in U.S. in ‘ 76, ‘88, or ‘92, a liberal Democrat wins and has reasonably successful presidency.

[GeographyDude]

What about Dick Gephardt? He ran in 1988, narrowly winning Iowa before burning out. Could he have become the nominee, had he won the first contest decisively?

This ad of his was quite protectionist.

It’s a masterful commercial! So much so that it might be hard to follow up with Act II.

And instead of straight protectionist, I view it as more hardball and insisting that it be a 2-way street with South Korea.

—————

PS Gephardt was pro-life and then he switched to a more moderate position. Both of these will make it difficult for him politically.

 

[GeographyDude]

. . . Neither major American party has ever ran a populist - it fundamentally conflicts with the ongoing dynamics.

Neither has ran a populist because it's not really possible to do so. Populism isn't really an ideology in itself (in fact ideology as a concept is quite anti-populist), but an electoral tactic or device. Plenty of campaigns, both successful and unsuccessful, have focussed on sending a message to 'the elites' (of whatever form - political, economic, cultural, etc).

. . . Save during the late 19th century, populism wasn't formally organized in the United States. However, articulated or not, it was the thinking of such major groups such as blue collar Catholics, Upper Great Plains famers, non-catholic but white ethnic minorities: Greeks, Armenians, Orthodox Jews, etc.
It had less to do with sending a message as actively combating the power of some of the ruling economic elites. . .

What if we say, the definition can be either inside or outside a political contest, meaning . .

During an election, if you want to think it’s fake populism because it only purports to address the needs of the majority, well, it’s certainly your prerogative to so think. You might even say it out loud!

Outside the system, like an academic placing on a label, well, if it’s attempts to appeal to a majority against elites, that’s populism.

——————-

PS In college, I had a poly sci professor who said American parties were not class based. At first I thought he was crazy. Or, maybe it was an academic position which does some things well, but gets in a corner on this one. But the more I thought about it . . . I think he’s actually largely correct.

 

[GeographyDude]

. . . 1980 being a major loss was pretty much just Carter’s own fault (Khomeini might not have cared if we just addressed the issue of the Shah immediately as opposed to vacillating on it). Give us President Frank Church, for one, in ‘76 and he likely manages to weather the storm and get a lot done with the actual supermajorities that OTL Carter pissed away. . .

Carter was a complicator. And sometimes that hurts actual policy, such as interaction with others.

And sometimes it merely rubs the voters the wrong way. And more so than one might think!

In U.S. politics, because of the threat of the filibuster in the Senate, 60 is a bare majority. Although the filibuster was less commonly used back in the 1970s.

 

[Marc]

What if we say, the definition can be either inside or outside a political contest, meaning . .

During an election, if you want to think it’s fake populism because it only purports to address the needs of the majority, well, it’s certainly your prerogative to so think. You might even say it out loud!

Outside the system, like an academic placing on a label, well, if it’s attempts to appeal to a majority against elites, that’s populism.

——————-

PS In college, I had a poly sci professor who said American parties were not class based. At first I thought he was crazy. Or, maybe it was an academic position which does some things well, but gets in a corner on this one. But the more I thought about it . . . I think he’s actually largely correct.

Perhaps the defining criteria of populism - why it's effectively politically dead, is that it combined anti-elitism with a strong social conservationism.
To exaggerate only mildly: "We hate those blood sucking banks, and we're going to completely ban abortion!"

 

[GeographyDude]

To exaggerate only mildly: "We hate those blood sucking banks, and we're going to completely ban abortion!"

We can also view this as an anti-complication position, right?

 

[Enigma-Conundrum]

Carter was a complicator. And sometimes that hurts actual policy, such as interaction with others.

And sometimes it merely rubs the voters the wrong way. And more so than one might think!

In U.S. politics, because of the threat of the filibuster in the Senate, 60 is a bare majority. Although the filibuster was less commonly used back in the 1970s.

60 votes is a bare majority for legislation, but there’s quite a lot that having a simple majority affords you too - committee control and the likes. Regardless, Carter really did create the mess that let Reagan win, and any president who could’ve worked with Tip O’Neill’s 290 Reps and Bob Byrd’s 62 senators as opposed to irritating them might’ve gotten things on the ‘76 Dem agenda done. What are these things?
- Creation of a Consumer Protection Agency
- Universal healthcare of some sort
- A partial repeal of Taft-Hartley, specifically section 14b (aka making Right-To-Work laws illegal)
- Public housing initiatives
- Probably major intelligence reform, but that’s more specific to the candidate I selected (Frank Church wanted to burn the CIA )
- Major tax overhauls
- Likely anti-corruption reforms, think less money in politics
- and more!
The legislative numbers were there to do it, and Carter just couldn’t bother to work with congressional leadership to actually get any of it done. Hell, he tried for healthcare reform in 1979 and failed miserably. With a president with more political acumen...

 

[GeographyDude]

. . . Regardless, Carter really did create the mess that let Reagan win, and any president who could’ve worked with Tip O’Neill’s 290 Reps and Bob Byrd’s 62 senators as opposed to irritating them might’ve gotten things on the ‘76 Dem agenda done.

I place some of the blame on Tip O’Neill. Tip took over when Carl Albert stepped down, probably winning a leadership vote sometime in Dec. ‘76 although he may well have been the obvious choice and the heir apparent (don’t know this part). So, Tip was a first-time Speaker of the House.

For example, the damn water projects. He could have talked privately with Carter, even argued with him. And then, when he found out Carter was adamant, subtly let the projects become a Christmas tree (bloated, but again subtly). Then Carter gets credit when he vetoes it. Tip doesn’t push for a vote to over-ride (calmly mentioning political realities), but then re-introduces months later a considerably scaled-back version.

And I thought seasoned legislators were good at this kind of inside baseball stuff!

 

[GeographyDude]

- Probably major intelligence reform, but that’s more specific to the candidate I selected (Frank Church wanted to burn the CIA )

I suspect we probably share many of the same views about the CIA, but I’m sure you realize we’re both in the minority, right?

At the end of the day, the majority of our fellow citizens seem to believe, if other countries do dirty, covert stuff, then we got to, too. And this was probably even more the case during the bad ol’ days of the cold war.

Where we do have a clear majority is in not propping up dictators. In fact, people tend to be against just foreign aid in general. And once they the facts, say about Suharto of Indonesia, people’s reaction is likely to be, why are we giving them a dime? A certain percentage will still like the “toughness” of the man or some such shit, but they’re a minority.

That is, in 1975 the men of peace in the Senate zagged when they should have zigged. And the House, too, for there was the “Pike Committee” in addition to the “Church Committee.” They should have gone after the practice of propping up dictators instead, would have been much more successful. By all means, also look at CIA abuses, just be briefer and more low-key about it.

 

[Enigma-Conundrum]

I suspect we probably share many of the same views about the CIA, but I’m sure you realize we’re both in the minority, right?

At the end of the day, the majority of our fellow citizens seem to believe, if other countries do dirty, covert stuff, then we got to, too. And this was probably even more the case during the bad ol’ days of the cold war.

Where we do have a clear majority is in not propping up dictators. In fact, people tend to be against just foreign aid in general. And once they the facts, say about Suharto of Indonesia, people’s reaction is likely to be, why are we giving them a dime? A certain percentage will still like the “toughness” of the man or some such shit, but they’re a minority.

That is, in 1975 the men of peace in the Senate zagged when they should have zigged. And the House, too, for there was the “Pike Committee” in addition to the “Church Committee.” They should have gone after propping up dictators instead, would have been much more successful. By all means, also look at CIA abuses, just be briefer and more low-key about it.

Very true. They did kind of drop the ball on the topic, even if Church did as much as he could to air the CIA’s dirty laundry in the brief public window he had where Americans despised the secret state. Probably the only time where he could reasonably have been successful at all, truth be told. However, him as president might see a totally different focus than cleaning house. If anything, his focus would be more power-based, one about putting presidential reins back on the CIA. Something DNI-ish with more direct presidential accountability? Just a thought exercise, of course.

 

[CountDVB]

Yes, I’d like timeline(s) in which this liberal Democrat is successful at rebuilding the American middle class. Bill Clinton, a centrist Democrat, talked about this, but didn’t or was not able to achieve this (slow erosion of middle class merely paused during his two terms).

But I’m almost equally interested in ways other than economics that liberalism could be successful, and widely viewed as such after two terms (say, with the outgoing president having 60% approval).

Your ideas please.

1976, 1988, and 1992: All of them are problematic years for a truly left-leaning Democrat President to shine because of the circumstances surrounding them.

1976 was damn near a poisoned chalice so if the GOP somehow got elected there, they’d be further screwed to where 1980 would be the best time for leftist Democrat at the time.

1988 is a bit unsure though it’d have to rely on dealing with the brainwashing charisma of Reagan, so more dependent on Reagan failing to stand a chance.

1992 is a pretty good chance though I’m not sure which Dem could win to stop the tide of neoliberalism. Tsongas is out. Tom Harkin I could see having a reasonable chance.

 

[GeographyDude]

. . . However, him as president might see a totally different focus than cleaning house. If anything, his focus would be more power-based, one about putting presidential reins back on the CIA. Something DNI-ish with more direct presidential accountability? Just a thought exercise, of course.

I would concur cautiously.

Let’s both remember that Pres. Obama, with a Constitutional law background, was the one who ramped up drone warfare. And I can just hear someone saying . . . well, that’s acceptable during warfare. Yes, and maybe that’s where the focus was, on whether it was hypothetically acceptable.

Instead of whether it was wise and constructive in the actual circumstances.

 

[Enigma-Conundrum]

1976 was damn near a poisoned chalice so if the GOP somehow got elected there, they’d be further screwed to where 1980 would be the best time for leftist Democrat at the time.

I don't quite know here (also, shameless plug for my TL linked in my sig that's centered around this scenario), because deregulation and whatnot were getting pretty popular. If anything, a Republican '76 basically just leads to the 90s but quicker, but with less of a pivot from liberalism because Jimmeh actually lost. Basically, our notion of Democratic centrism would shift, it'd still include budget hawkery and deregulatory policy while desperately avoiding lower-bracket tax increases because all of that is broadly popular to do by then, but it'd also not just abandon New Deal economics. Hell, you'd probably see Humphrey-Hawkins-as-deficit-reduction because some more moderate supporters of it saw it as a sneaky way to mess with budgeting. Basically, there wouldn't be a leftist Dem per se, but you'd see a POTUS perceived the way we perceive Bill Clinton ideologically today, except they'd be more liberal and less likely to scrap the entire New Deal playbook in the name of a neoliberal "end of history" fantasy.

 

[CountDVB]

I don't quite know here (also, shameless plug for my TL linked in my sig that's centered around this scenario), because deregulation and whatnot were getting pretty popular. If anything, a Republican '76 basically just leads to the 90s but quicker, but with less of a pivot from liberalism because Jimmeh actually lost. Basically, our notion of Democratic centrism would shift, it'd still include budget hawkery and deregulatory policy while desperately avoiding lower-bracket tax increases because all of that is broadly popular to do by then, but it'd also not just abandon New Deal economics. Hell, you'd probably see Humphrey-Hawkins-as-deficit-reduction because some more moderate supporters of it saw it as a sneaky way to mess with budgeting. Basically, there wouldn't be a leftist Dem per se, but you'd see a POTUS perceived the way we perceive Bill Clinton ideologically today, except they'd be more liberal and less likely to scrap the entire New Deal playbook in the name of a neoliberal "end of history" fantasy.

Not really. That massive shift occurred because of the dumb luck of the Reagan administration. Neoconservatism and Reaganomics helped popularized neoliberalism.

A prominent left-leaning Democrat would ride the wave of the 80s recovery and put in reforms and pretty much cement themselves as an ideal president.

Hell, Mo Udall I could see being the leftist equivalent to Reagan if he lasts fully well into the two terms and if they don’t try attacking his sickness. He was definitely s charming and affable fellow.

 

[Enigma-Conundrum]

Not really. That massive shift occurred because of the dumb luck of the Reagan administration. Neoconservatism and Reaganomics helped popularized neoliberalism.

A prominent left-leaning Democrat would ride the wave of the 80s recovery and put in reforms and pretty much cement themselves as an ideal president.

Hell, Mo Udall I could see being the leftist equivalent to Reagan if he lasts fully well into the two terms and if they don’t try attacking his sickness. He was definitely s charming and affable fellow.

Look at the Prop 13 fight in California, even while Carter was President. Look at the bipartisan deregulatory policies of the Carter administration. There's plenty of examples of deregulation and whatnot becoming popular even before Reagan. It wouldn't be as pronounced without him, but any Democrat in the 80s would have to manage that safely - that's why I say they'd be a sort of left-Clinton who would maintain New Dealish economics because they'd almost certainly be hamstrung by anti-tax / anti-regulation undercurrents that Reagan capitalized on and dialed up to 11 OTL. Mo Udall would be a good choice for a progressive, especially because he was a bit odd on interstate commerce and whatnot IIRC, which probably plays to his benefit.

 

[GeographyDude]

. . . 1976 was damn near a poisoned chalice . . .

I’m going to put up a graph of oil prices (just from 1983 forward!) and just to show that this aspect of the economy is a lot more iffy and variable than we often think it is.

Price of oil in 2020 dollars

World Oil analysis: Research shows current oil price collapse near record proportions

The oil price collapse of the last two weeks has reached near-record territory, according to World Oil’s analysis of historical prices in constant dollars.

www.worldoil.com

* even though missing the ‘70s, this graph is just too good to leave on the cutting room floor

 

[CountDVB]

Look at the Prop 13 fight in California, even while Carter was President. Look at the bipartisan deregulatory policies of the Carter administration. There's plenty of examples of deregulation and whatnot becoming popular even before Reagan. It wouldn't be as pronounced without him, but any Democrat in the 80s would have to manage that safely - that's why I say they'd be a sort of left-Clinton who would maintain New Dealish economics because they'd almost certainly be hamstrung by anti-tax / anti-regulation undercurrents that Reagan capitalized on and dialed up to 11 OTL. Mo Udall would be a good choice for a progressive, especially because he was a bit odd on interstate commerce and whatnot IIRC, which probably plays to his benefit.

They only got the widespread popularity because of Reagan, especially since it would become associated with the economic recovery of the 1980s, which was more due to the increased deficit spending along with the Federal Reserve doing its job because of Volker and dealing with inflation. While it would be coming up, there would be other ways for them to deal with sluggish economy and without causing a recession like Reagan did early on.

Mo Udall definitely possessed charisma and would possess more benefit of the doubt if 1976-1980 was a GOP year. It would be following Nixon and the various events would mean people would be pretty sick of the GOP and conservatives. Mo Udall being a pretty good prominent leftist would bring alot of favor and popularity with them with the high chance of dealing with economic recovery and leveraging that to introduce a single-payer universal healthcare plan along with more environmental reforms.

Udall could probably make it to 1988 though he may more die in his second term through a mix of presidential stress and his Parkinson's or possibly force to resign so his VP could finish his second term and capitalize on the Dem success to win 1988-1992 (no idea who though if Mo wanted to ease the moderates... maybe Walter Mondale?)

 

[GeographyDude]

. . . Mo Udall being a pretty good prominent leftist would bring alot of favor and popularity with them with the high chance of dealing with economic recovery and leveraging that to introduce a single-payer universal healthcare plan along with more environmental reforms. . .

I’m in favor of both of these, with healthcare being a key factor of whether a person is treated as a valued member of society and environment being our future heritage. In fact, both of these are big reasons I favor a mixed economy.

All the same, I want more focus than normal on the main engine of a healthy economy— which is growing and expanding number of middle-income jobs.

 

[CountDVB]

I’m in favor of both of these, with healthcare being a key factor of whether a person is treated as a valued member of society and environment being our future heritage. In fact, both of these are big reasons I favor a mixed economy.

All the same, I want more focus than normal on the main engine of a healthy economy— which is growing and expanding number of middle-income jobs.

Healthcare would be a big and personal deal for Udall given what happened to him as a boy.

The problem is on the time setting. The rapid development of new technology and so on means that while growing and expanding the amount of middle income jobs would be desirable, it's gonna be difficult because of the growing sense of globalization along with the rise of the Digital Age. Now, if we have an 80s Mo Udall presidency, I could see him working with the Atari Democrats in exchange for their support on his more progressive policies. Granted, the Video Game Crash of 1983 would either jeopardize that or possible incentivize that agreement or possibly be averted.

At the same time, I do feel one aspect would be to promote and maintain the wage growth of blue collar jobs along with their prominence and ensuring the affordability of higher education.

We might get something similar to the rise of cubicle farms from the 80s and 90s, but with the emphasis being on technology or efficiency rather than the business aspect. However, the 80s boom was also because of the bugbear of the collective unconscious, mass consumerism. People make the economy go round and so there needs to be a place where money could be spent. Especially now if healthcare would be paid for by everyone.

Udall's presdiency would likely not be the "greed is good" enabler for sure. It could be a counterforce against the growing corporate culture though Udall's reforms may stifle that corporate culture rise to begin win. Though we don't get the increase in the military nor more Cold War shannigans I reckon it would be much less haunting when the USSR would sitll collapse during his successor's adminsitration. We would get a clash of differences between Thatcher and Udall and that contrast could effect things down the line.

 

[VoidTemplar]

For a given value of “liberal”, Scoop Jackson ran with labor support in 1976. Have Humphrey go out and give a Shermanesque statement early in the race, and he could ride the train all the way to the White House

 

[Thomas1195]

The OTL financial market deregulation would not fly under Udall or Carey. Even IOTL, it only took off during Reagan's second term.