AHC: Make the Democrats Fiscally Conservative, GOP Fiscally Liberal

Well, liberal really just means "hands off". Being socially liberal is mostly just letting people be people regardless, while being economically liberal means you let business do the work, not you as the government.
 
Doubt it. Universal healthcare and increasing taxes on the rich is a Democratic staple by this point. And for the GOP, tax breaks on the rich and wishing to lower, and in some cases abolish, the minimum wage is a staple. The rich Democrats are already being alienated by the Democratic Party's recent left-wing turn and I'd expect this resentment to increase.

To be fair, as the article I linked to pointed out, the rich are increasingly joining the party and starting to change it.

No Republican, and especially not Buchanan, is gonna be able to beat Clinton in 1996.

Firm disagreement here. You could've easily had John Breaux scuttle the 1993 Budget, which would've taken away Clinton's signature achievement as well as reduced the prosperity of the time a bit. Have that occur, and its very likely Jesse Jackson would've run third party as was talked about at the time. That would've made him very vulnerable, and gave an opening for Buchanan.
 
I think this is spiraling too much into current politics.

Ok so I'll arbitrarily define fiscal conservative to mean:

- limited regulations
- low taxes
- anti-welfare/safety net
- free trade
- anti-union

With those assumptions, and an OTL history until the end of WWII, I think you need the Democratic Party to betray the FDR coalition badly, with for example the Southern Dems pushing the hardest for Taft-Hartley (especially if due to anti-communism), Truman's nationizing the steel mills being seen as the ultimate betrayal by Labor, and by making sweetheart business deals of the Teapot Dome variety. An earlier snobbish elite that sneers at the populism Bryan brought would tilt things. JFK cut taxes in OTL.

For the Republicans, just keep the New England Wing going and have some flexibility on Union policies (say being pro-cooperative/collaborative unions). Ike governs as OTL and does NOT rollback the welfare state or regulations for the most part. The "betrayed" Democrats would flock to Rockefeller and the disaffected Taftites would start holding their noses to vote Democrat.
 
With a divergence after 1900? Difficult. The most effective way would be for a Republican to win in 1912 and somehow pass through the same reforms Wilson did-which would mean by the time a Democrat takes office the Progressive movement has burned out. In turn that could mean said Democrat is functionally as conservative as Hughes would have been. But for that to work in full you would probably need a Republican in 1916 too-which is hard to fathom happening.

Maybe if Hughes had won in 1916 a conservative Democrat could have won in 1920 and reelection in 1924. Then have his successor in 1928 be a similarly minded individual and have the Depression occur on schedule.

Despite the rightward tilt of the Congressional Republican Party the crises leads a charismatic progressive Republican to win the nomination and the election. Said candidate has enough success in 1932 to carry a sympathetic Congress which proceeds to enact his reforms. Circumstance pushes this administration further left than initially anticipated.

In reaction and opposition to this Republican President the conservative wing of the Democratic party is able to further assert the control over the party that the wing has had since 1920. Business-long a key support group for Republicans-begins to reluctantly abandon the party. In turn liberal Democrats turn Republican out of support for the administration and their alienation from their own leadership.

By 1940 Wilson and Bryan are distant memories. The Republican Party is the party of reform and progress. The Democratic Party is the party of Jefferson and limited Government.


Admittedly there are a lot of holes here. For one thing one of the key reasons the Democrats became the party of economic liberalism was their historical support from urban ethnic groups. Somehow you'd need for the Republicans to pry those voters away-which is hard considering that Know Nothings were among the factions that formed the party in the first place. In addition to lucking into nominating a progressive in 1932 and avoiding governing in the 1920's you would need to see the Republican party evolve to the point where party leaders are much more comfortable with the urban communities that constituted a core Democratic constituency. Then again the pressure of the Depression-along with a sympathetic enough Republican President could create the conditions for that switch.

Even so-this is hard to accomplish. It's hard to see a hypothetic as Republican President having the same legislative leeway FDR had for example.

Admittedly my method is highly unlikely for a host of reasons. But I'm not sure how else to accomplish this with a divergence after 1900.
 
You mean, have Ronald Reagan run a huge deficit, and Bill Clinton eliminate it? Can't be done! :p
And yes, as Dathi said, this is OTL despite public opinion!

I think one difference between liberals and conservatives is that conservatives are okay with various business subsidies but have a real problem with welfare to individuals. And to some extent this is society at large.

For example, after September 11th, subsidies were passed by Congress for airlines. Well, they took a big hit, and this is probably a good response on the part of Congress. But help for individual airline employees. Somehow that never made it through Congress. Too much pause and focus on the possibility of individuals abusing the system.

With a business subsidy, we envision a business executive still working hard, perhaps even in a struggling business. With unemployment benefits, I guess we envision (?) someone slothing on the couch all day watching Gunsmoke, Bonanza, and The Rifleman. I mean, slothing the entire day on the couch! And this is not just a liberal-conservative thing. Somehow this really sticks in our craw.
 
Last edited:
http://www.usmayors.org/usmayornewspaper/documents/10_01_01/laid_off_workers.asp

October 1, 2001

" . . . has been introduced . . . "

  • Extends Unemployment Benefits from 26 to 78 weeks;

  • Provides 26 weeks of unemployment insurance benefits for workers who would not otherwise qualify;
  • Extends Job Training Benefits from 52 to 78 weeks; and
  • Provides up to 78 weeks of federally subsidized COBRA premiums; and provides up to 72 weeks of optional Medicaid coverage to workers who are not covered under COBRA.
I think a lot of this proposed legislation did not make it through.
 
. Ok so I'll arbitrarily define fiscal conservative to mean

If you had said *economic* conservative, that might make some sense, but some of the things you give here (e.g., cutting taxes even if increases in military spending mean that *overall* spending increases--for the only spending cuts you specify omit the huge percent of the budget that goes to defense) are the exact opposite of fiscal conservatism as historically understood.

"Fiscal" does have a meaning. "Deficits don't matter" is simply not *fiscal* conservatism (though it might be compatible with some conservatives' ideas of economic policy.)
 
Top