AH challenge:more liberal america

Status
Not open for further replies.

Straha

Banned
The United States of America in OTL is unique amoung the democratic
republics of the Earth in that the political center of gravity is
further to the right than other democracies and the average person
more conservative.

What PODs are necessary for the political center of gravity to move
to the left in America with a more liberal population. The POD does
not to make the United States as liberal as the Netherlands but it
must make the United States as liberal as the UK or Canada.
 

Ian the Admin

Administrator
Donor
I think the US being more conservative is really fairly recent (post WW2) on most issues. Except for anything having to do with that 800 pound gorilla of the US social landscape, racism.

I actually read a really interesting book about this that I grabbed in Canada over the holidays (currently not available in the US). It's called "Fire and Ice: The United States, Canada, and the Myth of Converging Values". Basically it's written by a Canadian market research/polling guy. In the process of doing his job, he noticed that the politics and values of Canadians and Americans have actually gotten more different over the past couple of decades, not more similar. Which is really surprising considering that Canadians watch more and more American movies/TV shows, we're sharing the same internet, free trade is increasing commerce between the two countries, etc. Basically you have a trend where the US is going one way and much of the rest of the western world is going another way - even Canada which is right next to it and shares much of the same mass media.

As for what the changes are, there's really two aspects to it. One is that the US has completely swapped places on the political/social map with some other countries, especially Canada. "Fire and Ice" points out that half a century ago, the suggestion that Canada was more liberal than the US would have been ludicrous. Canada had a more rural population, probably less ethnic diversity/immigration, people went to church more, and in general Canadians would tell you their politics were more "peace, order, and good government" compared to the freedom-loving/libertine US. It's only recently that Canada and the US have completely swapped places. Now Canada is highly urban, has a much higher immigration rate than the US, religion is way less of a big deal than the US, and public attitudes have totally liberalized. In the US in the 60s and early 70s there was a shift toward more liberal opinions to the point people were confidently predicting legalized pot, an equal rights amendment for women, etc. Then abruptly that all stopped and there was a swing back to the right - whereas in Canada, no such thing.

But the REALLY surprising thing about the US swing towards conservatism - surprised me and I know a lot about opinion research - is how much of it happened during the 1990s. The point where Canada and the US "crossed over" and Canadian attitudes finally became identifiably more liberal than US attitudes was in the 80s, not surprising as this was the Reagan era, the "me" decade in the US. But during the 1990s - when Clinton was president, everybody was prosperous, and things were pretty peaceful - the US continued to make a big beeline away from liberal opinions, whereas Canada continued to become more liberal. So you can't really blame this on who is president or on international conflicts. US society was moving away from liberal opinions even after the Cold War was over and before September 11.

As for the specifics of this "move away from liberalism" that's interesting too. Because really there are two trends in the US. One trend is that the religious right has gotten a lot more influence over the past couple of decades - more political power, its own media, and so on. But this growing political power of "traditional conservatism" doesn't mean growing numbers of people believing in it. No matter how much louder and more unified the fundamentalists and hard right types get, they're not really getting more numerous. Also, the progressive/liberal "wouldn't vote for a Republican with a gun to my head" crowd isn't really getting much smaller. The big change is happening in the center - the approximately half of the population that isn't committed to the hardcore right or left.

And what's happening to the center is something that shouldn't bring any comfort to either the right or the left. "Fire and Ice" uses statistical techniques to measure the most important trends of change in US social/cultural attitudes. Their technique produces a two-dimensional political map.

One dimension is authority vs. individuality. People high on authority place emphasis on duty, behaving according to social norms, obedience to authority, traditional religion/families, and so on. People high on individuality place emphasis on questioning authority, non-hierarchal organization, sexual permissiveness, equal/flexible relationships between people of different ages and genders, and so on.

The other dimension is survival vs. fulfillment. People high on survival see the world as a sort of Darwinian struggle - survival of the fittest, you've got to look out for your own first, other people are ready to take advantage of you, you need to look out for your security and wealth, etc. People high on fulfillment emphasize cooperation and social connection with others. Be a contributor to the community, money doesn't mean everything, and so on.

The traditional left in the US is high on individuality and fulfillment. The traditional right is high on authority and survival. But these guys aren't where the change is taking place. The center is shifting from high authority, high fulfillment people (generally conventional but believing in community and harmony), to high individuality, high survival people (reject traditional authority, but also reject community and believe it's a dog eat dog world).

This is actually a really troubling trend. It's not a shift towards liberalism or conservatism as we conventionally recognize them. It's people rejecting both the conservative solution to social problems (obey the rules of authority and convention) and the liberal solution (cooperate with others, tolerate differences, and form communities). They are out for themselves, they measure success by material gain, and their position on social problems is that shit happens. This is radically different from the rest of the western world, where populations have been predominantly shifting toward liberalism, rather than towards nihilism (for lack of a better word).

Specifically, some the attitudes that have shown the most dramatic increase in the US in the 90s are:

Sexism
- 49% of Americans believe that men should be heads of their household in 2000, up from 42% in 1992. Canadian number is 18%.
- 38% of Americans believe that men are naturally superior to women in 2000, up from 30% in 1992. Canadian number is 24%.

Xenophobia/Nationalism
- 25% of Americans in 2000 believed that non-whites should not be allowed to immigrate, up from 16% in 1992. Canadian number is 13%.
- 49% of Americans believe immigrants have a good influence on the country, compared to 77% of Canadians. (43% of Americans believe immigrants have a bad influence, the other 8% would be neutral/undecided).
- In 2000 31% of Americans said they enjoyed showing foreigners that they're smarter and stronger, up from 27% in 1992. Canadian number is 14%, down from 17% in 1992.


Acceptance of violence
- 24% of Americans think violence is a normal part of everyday life in 2000, up from 10% in 1992. Canadian number is 12%.
- 31% of Americans in 2000 believe that when you're frustrated, a little violence is no big deal and can offer relief, up from 14% in 1992. Canadian number is 14%.
- 23% of Americans believe violence is an acceptable way to reach one's goals in 2000, up from 9% in 1992. Canadian number is 13%.

Acceptance of advertisement
- 44% of Americans in 2000 believe that a widely advertised product is probably good, up from 34% in 1992. Canadian number is 17%.
- Increasing portion of Americans report getting great pleasure from advertising (decreasing portion in Canada)

Materialism
- Increasing portion of the US population believes it's important that others admire the things you own, decreasing portion feel a personal responsibility to those worse off than themselves, increasing portion say they have trouble accomplishing things due to a hectic life, increasing portion say they need to get away from the burdens of their lives. All trends in Canada are the opposite.

Decreasing civic engagement ("Bowling Alone" effect)
- In 2000, 34% of Americans discuss local problems with other people, down from 66% in 1992. Canadian number is 47% (down slightly from 52%).
- Average American spends 40% of their leisure time watching TV, up from 30% in the 1960s. Canadian number was 30% then and now.
- 31% of Americans are obese compared to 15% of Canadians
- SUVs outsell minivans 2:1 in the US, minivans outsell SUVs 2:1 in Canada. (Market research shows that people view the minivan as a symbol of family commitment, whereas SUV owners don't want to be "tied down" and don't want other people to see them as having lost the adventure in their lives).


Those are some of the most noteworthy changes. There are other changes. Some are negative (such as a noticable 1990s increase in "ecological fatalism", the belief that environmental problems cannot be fixed). A few are positive (people feel more comfortable with adapting to a complex society, have more support for flexible family structures, and have more support for the ideal of multiculturalism even while they are in fact becoming more hostile to immigrants).
 
hmm... lots of statistics, but not much background. Just why is this disturbing trend supposed to be happening? Is there some vast web of social/economic factors causing it, are we just naturally bad people showing our true colors, or (as some would have it) is it an inevitable consequence of the US achieving independence instead of staying a part of the Empire ( :p )? So, assuming these trends hold, what will we look like in 100 years?
 
Interesting stuff there, Ian. I read an article online a few weeks ago pointing out these same diverging facts. Maybe, just maybe, it's a cycle. It could possibly be that America could become more liberal in a few years, and Canada could become slightly more conservative. I guess we'll have to wait and see.

As for the actual question, my guess is a POD in the 1950s. America at that time was a very conservative place. Maybe if the nation sees a greater commitment to Civil Rights by President Eisenhower(or possibly Stevenson, that could be the POD), then the nation could become more liberal. This will come right before the hippies and the radicals of the 1960s....that may change the way the Civil Rights movement is seen in its later stages, and lead to an America more liberal than OTL.


Another POD is the 1960s, of course. If Hubert Humphrey wins in 1968, he could set the country up to be more liberal. If he succeeds in getting the nation out of Vietnam and making the country prosperous, liberalism may be seen in a more positive light than it is right now.

POD #3: 1976. Maybe if Ford is re-elected, or if Reagan gets a shot and wins the Presidency, it may weaken the Republicans by 1980, quite possibly to the point where the conservatives in the Republican Party, thanks to a Reagan defeat in 1980, cannot fully take control of the party. A person like Edward Kennedy wins in '80 and makes the country strong...while still being a liberal.
 
SurfNTurfStraha said:
or od this... Take the CSA out of the picture

It's a common (though by no means unanimous) sentiment up here that if we let the South just go and let their stagnant economy self-destruct as the North enjoys wonderful Egyptian cotton, we'd be better off. My history teacher said that if the South had been allowed to secede, it would've set the precedent that any state could leave on a whim, which would have pretty much been the end of the United States. Would that happen? Who knows?

Anyway, even with the CSA gone, would America as a whole be more liberal? The North bit of America might be, but then there'd be a deepy conservative, slave-based country of Americans sitting right below it.
 

Xen

Banned
The 1970s were hard on the liberals, it of course started in the 1960's particularly 1968 when Dr King and Robert F Kennedy was murdered. Ted Kennedy left behind too many soggy women to be of much use and the Liberals answered Watergate with Jimmy Carter. The unfortunate events of 1979 set the liberal movement back even further, and the Reagan years were of no help. The 1988 elections is what hurt the liberals the most, Dukakis let George HW Bush bash liberalism, something it hasnt quite recovered from. The Democrats put up the moderate Clinton in 1992, but Congress was controlled by the Republicans. It should also be mentioned Clinton was seen as a liberal and his life style didnt really help the liberals image. Now we have Dubya, and the events surrounding 9-11 which havent really put the US in a very liberal mood.

If RFK survives in 1968, and declines nomination in '72, but makes a run in '76 things could go radically different. He could abandon the Shah in '79 and support the Islamic regime, or he could support the Shah and keep the Islamic regime from coming to power and probably would beat Reagan in 1980. By 1984 Reagan is going to start looking old and the Republicans will go with someone else (perhaps Bush), but if the economy is doing pretty good that year, Kennedy's VP would likely win. After 12 years in power, the democrats are swept out of office in favor of the Republicans (led by Dole?) in 1988, after the Gulf War in 1991, Dole looks sure to be reelected, but the economy gets sluggish and he is put out of office in 1992 in favor of a Democrat (Dukakis?) the Democrats win again in 1996. In 2000 the Republicans put up John McCain who goes on to win the election in a landslide, the joke of the election is the son of former Presidential candidate and owner of the Texas Rangers baseball team, George W. Bush attempting to make a run at the office.

The US sees liberalism continue into the late 70s and into the 1980's with a break in the late 80s early 90s, but a return in the 90's. The US is much more liberal, and the world looks very different.
 
Ian's statistics do seem to reflect a trend in the US among many people - a lack of concern or interest regarding social issues, and often politics in general, and a focus of all effort on taking care of oneself and sometimes the people closest to you. I definitely see a lot of people in the US as having an attitude that each individual should take care of his or her own problems, and little patience for the idea that people owe something to "society" as a whole.

On a different scale, this attitude might help explain the hostility of many in the US towards the United Nations and the opinions of people in other countries. If individual people should do what's in their own best interests, than the same should be true for individual countries. If other people/countries don't like what you're doing, that's their right, but you're sure as hell not going to give up your own best interests just to make others happy.

This sounds grim and bleak to people (including myself) who have been conditioned to accept the standard liberal idea that we should all look out for one another, that to be selfish is bad, etc. On the other hand, who is to say that these people are necessarily wrong? Is there really any hard evidence that cooperation and looking out for others is the one "right" way?

In a sense, this might be seen as a reassertion of the very old American ideal of "rugged individualism" after decades of being out of fashion. Historically, though, "rugged individualism" in most parts of the US was tempered by strong community influences as well - churches, towns, families both extended and nuclear, and a wide variety of voluntary organizations. I think that it might have been de Tocqueville who said that this impulse towards belonging to groups was a good counterweight to rugged individualism in the US and prevented that individualism from degenerating into a total "dog-eat'dog"-style lack of concern for others. If individualism becomes triumphant again without many community influences to mix with it, THAT might not bode well for the US in the future.
 
Good points, Xen and Paul. About the POD, I think about the possibilities of MLK living past 1968. I think he would've become a liberal leader in the USA if allowed to live...and if J. Edgar Hoover doesn't discredit him. It is somewhat possible that, if allowed to live, he at least makes an attempt at making the South more moderate than it is IOTL.

Again, as I said earlier, if the GOP gets the White House in 1976, they are as good as screwed in 1980. If a liberal like Edward Kennedy, or someone else like Edmund Muskie or Walter Mondale, gets elected President, then the nation will probably be more liberal than IOTL. As a matter of fact, what Xen said about Ted Kennedy is true; it would be very hard for him to be elected after the 1969 incident. I think then Mondale has a great shot at the nomination in 1980.

1980: Walter Mondale and Edmund Muskie defeat the Republican nominee, who I think would be either Bob Dole or George Bush.

1984: Thanks to a bustling economy, Mondale defeats the Republicans again, possibly one of the two guys listed above.

1988: At this point, Muskie may be considered too old for the Presidency, so the nod from the Democrats is given to either Michael Dukakis or possibly John Glenn. With the Dems winning the Cold War, and the country looking strong again after the debacle of 1979-1980, the Republicans lack the anti-Liberal weapons that Bush had IOTL in 1988. Dukakis wins, and leads America into war against Iraq in 1991.

1992: The economy may be sluggish like IOTL, so the GOP gets the White House back. Unless, of course, Ross Perot runs...and that could mean several things.
 

Xen

Banned
I also think America became more conservative in the 1990s because the absolute worst of liberalism reared its ugly head. American's tend to be some what libertarian, we just want to be left alone, however the 1990's saw some pretty stupid stuff. We saw where thieves break into peoples houses and get hurt, then sue the victim and WIN. We saw a woman spill coffee on her lap and sue McDonalds over it and WIN. Alot of the 1990's liberals here seemed to make the victims the criminals, and the criminals the victims. How many times did we hear "So and so committed this crime because society failed him, therefore he should not be punished." Good, hard working Americans began to become bitter as people were not accepting of their responsibilities. Its good to know why they did such things, but its not very good to let them go scot free.

Then we have the prisons, people who break the law go to these multi million dollar facitilies where they have Air conditioning, tennis courts, state of the art libraries and modern computers and three square meals a day. Most Americans who dont break the law dont get it so good, and this upsets them. The Republicans have done a good job of putting it on the Democrats, and the Democrats havent been smart enough to distance themselves from it. Then theres also the military issue, Americans love its military and believes we need a strong one, the liberals believe since the Cold War ended its not necessary, which is a direct affront to the will of the people. Im not trying to insult liberals or anything, but their leaders over the past 20 years have been stupid, out for themselves and have treated the people like they can think for themselves.

Whats harder for the liberals is they are beginning to lose the minorities, the Democrats have an attitude like "You are here because of us, you cant make it without us, you need us to survive, without us youre nothing." While the Republicans are successfully selling individualism "You are your own person, if you put your mind to it you can do it, if the world judges you because you are a minority work that much harder and be a better person for it." Look at the demographics of the politicians in Washington, a good number of the black's are Republicans, and they are taking a leading roll in the party, where as the Democrat Party tends to relegate them to the minor rolls.

The biggest issue really is the leadership of Conservatives and Liberals, the Conservatives know how to appeal to the people, the Liberals know how to appeal to a certain percentage of the people and blow hot air at the others.
 

Xen

Banned
Yes but it has to come from the leadership, many individual liberals like their conservative neighbors resent working 40 hours a week to feed their family a meager meal, and have to use fans to keep cool in the summer. There is no easy street for alot of people.

Im not sure if it would work this way but perhaps if they start calling these judges who rule in favor of the criminal in front of them and have him or her explain their reasoning.

If the liberals want to cut the military they have to do it in small doses, Americans cant swallow a big cut. Now after 9-11 talking of cutting the military is like shooting yourself in the foot. Americans right now want a bigger military.

As far as the prisons, instead of them getting the best of the best lets put the state of the art libraries and the brand new computers in the schools and take the schools libraries with the out of date books, and old Apple Computers from the Reagan years in the prisons. It should also be if you commit the crime you do the time for everything except self defense. Its good to know why so and so did this, it helps society help him so he wont do it again, but he still should reap the seeds he sows so to speak.

And most importantly, the minorities arent votes waiting to be harvested, they dont want welfare, they want opportunity. The Republican's are just now begining to figure this one out and are opening up its doors.
 

Straha

Banned
I see your point...

Another way to get a more liberla USA besides president humphrey is to cut the south out of the picture. The jacksonian south with its ideas of dundamentalism,racism,unregulated capitolism and slow change wouldn't be able to influence national policy.
 

Ian the Admin

Administrator
Donor
hmm... lots of statistics, but not much background. Just why is this disturbing trend supposed to be happening? Is there some vast web of social/economic factors causing it, are we just naturally bad people showing our true colors, or (as some would have it) is it an inevitable consequence of the US achieving independence instead of staying a part of the Empire ( )? So, assuming these trends hold, what will we look like in 100 years?

The guy who wrote the book is a public opinion researcher - he doesn't necessarily know WHY large trends are happening, he just noticed that they were and recorded them in great detail. Explanations are much harder. And BTW the increase of "dog-eat-dog materialism" type opinion in the US is a RECENT trend especially apparent in the 1990s, it's not something that goes back to the founding or that I would expect to continue for another hundred years.

Particularly surprising is the increase in number of people who think violence is a normal, fine thing, because there was a huge increase in this opinion in a time when violent crime was actually dropping. The most obvious thing to pin it on would be the US media's discovery that violence sells in all its forms, especially on the news. If you based your view of US society on what is reported on the news, you'd think the 1990s were a dystopian decade of social disaster in which violence and disaster became ubiquitous and violent crime increased many times over. Canadians watch the same movies and entertainment TV shows but the news is very different. Much less focused on disaster and sensationalism. When I moved to the US and actually saw US domestic TV news for the first time (Fox as it happens), I was floored by how shallow and sensationalistic it is.

However there are other possibilities. A "dog eat dog" and materialistic attitude is more common among poor people struggling to survive, for example. And in the 80s and 90s, there was a significant increase in inequity in the US with the poor getting poorer, especially relative to the rest of society. In Canada and European countries this either isn't happening or is much less pronounced.

As for whether this is bad... well, I think in cases like xenophobia, sexism, and blase acceptance of social problems, it speaks for itself. As for whether materialism or community is better, there's a lot of psychological research on this. It's pretty well established that the more importance a person places on material possessions in their life, the less happy they are.
 

Straha

Banned
no offense even thoguh this discussion on long trends is interesting an all(as well as possible POD fodder) but I'd like to discuss AH ;) :p :D
 

Ian the Admin

Administrator
Donor
Then we have the prisons, people who break the law go to these multi million dollar facitilies where they have Air conditioning, tennis courts, state of the art libraries and modern computers and three square meals a day.

Or more accurately, you have conservative ideologues who've convinced people that such ludicrous pictures are actually true. Over the past quarter century, the US justice system has gone from being pretty ordinary to being BY FAR the harshest in the developed world. Sentences are far longer than anywhere else for most crimes, far far more people are imprisoned, and prisons are generally overcrowded and suffering from poor conditions due to the prison population expanding faster than prisons can keep up. Crime policy is one HUGE difference between the US and basically any other developed country. To much of the American electorate, there is virtually no such thing as being too tough on crime, and anybody who suggests that the harsh punishments don't actually do anything to reduce the crime rate gets pretty much crucified in public. (It's really quite extreme - criminologists complain that even US government agencies are like a black void where science shall not enter and it is heresy to even seriously ask the question of whether the harsh penalties actually help the crime rates).

I think this (and the great hostility of Americans to antipoverty programs) is ultimately due to racism. The US has a large, poor, and thus disproportionately violence-prone black minority. This means that on average, whenever an American thinks about crime and poverty it's a white person thinking about black crime and black poverty. This makes it much more of an "Us vs. Them" situation than in other countries, and antipoverty programs and less harsh criminal penalties are seen as helping "Them" without doing much for "Us". Even Americans who aren't racist and would quickly deny that crime and poverty are just black problems, retain a view of criminals as "Them", people threatening their community from outside. Even ignoring skin color, segregation and urban decay result in crime being disproportionately concentrated in US inner cities. So Americans are paranoid about "Them" (urban criminals) moving into our suburban neighborhood.

Contrast to Canada just north of the border. Nonwhite minorities are relatively recent arrivals (mostly asians) who aren't strongly associated with poverty and crime, and who aren't so heavily segregated from the rest of the population. Violent crime in Canadian cities is actually LOWER than in rural areas. So the average Canadian doesn't have nearly the "Them" mentality toward poverty and crime that the average American does.

It creates an extremely palpable difference. In the US all politicians want to look "tough on crime", because it can only win you votes. In Canada, if a politician goes on about being "tough on crime" and US style policies, it's a risky move and lots of people will just see it as fearmongering. And politicians espousing US style poverty rhetoric, portraying the poor as lazy bums who need to be given a smaller carrot and a bigger stick to get off welfare, get flooded with criticism about their uncaring attitude toward honest people down on their luck.
 
The US has a large, poor, and thus disproportionately violence-prone black minority.

Whoa, time out. Put an equal amount of white people in the same economic situation, and you'll likely get an equal amount of criminal activity. I know you didn't mean anything, but maybe I just read that wrong.

The government doesn't just ignore science about crime, it also ignores global warming, international issues, and a lot of other things. Asking the government to take science into consideration is like trying to give a cat a bath. Some will accept it, but they're considered wierd. The United States is also the only nation in the world that gasses and lethally injects prisoners. It's really disgusting.
 
Top
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top