you're not going to get BOTH parties being conservative socially
uhI think OP is saying Dems are socially liberal but hawkish and GOP is isolationist conservative
Easiest way to do this is have Gore win in 2000 and then die on 9/11. Lieberman pursues many interventions which pushes Republicans to be more anti war. By 2008, the wars and recession lead to the victory of Republican Chuck Hagel over Democrat Hillary Clinton
the two main parties to stay somewhat the same on most issues
uh
read:
he assumed both were consie
uh
read:
he assumed both were consie
I don't think this is too difficult all things considered . . . George W. Bush, of all people, said in 2000 "If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road. And I'm going to prevent that." Now, that's mostly just campaign rhetoric -- if the opposition takes Position A, you're expected to take Position B, even if you don't really mean it. But I think that kind of points in the direction that this could happen:
Basically --
1) Have Gore-Lieberman win the election in 2000, with the two Democrats picking up Bill Clinton's baton for 'humanitarian intervention' a la Bosnia, Yugoslavia, fairly limited missile strikes on Iraq and Afghanistan
2) DON'T have 9/11 happen
Without a Republican in the White House or the Pentagon, 1993 to 2005 is going to be a dozen years of U.S. interventions led by Democratic presidents. And without 9/11 -- which would be a "Democrats are soft" conservative talking point had it happened under a Gore presidency -- Republicans won't move in lockstep to PNAC neocon 'War on Terror' mentality. If Gore continues operating in a Clinton model of frequent but subdued foreign intervention, and without major threats like Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda being on the nightly news every day, I can see a rise of watered-down Buchananism. The Republican standard-bearer won't be a paleocon per se, I don't think, but someone who can build a bridge between paleocons and establishment Republicans.
I could see Chuck Hagel or Mark Sanford working as that sort of bridge
Here's my idea:
1) Al Gore is elected in 2000
2) 9/11 doesn't happen
3) A member of a militia kills Al Gore to try and avenge Waco around 2002
4) McCain is nominated in 2004, and chooses John Hostettler (prominent Religious Right congressman who was one of the few Republicans to vote against Iraq) as his running mate
5) McCain's helicopter crashes on the campaign trail, leaving Hostettler on top of the ticket
6) Lieberman finds it hard to appeal to the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, leading to his defeat in 2004 to Hostettler
7) Hostettler voted against many bills to bring foreign aid to Israel IOTL, and his opponents were funded by numerous pro-Israel groups, so maybe he does something to piss off Israel during his tenure leading to Democrats lining up in support of Israel
Why not just have Lieberman get nominated in 2008 and the 2008 GOP nominee pick Hostettler as their running mate?He3) A member of a militia kills Al Gore to try and avenge Waco around 2002
How do you get the two main parties to stay somewhat the same on most issues, but on the topic of foreign policy, the Democrats are hawkish and neoconservative, while the Republicans are uneasy with foreign interventions in a non-cold war setting?
You are right that there would be some similarities between them. Both Jackson and Buchanan probably are/were more interventionist on economics than the average member of their party. Neither would have much appeal to the postgraduate liberal vote that forms much of the Democratic Party's base today. Perhaps this is a good scenario for a Liberal Democrats (UK)-style third party emerging.
Post-graduate liberals tend to be anti-war.Why would Scoop Jackson's platform not appeal to a lot of postgraduate liberals? In the 1976 primaries, he performed extremely well in the wealthy suburbs of Boston for example.