Different right/left wing politics in parties

[Straha]

In modern times American politics is composed of a right-left dicatomy. The organized parties adhere strongly to one pole or the other.
Given a post-1865 POD,

#1 Could America have developed a political structure that wasn't the
traditional right-left division of OTL?

#2 What different types of right-left divisions could occur in an ATL?

Specifically I was wondering about socially conservative and economically liberal(government activism) parties rising to prominence. Or conversely socially liberal and economically conservative (laissez faire, friendly to big business).

Of course definitions can be sticky and fluid. For the purposes of ideological identification let's use a simple definition for liberal and conservative in the American political scene.

Conservative-focused on maintaining the older social order and morality, favorable to big business and antagonistic to government activism or welfare state.

Liberal-disinterested or antagonistic to the old social order and morality, suspicious of big business and in support of government activism on behalf of the population's well being.

If the populists had been much more successful then perhaps they would have eventually pushed enough reform that they developed a support of the new status quo. Populists were very inclined to use the goverment to promote morality and were taking the first steps towards a welfare state. Perhaps if the populists were able to swallow the Democratic Party then a much different left-right dicatomy could evolve.

 

[Redbeard]

In modern times American politics is composed of a right-left dicatomy. The organized parties adhere strongly to one pole or the other.
Given a post-1865 POD,

#1 Could America have developed a political structure that wasn't the
traditional right-left division of OTL?

#2 What different types of right-left divisions could occur in an ATL?

Specifically I was wondering about socially conservative and economically liberal(government activism) parties rising to prominence. Or conversely socially liberal and economically conservative (laissez faire, friendly to big business).

Of course definitions can be sticky and fluid. For the purposes of ideological identification let's use a simple definition for liberal and conservative in the American political scene.

Conservative-focused on maintaining the older social order and morality, favorable to big business and antagonistic to government activism or welfare state.

Liberal-disinterested or antagonistic to the old social order and morality, suspicious of big business and in support of government activism on behalf of the population's well being.

If the populists had been much more successful then perhaps they would have eventually pushed enough reform that they developed a support of the new status quo. Populists were very inclined to use the goverment to promote morality and were taking the first steps towards a welfare state. Perhaps if the populists were able to swallow the Democratic Party then a much different left-right dicatomy could evolve.

From a European point of view American politics never have been very much left-right orientated, as a true left wing would require socialist or communist conviction. No matter what the democrats have been called, they have never been socialists or communists. I can see why the Democrats are usually regarded as left-wing, as they have in common a strong belief in government regulation with the "real" left wing, but AFAIK never the big thing about common ownership of the means of production. Today the Republicans appear to be the no-intervention party, at least when concerning economy, but not when concerning international affairs or morals. I think it is difficult to see a consistent intervention - no intervention line of division in US politics (although the Republicans appear to have a very staunch no-intervention whatsoever fraction). Next I find it difficult to to see the Rebuplicans as true right wing. Being against strong government isn't a genuine right wing cause, on the contrary, anti-government was the cause of most early "liberal" (pre-socialist) left-wing movements and strong government the cause of the conservative right wing ("Law and order", "God, King and Country" etc.).

If the US system should be termed left-right I would say it would be most reminiscent of the pre-socialist European system, where the left wing was modernist city bourgeoisie and the right wing conservative rural population.

In many ways that is also how things evolve in Europe today. The old left-right division is long since irrrelevant but there is a growing division between on one side a "humanism party" of people expressing very high (naive) ideals about humanity, but in reality being an intelectual elite playing tolerant and modern at the expense of ordinary people. On the other side is a "security party" expressing resisstance towards changes and intervention that the ordinary people doesn't see as good, and although this party in some places appear as a puppet on the strings of the economical elite, it will in other places more often be the one defending basic economical interests of common citizens (ordinary people pay most of the taxes - so keep taxes down - or at least spend the money on us, and not silly art and hopeless social clients).

I guess many would call these two parties left and right respectively, but I'll claim that the "right" has taken over essential elements from the old left (defending the ordinary man) and the "left" in many ways being at least as elitist as the old right.

In other words I think we should forget about dividing politics into left and right...

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

 

[David Howery]

well, although we divide US politics into left and right, most Americans are moderate (as is to be expected)... left of center or right of center, without delving into the far wings of their parties. A lot of people have views from both sides. I'm a good example of this; I've always been an environmentalist (definitely left wing), but I also believe in having a strong military and am sort of an isolationist (rather right wing)... but I'm not radical about any of these... I consider myself left of center in general, but I'm hardly a liberal...