AHC/WI: Socialist Republican Party

[House of Orange]

The two-party system has been a very constant facet of American politics; for the majority of US history and into the present day, the two main political parties have been the Democratic and Republican Parties. However, their political coalitions and party platforms have shifted many times, most notably following the Progressive Era, the New Deal, and the Civil Rights Act; in its early history, the Republicans were often considered the more progressive party. Nowadays, the dichotomy seems to line up between liberal/progressive Democrats and conservative Republicans. Beyond the Socialist Party, no socialist political party has ever gained significant traction in US politics.

The challenge: With a PoD in or after 1900, give the modern-day Republican Party a socialist platform, and keep it competitive in the American two-party electoral system.

For an extra challenge, keep the Democratic Party competitive as a non-conservative party.

 

[Tehshudge]

Does centrist neoliberalism count as conservatism for the point of the extra challenge? Because that seems doable. I would imagine the Republican Party could become the party of civil rights with a PoD in the late 50's/early 60's, and branch off from there, whereas the Democratic Party could take a similar path to the one it did in history.

 

[Born in the USSA]

That's a tricky one 🤔 what if you create a scenario where TR is sidelined, either through a surviving McKinley or even not becoming VP at all? If Roosevelt is sidelined you could see a delayed or aborted Progressive movement. Assuming someone in a more conservative mold follows McKinley but Wilson still ends up president roughly on schedule, the resulting segregationist moves on the part of the federal government combined with the first Red Scare would alienate progressives from the Democratic party.

With the conservative Republicans losing ground to conservative Wilsonian Democrats the exiled progressive Democrats ally with the suppressed progressive Republicans in taking over the party of Lincoln and basically being the second coming of the Radical Republicans. In a bid to forestall Soviet-style communism the Republicans welcome in portions of the Socialist Party following the suppression of that group during the longer First Red Scare while making accomodations to undercut the more vanguardist elements of the labor movement.

The end result would certainly be more social democratic at the onset but it's easy to see polarization and ideological sorting producing a (Radical) Republican Party that tacks increasingly leftward as time goes on, though they'd never become CPUSA-style Stalinists. As for the latter bonus condition you could see more centrist Republicans turned off by this new direction defecting in turn to the Democrats, creating a scenario where the two big tent political parties range from socialist to progressive and from liberal to conservative, respectively.

 

[mr1940s]

By the end of the Civil War the Republican Party had already become fairly aligned, if not captured, by the forces of Capital. For the Republicans to be the name of the socialist party in America (for it to be so, the Republicans would be a completely different entity) you would need to have the GOP change radically in the middle of the 19th century. Perhaps if the Whig party had survived and radical abolitionists had still broken off to form the Republicans, then perhaps a socialist wing could have emerged within the Republican Party.

 

[Marius Mazzini]

By the end of the Civil War the Republican Party had already become fairly aligned, if not captured, by the forces of Capital. For the Republicans to be the name of the socialist party in America (for it to be so, the Republicans would be a completely different entity) you would need to have the GOP change radically in the middle of the 19th century. Perhaps if the Whig party had survived and radical abolitionists had still broken off to form the Republicans, then perhaps a socialist wing could have emerged within the Republican Party.

I think a Gilded Age era divergence is possible if Radical Republicans remain a cohesive force backed by enfranchised freedmen in the South along with poor white farmers, gradually drawing in disenchanted labourers so that you have a reverse 1896 where a Populist type gets nominated by the Republicans rather than the Democrats. Definitely a very difficult thing to do and probably almost impossible *after* 1900. Best you can hope for is the radical Teddy Roosevelt of 1912 getting the nomination and runs on an explicitly social democratic platform causing an eventual realignment with Democrats as the more conservative party.

 

[Thomas1195]

I think a Gilded Age era divergence is possible if Radical Republicans remain a cohesive force backed by enfranchised freedmen in the South along with poor white farmers, gradually drawing in disenchanted labourers so that you have a reverse 1896 where a Populist type gets nominated by the Republicans rather than the Democrats

Note that this was OTL in North Carolina.

 

[Thomas1195]

A post-1900 is nearly impossible. The only way to achieve this is to put a moderate/conservative Democrat into the White House in 1920 following a Hughes victory in 1916 - he only has to be sufficiently conservative to mess up the Depression big time and piss off progressive Democrats.

From there, we can see an outcome where progressive Republicans led by the LaFollettes or Pinchot join force with alienated progressive Democrats to form a new Progressive Party - if it decides to claim itself party of Lincoln and has a Republican wing, it is technically your socialistic Republican Party.

 

[JDGiant]

What Republicans have actually identified as such? Fiorello La Guardia springs to mind.

 

[House of Orange]

A post-1900 is nearly impossible. The only way to achieve this is to put a moderate/conservative Democrat into the White House in 1920 following a Hughes victory in 1916 - he only has to be sufficiently conservative to mess up the Depression big time and piss off progressive Democrats.

From there, we can see an outcome where progressive Republicans led by the LaFollettes or Pinchot join force with alienated progressive Democrats to form a new Progressive Party - if it decides to claim itself party of Lincoln and has a Republican wing, it is technically your socialistic Republican Party.

I think the LaFollettes would be key to a socialist shift in the Republican Party. Woodrow Wilson was already a fairly conservative figure at home compared to his predecessors, and assuming America plays the same role in World War I, he would still alienate large swaths of Republicans and socialists alike (jailing their leader, Eugene Debs, certainly didn't help), pushing them away from working with the Democrats.

Perhaps after the war, Debs and LaFollette form an uneasy alliance, along with disgruntled progressive Democrats, to turn the Republican Party into a progressive, isolationist coalition against Wilsonianism; Debs' influence could shift the party platform more towards the socialist wing of this coalition.

 

[House of Orange]

Does centrist neoliberalism count as conservatism for the point of the extra challenge? Because that seems doable. I would imagine the Republican Party could become the party of civil rights with a PoD in the late 50's/early 60's, and branch off from there, whereas the Democratic Party could take a similar path to the one it did in history.

I'll say that centrist neoliberalism doesn't necessarily count as conservatism in this case, since the social conservative aspect is less prominent; a higher emphasis on the free market is almost a given in an opposition party like the Democrats ITTL, since their rival party is centered on socialism.

 

[David T]

AFAIK, the only actual socialist--even fellow traveler!--who ran as a Republican was Vito Marcantonio. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vito_Marcantonio (He was a protégé of La Guardia but well to his left.) He was called the "Pink Pachyderm of Congress." As late as 1944, he managed the incredible feat of winning the Republican, Democratic and American Labor primaries for his East Harlem-based Congressional district (even though it had been expanded to include more conservative Yorkville).

People like the La Follettes, Bronson Cutting, George Norris, etc. were progressives but not socialists.

 

[Byz]

Would keeping the Democrats around as a southern regional party count? Then they could be a sort of populist party, post civil rights transitioning to be more centrist.

Obviously in this setup there would be a third conservative party as well.

 

[Expat]

The two-party system has been a very constant facet of American politics; for the majority of US history and into the present day, the two main political parties have been the Democratic and Republican Parties. However, their political coalitions and party platforms have shifted many times, most notably following the Progressive Era, the New Deal, and the Civil Rights Act; in its early history, the Republicans were often considered the more progressive party. Nowadays, the dichotomy seems to line up between liberal/progressive Democrats and conservative Republicans. Beyond the Socialist Party, no socialist political party has ever gained significant traction in US politics.

The challenge: With a PoD in or after 1900, give the modern-day Republican Party a socialist platform, and keep it competitive in the American two-party electoral system.

For an extra challenge, keep the Democratic Party competitive as a non-conservative party.

Sorry to prod, but it would help to define what you mean by “socialist.” It’s hard to pin down in an American context. Embracing the international definition of the word, do you mean?

 

[David T]

La Guardia in 1924, denied the Republican nomination for his East Harlem seat because of his support for La Follette, accepted the Socialist Party nomination (though he was not a Socialist) because it was the only one available. Once elected, he wanted to be listed as a Progressive, but the Republican Clerk of the House insisted on listing him as a Socialist. La Guardia was amused when Victor Berger of Milwaukee (the only actual Socialist in Congress) deferred to him as "my Whip"...

 

[Electric Monk]

I fundamentally don’t think you can force the party of business into socialism.

 

[House of Orange]

Sorry to prod, but it would help to define what you mean by “socialist.” It’s hard to pin down in an American context. Embracing the international definition of the word, do you mean?

I'd define "socialist" in the international/historical sense, yes. I definitely do not mean communism, but it seems like that's already clear.

 

[Aghasverov]

Yeah, I'd say the best shot would've been La Follette and the Progressives edging out and eventually supplanting one of the other two parties, in the same way the Republicans marginalized and supplanted the Whigs in the late 1850's. Probably wind up with something akin to the more centralist Social Democrat parties of western Europe.

 

[KaiserWilhelm]

Yeah, I'd say the best shot would've been La Follette and the Progressives edging out and eventually supplanting one of the other two parties, in the same way the Republicans marginalized and supplanted the Whigs in the late 1850's. Probably wind up with something akin to the more centralist Social Democrat parties of western Europe.

Agree, but this probably requires a 1916 POD with Hughes beating Wilson and then a conservative Dem (maybe Thomas Marshall) in the 20s vs a divided Republican Party in 20 and 24 with a Progressive winner in 1928 after an early Great Depression weeks before the election. And even then, there has got to be a ton of luck.

 

[herkles]

What sort of socialism are you referring to? or are you referring to social democracy / Scandinavian welfare system?

 

[herkles]

If it is Social Democracy, which is often what Socialism is socialist is referring to in the United States even though it is still a capitalist system, this is very possible. What I would do to make the Republican Party a Social Democratic Party starts with keeping the progressive wing of the party strong. To do that we have four main ways:

1.) have someone else be the Republican Nominee in 1908, easily achieved if Taft isn't the nominee as he is filling Melville Fuller's seat on SCOTUS should he die earlier. then have someone like Hughes who is able to bridge the gap between the two wings of the party emerge and keep them happy. Or Roosevelt's preferred choice, Elihu Root, becomes the nominee. A
2.) Taft's Presidency is more progressive then OTL, and is able to keep Roosevelt happy during his term.
3.) Roosevelt wins the party's nomination in 1912 keeping the progressives well within the Party.
4.) Roosevelt doesn't make his no reelection pledge in 1904 after his victory and then runs again and wins in 1908.

This would allow it to over time morph into a much more social democratic party. Particularly if it is this Republican party that is responsible for something like the New Deal.

This would not make it a socialist party, but an out right legit socialist party for the Republican Party IMO is pretty much impossible. But Social Democracy as mentioned is very much possible.