WI Dewey defeats Truman - Fate of Vital Center Liberalism?

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
This thread is based on some stuff I read about the ideological evolution of the Democratic Party in Peter Beinart's, The Good Fight.

Beinart noted crucial events in '47 and '48. The Biltmore Conference, leading to making anticommmunism part of Democratic Party orthodoxy, Truman's support for a civil rights plank in '48, leading to the Dixiecrat rebellion. The ideological synthesis you ended up with was described by Arthur Schlesinger as "Vital Center" liberalism. It combined a desire for domestic reform with a forward policy abroad. Truman then proceeded into the 1948 election, winning a close victory, even while his ideological positions led to defection on the left (Wallace's Progressives) and on the right (Thurmond's Dixiecrats).

Truman's surprise victory in '48 vindicated Schlesengerian anticommunist liberalism. Truman did have an unhappy second term, but the ideology came back in, celebrated again, with JFK's victory. It did not unravel until the later Johnson years, under the strain of Vietnam and the New Left and resurgent right.

Stepping back again, how would Democratic Party ideology have been effected if Truman lost in '48 instead of winning?

Would later Democrats have absorbed the idea that either supporting containment of the USSR, or supporting black civil rights, or both, were automatic death to any Democratic political coalition?

Would the next winning Democrat have consequently been completely uninterested in confronting civil rights issues?

Would greater skepticism toward the Cold War have been a more mainstream position within the Democratic Party through the rest of the forties, fifties and sixties, instead of being eclipsed for all practical purposes between 1950 and 1965? Note that there was significant unease among many liberals about Truman's policies of supporting rightist Greek and Turkish regimes in '47.

Overall, do Doves and Dixiecrats gain in relative power?

In the ATL, you would not have the Democrats have the Korean War precedent of fighting an limited, executive war to further the containment doctrine. You may not have a Korean War, period, if Moscow, Beijing and Pyongyang interpret Dewey's policies in Asia differently than they interpreted Truman's in OTL.

Meanwhile, might the Vital Center ideology take up residence in Dewey's GOP? Where will his party stand on civil OTL's Truman and Eisenhower administrations? And what will his containment policy, both diplomatic and military, look like?
 
Would later Democrats have absorbed the idea that either supporting containment of the USSR, or supporting black civil rights, or both, were automatic death to any Democratic political coalition?

I'm not sure when it comes to foreign policy. The Korean War and Truman defined the Cold War in the first place by aggressively working to contain communism across the globe, and without such an event, I'm unsure as to how the Democrats would have reacted. Many Democrats, such as Senator Claude Pepper of Florida or Progressive Party nominee Henry Wallace, looked upon the USSR as a partner in a potential friendship between the nations, rather than antagonistically. If Joe McCarthy comes out in full swing and leads the U.S. into a Red Scare, the Democrats should jump on board with the anticommunist bandwagon to avoid whatever Tail Gunner Joe has in store for them. If not, the Democrats would probably be sharply divided between anticommunist southerners and skeptical, neutral on foreign policy northerners.

As for Civil Rights, with the Democrats having already placed a civil rights plank into the party platform and with the party already being the home of a lot of northern liberals, I don't think that the party would be quick to retreat from a stance that gave them a monopoly on African American electoral strength.

Would the next winning Democrat have consequently been completely uninterested in confronting civil rights issues?

Not uninterested, but he or she would probably go about the issue very cautiously. John Kennedy was hesitant to do much of anything about civil rights, and only did so when his hand was forced. If Adlai Stevenson is the next Democrat in office, expect the same kind of approach, as Stevenson wasn't the out and out integrationist that his running mate of 1956, Estes Kefauver, was. If Kefauver is the next Democratic President, I could see him approaching the issue in a heartbeat.

Would greater skepticism toward the Cold War have been a more mainstream position within the Democratic Party through the rest of the forties, fifties and sixties, instead of being eclipsed for all practical purposes between 1950 and 1965? Note that there was significant unease among many liberals about Truman's policies of supporting rightist Greek and Turkish regimes in '47.

I really believe it would. I can see the southern wing of the party being far more willing to support Republican incursions into other nations for the purpose of stopping communism, because of a common ideological predisposition between the right as anticommunist. The New Deal wing of the party would probably seek reconciliation and peace talks with the Soviets rather than proxy wars across the globe.

Overall, do Doves and Dixiecrats gain in relative power?

It plays for a split, in my opinion. The doves, who are willing to support civil rights, make gains, while the Dixiecrats, who are willing to support intervention, make gains not with Democrats, but with Republicans, amounting to the same kind of shift as in 1968, in the long run.

Meanwhile, might the Vital Center ideology take up residence in Dewey's GOP? Where will his party stand on civil OTL's Truman and Eisenhower administrations? And what will his containment policy, both diplomatic and military, look like?

The Republicans under Dewey will probably look exactly like the Republicans under Eisenhower. Pro-civil rights and anti-communist, but not willing to intervene unnecessarily and risk American lives. Considering the fact that the GOP's 1948 platform called for a center-left stance on just about everything, I think you see the Republicans parade around Washington as Democratic lite for a good while before the conservative wing comes out in the 1960s, allied with anticommunist Dixiecrats.
 
Top