AHC/WI: A Republican California

[Calcaterra]

As the tin says, your mission, if you choose to accept it, is to keep California a Republican state and explain the effects of it staying as such. Extra points if after 1992, and if you can get a GOP Californian elected President after 1992.

 

[Wendell]

No Immigration Act of 1965 would help. A lot.

 

[SsgtC]

As the tin says, your mission, if you choose to accept it, is to keep California a Republican state and explain the effects of it staying as such. Extra points if after 1992, and if you can get a GOP Californian elected President.

So, Reagan doesn't count in your scenario?

As for keeping California red, keep the GOP "The Party of Lincoln." Either convince TR to run for President again in 1908 or get him to win as a Republican in 1912. That would keep the Progressive wing of the Republican Party in control instead of the Conservative wing.

 

[David T]

No Immigration Act of 1965 would help. A lot.

In a post of mine from some months ago at https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...ity-act-of-1965-effects.434189/#post-16330966 I noted that a lot of people misunderstand the effects of the 1965 Act. I quoted Douglas S. Massey:

***

"Actually, the transformation of American immigration had little to do with the 1965 amendments, and successive legislative acts did not—and could not—restore the conditions of the 1950s. The dramatic decline of immigration from Europe stemmed from changes there, not from anything that happened in the United States. After World War II Western Europe underwent a profound transformation that converted it from a region of emigration to one of immigration. By the mid-1960s labor shortages had grown so acute in northern and western Europe that governments there established formal programs to recruit immigrant workers. By the 1970s even the nations of southern Europe—Italy, Spain, Portugal, and Greece—had begun to attract immigrants. Europeans stopped coming to the United States because of structural shifts in European society itself, not because of changes in U.S. immigration policy.

"The 1965 amendments also had nothing to do with the expansion of Latin American immigration. On the contrary, they functioned to restrict entry from this region. Prior to 1965 immigrants from the Western Hemisphere were exempted from national origins quotas and could enter without numerical restriction. The 1965 amendments imposed the first-ever ceiling on immigration from the Western Hemisphere (120, 000 persons), and a quota of twenty thousand visas per country was applied in 1976. Contrary to popular belief, the upsurge in immigration from Latin America and the Caribbean occurred in spite of, not because of, the 1965 amendments to the Immigration and Nationality Act. Were these amendments never to have passed, immigration from the region would have been substantially greater that it actually was.

"The one change that can be traced directly to the 1965 amendments was opening the door to Asian immigration that had been slammed shut at the end of the nineteenth century. But immigration from Asia would have expanded anyway, even without the amendments. In the wake of South Vietnam's collapse the United States was reluctantly compelled to accept hundreds of thousands of "boat people" as refugees. Most of them were "paroled" into the United States by the attorney general for political and humanitarian reasons, outside of the numerical limits and entry criteria established under the 1965 amendments.

"Whereas only 335 Vietnamese entered the United States during the 1950s and 4, 300 arrived during the 1960s, 172, 000 were admitted during the 1970s; 281, 000 arrived during the 1980s; and 125, 000 entered during the first half of the 1990s. The U.S. misadventure in Indochina also led to the entry of thousands of Cambodian, Laotian, and Hmong refugees, who collectively totaled 300, 000 by 1990. All told, about a third of Asian immigration after 1970 stemmed from the U.S. intervention in Indochina.

"Thus, none of the drop in European immigration, none of the expansion of Latin American immigration, and only a portion of the increase in Asian immigration can be traced to the 1965 amendments to the Immigration and Nationality Act. Whether or not this legislation had ever passed, immigration to the United States would have been transformed..." https://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpres...nc808&chunk.id=ch08&toc.depth=1&brand=ucpress

BTW, one important thing that people often ignore is the end of the temporary programs for Mexican agricultural laborers (braceros). Many of the Mexicans who illegally entered the US after 1965 were former braceros or people who would have entered as braceros had the program continued. The combination of (1) ending temporary programs and (2) establishing quotas on legal immigration from Mexico and other Latin American countries almost guaranteed increased unauthorized immigration, at least in the absence of far more rigorous enforcement than the US was willing to undertake at the time.
https://books.google.com/books?id=oTqfCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA306

 

[Amadeus]

Pete Wilson's Proposition 187 had a disastrous impact on his party in the Golden State. Butterflying his election would do some good. Ironically, likewise butterflying the most recent Californian to occupy the White House (Reagan) would also help keep CA Republican. While social conservatism was already a force to be reckoned within the GOP thanks to Goldwater and Nixon, it was Reagan who realigned the Republicans as the party of hard line social and fiscal conservatism. The former does not do well in California and it's no surprise that the GOP has declined there since the Gipper left office. The mainstream Republican base could easily have remained more moderate had Bush 41 or another centrist beat Reagan in 1980. With a more center-right GOP at the state and national level, California would stay Republican for a long, long time.

 

[Calcaterra]

So, Reagan doesn't count in your scenario?

As for keeping California red, keep the GOP "The Party of Lincoln." Either convince TR to run for President again in 1908 or get him to win as a Republican in 1912. That would keep the Progressive wing of the Republican Party in control instead of the Conservative wing.

Sorry, I'll correct it. I meant to say President After 1992.

 

[David T]

Already by 1988, California was less Republican than the nation as a whole: Bush defeated Dukakis in the state by 51.13-47.56 (3.57 percentage points) compared to 53.37-45.65 (7.72 points) in the nation as a whole. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1988

This trend continued in 1992: Clinton defeated Bush in California 46.01-32.61 (with 20.63 percent for Perot) compared to 43.01-37.45 (with 18.91 percent for Perot) in the nation as a whole. In other words, Clinton won nationally by 5.56 percentage points but won California by 13.4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1992

(Actually, 1980 was the last year the GOP did better in California in a presidential race than in the US as a whole. In 1984, despite Reagan being a Californian, his percentage of the vote in Califronia, though large, was actually a bit less than in the rest of the country. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1984)

All these things happened before Proposition 187, which is so often blamed for turning California blue.

 

[kernals12]

No Immigration Act of 1965 would help. A lot.

The 1965 immigration act put limits on latin American immigration for the first time ever. California would be even more Latino without it.

 

[kernals12]

Pete Wilson's Proposition 187 had a disastrous impact on his party in the Golden State. Butterflying his election would do some good. Ironically, likewise butterflying the most recent Californian to occupy the White House (Reagan) would also help keep CA Republican. While social conservatism was already a force to be reckoned within the GOP thanks to Goldwater and Nixon, it was Reagan who realigned the Republicans as the party of hard line social and fiscal conservatism. The former does not do well in California and it's no surprise that the GOP has declined there since the Gipper left office. The mainstream Republican base could easily have remained more moderate had Bush 41 or another centrist beat Reagan in 1980. With a more center-right GOP at the state and national level, California would stay Republican for a long, long time.

Prop 187 had little impact. California's shift to the left was caused by college educated whites shifting to the Democrats and the white share of the population shrinking.

 

[Deleted member 109224]

1) Have Dianne Feinstein win in 1994 and make it the Democrats who push Proposition 187 through in California
2) Prevent the decline of Southern California's defense industry following the end of the Cold War
3) Have the US take in more refugees from Indochina and have the bulk of the refugees settle in California. Vietnamese, Cambodian, and Laotian Americans have traditionally been very Republican. The asian vote in general was republican-leaning until 2000, but these groups in particular (especially the Vietnamese) tilted very Republican for much the same reason as Cuban-Americans and Soviet-Jews did: anti-communism.
4) More Pentecostal outreach in California. If more folks convert to Pentecostalism (particularly latinos, like in Texas) then you'll likely have more voters who lean Republican.

 

[Wendell]

The 1965 immigration act put limits on latin American immigration for the first time ever. California would be even more Latino without it.

Fair enough.

 

[kernals12]

Fair enough.

There's a lot of false information about that law put out by lazy researchers. Their analysis goes something like this:
-Hmm... America started getting less white in the 60s
-Ah... Congress changed the immigration law, that has to be the reason. I'm so sure of this that I don't need to read about the actual contents of the bill.

I also assume these people think that banning Nick Cage from being in movies will reduce pool drowning deaths.

 

[Wendell]

There's a lot of false information about that law put out by lazy researchers. Their analysis goes something like this:
-Hmm... America started getting less white in the 60s
-Ah... Congress changed the immigration law, that has to be the reason. I'm so sure of this that I don't need to read about the actual contents of the bill.

I also assume these people think that banning Nick Cage from being in movies will reduce pool drowning deaths.
[Cagey graphic]

You like that graph, don't you?

 

[kernals12]

You like that graph, don't you?

I also like the Simpsons meme about the rock that prevents tigers.

 

[SsgtC]

There's a lot of false information about that law put out by lazy researchers. Their analysis goes something like this:
-Hmm... America started getting less white in the 60s
-Ah... Congress changed the immigration law, that has to be the reason. I'm so sure of this that I don't need to read about the actual contents of the bill.

I also assume these people think that banning Nick Cage from being in movies will reduce pool drowning deaths.

You gotta admit, that is a freaky coincidence that the more movies Nicholas Cage is in, the more drownings there are in pools.

 

[Francisco Cojuanco]

One way is to break the power of labor unions in California. What people often fail to realize about the Latino vote is that, like said above, while 187 does the GOP no favors, a lot of the groundwork was due to the fact that California has a large union population, including Latinos. And unions tend to support Democrats. One way you could butterfly things is to get right to work passed in California (which seemed poised to succeed in the late 50s and early 69s, except Pat Brown strongly resisted it for obvious reasons.) Make California a right to work state, and one of the traditional pillars of the modern California Democratic Party just won't be there to turn out reliable voters, and the CA Dems are basically lpa party of the urban middle classes - just like TX.

Incidentally, I don't think tacking socially liberal would have really saved the GOP. California's social liberalism in popular culture is rather overstated, and is more the result of pressure from the courts being followed by grudging acceptance. California is not just Silicon Valley and the West Side.

1) Have Dianne Feinstein win in 1994 and make it the Democrats who push Proposition 187 through in California
2) Prevent the decline of Southern California's defense industry following the end of the Cold War
3) Have the US take in more refugees from Indochina and have the bulk of the refugees settle in California. Vietnamese, Cambodian, and Laotian Americans have traditionally been very Republican. The asian vote in general was republican-leaning until 2000, but these groups in particular (especially the Vietnamese) tilted very Republican for much the same reason as Cuban-Americans and Soviet-Jews did: anti-communism.
4) More Pentecostal outreach in California. If more folks convert to Pentecostalism (particularly latinos, like in Texas) then you'll likely have more voters who lean Republican.

1) 187 may have alienated much of the middle class ethnic vote for good, but a lot of the Dem vote comes from organized labor.
2) Maybe it might change a lot of things, but it might render California completely unrecognizable to begin with (for one thing the tensions thaf led to the Rodney King riots may be much less if people weren't recently laid off.)
3) Not much to say here, though the Democratic swing appears to be recent for most Asians, is largely class-related, and is actually a bit softer than expected (though a lot of it is based on dogwhistle politics against black people).
4) California, particularly Los Angeles, was actually a center of the Pentecostal movement. The problem is that it tended to focus on the black population, which meant it really didn't spread as much compared to the South as there are fewer black people in CA.

 

[David T]

One way is to break the power of labor unions in California. What people often fail to realize about the Latino vote is that, like said above, while 187 does the GOP no favors, a lot of the groundwork was due to the fact that California has a large union population, including Latinos. And unions tend to support Democrats. One way you could butterfly things is to get right to work passed in California (which seemed poised to succeed in the late 50s and early 69s, except Pat Brown strongly resisted it for obvious reasons.)

Proposition 18 lost by a landslide (3-2) in 1958, and was considered partly to blame for Knowland's landslide loss. After that, right-to-work was dead in California. In fact, it is only in relatively recent years that it has succeeded in big industrial states outside the South. (It has indeed been argued that such laws are more a symptom than a cause of union weakness; I don't want to get into that debate, but in any event California was not a likely state to adopt them. )

In 1966, even Ronald Reagan boasted "I also was a leader of our Guild in the fight in 1958 against the right-to-work bill. I am still opposed to right-to-work." https://books.google.com/books?id=ZlRpAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA190

 

[The Avenger]

No Immigration Act of 1965 would help. A lot.

As would no illegal immigration into the U.S. and no birthright citizenship.

 

[The Avenger]

You gotta admit, that is a freaky coincidence that the more movies Nicholas Cage is in, the more drownings there are in pools.

It's because of dark magic!

 

[The Avenger]

In a post of mine from some months ago at https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...ity-act-of-1965-effects.434189/#post-16330966 I noted that a lot of people misunderstand the effects of the 1965 Act. I quoted Douglas S. Massey:

***

"Actually, the transformation of American immigration had little to do with the 1965 amendments, and successive legislative acts did not—and could not—restore the conditions of the 1950s. The dramatic decline of immigration from Europe stemmed from changes there, not from anything that happened in the United States. After World War II Western Europe underwent a profound transformation that converted it from a region of emigration to one of immigration. By the mid-1960s labor shortages had grown so acute in northern and western Europe that governments there established formal programs to recruit immigrant workers. By the 1970s even the nations of southern Europe—Italy, Spain, Portugal, and Greece—had begun to attract immigrants. Europeans stopped coming to the United States because of structural shifts in European society itself, not because of changes in U.S. immigration policy.

"The 1965 amendments also had nothing to do with the expansion of Latin American immigration. On the contrary, they functioned to restrict entry from this region. Prior to 1965 immigrants from the Western Hemisphere were exempted from national origins quotas and could enter without numerical restriction. The 1965 amendments imposed the first-ever ceiling on immigration from the Western Hemisphere (120, 000 persons), and a quota of twenty thousand visas per country was applied in 1976. Contrary to popular belief, the upsurge in immigration from Latin America and the Caribbean occurred in spite of, not because of, the 1965 amendments to the Immigration and Nationality Act. Were these amendments never to have passed, immigration from the region would have been substantially greater that it actually was.

"The one change that can be traced directly to the 1965 amendments was opening the door to Asian immigration that had been slammed shut at the end of the nineteenth century. But immigration from Asia would have expanded anyway, even without the amendments. In the wake of South Vietnam's collapse the United States was reluctantly compelled to accept hundreds of thousands of "boat people" as refugees. Most of them were "paroled" into the United States by the attorney general for political and humanitarian reasons, outside of the numerical limits and entry criteria established under the 1965 amendments.

"Whereas only 335 Vietnamese entered the United States during the 1950s and 4, 300 arrived during the 1960s, 172, 000 were admitted during the 1970s; 281, 000 arrived during the 1980s; and 125, 000 entered during the first half of the 1990s. The U.S. misadventure in Indochina also led to the entry of thousands of Cambodian, Laotian, and Hmong refugees, who collectively totaled 300, 000 by 1990. All told, about a third of Asian immigration after 1970 stemmed from the U.S. intervention in Indochina.

"Thus, none of the drop in European immigration, none of the expansion of Latin American immigration, and only a portion of the increase in Asian immigration can be traced to the 1965 amendments to the Immigration and Nationality Act. Whether or not this legislation had ever passed, immigration to the United States would have been transformed..." https://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpres...nc808&chunk.id=ch08&toc.depth=1&brand=ucpress

BTW, one important thing that people often ignore is the end of the temporary programs for Mexican agricultural laborers (braceros). Many of the Mexicans who illegally entered the US after 1965 were former braceros or people who would have entered as braceros had the program continued. The combination of (1) ending temporary programs and (2) establishing quotas on legal immigration from Mexico and other Latin American countries almost guaranteed increased unauthorized immigration, at least in the absence of far more rigorous enforcement than the US was willing to undertake at the time.
https://books.google.com/books?id=oTqfCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA306

Edit Delete Report

Increasing border security could help with reducing illegal Latin American immigration into the U.S., though.

Agreed with the rest of your post.