AHC: Third Party Supplants Republicans or Democrats

That's why it seems to me that if the mainstream Progressives decided to form a political party in the 1930s, if the GOP is seen as moribund after much worse defeats for example, it would be a party challenging Roosevelt's policies from the right.
yes, more likely, but the possibility of a party challenging from the left, well, it's kind of like a chevy car I'd like to take out and test drive! :)
 
the fate of a potential Progressive party during the '30s shouldn't rest with just one individual.
Maybe not, but he was the highest office holder at that time with the Progressive title, and he was the one going around the country campaigning and trying to organize the National Progressive Party, not his brother Bob. When Philip was defeated for reelection, and not just narrowly but by a wide margin, with the Progressives also losing six of their eight Representatives in Congress, whatever momentum that existed simply ceased.

If you can identify another figure who could have lead the effort though, I'm all ears. Beyond Bob though, he appears to have not been all that interested in Philip's project.
 
Maybe not, but he was the highest office holder at that time with the Progressive title, and he was the one going around the country campaigning and trying to organize the National Progressive Party, not his brother Bob. When Philip was defeated for reelection, and not just narrowly but by a wide margin, with the Progressives also losing six of their eight Representatives in Congress, whatever momentum that existed simply ceased.

If you can identify another figure who could have lead the effort though, I'm all ears. Beyond Bob though, he appears to have not been all that interested in Philip's project.
I don't think a further left party could really rise to the challenge unless Roosevelt or some alternate 1930s Democrat failed to adequately address the Depression.
 
The conventional wisdom is that calls for more radical action such as on the part of Huey Long is a big part of what was pushing Roosevelt to keep going. Note: I often question the conventional wisdom, and so should you! But in this case, it might be largely correct.
 
Last edited:
The conventional wisdom is that calls for more radical action such as on the part of Huey Long is a big part of what was pushing Roosevelt to keep going. Note: I often question the conventional wisdom, and so should you! But in this case, it might be largely correct.
That could be true, but that's just more evidence that Roosevelt will move his program left to prevent a left-Democrat revolt (while getting the Justice department to investigate Long's doings on to stop him that way). With Long under investigation, Roosevelt popular among the left, the LaFollettes failing to convince anyone that they're to the left of Roosevelt, and with Floyd Olson dead, I can't see a big left-wing party appearing unless there's a different Democrat in power than Roosevelt.
 
I don't think a further left party could really rise to the challenge unless Roosevelt or some alternate 1930s Democrat failed to adequately address the Depression.
Essentially the New Deal is what people wanted, and for most that was enough. If someone like Garner or Byrd were in charge then I can certainly see the National Progressive Party rising to prominence, and even earlier given it was the Recession of '38 that convinced Philip La Follette that Roosevelt was not doing enough. Its a hell of a better shot than trying to salvage the wreck that was OTL's attempt, as well as Philip's plan to run for President as the National Progressive in 1940, potentially with La Guardia as his running-mate.
The conventional wisdom is that calls for more radical action such as on the part of Huey Long is a big part of what was pushing Roosevelt to keep going. Note: I often question the conventional wisdom, and so should you! But in this case, it might be largely correct.
It isn't totally off-base; Theodore Roosevelt after all wasn't totally enthused with the Party Platform that was thrust upon him in 1912 (written by Radical Progressives), but he knew he had to run with it lest he demoralize those who left the Republican Party with him.

For Franklin Roosevelt it was a mix of both, as he adopted a number of proposals that were suggested by more radical individuals, Social Security being built upon the concept of Francis Townsend's Old-Age Pension plan, but opted to follow more Conservative philosophy when he became to cut back on the New Deal following the 1936 Elections in an effort to control the debt.

By and large though, like in the case of Townsend, many of the proposals coming from the Left were in some shape or form often implemented within the New Deal, and so took the wind out of the sails of many movements which could have potentially threatened Roosevelt or the Democrats.
 
That could be true, but that's just more evidence that Roosevelt will move his program left to prevent a left-Democrat revolt (while getting the Justice department to investigate Long's doings on to stop him that way). With Long under investigation, Roosevelt popular among the left, the LaFollettes failing to convince anyone that they're to the left of Roosevelt, and with Floyd Olson dead, I can't see a big left-wing party appearing unless there's a different Democrat in power than Roosevelt.
Which he often did, as I outlined above with Francis Townsend as an example. Ultimately there was far more risk of a revolt from the Right, as exemplified by movements such as the Texas Regulars, their rejection of Wallace, attempts to place Unpledged Electors on the ballot in Alabama and Mississippi, and so on. Those particular movements though never would have had the chance to establish a national presence the way a movement on the Left would have.
 
All the same, if we looked at the unemployment rate as the '34 Congressional elections were approaching, Roosevelt wasn't doing enough.

I bet if Huey Long was supporting some 'People's Party' candidates in Southern districts, some of them would get elected. And if he's smart, he and his allies pick the states which have run-off elections. That way, you're notjust splitting the vote and electing Republicans.
 
All the same, if we looked at the unemployment rate as the '34 Congressional elections were approaching, Roosevelt wasn't doing enough.

He was doing enough. There's a reason the Democratic Party increased their supermajority in 1934. And in 1936.

I bet if Huey Long was supporting some 'People's Party' candidates in Southern districts, some of them would get elected. And if he's smart, he and his allies pick the states which have run-off elections. That way, you're notjust splitting the vote and electing Republicans.

Well, the GOP was so tiny in the South that there was no risk of that. I think for that splintering to happen, you need to have a bad Democrat like Newton Baker or (fuck no) William Murray.
 
He was doing enough. There's a reason the Democratic Party increased their supermajority in 1934. And in 1936.
There are certainly elements that viewed he wasn't doing enough, but compared to the progress that Republicans had managed during Hoover's term to most he was making great progress, and many Republicans were calling for the repeal of those very programs which enabled this progress. Its not surprising therefore that the American public stayed with Roosevelt and the Democratic Party in '34 and '36.

At the same time though it isn't surprising to have seen appreciable results for those that had campaigned on the Left of the New Deal, not enough to earn office but enough to be seen as a threat to Democratic ambitions or elections. Despite its success not everyone was able to benefit from the New Deal or were able to take advantage of it, and those people would have no reason to support a man or Party that they perceived as not mitigating their struggles.

Still, most did, and when it appeared that the New Deal may be failing or being rolled back they usually opted to support the Republican Party rather than any of the Leftist candidates.
Well, the GOP was so tiny in the South that there was no risk of that. I think for that splintering to happen, you need to have a bad Democrat like Newton Baker or (fuck no) William Murray.
Any people that Long wanted to run would have to be run through the Democratic Primaries, there wasn't any other game in town. Certainly a "Share Our Wealth" Caucus might be established among his supporters in Congress, but an appreciable third party may be a bridge too far, at least in the near-term.
 
Probably not those who knew someone who was unemployed.
Anyone who expected Roosevelt to have been able to employ a third of the nation in only two years... probably was a fanboy of Huey Long actually. But anyways, Roosevelt had a monumental task. Those unemployed people would still be jobless, but they would see their friends getting employed and have hope for the future under Roosevelt. Whereas under Hoover, they saw more and more people losing their jobs and saw no hope of ever getting one themselves.
 
I agree that a third party from the left would face long odds, for Huey Long or anyone else. In fact, I don't know if Huey was the best positioned. He emphasized a minimum and maximum wage, which is still a rather static view of the economy.

Maybe if there was a group of young Turks in Congress who emphasized economic growth above all else. Who understood Keynesian economics and deficit spending and priming the pump in their own way. And who made the case again and again and again that Roosevelt was not moving near fast enough given the circumstances.

For please remember, what finally brought the U.S. economy out of the Great Depression was the much larger deficit spending during WWII.
 
Top