AHC: Make Democrats Conservative & Republicans Liberal

Commissar From Kiev · Jun 12, 2016

Here is my challenge: find a way, in the 20th century, for the Democratic Party to be conservative-dominated and the Republican Party to be liberal or progressive-dominated. How could this happen?

Screwing with one or more Roosevelts will likely come in handy.

TRH · Jun 12, 2016

It would be a lot easier if you just butterflied Jennings Bryan, but otherwise, this isn't too far from how it was at the start of the 20th Century IOTL. You'd just need to keep the progressives in the Republican fold post-Taft and away from the Democrats. Not that hard, I don't think.

David T · Jun 12, 2016

There have been individual elections, even presidential elections, where the Democratic candidate was arguably more "conservative" than the Republican--TR vs. Alton Parker in 1904, for example. In 1924, John W. Davis was almost, if not quite, as conservative as Coolidge. But I believe that these were aberrations (in which the Democrats desperately and futilely hoped that by nominating a conservative candidate they could detach the GOP's business supporters) and that the structure of each party virtually compels the Democrats to be (on the whole) to the "left" of the Republicans on economic issues, for reasons I explain at:

http://groups.google.com/group/soc.history.what-if/msg/2aac757559d20773 and
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.history.what-if/msg/9ee7c0c1644d24b0

For why the attempts by the Democrats to win business support failed, I quote the *New York Sun*, considered the organ of Wall Street, on why it was backing TR instead of Parker in 1904: "We prefer the impulsive candidate of the party of conservatism to the conservative candidate of the party which the business interests regard as permanently and dangerously impulsive."

It is also noteworthy that on the one occasion when a Democratic president really did try to govern from the right--Cleveland's second term--he was decisively repudiated by his party.

mrbraingrayson · Jun 12, 2016

Or screwing Chaffee or Trump will work too.

SlyDessertFox · Jun 12, 2016

Wank the populists and have the Progressives take over the Republican Party? That leaves the conservatives nowhere to join but the Democrats.

Twin City Lines · Jun 12, 2016

Keep the Republicans the "Party of Lincoln" consistently supporting civil rights rather than backing down in the early part of the 20th Century.

Cuāuhtemōc · Jun 12, 2016

Having Nixon win in 1960 and a subsequent re-election in 1964 would mean that the moderate and liberal Republicans in the northeast maintain control of their party - civil rights gets passed and African Americans become part of the GOP coalition. Goldwater and his ilk remain a fringe and the Dixiecrats remain in the Democratic coalition - meaning that the GOP remains an socially moderate-liberalish and somewhat business-friendly party. No alliance between social conservatives and economic conservatives mean that both parties stick to the New Deal consensus - albeit to different degrees.

TTL 2016 Republicans would be akin to the British Tories and the Democrats would be a party full of socially conservative working class Americans.

David T · Jun 12, 2016

Twin City Lines said:
Keep the Republicans the "Party of Lincoln" consistently supporting civil rights rather than backing down in the early part of the 20th Century.

The thing is that this is entirely compatible with being on "the right" on economic issues. Indeed, some of the most racist Democrats, like James Vardaman and Tom Watson, were among the most radical on economic issues. Indeed, Watson said "Woodrow Wilson should be in prison and Eugene V. Debs in the White House." https://books.google.com/books?id=9q45AQAAMAAJ&pg=RA6-PA26 Conversely, a Republican like Joseph Foraker was a champion of equal rights for African Americans, and quarreled with Theodore Roosevelt over Brownsville--but also over allowing the Interstate Commerce Commission to set freight rates, which Foraker considered unconstitutional. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_B._Foraker

Gordian · Jun 12, 2016

Have James Byrnes be picked as Roosevelt's VP in 1944, maybe?

David T · Jun 12, 2016

Danderns said:
Have James Byrnes be picked as Roosevelt's VP in 1944, maybe?

Byrnes will either move to the left or he will not get nominated in 1948. (I don't say "re"-nominated because he was not nominated *as president* in 1944 even in this TL.) Very likely, even if he does get nominated in 1948, he will lose in November (he will not get the support from labor and minorities that allowed Truman to carry Illinois, Ohio, and California very narrowly) whereupon the Democrats will conclude they have to nominate someone more liberal in 1952.

Commissar From Kiev · Jun 13, 2016

TRH said:
It would be a lot easier if you just butterflied Jennings Bryan, but otherwise, this isn't too far from how it was at the start of the 20th Century IOTL. You'd just need to keep the progressives in the Republican fold post-Taft and away from the Democrats. Not that hard, I don't think.

Interesting. That's definitely something to consider.

Commissar From Kiev · Jun 13, 2016

Cuāuhtemōc said:
Having Nixon win in 1960 and a subsequent re-election in 1964 would mean that the moderate and liberal Republicans in the northeast maintain control of their party - civil rights gets passed and African Americans become part of the GOP coalition. Goldwater and his ilk remain a fringe and the Dixiecrats remain in the Democratic coalition - meaning that the GOP remains an socially moderate-liberalish and somewhat business-friendly party. No alliance between social conservatives and economic conservatives mean that both parties stick to the New Deal consensus - albeit to different degrees.

TTL 2016 Republicans would be akin to the British Tories and the Democrats would be a party full of socially conservative working class Americans.

That could also work, but I was hoping for something earlier.

Wolfram · Jun 13, 2016

For economics, could the Silver Republicans take control of the party, pushing it towards a more populist economic policy?
Alternately, could the reverse occur with the Bourbon Democrats?

Emperor Norton I · Jun 13, 2016

A problem is that traditionally the Republican party has been the party of the white collar workers and moneyed interests, whereas the Democratic party has been traditionally the party of the blue collar working class -- even through the many eras of each party, and the ideological struggles. I would argue for that reason that if a party is to go Conservative wholly, it was going to be the Republicans.

Kohlticus Euraleth · Jun 13, 2016

Emperor Norton I said:
A problem is that traditionally the Republican party has been the party of the white collar workers and moneyed interests, whereas the Democratic party has been traditionally the party of the blue collar working class -- even through the many eras of each party, and the ideological struggles. I would argue for that reason that if a party is to go Conservative wholly, it was going to be the Republicans.

You could always have a GOP that's center to center-right on economic issues and moderate to liberal on social issues, whilst Democrats straddle the opposite side of the spectrum. In a sense, this would make the Republicans a classical liberal party whilst also retaining their white collar pro-business tradition.

This is, of course, assuming that the OP isn't calling for flipping the party positions around exactly.

Derek Jackson · Jun 14, 2016

Hughes wins 1916. Conservative Democrats win 1920 to 1928 and follow otl Republican policies.

New deal a Republican thing (perhaps still under FDR who might defect

thekingsguard · Jun 14, 2016

As others point out, just have Nixon beat JFK, and let the GOP retain its Classical liberal bent, with maybe a more Libertarian tinge to it.

The Democrats on the other hand, remain populists.

Commissar From Kiev · Jun 15, 2016

Kohlticus Euraleth said:
You could always have a GOP that's center to center-right on economic issues and moderate to liberal on social issues, whilst Democrats straddle the opposite side of the spectrum. In a sense, this would make the Republicans a classical liberal party whilst also retaining their white collar pro-business tradition.

This is, of course, assuming that the OP isn't calling for flipping the party positions around exactly.

That sounds perfectly acceptable. More interesting than just OTL liberalism and conservatism.

sciscisciortino · Jun 16, 2016

I agree with David T that it's hard to do thanks to deep structural divisions that go way back. The best and latest shot is probably an aborted Second New Deal and to stop the merger of the Democratic Party and labor, and in the GOP have an Eastern Establishment that coheres a bit earlier and allies with progressives in the party to dislodge the conservative party establishment. And I don't know how viable a Bloomberg-ish GOP and a Scoop Jackson-ish Democratic Party is as proposed here.

Kohlticus Euraleth · Jun 16, 2016

sciscisciortino said:
I agree with David T that it's hard to do thanks to deep structural divisions that go way back. The best and latest shot is probably an aborted Second New Deal and to stop the merger of the Democratic Party and labor, and in the GOP have an Eastern Establishment that coheres a bit earlier and allies with progressives in the party to dislodge the conservative party establishment. And I don't know how viable a Bloomberg-ish GOP and a Scoop Jackson-ish Democratic Party is as proposed here.

Plenty viable. There's nothing that mandates a pro-business party needs to ally with social conservatives and vice versa a more labor orientated party with social liberals.