What does it take to get a Socialist into the White House?
- Thread starter Dorozhand
- Start date
A self-proclaimed Socialist? One needs an early PoD.
Other than that, if one considers "Social Democracy" as a form of Socialism (and one generally does) then the Progressive ideas of the Democrats largely overlap with what's the definition of Social Democracy.
It's only a question of rhetorics, the term Socialism is too much pegged with Communism thereabouts.
There was an interesting timeline with this POD some time back. Quite enjoyed it and agree its probably the most plausible to achieve the OP's aims.
Barring EXTREMELY bad conditions, any RevSoc will likely transform himself into a social democrat upon taking office. I could see the US being on par with the rest of the West politically, but actual revolutionary socialism would be quite difficult to manage.
-AYC
There are non-revolutionary socialists. They're called democratic socialists, and their number include Eric Blair, Nye Bevan and Tony Benn.
Japhy
Banned
You would need to trigger a complete collapse of the American Political System.
The problem is that in US political history there's never a party that rises to national prominence that is a class based structure. From the Federalists to the Progressives there's always a cross-class membership, which combined with an individuals ability to rise up on their own (And the perception of that fact) means that without a radical transformation of the economics and politics of the country, a successful class-based party is a non-starter.
Its not just a matter of stopping Progressiveism, which is next to impossible as its not just a single organized movement with dozens of trigger influences. You would really require something much further back, a failure to ensure basic Jacksonian Democracy indefinitely until the pressure builds up enough. Which for practical purposes is impossible.
The problem is that in US political history there's never a party that rises to national prominence that is a class based structure. From the Federalists to the Progressives there's always a cross-class membership, which combined with an individuals ability to rise up on their own (And the perception of that fact) means that without a radical transformation of the economics and politics of the country, a successful class-based party is a non-starter.
Its not just a matter of stopping Progressiveism, which is next to impossible as its not just a single organized movement with dozens of trigger influences. You would really require something much further back, a failure to ensure basic Jacksonian Democracy indefinitely until the pressure builds up enough. Which for practical purposes is impossible.
WW1 dragging on into 1920, really unpopular. Establishment parties staying gung ho for it. (To achieve longer WW1 Central power offer lenient Peace terms to both Italy and Russia.) More luck in the March 1918 offensive
Some people would say that all you have to do is vote Obama today. 
Hm, don't think he's an actual socialist.
Hm, don't think he's an actual socialist.
Some people would say that all you have to do is vote Obama today.
Hm, don't think he's an actual socialist.
It's about degrees, really. At times, some of his policies and outlook seem to be those of a Democratic Socialist, but his 'responsible market' ideas are more social democratic.
But as I said Social Democracy too is considered a type of Socialism...
Yes, Obama is a Socialist. Not an outrageous claim to European hears but it somehow implies that Obama is Communist-ish to American hears. It's just a matter of semantics.