Building A Progressive Utah.

Zioneer

Banned
So you all know me; I'm the Mormon/Utah guy who isn't Augustus Montes (he doesn't show up much anymore anyway).

Recently, quite a few people have asked me about ideas for a Utah that has much more progressive (mainly the old Teddy Roosevelt style of progressive) politics. I've tried to help, but I fear I have disappointed, since I'm not able to adequately think up a Progressive Utah, even though I think it's a fun idea.

So I'd like to seriously discuss the possibilities of PoDs that could lead to a Progressive Utah. I have quite a few ideas, but I first have to point out some of the reasons why this didn't happen in OTL.

First, most of the places where Progressive ideals prospered were in spots of political corruption, unsafe/unsanitary conditions, and outright abuse of workers. Utah had only an infant political scene, didn't have enough population to have unsanitary conditions (and under the Progressive Republican Governor we did have, we fixed several of the problems that were emerging), and didn't have powerful enough Big Business to be busted. Even the millionaires weren't united.

Second, the LDS Church was trying to "normalize" Utah (and a few Mormons practices) around this time to make sure they could keep their statehood, and could be seen as loyal Americans. An example of this was the LDS Church's fear at being seen as a one-party Church (don't laugh), when the Mormons in Utah voted overwhelmingly for Charles Jenning Bryan in their first election in 1896, a year after they became a state. The church leaders were terrified at this, and only relaxed when our politics when back to normal, supporting McKinley for president in 1900.

Third, the Mormon/Anti-Mormon divide was still big in the early 1900s, when this change to Progressivism would likely happen if it happened at all. In fact, Thomas Kearns, a notable anti-Mormon and friend to the progressive Teddy Roosevelt, formed an anti-Mormon Party called the American Party of Utah. A few other progressives (but mostly non-Mormon conservatives) felt the same way. Any timeline including a progressive Utah has to address that.

In any case, those are the difficulties with a progressive Utah, but I do have a few PoDs that could work around those problems.

(1) The Smoot Hearings succeed at stopping Reed Smoot from becoming the Senator from Utah. The Smoot hearings were less a hearing on Smoot himself and more a judgement on the LDS Church, so if (likely mostly conservative elements) prevent Smoot from taking office, the LDS Church (and thus Utah) will likely flee politics-wises to the friendly arms of Teddy Rooseveult (who personally vouched for Smoot). An enthusiasm for Teddy's progressive policies could result from this.

(2) If the Progressive Party survives/wins. The very good timeline by Cathcon is actually one of the many things that inspired this post, seeing as how for over a decade, Utah is staunchly Progressive, like most of the Mountain West states. I agree with Cathcon in this instance; if the Progressive Party wins, and the Mountain West states go to Roosevelt, Utah will go Progressive as well, and it's politics will likely go that way as well.

(3) Simon Bamberger has a popular progressive successor. Simon Bamberger was a wildly popular Governor of Utah, and he was an ardent progressive. So ardent in fact, that Wikipedia claims he signed polices that were fifteen years ahead of their time. A possibility is George H Dern, a progressive Democrat. And after Dern, it would be the Great Depression, which would likely ensure the election of a progressive/New Dealer once again. I think that having a good series of progressive governors could ensure that Utah stays somewhat progressive.

So, I'd like to discuss with you all why Utah didn't go progressive, and how I could arrange a PoD for it to do so. Begin!
 
In fact, Thomas Kearns, a notable anti-Mormon and friend to the progressive Teddy Roosevelt, formed an anti-Mormon Party called the American Party of Utah. A few other progressives (but mostly non-Mormon conservatives) felt the same way. Any timeline including a progressive Utah has to address that.

The Progressives weren't necessarily social liberals, you know. They wanted decent wages and unions for all-white unions. Many Progressives wanted were Prohibitionists, and vice-versa.

For one thing, fiscal liberalism has to remain dominant in the country over social liberalism.
 
I think you need to break the LDS church as we know it, hierarchies like that are conservative by nature, there is a lot in Mormonism that is old school Progressive but the Church will ALWAYS be scared of rocking the boat or any change, so ether break the hierarchies or weaken it so that modern day Mormons are like Boston Irish-Catholics, go to mass every Sunday but vote from pro-choice, pro-gay candidates.
 
I think you need to break the LDS church as we know it, hierarchies like that are conservative by nature, there is a lot in Mormonism that is old school Progressive but the Church will ALWAYS be scared of rocking the boat or any change, so ether break the hierarchies or weaken it so that modern day Mormons are like Boston Irish-Catholics, go to mass every Sunday but vote from pro-choice, pro-gay candidates.
Seconded. Unless you get a Roosevelt to become LDS President or something. That would be cool. :cool:
 
You probably need to change the Rocky Mountain region as a whole, not just Utah.

The Mountain States have an impressive record of unanimity, voting 6-0 for Bryan in 1896 and TR in 1904, and 8-0 in 1916 (Dem), 1920, 1924, 1928 (Rep), 1932, 1936, 1948 (Dem) 1952, 1956, 1968, 1972, 1976, 1980, 1984, 1988, 2004 (Rep) - 18 out of 29 elections. In the 11 when they were not unanimous, Utah was with the majority eight times and in the minority only twice (1900 and 1912). In 1992 the RMS split 4-4.

So Utahns, like westerners genrally, seem to be conservative (ie Rep) when prosperous, and move to the left when times are hard. So for a progressive Utah you probably need a Depression.
 
I do have PoD that might change the LDS from a more recent date (1940s-1950s), which could butterfly one of the more leading conservatives in the LDS into someone somewhat more liberal- and could give the LDS a well-known (if unusual) convert, possibly.
It shall have to wait for my own timeline, though I do have to say it does involve someone close to Roosevelt...
 

Zioneer

Banned
The Progressives weren't necessarily social liberals, you know. They wanted decent wages and unions for all-white unions. Many Progressives wanted were Prohibitionists, and vice-versa.

For one thing, fiscal liberalism has to remain dominant in the country over social liberalism.

Fair enough. The LDS Church did agree with some of the progressive reforms though, mostly Prohibition, and like I said, Governor Bamberger of Utah was essentially a different-party Progressive (though I found out that he's a Democrat, not a Republican). Bamberger passed most of the things that Teddy outlined when he created his own party. So it's not like the Mormons were openly hostile to Progressivism.

I think you need to break the LDS church as we know it, hierarchies like that are conservative by nature, there is a lot in Mormonism that is old school Progressive but the Church will ALWAYS be scared of rocking the boat or any change, so ether break the hierarchies or weaken it so that modern day Mormons are like Boston Irish-Catholics, go to mass every Sunday but vote from pro-choice, pro-gay candidates.

True. Most hierarchical churches are conservative, that is a fact. Though like I said, the LDS Church didn't seem to mind Bamberger's progressive reforms, and especially liked Prohibition. A different, more liberal leadership could be interesting for that, but as a believing Mormon, I don't want to meddle with alternate LDS Church leaders.

Seconded. Unless you get a Roosevelt to become LDS President or something. That would be cool. :cool:

Heh, not quite, though I could probably find a notable Mountain State figure that wouldn't be too hard to turn Mormon. After all, the Mormon Corridor is in the Mountain West.

You probably need to change the Rocky Mountain region as a whole, not just Utah.

The Mountain States have an impressive record of unanimity, voting 6-0 for Bryan in 1896 and TR in 1904, and 8-0 in 1916 (Dem), 1920, 1924, 1928 (Rep), 1932, 1936, 1948 (Dem) 1952, 1956, 1968, 1972, 1976, 1980, 1984, 1988, 2004 (Rep) - 18 out of 29 elections. In the 11 when they were not unanimous, Utah was with the majority eight times and in the minority only twice (1900 and 1912). In 1992 the RMS split 4-4.

So Utahns, like westerners genrally, seem to be conservative (ie Rep) when prosperous, and move to the left when times are hard. So for a progressive Utah you probably need a Depression.

Hmm... Well, Utah was pretty badly hit by the end of WWI (people just didn't need the metals and food Utah had), so could a nastier mini-depression cause Utah to go more comfortably progressive?

Also, Utah was one of the states most reliant on the New Deal (Utah: A People's History, a well-regarded book by a well-regarded professor claims only eight states relied more on the New Deal programs), so I wonder if a few political butterflies (along with a harder Depression in Utah) could lead Utahns to be staunch New Dealers even after everyone else has abandoned it?

I do have PoD that might change the LDS from a more recent date (1940s-1950s), which could butterfly one of the more leading conservatives in the LDS into someone somewhat more liberal- and could give the LDS a well-known (if unusual) convert, possibly.
It shall have to wait for my own timeline, though I do have to say it does involve someone close to Roosevelt...

What's your PoD? PM me if you don't want to publicly share it.
 

JoeMulk

Banned
The Progressives weren't necessarily social liberals, you know. They wanted decent wages and unions for all-white unions. Many Progressives wanted were Prohibitionists, and vice-versa.

For one thing, fiscal liberalism has to remain dominant in the country over social liberalism.

Didn't a lot of Mormons also support prohibition? I could see them becoming progressives, combining that with a desire to improve the mining conditions in the state leading to a strong labor movement in Utah.

Kind of funny though that Utah was one of only two states to vote for Taft in 1912.
 

Zioneer

Banned
Didn't a lot of Mormons also support prohibition? I could see them becoming progressives, combining that with a desire to improve the mining conditions in the state leading to a strong labor movement in Utah.

Kind of funny though that Utah was one of only two states to vote for Taft in 1912.

Yep, most Mormons supported Prohibition for obvious reasons, though it took a while for Utah to have state-wide Prohibition. And Utah was one of the two states that supported Taft. What's interesting is that those two things were directly related; Reed Smoot was responsible for both.

See, Smoot masterminded the defeat of several Prohibition bills in Utah, even though there was widespread support of Prohibition among the Mormons (an LDS apostle even publicly urged a state-wide law). Again looking at Utah: A People's History, Smoot did this for two reasons. One reason was because he was afraid of offending anti-Prohibition, non-Mormon Republican businessmen. The second reason is because the LDS Church was concerned about divisive politics in Utah, and were afraid that Smoot supporting Prohibition before the non-Mormon portions of Utah did would lead the Republicans to divide themselves on Mormon/non-Mormon lines. And if that happened, Smoot would be politically defeated.

And as for Taft, Smoot and his conservative, pro-business political machine (along with a few church leaders) preferred Taft's conservatism over Roosevelt's progressivism.

Get rid of the conservative Smoot and his political machine, and perhaps Utah might be able to go a bit more progressive.
 
Progressive Utah timeline sketch:
In this timeline the Republicans maintain their progressive-era hold on the MIDWEST and like in OTL developed strongly in the West as territories became states. The contiguous political identity leads to everywhere from Illinois to California just being called "The West", and a strong Western identity as opposed to a strong Southern identity.

The Republicans are, as in OTL, by the mid 20th century the ones pushing for racial equality, and maintain that Nixon type Western anti-intellectual, anti-elitist, anti-ostentation style conservatism that is not incompatible with the welfare state or the progressive treatment of labor and human rights issues. However they are even more strongly tied to these things than Nixon was, as the Progressive wing never splits from the party (but never associates with Wilson style Southern progressives either).

In the state of Utah, non-Mormons are usually Republicans, and in fact the Republican party in Utah is actually the Republican-American Party, having merged with the anti-Mormon party in the same way as the Democrats with the Farmer-Labor party of Minnesota in OTL.

Almost the entire Mormon church are Democrats, due to the bitter anti-Mormon history of the Republicans in Utah, and social reforms aimed against polygamy and towards gender equality by Northern Progressivism (which milded down a bit and became the current Western Progressivism).

Whereas the Republicans are still, like in the Roosevelt era, trying to create a more morally pure society through reform (combining progressivism with ideological conservatism, or Western conservatism); the Democrats combine scientific management (Fordite/Wilsonite in OTL or Southern Progressivism here) with the tradition-oriented conservatism of the South and with the reactionary elements of the New England WASPS, who grew to oppose the introduction of pro-equality liberals in the Northern Progressive movement.

Thus was born New England WASPS rebelling against the Republican Party and joining the Democrats of the South in a spree of pro-business progressive reforms in civil service, the Democrats throwing out their old machine politics and aggressively pursuing anti-corruption agendas in order to make business and laissez faire economics look good to the common man from Boston to Richmond.

The Mormons are loyal Democrats, as there is enough ideological room for their social justice - the Democrats encourage private works of charity and philanthropy and would rather give religious and charitable institutions tax exemptions and other preferential treatment than create government agencies to deal with such things.

Thus Utah is the one Democratic stronghold in the Republican West, but there are enough non-mormons in Utah to mean that sometimes the Republicans do win.

And that's the story of how Northern and Southern Progressivism became, over the segregation issue among others, Western and Eastern Progressivism.
 
Very interesting, Grande Asperge. It'd be cool to see an all out timeline if that with details as to the parties' positions, some electoral maps, etc.

MormonMobster, thanks for the mention. :) A warning though as Utah will not remain in the Progressive column forever.
 

Zioneer

Banned
Or we could play it easy and throw the Mormons somewhere else.

Nah, that's both too easy, and not in the spirit of my thread. Utah's special because of it's history; it's not like the other states at all. Utah was literally built from nothing because of the Mormons; if you stuck them anywhere else, it'd not be the same as Utah.
 
The Progressives weren't necessarily social liberals, you know. They wanted decent wages and unions for all-white unions. Many Progressives wanted were Prohibitionists, and vice-versa.

For one thing, fiscal liberalism has to remain dominant in the country over social liberalism.

Not all the progressives were like that...........although maybe some were, especially down South, I'd imagine.
 
You need the sort of things that spurred the Progressive Movement in the first place, the Progressives were largely a reaction to the worst excesses of a successful, industrializing nation, New York would NEVER have had the problems it did that other urban areas (which by then were the majority of the population) did as well without immigration and the successful, prosperous industrialization that had created a niche for these immigrants. For Utah to be a model Progressive state and not just hit by fits and starts of temporary liberalism you not only need the LDS Church to liberalize its hold over Utah society (or for people to simply put religion in one box and politics in another the way liberal Catholics do) but you also need Utah to suffer firsthand from the problems that lead to a call for change. That means Utah has to in some way become an attractive place for immigrants, perhaps some sort of resource rush, maybe a larger amount of settlement after the Trans-Continental Railroad. Off-hand, maybe Southern Italians and other rural folk put out of place by the Industrial Revolution? Of course there will need to be some give for that take, Mormons historically have issues with immigrants and foreigners, certainly back then, which isn't to say they weren't hopping on the anti-immigrant train with everyone else but still.
 
Top