Probably some generic populist authoritarianism that takes inspiration from both sides. Whether this leans more towards Socialism ala Sandinista or Far-Right Nationalism ala Dixiecrats is not too relevant in the long-run. Indeed, I imagine the government would shift between the two as convenient - such as land reform due to unrest from the Dust Bowl while also maintaining the importance of Christian values.
But if you had to pick one or the other - I'd say Socialism. Between the two, I'd imagine the Socialist one would be the more stable of the two because of the "Gilead Issue." If you were to instate a White Ethnostate or Christian Theocracy stateside, you'd run into the issue of "which one though?" About a sixth of the US in 1900 was Catholic, and that number only increased with time, and the remaining consisted of various Protestant groups who all would hate the idea of the other being "the one true Christianity." Cuz imagine being Southern Evangelical and the *Lutherans* dominate society. Same with Whiteness. Are the Irish white? Are Germans white in an anglophone country? Italians? People living out in the hills of Appalachia with no discernible ancestry? These issues and more would likely cause a lot of conflict, especially as one-drop rules were common at this time. Even if these non-Anglo groups are considered the equivalent of "honorary Aryans", that still makes them 2nd-class citizens in a country they're the collective majority in. And I feel like without that line between who is White and who isn't, it'd just be the generic populist authoritarianism I was talking about earlier because it would mean white-passing minorities would be okay under this new system.
So, between the two, even if Fascism is the first to take hold - it'd be an unstable system that is supplanted by either authoritarian populism, democratic elements, or socialist elements.
Fascism but probably something closer to integralism or Mussolini rather than Naziism. American whites didn’t suffer from any stab in the back theory and already had racial dominance so they aren’t gonna obsess over that in the same way
Yeah, they really did. Read W.J. Cash’s “The Mind of the South”. It’s amazing how even during Jim Crow working class whites feared black people taking their jobs or pulling wages down.
With good reason. A new enthusiastic Black work force numbering in the millions certainly would have competed with and taken jobs from whites. It’s the lower classes that have to fight each other the hardest for jobs, for the crumbs of the poverty stricken and the working poor. More applicants for jobs means employers can be choosey and hire those who will work for less. Any group living at the bottom is going to hate and fear another group coming in for the same jobs.
During the Civil War the Irish were at the bottom of the American job barrel. Most of them feared an end to slavery because, guess why, newly freed slaves will arrive and immediately compete with the Irish for scraps.
From what I can tell, industrialized societies are far more likely to go down right-wing authoritarianism rather than left-wing authoritarianism, for some reason.
That can't be correct since fascism is fundamentally a collectivist ideology, just in a manner resembling feudalism more than socialism. Individualist greed doesn't really have a place in a state that demands total self sacrifice for the good of the nation.
Fascist philosophy actually spreads the message of we are all brothers.
Communism, and by Communism I mean post-socialist communism not how KM interchanged them, spreads the message we are all equal.
Italy was very keen on inviting, including, and integrating Jews and Africans into the state.
Nazis are not Fascists no matter how much people whine about it. They’re authoritarian occultists with a fascist vibe not fascists with a racial vibe. Muslim fundamentalists are one slight difference off Nazism in that their myth was actual history but there’s almost no difference between Nazis and something like the Taliban after that in terms of how it works politically.
Big influential firms who have massive funds will react violently to any resemblance of communism influence to conserve their power, and will back military and conservative powers that says it will stop the rise of communism.
Industrialized societies are much more likely to have those big firms.
Because Communism is primarily an Agrarian ideology that supports land redistribution and peasant collective ownership (in theory lol) so agrarian, peasant countries (like China from the dawn of civilization-1980s) are FAR more susceptible to it.
Fascism usually comes from countries who are frustrated and bitter towards the world, already have large economies and Stokes nationalism (which is why it is inherently aggressive; to right perceived wrongs), and generally follows a corporatist economic policy.
Since developed economies are also susceptible to market crashes (since they actually have an economy), this can cause a massive, sudden decrease in the quality of life for the average person (worse if combined with a harsh peace treaty cough cough Versailles cough cough), and if sustained this causes people to turn to extremist ideologies (90% of the time though it's the Right)
An industrialized society of independent and self-sufficient people would rather not have their labor taken from them and their overall agency eliminated?
Color me shocked.
I think that it turns Marx reasoning on its head. Marx, if I remember correctly, wrote that communist revolutions would begin in the industrial cities of Europe and America. He particularly saw Germany as a likely candidate for the initial revolution.
When the first revolution broke out in Russia, educated communists all over the world were shocked. Russia was a backward agricultural country with a largely illiterate population. It was about the last place they thought it would begin.
Yeah, Marx's predictions were a big bunch of baloney. He assumed that the bourgeoise in developed countries wouldn't compromise and improve working conditions, which pretty much killed any interest in violent revolution overthrowing the old world order.
Private entities using misinformation campaigns and propaganda to influence the masses you don’t need to read Marx to understand that basic historical knowledge
Toss up. But I think communism/socialism had a better internal organisation in America at the time. CPUSA had infiltrated the unions and would have swung into action quickly. However the conservative/capitalist/religious people in the country were millions strong. Catholics for example were virulently anti communist, so we’re just about all Protestants, as was Americas small military. They’d get going quickly. So it’s a tough call. There was no active fascist organisation in America in the early depression that counted for anything regarding influence and money. So it’d be, commies vs capitalists.
"inflitrated" is a really strange word to use about people joining a political party that shares their common interests... "Had a lot of support among" would be the right phrase there.
No. ‘Infiltrated’ is the appropriate word for what the communists did regarding the unions. ‘Had a lot of support among’ is inaccurate because Communists, try as they might, never gained any real power in the unions, and union members, upon learning that a communist was among them, often took matters into their own hands to… ah discourage further agitating. Communists, though present,usually secretly, never got a strong hold in American unions.
Now if everything fell apart, and millions
were on the street without hope, the communists were at least up and ready and well funded by the Soviets. If things had descended into chaos, they would probably have been the most organised, and likely would be the first to take action.
The United States is basically a dormant authoritarian society. Like Germany, we kill or exile our leftists and at worst throw our fascists into country-club prison. We like strong-&-wrong father figures.
Anyone remotely communist would have been found face down in a river. An attempted fascist would have either been imprisoned/fined, or given full autocratic powers.
Socialism/communism has never gained a real foothold in America, and has never been anywhere close to gaining power. There have been various movements over the last 100+ years and none of them have gathered anywhere near the level of electoral support necessary to enact real changes.
I think it’s just too much at odds with American culture and values. That “rugged individualism” is deeply ingrained with the vast majority of Americans, and it’s telling that no real left-wing movement ever gained traction even during periods of mass unemployment and struggle.
We are simply much more prone to right-wing authoritarianism, because Americans like simple answers to complicated problems.
Considering what 1930s politics looked like, I see a socialist route.
There were a lot of socialists running around in the 1930s.
People people blamed Hoover the Banks for the great depression so Right Eing authoritarianism would be a hard sell.
Arguably we did -- there was significant labor disputes, many of them involving violence, in the 1930s. The most successful outcomes generally were compromise outcomes which didn't result in socialist state ownership or fascist corporate rule. You had incremental (though meaningful) pay increases, working condition improvements and unionization, while firms remain privatized and still able to keep profits.
Generally I would expect outcomes like this, though you could see longer periods of more authoritarianism but focused on taming civil unrest. Though areas that leaned into authoritarianism without addressing economics likely have worse outcomes from continued labor unrest, especially if it overflows into broader civil violence.
I don't think enough people wanted a "socialist" outcome for it to happen in the US. And the US is (notoriously) hard to govern and there's numerically too few people who benefit from fascist capitalism to enforce it.
The elite right wing robber barons literally helped finance the Nazis and do business with them. Hitler Mussolini and Franco were on the cover of time magazine a total of 8 times.
Really, neither the united states most likely fall into cival war before the country slips into either ideology. The population won't stand either ideology taking complete power. Facism is straight to anti individualism which doesn't work well with American culture and socialism is way to scary for Americans to stomach red scare and stuff. Most likely cival war because of states rights you'll have states succeed over at least a facist takeover. Socialism with the wrong leadership will make stuff like the business plot happen.
Why not both? Here’s my thought….. any extremism is bad. Every once in a while they will have a good idea but it’s the middle that gets things done. Mind you, if we had a multi party system it would be best
Communist/socialist or far left economic ideologies never have and never will gain traction in developed urbanized nations when shit truly hits the fan (germany, austria, Spain, chile, Japan, portugal, and Italy are examples)
The right is generally able attract the most important groups of people within the society, men, the middle class, business owners, and the military. Any relatively organized right wing movement would ahnilate the left during times of serious political chaos
Neither. If America got to the point of changing governments then or at any time due to civil unrest--it would fall apart. It's too big for hard fascism and too divided for communism. We'd have another civil war, one which probably nobody would win.
We are in an era of explosive economic growth and general prosperity and we are choosing authoritarianism/fascism seemingly unmotivated by any external or internal threat.
The anti-socialist reactionary response has more roots in America, so I think fascism would be more likely. After all, [there was an interest](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot) in it to start with.
Yeah I feel like the general public’s perception of socialism was negative pretty much which would allow the fascist to take control fairly easily. The thing about the socialist groups in America is that they were pretty disunited especially after the Russian revolution with many becoming Bulshivek supporters and others sticking with the SocDem style of socialism. I feel like if something like the Business Plot happened and established a fascist/authoritarian government they’ll be dealing with socialist guerrilla fighters
Socialism wouldn't have worked in general within the US because the main line is all workers unite. At that time, there was immense racism against black, native, chinese, even groups we today see as white like italian.
Oh, yeah, it would be an absolute mess. But the anti-communist sentiment was more deeply woven in to society than anti-fascism was, partially because fascism was just a newer threat and already designed to harness that anti-communist fervor.
i’m sorry but rich businessman overthrowing a democratically elected government would not go well with the people, especially when fdr won every single state except one
Fascism would have won the struggle & taken power, likely with less immediate bloodshed than you'd think.
But fascism wouldn't have lasted. America would likely fracture with some fragments adopting other forms of government. THIS part would be bloody as hell. Combo of ethnic cleansing & low level yet constant harassment with the same end goal.
Fascism/Authoritarianism is the only one that has a chance in my mind. There's never been a successful communist revolution in an industrialized state so that leaves Fascism/Authoritarianism. FDR was on his way to a dictatorship by the end of WW2 if he wanted it and if he had survived, and Hoover is practically an authoritarian given what he did with the FBI while he ran it.
There are five main authoritarian camps:
Far Left Communism
Middle Left Socialism
Centrist Fascism
Middle Right Occultist/Religious Authoritarianism (the most infamous example being the Nazis, but Puritans and Al-Queda also fall into this camp)
Far Right Absolute Monarchy
Based on all of what the USA is going through, if it picked a given authoritarianism, it would be Fascism. The actual Fascism used by Italy, modified to include DEI as an integral element of the modern ideology and integrating all non-governmental bodies as governmental bodies.
There’s no way Communism is taking over. Communists need therapy to order pizza on the phone. They aint overthrowing a state.
There’s no way Socialism is getting a foothold. Social ownership of everything including the people themselves is a hard no go for Americans.
Also, Communism and Socialism are just as authoritarian as Fascism. The public hold absolute authority over you in both cases means they’re authoritarian.
Loads of people THINK the more religious evangelicals are bad, it could be sooooo much worse. Jesuits and Puritans make the absolute worst evangelical look like an atheist. And don’t get me started on Muslim or Hindu Fundamentalists. I mean, the Communists might be okay with being forced into a caste, they’re very big on not having agency and doing what others tell them to do.
Absolute Monarchy is one guy tells you what to do, and it goes down the hierarchy with each level subservient to the level above but otherwise that level’s word is law to everyone else below them. Tell Americans they can’t have guns I dare you.
Is this a serious what if? Because I don't see anything like this happening at all. The majority of people on the left and the right sides of the aisle stand for traditional American values, which are not any of the values mentioned here.
Authoritarian populism Latin American style under a Huey Long presidency is significantly more plausible
Probably some generic populist authoritarianism that takes inspiration from both sides. Whether this leans more towards Socialism ala Sandinista or Far-Right Nationalism ala Dixiecrats is not too relevant in the long-run. Indeed, I imagine the government would shift between the two as convenient - such as land reform due to unrest from the Dust Bowl while also maintaining the importance of Christian values. But if you had to pick one or the other - I'd say Socialism. Between the two, I'd imagine the Socialist one would be the more stable of the two because of the "Gilead Issue." If you were to instate a White Ethnostate or Christian Theocracy stateside, you'd run into the issue of "which one though?" About a sixth of the US in 1900 was Catholic, and that number only increased with time, and the remaining consisted of various Protestant groups who all would hate the idea of the other being "the one true Christianity." Cuz imagine being Southern Evangelical and the *Lutherans* dominate society. Same with Whiteness. Are the Irish white? Are Germans white in an anglophone country? Italians? People living out in the hills of Appalachia with no discernible ancestry? These issues and more would likely cause a lot of conflict, especially as one-drop rules were common at this time. Even if these non-Anglo groups are considered the equivalent of "honorary Aryans", that still makes them 2nd-class citizens in a country they're the collective majority in. And I feel like without that line between who is White and who isn't, it'd just be the generic populist authoritarianism I was talking about earlier because it would mean white-passing minorities would be okay under this new system. So, between the two, even if Fascism is the first to take hold - it'd be an unstable system that is supplanted by either authoritarian populism, democratic elements, or socialist elements.
Fascism but probably something closer to integralism or Mussolini rather than Naziism. American whites didn’t suffer from any stab in the back theory and already had racial dominance so they aren’t gonna obsess over that in the same way
Idk, American whites had victim complexes about other races stealing their jobs etc even back then
Yeah, they really did. Read W.J. Cash’s “The Mind of the South”. It’s amazing how even during Jim Crow working class whites feared black people taking their jobs or pulling wages down.
With good reason. A new enthusiastic Black work force numbering in the millions certainly would have competed with and taken jobs from whites. It’s the lower classes that have to fight each other the hardest for jobs, for the crumbs of the poverty stricken and the working poor. More applicants for jobs means employers can be choosey and hire those who will work for less. Any group living at the bottom is going to hate and fear another group coming in for the same jobs. During the Civil War the Irish were at the bottom of the American job barrel. Most of them feared an end to slavery because, guess why, newly freed slaves will arrive and immediately compete with the Irish for scraps.
From what I can tell, industrialized societies are far more likely to go down right-wing authoritarianism rather than left-wing authoritarianism, for some reason.
[удалено]
That can't be correct since fascism is fundamentally a collectivist ideology, just in a manner resembling feudalism more than socialism. Individualist greed doesn't really have a place in a state that demands total self sacrifice for the good of the nation.
[удалено]
Your description of fascism can easily apply equally to communism though.
Fascist philosophy actually spreads the message of we are all brothers. Communism, and by Communism I mean post-socialist communism not how KM interchanged them, spreads the message we are all equal. Italy was very keen on inviting, including, and integrating Jews and Africans into the state. Nazis are not Fascists no matter how much people whine about it. They’re authoritarian occultists with a fascist vibe not fascists with a racial vibe. Muslim fundamentalists are one slight difference off Nazism in that their myth was actual history but there’s almost no difference between Nazis and something like the Taliban after that in terms of how it works politically.
Big influential firms who have massive funds will react violently to any resemblance of communism influence to conserve their power, and will back military and conservative powers that says it will stop the rise of communism. Industrialized societies are much more likely to have those big firms.
Because Communism is primarily an Agrarian ideology that supports land redistribution and peasant collective ownership (in theory lol) so agrarian, peasant countries (like China from the dawn of civilization-1980s) are FAR more susceptible to it. Fascism usually comes from countries who are frustrated and bitter towards the world, already have large economies and Stokes nationalism (which is why it is inherently aggressive; to right perceived wrongs), and generally follows a corporatist economic policy. Since developed economies are also susceptible to market crashes (since they actually have an economy), this can cause a massive, sudden decrease in the quality of life for the average person (worse if combined with a harsh peace treaty cough cough Versailles cough cough), and if sustained this causes people to turn to extremist ideologies (90% of the time though it's the Right)
An industrialized society of independent and self-sufficient people would rather not have their labor taken from them and their overall agency eliminated? Color me shocked.
I think that it turns Marx reasoning on its head. Marx, if I remember correctly, wrote that communist revolutions would begin in the industrial cities of Europe and America. He particularly saw Germany as a likely candidate for the initial revolution. When the first revolution broke out in Russia, educated communists all over the world were shocked. Russia was a backward agricultural country with a largely illiterate population. It was about the last place they thought it would begin.
Yeah, Marx's predictions were a big bunch of baloney. He assumed that the bourgeoise in developed countries wouldn't compromise and improve working conditions, which pretty much killed any interest in violent revolution overthrowing the old world order.
Yes. That’s right as well. I should have included it.
Private entities using misinformation campaigns and propaganda to influence the masses you don’t need to read Marx to understand that basic historical knowledge
If that's what you want to tell yourself.
I think if anyone tried to do communism to any significant degree, there would be a Business Plot 2 and we’d end up with fascism anyway
Toss up. But I think communism/socialism had a better internal organisation in America at the time. CPUSA had infiltrated the unions and would have swung into action quickly. However the conservative/capitalist/religious people in the country were millions strong. Catholics for example were virulently anti communist, so we’re just about all Protestants, as was Americas small military. They’d get going quickly. So it’s a tough call. There was no active fascist organisation in America in the early depression that counted for anything regarding influence and money. So it’d be, commies vs capitalists.
Big firms would swiftly back any non-communist faction to keep their hold on the economy. And america had plenty of those.
Yes, no doubt about it. They certainly won’t support communists.
"inflitrated" is a really strange word to use about people joining a political party that shares their common interests... "Had a lot of support among" would be the right phrase there.
No. ‘Infiltrated’ is the appropriate word for what the communists did regarding the unions. ‘Had a lot of support among’ is inaccurate because Communists, try as they might, never gained any real power in the unions, and union members, upon learning that a communist was among them, often took matters into their own hands to… ah discourage further agitating. Communists, though present,usually secretly, never got a strong hold in American unions. Now if everything fell apart, and millions were on the street without hope, the communists were at least up and ready and well funded by the Soviets. If things had descended into chaos, they would probably have been the most organised, and likely would be the first to take action.
We're going to have 2 sided civil war between Syndicalist North led by Haywood and Authoritarian South led by Long
The United States is basically a dormant authoritarian society. Like Germany, we kill or exile our leftists and at worst throw our fascists into country-club prison. We like strong-&-wrong father figures. Anyone remotely communist would have been found face down in a river. An attempted fascist would have either been imprisoned/fined, or given full autocratic powers.
Definitely authoritarianism. Hard to say which economic theory they'd spout though
Socialism/communism has never gained a real foothold in America, and has never been anywhere close to gaining power. There have been various movements over the last 100+ years and none of them have gathered anywhere near the level of electoral support necessary to enact real changes. I think it’s just too much at odds with American culture and values. That “rugged individualism” is deeply ingrained with the vast majority of Americans, and it’s telling that no real left-wing movement ever gained traction even during periods of mass unemployment and struggle. We are simply much more prone to right-wing authoritarianism, because Americans like simple answers to complicated problems.
Considering what 1930s politics looked like, I see a socialist route. There were a lot of socialists running around in the 1930s. People people blamed Hoover the Banks for the great depression so Right Eing authoritarianism would be a hard sell.
Arguably we did -- there was significant labor disputes, many of them involving violence, in the 1930s. The most successful outcomes generally were compromise outcomes which didn't result in socialist state ownership or fascist corporate rule. You had incremental (though meaningful) pay increases, working condition improvements and unionization, while firms remain privatized and still able to keep profits. Generally I would expect outcomes like this, though you could see longer periods of more authoritarianism but focused on taming civil unrest. Though areas that leaned into authoritarianism without addressing economics likely have worse outcomes from continued labor unrest, especially if it overflows into broader civil violence. I don't think enough people wanted a "socialist" outcome for it to happen in the US. And the US is (notoriously) hard to govern and there's numerically too few people who benefit from fascist capitalism to enforce it.
When the pendulum swings back there will be a major opportunity for a progressive, populist, demagogue.
Socialism/communism goes against the core of what the US stands for. I just don’t see anyway it would have went down that path.
The reactionary right fascists robber barons tried to overthrow him in 1934 albeit for smedley butler.
The elite right wing robber barons literally helped finance the Nazis and do business with them. Hitler Mussolini and Franco were on the cover of time magazine a total of 8 times.
Really, neither the united states most likely fall into cival war before the country slips into either ideology. The population won't stand either ideology taking complete power. Facism is straight to anti individualism which doesn't work well with American culture and socialism is way to scary for Americans to stomach red scare and stuff. Most likely cival war because of states rights you'll have states succeed over at least a facist takeover. Socialism with the wrong leadership will make stuff like the business plot happen.
All of the communist countries I can think of were authoritarian. It's a false dichotomy
Why not both? Here’s my thought….. any extremism is bad. Every once in a while they will have a good idea but it’s the middle that gets things done. Mind you, if we had a multi party system it would be best
Communist/socialist or far left economic ideologies never have and never will gain traction in developed urbanized nations when shit truly hits the fan (germany, austria, Spain, chile, Japan, portugal, and Italy are examples) The right is generally able attract the most important groups of people within the society, men, the middle class, business owners, and the military. Any relatively organized right wing movement would ahnilate the left during times of serious political chaos
Neither. If America got to the point of changing governments then or at any time due to civil unrest--it would fall apart. It's too big for hard fascism and too divided for communism. We'd have another civil war, one which probably nobody would win.
We are in an era of explosive economic growth and general prosperity and we are choosing authoritarianism/fascism seemingly unmotivated by any external or internal threat.
Likely it would have been a facist dictatorship under Roosevelt
The anti-socialist reactionary response has more roots in America, so I think fascism would be more likely. After all, [there was an interest](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot) in it to start with.
Yeah I feel like the general public’s perception of socialism was negative pretty much which would allow the fascist to take control fairly easily. The thing about the socialist groups in America is that they were pretty disunited especially after the Russian revolution with many becoming Bulshivek supporters and others sticking with the SocDem style of socialism. I feel like if something like the Business Plot happened and established a fascist/authoritarian government they’ll be dealing with socialist guerrilla fighters
Socialism wouldn't have worked in general within the US because the main line is all workers unite. At that time, there was immense racism against black, native, chinese, even groups we today see as white like italian.
Oh, yeah, it would be an absolute mess. But the anti-communist sentiment was more deeply woven in to society than anti-fascism was, partially because fascism was just a newer threat and already designed to harness that anti-communist fervor.
i’m sorry but rich businessman overthrowing a democratically elected government would not go well with the people, especially when fdr won every single state except one
I don't think any kind of overthrow of the government is going to go well with the people, but that wasn't OP's question.
Okay completely fascism. We're already fighting it.
Fascism would have won the struggle & taken power, likely with less immediate bloodshed than you'd think. But fascism wouldn't have lasted. America would likely fracture with some fragments adopting other forms of government. THIS part would be bloody as hell. Combo of ethnic cleansing & low level yet constant harassment with the same end goal.
Fascism/Authoritarianism is the only one that has a chance in my mind. There's never been a successful communist revolution in an industrialized state so that leaves Fascism/Authoritarianism. FDR was on his way to a dictatorship by the end of WW2 if he wanted it and if he had survived, and Hoover is practically an authoritarian given what he did with the FBI while he ran it.
FDR certainly looked like a President-for-Life.
There are five main authoritarian camps: Far Left Communism Middle Left Socialism Centrist Fascism Middle Right Occultist/Religious Authoritarianism (the most infamous example being the Nazis, but Puritans and Al-Queda also fall into this camp) Far Right Absolute Monarchy Based on all of what the USA is going through, if it picked a given authoritarianism, it would be Fascism. The actual Fascism used by Italy, modified to include DEI as an integral element of the modern ideology and integrating all non-governmental bodies as governmental bodies. There’s no way Communism is taking over. Communists need therapy to order pizza on the phone. They aint overthrowing a state. There’s no way Socialism is getting a foothold. Social ownership of everything including the people themselves is a hard no go for Americans. Also, Communism and Socialism are just as authoritarian as Fascism. The public hold absolute authority over you in both cases means they’re authoritarian. Loads of people THINK the more religious evangelicals are bad, it could be sooooo much worse. Jesuits and Puritans make the absolute worst evangelical look like an atheist. And don’t get me started on Muslim or Hindu Fundamentalists. I mean, the Communists might be okay with being forced into a caste, they’re very big on not having agency and doing what others tell them to do. Absolute Monarchy is one guy tells you what to do, and it goes down the hierarchy with each level subservient to the level above but otherwise that level’s word is law to everyone else below them. Tell Americans they can’t have guns I dare you.
Neither. Both are evil and align more with one side. Despite that exact side saying otherwise.
I don't see two choices, they're both the same, taken to logical conclusion
Is this a serious what if? Because I don't see anything like this happening at all. The majority of people on the left and the right sides of the aisle stand for traditional American values, which are not any of the values mentioned here.