AHC: Republican led New Deal

[Alexander the Average]

What would need to happen to have a Progressive Republican administration take the lead in passing an alt-New Deal following the Great Depression, whilst the Democrats are divided between conservatives who oppose it and progressives who end up playing second-fiddle to the Republicans?

In addition what possible differences would there be TTL New Deal and OTL New Deal?

 

[The Jovian]

It's possible if progressives like Robert LaFollette and Hiram Johnson rise to the forefront on an alt-Democratic White House 1920s. How it would be different depends on how radical the progressive Republicans are, it is very possible that a Progressive Republican administration in the 1930s can be virtually identical to the FDR New Deal Coalition, if not maybe slightly further left.

Of course the long-term differences would be cementing the Republicans as the progressive party in American politics while the dixiecrat wing of the Democrats become the dominant power in the party as the liberal and progressive New England wings defect to the Republicans over time.

 

[Aisha Clan-Clan]

McAdoo or some other dry, conservative democrat wins in 1928. A "wet", progressive rep wins in 1932.

 

[Mark E.]

McAdoo or some other dry, conservative democrat wins in 1928. A "wet", progressive rep wins in 1932.

The parties had grown somewhat together in the Roaring Twenties. H.L. Mencken said something like "there isn't a dime's worth of differences between the parties." So, whichever party was in the white house after the 1929 crash was pretty much doomed in 1932. So, had a Dem been in command, the Reps would have reverted to their progressive stand that spanned Lincoln through Teddy Roosevelt.

 

[TheNixonator]

Have Wendell Willkie become a Republican earlier, so he runs for President earlier in 1936

 

[dw93]

TR wins the general election in 1912 as a Republican, wins in 1916 and a Democrat wins in 1920, is re elected in 1924, and another Democrat is elected in 1928 only to get caught holding the bag when the depression hits. After a string of Conservative Republicans lose in the 1920s, a progressive Republican wins in 1932 and basically goes on to become TTL's version of FDR.

 

[Chapman]

A thought: assuming that things go in such a way that the Republican Party is the more progressive lot, and Democrats become dominated by Dixicrats, is it possible that we could see a young FDR switch parties (or be a Republican from the start) and still become President? Just as a Republican instead of a Democrat, and doing basically the same things as he did IOTL?

Especially in a scenario where Teddy is the one who leads Republicans into progressivism, it might be interesting to see FDR follow in his footsteps.

 

[Mikestone8]

Have Wendell Willkie becomes a Republican earlier, so he runs for President earlier in 1936

Why not just keep Landon? He was a Bull Mooser in 1912.

Perhaps on this TL he is remembered as "Alfred the Great".

 

[TheNixonator]

Why not just keep Landon? He was a Bull Mooser in 1912.

Perhaps on this TL he is remembered as "Alfred the Great".

because Wendell actually liked many of the ideas in the New Deal, whilst god-emperor ALF did not

 

[GeographyDude]

. . . dixiecrat wing . . .

. . . by Dixicrats, . . .

With the Dixiecrats not part of the governing coalition, we might see a Republican-led Congress easily and comfortably pass an anti-lynching law.

I mean, we just might get an earlier and better civil rights movement, and one in which Congress takes the lead, with the courts playing more of a supporting role.

 

[Amadeus]

In 1916, Charles Evans Hughes doesn't snub California Governor Hiram Johnson - who gives him his full support in the election against Wilson. As a result Hughes narrowly beats Wilson while losing the popular vote. Wilson comes back and defeats Hughes in 1920, leading to a Democratic 1920s. In 1929 the market still crashes and in 1932 the GOP sweeps to power. The new President implements a Republican version of the New Deal.

 

[David T]

In 1916, Charles Evans Hughes doesn't snub California Governor Hiram Johnson - who gives him his full support in the election against Wilson. As a result Hughes narrowly beats Wilson while losing the popular vote. Wilson comes back and defeats Hughes in 1920, leading to a Democratic 1920s. In 1929 the market still crashes and in 1932 the GOP sweeps to power. The new President implements a Republican version of the New Deal.

The thing is that historically the Republicans when winning power due to a depression under the Democrats (1896, 1920) do not attack the Democrats from the left and do not implement New Dealish programs. On the contrary, they are more likely to blame the depression on the Democrats' "extravagance," hostility to business, and of course failure to raise the tariff...

 

[Thomas1195]

The thing is that historically the Republicans when winning power due to a depression under the Democrats (1896, 1920) do not attack the Democrats from the left and do not implement New Dealish programs. On the contrary, they are more likely to blame the depression on the Democrats' "extravagance," hostility to business, and of course failure to raise the tariff...

FDR actually attacked Hoover from the right.
However, the real difference was that, well, you simply have no other choice in 1933. And they would not have McKinley's luck in 1896. For the 1920s, it was just a downturn caused by the fact that the war production drove the economy above equilibrium, rather than a full-blown financial crisis. Eventually, any new President in 1933 would have to do something. And the Congress, even though with different composition, would likely to be more liberal than during the 1920s, since the 1920s would have to be about "Return to normal" after the war, a.k.a reducing the state.

 

[SsgtC]

TR wins the general election in 1912 as a Republican, wins in 1916 and a Democrat wins in 1920, is re elected in 1924, and another Democrat is elected in 1928 only to get caught holding the bag when the depression hits. After a string of Conservative Republicans lose in the 1920s, a progressive Republican wins in 1932 and basically goes on to become TTL's version of FDR.

Honestly, if TR wins as a Republican in 1912, it's going to push the GOP as a whole to the left. As has been mentioned up thread, there wasn't a whole lot of difference between the two major parties in the 20s and 30s (the GOP was more isolationist and supported tariffs while Dems wanted Free Trade). It's very possible that FDR, seeing TR's success as a Progressive President (4 terms can only be seen that way), switches parties sometime during Teddy's time in office and is elected in 1932 anyway. This time as a Republican.

 

[Deleted member 109224]

The Dixiecrats of the time weren't that conservative in the sense we know today.

Racially conservative yes, but there was plenty of southern Democratic support for the New Deal (so long as it helped whites more than blacks).

 

[Alexander the Average]

The Dixiecrats of the time weren't that conservative in the sense we know today.

Racially conservative yes, but there was plenty of southern Democratic support for the New Deal (so long as it helped whites more than blacks).

As I understand it they supported the parts of the New Deal that supported farmers, who were among their core constituents, but were more sceptical of the more urban-labour oriented parts.

 

[SsgtC]

urban-labour oriented parts.

Yeah, because they felt those parts of the New Deal would help blacks more than whites

 

[Laxault2020]

A Republican New Deal, from an Northeastern Liberal Republican would probably have more of a technological, industrial-policy, and research type focus so that pro-business types would get along. At least that's what I would think. Herbert Hoover, who encouraged research and technology, and standardization of standards, kinda lay the outline for this even though he was a westerner (grew up in Oregon and attended Stanford)

If it has influence from more traditional western progressives like Borah it would have a lot of trust-busting (he thought that "too big to fail" meant that too few companies had too large an impact on the economy. This would contradict with the ideas suggested above though) and reciprocal free trade agreements (Borah also thought that free-trade was essential for a recovery), and immigration restrictions. A

 

[Amadeus]

A Republican New Deal, from an Northeastern Liberal Republican would probably have more of a technological, industrial-policy, and research type focus so that pro-business types would get along. At least that's what I would think. Herbert Hoover, who encouraged research and technology, and standardization of standards, kinda lay the outline for this even though he was a westerner (grew up in Oregon and attended Stanford)

If it has influence from more traditional western progressives like Borah it would have a lot of trust-busting (he thought that "too big to fail" meant that too few companies had too large an impact on the economy. This would contradict with the ideas suggested above though) and reciprocal free trade agreements (Borah also thought that free-trade was essential for a recovery), and immigration restrictions. A

Perhaps butterflies could see Theodore Roosevelt Jr, not FDR, getting elected Governor of New York and then President in 1932. TR Jr was a progressive Republican like his father, and as Governor of Puerto Rico he implemented relief efforts to improve the territory's economy during the Great Depression.

 

[Galba Otho Vitelius]

Whichever party takes the USA and imposes conscription into World War I is out of power until the Depression hit. They are out of power forever if you can prevent the Depression, but I think World War I itself caused the Depression so that is unlikely.

By the way, this isn't just true of the USA. Look at the regime in every country in the world, and whichever regime is in power and takes the country into World War I, or in the parliamentary democracies forms the government that takes the country into World War I, goes away at the first opportunity. In the democracies the parties only get a second chance because of the Depression, and not even that for the British Liberals.

So the AHC part is pretty easy. Have a Republican administration, with a post 1917 Hughes administration being your best bet in terms of plausibility, take the USA into World War I. That gets the Democrats in power in both the White House and Congress in the 1920s. They won't prevent the Depression and the Republicans come back in 1932. Just make sure the new President comes from the progressive wing of the party. You can even make it FDR himself without much difficulty.

A clearer left right split between the Democrats and Republicans, with the Republicans on the left though somewhat corporatist, and the Democrats on the right, would have interesting effects on American politics down the road.