AHC: Perpendicular Political Alignments -- somewhere

Here's the idea -- find a PoD that alters a democratic country's political tradition -- can be any democratic country with two "major" parties, or at least "alignments" -- so that, in modern times, one side of the political debate is both more socially conservative/reactionary and more economically interventionist than the other (and conversely, the other side is both more socially liberal and economically libertarian than that side).

This democracy can be the United States (though I'd done a thread on that), Canada, anywhere in Europe, Japan, India, what have you. I don't know of any OTL examples of this, but I'd certainly be open to hearing them. Also, would there be any interesting butterflies from this?
 
One might be able argue the Conservative and Liberal Parties in Canada and the UK in the 19th and earlier 20th century where this; free trade was a liberal idea while protectionism was a conservative one. Even as late as the 1980s, Brian Mulroney poured a lot into infrastructure megaprojects. The Hamiltonian-Jeffersonian political spectrum in the 19th century US might also count.

Just my two cents though, and 19th century political history isn't my forte I suppose.
 
When would you say these political traditions shifted to their perpendicular place now? That is, when did Canadian Conservatives become the more pro-market than the Liberals, when did the UK Tories become the more "pro-business"/economically "liberal" than the opposition party*? And, most key, how might either of these shifts have been averted?

*I'd think it would have to be before 1922, since I think it would be pretty hard to be more economically interventionist than Labour
 
Even as late as the 1980s, Brian Mulroney poured a lot into infrastructure megaprojects. The Hamiltonian-Jeffersonian political spectrum in the 19th century US might also count.

Well here in Korea infrastructure mega-projects are very much a conservative thing, while the left wants the spend the money on welfare. Neither side seems to be focusing much on raising or lowering taxes, just on what the money gets spent on.
 
Pre-1890 Tories versus Liberals in the UK was definitely this. For example the Tories passed most of the Factory Acts which restricted child labour etc. against Liberal/Whig opposition, though because of the weak party structure there were Whig's and Tories on both sides. So some way of keeping that going and have the Tories as a Paternalist, Socially Conservative party with the Liberals as a Socially and Economically Liberal party shouldn't be too hard. Just stop the Liberal Welfare Reforms and the prior rise of Liberal Reformism.

Or depending on your definition OTL as late as 1950. If you'd asked a "respectable" working-class northern Labour MP and an aristocratic, southern Tory MP on the merits of sex before marriage, decriminalisation of homosexuality etc. you'd might well have found the Labour MP more socially conservative.
 
Last edited:
Putting two of this site's favorite AH presidents, Nelson Rockefeller (classical-liberal) and George Wallace (paternalist), in office during the 60s-70s might polarize American politics along this division if extrapolated.
 
Pre-1890 Tories versus Liberals in the UK was definitely this. For example the Tories passed most of the Factory Acts which restricted child labour etc. against Liberal/Whig opposition, though because of the weak party structure there were Whig's and Tories on both sides. So some way of keeping that going and have the Tories as a Paternalist, Socially Conservative party with the Liberals as a Socially and Economically Liberal party shouldn't be too hard. Just stop the Liberal Welfare Reforms and the prior rise of Liberal Reformism.

Is it possible maybe that Balfour or a different Tory PM around the same time might have pushed something like the People's Budget?
 
Pre-1890 Tories versus Liberals in the UK was definitely this. For example the Tories passed most of the Factory Acts which restricted child labour etc. against Liberal/Whig opposition, though because of the weak party structure there were Whig's and Tories on both sides.

The repeal of the Corn Laws was intended as a similar reform of vested interests and their dominance over the economy, even if it also fits in with free trade. All tariff reform in that era was promoted as having popular democratic intent against conservative institutions.

So some way of keeping that going and have the Tories as a Paternalist, Socially Conservative party with the Liberals as a Socially and Economically Liberal party shouldn't be too hard. Just stop the Liberal Welfare Reforms and the prior rise of Liberal Reformism.

But the UK Liberals still had some very 'un-libertarian elements' that owe nothing to New Liberalism; they were the party of Non-Comformist Christianity after all, so they have the British teetotaller movement in it. And that's both economically paternalist, socially reformist, and in favour of restrictions on business.

I don't think the OPers challenge works in a pre-WWI setting.
 
The repeal of the Corn Laws was intended as a similar reform of vested interests and their dominance over the economy, even if it also fits in with free trade. All tariff reform in that era was promoted as having popular democratic intent against conservative institutions.

Very true.



But the UK Liberals still had some very 'un-libertarian elements' that owe nothing to New Liberalism; they were the party of Non-Comformist Christianity after all, so they have the British teetotaller movement in it. And that's both economically paternalist, socially reformist, and in favour of restrictions on business.

And the Tories had a few pretty libertarian moments, not least their ardent opposition to prohibition. Pre-1900 British politics is very difficult to define into neat ideological blocks because party coherence was so low. The Tory/Liberal label was less about specific ideological beliefs and much more about class and social background. That being said the Liberals were more "liberal" and the Tories more interventionist both socially and economically.

I don't think the OPers challenge works in a pre-WWI setting.

In what sense?
 
The repeal of the Corn Laws was intended as a similar reform of vested interests and their dominance over the economy, even if it also fits in with free trade. All tariff reform in that era was promoted as having popular democratic intent against conservative institutions.

Just want to clarify that this, in itself, is perfectly within the spirit of the OP -- if the the "liberal" party promotes free trade and economic non-interventionism in the spirit of helping the lower classes, that's perfectly fine...

But the UK Liberals still had some very 'un-libertarian elements' that owe nothing to New Liberalism; they were the party of Non-Comformist Christianity after all, so they have the British teetotaller movement in it. And that's both economically paternalist, socially reformist, and in favour of restrictions on business.
And the Tories had a few pretty libertarian moments, not least their ardent opposition to prohibition.

Maybe if there was a way to make prohibition a non-issue? Or maybe this example just won't work for the OP...
 
Top