Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
February 17, 2020, 08:14:18 am
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

  Atlas Forum
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderators: Torie, Senator ON Progressive)
  Most consequential presidential election? (search mode)
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: Most consequential presidential election?  (Read 7047 times)
Intell
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,067
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: -6.71, S: -1.24

« on: September 28, 2018, 12:03:28 pm »

Here's a wild card: 1976.

Ford wins and all the woes of the late 1970's get pinned on the GOP. Watergate, vietnam, "malaise," Iranian hostage crisis, all perceived as a 12-year Republican orgy of incompetence and corruption. There is never a Reagan Revolution (with all that entails) in this timeline! Ted Kennedy (or someone very much like him) wins a landslide in 1980, opening the door for a second Great Society with Democratic super-majorities in Congress.

For all we know if Dewey had won in 1948, it would have prevented the Republican resurgence with Ike, Nixon and Reagan.

At least one historian has suggested that a Dewey victory would have prevented the resurgence of the southern strategy; stopped the GOP from adopting its intense Red-baiting campaign; and led to a much more liberal Republican Party in the long term. It's interesting to imagine a United States divided, today, between an anti-elitist, know-nothing "populist" Democratic Party anchored in the South (but with support from working-class whites nationwide)... and a business-oriented "progressive" Republican Party drawing support from educated whites and minorities across the country! Basically an extension of the 19th century's voting patterns.

Imagine a 2012 Democratic platform calling for single-payer healthcare and constitutional amendments banning abortion and same-se marriage.

That's idiotic and anyone with a basic knowledge of world politics 101 and ideology 101  would know that would never ouccr.
Logged
Intell
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,067
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: -6.71, S: -1.24

« Reply #1 on: October 03, 2018, 08:15:25 pm »

Here's a wild card: 1976.

Ford wins and all the woes of the late 1970's get pinned on the GOP. Watergate, vietnam, "malaise," Iranian hostage crisis, all perceived as a 12-year Republican orgy of incompetence and corruption. There is never a Reagan Revolution (with all that entails) in this timeline! Ted Kennedy (or someone very much like him) wins a landslide in 1980, opening the door for a second Great Society with Democratic super-majorities in Congress.

For all we know if Dewey had won in 1948, it would have prevented the Republican resurgence with Ike, Nixon and Reagan.

At least one historian has suggested that a Dewey victory would have prevented the resurgence of the southern strategy; stopped the GOP from adopting its intense Red-baiting campaign; and led to a much more liberal Republican Party in the long term. It's interesting to imagine a United States divided, today, between an anti-elitist, know-nothing "populist" Democratic Party anchored in the South (but with support from working-class whites nationwide)... and a business-oriented "progressive" Republican Party drawing support from educated whites and minorities across the country! Basically an extension of the 19th century's voting patterns.

Imagine a 2012 Democratic platform calling for single-payer healthcare and constitutional amendments banning abortion and same-se marriage.

That's idiotic and anyone with a basic knowledge of world politics 101 and ideology 101  would know that would never ouccr.

I guess a "basic knowledge of world politics" requires you to ignore everything outside the anglosphere or before 2000.

Please tell me which country had a left-wing party that was less socially left-wing than the right-wing party???
Logged
Intell
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,067
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: -6.71, S: -1.24

« Reply #2 on: October 04, 2018, 08:54:07 am »

Here's a wild card: 1976.

Ford wins and all the woes of the late 1970's get pinned on the GOP. Watergate, vietnam, "malaise," Iranian hostage crisis, all perceived as a 12-year Republican orgy of incompetence and corruption. There is never a Reagan Revolution (with all that entails) in this timeline! Ted Kennedy (or someone very much like him) wins a landslide in 1980, opening the door for a second Great Society with Democratic super-majorities in Congress.

For all we know if Dewey had won in 1948, it would have prevented the Republican resurgence with Ike, Nixon and Reagan.

At least one historian has suggested that a Dewey victory would have prevented the resurgence of the southern strategy; stopped the GOP from adopting its intense Red-baiting campaign; and led to a much more liberal Republican Party in the long term. It's interesting to imagine a United States divided, today, between an anti-elitist, know-nothing "populist" Democratic Party anchored in the South (but with support from working-class whites nationwide)... and a business-oriented "progressive" Republican Party drawing support from educated whites and minorities across the country! Basically an extension of the 19th century's voting patterns.

Imagine a 2012 Democratic platform calling for single-payer healthcare and constitutional amendments banning abortion and same-se marriage.

That's idiotic and anyone with a basic knowledge of world politics 101 and ideology 101  would know that would never ouccr.

I guess a "basic knowledge of world politics" requires you to ignore everything outside the anglosphere or before 2000.

Please tell me which country had a left-wing party that was less socially left-wing than the right-wing party???

Look to countries with a strong religious presence, which are typically outside the Anglosphere today.

It's somewhat common in countries with high Catholic populations. Juntos Haremos Historia, for example, is a coalition based on "left-wing" economics with "right-wing" social theory. Marina Silva, a socialist who briefly was the leading left candidate for president of Brazil, has expressed conservative Christian principles in the past. Christian social democracy is a very real thing and you should read up on it start with integralism.

Some Islamic parties also debatably lean left on economic theory while being strongly authoritarian on social matters. The Muslim Brotherhood is anti-communist but also bases its agenda on Islam including zakat al-mal, meaning that while it might not be a strictly statist redistributive party, it clearly defines economic redistribution as part of its political aim.

On the other side of that coin we have BJP not strictly redistributive but populist and interventionist, with an extreme hard-line right view of social issues and hierarchy. However, its economic views are nationalist and illiberal rather than redistributive. It might qualify for hard liberals but not most.

So there not only do these situations exist, these are currently active parties. Going back further in history to a more religious period, I'd guess you'd find even more examples. So it does "ouccr" no matter how idiotic you think it is.

Juntos Haremos Historia is based on two left-wing parietes (PT, MORENA) that are left-wing both socially and economically. This is the vast majority of the party. PES is a distributist party that is socially conservative and yes they are in the coalition, but overall the coalition is still more socially and economically left-wing than their rival political parties (PRI, PAN).

Of course Islamic (like Christian) parties will be of a socially conservative-fiscally distributist economic stance. Economic Distributism is not inherently left-wing and in these cases we are talking about countries that don't have a defined left or right.

BJP is more right-wing economically and socially than the INC in every respect possible.
Logged
Intell
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,067
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: -6.71, S: -1.24

« Reply #3 on: October 04, 2018, 10:59:06 pm »
« Edited: October 04, 2018, 11:57:26 pm by Intell »

Nobody said anything about a defined left or right, which is an impossibly subjective standard. You claimed it was impossible for a strong coalition to hold economically redistributive beliefs and socially traditional ones. (explicitly, you said it would be impossible for Democrats to support single-payer but oppose abortion.) There was neither a claim that the party must be aligned as a binary left-right grouping or that the party must be relatively more conservative or liberal or leftist than its opposition.

Your claim is obviously untrue to anyone with "a basic knowledge of world politics 101 and ideology 101". Thanks for playing.

(And for OSR, yes, I said don't buy BJP as an option, but I included it as a contrast to MB. Don't really know why. Guess I was on a comparative roll.)

Yes and I claimed that case as it is the case throughout the world. Social and Economic issues tie into each other. It's not impossible to hold those views but a party with the left-wing views on economic issues will have views that are more left-wing on social issues that the right-wing parties. The cases in which this is not the case are countries without a defined left-wing or right-wing (in Islamic Countries etc).

This is the case in every democratic country throughout Europe, Asia and Latin America (including Mexico in which the coalition a vast majority of it anyway is left-wing socially and economically)

Defining Left and Right is also not that hard, it's a moral philosophy that you hold (equality as goal  vs equality not being a whole).

If the Democrats held those set of beliefs they would not be a major party, same with the Republicans with the same beliefs. So yes, it would be impossible for that to occur if they were the major two parties of the US.
Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

© Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Elections, LLC