With a POD of 1900 have the South be very Liberal, and be solid blue states. Is this possible? Is Florida still a swing state? Where else does the GOP go? What other effects does this have on the rest of the Union?
AHC: Liberal South
- Thread starter The_Russian
- Start date
FillyofDelphi
Banned
As Syndrom once said "Once everyone is super, nobody will be". Unless you have a large population who's "conservative", the definition of liberal will move and cause former moderate liberal positions ittl to be perceived as moderate conservative as the Overton Window shifts around them.
Other states can change. Blue states IOTL can be red states ITTL. An example could be the south west being more republican because liberals decide to move to the south instead of the south west, or New England staying republican because of some minor policy changes, etc. I just am wondering how you can get the south to be Democratic in 2018
Well if you use that as the POD, then blacks will still stay with the Dems... the Dems have had the black vote since 1936. The last time a majority of them voted for the gop was in 1932. https://www.factcheck.org/2008/04/blacks-and-the-democratic-party/
I don't think it's possible, not without a different ACW. The economic bases of social liberalism simply can't be replicated in a South that was devastated to the extent it was during the War.
The main exceptions are FL and TX. FL requires simply even more post WWII migration, while TX requires a GOP that follows a more CAGOP model than it did in TX OTL (basically TX is red because the GOP coopted much of the sizeable rural and suburban Latino population via policies that anywhere else would be condemned as "socialism.") So maybe butterfly Bush and Rick Perry?
FillyofDelphi
Banned
I'm that case, it's pretty easy on my opinion: just stop the ascendancy of the "Champagne Socialists" faction to the heights of the party establishment and keep the "Hard Hat", economic development dems in charge of the platform. Make Protectism and large range infastructure development key party planks and "regional welfare" of disruputing wealth out if urban areas more equally to develop the country as a whole.
So with this faction of the Dems staying dominant, and being competitive in the south, where does the gop change, and what states do they do better in?
I think the problem is much deeper than race (much of the North, even in blue states, grappled with simar histories.)
It's economics. Basically the thing is the Southern economy had not recovered to pre-ACW levels until the 1930s.
The main exceptions are FL and TX, one because of the Florida land boom and the post-WWII migration, the other because for all the jokes, in TX Bush and Perry were really good at assembling a coalition behind them that in any other state would be reliable Democratic voters.
Ok. If you have a way to make the south blue involving the civil war I’ll hear you out, but won’t give you a cookie cus it doesn’t fit the challenge.
Marc
Donor
Just a quick note: Of the three richest States in 1860, two were Southern: Louisiana and South Carolina. The 5th was Mississippi, which had the distinction of being the poorest by 1960.
(Some hold that South Carolina's wealth account for a good deal of its historical belligerence towards the Union).
FillyofDelphi
Banned
I can do a longer write up at a later date, but one key point is likely the GOP makes a bid to appeal to the big metropoli, so would do better in Cali and New York at least, though most of the Atlantic corridors from DC north could go Red. (Though PN would be purple, leaning blue). The key would be a strong stance on local control/city rights vs Federal programs (Especially those that lead to huge net transfers out wealth out to the sticks), a stance on public education less focused on privatization buy empowering school boards and communities to do whay they think is right (Strongly anti-common core and teachers union but pro funding levees locally and promoting collages), making their pro corporate position known with free trade on the national level and encouraging head quarter with local sweetheart deals (and pro development city iniatives in general: strong internal mass transit like subways for instance, and later on probably back the rise of things like uber). Basically, they'd seek out allies among those centers of modern nominal GDP generation and champion the "collective rich" from the universalizing hand of the Dems.
On social issues on general, they probably evolve to be less salient. Democrats would adopt a more "i dont care what you're doing in the privacy of your home" approach, similar to how they framed gay marriage at first, focusing more on that empowering of the common man/individual vs the elite moral busybody and commercialized uniformity. This plays better with right leaning Protestants and Jews, and allows a big tent approach between Blue Dogs on issues like guns and, for example abortion advocates. Catholics and Muslims will probably lean more Republican as they insist on community rights to enforce moral standards, and push for those that promote order. Again, I see guns flip as an anti crime, anti gangs thing; "Only good guys should have guns". Partnerships between parochial schools and districts will also likely be pushed
Dems vs Republicans isn't the challenge. It's left versus right.
Some sort of major shock to the system would do it. After 1900 a kinder form of socialism springs up in Russia and the western nations go HAM on keeping colonialism alive. This would make the soft commie Russians a better ally against colonialism, which is the original American cause du jour. With a mildly prosperous socialist Russia contrasted against Belgian Congo behavior from the established powers, the US might decide on closer relations with the left leaning movements of the world between WW1 and WW2. The US propaganda machine, would then have cause to "celebrate" more left-leaning behavior to justify their worldwide strategic situation. The behavior of Britain, France, etc. would have to be quite atrocious though. we're talking mass killings, slavery, rape, and exploitation in India, Indochina, and so forth. Something to get the blood roiling and break the racism barriers. Like I said, Belgian Congos everywhere.
Some sort of major shock to the system would do it. After 1900 a kinder form of socialism springs up in Russia and the western nations go HAM on keeping colonialism alive. This would make the soft commie Russians a better ally against colonialism, which is the original American cause du jour. With a mildly prosperous socialist Russia contrasted against Belgian Congo behavior from the established powers, the US might decide on closer relations with the left leaning movements of the world between WW1 and WW2. The US propaganda machine, would then have cause to "celebrate" more left-leaning behavior to justify their worldwide strategic situation. The behavior of Britain, France, etc. would have to be quite atrocious though. we're talking mass killings, slavery, rape, and exploitation in India, Indochina, and so forth. Something to get the blood roiling and break the racism barriers. Like I said, Belgian Congos everywhere.
Well, there's always the German route. Second ACW, industrial genocide of black people and Catholics, the South loses worse than the first time.
Congo Free States. Belgian Congo was what it was called after the Belgian state took over from Leopold II; they stopped the whole maiming people thing and ran the place more like an average imperialist African colony.
Last edited:
So, this depends on what the OP means by Liberal. If Liberal means on the political left, then any non-racist rural populist or farm labour progressive could do it at most times during the first half of the 20th century (I'm looking at you, Huey Long). A backlash during the civil rights era caused by white reactionaries being particularly brutal could also be a trigger.
As for Liberal meaning supporting a Social Liberal economic model, other posters have explained why this is a much more intractable problem (having to do with economics far more than race).
As for Liberal meaning supporting a Social Liberal economic model, other posters have explained why this is a much more intractable problem (having to do with economics far more than race).
Could you make them more pro mena y by having the northern Dems “hush up” on racial issues while having the gop become more conservative and still bringing up racial issues?