opinion, don't want to be tagged, responded to, or hear it!)
Good analysis, although the US would probably influence its influence so that SK, Thailand, China, and the Philippines democratize.
 
Define "democracy". If you have a free election, and party "A" gets 50.1% does this mean that they get to make all the rules and concerns of minorities of any sorts are unimportant, is that "democracy". If you have free elections and multiple parties, but a state religion and disadvantaging other religions, is that "democracy". One could go on and on, what Americans and most Europeans consider democracy includes much more than free elections. Don't forget that even "democratic" countries like the UK have provisions that the USA would consider "undemocratic" such as the Official Secrets Acts and other press controls.
 
Main PODs probably have to be early.

Maybe the Americans take a good long look at the British in the Greek Civil War in 1944. Wow, the British are siding with former Nazi collaborators against former partisans who fought on their side, even at the cost of slowing the war effort.

And within the American state department and defense community there's a general understanding, that this is what ideological fanaticism will get you. Maybe an American two-star general with a good reputation quips, Are you sure the Brits believe capitalism is the better system? Because they sure aren't acting like it. (and this rather becomes a meme of the time, at least for a while within some foreign policy circles)
 
And maybe we hit upon the idea that we have to outcompete the Soviets in the Third World in terms of genuine partnerships and genuine economic development?
 

hipper

Banned
With a POD of 1953, how could America plausibly adopt a "Sargeist" (i.e, using democracy rather than capitalism as a litmus test for its allies, reining in its multinationals, and keeping a short leash on the CIA), without ASB intervention?

JFK is not shot and purges the CIA

His brother succeeds him in 68
 
Main PODs probably have to be early.

Maybe the Americans take a good long look at the British in the Greek Civil War in 1944. Wow, the British are siding with former Nazi collaborators against former partisans who fought on their side, even at the cost of slowing the war effort.

And within the American state department and defense community there's a general understanding, that this is what ideological fanaticism will get you. Maybe an American two-star general with a good reputation quips, Are you sure the Brits believe capitalism is the better system? Because they sure aren't acting like it. (and this rather becomes a meme of the time, at least for a while within some foreign policy circles)
Presumably you meant to say "democracy", rather than "capitalism?"
 
With a POD of 1953, how could America plausibly adopt a "Sargeist" (i.e, using democracy rather than capitalism as a litmus test for its allies, reining in its multinationals, and keeping a short leash on the CIA), without ASB intervention?

If they did that, America instantly collapses NATO for being composed of Colonial Nations, as a consequence probably gives up on West Berlin, loses Taiwan and South Korea within a few years, starts a domino affect that will demolish Asian Anti-Communists, and pretty much lets the whole area know that White House is useless for support. At that point, it'll be up to Western Europe to contain the Soviets, who won't do a very good job.

A "Democrats only" strategy during the Cold War would have been suicide. They had just aligned with Mao and Stalin; why were they going to radically change their outlook on their alliance structures?
 
If you count apartheid South Africa as not a democracy because of a non white disenfranchised majority then in 1953 Britain and France don't count as democratic.

It's ASB to think that America will end their alliances with France and Britain.

America would limit its allies to a very small pool of countries, why would America do this?
 
Top