In 1934 Upton Sinclair easily captured the Democratic nomination to run for governor of California on a broadly socialist (more specifically syndicalist) platform. Many experts have pointed to what followed as the birth of the modern political campaign. Sinclair was attacked on a highly personal basis seeing the introduction of "hired guns, advertising and media tricks, national fundraising, attack ads on the screen and more." Sinclair was heavily outspent and his reliance on the traditional socialist campaign style (grassroots, stump speeches, ect.) lead to him being highly overexposed and, despite beginning with a legitimate advantage, being easily defeated in November.
What if Sinclair had adopted a different campaigning style? Or, more likely as Sinclair simply didn't have the funds, what if Frank Marriam didn't adopt these tactics or, even more likely still, the left-wing of the "progressive party" regained control and decided to co-nominate Sinclair rather than running a doomed campaign from the political center. The chances of a Sinclair victory are not that low. However, the state legislature would have almost certainly remained hostile to the EPIC (End Poverty In California) program and the battle for control of California, and the birth of a legitimate, American-style socialist experiment (entirely different from European-style social democracy) would have begun.
So what? Would it have changed politics nationally? Almost certainly California would have become quasi-socialistic. Moreover, the promise of jobs and collective ownership of industry would likely have lead to influx of immigrants, especially from the depressed, Dust Bowl affected Midwest. With internal immigrants arriving with such expectations, Sinclair's Democratic socialism would only have been strengthened. Could it be possible to see a two-system democracy evolve, with certifiable quasi-socialism in California and a capitalist system elsewhere? Or would one side have to win out?
What if Sinclair had adopted a different campaigning style? Or, more likely as Sinclair simply didn't have the funds, what if Frank Marriam didn't adopt these tactics or, even more likely still, the left-wing of the "progressive party" regained control and decided to co-nominate Sinclair rather than running a doomed campaign from the political center. The chances of a Sinclair victory are not that low. However, the state legislature would have almost certainly remained hostile to the EPIC (End Poverty In California) program and the battle for control of California, and the birth of a legitimate, American-style socialist experiment (entirely different from European-style social democracy) would have begun.
So what? Would it have changed politics nationally? Almost certainly California would have become quasi-socialistic. Moreover, the promise of jobs and collective ownership of industry would likely have lead to influx of immigrants, especially from the depressed, Dust Bowl affected Midwest. With internal immigrants arriving with such expectations, Sinclair's Democratic socialism would only have been strengthened. Could it be possible to see a two-system democracy evolve, with certifiable quasi-socialism in California and a capitalist system elsewhere? Or would one side have to win out?