DBWI: Right-wank in the US?

For fuck sakes! Doesn't anyone on this site know the meaning of DBWI anymore?!?!?:mad:

OOC: I do.


IC: 1970 is too late, by then LBJ's Great Society had shown amazing success, he'd been reelected in 1968 by just as big a margin over Reagan as he did over Goldwater in 1964, in 1970 LBJ's poll numbers were in the 70s the push for UHC was under way the Republican parties right wing was crushed after two back to back super losses, 1960 POD maybe, but 1970s too late, hell America has been headed left since 1932 always somewhat slower then Europe.
 
OOC: I do.


IC: 1970 is too late, by then LBJ's Great Society had shown amazing success, he'd been reelected in 1968 by just as big a margin over Reagan as he did over Goldwater in 1964, in 1970 LBJ's poll numbers were in the 70s the push for UHC was under way the Republican parties right wing was crushed after two back to back super losses, 1960 POD maybe, but 1970s too late, hell America has been headed left since 1932 always somewhat slower then Europe.

IC: Which is why the US has always been the "odd man out" in the Americas. Sure they're the most powerful, their power doesn't come from having a nanny state or a string of immoral governments. The US might be wealthy, but conservative doesn't have to mean poor, unlike what many Yanks would like to believe.

The average annual income ($US 38,000) in the US is lower than in Canada ($US 40,000), Chile ($US 39,000) or Argentina ($US 39,000), even though the US has a higher per-capita GDP. While the average Canadian was usually better off than the average American, things were different (Canada has an unbroken history of democratic government equal to that in the US, while having never had a civil war. Chile and Argentina had a history of military coups until the mid '70s, and both only returned to true civilian government in the early '80s) in Chile and Argentina until the mid-'80s.

To make the US stay in line with the rest of the Americas, a POD of 1970 might be a bit late, but doable. The best would be the 1968 US election. Maybe Vietnam turns into a debacle in '67 or '68 instead of in '71. So LBJ either doesn't seek reelection or tries and loses. A different Republican candidate would help, especially against a typical LBJ "no-holds-barred" campaign. Someone moderate, who can A: beat LBJ (or his annointed successor) and B: subsequently crash and burn over Vietnam and the economy, an open the door for a conservative successor from either party to ultimately turn things around.

OOC: A liberal wank US, a rapidly stabilizing (and rich) South America, and a more conservative Canada. A rising tide that floats all boats.
 
To make the US stay in line with the rest of the Americas, a POD of 1970 might be a bit late, but doable. The best would be the 1968 US election. Maybe Vietnam turns into a debacle in '67 or '68 instead of in '71. So LBJ either doesn't seek reelection or tries and loses. A different Republican candidate would help, especially against a typical LBJ "no-holds-barred" campaign. Someone moderate, who can A: beat LBJ (or his annointed successor) and B: subsequently crash and burn over Vietnam and the economy, an open the door for a conservative successor from either party to ultimately turn things around.

well I guess 'nam is the only thing that may have gone wrong in LBJ's Presidency, but thats stretching it, it was a very minor issue, most Americans now, hell even then didn't know we were there in the 60s, and sure the 1971 Tet Offensive gave LBJ a black eye but it wasn't enough to stop Humphrey/McGovern from winning the 1972 election.
 
well I guess 'nam is the only thing that may have gone wrong in LBJ's Presidency, but thats stretching it, it was a very minor issue, most Americans now, hell even then didn't know we were there in the 60s, and sure the 1971 Tet Offensive gave LBJ a black eye but it wasn't enough to stop Humphrey/McGovern from winning the 1972 election.

Vietnam could have gone, much much worse in 1967 or 68 had the Soviets and Red China not been at each others' throats. The reason that Russians actually gave their clients enough support to cause the US so much trouble from 1971 on was that Maoist China had collapsed into civil war following their failed invasion of Siberia. (What sort of madness drove Mao to invade a nation that possessed 30,000 nuclear bombs and the will to use them is still unclear...) Hell, LBJ's greatest achievement was in keeping Russia and China from nuking each other, and even that wasn't certain until the Chinese sued for peace in 1970. Have something resembling sanity break out in China in the mid-'60s and the US could be in for a very rough ride over Vietnam, among other places.
 
Have something resembling sanity break out in China in the mid-'60s and the US could be in for a very rough ride over Vietnam, among other places.

Yes I'm sure, but thats a lot of jumps you know, sane China=no war with USSR=harder Vietnam War=failed Great Society? real jump, even if LBJ gets a bad black eye from Vietnam War the Great Society was super popular all on it's only no Republican could get elected (or stay in office) running against the Great Society in 1968.

speaking of "other places" I just got back from Zimbabwe-Rhodesia, I wonder if you're idea of a stronger Communist China and the USSR not dealing with the Great Wave(OOC: millions of Chinese refugees in the 70s) would of lead to stronger Marxists Nationalist and a break down of the 1979 Internal Settlement, I doubt that their Minister of Finance (Timothy Geithner) would be giving "how to" talks at the IMF had Mugabe or some one took power (thank god the ZRSF got Mugabe in 87)
 
Yes I'm sure, but thats a lot of jumps you know, sane China=no war with USSR=harder Vietnam War=failed Great Society? real jump, even if LBJ gets a bad black eye from Vietnam War the Great Society was super popular all on it's only no Republican could get elected (or stay in office) running against the Great Society in 1968.

Yes, it is a lot of leaps, but it is about the only way to stall the changes in the US long enough for someone to propose a creditable alternative. It is also about the only way to successfully confine the reaction to the changes to the ballot box. That said, it is borderline ASB, like Quebec gaining independence or Thatcher losing in the 1980s.

speaking of "other places" I just got back from Zimbabwe-Rhodesia, I wonder if you're idea of a stronger Communist China and the USSR not dealing with the Great Wave(OOC: millions of Chinese refugees in the 70s) would of lead to stronger Marxists Nationalist and a break down of the 1979 Internal Settlement, I doubt that their Minister of Finance (Timothy Geithner) would be giving "how to" talks at the IMF had Mugabe or some one took power (thank god the ZRSF got Mugabe in 87)

I've never heard of Mugabe before. Could he have turned R-Z into a mess that resembles most other African nations? Apart from some of the North African states that line the Mediterranean coast, R-Z and South Africa are the only bright spots on the continent. R-Z failing would be a disaster, but it would fit in with the rest of the continent.
 
I've never heard of Mugabe before. Could he have turned R-Z into a mess that resembles most other African nations? Apart from some of the North African states that line the Mediterranean coast, R-Z and South Africa are the only bright spots on the continent. R-Z failing would be a disaster, but it would fit in with the rest of the continent.

most then likely he seems to have fit the model for other two bit dictators that Africa seems so good at turning out. If you think Africa is bad know, just think what Southern Africa would look like without Z-R turning out cheep food, the Bread Basket of Southern Africa they call it, it's local food and food aid as kept it's 3rd world neighbors' heads above water for years.
 
Interesting discussion on the international politics front, but I have another suggestion. What if the estranged Dixiecrats (and their Christian fundamentalist allies) had stayed in the Republican party after they ran Reagan? He was amicable enough to them, even if the Northeast-dominated party leadership was increasingly uneasy with the alliance.

I think the real break between traditional Republicans and conservatives was closer to 1970. Following 1968, the conservative religious elements reaching for power in the GOP grew increasingly anti-Catholic (probably thanks to RFK drumming up votes for LBJ and stealing 80% of the Catholic vote.) This in turn prompted Bill Buckley's famous editorial damning "The Fundamentalist Fringe," which came out some time in late 1969, IIRC. A petition of support from moderates and the party's growing (highly religious) African American wing turned into the so-called Memphis Manifesto, which was endorsed by RNC chair Bob Dole in mid-1970.

If Dole doesn't cave into pressure (my understanding is he was in two minds about which faction to choose) we could've seen a lot more conservative candidates making it through to the mid-term primaries on the GOP slate rather than running as the short-lived "Freedom and Constitution Coalition", and maybe we wouldn't have the plethora of right-wing fringe parties we have today. In most elections the 3-4 far right parties take 10-15% of the vote combined; that's still a significant draw that could be amplified given a major party's megaphone.
 
I think the question should be asked of what this "right wank" would constitute. Only knowing that can this question be addressed effectively.
 
Top