Author Update:

We’ll have a short hiatus for the next week and a half or so as I’m going on vacation today. See you all when I’m back!
Me to for two weeks, should you travel to a tropical island destination, we might see each other ^^ ;D Either way have a good relaxing time there.
 
Love a good domestic politics update! Let's dig in.


Yet more proof that Socialists are just catspaws to empower Liberals. The same party that has no qualms at all attacking progressive Democrats in cities and out West is totally on board with a progressive Liberal? Makes you wonder.

This was based heavily on OTL, where LaFollette's Progressive faction came to terms with the Socialists of Milwaukee which generally worked for everyone - during the 1930s Phil LaFollette's secretary/advisor and close friend was even a member of the Socialists. I wouldn't read too much into this about the Socialists and Liberals having some nefarious alliance (generally, Liberals and Socialists would have the least in common politically; though this would differ from state to state and the personalities of elected figures in both) and is based more on LaFollette's political instincts, power in his state and ability to work out alliances.

Also - love the shoutout for Blaine in the post (at a certain point, I was considering working on a biography of him for a dissertation, before settling on my current topic!)
 
This was based heavily on OTL, where LaFollette's Progressive faction came to terms with the Socialists of Milwaukee which generally worked for everyone - during the 1930s Phil LaFollette's secretary/advisor and close friend was even a member of the Socialists. I wouldn't read too much into this about the Socialists and Liberals having some nefarious alliance (generally, Liberals and Socialists would have the least in common politically; though this would differ from state to state and the personalities of elected figures in both) and is based more on LaFollette's political instincts, power in his state and ability to work out alliances.

Also - love the shoutout for Blaine in the post (at a certain point, I was considering working on a biography of him for a dissertation, before settling on my current topic!)
Was wondering why it took you so long to comment on a LaFollette post. Were you stuck under a rock or something? :)

Seriously though, thanks for the WI context. I would push back a bit on you saying there's not some alliance between Liberals and Socialists nationwide. Two "Fusion Liberals" got elected to Senate in Washington and Oregon in 1914 explicitly on the backs of a Liberal/Socialist alliance against machine-powered urban Democrats. If that's not an alliance then what is?
 
Was wondering why it took you so long to comment on a LaFollette post. Were you stuck under a rock or something? :)

Seriously though, thanks for the WI context. I would push back a bit on you saying there's not some alliance between Liberals and Socialists nationwide. Two "Fusion Liberals" got elected to Senate in Washington and Oregon in 1914 explicitly on the backs of a Liberal/Socialist alliance against machine-powered urban Democrats. If that's not an alliance then what is?
It's a statewide alliance though - Liberals in the Midwest (other than the-soon-to-abandon-the-party-anyways LaFollette) and especially the Northeast wouldn't touch the Socialists with a 10-foot pole. And quite frankly you're assuming Socialists would vote heavily Democratic without the Socialists to vote for, when IMO they wouldn't necessarily do that (as the WA/OR alliance you cite shows, some Socialists would genuinely prefer the Libs over the Dems). As an OTL example, the Populists in the 1890's diverged wildly on which party they'd support - Western Populists preferred Democrcats, Southern populists preferred Republicans.

And again, the Democrats already have other reasons for agreeing to appoint LaFollette as chair - plus they have 6 of the 9 seats on the committee, and I very much doubt they had a 2/3 majority in the actual chamber. It's far from a stupid play, and just because they helped uncover it does not mean the Liberals won't be hurt by having their corruption exposed.
 
Last edited:
Is anyone else still trying to get their head around the fact that the Liberals are the party that by most 21st century standards are more conservative? Sort of feels like OTL 21st century Australia, where the two major parties are Liberals and Labour.
 
Is anyone else still trying to get their head around the fact that the Liberals are the party that by most 21st century standards are more conservative? Sort of feels like OTL 21st century Australia, where the two major parties are Liberals and Labour.
It's just a name, plus before the 1930's "liberal" largely meant more so what we today think of as libertarian or classically liberal (and still does so, to an extent, outside the US and Canada, as the Australian example you note shows) - the word "libertarian" took off when FDR started selling the Democrats as liberal, which caused it to change definitions and thus creating a new need for a word for "libertarian."
 
Starring Jason Isaacs, who inexplicably has a Yorkshire accent, because of course


A laudable point of view considering his family heritage, though I'm strongly skeptical that his ancestor the OG Bob Lee would agree, as he here posits

He'll likely make his way higher up the ranks in short time - the CSA is running out of generals they haven't simply cashiered for "failure"
Part of the problem is that with OTL WWI tech, a tie is *much* easier than Victory/Defeat *especially* in the dense Eastern Front.
The East is Football (the one with the round ball) , the Far West is Basketball. :)
Which reminds me, what would this war look like where the Confederacy after getting to the Susquehanna went with the strategy of Hold in the East. (No advancement unless there was a *complete* screwup on the part of the USA) and acceptance of fallback to trenches each time the US wanted to spend a couple of hundred troops. (Yes, I know that means a "What if the entire CSA leadership political and military had brain transplants?)
 
And again, the Democrats already have other reasons for agreeing to appoint LaFollette as chair - plus they have 6 of the 9 seats on the committee, and I very much doubt they had a 2/3 majority in the actual chamber. It's far from a stupid play, and just because they helped uncover it does not mean the Liberals won't be hurt by having their corruption exposed.

Agreed, and I'll go a step further and say that the decision to have LaFollette chair the committee was a stroke of pure political genius by Kern and the Senate Dem Leadership - during a time where the press should otherwise be lauding the advances being made on every front against the Bloc, the Hughes admin is instead getting pilloried, and this move gave them bipartisan cover for it. They played 5D chess and won, you have to tip your cap to that.
 
It's a statewide alliance though - Liberals in the Midwest (other than the-soon-to-abandon-the-party-anyways LaFollette) and especially the Northeast wouldn't touch the Socialists with a 10-foot pole. And quite frankly you're assuming Socialists would vote heavily Democratic without the Socialists to vote for, when IMO they wouldn't necessarily do that (as the WA/OR alliance you cite shows, some Socialists would genuinely prefer the Libs over the Dems). As an OTL example, the Populists in the 1890's diverged wildly on which party they'd support - Western Populists preferred Democrcats, Southern populists preferred Republicans.

And again, the Democrats already have other reasons for agreeing to appoint LaFollette as chair - plus they have 6 of the 9 seats on the committee, and I very much doubt they had a 2/3 majority in the actual chamber. It's far from a stupid play, and just because they helped uncover it does not mean the Liberals won't be hurt by having their corruption exposed.
We know Liberals win the Presidency and at least the House in 1916 and are in good shape to at least tie in the Senate (giving them the VP tiebreaker) so, given that, how are Liberals going to be hurt by having their corruption exposed again?

My issue with Socialists isn't that they have to vote for Democrats. They can vote for anyone they want. My issue is that as long as a conservative in Penrose is Liberal caucus chair and the next Senate Majority Leader if Libs take the Senate it is that Socialists, by voting for seemingly progressive Liberals in OR/WA are empowering a guy in Penrose who is diametrically opposed to everything they believe in.

Not to mention now we're two Senate seats close to Cabot Lodge running Senate Foreign Relations.
Part of the problem is that with OTL WWI tech, a tie is *much* easier than Victory/Defeat *especially* in the dense Eastern Front.
The East is Football (the one with the round ball) , the Far West is Basketball. :)
Which reminds me, what would this war look like where the Confederacy after getting to the Susquehanna went with the strategy of Hold in the East. (No advancement unless there was a *complete* screwup on the part of the USA) and acceptance of fallback to trenches each time the US wanted to spend a couple of hundred troops. (Yes, I know that means a "What if the entire CSA leadership political and military had brain transplants?)
The US eventually figures out that 300,000 or so CSA troops are just sitting there not doing anything in PA/northern VA and sends the vast majority of their army to attack TN, AL, and GA with the eventual goal of attacking the Carolinas and Virginia from the south.
Agreed, and I'll go a step further and say that the decision to have LaFollette chair the committee was a stroke of pure political genius by Kern and the Senate Dem Leadership - during a time where the press should otherwise be lauding the advances being made on every front against the Bloc, the Hughes admin is instead getting pilloried, and this move gave them bipartisan cover for it. They played 5D chess and won, you have to tip your cap to that.
I don't want to repeat myself but the electoral consequences are a point here. I laud this committee for being dogged as hell in rooting out corruption and graft but now Democrats can't run on that stuff because Liberals can point and say "well, our guy is in charge of the committee so we too are anti-corruption!" and then you lose that plank to run on. You've neutered that point during campaign season and in related news Liberals win in 1916.
 
Was wondering why it took you so long to comment on a LaFollette post. Were you stuck under a rock or something? :)

The post got made right before I went out for a writer's group session for a short film I'm working on, and I seem to have unwittingly picked up a mentee here on campus and it was his last in town before heading home for the summer. Which is all a long winded way of saying: It was a LONG night! LOL

Seriously though, thanks for the WI context. I would push back a bit on you saying there's not some alliance between Liberals and Socialists nationwide. Two "Fusion Liberals" got elected to Senate in Washington and Oregon in 1914 explicitly on the backs of a Liberal/Socialist alliance against machine-powered urban Democrats. If that's not an alliance then what is?

True - though even -in-universe that Pacific Northwest is considered a 'weird' one that no one can really piece together. Though there would be a logic to the Socialists working with the liberals, based on local conditions: effectively, if you have an opponent who is closer to you ideologically, sometimes you have to gang up on them to differentiate yourself. To use another Wisconsin example: in 1946 when Bob Jr was returning to the Republican Party, he was attacked the most viciously by the Unions. Even though they would have happiy taken him over McCarthy, they felt that he was a bigger threat to their preferred, Democratic candidate of Howard McMurray ... and that got us Senator Joseph McCarthy. Yay.
 
We know Liberals win the Presidency and at least the House in 1916 and are in good shape to at least tie in the Senate (giving them the VP tiebreaker) so, given that, how are Liberals going to be hurt by having their corruption exposed again?
I don't know that they take the Senate, but I feel like there will be electoral consequences - given the state of the war the Libs should be winning by a landslide, and I thinm they'll likely instead win only narrowly. Winning by less than you should (and all its accompanying downballot effects) is still electoral consequences. And the Libs winning really isn't the end of the world.
My issue with Socialists isn't that they have to vote for Democrats. They can vote for anyone they want. My issue is that as long as a conservative in Penrose is Liberal caucus chair and the next Senate Majority Leader if Libs take the Senate it is that Socialists, by voting for seemingly progressive Liberals in OR/WA are empowering a guy in Penrose who is diametrically opposed to everything they believe in.
Black voters in NYC, Chicago, Detroit, and other cities were important for gaining committee chairmanships for segregationists diametrically opposed to their interest like James Eastland and John Stennis in the 1970's. Your point?
 
I don't know that they take the Senate, but I feel like there will be electoral consequences - given the state of the war the Libs should be winning by a landslide, and I thinm they'll likely instead win only narrowly. Winning by less than you should (and all its accompanying downballot effects) is still electoral consequences. And the Libs winning really isn't the end of the world.
I'm 99% percent sure I've said this before but to quote the great philosopher Dominic Torretto: "Doesn't matter if you win by an inch or a mile, winning's winning." Especially in first past the post systems - winning Senate Seat X or House Seat Y with 51% of the vote means the exact same as winning with 71% of the vote. Winning's winning.
Black voters in NYC, Chicago, Detroit, and other cities were important for gaining committee chairmanships for segregationists diametrically opposed to their interest like James Eastland and John Stennis in the 1970's. Your point?
That was bad too!
 
Still wondering where the northern end of this customs union will be, Sudan?

(Is it wrong to want the Afro as the name for a currency iTTL?)
The side effect of that is that Mullet becomes a name for a similar hairstyle to the Afro iTTL (derived from Mullato)...
In my alternate future world, Africa's common currency is called the afro.
As a result, the afro hairstyle becomes a symbol of wealth. Sort of an "I'm rich enough to care for all this hair" kind of thing.

"I have enough afros to have an afro." - some woman from East Africa who isn't as original as she thinks she is
 
Last edited:
We know Liberals win the Presidency and at least the House in 1916 and are in good shape to at least tie in the Senate (giving them the VP tiebreaker) so, given that, how are Liberals going to be hurt by having their corruption exposed again?

My issue with Socialists isn't that they have to vote for Democrats. They can vote for anyone they want. My issue is that as long as a conservative in Penrose is Liberal caucus chair and the next Senate Majority Leader if Libs take the Senate it is that Socialists, by voting for seemingly progressive Liberals in OR/WA are empowering a guy in Penrose who is diametrically opposed to everything they believe in.

Not to mention now we're two Senate seats close to Cabot Lodge running Senate Foreign Relations.

The US eventually figures out that 300,000 or so CSA troops are just sitting there not doing anything in PA/northern VA and sends the vast majority of their army to attack TN, AL, and GA with the eventual goal of attacking the Carolinas and Virginia from the south.

I don't want to repeat myself but the electoral consequences are a point here. I laud this committee for being dogged as hell in rooting out corruption and graft but now Democrats can't run on that stuff because Liberals can point and say "well, our guy is in charge of the committee so we too are anti-corruption!" and then you lose that plank to run on. You've neutered that point during campaign season and in related news Liberals win in 1916.
For the eastern front, it is a balancing act. With the trenches, as long as the Confederacy keeps the trenches manned and remains within a certain percentage of the Union troops, it might be doable. The question is how many troops do they need in the Virginia trenches to keep the USA from busting through. (Note, the other problem with this is that I'm not sure the Confederacy *even with the interior lines* can shift from the Midlands to the East any faster than the USA can (I still love that one of the *first* thing that the author pointed out about the war was the clusterpluck of different railroad gauges that were *still* present in the Confederacy.
 
Weird little thought - I was reading today about Acerum (a spirit distilled from maple syrup which has grown popular in Quebec). I wonder if there is any chance that it might end up being produced earlier in the Cinqo-verse and became associated with Quebec nationalism before or during the Troubles. Obviously, Quebec already has Applejack, but giving them a second spirit might 1) became an interesting export - to the New England states if nothing else and 2) could become an interesting symbol of the nation prior to the establishment of their independent government.

 
Top