Zyobot
Fleet admiral
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Posts: 17,352 
Likes: 7,260
|
Post by Zyobot on Nov 30, 2018 10:25:21 GMT
Throughout its 240-something years as a sovereign nation, US politics has been a constantly-evolving force. The initial contest between Federalism and Democratic-Republicanism, a war over slavery, and the dawn of 20th Century Progressivism are just a few key points in America's (albeit comparatively short) geopolitical history.
The realignment of the Deep South from a Democrat-dominated stronghold to an arch-Republican bastion over the course of that time is one such transformational shift. But is it possible to have made the South into a pro-labor, higher-tax, commerce-regulatory voting bloc counterbalanced by a pro-business, low-tax, free market-oriented Northern US--and make that dynamic last into 2018 and beyond?
Thank you in advance,
Zyobot
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,033
Likes: 49,439
|
Post by lordroel on Nov 30, 2018 10:31:32 GMT
Throughout its 240-something years as a sovereign nation, US politics has been a constantly-evolving force. The initial contest between Federalism and Democratic-Republicanism, a war over slavery, and the dawn of 20th Century Progressivism are just a few key points in America's (albeit comparatively short) geopolitical history. The realignment of the Deep South from a Democrat-dominated stronghold to an arch-Republican bastion over the course of that time is one such transformational shift. But is it possible to have kept the South a predominantly Democratic (or at least, fiscally liberal) voting bloc counterbalanced with an uber-Republican (or at least, fiscally conservative) Northern US--and make that dynamic last into 2018 and beyond? Thank you in advance, Zyobot |
|
Zyobot
Fleet admiral
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Posts: 17,352
Likes: 7,260
|
Post by Zyobot on Nov 30, 2018 10:42:27 GMT
Throughout its 240-something years as a sovereign nation, US politics has been a constantly-evolving force. The initial contest between Federalism and Democratic-Republicanism, a war over slavery, and the dawn of 20th Century Progressivism are just a few key points in America's (albeit comparatively short) geopolitical history. The realignment of the Deep South from a Democrat-dominated stronghold to an arch-Republican bastion over the course of that time is one such transformational shift. But is it possible to have kept the South a predominantly Democratic (or at least, fiscally liberal) voting bloc counterbalanced with an uber-Republican (or at least, fiscally conservative) Northern US--and make that dynamic last into 2018 and beyond? Thank you in advance, Zyobot That's not exactly what I meant. My prompt was that the South would be at least fiscally left-wing (more regulatory, welfare-friendly, etc.) in accordance with the modern Democratic platform, while the North would at least be fiscally right-wing (pro-business, free market-oriented, etc.) in accordance with the modern Republican platform. Maybe I should've phrased the thread differently so that was clearer, i.e. Pro-Business North, Pro-Labor South by 2018+. There's room to mess around with their positions on social issues (or not) if so inclined, as I wonder if a Democratic South would be very socially conservative, while a Republican North would be much more socially moderate/liberal. But that's just one possibility. |
|
raunchel
Commander
Posts: 1,795 
Likes: 1,182
|
Post by raunchel on Nov 30, 2018 11:51:20 GMT
At least for the south, a lot of the views on business basically tag along with social views. So, you could have the southern democrats basically stay, focusing strongly on identity politics and the like.
Getting the north's major cities more pro-business is a lot harder, given the nature of unions and the like and their influence in the industrial working class. You can't move the industry south all that easily, so you have to do something with the labour movement and related things. Of course, you have more business-favouring groups, but they won't outnumber workers. To the working class, social issues also aren't that important (although they're not relevant), so you have to make them go against their nature. I would suggest a few truly disastrous policies that basically crush the industrial areas. These of course have to come from the pro labour politicians. But even that might be hard.
|
|
Zyobot
Fleet admiral
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Posts: 17,352
Likes: 7,260
|
Post by Zyobot on Nov 30, 2018 14:47:43 GMT
At least for the south, a lot of the views on business basically tag along with social views. So, you could have the southern democrats basically stay, focusing strongly on identity politics and the like. Getting the north's major cities more pro-business is a lot harder, given the nature of unions and the like and their influence in the industrial working class. You can't move the industry south all that easily, so you have to do something with the labour movement and related things. Of course, you have more business-favouring groups, but they won't outnumber workers. To the working class, social issues also aren't that important (although they're not relevant), so you have to make them go against their nature. I would suggest a few truly disastrous policies that basically crush the industrial areas. These of course have to come from the pro labour politicians. But even that might be hard. Sure, I can see why keeping the Southern Democrats would make the Deep South a much more (fiscally) left-wing voting bloc. Isn't it overtly "mutually inclusive" to state that the Southern perspective on business and social issues would go hand in hand, though? As far as the north becoming a predominantly pro-business region, I wonder if you could somehow make free market capitalism a key aspect of them being prosperous--or at least, have it generally perceived that way. Maybe economic Progressivism could severely damage, if not kill notable industries in the North. But again, I don't know how to precisely go about this, and I'm not keen on transforming a gigantic portion of the country into Venezuela lite unless there's a solid chance of recovery. |
|
raunchel
Commander
Posts: 1,795
Likes: 1,182
|
Post by raunchel on Nov 30, 2018 16:32:24 GMT
At least for the south, a lot of the views on business basically tag along with social views. So, you could have the southern democrats basically stay, focusing strongly on identity politics and the like. Getting the north's major cities more pro-business is a lot harder, given the nature of unions and the like and their influence in the industrial working class. You can't move the industry south all that easily, so you have to do something with the labour movement and related things. Of course, you have more business-favouring groups, but they won't outnumber workers. To the working class, social issues also aren't that important (although they're not relevant), so you have to make them go against their nature. I would suggest a few truly disastrous policies that basically crush the industrial areas. These of course have to come from the pro labour politicians. But even that might be hard. Sure, I can see why keeping the Southern Democrats would make the Deep South a much more (fiscally) left-wing voting bloc. Isn't it overtly "mutually inclusive" to state that the Southern perspective on business and social issues would go hand in hand, though? As far as the north becoming a predominantly pro-business region, I wonder if you could somehow make free market capitalism a key aspect of them being prosperous--or at least, have it generally perceived that way. Maybe economic Progressivism could severely damage, if not kill notable industries in the North. But again, I don't know how to precisely go about this, and I'm not keen on transforming a gigantic portion of the country into Venezuela lite unless there's a solid chance of recovery. The southern views on business and social issues aren't necessarily mutually inclusive. Of course, some of the fiscal things can be phrased in another way, and you have to get rid of at least some kinds of 'welfare queen' rhetoric. But at least it's possible. One way to achieve that is to have more ways to exclude blacks (I know, that's far from a decent thing, but it is what worked for the New Deal). The Democratic position only really collapsed when the civil rights movement got started and democratic politicians supported it. Without that, you at least have a chance. Free market capitalism being seen as more effective indeed is the only way to make the north less left-leaning. Some groups will be drawn to the socially liberal party, regardless of economic positions. So at least you have large parts of the minority populations and the like covered there. Then you basically need the working classes, they are the majority after all. You might go with a generally weaker union movement, perhaps by some more violent clashes and true repression as soon as they get started. That at least eliminates the unions. Or you have to somehow get them on board, but that just can't be done without the workers abandoning them in droves. So perhaps you can have some properly disastrous policies wreaking havoc on the economy somehow, but then it indeed becomes hard to not go full Venezuela. At the same time, such intense economic issues would also affect the chances for fiscal liberals in the south. The only other thing that I can think of is using culture. In our world, conservatives are much more dedicated in that regard, but a greater focus on the culture wars and the like could see the North as a fiscally conservative area. That however requires the overcoming of the racism of workers, or, failing that, having a far greater proportion of minorities there. |
|
kyng
Consul General
Posts: 1,190
Likes: 910
|
Post by kyng on Dec 1, 2018 1:43:02 GMT
I'm going to admit, I misread your opening sentence as "Throughout its 240-something years as a sovereign nation, US politics has been a constantly-evolving farce". Though, in fairness, this is also true!
As for how to keep the South fiscally liberal while making the North fiscally conservative, I do have one idea. Perhaps there's a major humanitarian catastrophe in Latin America at some point during the 20th century - and the USA gets very eager to help, and takes in as many as they can. Now, you have a large Hispanic population overwhelming most of the Southern states. These refugees won't be able to vote, of course - but their children will. And, since these families have lost everything, they aren't gonna be voting for the "pro-business" party.
Now, this would cause white Southerners to swing sharply towards the "pro-business" party: they don't want their tax dollars going to this lot if they can avoid it. However, these people would become a minority in their own lands, so they'd be able to exert very little political power at the national and state levels. This may cause many of them to flock to the north - in what would essentially be a white version of the Great Migration. This in turn may trigger a reversal of the original Great Migration, where black families move to the Southern states which their ancestors had once inhabited - which would only strengthen the "pro-Labour" hold on the South.
I suspect this would take a colossal humanitarian catastrophe, though - and I'm not sure what could pull it off!
|
|
