I’ll try and whip up a revised version of my personal politics list with footnotes - it forces you to get creative when you’re having to explain a San Harris dictatorship, y’know?
-
Hi Guest!
The costs of running this forum are covered by Sea Lion Press. If you'd like to help support the company and the forum, visit patreon.com/sealionpress
Lists of Heads of Government and Heads of State
- Thread starter Mumby
- Start date
- Location
- Municipal Commune of Bourne
- Pronouns
- He/Him
The 14th Earl
1945-1951: Clement Attlee (Labour)
1945 (Majority) def. Winston Churchill (National Government - Conservatives, Unionists, Liberal Nationals), Sir Archibald Sinclair, 4th Baronet (Liberal)
1950 (Majority) def. Winston Churchill (Woolton-Teviot Pact - Conservatives, Unionists, National Liberals), Clement Davies (Liberal)
1951-1952: Winston Churchil (Conservative)
1951 (Majority, with Unionists and National Liberals) def. Clement Attlee (Labour), Clement Davies (Liberal)
1952-1956: Anthony Eden (Conservative-Unionist-National Liberal majority)
1956-1956: Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, 5th Marquess of Salisbury (Conservative-Unionist-National Liberal majority)
1956-1963: Robert Gascoyne-Cecil (National-Conservative)
1956 (Majority) def. Hugh Gaitskell (Labour), Clement Davies (Liberal)
1960 (Majority) def. Hugh Gaitskell (Labour), Mark Bonham-Carter (Liberal)
1963-1964: Alec Home (Labour)
1963 (Majority) def. Robert Gascoyne-Cecil (National-Conservative), Mark Bonham-Carter (Liberal)
The POD is in 1940, when Alec Douglas-Home, Lord Dunglass, has an operation to treat his spinal tuberculosis. Something goes wrong and he is very nearly crippled. Extremely weak and exhausted, Home decides to take the Chiltern Hundreds until his condition has improved sufficiently for him to serve. His brother William wins the ensuing by-election in Lanark, much to his embarrassment.
While he convalesces, Home reads Das Kapital and he soon begins consuming other Marxist literature. Whilst not wholly convinced, and still maintaining a passionate opposition to Stalinism, his opinions dramatically shift. In 1945, he stands in Lanark once again though as a Labour candidate not a Tory. He is a backbencher for the Attlee ministry and shortly before the 1951 general election, his father dies and he goes to the House of Lords as the 14th Earl Home.
Here he stays until 1960. In the meantime, Churchill becomes Prime Minister, stands aside after a stroke on the King's advice, and Anthony Eden takes his place. Eden governs mostly competently until the disaster of Suez. Eden doesn't blink and leads Britain into a foreign and then economic crisis. He ultimately buckles as an early oil crisis kicks off, and in the chaos Lord Salisbury is turned to. Salisbury manages to squeeze out a majority in 1956 against a bitterly divided Labour Party and manages to keep things ticking over until a change in the White House produces an individual willing to see the Suez intervention as the anti-communist crusade it obviously is. The newly reorganised National-Conservative Party ends up becoming the party of the Atlantic Alliance and Britain is thrown into bloody conflicts across not only the empire but also the battlefields of the Cold War. Intimidation and authoritarian governnment produce a second, even narrower majority in 1960.
Gaitskell is challenged after his second failure and is ultimately toppled by Home who returned to the Commons in 1960, taking advantage of the same law Salisbury got passed in order for him to disclaim his title and stand again as an MP. Home promises a multitude of things, including an end to imperialist wars. In July 1964, Home is kidnapped by far-right students, one thing leads to another and uh, Britain has a new Prime Minister...
1945-1951: Clement Attlee (Labour)
1945 (Majority) def. Winston Churchill (National Government - Conservatives, Unionists, Liberal Nationals), Sir Archibald Sinclair, 4th Baronet (Liberal)
1950 (Majority) def. Winston Churchill (Woolton-Teviot Pact - Conservatives, Unionists, National Liberals), Clement Davies (Liberal)
1951-1952: Winston Churchil (Conservative)
1951 (Majority, with Unionists and National Liberals) def. Clement Attlee (Labour), Clement Davies (Liberal)
1952-1956: Anthony Eden (Conservative-Unionist-National Liberal majority)
1956-1956: Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, 5th Marquess of Salisbury (Conservative-Unionist-National Liberal majority)
1956-1963: Robert Gascoyne-Cecil (National-Conservative)
1956 (Majority) def. Hugh Gaitskell (Labour), Clement Davies (Liberal)
1960 (Majority) def. Hugh Gaitskell (Labour), Mark Bonham-Carter (Liberal)
1963-1964: Alec Home (Labour)
1963 (Majority) def. Robert Gascoyne-Cecil (National-Conservative), Mark Bonham-Carter (Liberal)
The POD is in 1940, when Alec Douglas-Home, Lord Dunglass, has an operation to treat his spinal tuberculosis. Something goes wrong and he is very nearly crippled. Extremely weak and exhausted, Home decides to take the Chiltern Hundreds until his condition has improved sufficiently for him to serve. His brother William wins the ensuing by-election in Lanark, much to his embarrassment.
While he convalesces, Home reads Das Kapital and he soon begins consuming other Marxist literature. Whilst not wholly convinced, and still maintaining a passionate opposition to Stalinism, his opinions dramatically shift. In 1945, he stands in Lanark once again though as a Labour candidate not a Tory. He is a backbencher for the Attlee ministry and shortly before the 1951 general election, his father dies and he goes to the House of Lords as the 14th Earl Home.
Here he stays until 1960. In the meantime, Churchill becomes Prime Minister, stands aside after a stroke on the King's advice, and Anthony Eden takes his place. Eden governs mostly competently until the disaster of Suez. Eden doesn't blink and leads Britain into a foreign and then economic crisis. He ultimately buckles as an early oil crisis kicks off, and in the chaos Lord Salisbury is turned to. Salisbury manages to squeeze out a majority in 1956 against a bitterly divided Labour Party and manages to keep things ticking over until a change in the White House produces an individual willing to see the Suez intervention as the anti-communist crusade it obviously is. The newly reorganised National-Conservative Party ends up becoming the party of the Atlantic Alliance and Britain is thrown into bloody conflicts across not only the empire but also the battlefields of the Cold War. Intimidation and authoritarian governnment produce a second, even narrower majority in 1960.
Gaitskell is challenged after his second failure and is ultimately toppled by Home who returned to the Commons in 1960, taking advantage of the same law Salisbury got passed in order for him to disclaim his title and stand again as an MP. Home promises a multitude of things, including an end to imperialist wars. In July 1964, Home is kidnapped by far-right students, one thing leads to another and uh, Britain has a new Prime Minister...
Calling Mr. Windsor with the Stars N’ Stripes Tattoo
1935-1937: Stanley Baldwin (Conservative)
1935 (National Government with Liberal Nationals & National Labour) def. Stafford Cripps (Labour), Herbert Samuel (Liberal), James Maxton (ILP)
1937-1939: Neville Chamberlain (Conservative leading National Government with Liberal Nationals & National Labour)
1939-1940: Neville Chamberlain (Conservative leading War Government with Liberal Nationals and National Labour)
1940-1943: Winston Churchill (Conservative leading War Government with Labour, Liberal Nationals, Liberals and National Labour)
1943-1947: Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester (Windsor leading War Government with Conservatives, Labour, Liberal Nationals, Liberals and National Labour)
1947-1951: Stafford Cripps (Labour)
1947 (Popular Front with CWP, ILP & CPGB) def. Anthony Eden (National Government), Archibald Sinclair (Liberal)
1951-1953: Hebert Morrison (Labour)
1952 (Popular Front with CWP, ILP & CPGB) def. Anthony Eden (National Government), Archibald Sinclair (Liberal)
1953-1958: John Platts-Mills (Labour)
1956 (Popular Front with CWP, ILP & CPGB) def. Rab Butler (National Government), Roderic Bowen (Liberal), Oswald Mosley (Union Movement)
1958-1964: Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester (Windsor)
1961 (Stability Coalition with Conservatives, Democratic Labour, Liberals & Liberal Nationals) def. Megan Lloyd George (Labour-CWP Alliance), Anthony Nutting (Opposition), Oswald Mosley (Union Movement), Harry Pollitt (CPGB)
1964-1968: Donald Johnson (Conservative)
1964 (Stability Coalition with Democratic Labour, Liberals & Liberal Nationals) def. Anthony Greenwood (Labour), James Graham (Men of the Nations), Oswald Mosley (Union Movement), Reg Birch (CPGB), Richard Acland (CWP), Walter Padley (ILP)
1968-1972: Donald Johnson (Individual Freedom)
1968 (Majority) def. Anthony Greenwood (Labour), James Graham (Men of the Nations), Reg Birch (CPGB), David Steel (CWP)
1972-1980: Roy Jenkins (Individual Freedom)
1972 (Majority) def. Denis Healey (Labour), James Graham (Men of the Nations), Reg Birch (CPGB), David Steel (CWP)
1976 (Majority) def. Bob Mellish (Working Families), Reg Birch (CPGB)
Mar. 1980 (Minority with CPGB confidence) def. Ian Paisley (Working Families), Reg Birch (CPGB)
1980-2005: Ian Paisley (Working Families)
Sep. 1980 (Majority) def. Reg Birch (CPGB), Keith Joseph (Conservative), Roy Jenkins (Individual Freedom)
1984 (Majority) def. Keith Joseph (Democrats of Britannia), Hugh Scanlon (CPGB), Roy Jenkins (Progressive)
1989 (Majority) def. Geoffrey Howe (Democrats of Britannia), Miguel Portillo Blyth (CPGB), David Owen (‘Third Way’ CPGB), Beatrix Campbell (Women’s), Roy Jenkins (Progressive)
In terms of British Prime Ministers that might have been, one name reigns supreme - Clement Attlee. After the Labour disaster of 1931, the only surviving cabinet ministers George Lansbury, Stafford Cripps, and Attlee. If it weren't for the illness of his wife that triggered his resignation, he could have triggered a successful post-war revival.
Following the resignation of Lansbury over the issue of pacifism, Deputy Leader Cripps led the party into the unexpected general election. While it could have been a disaster, their seat count increased, stopping the challenge of Herbert Morrison to Cripps’ leadership.
Cripps led the party into the War Coalition with Churchill, and then following his illness, the Duke of Gloucester. The war was a bloody and drawn out battle, with the American, British, and Soviet forces pushing out Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan (nations such as Spain, Italy, and Ireland remained neutral).
While the Allies had won the war, the British public were disillusioned with their incumbent government. The National Governments of the past 16 years had left the public in a period of stagnation and had little to say on how Britain should recover following the mass deaths from the Second World War. The interim government of the Generalissimo had restricted personal freedom and dramatically weakened the power of the Parliament. The radical agenda of Stafford Cripps suddenly didn’t seem so radical anymore. His “Popular Front” of Labour, Common Wealth, Independent Labour, and the Communists took home a large majority over Eden and the rump Liberals.
Cripps’ term in office brought a mass expansion of the federal welfare state with the establishment of the NHS and the nationalization of key industries. The beginnings of decolonization started too, with India being a turning point on the fall of the Empire. Of course, the biggest influence Cripps had was brining the British out of the sphere of American influence and to become closer with the Soviet Union. While Roosevelt got along well with Churchill and Prince Henry, Joe Kennedy’s pro-Irish sympathies and Robert Taft’s isolationism already weakened the so-called “Special Relationship.” Cripps himself had met with Stalin numerous times and had for a long time encouraged Anglo-Soviet cooperation. The funneling of pro-Cripps campaign funds through the CPGB didn’t hurt either.
The dawn of the 1950s was the strong point in the history of the British left, united together under the strong Cripps leadership. In 1949, he would suffer from a stress-triggered stroke from colitis, which was tightly wrapped up by the government and kept secret. By the time of his death in 1951, much of his duties were given to Bevan or Morrison. In the ensuing leadership election, despite Cripps often stating that Bevan should be his successor, Morrison’s connections with MPs tipped the scales.
Despite being one of the legends of Labour, Morrison’s tenure would be shorter than any Prime Minister since Law. His anti-Soviet stances were out of fashion by 1953, and the young fire breather John Platts-Mills took over at Number 10. Platts-Mills was even more left-wing than Cripps, and supported the rise of pro-Soviet groups around Europe and the Anglosphere (especially in the fascist states of Italy and Spain). This was worrying to the United States, leading the anti-communist government of President Shivers to encourage an anti-communist coup to stop a “Soviet domination of Western Europe.” For a long period, the US funded Oswald Mosley’s Union Movement and fascist paramilitaries to put fear into left-wing groups. American pressure on the young Elizabeth II and influence over MPs eventually resulted in the Labour government being dissolved following a party splinter led by author George Orwell and moderates such as Hugh Gaitskell.
The Duke of Gloucester returned to power, and despite a few hiccups from the once future PM Anthony Nutting, the Stability Coalition brought a return to the War Government of the 1940s. Greater press and political restrictions were placed on the public, and the civil service was purged of suspected communists.
The left was in as a poor state of health with this coalition as they had been in the 1930s. Some supported the coalition, while some joined Lloyd George in the Labour-CWP Alliance (which gave supply and confidence to Prince Henry), or joined more radical groups (the CPGB, paramilitaries, or even the Union Movement). Even without the popular Prince and the charming Anthony Greenwood, Labour put only small dents in the Coalition. In fact, Johnson’s leadership in some ways helped support with the left, loosening some restrictions.
At this time, the new “Men of the Nations” party was formed. While initially only doing well as opposition to Individual Freedom in the Celtic Fringe, the party took support from all ends of the political spectrum. While Labour blundered through the 1960s, the party grew in popularity with strongly left-wing economics but socially traditionalist views. 1972 would be a turning point as Healey’s former CPGB membership giving enough momentum to Men of the Nations that they would overtake them in the popularity vote. Healey was kicked out in favor of pro-merger supporters, creating the Working Families Party.
The nail in the coffin for the social liberals in the IFP would be Jenkins’ move to have the Communists give a confidence motion to support the so called “Weforms.” Many bolted the party, leaving Jenkins with almost nothing. Ian Paisley, the dramatic Protestant preacher from Ulster, ended up the clear beneficiary, securing 25 years in office for his party. The agenda of the WFP is dramatically different to that of Cripps’ Labour, but has maintained just as strong, if not a stronger hold over British politics.
1935-1937: Stanley Baldwin (Conservative)
1935 (National Government with Liberal Nationals & National Labour) def. Stafford Cripps (Labour), Herbert Samuel (Liberal), James Maxton (ILP)
1937-1939: Neville Chamberlain (Conservative leading National Government with Liberal Nationals & National Labour)
1939-1940: Neville Chamberlain (Conservative leading War Government with Liberal Nationals and National Labour)
1940-1943: Winston Churchill (Conservative leading War Government with Labour, Liberal Nationals, Liberals and National Labour)
1943-1947: Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester (Windsor leading War Government with Conservatives, Labour, Liberal Nationals, Liberals and National Labour)
1947-1951: Stafford Cripps (Labour)
1947 (Popular Front with CWP, ILP & CPGB) def. Anthony Eden (National Government), Archibald Sinclair (Liberal)
1951-1953: Hebert Morrison (Labour)
1952 (Popular Front with CWP, ILP & CPGB) def. Anthony Eden (National Government), Archibald Sinclair (Liberal)
1953-1958: John Platts-Mills (Labour)
1956 (Popular Front with CWP, ILP & CPGB) def. Rab Butler (National Government), Roderic Bowen (Liberal), Oswald Mosley (Union Movement)
1958-1964: Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester (Windsor)
1961 (Stability Coalition with Conservatives, Democratic Labour, Liberals & Liberal Nationals) def. Megan Lloyd George (Labour-CWP Alliance), Anthony Nutting (Opposition), Oswald Mosley (Union Movement), Harry Pollitt (CPGB)
1964-1968: Donald Johnson (Conservative)
1964 (Stability Coalition with Democratic Labour, Liberals & Liberal Nationals) def. Anthony Greenwood (Labour), James Graham (Men of the Nations), Oswald Mosley (Union Movement), Reg Birch (CPGB), Richard Acland (CWP), Walter Padley (ILP)
1968-1972: Donald Johnson (Individual Freedom)
1968 (Majority) def. Anthony Greenwood (Labour), James Graham (Men of the Nations), Reg Birch (CPGB), David Steel (CWP)
1972-1980: Roy Jenkins (Individual Freedom)
1972 (Majority) def. Denis Healey (Labour), James Graham (Men of the Nations), Reg Birch (CPGB), David Steel (CWP)
1976 (Majority) def. Bob Mellish (Working Families), Reg Birch (CPGB)
Mar. 1980 (Minority with CPGB confidence) def. Ian Paisley (Working Families), Reg Birch (CPGB)
1980-2005: Ian Paisley (Working Families)
Sep. 1980 (Majority) def. Reg Birch (CPGB), Keith Joseph (Conservative), Roy Jenkins (Individual Freedom)
1984 (Majority) def. Keith Joseph (Democrats of Britannia), Hugh Scanlon (CPGB), Roy Jenkins (Progressive)
1989 (Majority) def. Geoffrey Howe (Democrats of Britannia), Miguel Portillo Blyth (CPGB), David Owen (‘Third Way’ CPGB), Beatrix Campbell (Women’s), Roy Jenkins (Progressive)
In terms of British Prime Ministers that might have been, one name reigns supreme - Clement Attlee. After the Labour disaster of 1931, the only surviving cabinet ministers George Lansbury, Stafford Cripps, and Attlee. If it weren't for the illness of his wife that triggered his resignation, he could have triggered a successful post-war revival.
Following the resignation of Lansbury over the issue of pacifism, Deputy Leader Cripps led the party into the unexpected general election. While it could have been a disaster, their seat count increased, stopping the challenge of Herbert Morrison to Cripps’ leadership.
Cripps led the party into the War Coalition with Churchill, and then following his illness, the Duke of Gloucester. The war was a bloody and drawn out battle, with the American, British, and Soviet forces pushing out Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan (nations such as Spain, Italy, and Ireland remained neutral).
While the Allies had won the war, the British public were disillusioned with their incumbent government. The National Governments of the past 16 years had left the public in a period of stagnation and had little to say on how Britain should recover following the mass deaths from the Second World War. The interim government of the Generalissimo had restricted personal freedom and dramatically weakened the power of the Parliament. The radical agenda of Stafford Cripps suddenly didn’t seem so radical anymore. His “Popular Front” of Labour, Common Wealth, Independent Labour, and the Communists took home a large majority over Eden and the rump Liberals.
Cripps’ term in office brought a mass expansion of the federal welfare state with the establishment of the NHS and the nationalization of key industries. The beginnings of decolonization started too, with India being a turning point on the fall of the Empire. Of course, the biggest influence Cripps had was brining the British out of the sphere of American influence and to become closer with the Soviet Union. While Roosevelt got along well with Churchill and Prince Henry, Joe Kennedy’s pro-Irish sympathies and Robert Taft’s isolationism already weakened the so-called “Special Relationship.” Cripps himself had met with Stalin numerous times and had for a long time encouraged Anglo-Soviet cooperation. The funneling of pro-Cripps campaign funds through the CPGB didn’t hurt either.
The dawn of the 1950s was the strong point in the history of the British left, united together under the strong Cripps leadership. In 1949, he would suffer from a stress-triggered stroke from colitis, which was tightly wrapped up by the government and kept secret. By the time of his death in 1951, much of his duties were given to Bevan or Morrison. In the ensuing leadership election, despite Cripps often stating that Bevan should be his successor, Morrison’s connections with MPs tipped the scales.
Despite being one of the legends of Labour, Morrison’s tenure would be shorter than any Prime Minister since Law. His anti-Soviet stances were out of fashion by 1953, and the young fire breather John Platts-Mills took over at Number 10. Platts-Mills was even more left-wing than Cripps, and supported the rise of pro-Soviet groups around Europe and the Anglosphere (especially in the fascist states of Italy and Spain). This was worrying to the United States, leading the anti-communist government of President Shivers to encourage an anti-communist coup to stop a “Soviet domination of Western Europe.” For a long period, the US funded Oswald Mosley’s Union Movement and fascist paramilitaries to put fear into left-wing groups. American pressure on the young Elizabeth II and influence over MPs eventually resulted in the Labour government being dissolved following a party splinter led by author George Orwell and moderates such as Hugh Gaitskell.
The Duke of Gloucester returned to power, and despite a few hiccups from the once future PM Anthony Nutting, the Stability Coalition brought a return to the War Government of the 1940s. Greater press and political restrictions were placed on the public, and the civil service was purged of suspected communists.
The left was in as a poor state of health with this coalition as they had been in the 1930s. Some supported the coalition, while some joined Lloyd George in the Labour-CWP Alliance (which gave supply and confidence to Prince Henry), or joined more radical groups (the CPGB, paramilitaries, or even the Union Movement). Even without the popular Prince and the charming Anthony Greenwood, Labour put only small dents in the Coalition. In fact, Johnson’s leadership in some ways helped support with the left, loosening some restrictions.
At this time, the new “Men of the Nations” party was formed. While initially only doing well as opposition to Individual Freedom in the Celtic Fringe, the party took support from all ends of the political spectrum. While Labour blundered through the 1960s, the party grew in popularity with strongly left-wing economics but socially traditionalist views. 1972 would be a turning point as Healey’s former CPGB membership giving enough momentum to Men of the Nations that they would overtake them in the popularity vote. Healey was kicked out in favor of pro-merger supporters, creating the Working Families Party.
The nail in the coffin for the social liberals in the IFP would be Jenkins’ move to have the Communists give a confidence motion to support the so called “Weforms.” Many bolted the party, leaving Jenkins with almost nothing. Ian Paisley, the dramatic Protestant preacher from Ulster, ended up the clear beneficiary, securing 25 years in office for his party. The agenda of the WFP is dramatically different to that of Cripps’ Labour, but has maintained just as strong, if not a stronger hold over British politics.
Makemakean
Mr Makemean
- Pronouns
- Logical, unlike those in German
“When you first start playing chess and you become a half-decent chess-player you always try to go for the opponent's queen first. It makes sense, the queen is the most dangerous piece of all, and if the queen is not immediately for the taking, you go for the rook, the bishop, the knight. It is first when you understand that none of those pieces really matter, that the only piece of your opponent's that truly matters is the king, that is when you start to become a good chess-player.
“The world of politics is full of half-decent chess-players. Ambitious men who seek to swell their ranks, and get everyone to vote for them and their party, fifty percent or more. They need to win everywhere, it seems. To paint the assemblies in their own colours. But what use is commanding the greatest minority if the majority is still against you? And what use is a landslide if it's only fleeting? It is not the politicians who won the greatest victories at the polls that we remember, but the politicians who implemented their programs. Power, not majorities, is what matters.”
– Artur Christian Andersen, Reflections on Parliamentary Democracy, 1939.
The Days of Valdemar Vågmäster[1]:
1914-1922: Sigurd Meissner (Liberal leading Liberal majority government)
1922-1925: Anton Svinhufvud (Unionist leading Unionist-Labour-Radical composition majority government)
1925-1927: Sigurd Meissner (Liberal leading Liberal minority government)
1927-1928: Svante Vikander (Liberal leading Liberal minority government)
1928-1930: Anton Svinhufvud (Unionist leading Unionist-Labour-Radical composition majority government)
1930-1931: Artur Christian Andersen (Radical leading Radical minority government)
1931-1932: Svante Vikander (Liberal leading Liberal-Radical composition majority government)
1932-1934: Artur Christian Andersen (Radical leading Radical minority government)
1934-1936: Patrik Lagercrantz (Unionist leading Unionist-Skeptical composition minority government)
1936-1937: Bernhard Crafoord (Skeptical leading Skeptical minority government)
1937-1939: Gunnar Berglund (Liberal leading Liberal-Radical minority government)
1939-1940: Christoffer Kjeldahl (Radical leading Radical minority government)
1940-1952: Thorsager Brandstrup (Labour leading Labour-Radical majority government, then Labour minority government, then Labour majority government, then Labour minority government)
[1] The Nordic Emperor Valdemar I, who reigned 1919-1947, has become known popularly as Valdemar Vågmäster after vågmästare, an old title referring to an engineer or craftsman tasked with making sure that scales were accurate (the word translates as "master of scales"). As the Nordic Empire's political landscape was experiencing nigh constant realignment owing to the entry into the Unionsdag of the Nordic Labour Party in the early 20th century and the introduction of a uniform system of proportional representation in 1923, the Emperor often had to be consulted and invited to mediate cabinet disputes and constructing government compositions that could survive votes of no confidence, hence becoming called a "scale master" as he was the one who had to make sure the political balance was maintained. Note that this political definition of vågmästare i actually at odds to the two other definitions of vågmästare in politics that exist in OTL Swedish politics.
Very basic idea of where the different political parties stand:
“The world of politics is full of half-decent chess-players. Ambitious men who seek to swell their ranks, and get everyone to vote for them and their party, fifty percent or more. They need to win everywhere, it seems. To paint the assemblies in their own colours. But what use is commanding the greatest minority if the majority is still against you? And what use is a landslide if it's only fleeting? It is not the politicians who won the greatest victories at the polls that we remember, but the politicians who implemented their programs. Power, not majorities, is what matters.”
– Artur Christian Andersen, Reflections on Parliamentary Democracy, 1939.
The Days of Valdemar Vågmäster[1]:
1914-1922: Sigurd Meissner (Liberal leading Liberal majority government)
1922-1925: Anton Svinhufvud (Unionist leading Unionist-Labour-Radical composition majority government)
1925-1927: Sigurd Meissner (Liberal leading Liberal minority government)
1927-1928: Svante Vikander (Liberal leading Liberal minority government)
1928-1930: Anton Svinhufvud (Unionist leading Unionist-Labour-Radical composition majority government)
1930-1931: Artur Christian Andersen (Radical leading Radical minority government)
1931-1932: Svante Vikander (Liberal leading Liberal-Radical composition majority government)
1932-1934: Artur Christian Andersen (Radical leading Radical minority government)
1934-1936: Patrik Lagercrantz (Unionist leading Unionist-Skeptical composition minority government)
1936-1937: Bernhard Crafoord (Skeptical leading Skeptical minority government)
1937-1939: Gunnar Berglund (Liberal leading Liberal-Radical minority government)
1939-1940: Christoffer Kjeldahl (Radical leading Radical minority government)
1940-1952: Thorsager Brandstrup (Labour leading Labour-Radical majority government, then Labour minority government, then Labour majority government, then Labour minority government)
[1] The Nordic Emperor Valdemar I, who reigned 1919-1947, has become known popularly as Valdemar Vågmäster after vågmästare, an old title referring to an engineer or craftsman tasked with making sure that scales were accurate (the word translates as "master of scales"). As the Nordic Empire's political landscape was experiencing nigh constant realignment owing to the entry into the Unionsdag of the Nordic Labour Party in the early 20th century and the introduction of a uniform system of proportional representation in 1923, the Emperor often had to be consulted and invited to mediate cabinet disputes and constructing government compositions that could survive votes of no confidence, hence becoming called a "scale master" as he was the one who had to make sure the political balance was maintained. Note that this political definition of vågmästare i actually at odds to the two other definitions of vågmästare in politics that exist in OTL Swedish politics.
Very basic idea of where the different political parties stand:
Last edited:
- Location
- Teignmouth, Devon
- Pronouns
- She/Her
This quote is amazing - is it real? Also, I love your typography there
Last edited:
Makemakean
Mr Makemean
- Pronouns
- Logical, unlike those in German
Thanks.
No, I'm afraid it isn't. Artur Christian Andersen is an entirely fictional creation of my own. The quote, I figured, would sort of represent his attitudes politically (I'm actually not entirely convinced myself that I agree with it), as you can see from the list, despite him being the leader of a fairly small party, they often find themselves in coalition, and he himself is Chancery President twice.
As to the quote, it basically was something due to a connection I made after watching the documentary AlphaGo, in which they mention that the truly revolutionary with the gameplay of that computer is that its strategy in playing the game Go is much different from human players, who basically always try to just maximize their score as much as they can, whereas AlphaGo, which is programmed to try to win the game as opposed to scoring points, only ever tries to get a lead, and then focus on maintaining that margin (which usually is only one or two points), rather than try to win massively over the other player, since it only thinks binary (no pun intended) in terms of winning or losing. It doesn't care about the margin. This strategy is basically what makes it so deadly.
When I saw it, I sort of figured, "Well, this shouldn't be that much of a revolution, surely, I mean, we've known in chess for a long time that it's a stupid strategy to try to go for all the powerful pieces your opponent has one after the other and only when that objective is accomplished try to go for the king." That's the inspiration for the quote, coupled with my observations of Canadian politics in the 20th century. The Liberals tended to win, but quite frequently only commanded minorities, and when they had majorities, they tended to be narrow. In contrast, when the Progressive Conservatives won, they won massive landslides. And yet, because the Liberals were the ones to actually be in power most of the time, they were the ones who got to define 20th century Canadian politics.
Okay, that's an awful lot of exposition for a quote I literally made up. I need to take myself less seriously.
Last edited:
It reminds me a lot of XKCD's, actually.
Makemakean
Mr Makemean
- Pronouns
- Logical, unlike those in German
Maybe I should write a fake What If? book and sell it on the Chinese market?
I would have it give all sorts of crazy and false explanations of what would happen in response to various scenarios in plausible sounding language.
Makemakean
Mr Makemean
- Pronouns
- Logical, unlike those in German
Oh, yes, and from the same timeline (Swedish Strangerverse):
Monarchs of Sweden:
1720-1751: Frederick I (House of Hesse)
1751-1771: Adolf Frederick (House of Holstein-Gottorp)
1771-1820: Gustav III (House of Holstein-Gottorp)
1820-1844: Gustav IV Adolf (House of Holstein Gottorp)
1844-1867: Arthur (House of Holstein Gottorp)
Monarchs of Denmark:
1699-1730: Frederick IV (House of Oldenburg)
1730-1746: Christian VI (House of Oldenburg)
1746-1766: Frederick V (House of Oldenburg)
1766-1808: Christian VII (House of Oldenburg)
1808-1835: Frederick VI (House of Oldenburg)
1835-1861: Christian VIII (House of Oldenburg)
1861-1867: Frederica (House of Oldenburg)
Monarchs of the Nordic Empire:
1867-1881 and 1867-1902: Arthur and Frederica (House of Holstein-Gottorp and House of Oldenburg)
1902-1919: Gustaf Christian I (House of Oldenburg)
1919-1947: Valdemar I (House of Oldenburg)
1947-1964: Valdemar II (House of Oldenburg)
1964-present: Margaret (House of Oldenburg)
Heir Presumptive: Gustaf Christian, Grand Prince of Finland (House of Oldenburg)
Grand Princes of Finland:
1791-1820: Gustav Adolf ("Kustaa Aadolf")
1820-1831: Gustav ("Kustaa")
1831-1834: Adam Berhard Brahe (as Käskynhaltija)
1834-1838: Gustaf Alexander Armfeldt (as Käskynhaltija)
1838-1843: Arvid Nordenskiöld (as Käskynhaltija)
1843-1848: Casper Johan Rehbinder (as Käskynhaltija)
1848-1853: Samuel Werner von Troil (as Käskynhaltija)
1853-1855: Johan Vilhelm Snellman (as Käskynhaltija)
1855-1902: Gustaf Christian ("Kustaa Kristian")
1902-1919: Valdemar ("Waldemar")
1919-1947: Valdemar ("Waldemar")
1947-1952: Bertil Sohlberg (as Käskynhaltija)
1952-1957: Tuisku Mustonen (as Käskynhaltija)
1957-1960: Anneli Sipilä (as Käskynhaltija)
1960-1964: Margaret ("Margareeta")
1964-1968: Julius Wirtanen (as Käskynhaltija)
1968-1976: Juha Petrus Kalliovaara (as Käskynhaltija)
1976-present: Gustaf Christian ("Kustaa Kristian")
The name Arthur for a Swedish 19th century monarch is actually a reference to the fact that prior to the Kings Oscar I and Oscar II, Oscar was actually a very uncommon name here in Sweden (it isn't any longer). Jean-Baptiste Bernadotte named his son thus because Napoléon Bonaparte was at the time reading The Works of Ossian, and suggested the (Irish) name Oscar as a consequence. Bernadotte, presumably wanting to make a good impression on his then friend and boss, happily complied, and since then we've had a myriad of Oscars and Oskars up here.
Arthur is actually the third son and youngest child of Gustav IV Adolf in this timeline, and so since he's not expected to ever become king, his father (who still has not become King himself) decides he can take some liberties and doesn't need to use a name some previous Swedish monarch has had, to name him after a British general he much admires, and noting that "Besides, Arthur is, after all, a kingly name". Unfortunately for Arthur who very much likes merely being Duke of Scania, his two elder brothers die in the 1830s, making him heir to the throne.
Monarchs of Sweden:
1720-1751: Frederick I (House of Hesse)
1751-1771: Adolf Frederick (House of Holstein-Gottorp)
1771-1820: Gustav III (House of Holstein-Gottorp)
1820-1844: Gustav IV Adolf (House of Holstein Gottorp)
1844-1867: Arthur (House of Holstein Gottorp)
Monarchs of Denmark:
1699-1730: Frederick IV (House of Oldenburg)
1730-1746: Christian VI (House of Oldenburg)
1746-1766: Frederick V (House of Oldenburg)
1766-1808: Christian VII (House of Oldenburg)
1808-1835: Frederick VI (House of Oldenburg)
1835-1861: Christian VIII (House of Oldenburg)
1861-1867: Frederica (House of Oldenburg)
Monarchs of the Nordic Empire:
1867-1881 and 1867-1902: Arthur and Frederica (House of Holstein-Gottorp and House of Oldenburg)
1902-1919: Gustaf Christian I (House of Oldenburg)
1919-1947: Valdemar I (House of Oldenburg)
1947-1964: Valdemar II (House of Oldenburg)
1964-present: Margaret (House of Oldenburg)
Heir Presumptive: Gustaf Christian, Grand Prince of Finland (House of Oldenburg)
Grand Princes of Finland:
1791-1820: Gustav Adolf ("Kustaa Aadolf")
1820-1831: Gustav ("Kustaa")
1831-1834: Adam Berhard Brahe (as Käskynhaltija)
1834-1838: Gustaf Alexander Armfeldt (as Käskynhaltija)
1838-1843: Arvid Nordenskiöld (as Käskynhaltija)
1843-1848: Casper Johan Rehbinder (as Käskynhaltija)
1848-1853: Samuel Werner von Troil (as Käskynhaltija)
1853-1855: Johan Vilhelm Snellman (as Käskynhaltija)
1855-1902: Gustaf Christian ("Kustaa Kristian")
1902-1919: Valdemar ("Waldemar")
1919-1947: Valdemar ("Waldemar")
1947-1952: Bertil Sohlberg (as Käskynhaltija)
1952-1957: Tuisku Mustonen (as Käskynhaltija)
1957-1960: Anneli Sipilä (as Käskynhaltija)
1960-1964: Margaret ("Margareeta")
1964-1968: Julius Wirtanen (as Käskynhaltija)
1968-1976: Juha Petrus Kalliovaara (as Käskynhaltija)
1976-present: Gustaf Christian ("Kustaa Kristian")
The name Arthur for a Swedish 19th century monarch is actually a reference to the fact that prior to the Kings Oscar I and Oscar II, Oscar was actually a very uncommon name here in Sweden (it isn't any longer). Jean-Baptiste Bernadotte named his son thus because Napoléon Bonaparte was at the time reading The Works of Ossian, and suggested the (Irish) name Oscar as a consequence. Bernadotte, presumably wanting to make a good impression on his then friend and boss, happily complied, and since then we've had a myriad of Oscars and Oskars up here.
Arthur is actually the third son and youngest child of Gustav IV Adolf in this timeline, and so since he's not expected to ever become king, his father (who still has not become King himself) decides he can take some liberties and doesn't need to use a name some previous Swedish monarch has had, to name him after a British general he much admires, and noting that "Besides, Arthur is, after all, a kingly name". Unfortunately for Arthur who very much likes merely being Duke of Scania, his two elder brothers die in the 1830s, making him heir to the throne.
- Location
- Op een dag, Nederland.
- Pronouns
- she/her & ne/nem
Red Dead Roosevelts: Dynastic Nightmare
Or: What if the Roosevelts managed to dominate American politics even more?
Theodore Roosevelt (Progressive) 1913-1923*
1912: def. Woodrow Wilson (Democratic), William Howard Taft (Republican) and Eugene V. Debs (Socialist)
1916: def. Champ Clark (Democratic) and Charles Evans Hughes (Republican)
1920: def. Leonard Wood (Independent) and William Jennings Bryan (Democratic)
Herbert Hoover (Progressive) 1923-1929
1924: def. Al Smith (Democratic)
Franklin D. Roosevelt (Democratic) 1929-1947*
1928: def. Herbert Hoover (Progressive) and Upton Sinclair (Socialist)
1932: def. Robert M. La Follette Jr. (Progressive)
1936: def. Theodore Roosevelt Jr. (Progressive)
1940: def. Theodore Roosevelt Jr. (Progressive)
1944: def. Robert Taft (Progressive)
Henry A. Wallace (Democratic) 1947-1949
Kermit Roosevelt (Progressive) 1949-1957
1948: def. Henry A. Wallace (Democratic) and Harry F. Byrd (American)
1952: def. Estes Kefauver (Democratic)
James Roosevelt (Democratic) 1957-
1956: def. Alice Longworth (Progressive)
Progressives: Broadly can be called the "conservative" party, at least compared with the other party. Very middle-class, patrician, reformist. Tends to be big at rural matters, allowing them to dominate the Plains. Is the party of the Oyster Bay branch of the Roosevelt family and has close ties to the Roosevelt Corporation that has a major role in the media, including many newspapers in it. Has slowly started to swallow the South.
Democrats: Broadly can be called the "populist" party, at least compared with the other party. Very working-class in make-up but middle-class in leadership, big on empowering labour unions up to a point and can be described as rather "corporatist". Is the party of the Hyde Park branch of the Roosevelt family and has close ties to the Hearst-Roosevelt media association that has a major role in the media, including many newspapers. Has slowly started to swallow parts of New England and the West Coast, in keeping with their "urban" aspect, while losing the South.
Or: What if the Roosevelts managed to dominate American politics even more?
Theodore Roosevelt (Progressive) 1913-1923*
1912: def. Woodrow Wilson (Democratic), William Howard Taft (Republican) and Eugene V. Debs (Socialist)
1916: def. Champ Clark (Democratic) and Charles Evans Hughes (Republican)
1920: def. Leonard Wood (Independent) and William Jennings Bryan (Democratic)
Herbert Hoover (Progressive) 1923-1929
1924: def. Al Smith (Democratic)
Franklin D. Roosevelt (Democratic) 1929-1947*
1928: def. Herbert Hoover (Progressive) and Upton Sinclair (Socialist)
1932: def. Robert M. La Follette Jr. (Progressive)
1936: def. Theodore Roosevelt Jr. (Progressive)
1940: def. Theodore Roosevelt Jr. (Progressive)
1944: def. Robert Taft (Progressive)
Henry A. Wallace (Democratic) 1947-1949
Kermit Roosevelt (Progressive) 1949-1957
1948: def. Henry A. Wallace (Democratic) and Harry F. Byrd (American)
1952: def. Estes Kefauver (Democratic)
James Roosevelt (Democratic) 1957-
1956: def. Alice Longworth (Progressive)
Progressives: Broadly can be called the "conservative" party, at least compared with the other party. Very middle-class, patrician, reformist. Tends to be big at rural matters, allowing them to dominate the Plains. Is the party of the Oyster Bay branch of the Roosevelt family and has close ties to the Roosevelt Corporation that has a major role in the media, including many newspapers in it. Has slowly started to swallow the South.
Democrats: Broadly can be called the "populist" party, at least compared with the other party. Very working-class in make-up but middle-class in leadership, big on empowering labour unions up to a point and can be described as rather "corporatist". Is the party of the Hyde Park branch of the Roosevelt family and has close ties to the Hearst-Roosevelt media association that has a major role in the media, including many newspapers. Has slowly started to swallow parts of New England and the West Coast, in keeping with their "urban" aspect, while losing the South.
- Location
- Municipal Commune of Bourne
- Pronouns
- He/Him
This feels rather Irish, I don't know if that was your intention?
- Location
- Op een dag, Nederland.
- Pronouns
- she/her & ne/nem
In retrospect, there's quite a few Irish things about it, but I didn't plan to do it in the first place
Makemakean
Mr Makemean
- Pronouns
- Logical, unlike those in German
To give more exposition to the parties in the Nordic Empire, I provide this timeline of the parties and how they relate to one another. Errr... Yeah, this is what happens when you draw the graphic before you draw the scale... Years in the mid-1880s seems to have been much longer than the ones in the 1870s and 1890s...
EDIT: As a comment on just how much this period of Nordic history is still being formed in my head, I just had to retcon the last two dates on the timeline so that the National Liberals return to the Liberal fold in 1895, giving us a sufficient window of time for the Third Defenestration of Prague, the start of the War of the Bohemian Revolution, and the Skeptical Niels Preben Bille-Brahe successfully getting the Liberal Asbjørn Abraham Sønderheim thrown out of office for a second time so can he can govern with the Preparedness Ministry together with the Unionists and some other minor parties not shown in the graph above.
Some important dates:
1867: Nordic Empire is founded, first general elections held. Nicolas Andersen of Radikale Højre appointed Chancery President, leading the Friends of the Union Ministry (composition of Radikale Højre, Hats, Unionist Caps, and Norwegian Unionists).
1872: The Hats, Unionist Caps, and Norwegian Unionists formally merge into the Unionist Party.
1874: The Swedish Skepticals and the Danish Gamle Højre merge to form the Nordic Skeptical Party.
1876: Nicolas Andersen retires at the age of 71. The Unionists take over the Chancery Presidency in the Friends of the Union Ministry.
1878: The Andvare Scandal shakes the Friends of the Union Ministry something terrible, resulting in the resignations of (in chronological order) the Treasury President, the Bergmeister of Linde and Ramsberg, the Commerce President, the Minister of State for Mountains (who commits suicide), and finally the Chancery President himself. The Friends of the Union Ministry survives, but relations between Radikale Højre and the Unionists are strained.
1879: Radikale Højre leaves the government, signalling the end of the Friends of the Union Ministry. The Unionists continue on their own. The Caps, Venstre, and the Finnish Agrarians merge to become the Liberal Party.
1881: The Liberal Landslide. Asbjørn Abraham Sønderheim becomes the first Liberal and first Norwegian Chancery President.
1887: Asbjørn Abraham Sønderheim calls a general election to settle the issue of national insurance. In the parliamentary confusion that follows due to many Norwegian Liberal deputies bolting the party, the Dane Niels Preben Bille-Brahe is able to form a minority government capable of surviving a vote of no confidence and get its budget through the Unionsdag. Niels Preben Bille-Brahe becomes first Skeptical Chancery President.
1889: Niels Preben Bille-Brahe falls on the issue of Privatization of the Nordic India Companies. Asbjørn Abraham Snderheim returns to power.
1891: The Nordic Labour Party is founded as the Malmö Radical-Workingmen's Association just prior to the 1891 election to get the dock worker Hakon Kirstein elected for one of Malmö's borough seats.
1893: The Third Defenstration of Prague and the War of the Bohemian Revolution breaks out. Austrian, Bavarian, and Prussian intervention produces a confusing three-sided war in Germany. Though the Nordic Empire (and the League of Lyksborg) remains neutral, Sønderheim's government falls over the issue of conscription in peacetime. Niels Preben Bille-Brahe returns to power, leading Preparedness Ministry with the Unionists and minor parties.
1896: The Preparedness Ministry survives a general election. At the age of 87, Sønderheim retires from public life.
1897: End of the War of the Bohemian Revolution. The Nordic Empire never got involved. Niels Preben Bille-Brahe retires from public life at the age of 78.
1898: Fall of the Preparedness Ministry. Liberals return to power.
1900: Reformist Unionists, Radikale Højre, and Radical Liberals merge to form the Radical Party.
Last edited:
OHC
deep green blue collar rainbow
- Location
- Little Beirut
- Pronouns
- they/she
Overcommitted to that meme from a few days ago, oops
1993-2001: Bill Clinton / Al Gore (Democratic)
2001-2005: George W. Bush / Dick Cheney (Republican)
2000 def. Al Gore / Joe Lieberman (Democratic), Ralph Nader / Winona LaDuke (Green)
2005-2011: Russ Feingold / Barack Obama (Democratic)
2004 def. George W. Bush / Dick Cheney (Republican), Ralph Nader / Peter Camejo (Green)
2008 def. Mitt Romney / Jim Gilmore (Republican)
2011-2013: Zoe Lofgren (Independent Democratic) / vacant
2013-2016: Elizabeth Warren / Jeff Merkley (Democratic)
2012 def. Rocky Anderson / Jill Stein (The 99% Movement – Green, Pirate, Independent Democratic), Jon Huntsman, Jr. / Mitch Daniels (Republican)
2016-2017: Kshama Sawant (Socialist Future) (as Political Commissioner of the Continental Congress of Workers and Tenants)
2016 (results rendered moot):Jeb Bush / Tom Perez (National Union) def. Keith Ellison / Bernie Sanders (Independent)
2017-0000: Gayle McLaughlin (Social Ecology of North America) (as Chair of the Constitutional Convention)
2017 Constitutional Convention election def. Donna Edwards (Progressive), Kshama Sawant (Socialist Future), collective (Cascadia Now!)
The historically low turnout of the 2000 election laid bare the political indifference and ignorance of the American public. The Bush campaign’s victory on a small but uncontentious plurality was greeted with a resigned shrug. It took the 9/11 attacks to shake America out of its stupor, and even then, political response to the administration’s War on Terror was muddled. Kneejerk patriotism lead to the Patriot Act and the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq being waved through, while an outbreak of protests (with misplaced priorities) killed any chance of more stringent airport security.
Shortly after the fall of Baghdad, however, the country woke up. Perhaps it was the eye-opening work of filmmaker Michael Moore, whose polemical journalism set box office records in 2004. Perhaps it was international pressure, as Americans became aware of the embarrassment their chief executive was causing them abroad. Or perhaps it was just a gradual national coming of age – an unprecedented evolution in critical thinking. In any case, appetite for war took a drastic plunge, and the Republican Party entered a downward spiral from which it would never fully recover.
Russ Feingold and his youthful running mate, Rep. Obama, swept into office with an anti-war mandate. American withdrawal from Iraq was complete by 2006. (Feingold’s hasty retreat has since been blamed for the contemporary domination of Iraqi politics by Iranian proxies, but polls continue to show that a supermajority of the public support his decision.) The repeal of the Patriot Act, the closure of Guantanamo Bay, and the introduction of gay marriage were other signature achievements of Feingold’s first term, as social liberalization and military drawdown became the order of the day. Domestic economic issues took a backseat. Despite Feingold’s strong interest in social welfare and banking reform, he still had to deal with a large caucus of fiscally conservative Democrats and a relatively strong GOP, as well as a lack of public interest; the economy was healthy, why worry?
The banking crash of 2007 changed all that. The Democrats, increasingly dominated by the president’s progressive wing, pinned the blame on neoliberal deregulation. Feingold ran for reelection asking America for the tools to take on the plutocrats, and America obliged. Along with a comprehensive stimulus package and Vice President Obama’s partially-public health care program, the 2009 Congressional session saw the reinstation of the Glass-Steagall Act. There was a wholesale purge of former investment bankers at the SEC and a series of high-profile RICO prosecutions of financial executives.
But it wasn’t enough. Many of the prosecutions failed; the bankers’ actions may have been immoral but were rarely illegal (or at least rarely easy to prove). The stimulus may have taken the bite out of the recession, but many communities had been left behind. And above all, the issue of income inequality had finally come to the fore and the Democrats found wanting. Then came Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden’s revelations that even the beautifully and attractively progressive Feingold administration was engaged in dirty deeds overseas. That was the trigger for the biggest upheaval in American politics for generations.
Inspired by the Arab Spring revolutions that had peacefully replaced tyrants with secular democracies across the Middle East, the American people rose up, occupying first Wall Street then city centers everywhere, demanding accountability, peace, and economic justice. After three months of demonstrations and general strikes, Feingold and Obama resigned. Their replacement, hastily elected to the Speakership and thus the Presidency by a special session of Congress, was a soft-left Democrat who had been a close ally of the administration. However, of late, Zoe Lofgren had endeared herself to the revolutionaries by chairing an informal caucus of Democrats and Pirate Party representatives that had endorsed the goals of the Great Occupation and blocked several attempts to censor the internet or overturn net neutrality.
The new administration made revolutionary changes. Not only were bankers put on trial (sometimes on double-jeopardy charges in front of kangaroo courts), so were war criminals from the Bush and Clinton administrations. Obamacare was expanded into a full system of single-payer healthcare, paid for by even more drastic military cuts and the elimination of agricultural subsidies. Constitutional tinkering shut corporate money out of politics, abolished the electoral college, and enfranchised felons. Drugs were legalized. Every American received free high-speed internet. But the energy of the movement that had lofted Lofgren into office soon began to fade as the public picked up the pieces and returned to work. By the following election, the Feingoldites – promising to continue the Occupy tradition in a more focused and pragmatic manner – easily triumphed over the disorganized and erratic revolutionaries. (Nevertheless, it was a sign of the times that the Republicans had fallen to the status of marginal third party. Conservatism seemed dead as a force in American politics.)
Elizabeth Warren didn’t overturn the changes of the revolution, but pursued a more conciliatory line, canceling the Occupiers’ plans to withdraw from international institutions and ending the rounds of domestic prosecutions. Her administration provided comprehensive access to reproductive health care (including abortion) and weeded out racial bias in policing, dissolving entire local departments. Fossil-fuel extraction slowed to a halt, accompanied by a mass transit construction spree.
Nevertheless, apathy continued to build, along with a widespread reactionary contrarianism that rankled at youthful activists who continued to plug in to politics. Most of America sleepwalked through the events leading up to the 2016 election.
When Warren indicated her disinterest in a second term, her former supporters bolted the party to arrange an independent ticket along with the remnants of the old 99% Movement. More conservative figures coalesced around Tom Perez and made common cause with the rump Republicans to prevent a rerun of the chaotic Lofgren years. By the summer of 2016, the hegemonic Democrats had permanently shattered. Meanwhile, the economy, which had recovered promptly from the crisis of the late 2000s and had been ticking over nicely since, took a sharp turn for the worse.
Bush and Perez’s slim, legally suspect victory in an extremely low-turnout election startled the country. Protests broke out immediately, and the old revolutionary networks – which had never completely gone away after 2011 – lit up. The “National Union” ticket never had a chance to govern. While Congress was in recess and President Warren was out of the country on business, the capital was seized by socialist militants. The Lame-Duck Revolution was swift, dramatic, and probably a touch more violent than it needed to be. Police officers were seized, and prisons were emptied. Tenants’ Armies expropriated vacant properties to shelter the homeless, ran landlords out on a rail and turned apartment complexes into autonomous cooperatives. Eventually, the rage and chaos began to simmer down into a semblance of order.
It took almost a year for America to realize that the consensus-driven matryoshka bureaucracy of the Continental Congress of Workers and Tenants was trending towards dictatorship. Officially, the people were in charge; in practice, above the web of committees and councils sat “Political Commissioner” Kshama Sawant, charting an orthodox Marxist direction for the revolution. Most ordinary people, unused to political activism, had shown up to their precinct meetings confused and simply nodded through Socialist Future’s proposals – the Trots being the most organized faction. However, the country was too large and power now too decentralized for the cadres to consolidate their control, and so Sawant was eventually forced to call a (bourgeois-)democratic Constitutional Convention.
While nowhere near a majority, the left-libertarian Social Ecology group was best poised as a go-between between the others, and former California governor Gayle McLaughlin was appointed to chair the assembly. For the past year or so, she has faced the unenviable position of negotiating between social democrats, communists, and a variety of blue-green regional separatist groups. Private property has been restored to a degree (albeit not in the apartment cooperatives), the revolutionary tribunes have been shuttered and political prisoners released, fossil-fuel use is being slowly rationed and restricted, and the big issue on everyone’s mind is whether America ought to be one country, many, or none at all…
1993-2001: Bill Clinton / Al Gore (Democratic)
2001-2005: George W. Bush / Dick Cheney (Republican)
2000 def. Al Gore / Joe Lieberman (Democratic), Ralph Nader / Winona LaDuke (Green)
2005-2011: Russ Feingold / Barack Obama (Democratic)
2004 def. George W. Bush / Dick Cheney (Republican), Ralph Nader / Peter Camejo (Green)
2008 def. Mitt Romney / Jim Gilmore (Republican)
2011-2013: Zoe Lofgren (Independent Democratic) / vacant
2013-2016: Elizabeth Warren / Jeff Merkley (Democratic)
2012 def. Rocky Anderson / Jill Stein (The 99% Movement – Green, Pirate, Independent Democratic), Jon Huntsman, Jr. / Mitch Daniels (Republican)
2016-2017: Kshama Sawant (Socialist Future) (as Political Commissioner of the Continental Congress of Workers and Tenants)
2016 (results rendered moot):
2017-0000: Gayle McLaughlin (Social Ecology of North America) (as Chair of the Constitutional Convention)
2017 Constitutional Convention election def. Donna Edwards (Progressive), Kshama Sawant (Socialist Future), collective (Cascadia Now!)
The historically low turnout of the 2000 election laid bare the political indifference and ignorance of the American public. The Bush campaign’s victory on a small but uncontentious plurality was greeted with a resigned shrug. It took the 9/11 attacks to shake America out of its stupor, and even then, political response to the administration’s War on Terror was muddled. Kneejerk patriotism lead to the Patriot Act and the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq being waved through, while an outbreak of protests (with misplaced priorities) killed any chance of more stringent airport security.
Shortly after the fall of Baghdad, however, the country woke up. Perhaps it was the eye-opening work of filmmaker Michael Moore, whose polemical journalism set box office records in 2004. Perhaps it was international pressure, as Americans became aware of the embarrassment their chief executive was causing them abroad. Or perhaps it was just a gradual national coming of age – an unprecedented evolution in critical thinking. In any case, appetite for war took a drastic plunge, and the Republican Party entered a downward spiral from which it would never fully recover.
Russ Feingold and his youthful running mate, Rep. Obama, swept into office with an anti-war mandate. American withdrawal from Iraq was complete by 2006. (Feingold’s hasty retreat has since been blamed for the contemporary domination of Iraqi politics by Iranian proxies, but polls continue to show that a supermajority of the public support his decision.) The repeal of the Patriot Act, the closure of Guantanamo Bay, and the introduction of gay marriage were other signature achievements of Feingold’s first term, as social liberalization and military drawdown became the order of the day. Domestic economic issues took a backseat. Despite Feingold’s strong interest in social welfare and banking reform, he still had to deal with a large caucus of fiscally conservative Democrats and a relatively strong GOP, as well as a lack of public interest; the economy was healthy, why worry?
The banking crash of 2007 changed all that. The Democrats, increasingly dominated by the president’s progressive wing, pinned the blame on neoliberal deregulation. Feingold ran for reelection asking America for the tools to take on the plutocrats, and America obliged. Along with a comprehensive stimulus package and Vice President Obama’s partially-public health care program, the 2009 Congressional session saw the reinstation of the Glass-Steagall Act. There was a wholesale purge of former investment bankers at the SEC and a series of high-profile RICO prosecutions of financial executives.
But it wasn’t enough. Many of the prosecutions failed; the bankers’ actions may have been immoral but were rarely illegal (or at least rarely easy to prove). The stimulus may have taken the bite out of the recession, but many communities had been left behind. And above all, the issue of income inequality had finally come to the fore and the Democrats found wanting. Then came Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden’s revelations that even the beautifully and attractively progressive Feingold administration was engaged in dirty deeds overseas. That was the trigger for the biggest upheaval in American politics for generations.
Inspired by the Arab Spring revolutions that had peacefully replaced tyrants with secular democracies across the Middle East, the American people rose up, occupying first Wall Street then city centers everywhere, demanding accountability, peace, and economic justice. After three months of demonstrations and general strikes, Feingold and Obama resigned. Their replacement, hastily elected to the Speakership and thus the Presidency by a special session of Congress, was a soft-left Democrat who had been a close ally of the administration. However, of late, Zoe Lofgren had endeared herself to the revolutionaries by chairing an informal caucus of Democrats and Pirate Party representatives that had endorsed the goals of the Great Occupation and blocked several attempts to censor the internet or overturn net neutrality.
The new administration made revolutionary changes. Not only were bankers put on trial (sometimes on double-jeopardy charges in front of kangaroo courts), so were war criminals from the Bush and Clinton administrations. Obamacare was expanded into a full system of single-payer healthcare, paid for by even more drastic military cuts and the elimination of agricultural subsidies. Constitutional tinkering shut corporate money out of politics, abolished the electoral college, and enfranchised felons. Drugs were legalized. Every American received free high-speed internet. But the energy of the movement that had lofted Lofgren into office soon began to fade as the public picked up the pieces and returned to work. By the following election, the Feingoldites – promising to continue the Occupy tradition in a more focused and pragmatic manner – easily triumphed over the disorganized and erratic revolutionaries. (Nevertheless, it was a sign of the times that the Republicans had fallen to the status of marginal third party. Conservatism seemed dead as a force in American politics.)
Elizabeth Warren didn’t overturn the changes of the revolution, but pursued a more conciliatory line, canceling the Occupiers’ plans to withdraw from international institutions and ending the rounds of domestic prosecutions. Her administration provided comprehensive access to reproductive health care (including abortion) and weeded out racial bias in policing, dissolving entire local departments. Fossil-fuel extraction slowed to a halt, accompanied by a mass transit construction spree.
Nevertheless, apathy continued to build, along with a widespread reactionary contrarianism that rankled at youthful activists who continued to plug in to politics. Most of America sleepwalked through the events leading up to the 2016 election.
When Warren indicated her disinterest in a second term, her former supporters bolted the party to arrange an independent ticket along with the remnants of the old 99% Movement. More conservative figures coalesced around Tom Perez and made common cause with the rump Republicans to prevent a rerun of the chaotic Lofgren years. By the summer of 2016, the hegemonic Democrats had permanently shattered. Meanwhile, the economy, which had recovered promptly from the crisis of the late 2000s and had been ticking over nicely since, took a sharp turn for the worse.
Bush and Perez’s slim, legally suspect victory in an extremely low-turnout election startled the country. Protests broke out immediately, and the old revolutionary networks – which had never completely gone away after 2011 – lit up. The “National Union” ticket never had a chance to govern. While Congress was in recess and President Warren was out of the country on business, the capital was seized by socialist militants. The Lame-Duck Revolution was swift, dramatic, and probably a touch more violent than it needed to be. Police officers were seized, and prisons were emptied. Tenants’ Armies expropriated vacant properties to shelter the homeless, ran landlords out on a rail and turned apartment complexes into autonomous cooperatives. Eventually, the rage and chaos began to simmer down into a semblance of order.
It took almost a year for America to realize that the consensus-driven matryoshka bureaucracy of the Continental Congress of Workers and Tenants was trending towards dictatorship. Officially, the people were in charge; in practice, above the web of committees and councils sat “Political Commissioner” Kshama Sawant, charting an orthodox Marxist direction for the revolution. Most ordinary people, unused to political activism, had shown up to their precinct meetings confused and simply nodded through Socialist Future’s proposals – the Trots being the most organized faction. However, the country was too large and power now too decentralized for the cadres to consolidate their control, and so Sawant was eventually forced to call a (bourgeois-)democratic Constitutional Convention.
While nowhere near a majority, the left-libertarian Social Ecology group was best poised as a go-between between the others, and former California governor Gayle McLaughlin was appointed to chair the assembly. For the past year or so, she has faced the unenviable position of negotiating between social democrats, communists, and a variety of blue-green regional separatist groups. Private property has been restored to a degree (albeit not in the apartment cooperatives), the revolutionary tribunes have been shuttered and political prisoners released, fossil-fuel use is being slowly rationed and restricted, and the big issue on everyone’s mind is whether America ought to be one country, many, or none at all…
I Saw A Red Sky
He killed my ma, he killed my pa, but 🤓
OHC
deep green blue collar rainbow
- Location
- Little Beirut
- Pronouns
- they/she
Points for spotting hit moments from my political development such as "Brian gets interested in politics by reading Michael Moore's Dude, Where's My Country," "Brian is on the internet too much as a kid and worries about SOPA," "Brian gets apathetic and distracted during college" and of course "Brian becomes a Trot for five minutes."
I can't remember, do you live in the Seattle area? I'm moving in on the 4th, always good to know folks in a new city
I can't remember, do you live in the Seattle area? I'm moving in on the 4th, always good to know folks in a new city
- Location
- Op een dag, Nederland.
- Pronouns
- she/her & ne/nem
The Path Forward
Al Gore/Joe Lieberman (Democratic) 2001-2005
2000: def. Mitt Romney/Bill Frist (Republican) and Donald Trump/Dick Lamm (Reform)
The 2000 election was an easy victory for the experienced vice-president over the inexperienced billionaire who got the nomination by being the most successful haggler in a broken convention and the other inexperienced billionaire running third party. However Gore's presidency was stable, yet stale, and by 2004 many Republicans were ready to take over and lead America to a new Republican era.
John McCain/Lincoln Chafee (Republican) 2005-2009
2004: def. Al Gore/Joe Lieberman (Democratic)
Unsurprisingly, McCain trounced everyone else and made a gambit by picking liberal Republican Lincoln Chafee as his running mate. This enabled him to make inroads in suburban areas in the Northeast, earning him states like New Jersey and Rhode Island. McCain's presidency was successful, yet the war in Iraq he started would dog him by 2008. And then the economy fell sharply.
Bernie Sanders/Barack Obama (Democratic) 2009-2010*
2008: def. John McCain/Joe Lieberman (Republican)
"A radical socialist up against a successful president? He'll lose big" declared Democratic insiders. And then everything changed barely a month after he got the nomination [and wisely gave the running mate slot to second-place candidate Senator Obama]. First Iraq went sour with several attacks leading to many dead bodies. American bodies. Then the economy staggered and then collapsed as the banks went bust. Sanders rallied the base with his condemnation of the banks and promised that "under a Sanders presidency, justice will be done". McCain chose to drop liberal Chafee [who was essentially in the doghouse for opposing many McCain policies, including Iraq] and go with moderate Democrat and former vice-president Joe Lieberman as a sort of "National Unity" ticket. This only served to further alienate partisans and push "McCain Liberals" back into the Democrats, especially when Chafee publicly endorsed Sanders. On election night, there was a blue tide as Democrats won back control of government.
Sanders' presidency was one of frustrated transformation, as his soaring ideals clashed with harsh reality. In the end, he managed to get quite a few policies through, but his envisioned universal healthcare policy was starting to get slowed down in Congress. Campaigning in the midterms, he promised that "Berniecare" as it was being called, would mean less expense on the part of the taxpayer "if you add it all up". In the end, in October 2010, he was in Minnesota campaigning for the Democrat there when someone took out a gun and shot him.
Barack Obama/vacant (Democratic) 2010
Barack Obama/Hillary Clinton (Democratic) 2010-2013
The nation was in shock. Sure, the socialist president [many still hated the sound of that yet voted for him to kick out McCain] wasn't particularly liked and had a lot of haters, but very few people actually wanted him to die. The Republicans still made gains, but their hope of gaining the House would have to wait until 2012. In the meantime, "Berniecare" was watered down to a public option health insurance system yet still kept his name there as it transformed from a label of disdain from Republicans to a symbol of a slain presidency. Apart from getting that through, Obama's presidency was slow and full of compromises which frustrated quite a few liberals.
Donald Trump/Sarah Palin (Republican) 2013-2017
2012: def. Barack Obama/Hillary Clinton (Democratic)
Losing the popular vote by seven million would have damned any candidate. Not former 2000 Reform nominee Donald Trump as he managed to win the Electoral College by the slimmest of margins [as in, 270-268 and high pressure on every elector to not switch], leading to the slogan "Bernie Sanders would have won!" from saddened liberals. Trump's campaign was controversial, but his pledge to "keep Berniecare around", while receiving the condemnation of quite a few top-brass Republicans, managed to pick up a fair lot of "Sanders-Trump" voters who cast their votes for Sanders in 2008 and Trump in 2012. This helped him win states such as Minnesota and Virginia.
Trump's presidency was intensely controversial, just like the man himself. His pledge to "build a wall" would result in many millions of dollars lost and only a glorified fence built that didn't contribute much to border security. And it pissed off Canada in the process.
Hillary Clinton/Al Franken (Democratic) 2017-2019
2016: def. Donald Trump/Sarah Palin (Republican), Michael Bloomberg/Chuck Hagel (Independent), Gary Johnson/Austin Petersen (Libertarian) and Evan McMullin/Mindy Finn (Stand Up Republic!)
Hillary Clinton/none (Democratic) 2019
Hillary Clinton/Tom Vilsack (Democratic) 2019-2021
As the Republican Party fractured, former vice president Hillary Clinton soared and won a landslide with trusted comedian and Senator Al Franken by her side to sell to "Berniecrats" [the left half of the party]. The Democrats were back. Right?
By 2019, the Clinton presidency can be described as a disaster. The economy stagnated, the Republicans won back the House riding off tried and true Clinton scandals that they rode for all they were worth, and of course #MeToo coming to the political stage with Al Franken being accused of sexual molestation in late 2018 that he first denied than tried playing off as "just a comedy skit", it ended up lasting too long for everyone's comfort and he was finally pressured to resign in mid-2019, being replaced by an inoffensive Iowan.
Mitt Romney/Bobby Jindal (Republican) 2021-
2020: def. Hillary Clinton/Tom Vilsack (Democratic) and Evan McMullin/Mindy Finn (Stand Up Republic!)
Despite McMullin's independent run [which he declared before Romney had a late surge that gave him the majority, it was expected that Rick Santorum would win], the nation decided that it was finally time for Mitt Romney. The young and inexperienced billionaire that lost in a landslide back in 2000 has returned, twenty years wiser and an experienced Governor. Pledging for a presidency "of American values" and to have plenty of women in his cabinet, perhaps even a 50/50 situation [although he avoided explicitly saying so], he appealed to frustrated voters and to moderates sick of the twenty years of liberals mixed in with Donald Trump, Romney remodelled the GOP in his image, selling it as a party of suburban voters and of the frustrated Americans. Winning a landslide [apart from Wyoming, which went Clinton due to McMullin splitters], he settled down in the White House, ready to start the first day of a Romney administration, twenty years later than he originally thought.
--------
Okay, this was really created due to a play through of President Infinity and I decided to write a bit about it
Al Gore/Joe Lieberman (Democratic) 2001-2005
2000: def. Mitt Romney/Bill Frist (Republican) and Donald Trump/Dick Lamm (Reform)
The 2000 election was an easy victory for the experienced vice-president over the inexperienced billionaire who got the nomination by being the most successful haggler in a broken convention and the other inexperienced billionaire running third party. However Gore's presidency was stable, yet stale, and by 2004 many Republicans were ready to take over and lead America to a new Republican era.
John McCain/Lincoln Chafee (Republican) 2005-2009
2004: def. Al Gore/Joe Lieberman (Democratic)
Unsurprisingly, McCain trounced everyone else and made a gambit by picking liberal Republican Lincoln Chafee as his running mate. This enabled him to make inroads in suburban areas in the Northeast, earning him states like New Jersey and Rhode Island. McCain's presidency was successful, yet the war in Iraq he started would dog him by 2008. And then the economy fell sharply.
Bernie Sanders/Barack Obama (Democratic) 2009-2010*
2008: def. John McCain/Joe Lieberman (Republican)
"A radical socialist up against a successful president? He'll lose big" declared Democratic insiders. And then everything changed barely a month after he got the nomination [and wisely gave the running mate slot to second-place candidate Senator Obama]. First Iraq went sour with several attacks leading to many dead bodies. American bodies. Then the economy staggered and then collapsed as the banks went bust. Sanders rallied the base with his condemnation of the banks and promised that "under a Sanders presidency, justice will be done". McCain chose to drop liberal Chafee [who was essentially in the doghouse for opposing many McCain policies, including Iraq] and go with moderate Democrat and former vice-president Joe Lieberman as a sort of "National Unity" ticket. This only served to further alienate partisans and push "McCain Liberals" back into the Democrats, especially when Chafee publicly endorsed Sanders. On election night, there was a blue tide as Democrats won back control of government.
Sanders' presidency was one of frustrated transformation, as his soaring ideals clashed with harsh reality. In the end, he managed to get quite a few policies through, but his envisioned universal healthcare policy was starting to get slowed down in Congress. Campaigning in the midterms, he promised that "Berniecare" as it was being called, would mean less expense on the part of the taxpayer "if you add it all up". In the end, in October 2010, he was in Minnesota campaigning for the Democrat there when someone took out a gun and shot him.
Barack Obama/vacant (Democratic) 2010
Barack Obama/Hillary Clinton (Democratic) 2010-2013
The nation was in shock. Sure, the socialist president [many still hated the sound of that yet voted for him to kick out McCain] wasn't particularly liked and had a lot of haters, but very few people actually wanted him to die. The Republicans still made gains, but their hope of gaining the House would have to wait until 2012. In the meantime, "Berniecare" was watered down to a public option health insurance system yet still kept his name there as it transformed from a label of disdain from Republicans to a symbol of a slain presidency. Apart from getting that through, Obama's presidency was slow and full of compromises which frustrated quite a few liberals.
Donald Trump/Sarah Palin (Republican) 2013-2017
2012: def. Barack Obama/Hillary Clinton (Democratic)
Losing the popular vote by seven million would have damned any candidate. Not former 2000 Reform nominee Donald Trump as he managed to win the Electoral College by the slimmest of margins [as in, 270-268 and high pressure on every elector to not switch], leading to the slogan "Bernie Sanders would have won!" from saddened liberals. Trump's campaign was controversial, but his pledge to "keep Berniecare around", while receiving the condemnation of quite a few top-brass Republicans, managed to pick up a fair lot of "Sanders-Trump" voters who cast their votes for Sanders in 2008 and Trump in 2012. This helped him win states such as Minnesota and Virginia.
Trump's presidency was intensely controversial, just like the man himself. His pledge to "build a wall" would result in many millions of dollars lost and only a glorified fence built that didn't contribute much to border security. And it pissed off Canada in the process.
Hillary Clinton/Al Franken (Democratic) 2017-2019
2016: def. Donald Trump/Sarah Palin (Republican), Michael Bloomberg/Chuck Hagel (Independent), Gary Johnson/Austin Petersen (Libertarian) and Evan McMullin/Mindy Finn (Stand Up Republic!)
Hillary Clinton/none (Democratic) 2019
Hillary Clinton/Tom Vilsack (Democratic) 2019-2021
As the Republican Party fractured, former vice president Hillary Clinton soared and won a landslide with trusted comedian and Senator Al Franken by her side to sell to "Berniecrats" [the left half of the party]. The Democrats were back. Right?
By 2019, the Clinton presidency can be described as a disaster. The economy stagnated, the Republicans won back the House riding off tried and true Clinton scandals that they rode for all they were worth, and of course #MeToo coming to the political stage with Al Franken being accused of sexual molestation in late 2018 that he first denied than tried playing off as "just a comedy skit", it ended up lasting too long for everyone's comfort and he was finally pressured to resign in mid-2019, being replaced by an inoffensive Iowan.
Mitt Romney/Bobby Jindal (Republican) 2021-
2020: def. Hillary Clinton/Tom Vilsack (Democratic) and Evan McMullin/Mindy Finn (Stand Up Republic!)
Despite McMullin's independent run [which he declared before Romney had a late surge that gave him the majority, it was expected that Rick Santorum would win], the nation decided that it was finally time for Mitt Romney. The young and inexperienced billionaire that lost in a landslide back in 2000 has returned, twenty years wiser and an experienced Governor. Pledging for a presidency "of American values" and to have plenty of women in his cabinet, perhaps even a 50/50 situation [although he avoided explicitly saying so], he appealed to frustrated voters and to moderates sick of the twenty years of liberals mixed in with Donald Trump, Romney remodelled the GOP in his image, selling it as a party of suburban voters and of the frustrated Americans. Winning a landslide [apart from Wyoming, which went Clinton due to McMullin splitters], he settled down in the White House, ready to start the first day of a Romney administration, twenty years later than he originally thought.
--------
Okay, this was really created due to a play through of President Infinity and I decided to write a bit about it
Last edited:
Makemakean
Mr Makemean
- Pronouns
- Logical, unlike those in German
The Arthurian-Frederician Era
“To revisit the old votes and decisions and having it be asked if they were the proper choices to make is a futile exercise in imagination. Dwelling on the past does not prepare us for the future. Are we better off within Union than we would have been outside Union? That is of course question without a serious answer. No future would have been set in stone had we remained independent and sovereign, just as no future is set in stone now that are but the province of an empire.
“At any juncture in history, there are many different possible futures, some of them good, many more bad, and none of them inevitable. Statesmen, being the navigators on the great of ship of state, have as their duty at any given juncture to chart a course towards the better futures. To damn the stormy seas for having blown us in an undesired direction do them no good.
“I was against Union when the vote came up in '65, and if I were to be flung back in time to that very year, and allowed to cast my vote once more, I still would have voted against this infernal fiction of Andersen's. Denmark certainly would have had an easier time charting the course towards the good futures as an independent power, but the vote having taken place and the decision having been made, I am content to abide by it.
“I stand by that Danes, Swedes, and Norwegians make for better neighbours than they make tenants living under the same roof, but now that we are here, if Denmark's present interest are thus best served, I shall gladly drape myself in the Flag of Kalmar.”
-- Niels Preben Bille-Brahe, 1893,
Letter to his son Jacob on the occasion of the formation of the Preparedness Ministry.
Chancery Presidents of the Nordic Empire:
1867-1876: Nicolas Andersen (Radikale Højre leading Friends of the Union Ministry, first of Radikale Højre, Hats, Unionist Caps and Norwegian Unionists, then of Radikale Højre and Unionists) [1]
1876-1878: Jonatan Leijonhierta (Unionist leading Friends of the Union Ministry of Unionists and Radikale Højre) [2]
1878-1879: Baltzar von Platen the Younger (Independent leading Friends of the Union Ministry of Unionists and Radikale Højre) [3]
1879-1881: Robert Falkvinge (Unionist leading Unionist minority government) [4]
1881-1887: Asbjørn Abraham Sønderheim (Liberal leading Liberal majority government) [5]
1887-1889: Niels Preben Bille-Brahe (Skeptical leading Skeptical minority government) [6]
1889-1893: Asbjørn Abraham Sønderheim (Liberal leading Liberal minority government, then Liberal majority government) [7]
1893-1897: Niels Preben Bille-Brahe (Skeptical leading Preparedness Ministry of Skepticals, Unionists, Nationalists, and pro-conscription Liberals) [8]
1897-1898: Alfred von Benzon (Skeptical leading Preparedness Ministry of Skepticals, Unionists, and Nationalists) [9]
1898-1902: Gösta Gullberg (Liberal leading Liberal minority government) [10]
[1] The incredibly popular Dane Nicolas Andersen got to inaugurate the Nordic Empire as its first Chancery President leading the Friends of the Union Ministry (Unionsvänsministären). His ministry saw the construction of many infrastructure projects and welfare reform, as well as the building up of the Nordic Imperial Navy. Retired in 1876.
[2] Jonatan Leijonhierta, the protégé of the old Minister of Union of Foreign Affairs Hubo Hubert Ribbing. Became Chancery President at the young age of 36. “The most well-dressed gentleman north of Paris”, he came from an incredibly wealthy family that had first been introduced into the Swedish nobility in the 1830s. Though he won a general election in a landslide, his administration ended the same year in indignity when he was forced to resign in the wake of the Andvare Scandal.
[3] Furious with the corruption and secrecy within the Unionist Party, the 74-year old Independent President of the Admiralty Baltzar von Platen the Younger became the new Chancery President of the Friends of the Union Ministry in an attempt to placate the Radikale Højre and bring balance to the composition government. It proved to be in vain. The very next year, the Radikale Højre left the government, and the Unionists instigated a palace coup to remove Von Platen from the Chancery Presidency.
[4] A competent administrator and an honest man, Falkvinge was unable to get rid of the taint of corruption and underhandedness that had come to be attached to the Unionists, and he lost the 1881 election in a landslide to the newly formed Liberal Party, in a dramatic upset even losing his own Bergslagen seat. History has judged him more kindly than his contemporaries did.
[5] Asbjørn Abraham Sønderheim became the first Liberal and first Norwegian Chancery President after winning a landslide victory for his party. Cut customs and tariffs on manufactured goods, and with the 1885 Representation of the People Act took steps towards uniformization of the constituencies and moderately expanding the suffrage. In 1887, his government fell over the issue of national insurance.
[6] Niels Preben Bille-Brahe masterfully exploited divisions within the Liberals over national insurance to cause a break between Sønderheim and the Liberal Party in his own native Norway. Despite only coming third in the number of seats gained in the 1887 election, Bille-Brahe yet maneuvered to have himself made Chancery President on the ground that he was the only one capable of organizing a government able to survive a vote of no confidence and pass a budget. The first Skeptical Chancery President first term in office only lasted two years, before...
[7] ...Sønderheim was able to return the punch Bille-Brahe had delivered him by himself manuevering to cause a split in Bille-Brahe's parliamentary support over the issue of Privatization of the Nordic India Companies. Despite not getting a majority of the seats, Sønderheim returned as Chancery President after the election of 1889. His second term in office saw the introduction of the Income Tax, the revenue from which allowed Sønderheim to cut customs and tariffs even further and also sneakily expanded the suffrage. Despite being re-elected with a majority in 1892, the next year, the Third Defenstration of Prague happened, the King of Bohemia was forced to flee, prompting the Austrians and Bavarians to invade to crush the revolutionaries and restore the monarch from the House of Zweibrücken-Birkenfeld, and the Prussian to invade in turn to throw out the Austrians and Bavarians and make the head of the House of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen the new King of Bohemia. With it looking like there was a risk that the Nordic Empire be drawn into the dispute as it was part of the League of Lyksborg, Bille-Brahe once again brought down Sønderheim's government on the issue of conscription, and...
[8] ...got himself returned to office as head of the Preparedness Ministry (Beredskapsministären), made up of Skepticals, Unionists, Nationalists, and Pro-Conscription Liberals. After the government amazingly survived the election of 1896, a bitter and broken Sønderheim retired from public life, dying the next year at the age of eighty-eight. Had he lived just a few months longer, he would at the very least have gotten to see his hated rival Bille-Brahe suffer a cardiovascular infection and being forced to retire. Bille-Brahe too would not survive a year in retirement.
[9] Bille-Brahe's cousin and lieutenant Alfred von Benzon took over the reigns of government. Alas, Bille-Brahe's way of running the Skeptical Party as a highly centralized machinery with him in the centre meant that loyalty towards him had been rewarded, while competence and ambition punished, as Bille-Brahe did not want anyone to challenge his power. The effect was that now that Bille-Brahe was gone, the Skepticals proved themselves unable to run the government, and Von Benzon was both naïve and without an idea of what he wanted to accomplish in office. His government fell after less than ten months.
[10] Gullberg advanced to the Liberal leadership as a compromise candidate when David Carniege and Robert Dickson (Sønderheim's Treasury President 1881-1887 and 1889-1893 respectively) due to personal animosity kept blocking one another at the convention. He led the Liberals back to power.
“To revisit the old votes and decisions and having it be asked if they were the proper choices to make is a futile exercise in imagination. Dwelling on the past does not prepare us for the future. Are we better off within Union than we would have been outside Union? That is of course question without a serious answer. No future would have been set in stone had we remained independent and sovereign, just as no future is set in stone now that are but the province of an empire.
“At any juncture in history, there are many different possible futures, some of them good, many more bad, and none of them inevitable. Statesmen, being the navigators on the great of ship of state, have as their duty at any given juncture to chart a course towards the better futures. To damn the stormy seas for having blown us in an undesired direction do them no good.
“I was against Union when the vote came up in '65, and if I were to be flung back in time to that very year, and allowed to cast my vote once more, I still would have voted against this infernal fiction of Andersen's. Denmark certainly would have had an easier time charting the course towards the good futures as an independent power, but the vote having taken place and the decision having been made, I am content to abide by it.
“I stand by that Danes, Swedes, and Norwegians make for better neighbours than they make tenants living under the same roof, but now that we are here, if Denmark's present interest are thus best served, I shall gladly drape myself in the Flag of Kalmar.”
-- Niels Preben Bille-Brahe, 1893,
Letter to his son Jacob on the occasion of the formation of the Preparedness Ministry.
Chancery Presidents of the Nordic Empire:
1867-1876: Nicolas Andersen (Radikale Højre leading Friends of the Union Ministry, first of Radikale Højre, Hats, Unionist Caps and Norwegian Unionists, then of Radikale Højre and Unionists) [1]
1876-1878: Jonatan Leijonhierta (Unionist leading Friends of the Union Ministry of Unionists and Radikale Højre) [2]
1878-1879: Baltzar von Platen the Younger (Independent leading Friends of the Union Ministry of Unionists and Radikale Højre) [3]
1879-1881: Robert Falkvinge (Unionist leading Unionist minority government) [4]
1881-1887: Asbjørn Abraham Sønderheim (Liberal leading Liberal majority government) [5]
1887-1889: Niels Preben Bille-Brahe (Skeptical leading Skeptical minority government) [6]
1889-1893: Asbjørn Abraham Sønderheim (Liberal leading Liberal minority government, then Liberal majority government) [7]
1893-1897: Niels Preben Bille-Brahe (Skeptical leading Preparedness Ministry of Skepticals, Unionists, Nationalists, and pro-conscription Liberals) [8]
1897-1898: Alfred von Benzon (Skeptical leading Preparedness Ministry of Skepticals, Unionists, and Nationalists) [9]
1898-1902: Gösta Gullberg (Liberal leading Liberal minority government) [10]
[1] The incredibly popular Dane Nicolas Andersen got to inaugurate the Nordic Empire as its first Chancery President leading the Friends of the Union Ministry (Unionsvänsministären). His ministry saw the construction of many infrastructure projects and welfare reform, as well as the building up of the Nordic Imperial Navy. Retired in 1876.
[2] Jonatan Leijonhierta, the protégé of the old Minister of Union of Foreign Affairs Hubo Hubert Ribbing. Became Chancery President at the young age of 36. “The most well-dressed gentleman north of Paris”, he came from an incredibly wealthy family that had first been introduced into the Swedish nobility in the 1830s. Though he won a general election in a landslide, his administration ended the same year in indignity when he was forced to resign in the wake of the Andvare Scandal.
[3] Furious with the corruption and secrecy within the Unionist Party, the 74-year old Independent President of the Admiralty Baltzar von Platen the Younger became the new Chancery President of the Friends of the Union Ministry in an attempt to placate the Radikale Højre and bring balance to the composition government. It proved to be in vain. The very next year, the Radikale Højre left the government, and the Unionists instigated a palace coup to remove Von Platen from the Chancery Presidency.
[4] A competent administrator and an honest man, Falkvinge was unable to get rid of the taint of corruption and underhandedness that had come to be attached to the Unionists, and he lost the 1881 election in a landslide to the newly formed Liberal Party, in a dramatic upset even losing his own Bergslagen seat. History has judged him more kindly than his contemporaries did.
[5] Asbjørn Abraham Sønderheim became the first Liberal and first Norwegian Chancery President after winning a landslide victory for his party. Cut customs and tariffs on manufactured goods, and with the 1885 Representation of the People Act took steps towards uniformization of the constituencies and moderately expanding the suffrage. In 1887, his government fell over the issue of national insurance.
[6] Niels Preben Bille-Brahe masterfully exploited divisions within the Liberals over national insurance to cause a break between Sønderheim and the Liberal Party in his own native Norway. Despite only coming third in the number of seats gained in the 1887 election, Bille-Brahe yet maneuvered to have himself made Chancery President on the ground that he was the only one capable of organizing a government able to survive a vote of no confidence and pass a budget. The first Skeptical Chancery President first term in office only lasted two years, before...
[7] ...Sønderheim was able to return the punch Bille-Brahe had delivered him by himself manuevering to cause a split in Bille-Brahe's parliamentary support over the issue of Privatization of the Nordic India Companies. Despite not getting a majority of the seats, Sønderheim returned as Chancery President after the election of 1889. His second term in office saw the introduction of the Income Tax, the revenue from which allowed Sønderheim to cut customs and tariffs even further and also sneakily expanded the suffrage. Despite being re-elected with a majority in 1892, the next year, the Third Defenstration of Prague happened, the King of Bohemia was forced to flee, prompting the Austrians and Bavarians to invade to crush the revolutionaries and restore the monarch from the House of Zweibrücken-Birkenfeld, and the Prussian to invade in turn to throw out the Austrians and Bavarians and make the head of the House of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen the new King of Bohemia. With it looking like there was a risk that the Nordic Empire be drawn into the dispute as it was part of the League of Lyksborg, Bille-Brahe once again brought down Sønderheim's government on the issue of conscription, and...
[8] ...got himself returned to office as head of the Preparedness Ministry (Beredskapsministären), made up of Skepticals, Unionists, Nationalists, and Pro-Conscription Liberals. After the government amazingly survived the election of 1896, a bitter and broken Sønderheim retired from public life, dying the next year at the age of eighty-eight. Had he lived just a few months longer, he would at the very least have gotten to see his hated rival Bille-Brahe suffer a cardiovascular infection and being forced to retire. Bille-Brahe too would not survive a year in retirement.
[9] Bille-Brahe's cousin and lieutenant Alfred von Benzon took over the reigns of government. Alas, Bille-Brahe's way of running the Skeptical Party as a highly centralized machinery with him in the centre meant that loyalty towards him had been rewarded, while competence and ambition punished, as Bille-Brahe did not want anyone to challenge his power. The effect was that now that Bille-Brahe was gone, the Skepticals proved themselves unable to run the government, and Von Benzon was both naïve and without an idea of what he wanted to accomplish in office. His government fell after less than ten months.
[10] Gullberg advanced to the Liberal leadership as a compromise candidate when David Carniege and Robert Dickson (Sønderheim's Treasury President 1881-1887 and 1889-1893 respectively) due to personal animosity kept blocking one another at the convention. He led the Liberals back to power.
Last edited:
- Location
- Das Böse ist immer und überall
- Pronouns
- he/him
no u
Makemakean
Mr Makemean
- Pronouns
- Logical, unlike those in German
It started as a placeholder name on the earliest lists, and then I got overly attached to it.