DBWI: Religious Right takes the Place of the Religious Left

From calls for universal healthcare to anti-war activism, the religious left has had an enormous impact on American politics and the Democratic Party (while the Republicans, as we all know, are a bunch of godless social darwinists :p) in particular over the last decades. However, many forget that there also use to be a somewhat powerful religious right. It mainly focused on social issues, taking a conservative fundamentalist stance, but it also tended to be economically right-winged and hawkish on foreign policy. The challenge is to make this religious right as powerful and influential as the religious left is today, preferably while making it associated with the Republican Party.
 
It's gonna be tough; America has a long history with leftist Christianity going all the way back to before WW1. The "Religious Right", with its (IMO, weird) synthesis of capitalism with personal morality just doesn't fit with American Christianity's emphasis on charity and "loving God by doing good" (though of course sometimes that goes haywire, just look at Prohibition).

That said, off the top of my head I'd butterfly Reagan defeating Jackson in 1976. It's clear that 76 was a poison pill, and having Reagan (whose flirtations with the nascent religious right and their emphasis on a "moral government" gave him the edge post Watergate) lose, only to win in 80, might let him replace Carter as the figure who brings Christianity into the big tent.
 

Magical123

Banned
It's gonna be tough; America has a long history with leftist Christianity going all the way back to before WW1. The "Religious Right", with its (IMO, weird) synthesis of capitalism with personal morality just doesn't fit with American Christianity's emphasis on charity and "loving God by doing good" (though of course sometimes that goes haywire, just look at Prohibition).

That said, off the top of my head I'd butterfly Reagan defeating Jackson in 1976. It's clear that 76 was a poison pill, and having Reagan (whose flirtations with the nascent religious right and their emphasis on a "moral government" gave him the edge post Watergate) lose, only to win in 80, might let him replace Carter as the figure who brings Christianity into the big tent.
OOC: If I understand correctly it's seen as bad form to posit what happened OTL in a DBWI.
 
It's gonna be tough; America has a long history with leftist Christianity going all the way back to before WW1. The "Religious Right", with its (IMO, weird) synthesis of capitalism with personal morality . . .
Tough but not impossible.

Maybe if we set up a dystopian situation where the American middle class has an extended, prolonged slide and society becomes mean in a number of ways, then a focus on "personal responsibility" might seem middle-of-the-road ? ?

I don't know. I'm in there pitching, for it is a tough challenge.
 
. . . If I understand correctly it's seen as bad form to posit what happened OTL . . .
I struggle with this, too.

Yes, we all know that Reagan beat 'Scoop' Jackson in '76 and then struggled with the '79 energy crisis and stagflation. And we all know that Carter won in '80 and was matter-of-fact about his evangelical views. And was a steady eddie type when his country needed him, and in fact had high approval numbers when his second term ended Jan. 20, 1989.

Yes, it slows down the beginning of the thread to point out all these obvious facts. But for some of our younger members here at Alternate History, I think it might help. Might help remind them of facts of which they're just barely aware. And perhaps on balance worth it.
 
Last edited:
I struggle with this, too.

Yes, we all know that Reagan beat 'Scoop' Jackson in '76 and then struggled with the '79 energy crisis and stagflation. And we all know that Carter won in '80 and was matter-of-fact about his evangelical views. And was a steady eddie type when his country needed him, and in fact had high approval numbers when his second term ended Jan. 20, 1989.

Yes, it slows down the beginning of the thread to point out all these obvious facts. But for some of our younger members here at Alternate History, I think it might help. Help remind them of facts of which they're just barely aware. And perhaps on balance worth it.

OOC: That was OOC. He was referring to the fact that the guy's hypothetical solution was essentially OTL.
 
Suppose some openly racist/segregationist politicians marketed themselves as moral church-going Christians and joined the Republican party. Would that work?
 
I had an image while shaving:

In our dystopia, a Mom and Dad both have quote-unquote "good" jobs and yet they're barely making it! They've had to take on more mortgage than they can really afford in order to live in a "good" school district. Both work more than 50 hours a week, not even for choice for financial reasons but because that's expected by the job.

And they're resentful, and that's the key linchpin. They don't see gov't doing anything positive toward them, just the prospect of a tax hike. And they're resentful of people they think are trying less hard than they.

don't think this is realistic, sorry
 
Part of supplanting the religious left with the religious right would also require a change in the Republican Party, possibly also during the Seventies. The rise of the Post-Rockefeller libertarian movement and emphasis of that really stunted any long term implementation of the Southern Strategy and the fact that after Carter the religious right had very little hope to foster in the Republican Party. I'd say anything after President Weld would be too far of a stretch.
 
I struggle with this, too.

Yes, we all know that Reagan beat 'Scoop' Jackson in '76 and then struggled with the '79 energy crisis and stagflation. And we all know that Carter won in '80 and was matter-of-fact about his evangelical views. And was a steady eddie type when his country needed him, and in fact had high approval numbers when his second term ended Jan. 20, 1989.

Yes, it slows down the beginning of the thread to point out all these obvious facts. But for some of our younger members here at Alternate History, I think it might help. Might help remind them of facts of which they're just barely aware. And perhaps on balance worth it.

FOR: The youngsters


Yeah, Carter is considered as one of the best US Presidents in history.

The economy stabilized with him (Volcker had raised interest rates before, so inflation largely ended when he took office). Stable growth rates of 4%, peaking at 6% in 1984, were achieved, and the poor, working class and middle class greatly benefited, as well as the non-multi-millionaire upper class. The MSMEs began their boom during Carter's term.

The Welfare System was also reformed, with GMI enacted.

Environmentalism also became mainstream and numerous environmentalist laws were enacted. Vice President Jackson and first-term SecState Edmund Muskie were so important in this aspect. The clean energy revolution also began under Carter.

HSR and efficient travelling also saw its foundations during Carter, and the Space Program also benefited, with America landing on the Moon again by 2027.

And then universal healthcare. After decades of advocacy by economic progressives, it finally passed in 1985. His being a Southerner and from the working class was a coup for UHC advocates, and adopted a system similar to the French one.

He also repealed Taft-Hartley and in his plan to protect the middle class and workers and farmers, he was pro-union.

But he also improved business policies, making it easier to do business in the US. It's like the "Main Street and Wall Street work together for everyone's good" thing.

Importantly, he and his administration thought the world how to handle globalization. He advocated that while fair and open trade is fine, it must be done in a way that will still support downscale people. With the Department of Education's founding in 1983 and welfare reform combined with legislative successes in the perod 1981-82, he was able to push for CAFTA and NAFTA while supporting the poor with "hand-up" welfare instead of "hand-out" welfare (according to Forbes*) proper education and skills training and healthcare, thus ensuring the poor thrive in a competitive world.

He also upheld the Fairness Doctrine. That may have prevented media polarization.

Carter restored public trust in the government after the quadruple disasters of Watergate, the First Oil Crisis, the 1979 Iran and Oil Crisis and The 1980 recession. Many people aren't that afraid of government action because of him, according to a new Gallup*2 poll in 1984, 64% of Americans trusted the government, a complete turn-around from the 32% recorded in 1980.

In social issues, he pushed for an abortion ban and curbed pro-gay media*3 especially after AIDS was spotted in the mid-1980s. However, he still pushed for a plan for during diseases, including AIDS, but he discouraged anything related to homosexuality and LGBT rights And because the Democrats are the majority party today, too and because of conservative American SCOTUS justices, social conservatism is still mainstream now, especially since it's connected with socioeconomic justice within the Democratic Party, which signed Civil Rights, after all.

On foreign policy, he did enact a defense build-up to counter the Soviets in the early 1980s, but did reach out to Gorbachev and is seen as the one who ended the Cold War. So in way is he so dovish. He's also pro-Israel, too.*4 Though VP Jackson also influenced him on foreign policy as well.

All in all, Carter's Presidency is considered as in of the greatest. He was then replaced by Al Gore. Jackson died in 1984, and he was replaced by Bill Clinton. However, Clinton did not run in 1988 due to sickness and because he said he wanted to see Chelsea grow up.

His presidency is called the "Carter Revolution", and it marked a shift to economic progressivism and social conservatism and moderate foreign policy (but pro-Israel). Some even say he's the second FDR.

Gore then lost to Bob Dole in 1992, but the GOP got crushed again during the 2000 Great Recession*5. Bill Clinton then became President, and Romney was next. Since 2002, America is enjoying it's longest and most uninterrupted economic expansion in history, and many Americans do thank him for it, according to a Gallup poll*6 in 2015 showing that 74% view Carter's term positively.

Part of supplanting the religious left with the religious right would also require a change in the Republican Party, possibly also during the Seventies. The rise of the Post-Rockefeller libertarian movement and emphasis of that really stunted any long term implementation of the Southern Strategy and the fact that after Carter the religious right had very little hope to foster in the Republican Party. I'd say anything after President Weld would be too far of a stretch.

I'm sorry, but I think you typed the wrong name, as Hillary's our President today*7.


And I think I've established the facts for my fellow youngsters here in AH.com

P.S. The Democratic supermajorities in the Senate and House after 1980 enabled him to enact much of his legislative agenda.

------------

*OOC: Fictional. Just playin' safe :)

*2OOC: Fictional as well

*3OOC: I think any religious left or right will be socially conservative. It's just that they differ on economic issues.

*4OOC: Many in the Religious Left were pro-Israel. Christian Evangelicanism is mostly pro-Israel, too IMO. And from what I see in the Internet, he only became pro-Palestine later in his OTL life. And I think there were and are many pro-Israel Religous Leftists in history.

And Christian evangelicanism is also rooted in some form of intervention, though human rights are at the forefront.

*5 Let's say butterflies delay the Asian Financial Crisis and the Japanse Housing Bubble collapse to 2000, joining the Dotcom Bubble in making the economy crash.

*6 Fictional, too.

*7 Eh, they adopt the ATL's Democratic Party stance: Social Conservatism, economic progressivism. Many do change their lives in various ATLs :p After all, they were already Democrats in 1980, and if the Evangelicals are in the Democratic Party, they will of course suit their needs :)


IMO, this is a scenario where maybe America's Christians are not hyper-capitalistic.
 
Last edited:
And now to the WI.

Yes, having a Democrat win in 1976 would be a disaster for them, and if Reagan had been defeated by Ford in the primary. This time, the Religious will flock to the Republican Party.

This would result in a strict conservative-progressive split in America today, unlike our TL's populist-libertarian split.

However, the Republicans are not that libertarian, as they had moderate their stance on the American social market economy (you can call the US economy that). Their libertarians are losing steam now.
 
I'm sorry, but I think you typed the wrong name, as Hillary's our President today*7.

OOC: Now just where did I say that Weld was the current president? Also if the understanding is that Republicans are the socially-liberal economically conservative party, then that would be a moderate version of libertarianism.
 
Part of supplanting the religious left with the religious right would also require a change in the Republican Party, possibly also during the Seventies. The rise of the Post-Rockefeller libertarian movement and emphasis of that really stunted any long term implementation of the Southern Strategy and the fact that after Carter the religious right had very little hope to foster in the Republican Party. I'd say anything after President Weld would be too far of a stretch.

OOC: What do you mean with that?
 
Part of supplanting the religious left with the religious right would also require a change in the Republican Party, possibly also during the Seventies. The rise of the Post-Rockefeller libertarian movement and emphasis of that really stunted any long term implementation of the Southern Strategy and the fact that after Carter the religious right had very little hope to foster in the Republican Party. I'd say anything after President Weld would be too far of a stretch.

The Republicans' social liberalism are nigh unpalatable to the South, and while the region had its fair share of economic conservatives, many there are now in favor of the social market economy, but mainly support the Democrats due to their "compassionate conservatism" on social issues (including the death penalty), save for abortion, and so they changed their economic views to be compatible with today's Democratic Party. Pro-gay media maybe taboo and homosexuality is considered wrong, but forgiving and taking care of gays and helping them have become the central principle of the Democratic Party and today's Evangelicals.

Mainline Protestants have also followed as well. They're kinda split between the Democrats and Republicans into economically conservative and progressive factions.

And because of the populistic nature of the Democrats, Latinos (who are largely like that), Blacks, Asians and others are in the Democratic Party as well, since it is widely credited for Civil Rights, although Republicans did their fare share of voting for the CRA and VRA.

However, if Reagan was the one who took in the Evangelicals, the South may had become Republican, as Civil Rights hurt the Democrats in the South. They started voting for the Republicans at the presidential level with Nixon in 1968 and 1972, then Reagan in 1976, but Carter stopped the bleeding in 1980 and brought the South back to the Democratic column.

Reagan won in 1976 in the South with some >15% margins, and had he launched his "revolution" in 1980, well, the South could have been Republican.

Finally, please, the Republicans are not really that libertarian today. They've move to the left on economic issues since the first Clinton era, so they're basically moderate.


OOC: Imagine Evangelicals, Southerners, minorities, labor and whites in this Democratic coalition, which is basically the New Deal coalition. That would have been a great thing, IMO. Man, this fulfills the "Blacks and Whites in one party" WI. Without abandoning whites, the Democrats are still functional, and would be able to pass economically progressive laws much easier ITTL.

Women would also support this Democratic Party that supports women's rights. Man, the ERA might have even passed! Especially if a Democratic woman becomes President.
 
Last edited:
Finally, please, the Republicans are not really that libertarian today. They've move to the left on economic issues since the first Clinton era, so they're basically moderate.

OOC: You know it's not much of a DBWI if one person throws out previous ideas from people and simply replace it for whether they feel, to the point of just giving a list of Presidents without letting anybody else have a say in the matter. If that's the way you would want this to be, then have fun, but don't toss people's creativity aside.
 
Top