AHC: Libertarian Democrats and big-government Republicans

Something that I had a thought about was how parts of the libertarian ideology would have been quite so amenable to the Democratic Party during its battle for its soul over the matter of civil rights v. states' rights in the 1950s & 1960s.

Your challenge, with a POD no earlier than 1900 (That would give you enough room for creativity!), is to create an American political system in which libertarianism is one of the major, if not the major, driving ideology of the Democratic Party whilst the Republican Party has conversely becoming dominated with big-government policies.
 

DevlPalce

Banned
Theodore Roosevelt wins the nomination in 1912, after Taft suffers from a debilitating case of heart palpitations, and other problems from obesity (best idea I have). Taking over the Republican mantle, Roosvelt uses his New Nationalism to go on an win the presidency. Roosevelt is on the ticket of the Progressive-Socialists-Republicans, and using his coattails, helps elect more republicans that are progressives.

Meanwhile, Democrats embrace a mixture of New Freedom, with some democrats bolting to republicans, and some conservative republicans fleeing to democrats. Democrats, without a victory, suffer for 4 years, bleeding progressives. However, they win the hearts and souls of conservative republicans.

Roosevelt totally changes the country's policy's, with such republicans as Calvin Coolidge switching from Republican to Democrat. Mean while, Jennigs Democrats switch to republicans.

Republicans become the party of New Nationalism, and always have a nostalgia for the days of Theodore, aimilar to OTL Reagan nostalgia. Democrats become the party of new freedom, with libertines, businessmen, etc. taking a majority role in the party.

Typed this quick, my best guess
 
Al Smith wins the 1928 election, so the Democrats are the party blamed for the Depression and the Republicans are the party of the New Deal. You need to do that for the Democrats to be libertarian on economics.

The 1957 version of the Civil Rights Act is more effective so the GOP remains the civil rights party. The Democrats then continue to do the bidding of Dixiecrats and gradually move from Jim Crow to subtle racism.
 
Libertarianism is a conservative political philosophy despite it being sold in the USA as either centrist or even "liberal", i.e. left-wing. In the USA we have four competing political groups, the Progressive Republican, the Conservative Republican, the Progressive Democrat and the Conservative Democrat, and these are overlaid upon a basically conservative shifted political spectrum, Socialism here being regarded as really left and Liberalism being mainstream. The American debate is bifurcated between economics and social issues, it unites and divides across political lines. This seems to be how Libertarianism holds sway, it looks socially liberal and economically Liberal, in other words progressive and conservative simultaneously. Added to this are the traditional regional blocks, East Coast, Midwest, South and West.

Having the Republican Party embrace progressive policy after TR and have the GOP do better at recovering from the Depression using the full power of State intervention. Have the Solid south hold more sway and embrace State's rights more fully to devolve power away from Washington. Potentially civil rights would be the issue that drives this, so instead of the Dixiecrats coming over to the GOP, the Democrats gain a block of conservative moneyed voters/donors, the black and labor voter stays more fully GOP as they stay more Centre drifting Centre-left. This leaves the Democrats to hold the Centre-right, drifting right.

Perhaps having Hoover being more the New Deal progressive and the Democrats being in opposition, one needs the moderate East coast to have more sway longer, the Midwest conservatives stay opposed to the Southern conservatives, etc. I think the POD that might get you there could be TR runs in 1908 as his "second full term", Taft or another Republican follows orderly in 1912 so no "progressive" Wilson administration, the Dems are in power when the Depression occurs and take the blame, likely we have the GOP following a Democratic Presidency 1920 to 1928, in power as Depression occurs but can blame the Dems or the Dems are in power 1928 to 1932 or so, it is the GOP who offers the "New Deal". That is what I ponder when I toy with TR running in 1908 as opposed to handing over to Taft. 1912 becomes pivotal in a whole new way.
 
Something that I had a thought about was how parts of the libertarian ideology would have been quite so amenable to the Democratic Party during its battle for its soul over the matter of civil rights v. states' rights in the 1950s & 1960s.

Your challenge, with a POD no earlier than 1900 (That would give you enough room for creativity!), is to create an American political system in which libertarianism is one of the major, if not the major, driving ideology of the Democratic Party whilst the Republican Party has conversely becoming dominated with big-government policies.
All of the others are in no way actually answering the question, instead just answering "how can we get the Democrats to be conservative and the Republicans liberal".

I actually have an incredibly late PoD for this and it involves two men. Mike Gravel and Pat Buchanan.

You need Mike Gravel to throw his hat into the 1976 primaries and phrase his libertarian views as ones inherently "anti-Washington overreach". Gravel's left-libertarianism actually has quite a few things in common with Silicon Valley's ideology, even if there's quite a few differences there. The man got elected in Alaska, of all places. If he can unite the party behind him and somehow win in November [You might need Ford to screw up worse or Reagan to implode], that's a good platform for left-libertarianism there.

Now, what about big-government Republicans? That's where Pat Buchanan comes in play. Assume that Gravel won re-election and handed over to Jerry Brown in 1984 or something, and entering 1988, we have the GOP ready to win the election. One of the assumptions made in American politics is that "big-government" equals liberal and "small-government" conservative. Pat Buchanan is a big-government conservative, willing to use the levers of the state for moral interventionism while being a strident protectionist.

So, Mike Gravel in 1976 and Pat Buchanan in 1988. The Democratic Party is still recognisably left-wing, just more libertarian on social issues and arguably moderate-ish economically, while the GOP is still right-wing with a moralistic-interventionist streak and mostly-absent of the "cut, cut, cut" mentality Reagan granted it. So basically left-libertarianism and paleoconservatism needs to be dominant.
 
Could something be done with the New Left? Have it 1) turn against government intervention ("a force of repression and reaction") and 2) beter establish its control over the Democratic Party?
 
Top