The Ruins of an American Party System, Part Two: Collision
- Status
Having an FBI resume will help with Progressive voters who trust the FBI, established by Floyd Olson, to protect America from dangerous far-right extremists.
Yeah, this seems like a good idea. Helps give them an identity other than the "We're just like the Radical Progs, only more hardcore and we throw hissy fits whenever a political battle doesn't go our way" one they seem to have. Sure, conventional wisdom dictates that moderation is the key to electoral victory, but doing this could give them a decent boost in the short term. If people just see them as more-or-less Radical Progressives with anger issues, then there isn't much of a reason to back them over the actual Progressives. By taking a more syndicalist-oriented line, they can carve out a decent-sized base, appeal to people who support socialism but vote Progressive for pragmatic reason. Plus, by adopting a strong anti-Leninist critique, even from a left-communist/anarchist perspective, they can nullify much potential red-baiting (not that it would totally stop, mind you).
The only thing I'd have to add is that they warm their relationship with the Progressives even as they deliberately work to stand apart from them. Be willing to compromise on legislation that advances a (small-p) progressive agenda. Work with the Progressives to defeat Republicans, Americans, and the Commonwealth. Gain power at the state and local level to implement small-scale versions of their socialism, as a means of demonstrating their effectiveness to a national electorate. Gain ground in Congress as a means of pushing more socialistic policies at the federal level. And when the time comes, hopefully pull off a successful Presidential campaign.
Yes, this is a more cautious strategy, but they'll need it. If we go by OTL historical trends, the public will soon get tired of radicalism and prefer leadership that focuses more on effectively running the existing kind of government than revolutionary promises of upturning the existing order. I know, this TL is very different from reality, but the same basic framework is there: Severe depression, new leadership takes hold that implements dramatic new policies that create a much better standard-of-living, followed by an exhausting foreign war, upon which afterwards the public gets tired of the chaos and wants to remember the "good-old days", even if the actual policies are much different than said days. Why take a chance on some radical, untested ideology when the current policies have worked out so well? Radicals like the Socialists are going to be on the defensive, and need to tread carefully to avoid be made irrelevant and marginalized by the Progressives and the Republicans (and it should be evident that the GOP, the Commonwealth, the Americans, and many Progressives would have no problem making that happen).
Sewer socialism, I see. Certainly something with a history in the Socialist Party.
On the topic of parties reforming their platform, I see a potential opening for the Commonwealth party to reshape itself into a Christian Democratic party. Supporters of the welfare state, but conservative in outlook in regards to their philosophy and approach to social issues. The big hurdle would be the party's links to white supremacy. When OTL-comparable laws are passed (and barring something dramatic like the collapse of all human civilization, they will be passed sooner or later), that's gonna leave the Commonwealth little ground to stand on. They'll likely devolve into a Racism-priority party, that is if their supporters don't all flock to the Americans. But it's possible that under a new leader, say LBJ (Huey Long needs to be out of the picture for any reformation to be successful), the Commonwealth could break into the rest of the country by adopting a racially-inclusive, but overall socially conservative platform while retaining it's economic populism. Such a move would come especially in handy if/when the mass social movements of the 60s take root (feminism, anti-racism beyond civil rights laws, LGBT activism, drug legalization, abortion, etc.). It'd be easier for a Christian Democratic-oriented to ride the inevitable conservative backlash than a Commonwealth that just serves as a Southern party. Of course, that assumes an unchanged Commonwealth would survive till then.
I would add that if an analogue to the New Left and counter-culture arises in the 60s, the Socialists would be in an ideal situation to capitalise on dissatisfaction with the political establishment and the state-heavy socially conservative politics of the day (especially if the Progs end up moderating too much and alienate their radical wing). In addition, once civil rights break through, there's going to be a decent electoral base in the South that may be open to the Socialist party, given their long history of Civil Rights support. I could definitely see a Socialist President in the 60s, and maybe a Black Gay Socialist President by the 70s.
So, I'm still a little confused with the Americans policy towards foreign affairs. Is there still a significant isolationist wing? And is there any actual concrete international policy beyond "WE NEED TO KILL THE RUSSKIES BEFORE THEY CAN TAKE OVER 'MURICA!"?
The big international policy seems to be fighting fascists. I don't think there's really much stomach for theoretically fighting the Russians at all.
I don't think anyone wants to go to war with a nation with the sheer power of Russia; even IOTL, only semi-crazies like Churchill really had a desire to go to war with it. I think the big question is whether it's an ally, and whether its growth should be restricted or not.
Deep down inside a lot of the American leaders think the U.S. should have propped up the fascists in Europe as the lesser evil to stop the Communists. Publicly, they just basically take an even harder line against any sort of cooperation with the USSR than Taft, while being more positive towards Britain and France and the RoC.
Endorsing war with the USSR would be political suicide of a degree never seen before; it would be like someone running in modern-day America calling for total war against China and Russia combined.
Bulldoggus
Banned
I think @djPROUDGEEK meant the American Party.
Ya mean a Black Gay SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC president?
Also, I'm pretty sure that with rapidly increasing standards of living, appetites for Socialism would be lower.I think @djPROUDGEEK meant the American Party.
Ya mean a Black Gay SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC president?
However, as in the New Deal OTL, the African-Americans were cheated out of the wealth generated by the Great Recovery Coalition. So I am sure the standard of living amongst black americans would still be as low as OTL and will remain so for the forseable future.
true, but if the Socialists build a coalition of minorities, that's completely different.
I think that we basically have three foreign policy columns in the new party system. One are the liberal internationalists embodied by the radical progs. They are pro-USSR and favor fighting foreign wars. Second are the conservative internationalists embodied by the American Party and the Landon GOP. They are anti-USSR and wish to fight foriegn wars against communism. Lastly we have a strong isolationist movement embodied by the socialists and the Taftite GOP, who wish to get America out of foreign conflict. It will be interesting to see this develop.
So basically a softer version of the mainstream Republican view on internationalism. They favor alliances with the capitalist European powers, but only to the extent that involves isolating the USSR, whereas the GOP (excluding Taft) favors tighter links regardless.
The reason I bring this up (and phrased it the way I did) is because I get the impression from the Americans that they're basically a more mainstream version of groups like the John Birch Society, which despised both internationalism and communism, seeing the two as inherently linked (which doesn't seem too far off from Taft's view in this TL). That seemed to be the default view of a great many of hardline conservatives of the OTL era, in between the end of WWII and the Vietnam War.
In today's society, Internationalism is generally associated with a more hawkish foreign policy, while non-interventionism is more aligned with the anti-war movement. But in OTL historical trends, and among the American Party, the anti-internationalists seem to be far more hawkish than any other political faction. Good real-life example is Goldwater's '64 campaign. For all that he's associated with libertarianism (which embraces non-interventionism), that campaign made it clear he didn't have much of a problem with escalating tensions and conflict with the USSR (the infamous "lob one in the men's room of the Kremlin" joke), even if LBJ did exaggerate it for political purposes. I just find it curious how one can reconcile a traditional opposition to intervening in foreign wars with an actively hostile stance towards a distant foreign power. Landon's approach makes the most amount of sense (work with foreign allies to isolate the Soviets), whereas the Americans and other traditional conservative groups seem to favor a mix of "We don't need no stinking alliances" with "We need to defeat the evil commies ASAP!" Just seems a bit contradictory and self-defeating is all.
The Americans are sort of like modern-day sectors of the far-right which will agree to work with and prop up anyone they think will fight Islamism, regardless of any other factors, except with Communism instead. So for example, if there were to be a large revolt against French rule in Africa, Taft would say that the U.S. should not get involved, but the Americans would call for aiding the French in crushing the "communist rebellion".
Ah. So the debate isn't "Should the US intervene?", as it was traditionally on the Old Right, but more "How is communism best defeated?"
More specifically, "How is the U.S. best protected from communism?"
- Status