Those conservative democratics!

Schematically, in OTL the Republican party is conservative and Democratic party is progressive,liberal (or at least less conservative of GOP).
But starting from early XX century is possible imagine a timeline in which the Republican is the party of progressives and liberals and Democratic is the party of conservatives?

For exemple,is possible imagine the Republican party more and more progressive from 40s (with Presidents as Dewey and Rockefeller) and the democratic climbed by very conservatives politicians (said a Goldwater democratic)?
 
That would be really hard to do, since you'd have to reduce the influence of people like Robert Taft at the time. I figure you could significantly strengthen the power of the Southern Democrats also since they were radically different from the more progressive northern Democrats.
 
Actually, with a PoD in the early 20th Century it's incredibly easy. Just give Theodore Roosevelt another term to put his stamp on the Republican Party and the Republicans might well evolved into his Progressives - a Conservationist, relatively non-racist, scientific, internationalist/interventionist pro business party that also supports a regulated economy, while the Democrats stay as agrarian fundamentalists, and isolationists dominated by the southern racist core of their party.
 
Actually, with a PoD in the early 20th Century it's incredibly easy. Just give Theodore Roosevelt another term to put his stamp on the Republican Party and the Republicans might well evolved into his Progressives - a Conservationist, relatively non-racist, scientific, internationalist/interventionist pro business party that also supports a regulated economy, while the Democrats stay as agrarian fundamentalists, and isolationists dominated by the southern racist core of their party.

It's even easier than that. All we need to do is have Harding live. Then, when his scandals are revealed, he loses to Davis (a conservative indistinguishable in economic policy to the Republicans) in 1924 and easily wins another term in 1928. However, then the Depression happens and the Republicans, now with progressive policies and their own New Deal, win in 1932.
 
Keep the Bourbon Democrats alive at all costs. Even though they are classical liberal, in America they are considered conservative.
 
It's even easier than that. All we need to do is have Harding live. Then, when his scandals are revealed, he loses to Davis (a conservative indistinguishable in economic policy to the Republicans) in 1924 and easily wins another term in 1928. However, then the Depression happens and the Republicans, now with progressive policies and their own New Deal, win in 1932.

I'm not sure the Republicans would have come up with their own New Deal in 1932. Republicans by the 1920s are wedded to the interests of the Northern industrialists, and while they had a progressive wing, it's a toss-up who gets the Republican nomination in 1932. Plus, it's entirely possible the Republicans don't re-nominate Harding in 1924.

Saving progressive Republicans really means keeping Teddy Roosevelt in the party. Conservative Democrats can be pulled off later - have President Garner, but there you're looking at two conservative parties... much more likely to achieve a third-party breakthrough.
 
I'm not sure the Republicans would have come up with their own New Deal in 1932. Republicans by the 1920s are wedded to the interests of the Northern industrialists, and while they had a progressive wing, it's a toss-up who gets the Republican nomination in 1932. Plus, it's entirely possible the Republicans don't re-nominate Harding in 1924.

Saving progressive Republicans really means keeping Teddy Roosevelt in the party. Conservative Democrats can be pulled off later - have President Garner, but there you're looking at two conservative parties... much more likely to achieve a third-party breakthrough.

Didn't Alf Landon support New Deal style programs in Kansas while govenor?
 
Didn't Alf Landon support New Deal style programs in Kansas while govenor?

And before he was president Hoover was incredibly interventionist while governor.

That doesn't necessarily translate to national action; while it is often a convenient excuse or a code word there is a legitimate feeling of "states' rights".
 
Top