PC: Slowly-developing fascism within US politics (before 1917)

Frankfully, i don't know if a scenario like this requires a PoD placed before or after 1900.
What i'm thinking is... how can we, with a PoD before the US's entry into WWI in 1917, create some sort of developing trend or party in US politics that advocates for something akin to OTL fascism, yet is mostly endemic to America and not inspired by post-WWI european fascism?
 
I mean, look at school. It's all about regimentation and following the "rules." If a person doesn't fit in, we typically blame the person, and only very occasionally question the system.

Or, how the police fixate on the main suspect and the focus of the whole case and the bulk of the policework shifts to making the case. Now, usually the main suspect is in fact guilty, but not always.

So, in conclusion, yes, I think it's all too possible that the U.S. could have slid into fascism.
 
Frankfully, i don't know if a scenario like this requires a PoD placed before or after 1900.
What i'm thinking is... how can we, with a PoD before the US's entry into WWI in 1917, create some sort of developing trend or party in US politics that advocates for something akin to OTL fascism, yet is mostly endemic to America and not inspired by post-WWI european fascism?

How do you refine fascism? What exactly there should be?
 
What exactly are you looking for when you say "something akin to OTL fascism"?
How do you refine fascism? What exactly there should be?
Well, IMO, it must have the following:
1 -- a certain despise for democracy, or at least for a multiple-party system
2 -- ultranationalism
3 -- reverence to leaders, historical or living
Personally, I'm looking for a scenario where the US doesn't participate in WWI, yet still allows the development of some kind of political fascism.
 
Well I may not be of much help, but it seems to me that to start with you would need some sort of event (or series of events) between 1900 and 1917 (barring a pre-20th Century P.O.D.) that would turn a sizeable number of Americans indifferent or hostile to liberal democratic ideals.

This is just a shot in the dark, but maybe some sort of economic crises coupled with more (successful) violence from anarchists and radical leftist types? It's a bit cliche, but then again there's a reason for that.

If you want to make it more distinctively American, perhaps tie in some sort of fundamentalist Evangelical, white (WASP?) supremacist and/or openly imperialist ideology.
 
trust.jpg


The obstacle is that during the "Gilded Age" in the 1880s and '90s there was close competition between the two parties even though there wasn't that much difference between them. Or at least that's the conventional wisdom. One, the conventional wisdom is often wrong. Two, maybe there's a POD in which one party pulls ahead of the other and stays ahead.

You already have a situation in which corporate interests, such as the railroads big time and Standard Oil, were in ascendancy of the political system. Following the Spanish American War, maybe American ruling elites decide to catch up in the race for colonies with European powers. And once you start becoming an empire, you kind of move away from being a democracy.

And then, once War World I ("the Great War") starts, they decide fuck it, the last thing they're going to do is to help the British maintain their empire. In fact, if the Europeans end up knocking each other down a peg, that will be good for the Americans (at least for the economic elites!).
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 97083

And then, once War World ("the Great War") starts, they decide fuck it, the last thing they're going to do is to help the British maintain their empire. In fact, if the Europeans end up knocking each other down a peg, that will be good for the Americans (at least for the economic elites!).
How would avoiding World War 1 be fascist?
 
Well, IMO, it must have the following:
1 -- a certain despise for democracy, or at least for a multiple-party system
2 -- ultranationalism
3 -- reverence to leaders, historical or living
Personally, I'm looking for a scenario where the US doesn't participate in WWI, yet still allows the development of some kind of political fascism.

4 - Strong central government
5 - Strong executive branch
6 - Erosion of civil liberties
7 - Crony capitalism
 
The obstacle is that during the "Gilded Age" in the 1880s and '90s there was close competition between the two parties even though there wasn't that much difference between them.

This may be where we have our chance. Here's an idea.


Make a stronger, longer lasting Progressive party.

There, progressives from the Republicans and Democrats flee, becoming a semi-competitive third party that will never truly control anything.

The Republicans and Democrats, funded by monopolies with no competition of ideology, start becoming more corporatist, imperialist, and proto-fascist.

Due to the spoiler effect, the Progressive Party only hurts any progressive's chance of power, giving it to corporations that slowly grow tires of the Democratic "traditions" that don't really matter.
 
. . . Personally, I'm looking for a scenario where the US doesn't participate in WWI, . . .
In his second post, our OP does add this as one of his goals of the challenge. No, it's not necessary for a fascist regime, may even hurt it by requiring it to take a pass on a big war, but it does make the challenge more interesting. :)
 
Let's take an aside to discuss what a fascist or pseudo-fascist government would look like in the U.S. from a structural standpoint.

Barring a major change to the Federal Government, it seems to me that the key to achieving this would be an authoritarian party (or parties) of some sort taking control of the Legislature (Congress). However, this would also require a cooperative or weakened Executive (President) and Judiciary (Supreme Court). You would also either need the support of State Governments, or a Federal Government with massively expanded power at their expense, something that cannot be overlooked and may be difficult to achieve. While our Republic has its flaws, the balance of powers does seem to make it rather challenging for a "traditional" authoritarian movement to completely seize power, as long as the government remains functional.

Excuse the civics lesson, but I feel as though it may be beneficial for some of our foreign friends (and regretfully, perhaps some fellow Americans) who aren't familiar with how the U.S. government works.

The idea of the two parties gradually being co-opted seems to be a plausible method of achieving this, but is it the only one?
 
Last edited:
Top