• 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

The War Within

1989-1994: Dick Gephardt / Lloyd Bentsen (Democratic)

1988: George Bush / John Ashcroft (Republican)
1992: Bob Dole / Dick Cheney (Republican), Ron Paul / Bo Gritz (Independent)


That Gephardt's victory was only established after a recount in California and weeks of court cases and smears of illegitimacy from the Bush camp was an ominous sign. Much was accomplished: the Farmer's Rescue Bill, the Biden-Kennedy Infrastructure Act, three supreme court justice nominations, the Cold War brought to a relatively peaceful end. And yet, to too many Americans, he was still an accidental president. Or as ominously put by Lee Atwater and a few more provocative Republican legislators, the incidental president. While a strong response to the early 1990s recession guaranteed a decisive re-election, the strong result for Ron Paul made sure that even then the waters were muddied.

Early into his second term, several standoffs occurred between law enforcement and militias and in rural states; communities ravaged by the farm crisis of the previous decade, empowered by new right and radicalised by its defeat in 1988. They didn’t want Gephardt’s handouts; after all, most of them were going to the inner cities. They wanted a strong, Christian nation where the government knew its place and looked after their own. They were egged on by Ron Paul and the odd Republican congressman denouncing the overreach of the authorities in enforcing tax collection and gun laws. In the autumn of 1993, a car bomb failed to detonate and destroy the Wilshire Federal Building in Los Angeles and a months-long siege by US Marshals ended with the deaths of the majority of the Montana Freemen led to escalation by both sides. A panicked Gephardt fired his Attorney General and tried to pass legislation giving federal law enforcement greater powers to combat a disparate array of violent groups. In the midst of all this, Vice President Bentsen suffering a debilitating stroke was the last thing he needed.

1994: Dick Gephardt / vacant (Democratic)
1994-1996:
Dick Gephardt / Dianne Feinstein (Democratic)

A beleaguered president took a huge, calculated risk with the new vice president. But it was, in hindsight, the obvious choice. As Governor of California Dianne Feinstein had earned a reputation for a zero-tolerance approach to crime and illegal immigration and was already being spoken of as a likely candidate in 1996. She was approved by Congress by large bipartisan majorities, even as Republicans and soon-to-be independent Congressman Ron Paul denounced the political establishment for promoting a dangerous San Francisco radical.

Vice President Feinstein had a short honeymoon. Four FBI agents were shot dead in an ambush in Texas. A car bomb detonated at the United Nations and killed dozens. The UN decamped to Geneva; the world’s remaining superpower looked unstable and unsafe. The new Vice President soon assumed the mantle of “Security Czar” becoming the face of the administration's crackdown and fight with right-wing extremists. As the face of that campaign, she was also the focus of the rising hatred of the militia and their political sympathisers, referred to by many a radio host and more than one legislator simply as “that woman”. But elsewhere she was admired by the political establishment and much of middle-America as a figure of strength and steadfastness, the Iron Lady strongly contrasting with her beleaguered boss.

By 1996, while there were still sieges and the odd bombing and shooting, the militia movement was widely believed to be a shadow of its former self. Vice President Feinstein was now running for president, and while she was facing an uphill battle against the Republicans her approval ratings were higher than Gephardt’s.

But on the fourteenth of January 1996 Dick Gephardt went to Seattle to give a speech on healthcare reform, and everything changed.

1996: Dianne Feinstein / vacant (Democratic)

A car bomb along the highway hit President Gephardt’s motorcade. While inside involvement from local law enforcement was suspected, it was never proven. When Dianne Feinstein, meeting Senators in the Capitol, was informed of the attack and that the President was in a coma. By the time she arrived in the White House Situation Room, Richard Gephardt was dead.

Later that evening, President Feinstein gave a grave address from the Oval Office, calling for calm and announcing a state of emergency. This was an act of war. The War Within as the speech famously coined it. And she promised that every last militia in the country would be hunted down and brought to justice.

1996-2001: Dianne Feinstein / Sam Nunn (Democratic)
1996: Dan Quayle / Carroll Campbell (Republican), Ron Paul / Helen Chenoweth (Independence)

President Feinstein had an enormous mandate for this quest. Congress approved her Vice President and wide-ranging emergency powers legislation with large bipartisan majorities, the only holdouts being a small but not insignificant caucus of Republicans who felt that the groups the new president was singling out had some legitimate concerns. But they were shouted down in the tension of the moment, as armed police forces raided and besieged encampments and farms across the country and arresting and harassing many more. The Republicans found themselves squeezed between those who approved of Feinstein’s taking charge and the surging campaign of Ron Paul and his condemnation of the overreach of “That Woman” against well-intentioned Americans in the heartlands. Never able to establish a lead in the polls, Dan Quayle’s unguarded comments about “many fine patriots” getting caught up in bad crowds finished off his campaign and earned the president a landslide re-election.

It wasn’t immediately obvious what the President would do with it.

Another wide-ranging piece of national security legislation was passed with bipartisan support, but now many left-wing activists joined the scepticism of the SECURE Act, which appeared to target many radical left groups and greatly restricted the rights of migrants without the right papers. There was some healthcare reform, and some more deregulations; Feinstein increasingly referred to opponents and any and all aspects of her agenda as part of this War Within against American democracy.

The War Within pressed on. Two car bombs detonated outside federal buildings in Chicago; more concerningly Feinstein ally Ted Kennedy was nearly gunned down near his Cape Cod summer retreat. To protests, presidential candidate Ron Paul was arrested and charged with mail fraud and financing terrorism under the SECURE Act, becoming a cause celebre for the right as his legal troubles stretched on for years.

But the real climax of the conflict took place on what nascent internet forums described as “red Sunday” in the Autumn of 1998. The FBI (now under the jurisdiction of the Department of Security) conducted simultaneous raids upon militias across the Rockies and prairies. A dozen law enforcement agents were killed; dozens of militiamen and their families were killed. This operation was so successful that there was surprisingly little blowback. A few riots, a few minor bomb scares. That the FBI could not keep to a coherent explanation as to how many of the deaths of both law-enforcement and unarmed residents of militia compounds died only became a problem later on.

2001-2005: Dianne Feinstein / Sam Nunn (Democratic)
2000: H. Ross Perot / Dan Lungren (Republican)

With a booming economy, That Woman cruised to re-election. The Republicans, with their political establishment disintegrating, nominated a businessman who was sceptical of the hawks and free traders in congress, and spoke sympathetically about “federal overreach”. He got a lot of endorsements from Paul supporters, which meant that Feinstein in turn got many endorsements from moderate republicans.

It was not obvious what Feinstein would do with a second full term, which made her the longest-serving president after Franklin D. Roosevelt. There was another healthcare reform bill, but the legislative wranglings and botched implementation only sapped political capital. Abroad America was beturning inwards; a pink tide of socialist leaders came to power across the Global South, NATO was dissolved, and President Lebed was allowed to run roughshod over Russia’s dominions, with the work of protecting Eastern Europe falling to the ever-closer European Union and its new defence force. After Islamist terror attacks hit Britain and France, Feinstein was disinterested in joining them - and Lebed - in bringing the terrorists to justice with only non-military American resources being committed to that conflict.

Meanwhile, at home, the far-right regrouped. Though not with the frequency of before, there were still car bombings and mass shootings. Ron Paul’s conviction in late 2002 only incited and united the far right, who organised through the internet and successfully won many political offices in the midterms, and cowed many more Republicans in the process. Feinstein’s agenda slowed to a crawl, and her administration become sclerotic. She had always kept a small inner circle but she increasingly became insular and paranoid and attempted several purges of government ranks, having to settle with a major cabinet reshuffle. By the end of Feinstein’s term the excesses of the SECURE Act were coming to light, with hundreds of thousands unjustly detained and convicted. The administration went to great lengths to block these congressional and journalistic investigations, and ended up facing charges of obstruction of justice themselves.

Perhaps the worst moment of her presidency was in the fall of 2003, when Feinstein unleashed the full force of the SECURE Act law enforcement against civil rights and green activists protesting the G10 summit being held in San Francisco, with the world’s media broadcasting the resultant riots and violence across the world. They also broadcasted the president’s remorseless defence of the crackdown in front of her uncomfortable fellow world leaders, where she declared that the protestors, the media and the many government whistleblowers also, in fact, represented “The War Within”.

2005-: Rand Paul / Elizabeth Dole (Republican)
2004: Robert Kennedy Jr. / Jim Webb (Moderate), Dan Morales / Andrew Cuomo (Democratic)

There are many reasons given for why Congressman Rand Paul was able to become the 43rd President of the United States. That his father’s supporters had taken over much of the machinery of the Republicans, with an establishment prepared to acquiesce to conspiracism and occasional violence and voter suppression after sixteen long years out of power, was one. That Paul’s softer tone, speaking more against authoritarianism and government spending and less about the plight of militias and lost causers was another.

That the Democrats, weighed down by an unpopular president, picked a defective nominee that immolated halfway through the race from a string of corruption charges was another still. That a former Democrat activist, running on a bipartisan ticket of environmentalism and libertarianism was there to pick up the left half the Democratic base while agreeing with Rand Paul on so many key issues is another contributing factor.

But the most obvious reason is that in 2004, America entered a recession. the long boom of the nineties ending after a stock market crash and a string of bankruptcies in the financial and tech sectors, which Feinstein had enthusiastically deregulated. That most Americans simply felt a bit poorer on election day explains the result as much as any other cause, such feelings trump any and all political memories. And Rand Paul’s message was as much about economic freedom as individual freedom.

Freedom for certain individuals, at least. On his second day in office President Paul pardoned his father, and many others accused and convicted of far-right terrorism, declaring that the War Within was over. He couldn’t have realised that the opposite was true: the War Within had only just begun. Again.
 
Last edited:
2008 - 2013: Lee Myung-bak (Grand National)
2007 def. Sohn Hak-kyu (Grand Unified Democratic), Moon Kook-hyun (Creative Korea)
2013 - 2018: Kim Doo-Kwan (United Democratic)
2012 def. Chung Woo-taik (Grand National), Chung Mong-joon (Independent), Min Byung-ryeol (United Progressive)
2016 - 2017: Korean Political Crisis, Hung Parliament leads to Impeachment attempts over ‘funding irregularities’ and seeming corruption from his ‘full employment schemes’. Doo-Kwan cleared of all wrongdoing.

2018 - 2023: Ahn Cheol-soo (People Power)
2017 def. Hwang Kyo-ahn (Grand National), Lee Nak-yon (United Democratic), Sim Sang-jung (United Progressive)
2023 - : Kim Gi-hyeon (Grand National)
2022 def. Lee Jong-kul (Democratic), Choi Gyung-hwan (People Power), Park Yong-jin (United Progressive)

Vox Populi: Ahn Cheol-soo in the aftermath of People Power

Ahn Cheol-soo was a man on a mission in 2016 when he promised to campaign against corruption and chaos that plagued Korea politics and unleashed his People’s Party on to the unsuspecting masses. In 2018, this mission would once again be revived, as he sought to push aside the ‘false progressives and conservatives’ which dominated Korean politics.

And now in 2023, he looks back upon his career and is left to wonder; Did I succeed?

Everyone has different opinion on that question. Several Western political commentators have discussed how Cheol-soo could be seen as having forced the Grand National party to modernise and embrace a more ‘centrist’ outlook under Kim Gi-hyeon and leading the forces of the liberal democratic opposition which coalesced into the Democratic Party to shift Leftward, indeed the prominence of, as some commentators have disparagingly called it, ‘Jae-myung Thought’ within the Democratic Party seems to indicate some truth to the previous statements.

But many point out that Cheol-soo has not shaken up the status quo as much as he promised. Indeed, the chaebol still exert a tremendous amount of control over all facets of Korean society and Cheol-soo would oversee a rolling back on labour rights, which would lead to the infamous 2019 Strike Wave.

Former President and target of Cheol-soo’s initial ire Kim Doo-Kwan at the time proclaimed that People Power were ‘rolling back the rights of the little people to continue the ever increasing inequality of wealth within Korea society’ and disparaged his labour laws as ‘leading to the closest to a destructive revolution within Korea since 1980’, comments which would see Doo-Kwan being attacked by figures from across the political spectrum.

But it’s easy to agree with Doo-Kwan in some aspects. Whilst he was elected on the back of populist fervour, Ahl Cheol-soo was a man who instead would oversee a technocratic and seemingly aloof governance. Whilst Myung-bak’s attempts to ensure continued economic growth were mired in corruption and Doo-Kwan’s numerous attempts to solve the problems of inequality were also equally mired in corruption and political infighting, Cheol-soo cleanses initially seems refreshing, until you realise that his tenure would oversee a roll back on welfare programs and the outsourcing of projects towards the private sector or independent agencies, all of which makes Gi-heyon’s job of ‘breaking up the shackles of the state’ much easier.

Meanwhile on social reform, the Cheol-soo and People Power kept away from interacting with women’s rights and LGBT+ rights. Indeed as Same Sex marriage is being legalised in still rather conservative Japan under the premiership of Ōsaka, Korea is still umming and rrring over it. Even relatively moderate Gi-heyon has stated that even if he was particularly concerned by instituting same sex marriage (he isn’t particularly concerned) there isn’t the political capital within the country to go about instituting such a law.

A wave of investigations into sexual harassment across Korea during Cheol-soo’s tenure would be mired by incompetence and Cheol-soo soft-pedalling on such issues. Whilst Cheol-soo would say that during the legislative election that figures within Korea politics embracing sexist talking points were ‘diluting the idea of our democracy’, his tenure on such issues left a lot to be desired.

Foreign policy was equally a continuation of the numerous Conservative talking points that dominated Korea’s interactions with the world. The flips back and forth between nationalistic saber rattling with the North and trying to get somewhere with the Medvedev and Xiali governments over support for South Korea in the region. His attempts to appease Conservatives and Moderates would lead to a muddled foreign policy at the best of times.

So to come back to that earlier question, did Ahn Cheol-soo succeed? Many figures would say no, and this author would agree, but this author would like to add one mention moment that probably illuminates why Cheol-soo failed.

On the election campaign, Ahn Cheol-soo would visit the graves of Syngman Rhee, Park Chung-hee and Kim Dae Jung. Two of the men, represent Korea at its most Conservative and Autocratic, overseeing a decades long police state mired by martial law and corruption. The last, dubbed the ‘Korean Mandela’ represented Korea’s Liberal Democracy and Reformist tendencies, of the Sunshine Policy and of the possibility of establishing South Korea as a preeminent nation on the world stage.

When these are Ahn Cheol-soo spiritual founders as it were, then no wonder his tenure be in the long run, a dismal failure.
 
Celestial Spheres

In the popular imagination there is a belief in distinct 'ages' that have passed from one to the next in sequence without overlap. This is something we must disabuse our students of, emphasising for example that the Stone Age did not progress to the Bronze Age at the same time across the whole of our globe's surface but began in different places and spread. Amongst the most pernicious of these so-called ages in our culture is the time known as the Renaissance. This era is poorly remembered, as any visit to a 'ren-faire' should tell you. It is also a distinctly Eurocentric phenomenon, and a poor historiographical term. Nevertheless, the era has a firm grip on the imagination for a very simple reason. It refers to the 'opening up' of medieval European civilisation to two vast sources of knowledge. The first was supposedly lost ancient Greek manuscripts that had grown obscure until the conquest of the Byzantine Empire by the Ottomans. The second was the arrival of the Martians and the beginning of interplanetary communication.

These are obviously extremely distinct phenomena but have been conflated by their relative historical proximity. And once again, the fact that the Medieval era did not simply end across all of Europe to give way to the Renaissance has not effected the popular understanding of the historical moment.

It has been over 300 years since Martian bird-craft were able to cross the the celestial spheres and land upon our world. The cultural and technological repercussions of that contact are incalculable. This alone is a strong reason for the popular understanding of the Renaissance - time and again Europeans and others have returned to the styles, fashions and philosophy of the Renaissance period. What is often forgotten are the conflicts - while there would be no formal war between the world until well after the Renaissance period, involvement of Martian actors in Tellurian affairs immediately made themselves apparent. The biological repercussions must also not be forgotten - the contact between Martians and humans led to a microseminal exchange which is often forgotten, subsumed into and associated with the coterminous Columbian exchange between the Western Antipodes and Europe

What cannot be argued with is that the arrival of Martians transformed humankind's understanding of it's place in the universe. The Copernican model went from a heresy to an uncontroversial fact virtually overnight. The Martians did not limit their contact with only Europe but paid visits all over the globe - vast advancements in science and cultural understanding occurred on a scale hitherto unprecedented. In time, we created bird-craft of our own. In the present day, we live in a world arguably forged in the era of the Renaissance, with bird-craft flapping their wings between every celestial sphere from Mercury to Saturn.

I am very fortunate in that I was born into this world, and have not only benefited from an excellent education in my home country, but have stood to benefit from travel between the sister-worlds of the Earth, and take a position of study at the great Martian University of Luynkrys. I am one of very few Tellurians who have been granted this honour, and if there is something that I have learned in my short time here, it is that the popular understanding of the Renaissance is not only Eurocentric but also Tellocentric. The Martians came to our globe for a multitude of reasons but they did not find what they expected. The repercussions for Martian society were cataclysmic to say the least, and have been shockingly understudied - perhaps because while these events took place, Martian interactions with humans tended to be on behalf of private individuals or warlords rather than by states.

It is in this context that I provide;

A Comprehensive List of the Claimants to the Throne of Mars, during the Tellurian Renaissance [1450-1600]

1435-1457: Pylen XI (Krysklingr)
1457-1460: Pylen XII (Krysklingr)
1460-1471: Pylen XIII (Krysklingr), in name only - actual government by the Council of Builders
1471-1493: Pylen XIII (Krysklingr), in his own right
1493-1495: Pylen XIV (Krysklingr)

In this period, Mars was ruled by the so-called Pylenic Dynasty - descendants of the Pylen the Great, the Krysklingr, who had pioneered the Global Hydraulic System that ensured Martian prosperity. The Dynasty fell into stagnation in later generations - arguably they were temporarily saved by the premature death of Pylen XII who gave way to his son. The reign of the Council of Builders and Pylen XIII's later reliance on the Council during his own rule, saw the building of the great bird-craft which would undertake the journey to Earth/Tellus. The Interplanetary Exchange ripped across Mars in a way that it did not on Earth. Pylen XIII was an early victim and his young son who sought to rule alone, was not prepared for the responsibility. He was placed under house arrest by the Council of Builders, and so began the Long Dispute

Pylenic Line

1495-1501: Pylen XIV (Krysklingr)
1501-1503: Ahsen II (Krysklingr)

Pseudo-Pylenic Line

1495-1511: Pylen XIV ('Krysklingr'/Pseudo-Pylenic)
1511-1525: Pylen XV ('Kyrsklingr'/Pseudo-Pylenic)

Pylen XIV claimed his throne from house arrest and produced two children by a mistress. His first son passed in infancy while his younger later nominally took the throne as a child after his father's death. A warlord claimed Pylen XIV's identity and rallied rebellion against the Council of Builders. While much was done to prove that he was not the genuine Throne-Claimant, the Pseudo-Pylenic line enjoyed some success until the formalisation of the Council's government.

Council of Builders

1495-1499: collective (Council of Builders)
1499-1503: Mhuso Granlyn (Council of Builders - War Government)
1503-1512: Frukh Theqrind (Council of Builders - War Government)
1512-1514: Pylen Lyngros (Council of Builders - War Government)
1514-1525: Kirur Qukh (Council of Builders - War Government)

Arguably a return to rule by the engineer-guilds who had united Mars behind the Global Hydraulic System, in reality the Council was fractious body of various aristocratic groupings. Collective government gradually gave way to charismatic leadership, and thence to military dictatorship - culminating in Kirur Qukh's successful destruction of the Pseudo-Pylenic rebellion. With the defeat of the rebellion, the council soon turned upon itself, its various members having become feudal/stratocratic warlords of their domains.

Qukh Dynasty

1525-1537: Kirur I (Qukh)
1537-1538: Kirur II (Qukh)

The Qukh Dynasty did not outlive its founders attempt to unify Mars under his own dictatorship. Kirur I had arisen from a regional prefect to a global tyrant - but he ignored how his empire had become reliant on ambitious regional warlords united only by opposition to the Pseudo-Pylens. His death in combat saw his empire collapse extremely rapidly.

The Great Anarchy

1538-1546: effectively none

While there is a great many claimants to the Throne during this period, none truly sought to enforce such a claim. The numerous warlords sought to lay stake to little more than their own backyard and opportunistically take advantage of their competitors. Mars was divided for the first time in nearly a millennium, and as it did, the Global Hydraulic System began to break down.

The War of Three Families

1546-1573: Ahsen III (Granlyn)
1573-1582: Mhuso II (Granlyn)

1546-1569: Wynglr (Frannos)
1569-1576: Syrs (Frannos)
1576-1582: Thorys (Frannos)

1546-1575: Theq (Lenkr)
1575-1582: Zhyn (Lenkr)

In time, the Great Anarchy saw the warlords agglomerate behind three major claimants who actually sought to unite the planet. The Global Hydraulic System continued to break down without international cooperation, but the Three Families actually saw an ability to establish a stable succession within their own zones. By the early 1580s, a generation of Martian leaders had lived their entire lives without any kind of global unity - an unprecedented situation in modern Martian history.

The White Peril

1577-1583: Lokr Sevryn (The New Builders)
1583-1586: collective (The New Builders)

A radical group of engineer guildsmen took control of the Northern canal network, in protest at the degradation which had been allowed to persist. Lokr Sevryn was the charismatic leader of this northern revolt and the conflict between the Three Families slowly took a backseat to the emergent threat of the New Builders. In 1582, the Three Families called an armistice as the Southern canal network began to fall prey to New Builder inspired wildcat strikes. Sevryn formed a collective government with the most persistent of these strikers. In 1586, the Three Families and the New Builders agreed to a truce of their own.

1586-1588: collective (The Council of Mars)
1588-1591: Thorys Frannos (Recidivist)
1591-1612: Lokr Sevryn (Reconstructionist)

A new Council was convened of the Three Families and the New Builders - initial collective government gave way to constitution writing, which gave way to the face selections to occupy the Throne. The result of this was the Three Families uniting around the least offensive of their own, Thorys Frannos. Frannos adapted poorly to increasingly collegiate government and he came up against the resurgent power of the engineer guilds repeatedly during his reign. Frustration with the distinctly un-royal nature of government these days, he resigned. Lokr Sevryn had arisen from a canal engineer to occupant of the Throne of Mars. His successors in the Reconstructionist Wing would oversee the rebuilding the neglected Global Hydraulic Network and reassert Martian power in the aftermath of the Interplanetary Exchange, culminating the First War Between Worlds of the mid 17th century.

By the hand of Mathias Denton, of Oxford and Luynkrys
 
Last edited:
a small note - i did try to come up with some phonetic rules for the Martian names - hence heavy uses of 'y', 'h' etc.

'Krys' roughly translates to 'canal' in the All-Martian tongue. Its a very common place name suffix, as most major Martian cities are based around a canal or confluence of canals.
Do you see the Martians here as humanoid? It's an interesting concept
 
Do you see the Martians here as humanoid? It's an interesting concept
I've deliberately avoided that as I haven't actually decided!

As might be apparent, this world operates on a somewhat Renaissance era understanding of the heavens (and other aspects, see the use of 'microseminal' to refer to disease) - it is possible to breathe in space as it isn't a vacuum rather just very thin air. Unfortunately its quite hard to find any era appropriate speculation on what Mars or the other planets might be like - hence my borrowing of 19th century understandings for a traditional canal network dominated dry Mars. Let alone their denizens.

I think I might imagine Martians as variations upon a humanoid theme.
 
In the popular imagination there is a belief in distinct 'ages' that have passed from one to the next in sequence without overlap. This is something we must disabuse our students of, emphasising for example that the Stone Age did not progress to the Bronze Age at the same time across the whole of our globe's surface but began in different places and spread. Amongst the most pernicious of these so-called ages in our culture is the time known as the Renaissance. This era is poorly remembered, as any visit to a 'ren-faire' should tell you. It is also a distinctly Eurocentric phenomenon, and a poor historiographical term. Nevertheless, the era has a firm grip on the imagination for a very simple reason. It refers to the 'opening up' of medieval European civilisation to two vast sources of knowledge. The first was supposedly lost ancient Greek manuscripts that had grown obscure until the conquest of the Byzantine Empire by the Ottomans. The second was the arrival of the Martians and the beginning of interplanetary communication.

Absolutely perfect paragraph--that final line hits like a club hammer to the head of a cow in the Chicago stockyards.
 
I've deliberately avoided that as I haven't actually decided!

As might be apparent, this world operates on a somewhat Renaissance era understanding of the heavens (and other aspects, see the use of 'microseminal' to refer to disease) - it is possible to breathe in space as it isn't a vacuum rather just very thin air. Unfortunately its quite hard to find any era appropriate speculation on what Mars or the other planets might be like - hence my borrowing of 19th century understandings for a traditional canal network dominated dry Mars. Let alone their denizens.

I think I might imagine Martians as variations upon a humanoid theme.
I am thinking about writing a 'Renaissance-punk' sci-fi story and this is kind of a first draft at considering this - I like the idea that because the Renaissance is the moment when humanity made contact, it has become a kind of legendary time in human history and just as we in the 21st century are kind of recycling styles from the 19th and 20th century in our aesthetics, that helps explain why in the 'present' of the 1800s, styles are still very Renaissance looking.
 
1916-1923: David Lloyd George (National Liberal)
1919 (Coalition, w/ Conservative) def. Andrew Bonar Law (Conservative), David Lloyd George (National Liberal), Éamon de Valera (Sinn Fein), Arthur Henderson (Labour), Henry Page Croft (National Party), H.H. Asquith (Liberal), John Dillon (IPP)
1923-1925: Arthur Balfour (Conservative)
1923 (Minority) def. J.R. Clynes (Labour), Henry Page Croft (National), H.H. Asquith (Liberal), David Lloyd George (National Liberal)
1925-1929: J.R. Clynes (Labour)
1925 (Coalition, w/ Liberal) def. Arthur Balfour (Conservative), H.H. Asquith (Liberal), Henry Page Croft (National)
1929-1931: Austen Chamberlain (Unionist)
1929 (Majority) def. J.R. Clynes (Labour), Henry Page Croft (National), David Lloyd George (Liberal)
1930 (National Government) w/ J.R. Clynes (Labour), Henry Page Croft (National), David Lloyd George (Liberal)

1931-1934: Sir Eric Geddes (Conservative)
(National Government) w/ David Lloyd George (Nat. Lib.), J.H. Thomas (Nat. Lab.)
Opposition: Arthur Henderson (Labour), Henry Page Croft (National), Walter Runciman (Ind. Liberal)

1934-19??: Oswald Mosely (Labour)
1934 (Popular Front) def. Sir Eric Geddes (Conservative), Henry Page Croft (National), Walter Runciman (Ind. Liberal), David Lloyd George (Nat. Lib.), J.H. Thomas (Nat. Lab.)
 
1916-1923: David Lloyd George (National Liberal)
1919 (Coalition, w/ Conservative) def. Andrew Bonar Law (Conservative), David Lloyd George (National Liberal), Éamon de Valera (Sinn Fein), Arthur Henderson (Labour), Henry Page Croft (National Party), H.H. Asquith (Liberal), John Dillon (IPP)
1923-1925: Arthur Balfour (Conservative)
1923 (Minority) def. J.R. Clynes (Labour), Henry Page Croft (National), H.H. Asquith (Liberal), David Lloyd George (National Liberal)
1925-1929: J.R. Clynes (Labour)
1925 (Coalition, w/ Liberal) def. Arthur Balfour (Conservative), H.H. Asquith (Liberal), Henry Page Croft (National)
1929-1931: Austen Chamberlain (Unionist)
1929 (Majority) def. J.R. Clynes (Labour), Henry Page Croft (National), David Lloyd George (Liberal)
1930 (National Government) w/ J.R. Clynes (Labour), Henry Page Croft (National), David Lloyd George (Liberal)

1931-1934: Sir Eric Geddes (Conservative)
(National Government) w/ David Lloyd George (Nat. Lib.), J.H. Thomas (Nat. Lab.)
Opposition: Arthur Henderson (Labour), Henry Page Croft (National), Walter Runciman (Ind. Liberal)

1934-19??: Oswald Mosely (Labour)
1934 (Popular Front) def. Sir Eric Geddes (Conservative), Henry Page Croft (National), Walter Runciman (Ind. Liberal), David Lloyd George (Nat. Lib.), J.H. Thomas (Nat. Lab.)
Intriguing, what’s the background for this?
 
Just a boring interpretation of the Entente loosing WW1 with out the obligatory Revolution(s). National Party champion Germanophobia and revanchism, Balfour sees a late revival only because no other Tory is seen as qualified after the war.
Ah interesting, I enjoy your use of Geddes I must say.
And Moseley because no one else would do
I think personally figures like Tom Johnston would probably emerge as prominent figures and maybe even leader. I also think Labour probably gains a majority in discontent as it were.
 
BREAKING THE MOULD:
Rise of the SDP-Liberal Alliance


Part Four

2013-15: Charles Kennedy (Alliance)
  • 2013 (minority with Green; Labour support): Alliance (Charles Kennedy) 159 seats (26.5% vote); Reform (Peter Hitchens) 139 seats (23.1% vote); Labour (Diane Abbott) 107 seats (17.9% vote); Conservative (Michael Gove) 100 seats (16.6% vote); Green (Caroline Lucas) 28 seats (4.6% vote); Scottish National (Alex Salmond) 14 seats (2.4% vote); British National (Nick Griffin) 13 seats (2.1% vote).
'Real living wage' for all workers (€10 per hour); end to tax loopholes for super-rich; defence spending cut; national trial of universal basic income; campaigns against food poverty and homelessness; free childcare provision; higher animal welfare standards.
  • Prime Minister: Charles Kennedy (Alliance); Deputy Prime Minister: Caroline Lucas (Green); Chancellor: Matthew Taylor (Alliance); Foreign Secretary: Simon Hughes (Alliance); Home Secretary: Norman Baker (Alliance).

2015-17: Caroline Lucas (Green)

Half a million new green jobs; boost in pension levels; cross-party deal on funds allocated to eco-friendly projects, including public transport and renewable energy; home insulation programme to help tackle fuel poverty and climate damage; conservation and re-wilding; international summit to bring down emissions.
  • Prime Minister: Caroline Lucas (Green); Deputy Prime Minister: Simon Hughes (Alliance); Chancellor: Lynne Featherstone (Alliance); Foreign Secretary: Alistair Carmichael (Alliance); Home Secretary: Norman Lamb (Alliance).
 
Last edited:
Ah interesting, I enjoy your use of Geddes I must say.

I think personally figures like Tom Johnston would probably emerge as prominent figures and maybe even leader. I also think Labour probably gains a majority in discontent as it were.

Geddes always hit me as somewhat under used in AH scenarios and certainly someone who might have gone all the way to the top if he stayed in politics

Certainly the type of technocratic government that this timelines Mosley plans on having would have had room for the likes of Johnston and others like Oliver Baldwin to have a bigger profile than IRL.
 
BREAKING THE MOULD:
Rise of the SDP-Liberal Alliance


Part Five

2017-22: Giles Fraser (Reform)
  • 2017 (minority with Conservative and UK Independence): Reform (Giles Fraser) 133 seats (22.1% vote); Alliance (Simon Hughes) 118 seats (19.6% vote); Labour (John McDonnell) 104 seats (17.3% vote); Conservative (Justine Greening) 82 seats (13.7% vote); UK Independence (Nigel Farage) 53 seats (8.8% vote); Green (Caroline Lucas) 40 seats (6.7% vote); Scottish National (Nicola Sturgeon) 18 seats (3% vote).
Referendum on withdrawal from EU (54% voted to remain); bipartisan response to COVID-19 pandemic; expansion of council housing supply; larger UK armed forces; family-oriented social security agenda; points-based immigration system; free broadband provision in rural communities; income tax threshold of €13,000 a year; Citizens' Initiative power to recall MPs and 500-seat Commons.
  • Prime Minister: Giles Fraser (Reform); Deputy Prime Minister: Patrick O'Flynn (Reform); Chancellor: Justine Greening (Conservative); Foreign Secretary: Nigel Farage (UK Independence); Home Secretary: Douglas Carswell (Reform).

2022-?: Layla Moran (Alliance)
  • 2022 (minority with Labour and Green): Alliance (Layla Moran) 117 seats (23.3% vote); Reform (Giles Fraser) 102 seats (20.4% vote); Labour (Clive Lewis) 80 seats (16% vote); Conservative (Justine Greening) 53 seats (10.5% vote); UK Independence (Nigel Farage) 32 seats (6.3% vote); Green (Amelia Womack) 31 seats (6.2% vote); Forward (Chuka Umunna) 18 seats (3.5% vote); Scottish National (Nicola Sturgeon) 17 seats (3.3% vote); Workers' (George Galloway) 13 seats (2.5% vote).
Universal basic income and services, e.g. food and elderly care; neo-Keynesian economic stimulus; roll-out of workers' management in public sector; liberal immigration policy; 100% clean energy by 2030; Scandinavian-style education reform; decriminalisation of recreational substances; national debate on monarchy after Queen's passing ('yes' vote to become a republic).
  • Prime Minister: Layla Moran (Alliance); Deputy Prime Minister: Clive Lewis (Labour); Chancellor: Chris Huhne (Alliance); Foreign Secretary: Laura Pidcock (Labour); Home Secretary: Amelia Womack (Green).

The End!
 
Last edited:
This was a collab list that went a little into left-field, but I personally enjoy how it turned out. Somewhat. Ish.

Justice, Live!

Justices appointed to the United States Supreme Court
1983-1991: Jimmy Carter (Democrat)
1986: Morris Dees [lawyer, activist] (Progressive)
1988: Joseph Tydings [lawyer, frm. Senator for Maryland] (Progressive)
1990: Velvalea "Vel" Phillips [Chief Justice, Wisconsin Supreme Court] (Progressive)
1991-1995: Evan Bayh (Democrat)
1992: Laurence Silberman [Judge, D.C. Circuit] (Moderate)
1994: William F. Winter [frm. Governor of Mississippi] (Progressive)
1995-2003: Thomas Kean (Republican)
1996: Ken Starr [Judge, D.C. Circuit] (Conservative)
1998: Alveda King [lawyer, activist] (Conservative)
2000: Jeanine Pirro [Attorney General, New York] (Moderate)
2002: Judith Sheindlin [family court judge, media personality] (Conservative)
2003-2007: Ken Lay (Reform)
2004: John Cornyn [Judge, 5th Circuit] (Conservative)
2006: Steve Harvey* [media personality] (Idiosyncratic)
2007-2011: Robert Kerr III (Democrat)
2008: Hillary Rodham [Judge, 8th Circuit] (Moderate)
2010: Lawrence Lessig [legal scholar, media personality] (Progressive)
2011-2015: Luis Fortuno (Republican)
2012: Condoleezza Rice [ITC Chair, foreign policy advisor] (Conservative)
2014: Mike DeWine [Attorney General, Ohio] (Conservative)
2015-2023: Danny Glover (Democrat)
2016: Montgomery Buttigieg [White House counsel] (Moderate)
2018: Tim Wu [National Economic Council member, legal scholar] (Progressive)
2020: Dahlia Lithwick [Judge, 9th Circuit] (Progressive)
2022: Devin James Stone [lawyer, e-videoist, internet personality] (Progressive)

It's been 40 years since the end of the Second Constitutional Convention, since President Brown strode out of the door of Independence Hall (never mind that the actual convention took place in the more modern Spectrum Stadium a good few miles away, it was about the symbolism!) and finally announced that the national nightmare of Gemstone had ended. The war power referendums, the national popular vote, the Balanced Budget Amendment--it's hard to imagine the American political scene without the fruits of 1982 in it. It's worth taking a look now at the impact of one of its quieter changes, one that quickly became much noisier. Supreme judicial term limits.

The only way Brown could pass that particular amendment was keeping the court as it was until the first current Justice to retire or step down. After that, the rotation would begin--the least recently appointed Justice would step down, every two years, and the incumbent President would nominate a new one via the usual process. The Chief Justice would be selected from among them by the votes of the other justices each time. Every President would be able to shape the court in some way, but the total 18-year terms for each appointee would ensure the court didn't change on a dime, and that the Justices would have a chance to shape the law in some way. The Court had already been de facto politicised--it was time to recognise that fact, and make it responsible to the public in the same way as every other branch of government, so that abuses of power could never happen again. The rot set in immediately with Carter's first pick.

Every previous Justice had had some form of national-level judicial experience--if they weren't judges, they were Cabinet secretaries, Attornies General, Senators... Carter, of course, had made his name as a tribune of the humble toilers from outside the Beltway (never mind how long he'd been sitting in Atlanta), and rejected all such candidates brought before him. The stubborn goat was pining for the late Archibald Cox, the man whose shooting served as Gemstone's bloody coda, or some hayseed lawyer from his personal circle. He split the difference with Dees--a firebrand campaigner against the Klan who'd run the numbers for his Presidential campaign. Of the last two crusading lawyers to get called to the highest court, Fortas and Brandeis had at least argued cases before it--Dees had got no higher than the Fifth Circuit in his campaign to shoot racist fish in a barrel. But onto the Court he went, because the President and the Public liked him.

What really brought the whole thing down was the way the Court was made like every other branch. Including the new PBS cameras. With live televised hearings, the Justices were public figures like never before, and playing to the gallery became an asset. Dees' Simple Country Lawyer affectations were a hit with the public, even if his legal nous wasn't quite up to scratch, Carter got a poll bump, his successors learnt from it, and so it went! Within a few terms, the seats once warmed by Marshall and Warren were being filled by Alveda King, a right-wing campaigner whose only real qualification was an uncle she repudiated the politics of, and Judith Sheindlin, a divorce-and-custody judge who'd risen to fame as a reliably aggresive legal commentator on cable news. Even the more staid picks were more likely to be chosen over headline-grabbing achievements like major domestic violence trials or sit-ins on city councils. The time was drawing near when a Justice would be chosen based only on celebrity, with no legal precedent at all...

In his own way, Lay was a lot like Carter. Both were self-proclaimed outsiders to Washington who wore that as a virtue, both saw personal loyalty as more important than competence, and both were far more politically canny than their opponents suspected, or at least dumb about the wrong things. All of this played out in how he picked his Justices. His first choice was for the movement; a hardliner elevated as part of Kean's too-little-too-late red meat, who had himself been a longtime ally of Lay's energy businesses. His second choice was for him. Steve Harvey had been one of the first public figures to endorse Lay. Steve Harvey had interviewed Lay on his eponymous Morning Show, back when the whole media was writing his run off as a publicity stunt. Steve Harvey had bold, big ideas like Lay, about the regulation of business and the powers of the police.

Steve Harvey was a TV comedian who had failed to graduate West Virginia University, and he was now sitting on the highest court in the land.

The reaction was unamiously negative. Phillips and Silberman both publically stated their intent to resign if Harvey sat on the Court with them, and every other sitting Justice voiced some measure of displeasure. The Senate, already only narrowly controlled by a right-wing coalition, balked just as hard. While Buchanan had just enough political capital to force Harvey through, it ended his career as well--Marcy Kaptur crossed the Chamber back to the Democrats, and the new Senate Majority Leader immediately began preparing to impeach a Supreme Court justice. In this, they were backed by a public whose reaction to Harvey's televised hearings could best be described as "faintly amused horror". The only real benefit to Lay was the fact that all his previous misdemeanours in office--off-the-cuff comments about voters, an improperly chartered helicopter, irregularities in Enron's finances--had now been buried under a thick coat of sheer idiocy, one that his election loss could be wholly pinned on.

But in some ways, he didn't really lose. Harvey's seat was plugged with Mary Glendon, Buchanan's second choice, but the image of a literal, actual, clown on the Court shattered what sense of decorum it had left. In the 18 years since then, only two Justices have had experience as actual judges, and one of them was picked more for her secret blog than for her verdicts. The tone of the hearings has nosedived, with publically debating Justices openly spatting with one another, to the point where there is currently a PBS.vid special on "Top 5 best Lessig vs De Wine smackdowns". Most egregiously of all, and most apt, is the new Justice, taking the seat that was once Harvey's. One of the youngest Justices in history, and, admittedly, with some basic qualifications--but one who rose to fame on the back of e-vids where he "reacts" to "legal mistakes" in popular movies. I hope we're all looking forward to "Seven Reasons Why The Plaintiff's Suit Violates The Constitution--You Won't Believe number 3!".

Let's not mince words. Supreme Court reform has been a miserable failure. By acknowledging the increasing politicalisation of the Court, Brown merely set it on a helter skelter to travesty--a place where the viewer, not the law of the land, reigns supreme, that's not a damper on social fads but their source. That's why I've invited you all here today, to the launch of a new movement. The Federalist Society's aim is to restore the original formulation of the Court--justices who serve for life, chosen from among senior judges, not replaced like batteries by each power-hungry President. A formula that preserved American stability in the past, and one that can work again if we give it a chance...
 
Back
Top