No Nordic shift to the left, what does this mean for the US?

Was speaking to a friend who's been doing research into the shifts of US politics since the end of World War Two, and he mentioned that had the Nordic countries not shifted to the left, and adopted certain socialistic principles, then there would not have been a model for the Democrat party to embrace during the sixties. Instead, this would be the state of the two parties:

'no shift left for the dems means the democrats are far right socially, center ecomoically and the republicans are center right socially and center right ecomoically. A major difference between them would be foreign policy with the Democrats being right-wing interventionist and the Republicans being right-wing isolationist (to a certain extent)'

And as regards Nixon's southern strategy, he had this to say:

'I don't think there would be the dems own the south they are still the party of Jim Crow, blacks in the south will vote republican tho.'

How true is this?

If the Nordic countries had remained absolutist monarchies, would that have influenced the US Democratic party whatsoever?
 
How much of a model for the New Deal were the Nordic countries? Because I think it's Roosevelt's policies which were the direct cause of the Democratic shift to the left(on economics anyway), even if FDR was serving as a conduit for externally derived theories.

So, if Roosevelt was taking his inspiration from the Nordics, yeah, a non-socialist Scandinavia could make a difference. If not, then I'm not sure. I've always had the vague idea that LBJ's Great Society was inspired by British sources(eg. I think the phrase itself was from a British weiter), but I don't have a lot of details on that.
 
How much of a model for the New Deal were the Nordic countries? Because I think it's Roosevelt's policies which were the direct cause of the Democratic shift to the left(on economics anyway), even if FDR was serving as a conduit for externally derived theories.

So, if Roosevelt was taking his inspiration from the Nordics, yeah, a non-socialist Scandinavia could make a difference. If not, then I'm not sure. I've always had the vague idea that LBJ's Great Society was inspired by British sources(eg. I think the phrase itself was from a British weiter), but I don't have a lot of details on that.

Interesting, would it be possible for the new deal to emerge in a scenario where such programmes are institued by absolutist states?
 
re: OP

One thing, if Sweden never goes left-wing, Eisenhower doesn't mention their supposedly high-suicide rate as a drawback of socialism, thus removing one piece of barstool wisdom from the sociopolitical discourse.
 
re: OP

One thing, if Sweden never goes left-wing, Eisenhower doesn't mention their supposedly high-suicide rate as a drawback of socialism, thus removing one piece of barstool wisdom from the sociopolitical discourse.

Hmm this is true, and if Sweden still has that high rate of suicide under an absolute monarhcy, then perhaps his focus is against such authoritarian movements?
 
Hmm this is true, and if Sweden still has that high rate of suicide under an absolute monarhcy, then perhaps his focus is against such authoritarian movements?

Actually, for the record, I think it was disproven that socialist policies were the cause of any high-suicide rate in Sweden. IIRC, they did have a high suicide rate at one time, but it decreased as the welfare-state became more developed.

The conservative explanation for "socialism = suicide" never made much sense to me. It was always phrased something like "When the government takes care of everything for you, eventually you lose the will to stay alive."

But people don't kill themselves because their lives are too comfortable. Or at least I personally can't think of anyone who did that. Usually it's either because of some perceived overwhelming difficulty in their lives, or maybe chemical depression. Not just some sort of vague sense of ennui.

To your question, if Sweden was a more capitalist and western-oriented authoritarian country, Eisenhower probably wouldn't have felt the need to debunk their quality of life, even if they did have a high suicide rate. Unless there was some movement in the USA agitating for a return to absolute monarchy.
 
Actually, for the record, I think it was disproven that socialist policies were the cause of any high-suicide rate in Sweden. IIRC, they did have a high suicide rate at one time, but it decreased as the welfare-state became more developed.

The conservative explanation for "socialism = suicide" never made much sense to me. It was always phrased something like "When the government takes care of everything for you, eventually you lose the will to stay alive."

But people don't kill themselves because their lives are too comfortable. Or at least I personally can't think of anyone who did that. Usually it's either because of some perceived overwhelming difficulty in their lives, or maybe chemical depression. Not just some sort of vague sense of ennui.

To your question, if Sweden was a more capitalist and western-oriented authoritarian country, Eisenhower probably wouldn't have felt the need to debunk their quality of life, even if they did have a high suicide rate. Unless there was some movement in the USA agitating for a return to absolute monarchy.

Alright this is very true, I agree the whole socialism==suicide never made sense to me either, I have my own gripes with it, but that was never one of them.

And this is true, with the Nordic nations being absolute monarchies, would there be tolerance there from the US, or a move to introduce democracy subtly? Or would it not even be an issue, as they're not communist?
 
Alright this is very true, I agree the whole socialism==suicide never made sense to me either, I have my own gripes with it, but that was never one of them.

And this is true, with the Nordic nations being absolute monarchies, would there be tolerance there from the US, or a move to introduce democracy subtly? Or would it not even be an issue, as they're not communist?

Assuming the Cold War is still going on, and the Scandinavian absolute monarchies are pro-west, I can't see the US caring. The attitude would be like that toward Saudi Arabia these days.

I was gonna say that there might be a requirement that NATO countries be democratic, but Greece under the generals was allowed to stay in, so that likely wouldn't be a problem.
 
Assuming the Cold War is still going on, and the Scandinavian absolute monarchies are pro-west, I can't see the US caring. The attitude would be like that toward Saudi Arabia these days.

I was gonna say that there might be a requirement that NATO countries be democratic, but Greece under the generals was allowed to stay in, so that likely wouldn't be a problem.

Alright interesting, so likely things remain relatively similar to otl?

And now this is somewhat divergent from the op, but imagining that Europe remained with monarchies, including Russia, would a cold war be likely between the US and Russia in any scenario post ww2?
 
My theory is that without the New Deal, in some alternate history without a Great Depression and likely no WWII, you would see the Republicans remain factionalized into the progressive and conservative wing while the Democrats remain divided more between North and South. In my mind this Republican Party would be more amenable to pursuing civil rights generally and adoptive of the "welfare" state akin to how Bismarck sought to cut-off the Socialist agenda by introducing more state/corporate sponsored models that kept the fighting men stronger. That is not the say the GOP is anything resembling socialism. Rather I think you have an American generally more "right" than Europe, socially and economically, smaller government and more power remaining at State level, a more regional American. The Democrats would still have a stronger pull in industrial North as I think that wing is far more left-leaning but focused on workers rights and benefits as the South mutes the general social issues that touch upon race, ethnicity and religion. If anything a successful state welfare system in the traditional Monarchies would bolster this GOP to see it as good governance and corporate responsibility as opposed to lower class revolution and graft. Even if a Soviet Russia emerged in the alternate WWI underlying this alternate I think the menace of such a "socialist" state is far more dulled and we see markedly different ideological conflict as it impacts America. Europe would likely see far stronger but also more independent far-left parties and ideologies, the USSR would likely never be much more than a strong competitor for working class minds as opposed to the singular champion.
 
My theory is that without the New Deal, in some alternate history without a Great Depression and likely no WWII, you would see the Republicans remain factionalized into the progressive and conservative wing while the Democrats remain divided more between North and South. In my mind this Republican Party would be more amenable to pursuing civil rights generally and adoptive of the "welfare" state akin to how Bismarck sought to cut-off the Socialist agenda by introducing more state/corporate sponsored models that kept the fighting men stronger. That is not the say the GOP is anything resembling socialism. Rather I think you have an American generally more "right" than Europe, socially and economically, smaller government and more power remaining at State level, a more regional American. The Democrats would still have a stronger pull in industrial North as I think that wing is far more left-leaning but focused on workers rights and benefits as the South mutes the general social issues that touch upon race, ethnicity and religion. If anything a successful state welfare system in the traditional Monarchies would bolster this GOP to see it as good governance and corporate responsibility as opposed to lower class revolution and graft. Even if a Soviet Russia emerged in the alternate WWI underlying this alternate I think the menace of such a "socialist" state is far more dulled and we see markedly different ideological conflict as it impacts America. Europe would likely see far stronger but also more independent far-left parties and ideologies, the USSR would likely never be much more than a strong competitor for working class minds as opposed to the singular champion.

Oh that's quite interesting, so with this in mind, would the US be as willing to project power abroad, or would it remain more isolationist as it was in the days of Hoover, Wilson etc?
 
Was speaking to a friend who's been doing research into the shifts of US politics since the end of World War Two, and he mentioned that had the Nordic countries not shifted to the left, and adopted certain socialistic principles, then there would not have been a model for the Democrat party to embrace during the sixties. Instead, this would be the state of the two parties:

'no shift left for the dems means the democrats are far right socially, center ecomoically and the republicans are center right socially and center right ecomoically. A major difference between them would be foreign policy with the Democrats being right-wing interventionist and the Republicans being right-wing isolationist (to a certain extent)'

And as regards Nixon's southern strategy, he had this to say:

'I don't think there would be the dems own the south they are still the party of Jim Crow, blacks in the south will vote republican tho.'

How true is this?

If the Nordic countries had remained absolutist monarchies, would that have influenced the US Democratic party whatsoever?

The Democratic Party had plenty of other models, like Britain and France, to draw on and truth be told the main inspiration for the policies pushed by Johnson in the 60s were an expansion of the New Deal. The Nordic countries not going socialist requires a whole slew of historical changes that would murder swarms of butterflies to achieve anything resembling the 60s OTL including (among other things) governments that are so openly fascist that they're butchering trade unionists in the street (the Nordic welfare states started because of labor action in the 30s) and avoiding the strengthening of the Left in Norway that happened thanks to Nazi occupation.
 
The issue with the nordic model is that it isn't that left wing.

It involves a pretty regressive system of taxation (VAT and whatnot) and is coupled with being very very economically liberal (free market) compared to most other countries.
 
The Democratic Party had plenty of other models, like Britain and France, to draw on and truth be told the main inspiration for the policies pushed by Johnson in the 60s were an expansion of the New Deal. The Nordic countries not going socialist requires a whole slew of historical changes that would murder swarms of butterflies to achieve anything resembling the 60s OTL including (among other things) governments that are so openly fascist that they're butchering trade unionists in the street (the Nordic welfare states started because of labor action in the 30s) and avoiding the strengthening of the Left in Norway that happened thanks to Nazi occupation.
This is true
 
Oh that's quite interesting, so with this in mind, would the US be as willing to project power abroad, or would it remain more isolationist as it was in the days of Hoover, Wilson etc?

As far as Asia goes it appears we were committed to intervene since before the war and the events there put Japan in collision with us, left unchanged then we will continue to bump into Japanese ambitions and the return of former European meddling in China that will deepen our alienation from likely Britain most of all, France less so. Without Wilson do we have a 1916 navy bill to increase the fleet? I think that was his vision and not as likely without him. Longer term I think we will match and over power Japan, but parity with the RN? Again that is Wilson, I think we might have accepted RN dominance unless the Anglo-Japanese Alliance remains. You choose, does Japan remain a British ally or go it alone post-war?

Wilson to me was very interventionist, he went into Mexico where Taft refused and Clark arguably would not. Despite his rhetoric he took America very clearly into the war and leaned pro-Entente from the beginning. Taft was more inclined to focus away from Europe and only interested in Asia, I suspect he was virtually isolationist. Progressive TR was international in outlook. So the GOP can be argued either way perhaps? More personality driven? The break is post-Wilson as far as I can see, the USA turns isolationist after the "failure" of WWI, this trend continues until the eve of WWII and FDR, without WWII we might have a rather isolationist USA outside of Asia. I do not think that the USA was isolationist as much as disconnected from Europe. It had deeper interests in Asia, especially China but also due to our possessing the Philippines but after Philippine independence who knows if we remain as militarily inclined. The USA is always interested in keeping European affairs from bleeding into the Americas, thus we see friction with the UK, distrust of Germany, the purchase of Danish interests, and so forth, in sum the Monroe Doctrine. Either party can swing more or less international in its policies in this scenario but I would suspect the Republicans lean more outward leaning as it invokes issue of trade and influence, the Democrats here should be the more domestically focused as it lets them minimize Federal government power. Perhaps this depends more upon if the USA was a belligerent in the Great War.

In most of my scenarios for the Great War I have the USA stand aside and I think Wilson is the key. At the moment I am toying with TR running his "third" term 1908 to 1912, then letting Taft ride his coat tails against a Democrat, setting up 1916 as the disruptive election during an alternate European war. I even suspect that Wilson might then run assuming he sat out 1912, his platform should be rather interesting if Taft kept us from war as I think he does and TR is as bellicose. So we move the 1912 break to 1916? I think Clark holds us from war so if Wilson argues for war he might realign the German and Irish vote to the GOP. If TR runs then they vote Democrat? This is how I get a rather murky notion of how the parties evolve, Wilson becomes a wildcard in setting the pace for future elections to me. He is the one who broke things from the way they were. And I have wittingly and unwittingly unleashed a mass of butterflies.

Here we can assume a recession post-war but I suspect there is a market crash in 1914 as the Entente liquidate assets, I am not yet convinced either Taft or Clark would intervene as Wilson did, and without Wilson I suspect the Entente finances look horrid by 1916, likely setting the recession in 1917 or 1918 as the slow buying without credit extended. If you have a Democrat in office the party gets tarred, if the war has less impact neither party gets much damage. Thus I am letting international affairs play a minor role in American politics, it is a football both parties might kick, pass or fumble, but I am no where near clarity on things aside from a world lacking American dominance. And that is a very different world.
 
The Nordic countries have actually done a fair amount of deregulation and privatization in the post war period, especially recently, and the economic freedom rankings for them have skyrocketed since the 1980s. They have simply maintained a high taxation high expenditure system of policy.

The US reflected much of the rest of the Western world in the issues that it faced in the postwar period. The US Economy from 1945-1972, much like the UK economy, followed a corporatist path with government, labor, and institutional big business running things as a troika. This was fine, when there was little real foreign competition, and economic dominance was assured. It also however caused companies to become less competitive, and when the global commodity crisis of 1972 hit, along with the big issues in 1973 from the OPEC action on oil prices, what followed was a decade of industrial collapse and labor militancy, which unraveled the postwar consensus.

In practical terms, this meant that the US Republicans moved towards monetarism, which offered a new idea that moved beyond that consensus, and the US Democrats were chained to the corpse of that discredited consensus.

The US Democrats were never really a Nordic inspired entity. They preferred, and still do, a system of moderate taxation and high regulation, with a great deal of state interaction with business and labor. The US Republicans favor a system of low taxation and low regulation (along the model of Australia and New Zealand), with marginal state involvement in business. The Nordic countries have traditionally followed a model of high taxation and low regulation, where the state is large in regards to the provisioning of the welfare state but not especially involved in business.
 
Top