Notes on the Developing Sixth Party System ITTL
Hey all! Just figured I'd hop in and throw a couple of my thoughts vis a vis American politics leading up to 1980 ITTL. Maybe this can help provide some context to the upcoming presidential election, and show you where some of the fault lines (and thus, battle lines) are being drawn. This will in no way be comprehensive. There is a lot more that can and will be said about American politics in subsequent updates. I plan to cover the election (both the primaries and the general) in detail soon. But for now, here's a little taste...
The DemocratsEssentially, the Democrats are working on solidifying an updated version of the New Deal Coalition that has formed the backbone of their party since 1932. Their coalition includes a number of distinct voting blocs, including:
Despite their best efforts, however, the party remains fairly big tent.
On the left, you have the liberal, "New Frontier" wing. Progressives by nature, these Democrats are generally dovish on foreign policy, support liberal stances socially, and move toward government interventionism and even social democracy economically. Mo Udall came from this wing of the party, as does leading 1980 candidate Robert F. Kennedy. Though his elder brother originally ran as something of a moderate in 1960, the Kennedy family have come to epitomize the liberal wing of their party, and now largely wear that label with pride. RFK's big strategy for 1980 is to expand the New Frontier coalition, adding and doubling down on previously disenfranchised groups including:
Then, on the right, you have the "Communitarian" wing of the party. Though they believe in progressive, even Keynesian economics, then tend to be socially conservative (though firmly supportive of civil rights), pro-life, and/or hawkish on foreign policy. This is the wing of the party that has managed to make in-roads throughout the South, and keeps the region in play nationally. Candidates from this wing of the party, such as Jimmy Carter, will try to build a big base of evangelical Christians. Keep in mind, thanks to the failure of Jerry Falwell to go big nationally ITTL, not all evangelicals lean toward the GOP.
Whomever the Democrats nominate in 1980, that person will need to try and placate both wings of the party, and convince the other side that they take their interests to heart. A possible running mate should, ideally, provide geographic as well as ideological balance.
The RepublicansTTL's Republican Party, though also somewhat big tent, is starting to move toward a more unified direction after the 1978 midterms. Though they remain divided on social issues (in some cases, such as abortion, rather bitterly), the party is trending in a pretty conservative direction economically. Their constituents largely consist of:
While in 1978, the party was able to unify around inflation as their winning issue, they don't believe that they can run a single-issue campaign for president. Thus, they need to try and pick a group to appeal to. The big question for 1980 is... whom?
Ronald Reagan, the frontrunner for the GOP nomination, wants to run a "bread and butter" campaign on "pocketbook" issues: inflation; taxes; wasteful government spending. Not only is this right up his very conservative alley, but he believes (perhaps correctly) that such a move could appeal to the Democrats' working class base. After all, Reagan reasons, who is more hurt by inflation and a high tax burden than the working class? If Reagan is the nominee, expect the Republican campaign to target labor unions and blue-collar workers, especially in the Midwest, which is especially feeling the pain of stagflation, and is rich in electoral votes. This ideology - "neoliberalism" - is fast becoming the GOP's primary unifying framework.
Dole and most of the other candidates wish to adopt a similar strategy, as they felt it was successful in 1978. They all have their pet causes or issues, but most feel that they're essentially copying Reagan's homework.
On the other hand... there is Richard Nixon.
The former vice president and secretary of state is keenly aware that despite the years of progress on the issues of race relations, there is still a large swath of the country (particularly the rural South), where poor and working class Whites are deeply bitter and resentful to the Democratic Party for "betraying them" on civil rights and desegregation. Though it failed him in 1968, Nixon still believes that his "Southern Strategy" could be the key to splitting the Democratic coalition once and for all. He wants to run a "law and order"-themed campaign, attacking the "decay of moral authority" in America, to try and employ some Romney-esque rhetoric to help mask racial dog whistles.
Ultimately, which appeal with unite the Republican Party in 1980? Neoliberalism or social conservatism?
The Democrats
- Labor unions
- Blue-collar workers
- Racial and religious minorities (particularly Jews, Catholics, and African Americans)
- Intellectuals & Academics
- Rural white southerners
Despite their best efforts, however, the party remains fairly big tent.
On the left, you have the liberal, "New Frontier" wing. Progressives by nature, these Democrats are generally dovish on foreign policy, support liberal stances socially, and move toward government interventionism and even social democracy economically. Mo Udall came from this wing of the party, as does leading 1980 candidate Robert F. Kennedy. Though his elder brother originally ran as something of a moderate in 1960, the Kennedy family have come to epitomize the liberal wing of their party, and now largely wear that label with pride. RFK's big strategy for 1980 is to expand the New Frontier coalition, adding and doubling down on previously disenfranchised groups including:
- The rural poor of Appalachia and the Deep South
- African Americans
- Hispanic Americans ("Viva Kennedy!" will be a popular cry throughout the Southwest)
- First Americans (previously known as "Natives" or "American Indians")
- Members of the LGBT+ community
Then, on the right, you have the "Communitarian" wing of the party. Though they believe in progressive, even Keynesian economics, then tend to be socially conservative (though firmly supportive of civil rights), pro-life, and/or hawkish on foreign policy. This is the wing of the party that has managed to make in-roads throughout the South, and keeps the region in play nationally. Candidates from this wing of the party, such as Jimmy Carter, will try to build a big base of evangelical Christians. Keep in mind, thanks to the failure of Jerry Falwell to go big nationally ITTL, not all evangelicals lean toward the GOP.
Whomever the Democrats nominate in 1980, that person will need to try and placate both wings of the party, and convince the other side that they take their interests to heart. A possible running mate should, ideally, provide geographic as well as ideological balance.
The Republicans
- Suburbanites
- Middle, Upper-Middle, and Upper Class voters
- WASPS (White, Anglo-Saxon Protestants)
- The above is frequently also used to describe German, Dutch, and other White, Protestant voters
- White-collar workers and business owners
While in 1978, the party was able to unify around inflation as their winning issue, they don't believe that they can run a single-issue campaign for president. Thus, they need to try and pick a group to appeal to. The big question for 1980 is... whom?
Ronald Reagan, the frontrunner for the GOP nomination, wants to run a "bread and butter" campaign on "pocketbook" issues: inflation; taxes; wasteful government spending. Not only is this right up his very conservative alley, but he believes (perhaps correctly) that such a move could appeal to the Democrats' working class base. After all, Reagan reasons, who is more hurt by inflation and a high tax burden than the working class? If Reagan is the nominee, expect the Republican campaign to target labor unions and blue-collar workers, especially in the Midwest, which is especially feeling the pain of stagflation, and is rich in electoral votes. This ideology - "neoliberalism" - is fast becoming the GOP's primary unifying framework.
Dole and most of the other candidates wish to adopt a similar strategy, as they felt it was successful in 1978. They all have their pet causes or issues, but most feel that they're essentially copying Reagan's homework.
On the other hand... there is Richard Nixon.
The former vice president and secretary of state is keenly aware that despite the years of progress on the issues of race relations, there is still a large swath of the country (particularly the rural South), where poor and working class Whites are deeply bitter and resentful to the Democratic Party for "betraying them" on civil rights and desegregation. Though it failed him in 1968, Nixon still believes that his "Southern Strategy" could be the key to splitting the Democratic coalition once and for all. He wants to run a "law and order"-themed campaign, attacking the "decay of moral authority" in America, to try and employ some Romney-esque rhetoric to help mask racial dog whistles.
Ultimately, which appeal with unite the Republican Party in 1980? Neoliberalism or social conservatism?
Reagan has every advantage going into this race. He's got the name recognition. He's got the support of Buckley, The National Review, and the party establishment (a rare combination indeed), and he has a winning message. I know some folks were throwing around slogans. ITTL, Reagan could very well go with his old "Let's Make America Great Again!" from OTL. That's essentially the theme he's running on. Though he doesn't have as much of an "outsider" appeal as he did IOTL, he also doesn't really need that here. Without Watergate and Vietnam/Cambodia being much different, that isn't as necessary.