Why would someone who hates the government want to join it and be allowed to do so?I assume he does hate the Government, and that was going to be the point
Why would someone who hates the government want to join it and be allowed to do so?I assume he does hate the Government, and that was going to be the point
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.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)
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).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.
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.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.
ITTL Minaprogressive's mightThe post-Communist SLD in Poland came very close to implementing a flat tax in the late 90s.
Attorney General of Arizona@The Congressman, What position/office did Rehnquist hold before the election? He obviously was not a SCOTUS justice.
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?
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.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.
Actually, the main criticism of Rumsfeldia is that it is implausible.
ITTL Minaprogressive's might
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.Wait, aren't minaprogressives supposed to be somewhat left of the political spectrum? Flat tax is way to the right of economic politics.
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.