On Jan 26, 7:43=A0pm, Shawn wrote:
> > > Easy. No "Southern strategy" in 1968.
> > > OTOH such a TL could result in a Humphrey
> > > Administration, which would have plenty of
> > > knock-ons.
> > =A0 =A0 =A0Is this even possible? The only way to avoid a Southern Stra=
tegy
> > is to permanently freeze Nixon out of American politics and this might
> > not even work. The Republicans were just as torn over civil rights as
> > the Democrats were. Some like Rockefeller and other North Eastern
> > Republicans thought that supporting civil rights was natural for
> > Republicans after all they were the party of Lincoln. Barry Goldwater
> > and others were not necessarily against Civil Rights but thought that
> > it was unconstitutional for the Federal and State governments to go
> > against private discrimination and racism. Richard Nixon though that
> > the anger of Southern whites could be used to the advantage of the
> > Republicans. Wouldn't the South end up voting Republican anyway if the
> > Democrats persist in pursuing civil rights.
>
> No Southern strategy results in more Southern votes going to George
> Wallace. =A0Then you have the GOP desperate, having lost three elections
> in a row. =A0So in 1972, they either go after Southern votes with Reagan
> or go with a moderate/liberal like Percy and go after social and
> foreign policy liberals (for whom nothing the Hump does will be good
> enough). =A0In the latter case, George Wallace will run again and have a
> field day, winning big in the South and possibly winning a truckload
> of Northern votes as well. =A0Eventually either the GOP will nominate
> someone with a Southern strategy or the GOP goes socially liberal and
> the Dems will nominate someone with appeal to the South.
As Rich Rostrom pointed out, the "Solid South" was
already starting to show cracks. Tennessee, North
Carolina, and Virginia had long had some Republicans
and they were winning major elections there, and the
Texas Republican Party was starting to get competitive
with the Dems, especially with Tower being elected
to the Senate.
That's not the same thing necessarily as a "Southern
strategy" - just creating conditions ripe for one to emerge.
>
> > =A0 =A0 You are right about a Humphrey administration causing a lot of
> > changes in American politics. Humphrey would have appointed four
> > liberal justices to the Supreme Court instead of Nixon's four
> > conservative and moderate appointees. This means that the rulings of
> > the Supreme Court would continue to follow those of the Warren Era.
> > His domestic policies would have been more liberal than Nixon's, whose
> > policies could not exactly be called conservative but were somewhat
> > liberal in an opportunistic fashion.
>
> This has been discussed in some depth here on SHWI. =A0The biggest
> change IMO is the Supreme Court, but if the GOP and Wallace attacked
> on it in 1968, they will hit ten times as hard in 1972 (maybe not so
> much if Percy is the nominee, but then Wallace will make it his
> centerpiece.) =A0If the Warren Court was perceived as too liberal in
> 1968, the decisions from the Brennan or Goldberg Court will make the
> Warren Court look conservative in comparison.
>
> How would Humphrey handle the oil
>
> > crisis? Would Humphrey and Kennedy be able to work together to create
> > universal healthcare? How would Humphrey deal with the Vietnam War and
> > the Counter Culture?uming that Humphrey could win two-terms,
> > American politics might be siginificantly left of center than it was
> > in OTL.
>
> I doubt a Humphrey who wins by a plurality would be able to, and would
> almost certainly lose in 1972 IMO, even to Reagan, and even to Percy
> with Wallace as a third party.
The Dems would still control both houses of Congress....
>
> > > Also, Reagan loses big, on a McGovern/Goldwater/
> > > '56 Stevenson level. This would probably be best
> > > accomplished by Ford winning in '76, but if
> > > Reagan is able to top Ford in '76 and loses big,
> > > his wing of the GOP will be effectively discredited.
> > > This probably requires a Dem candidate other than
> > > Carter (Scoop Jackson? Jerry Brown? Mo Udall?).
>
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 Scoop Jackson would be an excellent Democrat to run against
> > Reagan. You can't accuse him of beign soft on communism but he was a
> > genuine liberal in domestic policies. The traditional working class,
> > ethnic white base of the Democratic party would love him and not vote
> > for Reagan as they did in OTL in 1980 and 1984. There will be no or
> > very little Reagan Democrats
>
> The problem is that Scoop Jackson is anathema to the New Left or even
> the socially liberal professionals. =A0Moderate Repubs stay Republican,
> social and foreign policy liberals will look for a third party
> candidate (Eugene McCarthy?) =A0If an John Anderson type comes, he would
> gain lots of votes in a Jackson/Reagan matchup. =A0It is similar to a
> Humphrey/Percy match up above with Wallace as a third party.
Given Percy's pro-Arab sympathies he won't get too many votes
from American Jews (unlike other moderate Republicans with
solid pro-Israel credentials like Rockefeller). I don't see
Jewish voters deserting Jackson as many did with Carter
in 1980. In a close election, that could make a difference.
>
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0ObWI: When Reagan was a young man he was very liberal an=
d a big
> > supporter of FDR's New Deal and racial equaility and other liberal
> > causes. He slowly strated to change sometime after WWII. According to
> > Austerity Britain by David Kynaston, Reagan's vist to the UK during
> > the Clement Atlee adminstration played a large part in his turn to
> > radical conservatism. WI Reagan stays a life-long liberal and never
> > becomes a conservative. Instead of seeing Clement Atlee's Britain as a
> > dour place of lines and repetition, he sees it as a Labour government
> > heroically trying to make a devastated land into a Land Fit for
> > Heroes. So in this ATL, Reagan is still interested in politics but
> > remains solidly in the liberal faction of the Democratic party and he
> > uses his charisa to fight for liberal goals and policies. Presumably
> > Reagan does not divorce his first wife. Can Reagan make it as a
> > liberal politician and spokesmen?
>
> I think a Reagan who doesn't turn right would be similar to Scoop
> Jackson in flavor. =A0Strongly hawkish, pro-union and liberal on
> economics, mostly disinterested in social policy.
Quite, quite plausible. If he divorces Wyman, have him married
again to some lesser known actress with no interest in politics
and he'd stay at least a moderate Jackson-type Dem.
> > > > > =A0 =A0 2. Is there any POD that could turn Conservative Democrat=
into as
> > > > much as an oxy moron as Liberal Republican is in OTL? That is an AT=
L
> > > > where the Democrats are just as ideologically united as the Republi=
can
> > > > party seems to be.
>
> > > An even more devastating 1994. Or, alternately, less
> > > success in 2006 ; no "Fifty State Strategy" that leads
> > > to the rise of the Blue Dogs in the South. The problem
> > > with TTL for the Dems is that they remain a minority
> > > party in Congress to the present day.
>
> > =A0 =A0 I was hoping for an earlier shedding of conservatives from the
> > Democrats.
>
> This can be done by passing a Voting Rights Act that requires majority-
> minority districts earlier (either by legislation or having a much
> more liberal Supreme Court mandate them), having no Jimmy Carter and
> having the GOP making more inroads into the South earlier, and having
> a stronger union presence in the South, resulting in conservatives
> being less able to win Democratic primaries.
Repeal of Taft-Hartley?
Best
Stan B. |
