• 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

Inspired @Oppo list from earlier;

The Trap: The Continued Decline of Britain in the 60s and 70s

1963-1966: Alec Douglas-Home (Conservative)
1964 (Majority) def: Harold Wilson (Labour), Jo Grimond (Liberal)

It seems Alec was the man to do it, by a slim margin Alec Douglas-Home would manage to salvage 6 seats out of the 1964 election. Harold Wilson would slink back to the Labour Party and after a tumultuous year and half he would resign as George Brown tried to bring about a Labour Right Coup against him, which would lead to James Callaghan getting the top job in time.

But things quickly turned out to be not good for the Douglas-Home premiership, the previous premier’s Macmillan’s policies had lead to an overheating economy and as growth stagnated and unemployment began to raise, Britain started becoming restless. Additionally the policies and ideals of South Rhodesia were beginning to cause the Commonwealth to push Britain to do something about them. Douglas-Home’s series of talks with Ian Smith didn’t particularly produce any resolution and compounded within nations like India that Britain didn’t care about the majority populations concerns.

1966 was where things would tumble down for Alec Douglas-Home. As the economy continued to overheat, discussions about implementing devaluation and austerity measures to combat began apace. Home would agree to the measures causing Reginald Maudling to resign (many guessing that he realised how unpopular these measures would be), and so the new Chancellor Ted Heath would be the one to take the plunge on these measures.

Whilst the economy did manage to stabilise, the increase in unemployment didn’t help Douglas-Home’s popularity. Compounding matters was that a series of public owned companies would be forced to sell assets off to companies like Slater-Walker leading to hushed whispers of corruption. Finally things would come ahead with Rhodesia’s UDI and Alec Douglas-Home declaring British support for the Vietnam conflict.

Over the ‘Red Summer of 66’ strikes and protests would rock the British establishment. A prelude to the chaotic 68’ across Europe, the British Policing reaction to dealing with the strikers, young students, Anti-War protestors and Marxist agitators was a blanket use of violence and intimidation. Across the television screens ordinary people watched the police heavy handed response as a series of documentaries created by journalists like Ray Gosling and David Dimbleby would examine the protesters and give them room to air there grievances.

In the end it would be the much delayed Saffron Waldron by-election of September that year in which Labour gained the seat of the retiring Rab Butler and the Conservative Majority fell to 2 that finally did it in for Alec Douglas-Home. He would resign a week later and become a renowned nature writer in time.

1966-1967: Reginald Maudling (Conservative Majority, then Minority)

Reginald was elected in the first Conservative Leadership election of the Twentieth Century, easily beating out Enoch Powell and Iain MacLeod for the job. But Maudling’s tenure wouldn’t see much done, although the economy beginning to recover, unemployment was still high, and though Maudling was able to gain peace with the various nationalised industries the feelings between Unions and Government was tense. In the end what would do in Maudling’s chance at rebuilding the fledgling party’s popularity was Enoch Powell resigning from the Conservative Party as Maudling conceded to sending a detachment of British troops over to Vietnam in the Spring of 1967. Maudling lead a minority and about a week later he would be calling an election.

1967-1973: James Callaghan (Labour)
1967 (Majority) def: Reginald Maudling (Conservative), Jo Grimond (Liberal), Enoch Powell (Freedom)
1972 (Majority) def: Peter Thorneycroft (Conservative), Richard Wainwright (Liberal), Bernadette Devlin (Unity)


James Callaghan success was mainly down to his relatively affable and sunny carefree image he cultivated. In the wake of Wilson’s defeat he pitted himself as a uniting force who would reach out to the Bevanites whilst adhering to the ideals of Gaitskell, in the wake of the various Conservative scandals he was the image of good times ahead and in the face of a collapsing Empire, the man who said he could keep British influence East of Suez without the Empire.

Of course this would hide a ruthless pragmatism that Callaghan could wield on occasion. Labour unification with the NI Labour Party, causing it to be steeped in the problems of Ireland was done entirely to ensure that Labour would have a sturdy majority next election. Callaghan stood aside as the scandal prone George Brown was pushed out of from the Shadow Cabinet and Callaghan would allow individuals like Peter Shore to modernise and be even more friendly with media corporations like the Mirror Group (one of Callaghan’s first acts would be Cecil King begrudgingly being given a life peerage).

Callaghan is often positively remembered for a legacy of reforms not particularly supported by him, as homosexual would be partially decriminalised in England and Wales in 1969, abortion legalised and divorce would reformed to be more equal. Additionally his time in government was a time of economic high points for Britain with strikes and industrial strife being low though a slight economic slump in 1970/1 would briefly pause the perceived good times.

He’s less fondly remembered for his support of President Smathers and the continuation of support for the Vietnam War (the economic support coming in to help support the building of a British Social Democracy was what kept Callaghan begrudgingly supporting Smathers).

Additionally his reaction to the riots and sectarian strife in Northern Ireland was sending in troops to awkwardly help police the area, with the main IRA scaling back from fighting back much due (though ‘self defence’ actions would still take place) to a mixture of Marxist ideologue and a lack of guns, the Civilian Defence Associations would become there own little communes supported by hungry Republicans and the Charles Haughey’s gun smuggling operation. The rioting and civil disobedience would plague the beginning of the 70s as individuals like Bernadette Devlin would become the face of Left Wing Nationalist resistance.

Callaghan would delay the second election to 1972 due to a brief economic downturn, this would play into his favour as the economy would start to climb up again and the brief slump seemed to have ended, causing Thorneycroft’s Campaign ideas of campaigning on better fiscal restraint seemed ludicrous. The 1972 election would see the Unity party make substantial gains in Northern Ireland and the Liberals deal with there’s internal squabbling between the Young Liberals and the Party establishment blunting any growth. Callaghan seemed ready to tackle another term, but by now much of his Cabinet was retiring or wanting better positions, in the end a bout of bad health and the death of Richard Crossman would convince Callaghan to resign. He would do it just in time.

1973-1977: Peter Shore (Labour Majority)

Peter Shore would win the party leadership on the message of finally completing what Harold Wilson had originally set out to do. But Shore’s plans would be almost immediately put on hold, the Arab-Israeli war would see the price of oil raise which would cause the British Stock Market, kept afloat by the asset stripping entrepreneurs who had become part of Government strategy to modernise and reform British industry to crash.

Shore’s reaction would be him flexing off his Kenyesian based economic ideals and he would attempt to pump money into the economy in order to help deal with the oncoming recession. But Shore’s attempt to autarky his way out of Britain's economic woes wouldn’t prove viable as new interconnected nature of economic system would disrupt any of his plans. The remainder of Shore’s time in office would produce great highs and lows.

Additionally Shore’s Anti-Communism would cause an awkward moment for his government as President Reagan tried to support the Ian Smith and Portuguese Governments against the Revolutionary forces in there domains. Shore’s lack of condemnation and attempts to broker a ceasefire between the Smith Government and the Revolutionary forces would anger many student radical and leftists in the Labour Party who began proclaiming there support for the Unity party in Ireland.

Shore’s problems would be compounded by the emergence of the Centre Party, a venture created by a combination of Conservative, Labour and Liberal MPs lead by Jeremy Thorpe supported by the former venture capitalists who had found Shore’s and Davie’s ideas on economic controls worrisome who proclaimed Populist ideas on how to fix the economy (including joining the EEC). The popularity of the Centre party rapidly out shone the old paternal images of Labour and the Tories and the the polls would begin to see both being hit by the raising Centre party.

The delaying of the election to 1977 was a hope that another 1972 would occur. Instead a Miners strike over pit closures would give Labour a deficit they couldn’t couldn’t recover from.

1977-1979: John Davies (Conservative)†
1977 (Majority) def: Peter Shore (Labour), Jeremy Thorpe (Centre), Bernadette Devlin (Unity), Richard Wainwright (Liberal)

John Davies was a Tory Moderate leading mainly a cabinet of Tory Right Wingers as several prominent moderates had defected to the Centre party. Davies’s mission statement in the election was to make Britain Great Again, but abruptly became apparent that this was a hard task.

The economy was in shambles and so Davies would support the use of austerity measures to battle Britain’s ballooning amounts of debt caused by Shore. Additionally Davies despite campaigning on issuing controls on banking would find himself giving the go ahead to allow some mild deregulation of the banks and stock markets in Britain.

Davies though had campaigned on a tough on crime manifesto and Airey Neave would find himself leading the charge against strikers, student radicals, Civil Defence associations and gangsters with an equal degree of toughness. Davis would help President Regan create a ceasefire in Rhodesia that would benefit the Smith Government and the Portuguese and Spanish would see any attempt at Left Wing Democratic Reform stymied by the support for the Centre-Right parties who campaigned on keeping Fascist era constitutions.

By 1979, the economy was somewhat rebuilding itself, Crime had seen significant drops (though the amount of deaths in police custody had increased) and Britain seemed like they would dominate the early 80s in a manner not seen since the 1950s. Then Iran would have a revolution and Islamic Socialists would take control, followed not long after by the assassination of King Khalid Al Saud by Islamic Fundamentalists. Suddenly the price of oil rose sharply, followed by the British Stock Market once more crashing.

Davies’s reaction to this sudden chaos was to have a massive heart attack. Though rushed rapidly to hospital, Davies would be pronounced dead less than a day later.

1979-: Airey Neave (Conservative Majority)

The idea of making a man famous originally for having to step down from frontline politics due to heart problems replacing a man dead from heart failure seemed odd, but Neave promised he was healthy and fit and anyway, there were pressing issues at hand.

The Miners found themselves in position of power not seen since the early 70s, protests over living standards were on the raise, the stock market was sluggish and the IRA finally had the resources to declare an ‘Anti-Imperialistic War’ against the British and Irish establishment. Neave’s brand of Right Wing Populism and Tough on Crime rhetoric seemed to be the ideal for the current situation.

But it’s now 1980, in America the Democratic Candidate Fred Harris seems to be on the way to winning the Presidency over John Connolly, the Mediterranean countries are embracing Euro-Communism as there Centre-Right Governments wobble and fail, the old Warsaw Pact Nations are seeing the first tentative steps towards Liberalisation as Breznhev begins to breath his last. In Britain the Labour Party after many years has finally elected a Left Wing Candidate in the form of Ken Coates who seems to have captivated the youth in a manner not seen before.

Of course Neave won’t go down without a fight, and secret discussions with David Stirling and financiers like Tiny Rowland may give Neave an opportunity he can’t resist to ensure continued power.
 
Last edited:
Radical Party Presidential Tickets:

1912: ran as Socialist-Radical Republican, William English Walling / Ida Bell Wells (28,4% PV, 29 EV)
1916: Eugene V. Debs / Mary Church Terell (15,09% PV, 29 EV)
1920: George Henry White / Mary W. Ovington (8,05% PV, 29 EV)
1924: endorsed Farmer-Labor ticket, Robert M. La Follette / Herbert S. Bigelow (26,4% PV, 72 EV)
1928: James Weldon Johnson / W. E. B. Du Bois (5,33% PV, 29 EV), ‘New Afrika dissidents’ endorsed CPUSA ticket, William Z. Foster / Marcus Garvey (0,72% PV, 0 EV)
1932: Norman Thomas / James W. Johnson (6,05% PV, 17 EV), Louisiana and Arkansas Radical Party endorsed Republican ticket, Leonidas C. Dyer / Fiorello La Guardia (52,55% PV, 425 EV)
1936: joined President Leonidas C. Dyer’s Fair Deal Coalition, Leonidas C. Dyer / Huey P. Long (68,42% PV, 508 EV), ‘True Black dissidents’ ran True Radical ticket, Charles Hamilton Houston (without permission) / Wallace D. Fard (0,61% PV, 0 EV)

Party dissolved in 1938 and joined President Huey Long’s Share Our Wealth Party, multiple minor splinters formed following 1938 mid-term elections.



I basically conjoined two mini-TL’s from one of my favorite creators on the other forum. The basic idea is that Johnson gets shot along with Lincoln, and as a result a more radical reconstruction plan takes place, though still not as radical as many would have hoped for. By the mid-70s the feds reach an agreement with the South, and the three black states of Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina are forced to defend theirselves against a white takeover, which they do successfully.


Despite the White Republicans abandoning them to their own fate, the black-and-tans remain loyal to the national party, and almost always vote along with the national party. When the 20th century kicks in and a younger, more radical and restless group of Black Republicans enter the House and Senate, this understanding increasingly crumbles, especially over the pensions of African-American veterans of the Spanish-American War.

In 1912 they think that they’ve finally found their man, as they help former President Roosevelt in securing the nomination over Taft, though the hyphenated Americans hating Roosevelt pulls a 180 on them afterwards, and tells them to just shut up and get in line. The black-and-tan’s, now increasingly black-and-red’s, had enough and decide to run their own splinter ticket in the hope of forcing a draw, and getting more concessions out of the New Yorker. However, they instead opt to join forces with Debs’ socialist party, and run a joint ticket together, which nearly gets a third of the vote, though does hand everyone’s favorite segregationist Woodrow Wilson the keys to the White House.

Instead of healing the tensions, Wilson’s election only furthers them, as White Republicans argue that they pretty much asked for the new racist policies of the Federal Government, while the Radicals argue the opposite. More tensions arise as the European powers go to war, and Black Republicans and their Socialist allies campaign against the war in the 1914 mid-terms and following the nomination of pro-war Hughes, they form their own new political party, the Radical Party. Hughes runs a more pro-civil rights campaign than Roosevelt, and as a result manages to win back many pro-war radicals, and as a result enough EV’s to win the presidency.

America goes to war a bit earlier than OTL, though it largely plays out the same way, even if the measures at home are a bit less draconian. Nevertheless, come 1920 President Hughes is very unpopular, and a Democratic ticket led by Albert Ritchie wins a landslide, while the Radicals nominate their first ticket with a black man on top, and lose a ton of votes because this is still America. This 1920s sees the Klan get even more power, and a racist Federal Government. Some Radicals are arguing for reconciliation with the Republicans, though the latter are also getting more conservative now with many progressives having left the party.

Robert La Folette, as progressive as always, fails to get the Republican nomination, and opts to run an independent campaign. The Radicals endorse his all white ticket, as they’re increasingly threatened by their white neighbors. The Wisconsinite s better than OTL, though still finishes in third. Following his defeat and death, many of La Follette’s supporters rejoined the Republican party, and took a lot of Radicals with them as well. At the same the most left-wing members of the Radical Party started forming closer bonds with the Russian-controlled CPUSA. It was thus no wonder that an all black-male ticket, women being increasingly pushed to the side again, booked the worst result in Radical history.

Things got slightly better again for the party following the Crash of 1929, with the party booking some gains in the north in the 1930 mid-terms. When the 1932 election rolled around the Radicals were left with a difficult dilemma again, as Progressive Republican nominee Senator Dyer was actively wooing them to support his candidacy. After four days of balloting the Radicals, despite his friendship with the Senator from Missouri, nominated New York Congressman Norman Thomas. A small group of Radicals, led by Louisiana Governor Huey P. Long opts to nominate the Republican candidate instead.

Dyer is pretty much like Roosevelt OTL, though he relies much more on the Radicals and other left-wing third party parliamentarians to pass his agenda. The Radicals and other progressives unseated dozens of conservative Republicans, and with the President increasingly becoming a cross-party actor, he announces he will run a coupon candidacy in 1936, and nominates legendary white governor-turned-senator of a black state, Huey P. Long, as his running-mate. The incredibly popular President sweeps all but two Southern states, and further cements his name in American history. Dyer passes away in 1937, only days after the Civil Rights and Voting Protections Act became law. Huey P. Long, much less of a wannabe Mussolini than OTL, is left to continue America’s path forward, though he has even more radical ideas in mind with his Share Our Wealth program.

Honestly, I’d just check out Lacktoastandtolerant’s content if you wanted to know more.
 
Spiritual successor to that “a better Libertarian Party” list:

Green Movement presidential tickets

1988: Howie Hawkins / various (0 EV, 0.11% PV) (ran as an independent in most states)
1992: Ron Kovic / Hilda Mason (1 EV, 5.23% PV)
1996: Winona LaDuke / Stephen Gaskin (0 EV, 3.15% PV)
2000: Mel King / Jim Jontz (0 EV, 2.45% PV)
2004: Barbara Lee / Kelly Weaverling (7 EV, 12.77% PV)
2008: Barbara Lee / Julia Hill (0 EV, 3.31% PV)
2012: Mike McGinn / John Boyd (3 EV, 7.43% PV)
2016: Kyrsten Sinema / Marquita Bradshaw (260 EV, 39.87% PV) (selected in contingent election)

2020: Marquita Bradshaw / Jackie Fielder (TBD)

In the early 80s, a handful of American left-liberals – presumably optimistic ones, in the face of the Reagan reaction – heard the good news in Germany and decided to start their own version of Die Grünen. They proceeded to immediately sabotage their own plans by inviting to their inaugural congress representatives from two groups (the North American Bioregional Congress and Murray Bookchin’s Institute for Social Ecology) who were not focused on electoral politics, not interested in the liberal German Green model, opposed to creating a nationwide third party, and indeed entirely opposed to the constitutional structure of the United States. Oops.

This meeting – held in St. Paul, Minnesota, in the summer of 1984 – might have broken up right then and there had it not been for (as his biographers claim) the intervention of Howie Hawkins. A socialist Teamster who both admired Bookchin and believed in electoral politics, Hawkins was able to prevent the ISE folks and bioregionalists from vetoing the idea of a single national organization. The Green Movement – “more than a party” – would provide a clearinghouse and mailing list for local activists, but would also field candidates for office and hold them to a basic political platform.

This was all still inside baseball for political nerds. Neither the big-money environmental orgs, nor the monkeywrenchers, nor indeed Bookchin himself (who thought the GM project a waste of resources but fighting against it even more so), got involved. But the GM’s affiliates quietly put in work across the country, winning local battles and making local headlines – like the International Paper strike in Maine, where the Greens helped the AFL-CIO embarrass a polluter and defeat its union-busting campaign.

It took until the early 90s for most Americans to hear about the Green Movement, but when Rep. Kovic from the movies told them that he was just the messenger for a whole group of people fed up with war and corruption and the two-party system, a lot of them pricked up their ears. And after the Democrats triangulated their way into power and sat there, that message started to stick around, too...

*​

It seemed like a hideous betrayal at the time. A death blow to the Greens in their moment of triumph. Sinema had spent eight years attacking McCain and his Democrats before turning around to join them in a naked deal for power. How could you trust a movement this easily hoodwinked? At least they had – lol – the vice presidency. You had to laugh, as a Green voter. After all, everyone else was laughing at you.

But that was then. That was before four years of a void where the White House used to be. Four years of foreign dignitaries being blown off for the President’s Peloton sessions. Four years of identity politics for Gen X. By recruiting Kyrsten Sinema, the Democrats had sealed the fate that had been awaiting them since they recruited her fellow Arizonan a decade earlier. The Greens’d be over the moon, if we weren’t four years deeper into the ecological meltdown with not a peep about it from the Oval Office.

The president and her host of primary challengers linger a distant third in the polls. The Democrats’ decades of spin are over, say the supposedly reformed spinners in the media. The Vice President is facing Rand Paul in a battle of ideas.
 
Spiritual successor to that “a better Libertarian Party” list:

Green Movement presidential tickets

1988: Howie Hawkins / various (0 EV, 0.11% PV) (ran as an independent in most states)
1992: Ron Kovic / Hilda Mason (1 EV, 5.23% PV)
1996: Winona LaDuke / Stephen Gaskin (0 EV, 3.15% PV)
2000: Mel King / Jim Jontz (0 EV, 2.45% PV)
2004: Barbara Lee / Kelly Weaverling (7 EV, 12.77% PV)
2008: Barbara Lee / Julia Hill (0 EV, 3.31% PV)
2012: Mike McGinn / John Boyd (3 EV, 7.43% PV)
2016: Kyrsten Sinema / Marquita Bradshaw (260 EV, 39.87% PV) (selected in contingent election)

2020: Marquita Bradshaw / Jackie Fielder (TBD)

In the early 80s, a handful of American left-liberals – presumably optimistic ones, in the face of the Reagan reaction – heard the good news in Germany and decided to start their own version of Die Grünen. They proceeded to immediately sabotage their own plans by inviting to their inaugural congress representatives from two groups (the North American Bioregional Congress and Murray Bookchin’s Institute for Social Ecology) who were not focused on electoral politics, not interested in the liberal German Green model, opposed to creating a nationwide third party, and indeed entirely opposed to the constitutional structure of the United States. Oops.

This meeting – held in St. Paul, Minnesota, in the summer of 1984 – might have broken up right then and there had it not been for (as his biographers claim) the intervention of Howie Hawkins. A socialist Teamster who both admired Bookchin and believed in electoral politics, Hawkins was able to prevent the ISE folks and bioregionalists from vetoing the idea of a single national organization. The Green Movement – “more than a party” – would provide a clearinghouse and mailing list for local activists, but would also field candidates for office and hold them to a basic political platform.

This was all still inside baseball for political nerds. Neither the big-money environmental orgs, nor the monkeywrenchers, nor indeed Bookchin himself (who thought the GM project a waste of resources but fighting against it even more so), got involved. But the GM’s affiliates quietly put in work across the country, winning local battles and making local headlines – like the International Paper strike in Maine, where the Greens helped the AFL-CIO embarrass a polluter and defeat its union-busting campaign.

It took until the early 90s for most Americans to hear about the Green Movement, but when Rep. Kovic from the movies told them that he was just the messenger for a whole group of people fed up with war and corruption and the two-party system, a lot of them pricked up their ears. And after the Democrats triangulated their way into power and sat there, that message started to stick around, too...

*​

It seemed like a hideous betrayal at the time. A death blow to the Greens in their moment of triumph. Sinema had spent eight years attacking McCain and his Democrats before turning around to join them in a naked deal for power. How could you trust a movement this easily hoodwinked? At least they had – lol – the vice presidency. You had to laugh, as a Green voter. After all, everyone else was laughing at you.

But that was then. That was before four years of a void where the White House used to be. Four years of foreign dignitaries being blown off for the President’s Peloton sessions. Four years of identity politics for Gen X. By recruiting Kyrsten Sinema, the Democrats had sealed the fate that had been awaiting them since they recruited her fellow Arizonan a decade earlier. The Greens’d be over the moon, if we weren’t four years deeper into the ecological meltdown with not a peep about it from the Oval Office.

The president and her host of primary challengers linger a distant third in the polls. The Democrats’ decades of spin are over, say the supposedly reformed spinners in the media. The Vice President is facing Rand Paul in a battle of ideas.
There’s a certain irony in the fact that even in their best cases the best the Libertarians and Greens ever get are Yang and Sinema respectively.
 
I’d love to visit the alternate universe where she’s elected president as a Green, do the Nelson Muntz laugh, and leave.

It ties in to that conversation folks on here were having earlier about using OTL figures in different political contexts, right? You can imagine someone joining or staying with a different political party under different circumstances, but their character, who they are as a person, is a lot more nebulous and feels harder to butterfly - even though I happen to believe the development of our personalities are just as contingent as everything else in our lives.
 
It ties in to that conversation folks on here were having earlier about using OTL figures in different political contexts, right? You can imagine someone joining or staying with a different political party under different circumstances, but their character, who they are as a person, is a lot more nebulous and feels harder to butterfly - even though I happen to believe the development of our personalities are just as contingent as everything else in our lives.
The other thing is that there's only so much you can change about a historical figure before it becomes no different than using a fictional character. This generally comes up in discussions of "WI: Hitler wasn't antisemitic?" but it applies to all historical figures; at some point the only real value using an actual person provides is name recognition. And frankly it's not particularly interesting to see that, the fun in featuring real people in AH is seeing how they would react to different circumstances and that requires the characters being the people we know.
 
It ties in to that conversation folks on here were having earlier about using OTL figures in different political contexts, right? You can imagine someone joining or staying with a different political party under different circumstances, but their character, who they are as a person, is a lot more nebulous and feels harder to butterfly - even though I happen to believe the development of our personalities are just as contingent as everything else in our lives.
Fundamentally, a person's politics are downstream from their personalities. Personalities can be butterfliable - some people have very specific and tangible formative experiences - but you need to have very good historical justification for that personality change.
 
Fundamentally, a person's politics are downstream from their personalities. Personalities can be butterfliable - some people have very specific and tangible formative experiences - but you need to have very good historical justification for that personality change.
I disagree with this. I don’t really see how a person’s politics is downstream from their personality. I’ve seen a whole cross section of personalities across the political spectrum. I feel like that concept always devolves into “Liberals have more empathy” and “Since conservatism is rational then liberals and communists must have something wrong with their brains” anyway. I don’t think there’s a real personality-to-politics match that could be quantitated. I’d even go so far to say that the way we categorize personalities is very flawed in the first place.
 
I disagree with this. I don’t really see how a person’s politics is downstream from their personality. I’ve seen a whole cross section of personalities across the political spectrum. I feel like that concept always devolves into “Liberals have more empathy” and “Since conservatism is rational then liberals and communists must have something wrong with their brains” anyway. I don’t think there’s a real personality-to-politics match that could be quantitated. I’d even go so far to say that the way we categorize personalities is very flawed in the first place.
I don't mean personality and politics in that simplistic "liberals are empathetic handwringers, conservatives are selfish bastards" way. I mean that a person's politics are fundamentally shaped by how they think of politics and society more generally: how important they consider principles vs. achieving power, what kind of political extremes and behaviour are they willing to tolerate. And a socialist and conservative with a similar personality will approach socialism and conservatism in similar fashions.

Take Tony Blair. It's very easy to butterfly him into the Conservative Party based on his background and personal circumstances. But the way he would approach Conservative politics would likely have been similar to the way he approached Labour politics OTL (political pragmatism, impulsive foreign policy, disdain for the grassroots) because of deeper beliefs that go back to his personal circumstances and personality: Tony Blair is a man who has an intense level of self-belief who has always had a strong desire to make his mark on history. And for those reasons while it's likely that Blair would join the Tories it's unlikely he'd join the Liberals or another third party - because Blair strongly believes that winning elections and power is the first and only way to get things done.
 
I don't mean personality and politics in that simplistic "liberals are empathetic handwringers, conservatives are selfish bastards" way. I mean that a person's politics are fundamentally shaped by how they think of politics and society more generally: how important they consider principles vs. achieving power, what kind of political extremes and behaviour are they willing to tolerate. And a socialist and conservative with a similar personality will approach socialism and conservatism in similar fashions.

Take Tony Blair. It's very easy to butterfly him into the Conservative Party based on his background and personal circumstances. But the way he would approach Conservative politics would likely have been similar to the way he approached Labour politics OTL (political pragmatism, impulsive foreign policy, disdain for the grassroots) because of deeper beliefs that go back to his personal circumstances and personality: Tony Blair is a man who has an intense level of self-belief who has always had a strong desire to make his mark on history. And for those reasons while it's likely that Blair would join the Tories it's unlikely he'd join the Liberals or another third party - because Blair strongly believes that winning elections and power is the first and only way to get things done.
I feel like that’s a contention that has more to do with ideology than personality.
 
I feel like that’s a contention that has more to do with ideology than personality.
Personal ideology is inseparable from personality. Ideology isn't just "I think X should happen", it's "what's the best way to achieve X?" and "what would I be willing to tolerate and sacrifice to make X happen?". And the question of what you're willing to tolerate and sacrifice to achieve your goals is a question of personality.
 
I feel like that’s a contention that has more to do with ideology than personality.
I think it’s a mixture of personality, ideology and nurture. People ultimately get shaped by their experiences and the people around them. As fucked up as it may sound Mitch McConell could have ended up as the new liberal lion of the Senate, if say his dad got a job in say Massachusetts.
 
Personal ideology is inseparable from personality. Ideology isn't just "I think X should happen", it's "what's the best way to achieve X?" and "what would I be willing to tolerate and sacrifice to make X happen?". And the question of what you're willing to tolerate and sacrifice to achieve your goals is a question of personality.
No where did I say that that’s what ideology was. I think your definition is definitely incomplete however. Take the Blair example: we can talk about his ego all we want but really that’s fairly deterministic from a historical perspective. There are many, many, many ego driven men who have spent their days languishing on the backbenches. Sure, Blair could be a Tory if he read Friedman instead of Trotsky when he was in college. But if we’re talking about him switching parties in the 80s or 90s then he’s going to the Lib Dems. By that point he’s most powerful as this Yuppie representation of neoliberal centrist politics. If he’d switch to the Tories he wouldn’t be taken seriously. After all, who wants Shaun Woodward to be Labour leader?

And at this point if personality determines whether someone is ambitious or willing to make compromises then that is a functionally pointless definition. There are academics who are ambitious but wouldn’t touch political office because they have a fundamentally different way of relating themselves to political power. Same thing with businessmen. As for a willingness to compromise, is that itself not based on what you see as ideologically important to fight for? Or if not that then what you see as politically important or feasible?

I think it’s a mixture of personality, ideology and nurture. People ultimately get shaped by their experiences and the people around them. As fucked up as it may sound Mitch McConell could have ended up as the new liberal lion of the Senate, if say his dad got a job in say Massachusetts.
Or maybe he would have languished as the longrunning GOP state senate minority leader. Or maybe he’d run a mattress company. It feels tautological to insist that powerful people now were - due to their personalities - destined to hold similar power.
 
Last edited:
Or maybe he would have languished as the longrunning GOP state senate minority leader. Or maybe he’d run a mattress company. It feels tautological to insist that powerful people now were - due to their personalities - destined to hold similar power.
Right, but a John Edwards who stays a trial lawyer (which is, I suppose, fully plausible, if not likely) is still John Edwards – a grotesque, manipulative prick who mouths populism while being profoundly self-serving. Personality is shaped by life experience and personality shapes life experience and both of these things shape politics and the execution of political power.
 
Or maybe he would have languished as the longrunning GOP state senate minority leader. Or maybe he’d run a mattress company. It feels tautological to insist that powerful people now were - due to their personalities - destined to hold similar power.
The world is way too chaotic for the great men theory. If you have some random cabinet secretary die while slipping on a banana in the eighties, at least half the House members would be different from OTL.
 
Fundamentally, a person's politics are downstream from their personalities. Personalities can be butterfliable - some people have very specific and tangible formative experiences - but you need to have very good historical justification for that personality change.
I think it’s a mixture of personality, ideology and nurture. People ultimately get shaped by their experiences and the people around them. As fucked up as it may sound Mitch McConell could have ended up as the new liberal lion of the Senate, if say his dad got a job in say Massachusetts.
Right, but a John Edwards who stays a trial lawyer (which is, I suppose, fully plausible, if not likely) is still John Edwards – a grotesque, manipulative prick who mouths populism while being profoundly self-serving. Personality is shaped by life experience and personality shapes life experience and both of these things shape politics and the execution of political power.

If I may put on my psychologist cap, for a second, we do have a working theory for this; the diathesis stress model. The 'proper' use is to do with mental health particularly schizophrenia, but I think it's generally also a good way to explain (in the broadest possible terms) the 'solution' to the nature-nurtue debate that's kind of being echoed here; it's a bit of both, innit.

Who we are is shaped by our nature (genes, hormones, perhaps you could even argue an innate "self" or personality) and also by our nurture (upbringing, formative experiences, opportunities, life experiences, stress, friends). The two are also (again, broadly; psychology is a field of asterisks) connected, in that a stresser for one person based on their nature might not be for another (e.i. the theory is that schizophrenia is caused by a gene, but one that is only triggered by stress).

This is all to say - from a psychological* perspective - that someone's personality is probably innate, but also something that would be shaped by experiences. Nevertheless, there's only so much you can polish a turd, so to speak, and some people will have more "malleable" personalities than others.

Now, taking off my psychologist cap and putting on my writer hat, ultimately this is all semantics; the actual important thing is whether changing a historical figure's personality really adds to the story or narrative or worldbuilding. Most of the time I'd argue not, at least not majorly.

(Sorry for that little meandering post, but it's nice to whip out my degrees when the opportunity is presented!)
 
Last edited:
Okay last one in the series. (Don't even want to touch the idea of a "better Constitution Party," ugh.)

Reform Party presidential tickets

1992: Ross Perot / James Stockdale (0 EV, 18.91% PV) (ran as independents)
1996: Dick Lamm / Ed Zschau (3 EV, 14.73% PV)
2000: Dick Lamm / Pat Choate (0 EV, 4.43% PV)
2004: Ralph Nader / Tom Horner (0 EV, 1.95% PV)

2008: endorsed Democratic ticket, Bruce Springsteen / Ron Sims (321 EV, 52.43% PV)
2012: federal party assets in litigation, some state parties endorsed Democratic ticket, others Republican, others did not contest
2016: Peter Navarro / Kinky Friedman (0 EV, 8.54% PV)
2020: Elizabeth Warren / Ben Kissel (294 EV, 41.53% PV)

Ross Perot and Dick Lamm should have been happy to see the Big Two adopting their arguments, but of course, the type of people to make quixotic third-party Presidential runs don’t tend to be that gracious. And maybe they were right to be suspicious. Sure, after Clinton, the Democrats turned back to protectionism, while the Republicans started really hammering on the deficit and immigration. But the Boss didn’t bring the jobs back and Brewer didn’t close the border. Americans started to agree that, as the infamous informal Reform motto went in 2016, it was time to stop buying the stepped-on stuff. It’s a good thing the party bosses were able to ward off the second round of Buchanan’s entryists in the early 2010s; could you imagine if fascists had ended up in charge of the big populist uprising?

The idiosyncrasies of the Reform movement have finally, after almost thirty years, become distilled into an American political tradition. The new President, an awkward, square Texan outsider just like Perot, represents its intellectual side: economically heterodox, fiscally conservative, but willing to bust trusts (and heads) in order to save capitalism from itself. Meanwhile, her running mate – the cheerfully profane, beer-swilling Wisconsinite, congressional scourge of the federal intelligence agencies – has a direct line to the party’s true base, the Paranoid-American community…
 
Back
Top