Neoliberal Democrats, Populist Republicans

[Cuāuhtemōc]

With a point of divergence between the 1940s and now, you need to make the Democrats completely embracing neoliberalism, and increasingly viewed as very socially conscious but pro-market and the Republicans as the party of the socially conservative working stiff.

 

[overoceans]

I think you'd need an earlier POD. Once the Democrats became the party of the New Deal, it was likely inevitable that they would remain the more economically interventionist of the two parties for a long long time.

 

[lyndons_lyndon]

I doubt this could happen, when Lyndon Johnson embraced economic interventionism and a modest welfare state it would virtually be impossible to change this trend, Reagan had already positioned himself with the so called "conservative" wing of the GOP when actually until 1980 were actually just rump neoliberals.

 

[Politibrit]

There are those that would argue sections of the Democrats did embrace neoliberalism.

 

[Galba Otho Vitelius]

Future history!

This is very close to the situation, like, now.

Trump has to run an administration that is both genuinely populist and fairly competent, and get the Republicans in Congress to go along, which granted two months in is looking increasingly unlikely. To get neoliberal Democrats you pretty much have to keep them on the course they are on now. The progressives leave and are replaced by "never Trump" suburban Republicans.

 

[dw93]

There are those that would argue sections of the Democrats did embrace neoliberalism.

The mainstream of the party did in the 1990s thanks to Bill Clinton.

 

[lyndons_lyndon]

Future history!

This is very close to the situation, like, now.

Trump has to run an administration that is both genuinely populist and fairly competent, and get the Republicans in Congress to go along, which granted two months in is looking increasingly unlikely. To get neoliberal Democrats you pretty much have to keep them on the course they are on now. The progressives leave and are replaced by "never Trump" suburban Republicans.

I agree with this, Hillary Clinton was a terrible candidate. Regardless, the Democrats polarized all of their support because of her constant 180's on TPP.

 

[King Henry]

I'd actually argue the opposite is easier. Have to change the history of organized labor, the civil rights/black liberation, and the activist left some grant, but you could end up with the GOP being the party of Rockefeller and Lindsay while the Dems stand for the solid south and herenvolk democracy.

 

[Prussian1871]

This isn't too far away than it is now. I'd say have Clinton go up against Buchanan, who was a protectionist, to set an earlier trend of populism in the Republican Party. Stop the Iraq War, which brought a lot of opposition from the left on neoliberals.

 

[Deleted member 83898]

Have Cory Booker or someone like him take the Democratic nomination in 2020 and you've got this.

 

[Byz]

Have Cory Booker or someone like him take the Democratic nomination in 2020 and you've got this.

Almost. You'd then need Trump to be succeeded by a genuine Populist, with the Rust Belt voters Republicans have worked so hard to win over fundamentally changing what the Party stands for.

 

[King Henry]

Almost. You'd then need Trump to be succeeded by a genuine Populist, with the Rust Belt voters Republicans have worked so hard to win over fundamentally changing what the Party stands for.

Plus the whole racial question. The GOP as it stands is at least a generation away form being the party of the Black or Hispanic working class.