WI: No conservative backlash/NDC survives

JoeMulk

Banned
One idea ive always wondered is how best to preserve the New Deal coalition possibly to the present. I think that the best strategy would have been to pursue better education universally and possibly a strategy of class based as opposed to race based affirmative action. The question is what would the best POD be for getting a scenario like this? Or if you think that there's a different way to save the NDC let me know.
 
No Watergate which means Nixon wins re-election (domestically, he was a New Deal Consensus man through and through).

No Vietnam as well.
 

JoeMulk

Banned
I was thinking though maybe a scenario where the New Left got integrated into the other factions of the party.
 
I was thinking though maybe a scenario where the New Left got integrated into the other factions of the party.

Whilst not entirely impossible to do (ie integrating the New Left within the New Deal coalition), I think it is extremely unlikely.

In OTL, the integration of the more moderate elements of the anti-war New Left into the Democrats in the early 1970's (ie McGovern as the 1972 Democratic presidential candidate and so on), was one of the two main reasons (the other being Nixon's Southern strategy in the late 1960's), that led to the demise of the New Deal coalition.
 

JoeMulk

Banned
Whilst not entirely impossible to do (ie integrating the New Left within the New Deal coalition), I think it is extremely unlikely.

In OTL, the integration of the more moderate elements of the anti-war New Left into the Democrats in the early 1970's (ie McGovern as the 1972 Democratic presidential candidate and so on), was one of the two main reasons (the other being Nixon's Southern strategy in the late 1960's), that led to the demise of the New Deal coalition.

maybe if Wallace isn't shoot and comes close to the nomination which leads to McGovern and Humphrey forming an awkward "stop Wallace" coalition successfully. Maybe then a McGovern/Jackson ticket in 72.
 

JoeMulk

Banned
Humphrey almost won in '68, which is a very underused POD on this board.

The POD for Humphery winning would have to be Nixon not sabatoging the Paris Peace Talks. If he didn't then Humphrey probably would have ended Vietnam by 70 or 71 at the latest. If that was the case then the new left might have ended up more integrated into the NDC.
 
Very tough unless you dramatically change some major events. In 1960, the NDC consisted of several main elements: (1) traditional liberals (2) blue-collar voters who were mainly ethnic and union members (3) The old segregationist South and (4) African-Americans (some of whom still voted Republican). This is overly simplistic, but sufficient for my purposes here.

Vietnam added the New Left to the mix, which created strains, based largely on social issues, between them and the union members, as well as traditional liberals. The Civil Rights struggle was unwinnable for Democrats -- LBJ knew as much and it accounts for much of JFK's caution on the issue, as there was no way to make progress on civil rights and keep both the segregationist South and blacks in the same party, but it was a key demand of traditional liberals. It also wasn't the most pressing concern of ethnic union members, many of whom were less than progressive on racial issues.

By 1960, the civil rights fight was inevitable and every Democrat of the day with an ounce of political sense knew it was a political landmine and likely disaster no matter how it came out. They only had to look to 1948 for guidance there.

Still, though, it was Vietnam and the counterculture that really tore the party apart. Eliminating Vietnam might be enough to keep a viable governing coalition together, even with the old Solid South largely gone. This assumes that the lack of a Vietnam War tones down both the New Left and the counterculture. That seems reasonably plausible and would result in a party that still has some residual strength in the South -- it really wasn't until the late '70s/'80s/90s that Democrats lost all strength there, but still retains the allegiance of traditional liberals and urban ethnic union members, as well as elements of a less militant band of counterculture types and New Left types. A muted counterculture also diminishes the appeal of Reagan and the "law and order" approach of Nixon and many GOP figures of the day.

And, even if Vietnam did happen, one has to wonder whether a surviving RFK in '68 might have been able to hold things together. It's by no means a certainty that he would have won the nomination, but if he had, he might just possibly have been able to hold things together.

As far as keeping it going into the present, you have to find a way to preserve union power. That's a tough task given globalization and a multitude of factors that have undermined unions in the USA over the past 35-40 years.
 
In order to remove the element of crazyness which entered into American politics from the late sixties onwards (first through the New Left, then through the right wing backlash). I feel that it is necessary for the United States not to go in Viet-Nam or for that matter anywhere else during that time period.
 
The New Deal Coalition died in 1968. By 1972, the fringe was in enough control to cause trouble, and the Democrats had stopped being the majority party of the US.

1) The radical leftists which earlier spurned the Democratic Party decided to try to take it over instead. Despite FDR's reputation on the left, the New Deal Coalition was very different than what the SDS/red-diaper babies wanted it to be.

2) They rigged the rules so that Democratic Convention delegates were no longer dependent on actually being elected, but instead had to reflect a certain pre-determined diveristy. Thus in 1972 the Chicago delegation led by Mayor Daley was refused, and an entire new one was appointed in its place. While this lead to a undoubtedly more "diverse" delegation, it cannot be said that it actually represented the people in Chicago better in any way.

3) The failures of the LBJ Presidency discredited the New Deal Coalition. Not only was the war in Vietnam wearing everyone down, but the Great Society programs clearly failed to end poverty and only seemed to worsen them. Advances in civil rights seemed to only encourage race riots. Crime was escalating. The policies of the New Deal Coalition no longer seemed to work. This alienated voters, and demoralized much of the old guard that they agreed to let the left wing change the Democratic Party, which only alienated voters even more.

It was very common to hear people in the 1970s say "I didn't leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left me."

The only reason the Democrats kept control of Congress for years afterwards was 1) the Watergate scandal, 2) many old time New Deal Democrats kept getting elected in their old burroughs, 3) the South was still Democratic in name and kept electing the same people they always did to Congress even though they voted Republican for President (much of the Southern Democrats often voted with the Republicans anyway).

A lot of bottled up change was happening in the 1960s. You had racial issues, you had feminism, the sexual revolution, and others. The Vietnam War was only going to make it worse. The system just couldn't handle it anymore, and once it seemed like the government couldn't hold back anarchy, a political realignment was inevitable.

You have several different options to mix and play with.

1) Somehow keep the New Left out of the Democratic Party.

2) Prevent the Vietnam War or keep the US involvement to a minimum. Maybe instead of Westmoreland being put in charge in the beginning, Creighton Abrams was. The Vietnam protests pushed college enrollment, and lots of unemployed young men always leads to trouble if they are dissatisfied about their prospects.

3) Don't have the birth control pill be invented until later. Political feminism not associated with the sexual revolution would have a very different impact. Not sure if this is really feasible. A sexual revolution that came after other issues had been dealt with might prove less traumatic.

4) A completely changed Great Society. There were a lot of flaws in the War on Poverty. A lot of this was due that LBJ was skilled enough and had a good congressional majority that he could shove through programs without too much debate and changes.

There are probably more that do not come to mind. You can't do anything about the racial issues in the 1960s. The civil rights era had arrived, and people were going to have to deal with all the changes it created, even the unintended ones.

The two critical areas are probably avoiding the Vietnam War and preventing LBJ from being so dominant. It probably means that JFK has to live which is ironic since the Kennedy''s represented the conservative wing of the Democratic Party (despite the mythology that now surrounds JFK and RFK).
 
Top