WI: Senator Jack London, Savior of the Progressive Party

The Comic Scholar

I'm working on an idea for my first TL and wanted to get some feedback. The general idea is that Jack London, noted American adventure novelist, became a politician instead of a writer. This isn't too out there, as London was very involved with the socialist movement later in his life and even ran for mayor of Oakland, but ITTL, he would have been a politician from the start.

Unfortunately, I don't know a huge amount about turn of the century politics, so I was hoping to get some pointers on a few ideas I had.

I was thinking London may have started out as a Progressive Republican Representative and/or Senator for CA, then defected to the Progressive Party in the 1912 election. I know that Roosevelt came in second in that election and took CA, but I was wondering if having a charming young buck like London campaigning for him could have helped.
Also, I know Robert La Follette was the other heavy-hitter in Progressive circles, but he and Roosevelt disliked each other. Could London have somehow convinced them to set that aside 'for the good of the country,' enemy mine as it were, and run as one ticket or was that dislike just too strong? And if they did set it aside, could that show of solidarity have influenced Progressive Republicans like George W. Norris to switch to the Progressive Party for the election, thus strengthening the party further? Maybe Roosevelt-La Follette doesn't take the White House, but the Progressive Party makes a stronger showing and takes some more Congressional seats, allowing it to survive as a major Party?

Any critiques are appreciated,
C.S.
 

starwarsfan

The Comic Scholar said:
I'm working on an idea for my first TL and wanted to get some feedback. The general idea is that Jack London, noted American adventure novelist, became a politician instead of a writer. This isn't too out there, as London was very involved with the socialist movement later in his life and even ran for mayor of Oakland, but ITTL, he would have been a politician from the start.

Unfortunately, I don't know a huge amount about turn of the century politics, so I was hoping to get some pointers on a few ideas I had.

I was thinking London may have started out as a Progressive Republican Representative and/or Senator for CA, then defected to the Progressive Party in the 1912 election. I know that Roosevelt came in second in that election and took CA, but I was wondering if having a charming young buck like London campaigning for him could have helped.
Also, I know Robert La Follette was the other heavy-hitter in Progressive circles, but he and Roosevelt disliked each other. Could London have somehow convinced them to set that aside 'for the good of the country,' enemy mine as it were, and run as one ticket or was that dislike just too strong? And if they did set it aside, could that show of solidarity have influenced Progressive Republicans like George W. Norris to switch to the Progressive Party for the election, thus strengthening the party further? Maybe Roosevelt-La Follette doesn't take the White House, but the Progressive Party makes a stronger showing and takes some more Congressional seats, allowing it to survive as a major Party?

Any critiques are appreciated,
C.S.
Click to expand...

The Roosevelt Vs LaFollette feud would be very hard to overcome, but it would be an inteeresting TL for an enduring progressive party. If you can incorporate the socialist movement into it later on, you could easily have a social democratic political party and a much stronger socialist movement if you butterfly the Red Scare and Summer as well as the Sedition and Espionage Act.
 

The Comic Scholar

starwarsfan said:
The Roosevelt Vs LaFollette feud would be very hard to overcome, but it would be an inteeresting TL for an enduring progressive party. If you can incorporate the socialist movement into it later on, you could easily have a social democratic political party and a much stronger socialist movement if you butterfly the Red Scare and Summer as well as the Sedition and Espionage Act.
Click to expand...

I was wondering about the socialists. I know they had some considerable support (though never enough to win any electoral votes as far as I know), but I wonder if they would ally with the Progressives for national elections at least. Lesser of three evils, from their point of view, when compared to the GOP and Democrats.
I don't know if the Bullmoose would be strong enough by 1919 to have any impact on the First Red Scare, but they definitely could at least partially butterfly post-WWII McCarthyism by being a nationally established party.
And I can't imagine a Bullmoose Party that wouldn't strongly oppose the Sedition and Espionage Act.
I do wonder what impact this would have on WWI and WWII as well. A lot of Progressives were also isolationists, IIRC.
 
Last edited:

Pellegrino

I would think his call to arms for the white race to defeat Jack Johnson would probably hurt his popularity with progressives, although sadly, I may be wrong on that.
 

The Comic Scholar

Pellegrino Shots said:
I would think his call to arms for the white race to defeat Jack Johnson would probably hurt his popularity with progressives, although sadly, I may be wrong on that.
Click to expand...

Not quite sure what particular statement your referring to, but I freely admit I am ignorant of much of this periods history. Wikipedia is my guide here.
London's views on race are definitely complex and somewhat bigoted, but he was certainly more open-minded than other politicians in his day, so I don't think they would have killed his political career. They didn't stop his involvement in left-wing organizations like the Socialist Party IOTL.
 

Pellegrino

The Comic Scholar said:
Not quite sure what particular statement your referring to, but I freely admit I am ignorant of much of this periods history. Wikipedia is my guide here.
London's views on race are definitely complex and somewhat bigoted, but he was certainly more open-minded than other politicians in his day, so I don't think they would have killed his political career. They didn't stop his involvement in left-wing organizations like the Socialist Party IOTL.
Click to expand...

NPR has an interesting article about Jack London's infamous "It's up to you Jeff" speech in which he created the "Great White Hope" phenomenon:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128245468

Jack London's wrote after Jack Johnson became the first Black Heavyweight champion:

"Jim Jeffries must now emerge from his Alfalfa farm and remove that golden smile from Jack Johnson's face. Jeff, it's up to you. The White Man must be rescued."

Although you are correct, he was more open-minded than many in his era. Sadly, that wasn't saying much though.
 

The Comic Scholar

Pellegrino Shots said:
NPR has an interesting article about Jack London's infamous "It's up to you Jeff" speech in which he created the "Great White Hope" phenomenon:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128245468

Jack London's wrote after Jack Johnson became the first Black Heavyweight champion:

"Jim Jeffries must now emerge from his Alfalfa farm and remove that golden smile from Jack Johnson's face. Jeff, it's up to you. The White Man must be rescued."

Although you are correct, he was more open-minded than many in his era. Sadly, that wasn't saying much though.
Click to expand...

London also praised (in a still racist way) Johnson's performance in the match where he beat Tommy Burns, saying: "what . . . [won] on Saturday was bigness, coolness, quickness, cleverness, and vast physical superiority... Because a white man wishes a white man to win, this should not prevent him from giving absolute credit to the best man, even when that best man was black. All hail to Johnson… [Johnson was] superb. He was impregnable . . . as inaccessible as Mont Blanc"
So while he was at least somewhat racist, I would say London could still make it as a politician. Also, with an early enough POD, some of that bigotry could be butterflied. Either way, it's still depressing that such clever people could have such backward ideas.:(

Another thing I was wondering about was what a stable Progressive Party would mean for the two party system in the US. Would the Progressives stay a 'third party,' but one large enough to win the white house, or would they eventually crowd out the GOP (relegating it to 3rd party status or destroying it completely)?

Also, what butterflies could arise from there being no 'Call of the Wild' or 'White Fang?' I realize the political implications are greater, but the affect on Pop culture is worth considering.
 

The Comic Scholar

One other thing I wanted to know about is the possible effects this would have on America's involvement in WWI and WWII. I know a lot of Progressives were also opposed to getting involved in WWI, but IIRC Teddy Roosevelt was in favor of it. With a strong national Progressive Party, opposition to the war would be given voice, and even keep the US out of WWI, at least until later. This could set a precedent of the US staying out of European affairs (as many of the founders wanted) and butterfly the 'Global Policeman' attitude in general (or at least limit it to the Western Hemisphere).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top