AHC: reinventing progressism in USA

Is there any way post WWII that Progressism can become reinvented in USA as a valid/relevant political ideology?

And if such a thing would happen, how would this change USA?
 
Progressives don't try to convince the public that Joe Stalin is a nice guy! That's pretty much what doomed them in OTL.
 
Progressives don't try to convince the public that Joe Stalin is a nice guy! That's pretty much what doomed them in OTL.

It was more Prohibition that gutted the Progressive movement (destroying faith in government, the sanctity of law)
 
Is there any way post WWII that Progressism can become reinvented in USA as a valid/relevant political ideology?

And if such a thing would happen, how would this change USA?

To put this in a nutshell, although Prohibition did play it's role in hurting it's rep.....more than anything, it was infighting and general division that sunk the original movement in the first place. And why is that, you may ask?

In short, OTL's Progressivism, while still very much a reformist movement as it's core, essentially tried to take on a "Big Tent" type strategy, to appeal to as many people as possible-a noble endeavor, perhaps, but, unfortunately, because there were no totally consistent attempt to define just what it was, beyond the mantra of "Reform!" it backfired quite badly in the long term, as this grave mistake allowed for particularly unscrupulous individuals(like Ted Bilbo in Mississippi), to hijack the term for their own ends, be they malicious, or otherwise negative, as well as just plain confusion in general, and it was often difficult to reach any real consensus on many issues(Prohibition of alcohol being one of the exceptions).

If you want the Progressive Movement to survive as an organized force of it's own, here's an idea: Try to find a way where the more solidly social liberals, like Robert LaFollette, become more dominant(I mean, they were fairly prominent IOTL, especially in the '20s but they didn't quite have all the top billing, though); this may turn off some of the more stubborn social conservatives(and some of the more eugenics obsessed individuals, too, even those who weren't particularly racialist in their outlook), but it would go quite a way to saving it in the long run, including for the fact that more people would see it as actually standing for something.....even if Prohibition still happens, they'd be able to weather the fallout better.....(although it'd be even better if there were no Volstead Act to begin with!)
 
It's not really possible, due to the way the institutions are set up, in that progressivism was channelled into the existing parties, who absorbed them, rather than a separate party...
 

Japhy

Banned
It was more Prohibition that gutted the Progressive movement (destroying faith in government, the sanctity of law)

Honestly this is pretty close.

I'd say though just as much, if not more than the collapse of faith in government that Prohibition was, there are two other pillars that killed the movement.

On the first hand is what one might refer to as the "High Progressiveism" of the Wilson years. Specifically, the application of Progressive thought, not in his first term but in the rather nasty second term.

Great figures in the movement and highly respectable men who agreed with the ideology: Baruch, Hoover, Garfield, McAdoo, Daniels, Lansing, Baker and Palmer under Wilson, as his "War Cabinet" pretty much see the use of Progressive ideology (That is the application of scientific methods to enact reform) turned on the American people in the name of winning the war and securing the peace. Americans are thrown in prison for questioning things, businesses are practically nationalized for the war effort without a fair shake for the workers, and of course thousands and thousands of young American boys are sent to die for some sort of Progressive Foreign Policy Wet Dream.

The closest the United States ever comes to some sort of Proto-Fascism is achieved entirely wrapped up in the flag and the ideology of Progressivsm. Its a major blow that can't be ignored.

Then of course, as Hades said, there's the farce of Prohibition, the enacting of a Major Progressive Goal, with massive, broad support in the movement across party lines, more or less shreds for a lot of Americans the idea that the government can know whats best, and that these solutions are worth standing for.

And thirdly, the final blow one has is the 1928-1932 period. In 1928 Herbert Hoover --- a Bull Moose supporter in 1912, if not someone who actively switched his party allegiance --- goes up against Al Smith, who finally gets his chance to run his wet, modernist, Progressive campaign. And in the face of this Progressive vs Progressive race, we see the collapse of the economy, and the outright bungled economic aid and reforms of the Hoover years.

The Great Depression was a crisis far greater than the Panic of 1907 or the Post-War recession. And the application of 1912-style Progressive reforms by Hoover, tied with his inability to make an impact on the general feeling of the country showed the weaknesses of ideological progressiveness. At that point the door opened to something new, which while being based in a large part on the old style Progressivism of the 1900-1932 era was inherently different in philosophy, intent and action: New Deal Liberalism.

There are of course other minor problems with the system of thought: As others say the need to be as big a tent as possible. The encapsulation of a lot of rather negative "Scientific Reform Movements" under the tent such as the Eugenicsts and fun groups like the KKK and the American Legion. The failure of most of the movement to recognize that minorities and ethnic groups were deserving of equal rights and their own culture. The attempts before 1920 to unite with the Populist movement remnants and after 1920 to unite with Marxism. The clash of varied strains of liberalism against each other, and against the Conservatives in the movement that sought to use it as a tool to lessen the pressure that was empowering Populism and Socialism. The turning against each other that was the 1912 election. The fact that Robert La Follette was seen by many and may very well have been suffering from some sort of mental disorder. All come to mind.

Now that all said, if we are talking Post-WWII, with all of that taken into account we have to recognize that Progessivism was dead. Yes, it is a term in very common use today (By self-hating Liberals) and in 1948/1952 one has a party run under the banner. But in neither case are we dealing with groups that are representative of that Pre-1933 political movement. What we are dealing with at various points is more or less manifestations of New Deal Liberalism pushing an all-or-nothing program, or less generously, their sore-loser candidate, or some Reformed New Dealism/Non-radical New Leftism/Social Justice style political ideology of bog-standard American Liberalism that has been on the outs in Democratic Politics since 1992 or 1972.

So the question becomes, are we talking about keeping Progressivism of the 1900-1932 variety going, are we talking about the 1948 party somehow continuing, or are we talking about New Deal Progressivism surviving the 1960's and beyond as a dominant force in Democratic politics?
 
Honestly this is pretty close.

I'd say though just as much, if not more than the collapse of faith in government that Prohibition was, there are two other pillars that killed the movement.

Okay. Firstly, Japhy, before we get into the main reply, I'll have to say that although you did manage to hit on some key truths, there are also some things that are best not left uncorrected.

On the first hand is what one might refer to as the "High Progressiveism" of the Wilson years. Specifically, the application of Progressive thought, not in his first term but in the rather nasty second term.

Great figures in the movement and highly respectable men who agreed with the ideology: Baruch, Hoover, Garfield, McAdoo, Daniels, Lansing, Baker and Palmer under Wilson, as his "War Cabinet" pretty much see the use of Progressive ideology (That is the application of scientific methods to enact reform) turned on the American people in the name of winning the war and securing the peace. Americans are thrown in prison for questioning things, businesses are practically nationalized for the war effort without a fair shake for the workers, and of course thousands and thousands of young American boys are sent to die for some sort of Progressive Foreign Policy Wet Dream.
Firstly, I've already pointed this fact out on several occasions, but no, Japhy, Progressivism was not *all* about "scientific methods" to reform: yes, it may be true that it was a not-insignificant school of thought within the Progressive movement, especially in the early days, but it was hardly the only one, and wasn't even all *that* dominant, for the most part: reformist ideals came from several different viewpoints(such as the religious one espoused by William Jennings Bryan, or the quasi-socialism of Robert LaFollette).

Also, Woodrow Wilson, for all his campaigning, was really only as Progressive about as much as what he thought would gain him more votes in the elections. And your (at least implied) contention that Wilson's throwing people in jail for being against our entry into World War I was somehow "Progressive" is simply unsupportable, especially given that so many of those who wanted us to stay out of the war were themselves Progressives of one stripe or the other(like Jeannette Rankin, for example. She was so devoted to pacifism that she didn't want us to draft anyone for WWII, either).

Then of course, as Hades said, there's the farce of Prohibition, the enacting of a Major Progressive Goal, with massive, broad support in the movement across party lines, more or less shreds for a lot of Americans the idea that the government can know whats best, and that these solutions are worth standing for.
There is some truth to this, yes, although Prohibition did enjoy some support outside of the Progressive circles, as well.(namely, hardcore anti-Catholic elements, who mainly targeted Irish and Italian immigrants.).

The closest the United States ever comes to some sort of Proto-Fascism is achieved entirely wrapped up in the flag and the ideology of Progressivsm. Its a major blow that can't be ignored.
Now this is just plain biased, considering that Wilson wasn't all that Progressive to begin with.

And thirdly, the final blow one has is the 1928-1932 period. In 1928 Herbert Hoover --- a Bull Moose supporter in 1912, if not someone who actively switched his party allegiance --- goes up against Al Smith, who finally gets his chance to run his wet, modernist, Progressive campaign. And in the face of this Progressive vs Progressive race, we see the collapse of the economy, and the outright bungled economic aid and reforms of the Hoover years.

The Great Depression was a crisis far greater than the Panic of 1907 or the Post-War recession. And the application of 1912-style Progressive reforms by Hoover, tied with his inability to make an impact on the general feeling of the country showed the weaknesses of ideological progressiveness. At that point the door opened to something new, which while being based in a large part on the old style Progressivism of the 1900-1932 era was inherently different in philosophy, intent and action: New Deal Liberalism.
And, no, Japhy, the Herbert Hoover of 1928 wasn't terribly Progressive, either; perhaps he might have been in 1912, but not so much in 1928(although, to his credit, he did have a little sympathy towards Civil Rights, something that even quite a few Progressives had largely ignored).

There are of course other minor problems with the system of thought: As others say the need to be as big a tent as possible. The encapsulation of a lot of rather negative "Scientific Reform Movements" under the tent such as the Eugenicsts and fun groups like the KKK and the American Legion. The failure of most of the movement to recognize that minorities and ethnic groups were deserving of equal rights and their own culture. The attempts before 1920 to unite with the Populist movement remnants and after 1920 to unite with Marxism. The clash of varied strains of liberalism against each other, and against the Conservatives in the movement that sought to use it as a tool to lessen the pressure that was empowering Populism and Socialism. The turning against each other that was the 1912 election. The fact that Robert La Follette was seen by many and may very well have been suffering from some sort of mental disorder. All come to mind.
While you do, in fact, kind of overstate the failure of the Progressives in regards to equal rights, you are actually largely correct here, otherwise.

Yes, it is a term in very common use today (By self-hating Liberals)
Erm, this is more complicated than that, Japhy. (Not that it isn't a problem, though, but.....)

.....and in 1948/1952 one has a party run under the banner. But in neither case are we dealing with groups that are representative of that Pre-1933 political movement.
This is *largely* true, but some of the basic tenets and values of the LaFollettians and other leftist classical Progressives did provide some of the roots for today's movement.

What we are dealing with at various points is more or less manifestations of New Deal Liberalism pushing an all-or-nothing program, or less generously, their sore-loser candidate, or some Reformed New Dealism/Non-radical New Leftism/Social Justice style political ideology of bog-standard American Liberalism that has been on the outs in Democratic Politics since 1992 or 1972.
New Deal Liberalism also had a good deal of it's roots in Progressivism, though, that's another thing.

So the question becomes, are we talking about keeping Progressivism of the 1900-1932 variety going, are we talking about the 1948 party somehow continuing, or are we talking about New Deal Progressivism surviving the 1960's and beyond as a dominant force in Democratic politics?
Well, for one, I would suspect the best results we could hope for might just come from Progressivism either moving away from the conservatives earlier(which would mean significantly lesser support for eugenics, amongst other things, and very little, if any, for racialist eugenics), or not letting them in at all, with the exception of moderates who promise not to rock the boat too much.
 
Last edited:
Try to find a way where the more solidly social liberals, like Robert LaFollette, become more dominant(I mean, they were fairly prominent IOTL, especially in the '20s but they didn't quite have all the top billing, though)
The problem was that for pro-Civil Rights Progressives, LaFollette pretty much stood alone. William Borah opposed the anti-lynching bill, and Hiram Johnson and George Norris gave it lukewarm support and let it fail.
 
The problem was that for pro-Civil Rights Progressives, LaFollette pretty much stood alone. William Borah opposed the anti-lynching bill, and Hiram Johnson and George Norris gave it lukewarm support and let it fail.

I wouldn't quite go as far as to say that he was *totally* alone, but yes, it is sadly true that many of the figureheads, IOTL, did not really pay all that much attention to Civil Rights, at least as a solid legal concept.

Although it does appear that Borah's opposition to the federal anti-lynching bill was not out of racial animus, but in a sincere belief that the states should have primacy over the government:

https://thebluereview.org/william-borah-lynching-history/

Which we will all agree was a terrible mistake, but it does go to show you how complicated the political situation could be, even then.
 
Another thing I'd like to point out, is that.....

If the Progressive Movement had been of a more solidly leftist slant from the outset, whatever the POD may be(rather more resembling the LaFolletians & their associates), than the failed "big tent" approach of OTL), although there would've be a bit of a delay in it's short term popularity.....if enough cards were played well, the ATL Progressives could potentially have began reap significant benefits in the long run, once the Depression hits in the late '20s-of course, they'd have little acceptance in the Middle and Deep South(yes, mostly due to racial issues), but many folks elsewhere wouldn't really care too much if they might've been a little on the radical side(particularly hardcore social conservatives excepted), as long as they offered to support far-reaching economic reforms that would help the little guy(and didn't push for social equality on *too* short a timetable, to a slightly lesser extent).

Of course, no doubt that much of America's political elite would have gone out of their way to try to shut them up & discredit them as badly as possible, just as socialists were targeted in the '30s and '50s. However, there'd be one major problem-unlike OTL's Marxists, the Progressives here could not be tainted by the specter of Joseph Stalin and the terrors of the worst of Bolshevism(Hell, some of FDR's detractors actually tried a similar tactic with him in the '30s, IOTL! As you can imagine, that didn't work too well.).....especially not if they were able to win over enough of the public to keep themselves relevant.

The only really major setback in this scenario might be a Depression that lasts longer; it's quite possible that FDR either might not be as progressive as he was IOTL(especially in regards to economics), or he might not be elected at all. And, unfortunately, I'll also have to say that we may also see rather more political violence as well, especially the more prominent the ATL Progressives get as the months and years pass.

In the event that these ATL Progressives are indeed successful(enough), however, we may possibly be looking at many positive long-reaching outcomes compared to IOTL: An earlier success of the Civil Rights movement, no *Reaganomics(and thus, no real threats against *Social Security, *Medicare, etc.), the Women's Lib Movement being more successful, less warhawking, and even the stunting of the Religious Right, no *Tea Party, etc., are all indeed quite possible in this scenario.
 
Top