Republican Party

The Nixon/Lodge ticket is elected in 1960 and re-elected in 1964. Do moderates and liberal Republicans concede the nomination to a right winger in 1968? Assuming that Lodge does not run, who is the likely nominee?
 
I could see George Romney getting the nomination. Either way, I think 1968 would be a Democratic year in that scenario. I doubt the GOP could keep the White House for more than 16 years as Ike and Nixon were no FDR and Truman.
 
Big host of butterflies, but if it isn't dissimilar to OTL Nixon is going to be extremely unpopular in '68 and liberal-moderates may be shown the door.
 
The Nixon/Lodge ticket is elected in 1960 and re-elected in 1964. Do moderates and liberal Republicans concede the nomination to a right winger in 1968? Assuming that Lodge does not run, who is the likely nominee?

No. I personally believe the factionalism was going to lead to the party becoming polarized eventually. Nixon was actually kind of a center candidate for the GOP, and with him gone it's a free for all.
 
The Nixon/Lodge ticket is elected in 1960 and re-elected in 1964. Do moderates and liberal Republicans concede the nomination to a right winger in 1968? Assuming that Lodge does not run, who is the likely nominee?

No. A Nixon/Lodge administration would be moderate on most issues...and presumably fairly successful since you are presuming two terms. This changes the whole dynamic. Why would the Republicans ditch the people and approach that gave them the Presidency for 8 years? Can't predict what the big issues might be in 1968, but presumably Civil Rights and Vietnam would still be around. With no LBJ presidency, the Democrats may have remained a Labor-populist, southern-oriented party, with people like George Wallace and Strom Thurmond still in the fold. Republicans might remain the party of business and NE elitism, and of the two parties, more likely to promote moderate Civil Rights reforms in the Eisenhower mold. I'd imagine somebody like Rockefeller or Romney as the '68 candidate.
 
No. A Nixon/Lodge administration would be moderate on most issues...and presumably fairly successful since you are presuming two terms.

Two terms implies that the administration was fairly popular in 1964. It says nothing about how popular it was in 1968.
 
This would mean the last time the Republicans successfully sent a conservative candidate to the White House would have been in 1928 (that is, if you want to call Hoover a conservative.)

The 'Eisenhower mold' would have just gotten them four terms in office. I can't see them moving away from that.

And as other posters have mentioned, the Democrats remaining a conservative-populist party in the south and a fairly corrupt special interest machine system in the north seems likely to happen.

The question is, if the GOP are moderate Eisenhowerists, and the Democrats are a bit of a mess but broadly conservative, what happens to left-wing politics in the US? Where do the liberals go?

Depends on a lot of things, like how much union-busting has occurred in 16 years of GOP rule; what's happened to the Civil Rights movement? The Women's Lib movement? The Hippies, the environmental movement, etc.
 
This would mean the last time the Republicans successfully sent a conservative candidate to the White House would have been in 1928 (that is, if you want to call Hoover a conservative.)
...

By modern standards, at least those on the far right, he was a flaming communist. Even by the standards of that era, or the next few decade Hoover was not a hardcore conservative, tho he was solid on many questions. His leadership & managment of the European Relief Commission & later the American Red Cross make him suspect to some people. Some of his efforts to avoid the economic collapse in 1930-32 were not considered 'proper' by assorted Republican party memebers, ect...
 
This would mean the last time the Republicans successfully sent a conservative candidate to the White House would have been in 1928 (that is, if you want to call Hoover a conservative.)

The 'Eisenhower mold' would have just gotten them four terms in office. I can't see them moving away from that.

And as other posters have mentioned, the Democrats remaining a conservative-populist party in the south and a fairly corrupt special interest machine system in the north seems likely to happen.

The question is, if the GOP are moderate Eisenhowerists, and the Democrats are a bit of a mess but broadly conservative, what happens to left-wing politics in the US? Where do the liberals go?

Depends on a lot of things, like how much union-busting has occurred in 16 years of GOP rule; what's happened to the Civil Rights movement? The Women's Lib movement? The Hippies, the environmental movement, etc.

I think the Democrats would still be primarily the party of labor and of the New Deal. On economic issues, they would clearly be to the left of the Republicans, but both parties (for different reasons) will not be as broadly supportive of the Civil Rights movement as OTL's Democrats. I suspect both parties would be hostile, or at best indifferent, to Women's Lib, the counterculture, and the peace movements. Both would (as they were OTL until fairly recently) be broadly supportive of environmentalism/conservation and strong national defense.

There does seem to be room for a 3rd far left party to aggressively address black Civil Rights, women's lib, and peace issues but that's just not the American way
 
There does seem to be room for a 3rd far left party to aggressively address black Civil Rights, women's lib, and peace issues but that's just not the American way

Long-lasting third parties definitely are not the American way, but temporary movements- particularly quasi-official ones- certainly have been, historically. Consider the Dixiecrats in this period when the pro-civil rights faction took over. What's to stop the left from pulling something similar in a scenario where the South retains more power in the Democratic Party structure?

But there's another consideration for an ATL we have to talk about. IOTL the youth-centered movements tended to reject traditional party politics. They never fully committed to getting their issues addressed at the ballot box.

But I don't think there's anything inherent about these movements that make "tuning in, turning on, and dropping out" inevitable. Rather, I think it was that the liberals were established in power when these radicals came calling for favors. And being in power isn't the time to grant favors to outsiders (and of course the GOP was searching its soul at the time and not fertile ground for dissent, either.)

So if we have a situation where the liberal faction of the Democrats are looking to gain a power base after being shut out for a very long time, AND they're fighting against conservative elements within their own party...well it seems to me they might actively go out and court the hippies, the women's rights movement, the UFW, maybe the black power movement, maybe the Chicano movement.

This either further marginalizes the southern Dems (again) and pushes the Democrats further left than OTL, or these factions split the Democratic party open, and then we're in unknown terrain.
 
So if we have a situation where the liberal faction of the Democrats are looking to gain a power base after being shut out for a very long time, AND they're fighting against conservative elements within their own party...well it seems to me they might actively go out and court the hippies, the women's rights movement, the UFW, maybe the black power movement, maybe the Chicano movement.

This either further marginalizes the southern Dems (again) and pushes the Democrats further left than OTL, or these factions split the Democratic party open, and then we're in unknown terrain.

Given the OP premise, I think the second is more likely, with the far left becoming independents or forming a resuscitated Progressive party. I think a Progressive party that actually courts the Black Power movement would be a mistake. Better court the mainstream civil rights organizations, otherwise you'd be seen as an extremist fringe by the voting majority.
 
Given the OP premise, I think the second is more likely, with the far left becoming independents or forming a resuscitated Progressive party. I think a Progressive party that actually courts the Black Power movement would be a mistake. Better court the mainstream civil rights organizations, otherwise you'd be seen as an extremist fringe by the voting majority.

I don't disagree, but we might see a more conservative mainstream civil rights movement ITTL. Those willing to work within the establishment will tend to bend towards the establishment even as they attempt to bend the establishment themselves; it's a mutual process. And with a more conservative civil rights mainstream/establishment that is okay working with Republican moderates, we might see some movement on the left of civil rights. I'm thinking, for example, that the SNCC splits with the SCLC and combines with the more "conservative" strains of the black power movement that're willing to work within a general left-wing political framework. This would cause a split in black power and leave a radicalized rump off in the wilderness.

I'm thinking a similar segment of the Chicano movement might be willing to likewise split off.

So we've got a very disparate coalition that's likely to exist on shaky ground (this is true whether black power/Chicano support is courted or not.) As such, I don't see this third party resulting in a permanent break from the two-party system. But it's also hard to imagine either the GOP or the Dems taking these voters back in again.
 
I think if you want a powerful 60s left you'd need an administration that'd be much less friendly to labor. I think Dulles made Vietnam entanglement an inevitability.

The Northern and Southern Democrats are gonna go to war regardless, though.
 
The Rockefeller wing would not concede to a Conservative. In 1964, they put up a fight. Some people claim that Goldwater was an accepted sacrificial lamb for an election the Republicans knew they would lose, but that was not the case. Rockefeller screwed himself over with his divorce and remarriage, and Goldwater was rammed through on a wave of populist support the establishment never expected and did not know what to do with. And though Rockefeller remained in the race, his support had evaporated with Liberals and Liberal organizations. It was a bit like Romney 2012: the party kept trying to prop up a candidate to stop Goldwater, and it all crumbled. Scranton couldn't and entered probably too late. Romney did not run. Etc.

So that shows what you'd have in 1968. In this scenario, there would not even be a Goldwater 1964 and I believe Nixon would have a Pax Republicana for the decade. On the whole, that may be a good thing. The Liberals and the Conservatives hated each other. The Liberals saw the Conservatives as a bunch of radicals (and it doesn't help that angry masses of people like that reminded many of Nazis; the War was only 20 odd years prior). They thought they poisoned dialogue and were dangerous. The Conservatives saw the Liberals as "Me Too" Republicans, who went along with what the Democrats said and did. And they saw them as fake Republicans and elitists. But they voted even for Rockefeller Republicans because they felt that in their own time of need, the Rockefeller Republicans would do the same. 1964 showed that was not the case.

Much as between the Northern and Southern Democrats, there was a delicate balance within the Republican party. 1964 exploded that. Without 1964, things are going to be better. And Nixon is the perfect man to bridge the gap over the course of the 1960s. However, 1968 may be tougher. That said, who will the Conservatives rally around? Goldwater may not run; he did not want to in the OTL and was only pressured to by movement Conservatives. Reagan may not even be a successful politician. He would not have campaigned for Goldwater in 1964, and with a Nixon White House, I doubt you would have the 1966 Republican successes of the OTL. 1968 may sew some seeds of dissent, but it may be a situation where the Conservatives are angry that Rockefeller is the likely nominee but have no one to put up against him. Or there is a moderate nominee to bridge the gap, but the Conservatives wish they had a Conservative candidate.

It seems at some point, things have to realign regardless. Each of the parties are really two elements, where the national parties make efforts to keep things balanced and equal to avoid civil war.
 
It seems at some point, things have to realign regardless. Each of the parties are really two elements, where the national parties make efforts to keep things balanced and equal to avoid civil war.

You're probably right, but an "opposite" realignment (to OTL) is the more difficult realignment.

I think there's something about the Democratic brand that northern Republicans fought against, tooth and nail. Even 100 years later in the 1960s, that something was the Civil War; the party of disloyalty and secession that no patriotic conservative could ever join.

And on the other side, let's not forget that some of the nation's most successful third party attempts were left-of-center "progressives" who found moderate east coast Republican elites unpalatable, despite agreeing on most issues politically.

So you're asking the patriotic northern conservatives to call themselves "secessionists" and you're asking the populist left to countenance the elitist left.

It's a tougher road to hoe than OTL.

And there's at least one stick that's going to make realignment impossible for the time being, which is organized labor. Unless you can move the unions significantly to the right (stay with the Dems) or have the Ike/Nixon years really dismantle organized labor as a political force.
 
Nixon endeared himself to conservatives in 1964 because he completely backed the Goldwater ticket and supported the congressional candidates heavily. He also had stellar anti-Communist credentials. Even as a moderate, Nixon is going to reach out to conservatives and keep them in the party. I think he'll make tactical concessions to keep them on board even if they continue to grumble.

The real issue is how well the GOP does in the Congressional elections, and whether conservatives are able to win there. That is really going to determine their strength in 1968, as well as whether Nixon himself has any favorites.

If Nixon is able to get credit for any civil rights legislation in those eight years, the GOP stands a good chance to be competitive for the black vote. Civil rights is a good wedge issue to divide the Democrats, and perhaps explains why Nixon won in 1964.

However, 16 years of straight Republican rule is going to tire the party in the public's eyes. Unless the Democrats really screw up, they'll have a major advantage in 1968.
 
However, 16 years of straight Republican rule is going to tire the party in the public's eyes. Unless the Democrats really screw up, they'll have a major advantage in 1968.

Potentially, but that's only ever just a statistical answer. It's really hard to tie any presidential result to party fatigue, historically.

But I do think you're right about Nixon and loyalty. He'll seek to maintain the coalition he has, and it's hard to imagine they'll abandon him if he placates them. However, it's easier to imagine conservative voters abandoning "spineless" conservative politicians who won't defy Nixon in a fight for leadership of the party.
 
Top