Who does the Alternate History forum make the 20th century badass president in this timeline if we don't get T.R in the White House?
Henry C. Evans?Who does the Alternate History forum make the 20th century badass president in this timeline if we don't get T.R in the White House?
It also depends on how we view the term "liberal". Because, the term "liberal" basically had always been used to describe the politics of the bourgeois class and industrial capitalism during the 19th century. Thus, if we look at the issue from this len, then Republicans definitely fit the term "liberal" more, at least for pre-1900 periods.I think you're looking for an argument where none exists. I wasn't attempting to contradict your statement, just to provide a bit more context.
I would, generally, agree with the sentiment that the Dems of the era were relatively more economically liberal (in the modern sense) than their Republican counterparts. However, a wide variety of beliefs existed and there were certainly not just individual politicians, but state parties and factions, that went against this rule. Cleveland and his Bourbon faction, for instance, certainly proved themselves no friends of Labor and the state Democratic Party in, say, Wisconsin was a deeply conservative party - especially after the state political realignment of the 1890s and early 00s.
I would argue that both parties had - what to modern eyes would seem - liberal and conservative traditions and philosophies which would have made it possible for either to emerge as the dominant liberal or conservative party as the 20th century progressed.
However, as to your comment that the Dems of the early 20th century were generally more economically liberal than the GOP - well, yeah. This is the same party which supported Bryan three times!