How far left politically can the US go during the Cold War?

It's no secret that there are a lot of Cold War tls that involve the United States going hardcore right wing but I wanted to look at the other direction. The biggest hurtle to this is that far left politics, such as socialist economics, can be easily dismissed as Soviet, even is this is at best an oversimplification. Could this argument be overcome? How far left could the United States go during the Cold War with a POD on August 2, 1945? To be clear utopias, dystopias, and societies with a mixture of strengths and flaws are all welcome here.
 
The best I can come up with is a Republican win in 1948 followed by a disastrous presidency that involves a loss in Korea, the loss of China and a terrible economy. The thinking becomes you can't defeat Communism with right wing ideas, so the country moves to the anti-Communist left with a social market economy and a strong anti-Communist foreign policy. This is hardly far-left, but it would be something not far out of line with what was going on in Europe at the time, perhaps bordering on a Scandinavian model, although it would have a strong "weaponized Keynesianism" component. To distinguish it from Communism, there would be a heavy emphasis on democracy and civil liberties with the distinction between the two systems characterized more in terms of the form of governance than the form of the economy.
 

Deleted member 97083

The best I can come up with is a Republican win in 1948 followed by a disastrous presidency that involves a loss in Korea, the loss of China and a terrible economy. The thinking becomes you can't defeat Communism with right wing ideas, so the country moves to the anti-Communist left with a social market economy and a strong anti-Communist foreign policy. This is hardly far-left, but it would be something not far out of line with what was going on in Europe at the time, perhaps bordering on a Scandinavian model, although it would have a strong "weaponized Keynesianism" component. To distinguish it from Communism, there would be a heavy emphasis on democracy and civil liberties with the distinction between the two systems characterized more in terms of the form of governance than the form of the economy.
Also not "far left", but something like Clement Attlee's policies seems feasible.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
About your concerns over comparisons between Soviet policies and socialist policies in general, I wouldn't be too concerned. Europe is full of politicians who spent the Cold War setting a more leftward track than the US who yet retained strong anti-Soviet credentials. There's also always the old standby of Scoop Jackson if you're looking for a person who wasn't afraid of state intervention in the economy or to set social policy, and who is yet considered the father of neocon 'invade to spread democracy' policies.

Basically you can justify anything on the spectrum from social democracy to West European socialism (though Euro-communism seems unlikely). Sample politicians stump line: "My opponent says that what separates us from the Soviets is our commitment to capitalism. I say he doesn't understand the soul of America if he looks at you and all he sees is a consumer. No, my friends, what separates us from the Soviets is our commitment to humanity. In fact, the capitalist and the soviet think of people the same way: cogs in a machine. Cogs in a machine, to benefit a central committee on one hand and a board of directors on the other. Neither of them cares a bit about self-respect, about the decent treatment we all deserve. The Soviet thinks self-respect is decadent. The capitalist thinks self-respect is just for him, and that if you have it, he somehow isn't special anymore. But there's another way!" Bumper sticker/placard: "John Smith: Another Way"

Feel free to steal.
 
Last edited:
" . . . In fact, the capitalist and the soviet think of people the same way: cogs in a machine. Cogs in a machine, to benefit a central committee on one hand and a board of directors on the other. Neither of them cares a bit about self-respect, about the decent treatment we all deserve. . . "
And add to this that Joe McCarthy is a comical figure and a heavy drinker. Further add that the claims are ridiculous, for example, that some consumer's union is 'communist' or that Soviet-American Friendship Committee -- when we were allies during the war! -- is oh-so bad or terrible. Looked at a certain way, the whole 'red scare' was just so stupid.

I can easily imagine a backlash where a goodly number of citizens previously not all that interested in politics want to learn about socialist ideas, and the hell with foolish old men, we're going to be brave and learn about it anyway!

=======

But, on the other side of the ledger . . .

the Soviets cheated in Eastern Europe,

they developed an atomic bomb in 1949,

and then in 1950, we get involved in a serious war in Korea.

What is going on? With World War II, we win the most important war in recent memory and we're clearly on the right side.

From there, it sure seems like we've squandered away our advantages. At the very least, doddering old fools have been seriously incompetent. And it isn't hard to imagine malice of some fashion or another. Which is why you got the paranoid style of the John Birchers, etc. And humans are all stripes are surprisingly open to conspiracy theories, it too quickly dots the i's and crosses the t's. It's almost a cognitive processing flaw / emotional intelligence / lack of patience on the part of us human beings.

So, all in all, even with some things going in our favor, quite a challenge!
 
Last edited:
=======

But, on the other side of the ledger . . .

the Soviets cheated in Eastern Europe,

they developed an atomic bomb in 1949,

and then in 1950, we get involved in a serious war in Korea.

What is going on? With World War II, we win the most important war in recent memory and we're clearly on the right side.

From there, it sure seems like we've squandered away our advantages. At the very least, doddering old fools have been seriously incompetent. And it isn't hard to imagine malice of some fashion or another. Which is why you got the paranoid style of the John Birchers, etc. And humans are all stripes are surprisingly open to conspiracy theories, it too quickly dots the i's and crosses the t's. It's almost a cognitive processing flaw / emotional intelligence / lack of patience on the part of us human beings.

So, all in all, even with some things going in our favor, quite a challenge!

Very true! Though if you acted fast enough after the earliest POD you could void a lot of that. Stalin dying by accident on his way home from Potsdam could throw Soviet plans into chaos. It's not unreasonable to think that some of the Eastern Bloc might escape Soviet domination. The Czechs are the usual suspects here, maybe Hungary. Maybe Tito's friendlier to the West. And any shakeup in Soviet high command could expose intelligence assets on the one hand and delay scientific progress on the bomb on the other. East Asia could see its own butterflies.

By 1945 it's likely the damage is done as far as Stalin's imprint on the Soviet system, but a general rule of thumb is ending his rule early by any length of time can only be for the good. Any lessening of Soviet evils committed under Stalin could potentially take a corresponding bit of wind out of the American far-right's sails.
 
If the cold war emphasis had been on trade and who can win the most allies in the third world, who can admit the most students to universities, etc.

Maybe southern leaders are occasionally invited on trade delegation with the hope that they'll see the wave of the future. Other times, southern leaders are not invited because, frankly, they are an embarrassment.

Southern leaders are privately pushed, especially given the Supreme Court case of Sweatt v. Painter (1950) on graduate education, that yes, we can maintain the fiction of neighborhood schools, but you've got to ramp up African-American schools so that they are in fact just as good as other schools.

And when the Brown decision comes down in 1954, maybe Eisenhower matter-of-factly and confidently uses some of his political capital.

This timeline doesn't necessarily give us pro-union, national health care, more infrastructure, and other 'left' economics.

But it gives us earlier, more successful, more thorough-going desegregation (inner-city predominantly African-American or Hispanic schools often still aren't as good as suburban predominantly Caucasian schools, and this us 2016 for crying out loud!) and if anything this timeline is even more difficult!
 
Last edited:
Keep the New Deal coalition intact and avert the Presidency of Ronald Reagan.

Alternatively, if there's no Watergate, Nixon stays in power long enough to try his national healthcare plan, which will create some significant butterflies.
 
Avoid the escalation of the Vietnam War that derailed LBJ's domestic policy agenda and led to Nixon becoming President.

Or a POD that gives Truman a less conservative Congress.
 
Last edited:
Kill LBJ in 1965 (preferably with a heart attack), immediately after passing the Civil Rights Act. Humphrey wanted to pull troops out of South Vietnam in 1965, when political damage would be the least, in order to focus on the Great Society and Civil Rights. With a good economy, a successful Great Society, and civil rights having not descended into riots, Humphrey wins a landslide over Ronald Reagan or someone else (the less charismatic, the better). In his second term, he'd likely pass Canada-style healthcare, except with dental care being covered by the government, I think. The Democratic Party is successfully turned into a liberal-labour party, with the Republicans being forced to moderate. Without Vietnam and the inflation that followed, there would be no conservative backlash.

Alternatively, if there's no Watergate, Nixon stays in power long enough to try his national healthcare plan, which will create some significant butterflies.

That won't be enough to avoid the conservative backlash, as inflation will still be an issue.
 
Last edited:
Kill LBJ in 1965 (preferably with a heart attack), immediately after passing the Civil Rights Act. Humphrey wanted to pull troops out of South Vietnam in 1965, when political damage would be the least, in order to focus on the Great Society and Civil Rights. With a good economy, a successful Great Society, and civil rights having not descended into riots, Humphrey wins a landslide over Ronald Reagan or someone else (the less charismatic, the better). In his second term, he'd likely pass Canada-style healthcare, except with dental care being covered by the government, I think. The Democratic Party is successfully turned into a liberal-labour party, with the Republicans being forced to moderate. Without Vietnam and the inflation that followed, there would be no conservative backlash to

*weeps bitterly*
 
It Depends, the only reasons the Republicans were able to take power was the loss of China and subsequent screw up of the Chinese intervention in the Korean War. Even If the U.S is leftward, the Democrats can't afford to ignore foreign policy in this era unless you start it out much differently.
 
If you assume that someone was smart enough to say no to Vietnam I think Lyndon Johnson would have easily been reelected in 1968 and the Great Society would have been expanded. I admit I am not objective I was a true believer in what Johnson was doing.
 
if the Great Society had focused on winnables,

such as effectively bringing about all kids getting an equally good education, whether that child is living in a rich district or a poor district,

infrastructure projects, both for their direct benefit and for job creation,

and then really, if civil rights were further along so people weren't so vulnerable to the claim that Great Society programs benefit African-American persons.
 
The most left-wing president I could imagine for the US in the 1950's would be William O. Douglas if he had accepted Truman's offer to be his running mate in 1948, and if the Puerto Rican nationalists had succeeded in killing Truman in 1950. But (1) Douglas was then more a conventional Cold War liberal then than he later became, and (2) Douglas would no doubt be frustrated by Republicans and conservative Democrats in Congress, and would be unlikely to win in 1952.
 
Top