The Sixth Party System in American Politics (1976-2012)
- Thread starter TNF
- Start date
Constantinople
Banned
Wow the GOP with 97 seats! And a pretty big portion of the vote too, damn US system. 
But yeah, what a mandate for the Democrats...
But yeah, what a mandate for the Democrats...
Awesome so far. Let's hope Gorbachev still comes to power in the Soviet Union. With no Iranian Revolution, wonder how Iran's gonna do?
TNF, I've been thinking about some Phase 2 type programs and reforms that Humphrey might try in his second term. The first thought that came to mind was expanding the size of the House for the 1982 reapportionment. The House has been static since 1912, ever since it was (illegally) not reapportioned during the First Red Scare. Expanding the House could be used as a strategy to solidify Democratic hegemony during the second term, by opening up new seats, particularly in urban areas that would be fastest growing.
Plus, it fits with the previous term's commitments to "good government" and accountability. Bring the reps closer to their constituents seems like a good first step
Also, given the size and relative stability of Democratic majorities in the legislatures, I could definitely see a centralization of more powers in the hands of party leadership, which was the post-Watergate trend IOTL. But ITTL, I could see it being faster and harder.
In this case, the "Sixth Party System" is a period of New Deal+ and Gaullist conservatism.
Plus, it fits with the previous term's commitments to "good government" and accountability. Bring the reps closer to their constituents seems like a good first step
Also, given the size and relative stability of Democratic majorities in the legislatures, I could definitely see a centralization of more powers in the hands of party leadership, which was the post-Watergate trend IOTL. But ITTL, I could see it being faster and harder.
Party system is a term used in political history to denote a well-defined system of party competition. In other-words, it's a term to describe the political dynamics of a given period. For example, the period from 1932 to 1968, when the New Deal coalition was hegemonic, and the Republican Party largely played defense on domestic political issues is referred to as the "Fifth Party System".
In this case, the "Sixth Party System" is a period of New Deal+ and Gaullist conservatism.
That's an interesting thought that I admittedly hadn't come up with thus far. How big do you think the House could get in reapportionment? Expand the number to 500 or 600 seats?
As for the second term's reforms, one of the things I will make note of is communications policy, which is going to be very different indeed.
Just a quick thought
So- POD is that HHH wins eight years in place of Reagan to set the tone for the 80's.
So- POD is that HHH wins eight years in place of Reagan to set the tone for the 80's.
- Do we avoid the OTL military buildup we never stopped into 2012?
- Is UHC enacted, on the table, or what?
- Do the Democrats handle immigration with anything like the mixture of butterfingers and iron fists as the GOP IOTL?
- With such a Democratic preponderance, it's gonna be tough to avoid the OTL backlash against real and perceived Democratic corruption and inertia in the 1990's. Could that be earlier ITTL?
- Does the whole student loan default issue just get written off or do we go through the OTL shenanigans of making it impossible to discharge them and rampant corruption (schools farming loans to preferred lenders, payoffs, ridiculous student fees paid out of loan cash, etc.) No, I'm not bitter.
Last edited:
The Republicans are going to make a comeback sooner or later, of that you can be sure. An observer of the 1930s might say the same thing...but around fifty years later, conservatives got their day in the Sun. American conservatism isn't going to die out, but it's going to be a vastly different creature than it is IOTL.
For example, the 'New Republican' ideology pushed in embryonic form by Senator Dole in the 1980 primaries isn't really what we'd identify as American Liberalism. It does for the most part accept national economic planning, but in a conservative fashion. Conservatives will be busying themselves with developing a strategy that plans for the future and takes the role of families, rather than only individuals, in mind. Bear in mind that socially conservative Democrats are still not going to be completely wedded to an administration that will be pushing gay rights in term number two. The new Republicanism that is coming is going to be more Catholic, more working class, and yet still not 'liberal' in the way that we would define it in American politics.
Think of a combination of Pat Buchanan (in foreign policy), Ross Perot (in domestic policy), and Rick Santorum (on social policy). It's still conservatism, but of a much more statist variety than we're used to in a world that defines left and right by economic positioning. ITTL, social positioning will play a greater role as economic management allows for the Democrats to focus on nonmaterial issues without running the risk of the whole thing collapsing on top of them thanks to an oil shock or the limits of traditional macroeconomic policy as prescribed by Keynes. The Democrats of TTL have gone beyond Keynes and into straight social democracy, sans nationalization. The Republicans adapted to Kenyes in the 1950s, so ITTL's 1990s, they'll be accepting the basic reality that planning is not going away and that getting rid of it would be politically disastrous.
Speaking of which, how will the American experiment in social democracy effect the rest of the West? I've been trying to figure out what this means for Labour in Britain, but I'm pretty short on British political history.
Well, if they implement the so-called "Wyoming Rule", which sets apportionment at equal to the size of the smallest state, in 1980 that would mean a House of about ~566 seats.
The apportionment itself would be a bit more complicated. It's called the Huntington-Hill method, and I believe we should probably make a collective project here on AH.com to build some sort of a excel sheet or something so we could build alternative apportionments without doing all the math longhand.
Here's the thing though. I looked for a way to justify it, the Democratic gains in '78, since there is almost always a good reason why that is. I suspected it would have to do with the economy, it being the major factor in this TL, but that legislation and those like it weren't passed until, at the earliest, October of '78, which would be far to late to significantly alter the election any which way. It's something but it won't effect the economy at large at the time. With the economy still suffering, the Democrats should thus be losing seats, maybe not as many, but still lose seats rather than gain them; I just can't see the situation being enough in their favor to grant gains.
Also, I am curious as to what happened in Iran, given the forces that were working against it. Obviously since Humphrey is more experienced I wouldn't expect a Hostage Crisis, but see the Shah still in power, or rather his family, was rather odd. How did they manage to maintain stability?
Also, I am curious as to what happened in Iran, given the forces that were working against it. Obviously since Humphrey is more experienced I wouldn't expect a Hostage Crisis, but see the Shah still in power, or rather his family, was rather odd. How did they manage to maintain stability?
Not much, the problems that Britain faced in the late 70's weren't going to go away so things may stay OTL.
I don't think that the prospect of Thatcher's domination of British politics is set in stone by 1976.
That's a Republican Party I would want no part of. Seriously, as a conservative who is interventionist, pro-free trade, pro-free market, and socially libertarian, there is nothing that would make this GOP appeal to me. And since the alternative is progressive social democrats, I'm stuck.
I guess in this timeline I (along with probably a lot of other people) would be voting Libertarian in every election. I wouldn't be surprised if the LP started regularly getting Ralph Nader 2000/John Anderson 1980 numbers every four years, and started becoming very influential on the state level politics out west ala the Wisconsin Progressive Party, the Minnesota Farmer-Labor, or the modern Independence Party of Minnesota today.
But that's just my two cents.
You're projecting a modern values set on the GOP though, a values set that didn't even really exist beyond a very small number of people. Free trade/free market socially liberal people may coalesce into a third force distinct from the Republicans, but the events that lead to the crystallisation of the group were averted in the TL.
Still, even if they aren't prominent, there will be types who are fiscally conservative and socially liberal (will throw aside foreign policy for a moment). Right now, most of them gut out voting for the GOP because at least they're fiscally conservative. No, there's literally no reason.
And these types of guys existed at the time as well. Barry Goldwater and his son were politically active at the time, this is where Ron Paul got his start, the 1980 election was where the Libertarians did best ever, etc, etc, etc. See what I mean? Where do these guys go?
For example, a lot of progressive Americans like to complain that neither of the two parties really represent them, that even the Democrats as a whole are about as bad as the Republicans. However, there are a couple of politicians, the likes of Bernie Sanders, Al Franken, Russ Feingold, etc, who are the exceptions.
Barring a larger-than-OTL Libertarian Party (or besides existing alongside it), I can imagine there being a modestly-sized but still influential branch of the GOP actually like this world's version of the aforementioned progressive Senators: actually honest-to-God libertarian/conservative Republicans in the Barry Goldwater mold, such as Ron Paul, Gary Johnson, maybe Jim DeMint or Mark Sanford, who considered outside the mainstream, but are beloved by activists.
The people who voted libertarian in 80 were not disaffected conservatives. They were disenchanted liberals of the New Politics mode. The growth of a conservative oriented libertarianism is an artifact of the Reagan era. Beyond Goldwater's disastrous campaign, they weren't a major force in American politics.