The Glowing Dream: A history of Socialist America
- Thread starter Iggies
- Start date
Great update but there are some things regarding the Senate that I have some questions about.
In addition, at this time Senators weren't elected by popular vote but were appointed by their state's legislatures. It wasn't until the Seventeenth Amendment, incidentally a major Populist cause IOTL, in 1912 that Senators were elected by popular vote. The circumstances behind many Senate elections often involved a lot of corruption and backroom deals. I feel that this would make the Senate far more hostile territory to the Socialists and insulate it from any popular upsurge in support. As such I think it's very unlikely that the Socialists would make many gains in the Senate. Instead I think it would be more likely that Socialists legislators in State Governments would have thrown their support behind Populist, or even Progressive Republican, candidates given that any pure Socialist candidate would likely be rejected out of hand, though I could see Florida electing someone on a Socialist-Populist Fusion ticket.
It should also be noted that a lot of the Senate Elections didn't actually take place during the midterm election, with the vast majority taking place in early 1903. Fortunately for the Socialists Colorado was one of those Senate elections, which means it would have taken place after their State Majority had been sworn in, which means that they probably do pick up that Senator at least.
Ultimately, I think it would make sense for the Socialists to remain chronically under-represented in the Senate, which has always been a major bulwark of anti-democratic reaction in US politics, which will likely sour many Socialist's support for America's "democratic" institutions. The Nationalists, on the other hand, will be ideally suited to make gains in the Senate. Frick and his supporters have the resourses and personal connections to punch above their weight when it comes to backroom deals to get Nationalists elected or convince hardline Republicans to defect.
The way that this is written sounds like Pennsylvania, California and New York elected both Socialist and Nationalist Senators in this election but the way that Senate elections work. Senators are elected for 6 year terms but their elections are staggered so that every 2 years 1/3 of them are elected and a state doesn't elect both of their senators in the same election (barring Special Elections to fill vacancies).
In addition, at this time Senators weren't elected by popular vote but were appointed by their state's legislatures. It wasn't until the Seventeenth Amendment, incidentally a major Populist cause IOTL, in 1912 that Senators were elected by popular vote. The circumstances behind many Senate elections often involved a lot of corruption and backroom deals. I feel that this would make the Senate far more hostile territory to the Socialists and insulate it from any popular upsurge in support. As such I think it's very unlikely that the Socialists would make many gains in the Senate. Instead I think it would be more likely that Socialists legislators in State Governments would have thrown their support behind Populist, or even Progressive Republican, candidates given that any pure Socialist candidate would likely be rejected out of hand, though I could see Florida electing someone on a Socialist-Populist Fusion ticket.
It should also be noted that a lot of the Senate Elections didn't actually take place during the midterm election, with the vast majority taking place in early 1903. Fortunately for the Socialists Colorado was one of those Senate elections, which means it would have taken place after their State Majority had been sworn in, which means that they probably do pick up that Senator at least.
Ultimately, I think it would make sense for the Socialists to remain chronically under-represented in the Senate, which has always been a major bulwark of anti-democratic reaction in US politics, which will likely sour many Socialist's support for America's "democratic" institutions. The Nationalists, on the other hand, will be ideally suited to make gains in the Senate. Frick and his supporters have the resourses and personal connections to punch above their weight when it comes to backroom deals to get Nationalists elected or convince hardline Republicans to defect.
That bugged me too. Although you could certainly throw in some Socialist senators from the states with large Socialist blocs in their legislatures (especially Colorado).
Something else to think about: how will the House and Senate function with multiple parties? I could see some fierce politicking for Speaker of the House and Senate Majority Leader, which might evolve into something resembling a parliamentary system. For that matter, will each party have its own minority leader? Or will there be one for the whole chamber?
Something else to think about: how will the House and Senate function with multiple parties? I could see some fierce politicking for Speaker of the House and Senate Majority Leader, which might evolve into something resembling a parliamentary system. For that matter, will each party have its own minority leader? Or will there be one for the whole chamber?
Wisconsin might be another source of Socialist Senators, though I do feel that any Socialist able to garner the cross-party support needed to get elected by their state legislature would probably be from the extreme moderate end of the party. Sewer Socialists vhemently opposed to the revolutionary rhetoric of the party left and with established records for working with Populists and Progressive Republicans. Victor Berger would probably be ideal given his revisionism and OTL record.
Last edited:
Going back to the Senate, one thing I could see happening in the near future is that a coalition of Socialists, Populists and Progressive Republicans take control of the House and attempt to pass fairly moderate labour reforms only to be stonewalled by an increasingly reactionary Senate. With the Senate serving as a roadblock to progressive reforms and the unlikely prospects of reformers taking control of the Senate (they would need to have control over the vast majority of state governments consistently for at least 6 years to come close to achieving a majority, most likely longer, and even then if conservatives control at least 1/3 of the seats they can and will filibuster radical reforms) I could see many Populists and Socialists going beyond calls for elected Senators and supporting full unicameralism and the abolition of the Senate. Especially considering that the Senate controls many key appointments, in particular to the Supreme Court which is likely to also be a major roadblock to reforms.
US politics: it's a small club and you ain't in it.
US politics: it's a small club and you ain't in it.
Last edited:
Just a nitpick for if / when you redo this tale or publish - aristocratic PMs were / are referred to generally by their title, in this case Lord Rosebery. I had to check if this was a change to history as I don’t recall anyone ever referred to him as Mr Primrose. It’s also a thing that tends to irritate me when I see people referred to by first name in first-person dialogue where it would never have occurred. Ie. for example if you have a dialogue scene where someone refers (for example in this case) to him as Archie or Primrose rather than Rosebery.
Likewise, eg, Grafton, Rockingham, Liverpool, Wellington, Melbourne, Derby, Palmerston, Salisbury rather than Fitzroy, Watson-Wentworth, Jenkinson, Wellesley, Lamb, Smith-Stanley, Temple, Gascoyne-Cecil. The exception is Disraeli who was ennobled between terms and so is generally known as Disraeli rather than Beaconsfield.
@Alexander the Average
I'm a bit embarrassed to admit I only just found out that direct election of state senators was a quite recent development, and totally forgot while writing this entry. Will definitely make adjustments accordingly.
As always--thanks for suggestions/tips from all.
I'm a bit embarrassed to admit I only just found out that direct election of state senators was a quite recent development, and totally forgot while writing this entry. Will definitely make adjustments accordingly.
I will try to address some congressional (especially House) dynamics in upcoming updates.
As always--thanks for suggestions/tips from all.
The National Party feels like either outright fascist or proto-fascist in it's focus on the "uniting the nation into a single state" "class reconciliation" alongside it's rabid anti-communism/anti-socialism position. Though I guess it hasn't quite grabbed the hyper racism that is part of fascism (yet at least, the super racists are definitely inclined to the party).
It is definitely the party of reaction and is far-right.
It is definitely the party of reaction and is far-right.
Certainly meant to have some parallels with OTL fascism (the whole 'corporate republic' bit may have been a little heavy-handed on my part). But it's definitely a coalition party taking into account the peculiarity of US political life (not that the US is special--'peculiar' in the way that every country has its idiosyncrasies). So it may never adopt rabid racism on a national scale, since many of the NP's converts outside the south will be former Republicans who, while staunchly anti-Socialist, may find the extremes of southern racism distasteful or even outright abhorrent (think Henry Lodge types). Likewise, in certain regions of the north it may even be prudent to support local black communities and play them against Socialist inclined Italian-Jewish-etc. immigrants. It will be very much a two-faced party. Southern Nationalists will certainly be at least as race-obsessed as the southern Democrats ever were, though.
So definitely highly reactionary politically but not quite how fascism in Europe plays out. Though I imagine that it will be seen as, at least by American historians ITTL, as highly fascist adjacent and had fascist segments of the party (such as the Southern Nationalists), at least if OTL fascism develops ITTL. Something which I find is quite likely to happen, the intense racism, ant-semitism and a deep fear of communism, as produced by at least the American Revolution, would all be major factors in producing fascism and hyper-intense nationalism is also already developed by this point. It may not have it's OTL name but I find it very unlikely that fascism won't develop at this point of history.
I find it quite likely though that if they felt it was worth more to the long term goals of the National Party that northern black communities would, as soon as seen as more a would be thrown to the wolves to appease northern racists. Which there are quite a lot of them, after all the Klan IOTL was not just a thing in the South with the Second Klan, but was a major force in the north and the north was (and still is a lot of the time) also pretty thoroughly segregated, it just used less overtly legal means of enforcing segregation. So intense racism in the north is not necessarily not going to be a thing, after all it was already a really dangerous and powerful force. Plus racism is an extremely useful tool to the bourgeois in dividing the working class, it's a major reason why racism is heavily tied with reactionary politics for the last few centuries after all and the National Party is definitely reactionary. So Black communities in the north will probably at least consider siding more with Socialist Labor in the future, after all they have already proven themselves to have at least some shits given about black people with their stance of continously supporting black southerners and should the Great Migration happen ITTL those blacks moving north are going to be joining the industrial proletariat and so it would be in their interests to be part of the party of the working class, even ignoring the fact that the SLP is actively taking a stand against racism, even if it is rather less forceful than it should be.
I find it quite likely though that if they felt it was worth more to the long term goals of the National Party that northern black communities would, as soon as seen as more a would be thrown to the wolves to appease northern racists. Which there are quite a lot of them, after all the Klan IOTL was not just a thing in the South with the Second Klan, but was a major force in the north and the north was (and still is a lot of the time) also pretty thoroughly segregated, it just used less overtly legal means of enforcing segregation. So intense racism in the north is not necessarily not going to be a thing, after all it was already a really dangerous and powerful force. Plus racism is an extremely useful tool to the bourgeois in dividing the working class, it's a major reason why racism is heavily tied with reactionary politics for the last few centuries after all and the National Party is definitely reactionary. So Black communities in the north will probably at least consider siding more with Socialist Labor in the future, after all they have already proven themselves to have at least some shits given about black people with their stance of continously supporting black southerners and should the Great Migration happen ITTL those blacks moving north are going to be joining the industrial proletariat and so it would be in their interests to be part of the party of the working class, even ignoring the fact that the SLP is actively taking a stand against racism, even if it is rather less forceful than it should be.
Last edited:
Question for all readers: I intend to do a "the world at a glance" update, soon. I have some ideas, but am also curious to see if any of you have any ideas, or things in particular you'd like to see with regards to the world beyond America (particularly Europe), and how all this turmoil would affect affairs overseas.
I would expect the turmoil in America to frighten many nations into taking harder anti-socialist stances. On the flip side, this turmoil might also excite some socialist groups into taking action. As you've established previously, America is increasingly being looked down upon by the other Great Powers. Perhaps some foreign socialists, intrigued by the increasing revolutionary sentiment in America, decide to immigrate to America to help out in the struggle.
Well I’m always interested to see what’s going on in the UK and Germany if you’re asking. And great work so far, really enjoying the timeline.
It's going to be interesting to see the impact of American Socialism on the wider International Socialist Movement. The fact that the American Socialists have kept to a fairly revolutionary character should have an impact on the more reformist wings of the movement in Europe.
Well, how's Latin America doing? Do the Canal negotiations between Colombia and the U.S. go badly enough to guarantee American support for Panama's independence? Is the American position of defending Venezuela against the emboldened European coalition in the Venezuelan Crisis of 1902-03 still as strong? And does the Santo Domingo Affair still occur? They all happened roughly in the TL's present/inmediate future, maybe you can find something useful for the next update(s) there.
Last edited: