New Deal Coalition Retained: A Sixth Party System Wikibox Timeline

[Comisario]

Any chance that Rogernomics could be done by the left-wing party in another country like the UK or Canada? Also on that-somebody should make a TL where Reaganomics and the main neoliberal reforms in the US are done by the left, Bill Clinton, while he added to it with welfare reform, deregulation and 'triangulation', was only a symptom of the already conservative era.

A Labour Party without the SDP and with David Owen taking over from Callaghan in the '80s could lead us down that route (perhaps a Whitelaw government from '79 to '83/'84 would help this along). At least, that's the most popular scenario when people think of UK Labour implementing neoliberal reforms. But, the left-wing surge of the '70s - the rise of Bennism, the election of Michael Foot, Militant, etc. - can't be handwaved away so easily. Benn and his followers would fight tooth and nail against the introduction of neoliberalism, so it's more likely to be a left-wing response to the crisis in the '80s.

What such a TL would need is a POD earlier in the 1970s that could cut the groundswell of left-wing support for Labour and keep the membership onside for the party leadership.

(Apologies for this aside)

 

[Gonzo]

A Labour Party without the SDP and with David Owen taking over from Callaghan in the '80s could lead us down that route (perhaps a Whitelaw government from '79 to '83/'84 would help this along). At least, that's the most popular scenario when people think of UK Labour implementing neoliberal reforms. But, the left-wing surge of the '70s - the rise of Bennism, the election of Michael Foot, Militant, etc. - can't be handwaved away so easily. Benn and his followers would fight tooth and nail against the introduction of neoliberalism, so it's more likely to be a left-wing response to the crisis in the '80s.

What such a TL would need is a POD earlier in the 1970s that could cut the groundswell of left-wing support for Labour and keep the membership onside for the party leadership.

(Apologies for this aside)

An interesting idea would be a left-wing split off akin to the SDP which could syphon off some of the more radical dissenting voices to this more moderate or 'right-wing' turn for the party. How that would be achieved or if those on the left would even do such a thing (I'm reminded of when Benn put Jenkins down on Question Time by saying that he had betrayed the Labour Party, its principles and the very people they represented - putting his career before all that) is a different question.

 

[Nyvis]

My goal was to have the same Rogernomics as OTL as a unique backdrop against the normal party grain, but I can retcon the choice to someone more plausible. Who would you recommend?

I think that's mozt people's problem with the TL right here. You tend to push towards your desired direction regardless of plausability. This isn't how people interested in history expect alternate history to work. Personally, I like your writing style, but I feel you should go with the flow more instead of pushing a narrative when describing international events. This is what separates AH from regular storytelling to me. It's still enjoyable to read though, don't worry.

 

[tuxer]

An interesting idea would be a left-wing split off akin to the SDP which could syphon off some of the more radical dissenting voices to this more moderate or 'right-wing' turn for the party. How that would be achieved or if those on the left would even do such a thing (I'm reminded of when Benn put Jenkins down on Question Time by saying that he had betrayed the Labour Party, its principles and the very people they represented - putting his career before all that) is a different question.

The problem with that is that the right-wing of Labour was social democratic, not neoliberal. The Labour right were supporters of an extensive welfare state and a well-funded NHS, neoliberalism by nature oppose all forms of government spending that benefits workers.

The reason why Tories became the supporters of neoliberalism was because they had a pro-business anti-welfare wing (often called "dries") as well active intellectual support from grassroots organizations outside of the party- that level of parliamentary support is what allowed Thatcher to implement her moneterist policies. Without that parliamentary support she would have ended up as a British Obama.

Removing the "Labour left" is not enough, because the "Labour right" is to the left and opposite to neoliberalism.

 

[JwEX]

​

View attachment 308962
​

It could have swung either way, but the Republicans had convinced enough anti-Mecham swing voters that Rehnquist was the best bet to kick out ol’ Evan.

@The Congressman, What position/office did Rehnquist hold before the election? He obviously was not a SCOTUS justice.

 

[AJNolte]

I think that's mozt people's problem with the TL right here. You tend to push towards your desired direction regardless of plausability. This isn't how people interested in history expect alternate history to work. Personally, I like your writing style, but I feel you should go with the flow more instead of pushing a narrative when describing international events. This is what separates AH from regular storytelling to me. It's still enjoyable to read though, don't worry.

I'm really curious as to the definition of "plausibility" many of you are using, because it seems to be pretty arbitrary.

Rick Santorum as evil dictator of the U.S? Plausible apparently.

Rumsfeld as another evil dictator? Also plausible.

A Soviet leader having a secret religious conversion after a near-death experience and bringing people into power designed to undermine the system? Completely implausible.
Never mind that there are people, some of whom worked in the OTL Reagan administration, who think Gorbachev was himself a secret Christian:
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/

Or that the United States has never had a dictator, and in fact has robust institutional protections against exactly that happening.

Someone want to explain the logic there? Because I don't see it even a little bit.

Also, if picking a direction you want things to go then trying to make the facts fit that direction is so unpopular on this site, why are like half the threads on the front page of the before and after 1900 forum labeled as "AH challenge"? Isn't that precisely the point of those threads?

 

[AJNolte]

The fortress mentality that a portion of this TL's readers have is disturbing, to say the least. Criticism comes part and parcel with making any sort of creative work, and as long as the criticism is constructive and civil there's no reason to treat it like an attack. This is a writing piece, not a battlefield.

Disturbing? Really? That's a bit rich. And in what way is the vast majority of the criticism that's been leveled at NDCR since it was nominated for the turtledoves "constructive"?

It's not constructive criticism if you don't suggest alternatives.

 

[Indicus]

I'm really curious as to the definition of "plausibility" many of you are using, because it seems to be pretty arbitrary.

Rick Santorum as evil dictator of the U.S? Plausible apparently.

Rumsfeld as another evil dictator? Also plausible.

I don't think anyone thinks those TLs are plausible, and the writer of Rumsfeldia has stated that it's a thought experiment on political extremism more than an actual and plausible TL a few times.

This TL, on the other hand, is created in order to be plausible.

 

[AJNolte]

I don't think anyone thinks those TLs are plausible, and the writer of Rumsfeldia has stated that it's a thought experiment on political extremism more than an actual and plausible TL a few times.

This TL, on the other hand, is created in order to be plausible.

Is it? It seems to me The Congressman's goal is mostly to tell an interesting story rather than to meet an arbitrary standard of alternate historical plausibility, and that putting people in really outlandish positions as compared to their OTL fate is also part of the point of the whole thing. I could be wrong though.

 

[Napoleon IV]

Actually, the main criticism of Rumsfeldia is that it is implausible.

 

[shiftygiant]

I'm really curious as to the definition of "plausibility" many of you are using, because it seems to be pretty arbitrary.

Rick Santorum as evil dictator of the U.S? Plausible apparently.

Rumsfeld as another evil dictator? Also plausible.

I wouldn't consider either of those plausible, and I don't think questioning the plausibility of this TL have ever held either of those up as examples of plausibility (if anything, quite the opposite).

This is a fairly naked whataboutisms, and one that isn't really helping. Plausibility is what the reader feels is probable- some readers may find, for example, may find Nixon's daughter marrying Prince Charles to be a plausible event, whilst others may not. If we really want to bring up Rumsfeldia, then the reason people defend Rumsfeld going mad with power is because the author has taken their time to construct a world where that path is a possibility, arduously detailing the events that lead up to that point so it doesn't seem like such a massive leap- but at the same time, the immersion is broken because a logical leap is taken, one too great for a lot of readers to be on board with and follow, a noted example being the Canada Annexation update. If it follows a logical chain nad makes sense in context, then it's plausible. If it breaks that chain, then people will say it's implausible. It's fundamentally an issue of the suspension of disbelief, but just because you're still suspended doesn't mean those who aren't are wrong for questioning what threw them out of it, because having your suspense broken is a flaw of the writing.

I've been hard on @The Congressman for a while, but to offer something nice and a bit more constructive, I do think that the America stuff works well and does follow a chain of logic. Sometimes it skips, but it's not throwing me out. However, it's when this TL ventures into international territory that the plausibility becomes threadbare because actions and events aren't making much sense even within the context of the TL. It's the Rumsfeldian issue- yes, you can say that a chain of events and logic are preceding it, and perhaps at times we can even see it, but it leaps too far and certain things- Solzhenitsyn- are too big a pill to swallow. I would suggest something regarding sources, but you haven't really said anything about what sources you do use so there isn't really anything I can build up from. But if you want an alternative to the controversial choice, one that would make some sense, then the already suggested Tikhonov or Karpov (as Napoleon suggested) would be the better route.

Is it? It seems to me The Congressman's goal is mostly to tell an interesting story rather than to meet an arbitrary standard of alternate historical plausibility, and that putting people in really outlandish positions as compared to their OTL fate is also part of the point of the whole thing. I could be wrong though.

And, to say this as nicely as possible, if that is the goal, it should be in the Writers Forum. I know that's a dirty place for a lot of people, but to be blunt that is the intention, then it should be there.

 

[The Congressman]

The post-Communist SLD in Poland came very close to implementing a flat tax in the late 90s.

ITTL Minaprogressive's might

@The Congressman, What position/office did Rehnquist hold before the election? He obviously was not a SCOTUS justice.

Attorney General of Arizona

 

[Nyvis]

I'm really curious as to the definition of "plausibility" many of you are using, because it seems to be pretty arbitrary.

Rick Santorum as evil dictator of the U.S? Plausible apparently.

Rumsfeld as another evil dictator? Also plausible.

A Soviet leader having a secret religious conversion after a near-death experience and bringing people into power designed to undermine the system? Completely implausible.
Never mind that there are people, some of whom worked in the OTL Reagan administration, who think Gorbachev was himself a secret Christian:
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/

Or that the United States has never had a dictator, and in fact has robust institutional protections against exactly that happening.

Someone want to explain the logic there? Because I don't see it even a little bit.

Also, if picking a direction you want things to go then trying to make the facts fit that direction is so unpopular on this site, why are like half the threads on the front page of the before and after 1900 forum labeled as "AH challenge"? Isn't that precisely the point of those threads?

If you look, most of those threads get some discussion, but little actual writing. The best, most popular and longest TLs tend not to follow those formats because they tend to feel like pushing an agenda instead of writing an alternate timeline. It can be compelling, but it's easier to overdo it.

As a whole, I find this TL to be fairly plausible and well developped in that regard, but a few points tend to be decided mostly on a whim or to accomplish a result, rather than by thinking through causes and consequences to make reaching them natural. You could probably write the same events but with more work to bring it to life, and it would appear natural. I think this is a consequence of those regions not being the main focus of the TL. They don't get the full treatment, so when we get a suprising fact in, we don't have all the actions bringing it to happen and justifying it in the wider world. It seems dropped in to push the desired direction instead of something logical. To me, it's mostly about bringing those informations in a more natural manner, and not the content itself. As the congressman said, OTL can sometimes look very ASB. But if you look into it, the bricks fit with each other, even when the result is surprising.

 

[The Congressman]

If you look, most of those threads get some discussion, but little actual writing. The best, most popular and longest TLs tend not to follow those formats because they tend to feel like pushing an agenda instead of writing an alternate timeline. It can be compelling, but it's easier to overdo it.

As a whole, I find this TL to be fairly plausible and well developped in that regard, but a few points tend to be decided mostly on a whim or to accomplish a result, rather than by thinking through causes and consequences to make reaching them natural. You could probably write the same events but with more work to bring it to life, and it would appear natural. I think this is a consequence of those regions not being the main focus of the TL. They don't get the full treatment, so when we get a suprising fact in, we don't have all the actions bringing it to happen and justifying it in the wider world. It seems dropped in to push the desired direction instead of something logical. To me, it's mostly about bringing those informations in a more natural manner, and not the content itself. As the congressman said, OTL can sometimes look very ASB. But if you look into it, the bricks fit with each other, even when the result is surprising.

All the bricks will fit together. I could write huge explanations within the text, but I'm trying to keep a little suspense for future events. Everything will fit.

 

[Sulemain]

Actually, the main criticism of Rumsfeldia is that it is implausible.

Yes, precisely.

 

[Nyvis]

ITTL Minaprogressive's might

Wait, aren't minaprogressives supposed to be somewhat left of the political spectrum? Flat tax is way to the right of economic politics.

 

[The Congressman]

Wait, aren't minaprogressives supposed to be somewhat left of the political spectrum? Flat tax is way to the right of economic politics.

I was making a broader point about economic reforms associated with left-libertarianism, which is essentially what minaprogressivism is. I'm sorry for the confusion.

 

[AJNolte]

If you look, most of those threads get some discussion, but little actual writing. The best, most popular and longest TLs tend not to follow those formats because they tend to feel like pushing an agenda instead of writing an alternate timeline. It can be compelling, but it's easier to overdo it.

As a whole, I find this TL to be fairly plausible and well developped in that regard, but a few points tend to be decided mostly on a whim or to accomplish a result, rather than by thinking through causes and consequences to make reaching them natural. You could probably write the same events but with more work to bring it to life, and it would appear natural. I think this is a consequence of those regions not being the main focus of the TL. They don't get the full treatment, so when we get a suprising fact in, we don't have all the actions bringing it to happen and justifying it in the wider world. It seems dropped in to push the desired direction instead of something logical. To me, it's mostly about bringing those informations in a more natural manner, and not the content itself. As the congressman said, OTL can sometimes look very ASB. But if you look into it, the bricks fit with each other, even when the result is surprising.

That's fair enough, though I think the number of pure alternate timelines that aren't in some way pushing an agenda in the after 1900 forum is pretty vanishingly small, and decreases in direct proportion to the recency of the POD. Quite frankly I think there's a lot of "OTL was this way so all timelines must look similar" going on in the criticisms of this TL.

 

[Nyvis]

That's fair enough, though I think the number of pure alternate timelines that aren't in some way pushing an agenda in the after 1900 forum is pretty vanishingly small, and decreases in direct proportion to the recency of the POD. Quite frankly I think there's a lot of "OTL was this way so all timelines must look similar" going on in the criticisms of this TL.

I agree this is much harder to do when the pod is closer to today.

 

[Free_Soil_Andrew]

Why would someone who hates the government want to join it

Hm...

and be allowed to do so?

This is real question, IMO. Given he has a position in the government, Semichastny's agenda explains why he would be elevated. It doesn't explain why he was allowed into the government in the first place.