The Effects of a CP Victory on American Progressivism

"There is no chance of progress and reform in an administration in which war plays a principal part"
-Woodrow Wilson, 1913


Progressivism; largely defined by its goals of increasing social welfare and reigning in the excesses of "Gilded Age" Capitalism , reviving "moralism" in the United States through such movements of temperance/prohibition, and fighting corruption and increasing the efficiency of government both through greater public involvement in politics and putting more power in the hands of government "specialists" who could steward the nation's resources using scientific methods, was undoubtedly the defining political movement and philosophy of in America during the early 21st century. Both the Republican and Democratic parties fought to be seen as the most Progressive; in the former's case the party even splitting after Teddy Roosevelt felt his successor wasn't being Progressive enough, and lead to many reforms that have come to define American political culture to this very day: suspicion of large corporations/trusts, the position of the media as the "forth branch" of government to root out corruption and via muckraking, the concept that the Federal government has a responsibility to protect workers and consumers, direct taxation, the principal of Civil Rights (or, at least, that the rights in the Constitution needed to be respected not just by the Federal government), direct election of Senators, ect.

It was only after America's entry into the Great War and the demands of wartime society, including censorship, anti- center ethnic group and anti-Red hysteria (The general "you're with us or against us" impulse and the desire by state and local governments to prove they were the most patriotic), the channeling of big industry to the war/supply effort, and the disillusionment of the American public after the complete failure in the peace negotiations to make the world "Safe for Democracy" as the Wilson administration's idealism had sold them as the purpose of the war that it ultimately declined, to be replaced by the more rebellious, commercial, and inward-looking culture of the 1920's. Granted, no political current remains dominant forever, but I'm curious what the rest of you think about how things would have changed domestically in an America that never broke out of its isolationism (to temporary bitter disappointment) to engage in the 1st World War.

For the sake of argument (to avoid this conversation spinning off into being primarily about best opportunity for the CP to win in this scenario), let's say the Great War ends in early 1917/ late 1916 as a less Anglophilic American administration doesn't overly favor the Entente, resulting in a slightly earlier collapse of the Czarist government in Russia (Due to less available Franco-British financial and material support, a poorer situation on the Western front as France can't get as much money/material from abroad, the Germans get a small boost from neutral re-shipping as America insists on its right to trade freely with non-belligerents, ect. Alot of little things piling up), resulting in a negotiated peace between the Western Entente and the Central Powers. The war is perceived by Americans as entirely isolated from themselves: just the decadent Old World doing its thing, and in which they have a much smaller and more balanced material stake. In such a timeline, how long do you think Progressivism would have lasted? What other reforms might it manage to press through?
 

CaliGuy

Banned
I still expect to see a conservative resurgence in this TL. Why? For the same reason that one occurred after the 1960s in our TL. Basically, progressivism might have had such an impact that some people might feel that it's time to bit a bit more business-friendly. Indeed, please keep in mind that there was always a significant business-friendly element within the Republican Party; in fact, if it wasn't for McKinley's assassination, this business-friendly element might have pushed harder against various parts of the progressive platform.

Also, without the Red Scare, perhaps immigration restrictions are somewhat less severe in this TL. However, given that the literacy test passed in 1917 and quickly turned out to be less effective than hoped (due to rising literacy rates in southern and eastern Europe), I still expect to see some immigration quotas being passed and implemented in the 1920s in this TL--just less severe to the immigration quotas in our TL.
 
Question -- does Hughes win the 1916 election TTL? Because depending on how events in Europe play out, that could very well be an effect. There's also the question of how the war ending with a CP win affects the US economy (AIR, a lot of capital was tied up in war debts that effectively relied upon Entente victory to be repaid).
 
It was only after America's entry into the Great War and the demands of wartime society, including censorship, anti- center ethnic group and anti-Red hysteria (The general "you're with us or against us" impulse and the desire by state and local governments to prove they were the most patriotic), the channeling of big industry to the war/supply effort, and the disillusionment of the American public after the complete failure in the peace negotiations to make the world "Safe for Democracy" as the Wilson administration's idealism had sold them as the purpose of the war that it ultimately declined, to be replaced by the more rebellious, commercial, and inward-looking culture of the 1920's. Granted, no political current remains dominant forever, but I'm curious what the rest of you think about how things would have changed domestically in an America that never broke out of its isolationism (to temporary bitter disappointment) to engage in the 1st World War.

OTOH, the Republicans had been recovering steadily since their 1912 nadir. They made sizeable gains in Congress at the 1914 midterms, and still more in 1916, when they drew virtually level in the House despite despite narrowly missing the Presidency. So it's quite on the cards that they regain Congress (or at least the HoR) in 1918, and the Presidency in 1920, even without the war. They would only accept such progressive measures as had massive public support, and most of these had already been enacted by 1917.

An interesting question is what happens on the Prohibition front. This got a big boost from the war, with laws against the use of grains for liquor manufacture, and the stigmatisation of German-American brewers. The 18th Amendment might never make it.
 
"There is no chance of progress and reform in an administration in which war plays a principal part"
-Woodrow Wilson, 1913


Progressivism; largely defined by its goals of increasing social welfare and reigning in the excesses of "Gilded Age" Capitalism , reviving "moralism" in the United States through such movements of temperance/prohibition, and fighting corruption and increasing the efficiency of government both through greater public involvement in politics and putting more power in the hands of government "specialists" who could steward the nation's resources using scientific methods, was undoubtedly the defining political movement and philosophy of in America during the early 21st century. Both the Republican and Democratic parties fought to be seen as the most Progressive; in the former's case the party even splitting after Teddy Roosevelt felt his successor wasn't being Progressive enough, and lead to many reforms that have come to define American political culture to this very day: suspicion of large corporations/trusts, the position of the media as the "forth branch" of government to root out corruption and via muckraking, the concept that the Federal government has a responsibility to protect workers and consumers, direct taxation, the principal of Civil Rights (or, at least, that the rights in the Constitution needed to be respected not just by the Federal government), direct election of Senators, ect.

It was only after America's entry into the Great War and the demands of wartime society, including censorship, anti- center ethnic group and anti-Red hysteria (The general "you're with us or against us" impulse and the desire by state and local governments to prove they were the most patriotic), the channeling of big industry to the war/supply effort, and the disillusionment of the American public after the complete failure in the peace negotiations to make the world "Safe for Democracy" as the Wilson administration's idealism had sold them as the purpose of the war that it ultimately declined, to be replaced by the more rebellious, commercial, and inward-looking culture of the 1920's. Granted, no political current remains dominant forever, but I'm curious what the rest of you think about how things would have changed domestically in an America that never broke out of its isolationism (to temporary bitter disappointment) to engage in the 1st World War.

For the sake of argument (to avoid this conversation spinning off into being primarily about best opportunity for the CP to win in this scenario), let's say the Great War ends in early 1917/ late 1916 as a less Anglophilic American administration doesn't overly favor the Entente, resulting in a slightly earlier collapse of the Czarist government in Russia (Due to less available Franco-British financial and material support, a poorer situation on the Western front as France can't get as much money/material from abroad, the Germans get a small boost from neutral re-shipping as America insists on its right to trade freely with non-belligerents, ect. Alot of little things piling up), resulting in a negotiated peace between the Western Entente and the Central Powers. The war is perceived by Americans as entirely isolated from themselves: just the decadent Old World doing its thing, and in which they have a much smaller and more balanced material stake. In such a timeline, how long do you think Progressivism would have lasted? What other reforms might it manage to press through?

I agree with other posters that the Republicans would still have won in 1920-
but maybe they would have picked a more
progressive candidate than Harding, like
Lowden.
 
Question -- does Hughes win the 1916 election TTL? Because depending on how events in Europe play out, that could very well be an effect. There's also the question of how the war ending with a CP win affects the US economy (AIR, a lot of capital was tied up in war debts that effectively relied upon Entente victory to be repaid).

I said in the OP that the U.S takes a more balanced (or hands off, as another possibility) approach to trade/credit/ect. policy and enforces nonbelligerent rights, so the later part isent relevant. Except maybe in economic shifts created by the peace terms. As for Hughes, it could go either way though I'd personally kput my money on Wilson (Incumbency during solid economic conditions without another major crisis to throw things off).

OTOH, the Republicans had been recovering steadily since their 1912 nadir. They made sizeable gains in Congress at the 1914 midterms, and still more in 1916, when they drew virtually level in the House despite despite narrowly missing the Presidency. So it's quite on the cards that they regain Congress (or at least the HoR) in 1918, and the Presidency in 1920, even without the war. They would only accept such progressive measures as had massive public support, and most of these had already been enacted by 1917.

An interesting question is what happens on the Prohibition front. This got a big boost from the war, with laws against the use of grains for liquor manufacture, and the stigmatisation of German-American brewers. The 18th Amendment might never make it.

There's also the influence of the "Bull Moose" faction within the party to consider though. Roosevelt did certainly out-preform Taft with the voters with a far more progressive platform then the official party position. That's not to say Progressivism retains its political hegemony, but couldent it survive and remain a vocal political current for some time at least, even if its rate of reform slows down or it loses some ground to bussiness friendly policies in the 20s? At the very least, this might have an impact of making government action/regulation more politically palatable as the Depression kicks in.

On Prohibition, it getting avoided would certainly have an effect on the budget, what with it either reducing the need for income tax or giving the Feds a nice chunk of change to work with (of course, the tax burden remains proportionally heavier on the poor compared to our timeline in either case). Perhaps the government invests the money in public infrastructure expansions like electricity, air travel, ect. (Partially to benefit industry in the traditional American System fashion)
 

trajen777

Banned
The USA is like a pendulum -- actually almost all human relationships are a pendulum. If it swings to the right for xxx time it swings to far and gets pulled back to the left. So you have a constant balancing act happening. IE :
1. The Obama camp swung to far to the left. After his first election there was endless stories about the death of the Republican party. Whether it had any relevance for the future. By 2 years into the Obama presidency he lost the house in one of the largest swings in history to the Republicans. After 8 years the Democrats had lost the Senate, state senates, and the over 1000 total seats, in state and national elections. Then after that the presidency.
2. The same can be said after many many many elections where one party does well and then loses quickly after.
3. If you look at eh European elections you see the same thing. After decades of progressives you now have a conservative Austrian gov, major gains with conservatives in Germany, France, England, Sweden, Poland, etc etc.

So using this theory i think you would end up with a German WW1 victory that produces a more democratic gov. The kaiser had promised to the German people this to keep up the war effort. The Wilson presidency would have driven to the left, you would have the pendulum swing back to the right. The next great swing would have been under FDR. If you dont have the great depression would he have been elected and have the changes that he drove? I dont think so.
 
Top