WI: Dixie out, labor in?

In the 1968 campaign, the Democratic Party acted as a virtual appendage of the labor movement. Meany and the bigwigs of the AFL-CIO gave Humphrey much of his funding, did pretty much all of the canvassing and GOTV stuff, and came very close to electing Humphrey president.

In the aftermath, however, labor lost its 15 second grip on Democratic Party power and lost control of the party to the New Politics forces that were coalescing around the party and essentially seized power when the nominating rules were changed by McGovern-Fraser.

With the South having essentially jumped ship with George Wallace and the New Politics rising, is it possible that the labor movement could hold on to control of the Democratic Party in the early seventies? How might that be done?

My initial thought would be a Humphrey win in '68 would allow the AFL-CIO a free hand in the reform process. IOTL, a power vacuum allowed the New Politics groups to jump right in and reform the process, shutting labor pretty much out of the entire discussion. Any ideas? How would this effect the development of the Democratic Party? A move towards a more social democratic platform in the 1970s?
 
If HHH wins then labor hangs on if they choose to engage, which they didn't IOTL. They'll have to democratize the party as per OTL but maybe AA doesn't play as prominent a role in the delegate selection process. Less emphasis on social liberalism in the platform.

Later developments depend on how the alt-'70s go.
 
Humphrey winning would be a good start. So would a less conservative AFL-CIO president than Meany, who could keep the socialist-leaning and anti-war UAW leadership within the federation - that might drag the organization as a whole to the left, facilitate cooperation with New Politics types and prevent the serious rupture that happened in 1972 when Meany refused to endorse McGovern.

Of course this might be tough, because having an anti-war AFL-CIO president would weaken the unions' ties to the Democratic establishment and prevent them from really getting behind Humphrey in the first place. So that's probably out as a PoD, unless you can find a really skilled leader who can walk the line between McGovernites and the establishment.
 
Labor had sworn to not back the Democrats if Eugene McCarthy became the nominee, but they might have been swayed to an end-the-war platform under Bobby Kennedy. But his relation with the unions as Attorney General and his personality could mean that would hardly lead to a big voice to labor at the table if he's the transformative figure in the 70's Democratic Party.

Humphrey is good because he's from the pro-war wing of the party but had the inclinations conducive towards ending it.

In terms of "social democratic" it depends on what you mean. It wouldn't have been outrageous to call the New Left liberals (as opposed to the New Left in communism) social democrats, and it also wouldn't have been outrageous to consider the centrist anti-war moderate Dems and Republicans the same, from Rocky to McCarthy. But the basis for center-left, social liberal, New Dealer identity as social democracy could be found in the pro-war pro-labor wing of the socialist movement. If Humphrey wins, we could see the timeline have the Social Democrats led by the former Trotskyists who wanted the war on Soviet backed Vietnam be the ones that end up as a branch of the Democratic Party, as opposed to OTL where the moderate wing of the anti-war Socialists - who would become the Democratic Socialists - did so.

That also creates a situation where the main leftist activist movement in the Democratic Party is one more amicable to, and with a greater history of working with, the AFL-CIO leadership. The pro-war labor movement and the pro-war socialist movement are made for each other, and progressive enough on domestic policy to prevent a major backlash later down along the line.
 
IOTL, a power vacuum allowed the New Politics groups to jump right in and reform the process, shutting labor pretty much out of the entire discussion.

This is an overgenaralisation, isn't it?

The idea of raw New Politics versus Organised Labor has always struck me as being a case of people deliberately heightening contradictions where they didn't necessarily exist; it's really machine-politics-compatible liberalism versus interest group liberal realignment. Labor was in the first group, the McGoverniks in the second.
but they might have been swayed to an end-the-war platform under Bobby Kennedy

As if they would have opposed a peace platform under RFK.

But his relation with the unions as Attorney General and his personality could mean that would hardly lead to a big voice to labor at the table if he's the transformative figure in the 70's Democratic Party.

I have a lot of respect for Hoffa's importance, but I think you've got the wrong AFL-CIO leadership in mind here if you think the Meaneys and Reuthers thought primarily of the Kennedys as "the Teamsters enemies".

Don't know about no Trotskyists, though.
 
Humphrey winning would be a good start. So would a less conservative AFL-CIO president than Meany, who could keep the socialist-leaning and anti-war UAW leadership within the federation - that might drag the organization as a whole to the left, facilitate cooperation with New Politics types and prevent the serious rupture that happened in 1972 when Meany refused to endorse McGovern.

Of course this might be tough, because having an anti-war AFL-CIO president would weaken the unions' ties to the Democratic establishment and prevent them from really getting behind Humphrey in the first place. So that's probably out as a PoD, unless you can find a really skilled leader who can walk the line between McGovernites and the establishment.

The simplest solution to this, from the elected party side, is my own previous idea of simply having Humphrey never become VP under Johnson.

If he had remained in the senate throughout the sixties he must inevitably become the postwar bridge between the party establishment, labor and new politics. He was the father of the party's adoption of civil rights, after all.
 
The simplest solution to this, from the elected party side, is my own previous idea of simply having Humphrey never become VP under Johnson.

If he had remained in the senate throughout the sixties he must inevitably become the postwar bridge between the party establishment, labor and new politics. He was the father of the party's adoption of civil rights, after all.

Fair point, any alternative VP suggestions?
 
Top