One-Nation Republicans vs a Conservative Party

  • Thread starter Deleted member 109224
  • Start date

Deleted member 109224

After WWII, how could the big two US parties be a (new) Conservative Party of the Buckley-Helms-Goldwater variety and a Republican Party in which the governing ideology is Rockefelleresque One-Nation Conservatism?
 

BigBlueBox

Banned
Is it really fair to lump Buckley in with Goldwater?
Edit: Never mind, I was wrong and Buckley did in fact support Goldwater.

I don't think this is possible without changes to the electoral system to support a multi-party system.
 
If there's a duopoly between Conservatives and Republicans it's clear that Democratic Party has to

Henry Agard Wallace stays a FDR's Veep and succeeds him as President.
Detente between Washington and Miscow continues as Wallace promotes disarmament, decolonization and appeasement efforts. When Communism starts to make gains, in China, Greece, Italy and Iran, the Wallace's popularity begins to fall. Attempts to pass wide welfare legislations about healthcare and first civil rights bills causes a big battle against the so called Conservative Coalition in the Senate. At the end in 1948 the Democratic bosses try to deny renomination to Wallace but he reveles their bargain and narrowly wins it thanks popular support of his domestic policies in democratic base. Immediately not only the Dixiecrats but also many party bosses, big donors and others members of Conservative Coalition bolts and declares a new party, that is called Conservative Party from the coalition. They used many racist and anti-communist attacks against Wallace, helped by the fact that many President's collaborators and his own Secretary of State are communist or crypto-communist. They used also the Roerich Letters and the Magadan Trip for personal attacks against Wallace. At the end the Republican Thomas Dewey, with his soft campaign, wins the election, starting moving the GOP from conservative in liberal-conservative field. Shortly after Soviet Union and Togliatti's Italy start the first major crisis of the Cold War, invading Yugoslavia to overthrow Tito. This, together with Indochinese War and first Soviet nuclear test, causes a strong McCarthysm and Democratic Party collapse and many members, especially Labour unions, converge in Conservative Party. Dewey passes first civil rights bills, consolidating the opposite conservative base. Goldwater could become the first conservative Presudent in 1964 due Republican fatigue and disappointing towards Indochinese War.
However I want to underline that a center-right vs rightwing scheme leaves a big empty hole in left-liberal-progressive area. Someone probably will try to take that. George Wallace and his pro-Union attitudes (in contrast with free market thoughts of Goldwater) could limit that for same time.
 
What in the goddamn?

I think Wallace was always pretty pro-government spending, which at least partly accounted for his success at bringing black voters into his coalition during his 1980s political revival.

That said, I don't know enough about the Alabama civil-service to know if being pro-gorvernment expansion equated to being pro-union. I recall reading that he was fairly popular with teachers towards the end. Would they have been unionized?
 
The business plot goes off successfully. US has a rightist junta for some time, purge of the left and a gradual re-democratization after 1945 in fits and start. Unfree elections get held during these eras with the main party for a while being the GOP. By the time the US is back to full two party democracy, at least as democratic as OTL post-1979 Iran or postwar west germany the political spectrum is between The GOP, the party of corporate power and the Conservatives, the White Man's working party with a political spectrum well to the authoritarian, pro-corporate right of OTL.

Immigration closed even tighter after 1933 than OTL post-1924, civil/voting rights acts not implemented until the 1990s.
 

Deleted member 109224

What in the goddamn?

Wallace was pretty much a racist New Dealer. He had a higher AFL-CIO rating than Hubert Humphrey did in 1968 IIRC.

As for the rest of that post, I'm not quite sure what to make of it either.




US politics split between Wallace Reactionary-Populists, Buckley-Goldwater Conservatives, and One Nation Republicans (likely absorbing some Bobby Kennedy types over time) is an interesting dynamic.
 
However I want to underline that a center-right vs rightwing scheme leaves a big empty hole in left-liberal-progressive area. Someone probably will try to take that. George Wallace and his pro-Union attitudes (in contrast with free market thoughts of Goldwater) could limit that for same time.

And here's a perfect vehicle for the left-liberals, should they choose to use it. McCarthyism could make the Labor Party attractive in this sense as it proves its anti-Communist and anti-Henry Wallace credentials - even more as it declined during the 1950s, which would make it ripe for a takeover as an ersatz Socialist Party more amenable to big business. Something to think about to mop up most Democrats that choose not to join the Conservatives, . . .

Meanwhile, to continue from your tangent, the few remaining remnants of the Democratic Party try to regroup and expel Henry Wallace's group, but that just makes the Democrats become a minor third party in comparison. So they merge with the tiny Liberal Party of New York and thus become the Liberal Party of America, running on a centrist platform. However, in recognition of its minor third-party status, the Liberals are excluded from most major party activity. Henry Wallace's group drifts to the Socialist Party, which as a result of McCarthyism is also a minor third party, one which by this point has already stopped contesting elections. Thus, in the new party system, both the Liberals and Socialists are irrelevant to the grand scheme of things.
 
Wallace was pretty much a racist New Dealer.

As was FDR, if you want to get technical about it(eg. he could've desegregated some of the stuff under federal control, but didn't). Granted, Wallace seemed to "wear" the racism a with a little more aplomb, though my understanding is that he started his career as a relative liberal on racial matters, got creamed at the ballot box, so quickly calculated that racism was the way to go. IOW, he arguably deserves the same "Look, it was just politics, okay?" defense that gets made in favour of northern Democrats of the era who went along with their southern bretheren for electoral purposes.
 
Basing on my Alternate Presidents post about it, (my opinion about) the fate of some important US politician in this scenario:
-Harry Truman (D-Missouri)
Senator Truman was a popular Democrat from Missouri. He opposed to Wallace renomination and main part of his foreign policy but refused to bolt in the new Conservative Party. In 1952 he was one of the many "Democratic" candidates, together with Pepper, Taylor, Douglas and McMahon. Although he was the first between Democrats he didn't carry any state. He continued to serve as Independent Senator from Missouri before retiring in 1966.
-Dwight David Eisenhower (R-New York)
A popular former General he served as President of Columbia University. After initially declined, he reluctantly accepted to be Dewey's Secretary of Defense in the midst of Yugislavian Crisis. After contrasts about US involvement in Indochina he retired in 1956, officially for health reasons, and spent his remaining life in his farm in Pennsylvania.
-John Fitzgerald Kennedy (D-Massachusetts)
The scion of a important political dynasty, JFK seemed destined to an important political office but after his defeat in the 1952 Senate race against Henry Cabot Lodge Jr and the Democratic collapsing he preferred to realized his dream and becoming a famous journalist. He won two Pulitzer, one for his coverage of Cuban War in 1962, the second for his interview to failed Presidential assassin Lee Harvey Oswald in 1963. He married actress Marylyn Monroe the next year and in 1981 he replaced Walter Cronkite as main anchorman of CBS. His brother Bobby briefly flirted with Conservatives when he served as counselor of Joe McCarthy but never joined due their racist ideology: instead he was one of the most famous lawyer, famous for his civil rights cases. In 1966 he accepted Progressive nomination to become Senator of Massachusetts and was narrowly elected, serving until 1972 when he was assassinated by Arthur Bremer while he was running for Progressive nomination, then won by his supporter George McGovern.
-Lyndon Baines Johnson (D-Texas)
Johnson, a main kingmaker, was defeated in 1948 Senate primary against more conservative Coke Stevenson. After that, he became a successful businessman. In 1954 he did a comeback as Conservative and won his old House seat. Thanks to Richard Russell and John Connolly's support, he was chosen as House Whip, leading conservative battles in the House but mantaining his good relationships with everyone. In 1964 he became House Speaker when Conservatives took the Congress for the first time. He strongly supported the Goldwater and defended him from impeachment attempts after his using nuclear weapons in Indochina. He returned Whip after conservative defeat in 1966 and stayed in this role until his death in 1974.
-Gerald Rudolph Ford (R-Michigan)
Ford reached his dream, becoming Speaker of the House in 1966 and staying as that until retirement in 1986, when he was succeeded by Edward Madigan.
-James Earl Carter (D-Georgia)
Jimmy Carter was a young pro-segregation republican activist when he defeated Rapresentative Bo Callaway in 1966. Carter served as Congressman between 1966 and 1980 and was considered a main candidate to succeed Ford as Speaker but instead he decided to run for Senate, defeating Herman Talmadge. He tried a failed primary run in 1988, losing against Joe Biden. Actually he is the oldest US Senator and, as most senior Republican in the Senate, he is the current President Pro Tempore of the Senate.
-Ronald Wilson Reagan (R-California)
Reagan was a popular actor and a Conservative Rapresentative before be nominated as Secretary of State in Goldwater Administration. After infamously defending in UN the nuclear attacks in Vietnam, he was the Conservative candidate in 1976 but lost against fellow Californian Richard Nixon. He became Secretary of State again in Buckley Administration, becoming famous for some noted expressions, and retired in 1989, battling Alzheimer in his last years.
-William Jefferson Clinton (D-Arkansas)
Clinton was a young Republican Governor of Arkansas and was a candidate for Republicab nomination in 1988, losing to Joe Biden. He was considered a frontrunner for 1996 nomination but he declined candidacy after a series of sex and financial scandals. Acquitted and divorcee from Hillary, he actually run a alimentary charity in Little Rock.
-George Walker Bush (R-Texas)
George Jr tried to start a own political career but failed. He became National Baseball League Chairman and actually run sports charity. His brother Jeb lost against Biden and Romney in 2012 and 2020 and actually is the Secretary of Commerce in Romney Administration.
-Barack Hussein Obama (D-Illinois)
Obama was elected as Republican in 2002 and served as Congressman until 2010, when he run and won to become Illinois Governor. He was considered a main candidate for 2020 but instead he decided to stand for Senate in 2018. Currently he is the main sponsor of Romneycare in the Congress.
 
As was FDR, if you want to get technical about it(eg. he could've desegregated some of the stuff under federal control, but didn't).

I don't think you should be so harsh on FDR, he was fairly progressive on racial issues, for his time, but couldn't do much in order not to annoy the Southern Democrats too much.
 
Top