WI: A more Religious Leftist America

Perhaps the easiest way to go about this would be the association of fiscal conservatism or laissez faire economics with secularism.

Which was how it was in much of the West during the 19th century. Remember economic rationalists were usually on favor of seozing church lands and monasteries and privatizing it, so it ended up as commercial farms. Then there is Rerum Novarum among the Catholics, and similar efforts among the Protestants of the time. Laissez faire was with the exception of America the belief of industrialists and petite bourgeois, anticlerical shopkeepers, and it was not so in America because of the frontier and the opportinity for lowet class people to exploit land stolen from the Indians).

A way I think you might ne able to strengthen these traditions of left religiosity is to somehow make Bolshevism less successful, and thereby avoid the Palmer Era in the American Twenties.
 
And, going with the thread of a possible upsurge of liberal religious leadership in the late 1960s, early 70s.

We could have potentially made progress on issues of sexual abuse twenty years before they were made. For example, ministers could have said sexual abuse is all too often committed by someone known to the child and known to the family. That if supposed educational films really emphasize stranger danger, they may be doing the kids a disservice. That parents have to find ways to talk about real dangers of the real world in age-appropriate ways, and in ways in which kids end up feeling powerful and competent.

Ministers could have also talked about date rape and acquaintance rape. Some amazingly brave things could have been said from the pulpit. It could have changed the climate in which guys think other guys are going to grudgingly admire them. Maybe not, maybe if we think you were cheating or worse, we may not admire you. It could have changed things so that more guys say with matter-of-fact confidence that this is not the way things should be.

So, yes, I'd say some real opportunities were missed. what might have been, what could have been. Religious leaders all too seldom provided real world leadership.
 
Last edited:
I think we can fulfill this challenge without resorting to changing doctrine. There are plenty of democrats(leftists) in congress now who identify with their respective religion. Jimmy Carter for instance was a born-again christian and extremely devout but he was and is today no where near considered a "Christian President". I argue its a framing. I think the best bet would make either the early socialist parties have a specific religious bent so that when they are borken up it isn't because they are "Godless Commies" and then they all go and join "good parties" or better yet have Christian democrats become prominent during the 10's-40's.
I will say if there is a religious right AND left we're going to get some screwy interpretations of left and right. I can see the right being comfortable with immigration and Muslims, with the left being Nativist, but also accepting of Gays. In short the social issues will be distributed weirdly alongside the new economic frame.
 
From his perspective, I don't think there'd be any disconnect between the two views: after all, if the American workers don't want to work for a market price, the Chinese laborers should certainly be allowed to. I actually see a lot of overlap between his views and the views explored in the neoreactionary thread.

Well, okay, I see what you're saying re: how Beecher saw things, although I just wanted to point out that, IOTL, as far as it can be known by us, a good number of the anti-immigration people in general(and the vast majority of outright nativists), in this country were also anti-labor; Beecher's anti-labor activism and seemingly pro-immigration views make for interesting reading(I could see him in a Turtledove novel, TBH), but were n't exactly universal; from what can be seen, pro-labor and (non-nativist) anti-immigration views were actually rather more common.

So, yes, I'd say some real opportunities were missed. what might have been, what could have been. Religious leaders all too seldom provided real world leadership.

This. A thousand friggin' times, this. :(:(

I think we can fulfill this challenge without resorting to changing doctrine. There are plenty of democrats(leftists) in congress now who identify with their respective religion. Jimmy Carter for instance was a born-again christian and extremely devout but he was and is today no where near considered a "Christian President". I argue its a framing. I think the best bet would make either the early socialist parties have a specific religious bent so that when they are borken up it isn't because they are "Godless Commies" and then they all go and join "good parties" or better yet have Christian democrats become prominent during the 10's-40's.

I can see this.

I will say if there is a religious right AND left we're going to get some screwy interpretations of left and right.....I can see the right being comfortable with immigration and Muslims, with the left being Nativist, but also accepting of Gays. In short the social issues will be distributed weirdly alongside the new economic frame.

Well, I dunno. But before I go in depth with my response.....do keep in mind, by the way, that not all people who advocated for immigration restrictions were necessarily out and out nativists; nativism was very much a mostly right-wing phenomenon(and many of the right-wing nativists were also quite anti-labor).....whereas it was quite rare on the left.

Anyway, here's my take: as for the right; I do believe that you could indeed get some of the moderate right-wingers to at least tolerate more immigration and perhaps even become accepting of Muslims(or at least those who assimilate enough, anyway)....although I can't see the latter happening until about 1950, though; and the far-right isn't likely to budge much on either issue(and may possibly double down on their extremism at some point).

Can't see nativism gaining any significant traction on the left, TBH; as I pointed out, nativism had been a right-wing philosophy, and, I'll add, for a good reason; the very phenomenon of immigration represented a change in American culture as a whole.....and a change that some felt threatened their way of life....or worse. The left, being naturally progressive, weren't so inclined to go that far(mostly).

With that said, though, the left did indeed have their own reasons for limiting immigration, but not nearly so much out of fears of "Papism", etc., as it really was about protecting, and advancing, labor rights; they didn't really care so much about where these immigrants were from, as they did making sure these new arrivals couldn't be manipulated by industry barons and their flunkies.

With that said, though, it's possible that some disaffected leftists may break off and form their own nativist movement at some point; these folks could form a "Third Way" type of organization, perhaps.
 
Can't see nativism gaining any significant traction on the left, TBH; as I pointed out, nativism had been a right-wing philosophy, and, I'll add, for a good reason; the very phenomenon of immigration represented a change in American culture as a whole.....and a change that some felt threatened their way of life....or worse. The left, being naturally progressive, weren't so inclined to go that far(mostly).
A lot of early labor movements in the US were anti-immigration, based on the idea that they didn't want cheap labor coming in from overseas, while some businesses were (and are) pro-immigration since it is cheaper to higher immigrants.
 
A lot of early labor movements in the US were anti-immigration, based on the idea that they didn't want cheap labor coming in from overseas, while some businesses were (and are) pro-immigration since it is cheaper to higher immigrants.

True, but as I pointed out earlier, not everybody who wanted restrictions on immigration was necessarily a nativist, though.
 
Out of curiosity: If this religious left were to come into fruition and last until today, how would America's Jewish population fit into it (if at all?)
 
Out of curiosity: If this religious left were to come into fruition and last until today, how would America's Jewish population fit into it (if at all?)

Hi Miranda....,that would be interesting, TBH.

What may surprise some is that not only were secular Jews fairly prominent in the left throughout the 20th Century IOTL.....but even a fair number of religious Jewish folks have been involved from time to time as well. Here's one particularly well-known example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mordecai_Kaplan

In any case, I can definitely see at least some cooperation between religious left Jews, and religious left Catholics, Lutherans, etc., especially in the cities, and in some parts of the Midwest(like in Minnesota, for instance)
 
Top