WI the American Populist party nominated first?

[Atom]

The Historical Populist Party was a major third party in American politics. In the election of 1896 they fused with the democrats in support of Williams Jennings Brian My POD is this: WI the populist Party held their convention first and nominated William Jennings Brian? He too was their top choice, and assuming they do nominate him, what are the effects? Will they survive? i think so. They managed to hold on until about 1912 with elected officials on a Federal level. Maybe they'll die later. Will they be important? I don't know. Depends on if they survive or not.

One last thing. considering that much of their support came from the southwest, at the time of 1896 Arizona and new Mexico were yet to be admitted. I think that in the future those will probably act as another source of votes and representatives. Perhaps Oklahoma?

 

[1940LaSalle]

First you have to get Bryan to accept, and that's not trivial: he was a loyal Democrat.

 

[Nicomacheus]

An interesting notion. The 1896 elections are little noticed event in American History, sometimes. I find it odd they haven't garnered more attention this year in American media, but I digress.

The first problem with moving the Populist convention is that there's no guarantee that Bryan will be chosen. The OTL fusion occurred precisely because the Democrats' convention was divided: their first issue was to repudiate the pro-business, gold-standard policies of incumbent Grover Cleveland. After they did so, Bryan made his famous "Cross of Gold" speech. Only after this accomplishment did Bryan become the presumptive and eventual nominee--a profound feat for someone whose only political expereince in Washington was in the House and who hadn't served as governor of a large state. Bryan's nomination prompted the Gold Democrats to nominate their own ticket (John Palmer of Illinois and Simon Bolivar Buckner of Kentucky). The Populists nominated Bryan, but offered their own VP (Thomas Watson of Georgia). Without the OTL Democratic Convention, a dual candidacy is up-in-the-air. One could foresee somekind of circumstance which leads the Democratic convention to chose a compromise candidate to avoid a split in their ranks, Bryan being tainted by alleigiance of another Party.

For whatever reason, Bryan gets sick the night before the Democratic Convention and cannot deliver the Cross of Gold speech. The Democrats chose to nominate Arthur Sewall (who they nominated OTL as Bryan's running mate). Sewall is rather unlikely, having never held elected office, but re-nominating Cleveland is also unlikely. I'm looking for the Dems to nominate a relative no-body (probably a governor of a large state), though they will still run on a populist-inspired platform. Sewall is convienient because his nomination reeks of Party bosses connviving in secret and his personal wealth (he was a New England shipbuilder) was repugnant to the Populists.

Downcast, Bryan choses to attend the Populist convention. His voice recovered, he gives the most powerful speech of the day, the Cross of Gold speech. He becomes the Populist nominee. His fame and ties to the Democratic Party infuse Populist ranks. Thomas Watson of Georgia is the VP.

William McKinnley is nominated by the Republicans on a strict gold standard platform. Some delegates leave the convention to form the Silver (Republican) Party and they endorse the Populist ticket (similar to their endorsement of the Dem-Pop ticket OTL).

Determined to give the Populist party National prestige, Byran embarks on the first ever national speaking tour. He has to build a Party appartus from scratch as well. The Democrats lose support, given their accomodationist, compromise platform. Mark Hanna, however, trumps them all, running a traditinal front porch campaign with an unprecedent budget of $3M and hiring republican leaders to speak across the country (including Theodore Roosevelt).

In the general election, Populists carry Nevada, Colorado, Kansas, and Idaho. They also receive partial votes in California, Oregon and North Dakota. (Their OTL results in 1892). Due to the split tickets in the South, some southern states (Texas and Georgia) have very close elections. Much to the dismay of the Democratic establishment, it looks like the Republicans might break the Solid South; vote totals require a recount and chaos ensues, as in 1876. This prompts the Texas and Georgia legislatures to intervene, freeing their electors to "vote their conscience". (Alternatively they might simply order their electors to abstain). In reality, this means they will vote for whomever is not the Republican candidate. This leads to Bryan conducting a second speaking tour of the South, hoping that public rallies will convince delegates (i.e. Party bosses) to vote Populist.

Nonetheless, McKinley wins in the electoral college, with 271 votes. He takes only 46% of the popular vote (OTL it was 51%, but he's lost some with the Democrats compromising and the Silver Republicans). The Democrats take 32% and the Populists 20%. {The electoral count might be lower, but I'm trying to avoid a House Election, since it seems a bit too much given McKinley's strengths}.

The actions of Southern legislatures prompt outrage throughout the country, particularly in Populist camps and in the Progressive wing of the Republican Party. Bryan begins making a slow speaking circuit of the US, organizing for the Populist Party. He denounces the Electoral College and the indirect election of Senators. He elaborates on the imagery of the Cross of Gold speech, saying that the country has now been thrust into the Colliseum of the Elecoral College, where Senators, Party Bosses, and wealthy elites have conspired for their execution by Gladiatorial combat. The "Apostolic Speeches," so-called for the evocation of early Christian history, prove a powerful rallying cry. Nonetheless, the movement can do little but simmer...and organize.

McKinley's term proceeds on schedule as per OTL. The resurgent economy dampens Bryan's fervor, but resentment about "Judas Legislatures" still rankles. In mid-term elections, the Republican Party retains a majority of the House, though reduced, to 197 seats (-9). The Democrats have a major loss, from 124 seats to 28, with all 96 of those going to the Populists, who now have 122 seats (1 Seat is still held by a Silver Republican hold out and 1 by an independent, though both caucus and vote with the Populists.). In the Senate, The Populist delegation swells to 29, the Republicans with 44, the Democrats hold 17.

All of this means, that while the Spanish American war still breaks out, the anti-imperialist debates are much harsher. I'm thinking that the Populists probably are against the war and holding Cuba, Puerto Rico and the Phillippines, but it still happens.

From here on out, I'm not sure how the specifics turn out. It probably doesn't make sense to assume that McKinley is still shot, though TR is still probably VP in 1900. He and McKinley probably feud incessantly. Bryan runs again, though things stay as they were in 1898, since the Populists' objection to a successful war has them stymied. This makes 1904 a rather interesting contest. Let's say TR is contesting for the GOP nomination along with some establishment candidate (maybe Taft, maybe Charles Fairbanks, his OTL VP). This makes the GOP a contest between the Progressive Wing and the Old Guard. The Old Guard probably wins.

What does TR do? He may contemplate joining the Populists, by they have re-nominated Bryan for the third time. I think in 1904 he probably bolts and forms his own Party; this may be a stretch, since he could always bide his time and it leaves us with 4 parties! If he joins the Populists, it will be because the Populists have retained their tradition of a late convention and TR sense he can win something because the Populists are getting a bit tired of Bryan. Also, he agrees with the gist of much of the Populist platform (an activist government, direct election of senators, etc.). Even if it forms, I think the alliance would prove unweildy. If TR forms his own party, then we might see the Democrats and Republicans drift back together forming a party of conservative establishment, with two competing liberal/reforming parties.

It may work better if McKinley is shot (for whatever reason) and TR ends up in the White House. He will have more ample room for political maneuver and breathe life into the Progressive cause. If outcry is strong enough, the multi-party situation might become more permanent since the Electoral College might be seriously reformed given the "Judas Legislatures." I'd expect to see an expansion of the House as a compromise; perhaps MMP or Preference voting introduced in some way. Addmision of the western states will be a big issue, mostly for the senate since 6 extra seats for the Populists leaves no one with a majority.

All of this assumes, however, that the Democrats feel inclined to commit collective organizational suicide. Perhaps in 1904, they join the Populists, but keep the Populists' name. Can't you see all kinds of great jokes for later cynical Americans about the only difference between the Populists and the Republicans is one inch (i.e. the tail on the letter R)? This gives TR a bit more room to do his own Party-forming, but I'd imagine it might give his progressivism greater weight within the Republican Party as a counter-point to the Populists.

 

[Strategos' Risk]

Hey, sweet. Bryan does for the Populists what TR did for the Progressives after he got booted off at the 1912 RNC.

 

[Nicomacheus]

Hey, sweet. Bryan does for the Populists what TR did for the Progressives after he got booted off at the 1912 RNC.

True.

I've also been doing some reading (God Bless Wikipedia) on the history of Presidential Primaries. If something like the "Judas Legislatures" happened, then at the very least presidential primaries might have been strengthened in 1912:

Delegates to the national convention were usually selected at state conventions whose own delegates were chosen by district conventions. Sometimes they were dominated by intrigue between political bosses who controlled delegates; the national convention was far from democratic or transparent. Progressive Era reformers looked to the primary election as a way to measure popular opinion of candidates, as opposed to the opinion of the bosses. In 1910, Oregon became the first state to establish a presidential preference primary in which the delegates to the National Convention were required to support the winner of the primary at the convention. By 1912, twelve states either selected delegates in primaries, used a preferential primary, or both. By 1920 there were 20 states with primaries, but some went back and from 1936 to 1968, 13 or 14 states used them.

The primary received its first major test in the 1912 election pitting incumbent President William Howard Taft against challengers Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. Roosevelt proved the most popular candidate, but as most primaries were non-binding "preference" shows and held in only fourteen of the-then forty-eight states, the Republican nomination went to Taft, who controlled the convention.

If the process of creating binding primaries were more advanced in the TL I describe above, due to Populist organizing activities and the other parites attempts to compete, then TR might be able to win control of the Republican party itself.

 

[Atom]

That's an interesting scenario Nicomacheus. I was just working off my limited remembrance of a book I read a whil ago, so the scenario outlined at the top is not all that plausible as you have shown. Still a very interesting read. in the scenario you posited, what do the Democrats have left? the South?

 

[Nicomacheus]

That's an interesting scenario Nicomacheus. I was just working off my limited remembrance of a book I read a whil ago, so the scenario outlined at the top is not all that plausible as you have shown. Still a very interesting read. in the scenario you posited, what do the Democrats have left? the South?

They have the South in part: the Populists take the poor whites and the Democrats take the rich folk. Republicans might have a strong following among Republicans or Populists, but it's hard to tell because of segregation. Competition between the two parties might begin to erode segregation on its own if they start competing for the vote: the Populists OTL saw white southern racists speak out about the need to unite across race lines for socio-economic reasons. The Democrats might also have parts of the Northeast industrial base, if they're the party of anti-immigrantion. In fact, this combined with the South could easily be the thing keeping them alive.

I'm not sure how plausible any of what I posited is, since politics between 1896 and 1912 are so very contingent on some freak occurences (i.e. McKinley's assassination, double nomination, etc.). I also can't remember how sympathetic the Progressive and Populist movements were. One thing I don't like about the above is that it tends to create much more class based parties than the US had OTL. This could have destructive tendencies in a period like the Great Depression.

I do think the possibilities of American Third Party are often unexplored because of the conviction that a 3 party system could not endure, due to first-past-the-post. First, the American electoral system underwent several changes in the 20th century: direct election of senators and the rise of binding party primaries. These events might give purchase to a reform that might alleviate the first-past-the-post tendency. Second, the example of the Lib Dems-Labour-Tories in GB today suggests a scenario for third parties: not all 3 parties contest all regions, any two dominate in any given constituency, with perhaps one dominate throughout, producing a center party, and two flanking parties ideologically. Israel with Kadima also mirrors this I beleive, though I know little about the mechanics of the Knesset.