DBWI: Make the Republicans “the party of the right” and the Democrats “the party of the left”?

[GeographyDude]

As we all probably know, as part of successful Reconstruction, the Republicans became the party of economic development and union rights. Whereas the Democrats basically became the party of the status quo.

And Republicans were generally the first to support women’s rights, LGBTQ+ rights, Aspie rights, and what I personally find most interesting, the non-well rounded, non-school achieving rights. Democrats did tend to eventually come round as a party, but it generally took them a while.

Our goal is to switch the two parties. Some ideas:

Maybe the large European War of 1924-27 is followed by a second, even more destructive war ? ?

Maybe the flu pandemic of 1936 and the resulting serious recession has less of a bipartisan response and the Republicans start to become the more stick-in-the-mud party which generally favors standing pat ? ?

Since the positions of the two parties span both pre- and post-1900, we could test drive a less successful Reconstruction ? ? Although I’d rather work with more recent branchpoints.

Your ideas please.

 

[AltoRegnant]

You need Debbs to try and keep the SPUSA alive, as opposed to OTL where he was able to draw in a lot of votes for Teddy in 1912, leading to the latter's victory. His anglophilism and bellicosity led to him backing the Entente in the July crisis (a major reason the world war didnt start until 24 during the Straits Crisis). But if eugene doesn't join teddy, or if he's not the party darling, the GOP doesnt start moving left.

 

[GeographyDude]

. . . But if eugene doesn't join teddy, or if he's not the party darling, the GOP doesnt start moving left.

I still maintain that pre-Teddy Roosevelt the Republican Party was left-center both economically and on social issues.

No question that if Eugene Debs had split the Party, TR would have lost, and probably the perception of having lost unfairly and stupidly.

And maybe the Republicans would have thrashed around like a wounded animal, but give me some specifics. What other storms and tricky spots do the Republican Party get into?

As we know, the Republicans instead pretty much went on from strength to strength.

 

[Bughuntertf]

In the very early 1900s the imperial economies of Germany and Britain were in competition with each other. Let's say that there's something in the 1900s or 1910s that sparks a massive European war -- and comes to entangle the US some way or another. Engineer a massive depression erupting underneath a Republican president -- than it's a simple enough matter for a liberal, progressive Democrat to run on "whatever that guy did, I'm gonna do the opposite," and, it being a depression, they are victorious. In the meantime, nasty ripples: worldwide depression, leading to war, and US entanglement under that progressive Democrat. If it's a long war, and they manage it and the Depression well, that's multiple re-elections and a permanent public association of Democrat Party with working class rights, because a depression always impacts the working class the worst. Then after the war's over, you find Democrats willing to make public commitment to the rights of African-Americans and in time other minority groups, let them win election -- though frankly the power of the Southern Democrats in the Senate is such that I have no idea how you'd manage to actually get anything passed -- and, with a reasonably friendly Supreme Court (you remember the illustrious Depression and wartime President? multiple reelections mean plenty of chances to fill the Court), you engineer a situation where the South switches over to conservatives, who will, of course, now be Republican.

 

[Strategos' Risk]

OOC: Monkey wrench time.

I think it really requires the Great American Party to have never experienced their 1880s resurgence in the face of the '79 Potato Blight Exodus. If the Know-Nothings had remained subsumed into the GOP as they had in the antebellum run-up, perhaps the Republicans would be more right-wing.

 

[GeographyDude]

. . . Let's say that there's something in the 1900s or 1910s that sparks a massive European war -- and comes to entangle the US some way or another. Engineer a massive depression erupting underneath a Republican president -- than it's a simple enough matter for a liberal, progressive Democrat to run on "whatever that guy did, I'm gonna do the opposite," and, it being a depression, they are victorious. In the meantime, nasty ripples: worldwide depression, leading to war, . . .

Very nicely done.

A earlier, bigger war has seeds of a depression, which in turn has seeds of a second war. And during the depression, there’s a do-nothing Republican president following by a can-do Democratic president. Yes, I can see how the Democratic president would get a lot of credit and properly so.

The problem I have is that the Republicans have been left-center activist with the economy for so long and are so good at taking smart medium steps, I can’t see one crappy president messing this up.

For example, prior to the 1936 flu pandemic, there was citizen activism pertaining to transgend rights. But when the Republican Congress passed Equal Employment Rights, they included in the Act that these protections would first be implemented after we had two quarters of economic growth. How smart and sensible, and typical for the Republicans.

The result was that many businesses started voluntarily practicing equal employment before they were even legally required to. And even though the the transgend civil rights movement had included discussions of the unacceptably high rate of murder against transgend persons (of course even one murder is one two many!) with the Republican President easily and confidently attending the first Transgender Day of Remembrance on Nov. 20, 1938,

All the same, the movement is remembered in joyful terms and as an outstanding civil rights success!

* although I personally sometimes wonder why lesbian and gay rights were the first success. In many ways, you’d think transgend rights would be easier ? ?

Again, all this was made far easier in an expanding economy. I don’t think I can make this point often enough, even though I’m a historian, not an economist.

—————————————————————————
—————————————————————————

Yes, I can see the Democrats becoming a more popular party.

But I can’t see the Republicans falling that far, that fast.

 

[GeographyDude]

I think it really requires the Great American Party to have never experienced their 1880s resurgence in the face of the '79 Potato Blight Exodus. If the Know-Nothings had remained subsumed into the GOP as they had in the antebellum run-up, perhaps the Republicans would be more right-wing.

I know the 1879 Potato Blight was awfully important with a whole lot of people dying. And I know the Exodus led to a lot of anti- immigrant sentiment here in America. I’m just not as familiar with these earlier times.

I know at times you can grow a party by kicking people out.

In the 1920s, the Republicans matter-of-factly kicked out both atheists and conspiracy theorists. And it was kind of a masterful one-two punch in that atheists tended not to be conspiracy theorists and vice versa.

Oh, you could still be a member of the Republicans, but you wouldn’t receive any backing if you wanted to run for office. Not even if you won the primary, nor any kind of committee assignments if you happened to win. Oh, you could still be an atheist of course, just keep it to yourself, talk about religious liberty or something similar for crying out loud.