Discussion:
Features of a Democratic-ruled 1920s USA?
Add Reply
Rob
2017-07-13 02:41:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
For the PoD I will go with the tried and true 1916 one, "Mr. Hughes goes to the White House. Mr. Hughes goes to war. Mr. Hughes and his party pol pals get sent packing 1918-1920"

So, we have Democrats ruling White House and the Congress from the 1920 election on for awhile.

What will be similar to OTL and what will be different, besides the names of the parties in power.

I think we can safely say a succession of Democratic Administrations in the 1920s would be more deferential to the south and its racial views and that the south would have more federal patronage.

Other than on race, where the Democrats would be the more reactionary party, how would Democratic policies compare with the Harding, Coolidge and Hoover Administrations.

I think David Tenner said once that the advantage in the Democratic Party in 1920 would lie with its more liberal progressive factions than conservative ones.

How would liberal/progressive led Democrats govern in the 1920s.

They have no Great Depression to play off of, but what reforms might they pursue or not pursue with regard to organized labor, regulatory and budgetary matters?

How would they differ from or continue "Hughesian internationalism" in foreign, colonial and defense policy?

Various foreign policy issues include intervention in Caribbean affairs, the Washington Naval Treaty and associated treaties on China, German reparations and Allied war debts, preparations/timelines for Philippines independence, the Irish question, especially early in the 1920s and whether to recognize the USSR or not.

What about Prohibition and immigration regulations?

Do economic cycles mainly go as in OTL, or do the 20s "roar" less for America?

If economic cycles largely track with OTL, what's the range of responses to the Great Depression that would be tolerable to the Republican politicians of the alternate early 1930s?
jerry kraus
2017-07-13 13:05:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rob
For the PoD I will go with the tried and true 1916 one, "Mr. Hughes goes to the White House. Mr. Hughes goes to war. Mr. Hughes and his party pol pals get sent packing 1918-1920"
So, we have Democrats ruling White House and the Congress from the 1920 election on for awhile.
What will be similar to OTL and what will be different, besides the names of the parties in power.
I think we can safely say a succession of Democratic Administrations in the 1920s would be more deferential to the south and its racial views and that the south would have more federal patronage.
Other than on race, where the Democrats would be the more reactionary party, how would Democratic policies compare with the Harding, Coolidge and Hoover Administrations.
I think David Tenner said once that the advantage in the Democratic Party in 1920 would lie with its more liberal progressive factions than conservative ones.
How would liberal/progressive led Democrats govern in the 1920s.
They have no Great Depression to play off of, but what reforms might they pursue or not pursue with regard to organized labor, regulatory and budgetary matters?
How would they differ from or continue "Hughesian internationalism" in foreign, colonial and defense policy?
Various foreign policy issues include intervention in Caribbean affairs, the Washington Naval Treaty and associated treaties on China, German reparations and Allied war debts, preparations/timelines for Philippines independence, the Irish question, especially early in the 1920s and whether to recognize the USSR or not.
What about Prohibition and immigration regulations?
Do economic cycles mainly go as in OTL, or do the 20s "roar" less for America?
If economic cycles largely track with OTL, what's the range of responses to the Great Depression that would be tolerable to the Republican politicians of the alternate early 1930s?
Actually, Rob, we could look to Canada for the model here, since Liberal William Lyon Mackenzie King was Prime Minister for most of the 1920's, got thrown out in 1930, and was back again in 1935, after the Conservatives made an even greater disaster of things. Basically, the Conservatives did nothing useful to fight the great Depression, so, they got thrown out as soon as was possible, and quite forcefully, too. The 20's roared a bit less, but they still roared.
Rob
2017-07-14 01:16:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by jerry kraus
Post by Rob
For the PoD I will go with the tried and true 1916 one, "Mr. Hughes goes to the White House. Mr. Hughes goes to war. Mr. Hughes and his party pol pals get sent packing 1918-1920"
So, we have Democrats ruling White House and the Congress from the 1920 election on for awhile.
What will be similar to OTL and what will be different, besides the names of the parties in power.
I think we can safely say a succession of Democratic Administrations in the 1920s would be more deferential to the south and its racial views and that the south would have more federal patronage.
Other than on race, where the Democrats would be the more reactionary party, how would Democratic policies compare with the Harding, Coolidge and Hoover Administrations.
I think David Tenner said once that the advantage in the Democratic Party in 1920 would lie with its more liberal progressive factions than conservative ones.
How would liberal/progressive led Democrats govern in the 1920s.
They have no Great Depression to play off of, but what reforms might they pursue or not pursue with regard to organized labor, regulatory and budgetary matters?
How would they differ from or continue "Hughesian internationalism" in foreign, colonial and defense policy?
Various foreign policy issues include intervention in Caribbean affairs, the Washington Naval Treaty and associated treaties on China, German reparations and Allied war debts, preparations/timelines for Philippines independence, the Irish question, especially early in the 1920s and whether to recognize the USSR or not.
What about Prohibition and immigration regulations?
Do economic cycles mainly go as in OTL, or do the 20s "roar" less for America?
If economic cycles largely track with OTL, what's the range of responses to the Great Depression that would be tolerable to the Republican politicians of the alternate early 1930s?
Actually, Rob, we could look to Canada for the model here, since Liberal William Lyon Mackenzie King was Prime Minister for most of the 1920's, got thrown out in 1930, and was back again in 1935, after the Conservatives made an even greater disaster of things. Basically, the Conservatives did nothing useful to fight the great Depression, so, they got thrown out as soon as was possible, and quite forcefully, too. The 20's roared a bit less, but they still roared.
---good point. thanks for that Jerry, that might be a decent way to project what 1920s liberalism would be.
The Horny Goat
2017-07-17 04:11:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 13 Jul 2017 06:05:00 -0700 (PDT), jerry kraus
Actually, Rob, we could look to Canada for the model here, since Liberal Wi=
lliam Lyon Mackenzie King was Prime Minister for most of the 1920's, got th=
rown out in 1930, and was back again in 1935, after the Conservatives made =
an even greater disaster of things. Basically, the Conservatives did noth=
ing useful to fight the great Depression, so, they got thrown out as soon a=
s was possible, and quite forcefully, too. The 20's roared a bit less, b=
ut they still roared.
Is there a majur country with a democratic government that DIDN'T
change the party in power during 1929-35? I don't know of any - the
US, UK, Canada, France, Germany and Spain ALL changed in that era -
and many of these were considered pivotal elections none more so than
Germany and the US. I specified "democratic" as I don't consider the
Italian government during 1929-35 to have been democratic.
jerry kraus
2017-07-17 13:10:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Horny Goat
On Thu, 13 Jul 2017 06:05:00 -0700 (PDT), jerry kraus
Actually, Rob, we could look to Canada for the model here, since Liberal Wi=
lliam Lyon Mackenzie King was Prime Minister for most of the 1920's, got th=
rown out in 1930, and was back again in 1935, after the Conservatives made =
an even greater disaster of things. Basically, the Conservatives did noth=
ing useful to fight the great Depression, so, they got thrown out as soon a=
s was possible, and quite forcefully, too. The 20's roared a bit less, b=
ut they still roared.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by The Horny Goat
Is there a majur country with a democratic government that DIDN'T
change the party in power during 1929-35? I don't know of any - the
US, UK, Canada, France, Germany and Spain ALL changed in that era -
and many of these were considered pivotal elections none more so than
Germany and the US. I specified "democratic" as I don't consider the
Italian government during 1929-35 to have been democratic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I think the key point here, Horny, is that FDR managed to get reelected in 1936, despite the fact that the Depression was still going strong. My point is that liberal/socialist administrations tend to manage things a bit better in hard times, while conservative/capitalist administrations tend to manage things a bit better in good times. And, people recognize this fact, too.

One could easily see the Conservatives in Canada, having been elected following the start of the Depression, in 1930, as having been in a similar position to FDR, who was elected in 1932. However, while FDR took active and aggressive steps to ameliorate the situation for the average American, and was widely recognized for doing so, the Conservatives in Canada did nothing for the average Canadian. Hence, the Conservatives in Canada were thrown out in 1935, while FDR was reelected, in 1936.
Rob
2017-07-17 02:25:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
If Woodrow Wilson is elected President in 1920, Grover Cleveland style, and lives for a substantial amount of his term 1921-25, I wonder what domestic reform legislation he would pursue and what his foreign policy would involve.

In all three of the substantial President Hughes TLs I've seen, Hughes and the Republicans lose the election of 1920 from postwar backlash and hangover. In at least two of them, Woodrow Wilson makes a comeback in 1920 (in Mike Stone's, he dies between election and inauguration, in another, he lives out most or all of his term in the 1920s).

The most common presumptions about what Hughes would have left him would be:

a) a "Reservationist" League of Nations without Article X
b) a joint Anglo-American guarantee of France
c) the US signing the same peace treaty with Germany everybody else does

However, Wilson will of course criticize Hughes, including the peacemaking, in the election campaign.

How would Wilson deal with foreign policy questions of the day (1921 and after) in comparison to the Harding Administration of OTL which featured Hughes as Secretary of State?

Issues would include questions of reparations in Europe, and war debts,

Would Wilson keep the French guarantee or repudiate it or go on record saying it should not be renewed?

Would Wilson or a Democratic successor recognize the USSR in the 1920s?

Would he perhaps set a date for Filipino independence to occur earlier than OTL, i.e. in the 1920s or 1930s?

Would naval treaties and Far Eastern policy go similarly to OTL's Washington Treaties?

---Here I could think of a few reasons it might be different-

a) Wilson might favor unilateral fleet cuts (or might not), possibly changing the US bargaining position.
b) He might deal differently, perhaps being more confrontational with Japan over questions like Shantung and Siberia, than President Harding was.
c) An Anglo-American alliance covering France could change the dynamics of arms control and diplomacy in the Far East.

For instance, with a precedent established for an alliance in Europe supplementing the League of Nations, can and will America still persuade London to end the Japanese alliance? Perhaps the French alliance is an excuse to keep the Japanese? Even if the US presses Britain to drop the Anglo-Japanese alliance and London goes along with that, Japan will have to be concerned that the Anglo-American-French guarantee extends to the Far East as well as Europe, whatever the letter of the agreement says.

The Japanese will not be convinced that Anglo-American collusion will not happen in the Far East. If the Japanese reckon they are facing an Anglo-American alliance that applies to the Pacific (possible also encompassing French Indochina) the Japanese may find the 5:5:3 ratio of capital ships absolutely unacceptable.

In Europe, will an Anglo-American guarantee of France raise the question in Rome and Brussels, "why don't we have the same guarantee?"

Will Anglo-American allies, now more embroiled by France in the affairs of the continent, either insist or try to discourage France from making alliances in Central Europe, because those could daisy-chain them into a war over "a far away place of which they know little?"

Your thoughts?
Loading...