Earlier GOP shift in the south/southwest?

We all know that didn't have its origins until the Nixon years and didn't blossom until thereafter; i.e., during the Reagan years. But how might it have happened earlier? One thought, although bordering on ASB: somehow, the Wallace forces hijack the 1948 Democrats' convention, putting former VP Henry Wallace (instead of Harry Truman) at the top of the ticket, with Idaho senator Glen Taylor as his running mate. The Dixiecrats led by Strom Thurmond and Fielding Wright would still bolt, perhaps even more vehemently given the Wallace nomination. Now, if the GOP nominates Ike (with perhaps Earl Warren as his VP nominee), we have the seeds: I could see Texas looking at Wallace and deciding he's not right, and the same for Thurmond (too much the "old school"/eastern deep south; doesn't speak for Texas). That would leave Texans (and by extension, Oklahomans and Arkansans (?) to vote for Ike, thus causing the first cracks in the Solid South.

Once the first chinks in the armor develop, it shouldn't be difficult to make further inroads--say, in VA, KY, or TN. Alabama, Mississippi, and Georgia would still be the last to fall, but they might by the 1960s.
 
We all know that didn't have its origins until the Nixon years and didn't blossom until thereafter; i.e., during the Reagan years. But how might it have happened earlier? One thought, although bordering on ASB: somehow, the Wallace forces hijack the 1948 Democrats' convention, putting former VP Henry Wallace (instead of Harry Truman) at the top of the ticket, with Idaho senator Glen Taylor as his running mate. The Dixiecrats led by Strom Thurmond and Fielding Wright would still bolt, perhaps even more vehemently given the Wallace nomination. Now, if the GOP nominates Ike (with perhaps Earl Warren as his VP nominee), we have the seeds: I could see Texas looking at Wallace and deciding he's not right, and the same for Thurmond (too much the "old school"/eastern deep south; doesn't speak for Texas). That would leave Texans (and by extension, Oklahomans and Arkansans (?) to vote for Ike, thus causing the first cracks in the Solid South.


Once the first chinks in the armor develop, it shouldn't be difficult to make further inroads--say, in VA, KY, or TN. Alabama, Mississippi, and Georgia would still be the last to fall, but they might by the 1960s.

One problem the GOP was dominated by "Liberals" till Goldwater in 64
 
One problem the GOP was dominated by "Liberals" till Goldwater in 64

It was dominated (in Presidential elections) by the moderate Wall Street/Eastern/Progressive/Teddy Roosevelt wing of the Republican Party before 1964, yes, but they weren't very liberal as you Americans (mis)use the term to mean social democrats. They were pretty much moderates, in-between the Democratic liberals on the one hand and the Republican & Southern Democrat conservatives on the other.



Anyway, the easiest way for a more conservative GOP is to have the Democrats overreach and implode over their inherent Southern/Northern tensions.

So Harry Truman is more popular than OTL because the Korean War goes well (Americans stop early so as not to threaten the Chinese). He gets the nomination and wins the general against Taft (who prevailed, due to butterflies, ITTL) in 1952.

As has been his tendency he pushes hard for more left-wing policies and basically the Democrats split apart as moderate Republicans join with non-Southern Democrats over Civil Rights (watered down as needed for being in the '50s instead of the '60s) or some other major issue.

In the ATL Taft serves as the Goldwater moment of the Republicans.

Throughout the '50s the Republicans conservatives argue against Civil Rights, finding themselves in alliance with Southern Democrats. The nomination of Adlai Stevenson in '56 sees a number of Southern states defect to the Republicans (pretty much the ones that defected IOTL) but due to the strong Democratic showing outside the South Stevenson wins and pushes for more liberal policies.

(Need a Republican for '56, preferably libertarian. Would Goldwater have run?)

In 1960 Stevenson carries only a couple states in the South and loses to a moderate Republican who is appealing to the South (Knowland of California if the Big Switch worked?).
 
It was dominated (in Presidential elections) by the moderate Wall Street/Eastern/Progressive/Teddy Roosevelt wing of the Republican Party before 1964, yes, but they weren't very liberal as you Americans (mis)use the term to mean social democrats. They were pretty much moderates, in-between the Democratic liberals on the one hand and the Republican & Southern Democrat conservatives on the other.
Jefferson and Adams being Liberals it could be argued that You (mis) use the term conservative when you mean moderate.:D
 
Do we have to get into this?

Ok. There are no conservatives in the United States. Full stop.

There are classical liberals (US term: Republican business conservative), libertarians, social democrats (US term: liberals), Southern religious voters (European term, roughly: Christian Democrats), and blue-collar voters (European term: Labour) along with paler shades (moderates) of all stripes.

There are no conservatives as the rest of the world uses the term. The US was founded on individual liberty with the person's rights outweighing the group's rights and rapid change encouraged.

Think of it this way: The American Revolution was, in political ideological terms, basically the (classical) liberals (Whigs) versus the conservatives (Tories). The Whigs won, and the Tories decamped to Canada. Canada has a Tory fragment, a Whig fragment, and a socialist fragment growing out of the Tory fragment & European immigration.


A Tory believes in group rights over individual rights, he believes in community over solitude, in government support when required; and peace, order, and good government. See Radical Tory, Disraeli Tory.

With the partial exception of Rockefeller Republicans this has never really existed in America, and even the Rockefeller Republicans were heavily influenced by the dominant classical liberal ideology. Likewise modern US social democrats (US term: liberals) developed from classical liberalism, unlike their European/Canadian counterparts who developed from socialism—this gives US liberals quite a different flavour.


In Canada it was common for a Tory to be more comfortable voting for the CCF/NDP (i.e. socialists) than the Liberal Party (who were, once, liberals) for the simple reason that a Tory has more in common with a socialist than a classical liberal. (This is no longer the case as the modern federal Conservative Party is based on a moderate form of American neoliberalism and Radical Tories are mostly gone.)

Under pressure a Tory may attempt socialist policies if he has nothing else to do, see Prime Minister R.B. Bennett and his "New Deal" which he implemented when he ran out of other options.


Anyway. The US? No conservatives. In normal terms the Republican Party is right-liberal, Christian Democrat, and libertarian; the Democratic Party a mix of left-liberals and social democrats.
 
Top