The Second Reconstruction-A Post-Civil War Kaiserreich USA Quest

Why do you take enough umbrage with this to keep quoting it? This is a federalist quest. If we go far enough to one side and the coalition collapses what will remain would effectively be the rump moderate face of the SPA. That would happen by trying to appease Reed after our progressive policies. The progressive policies that other members of the coalition did so reluctantly as a compromise to keep the SPA from getting bigger. Compromise involves them getting something they want too.



Because that is how quests work. If offering him a cabinet position would have not prevented it then it may as well not have been an option.




Giving him a cabinet position, or doing anything to keep them in the coalition is not mutually exclusive with campaigning in the north east or having progressive economic policies. I did not argue against those. Please read the full context of what you quoted. That part of the party was still part of the coalition and obviously not a small one to pull electoral victories. The point is that we still had a chance to keep them in.



I did not say that. It is not a false statement to say the SPA is willing to use violence for political ends. Sure they are not the same thing. Driving away more southerners from the coalition is going to put them into the AFP, which will make the civil war that much uglier in the south. Driving away more people from the coalition period by appeasing Reed is going to push even more people out of the coalition.



That is why we should take the winds out of the parties our coalition exists to oppose while preventing the coalition from collapsing.



I completely agree and that is why I have my positions. The narrower our coalition and the less we do to maintain it the worse the civil war will be.
With the understanding that saying a statement twice warrants a query, partially to minimize risk of misinterpretation, partially to deny the insinuation or insinuation that others may independently make that we've gone too far to the left. While this scenario obviously did happen...we also scored a clean win in the electoral college. This leftists shift is working pretty good for us, especially given the alternatives of a nasty congressional showdown...or actually losing the election.

This may be a hot take, but it is entirely possible for quests to offer options that are unlikely, suboptimal or even do not work. I believe their worst forms are called trap options and QM even lampshaded this on one of Olson's possible platforms for unions. Even solid options also have a roll of the dice-treating it as an absolute is ridiculous, just like stating how if we did so we would've gotten an EC landslide as an absolute. It is entierly possible that offering Byrd more stuff could've costed us the northern swing states-people, and especially the opposition SPA, will notice if we capitulate further and say we're gonna do progressive things yet include a conservative firebrand on top of relying on a cabinet sprinkled with some southerners.

I did not state that they were mutually exclusive with campaigning in the north east or even having progressive policies, nor did I ever insinuate you were arguing specifically against your combo. To be honest, it wasn't even clear to me you were arguing that as a course of direction. I also did not state the SPA is unwilling to use violence (and explicitly mentioned, or at least quoted QM examples of political violence while discussing their actions), or that saying "the SPA is willing to use violence for political ends is false". The fact it's not the same thing is quite relevant; it means they have a pragmatic streak, which means they may accept concessions-something quite useful in a civil war. At a minimum it may indicate they're not as thuggish or as brutal as the AFP. I am also aware that your argument is on offering concessions to the southern democrats and otherwise seeking to maintain the coalition. My core argument is that the former may not be necessary or may even be counterproductive, costing us a disproportionate amount of the progressives and potentially socialists in the party at the cost of a diminished southern democratic wing and the AFP. The latter is a nothingburger (though important one) with the devil in the details.

I don't understand why you think I'm misinterpreting you, I'm merely arguing against your argument. There was a reason your two posts were incorporated in full, sans the part where you stated you were pleased we won. Cutting up my post like that falls under Spaghetti posting, and is certainly of poor form while at the same time making it harder to fully understand what you're trying to argue or say.
 
Last edited:
Well, we got lucky and very narrowly won the electoral college. Unfortunately, the political violence across the South and New York will cast a big cloud over Olson's legitimacy.

There is talk of doing Reconstruction right the second time, but what would people consider doing Reconstruction right during the 1930s? We will have to look at the historiography of what would be the first reconstruction in this time period. The dominant school of thought on Reconstruction in the white American consciousness and taught in the first half of the 20th century was the Dunning School. The Dunning School claimed that Congress took freedoms and rights from qualified Whites and gave them to unqualified Blacks who were being duped by corrupt "carpetbaggers and scalawags." A critic of the Dunning School wrote that the Dunning School depicted reconstruction as "a battle between two extremes: the Democrats, as the group which included the vast majority of the whites, standing for decent government and racial supremacy, versus the Republicans, the Negroes, alien carpetbaggers, and renegade scalawags, standing for dishonest government and alien ideals. These historians wrote literally in terms of white and black." The Dunning School and the Lost Cause of the Confederacy was deeply entrenched through books, memorials, and popular movies in the minds of white Americans, even white Northerners, at this point in history.

The main rising alternate school of thought on Reconstruction at the name in academia was the Beard-Beale school in the 1930s who argued from the viewpoint of class warfare. The Beard-Beale school downplayed slavery, abolitionism, and issues of morality. It ignored constitutional issues of states' rights and even ignored American nationalism as the force that finally led to victory in the war. The Beard-Beale school painted the Civil War as almost solely a conflict between North Industrialists and the Southern Planter Aristocracy. The Beard-Beale school claimed that Reconstruction was a plot by evil Northern Industrialists and the Republican Party to control the South through using carpetbaggers and African Americans as pawns. It depicted President Andrew Johnson as a hero not for his racism but for his battle against the Industrialists. The Beard-Beale school would eventually be accepted in academia and then collapse in the 1950s when younger scholars conclusively demonstrated that there was no unified economic policy on the part of the dominant Republican Party. Some wanted high tariffs and some low. Some wanted greenbacks and others wanted gold. There was no conspiracy to use Reconstruction to impose any such unified economic policy on the nation.

All of this may seem to be racist nonsense from our modern-day viewpoint and it is indeed incredibly racist. However, these schools of thought were not written intentionally by Southern Fire-Eaters. They were written by people by people who had every intention of being fair, some of which considered themselves left-leaning progressives, and some of which who were actually supporters of black civil rights. However, their personal racism bled heavily into the works on Reconstruction. These people generally believed that Radical Reconstruction was a big mistake that worsen relations between the North and the South, and the Southerners should have been let off more lightly after the Civll War.


The modern day take on Reconstruction that it was a noble, failed attempt to introduce a genuine inter-racial democracy in the United States and that Reconstruction should have gone further was first published in 1935 by W. E. B. Du Bois in his Black Reconstruction in America, 1860–1880. This take was largely ignored until the 1960s when neo-abolitionist historians influenced by the Civil Rights movement emerged and argued that the tragedy of Reconstruction was not that it failed because Blacks were incapable of governing, especially as they did not dominate any state government, but that it failed because Whites raised an insurgent movement to restore White supremacy. If Du Bois still published Black Reconstruction in America, 1860–1880 in KTL, it would have been only one year ago and been largely ignored.

What is the point of this whole post? It would be very hard to push for some sort of Radical Second Reconstruction playing as the Federalists who by nature the status quo and more moderate faction compared to the more radical revolutionary socialists or the reactionary AFP factions. A victorious Federalist government would be under heavy pressure to do reconstruction as lightly as possible. It is going to be hard to do radical reconstruction when even many white progressives and civil rights supporters are still buying into the Dunning School and the Beard-Beale school. Another factor that might make doing a radical reconstruction difficult is the military. Many American military men of the time such as Douglas MacArthur believed that heavy handed reconstruction was a bad idea. MacArthur would carry out the occupation and reconstruction of Japan in a very soft-handed matter OTL. I think a Radical Second Reconstruction deserves an honest try, but I am under no illusion that it would be at all easy.
 
Last edited:
With the understanding that saying a statement twice warrants a query, partially to minimize risk of misinterpretation, partially to deny the insinuation that we've gone too far to the left. While this scenario obviously did happen...we also scored a clean win in the electoral college. This leftist wing is working pretty good for us, especially given the possiblity this could've been sent to congress.
My core argument is that the former may not be necessary or may even be counterproductive

But I do not think we have necessarily gone too far. I think we are at the risk of doing that. I think we will if we appease Reed. I also think "good riddance" to losing the south is a sign we may not vote to win them over. I think it is a sign we will alienate more people if we do not care for compromising in any capacity.

it means they have a pragmatic streak, which means they may accept concessions-something quite useful in a civil war

The AFP is further to the right than we are and they took an opportunity to hurt their enemies. What concessions would we offer to radicals that would not alienate the rest of our remaining coalition?

The goal should be undermining both the AFP and SPA. We cannot do that by telling everyone in our coalition who is not progressive they should be happy we are not going full syndicalist. I do not believe there are more syndicalists than liberals, centrists, conservatives, and non-AFP reactionaries in the country. We get more out of our coalition and working to broaden it than swinging to the SPA. In my opinion, appeasing Reed at the expense of our allies is counterproductive. By driving away coaltiion members, you turn them into political enemies in the civil war and drive more of them into groups like the AFP. More AFP members mean an uglier war. We got gains by undermining them both.

This may be a hot take, but it is entirely possible for quests to offer options that are unlikely, suboptimal or even do not work. I believe their worst forms are called trap options and QM even lampshaded this on one of the possible platforms for unions. Even solid options also have a roll of the dice-treating it as an absolute is ridiculous, just like stating how if we did so we would've gotten an EC landslide.

I believe the worst thing that would have happened with our cabinet offer is Byrd telling us no like he did with our reassurances. What we voted for was a more politically polite version of calling his bluff since he was not already satisfied with us.

I did not state that they were mutually exclusive with campaigning in the north east or even having progressive policies

That is the impression I got. I took "that presumes that those 56 EC votes could've also been swung at the same time we stole 99 EC votes from the swing states we campaigned in and given how close they were is borderline ridiculous" to mean we could not maintain our progressive economic policies to undermine the SPA, campaign in the north east and offer Byrd a cabinet position to secure those parts of the south we lost.
 
Last edited:
But I do not think we have necessarily gone too far. I think we are at the risk of doing that. I think we will if we appease Reed. I also think "good riddance" to losing the south is a sign we may not vote to win them over. I think it is a sign we will alienate more people if we do not care for compromising in any capacity.



The AFP is further to the right than we are and they took an opportunity to hurt their enemies. What concessions would we offer to radicals that would not alienate the rest of our remaining coalition?

The goal should be undermining both the AFP and SPA. We cannot do that by telling everyone in our coalition who is not progressive they should be happy we are not going full syndicalist. I do not believe there are more syndicalists than liberals, centrists, conservatives, and non-AFP reactionaries in the country. We get more out of our coalition and working to broaden it than swinging to the SPA. In my opinion, appeasing Reed at the expense of our allies is counterproductive. By driving away coaltiion members, you turn them into political enemies in the civil war and drive more of them into groups like the AFP. More AFP members mean an uglier war. We got gains by undermining them both.



I believe the worst thing that would have happened with our cabinet offer is Byrd telling us no like he did with our reassurances. What we voted for was a more politically polite version of calling his bluff since he was not already satisfied with us.



That is the impression I got. I took "that presumes that those 56 EC votes could've also been swung at the same time we stole 99 EC votes from the swing states we campaigned in and given how close they were is borderline ridiculous" to mean we could not maintain our progressive economic policies to undermine the AFP, campaign in the north east and offer Byrd a cabinet position
Fair enough on clarification and concern about swinging so far left as to spook actual moderates in a haze against the south, and that we're not gonna take options to at least contest the south. Tbh we did in fact kinda tell Byrd we're going to just do the same thing we promised to do/pound sand diplomatically, but we did also win the electoral college; should we so desire this should make negotiations with remaining southern dems somewhat less imbalanced, as it demonstrates that we do have at least some independent agency without them...especially when they're without major support outside a south under an AFP boot.

While not the most unreasonable thing to extract, it would've been kind of ridiculous to argue we can't do xyz when one doesn't even need to lay out how we could do said thing narratively, but can copy and paste QM player choices to do xyz. One of the points of contention is that performing said sequence of events may not have been the most optimal or necessary path forward.
 
Fair enough on clarification and concern about swinging so far left as to spook actual moderates in a haze against the south, and that we're not gonna take options to at least contest the south. Tbh we did in fact kinda tell Byrd we're going to just do the same thing we promised to do/pound sand diplomatically, but we did also win the electoral college; should we so desire this should make negotiations with remaining southern dems somewhat less imbalanced, as it demonstrates that we do have at least some independent agency without them...especially when they're without major support outside a south under an AFP boot.

I hope we can do that. I am not knowledgeable about what else 1930s southern conservatives (democrats) would care about but we can find some things that do not include racism or compromising our efforts to steal voters away from the SPA. I know I keep saying this but I think no matter how the war goes, we will see localized violence in regions that are part of the Federalists, SPA and AFP. The kind that is too small to be represented in Hearts of Iron.

In this idealized scenario where my plan somehow works flawlessly, we work on keeping the southern democrats with us. We keep them happy with other issues they care about while we continue to whittle away at the AFP. When the civil war happens they are seen as a group of extremists instead of vanguards of Dixie or whatever. After the war, the AFP and their ideology gets highly stigmatized. The south experiences a backlash against sentiments like that. While it depends on how the dominoes fall, I am confident we can get rid of Jim Crow after the civil war at the least.

The worst case scenario for the south is if we ignore it or pour gasoline on the fire. Our coalition shrinks further. In the case of the south, more whites are radicalized. The AFP swells in membership and is emboldened. further. Wide scale atrocities are carried out against black southerners. We end up with a civil war as bad or worse than the first civil war in terms of lives lost and property damage. White southerners are even more embittered from losing family members, property and suffering reprisals from losing. Reconstruction no matter how we do it gets very ugly because they will feel validated. As it gets ugly, racist whites in the other parts of the country start to side with them. The south becomes our balkans or a wasteland. I do not know if it can actually get that bad but that is why I said "worst case scenario".

The worst case scenario in general to me involves alienating more than southern democrats. That translates to more states lost through joining the SPA, AFP, seceding or getting annexed. Even if we win that we would spend most of the quest trying to unfuck the country instead of making America the next superpower.
 
I plan to get an update up today detailing the transition which I am sure will be very uneventful. Not sure if there will be a vote before the innaguration or not, still need to plan more things out but onwards towards 1937 which will surely be a better year.
 
I hope we can do that. I am not knowledgeable about what else 1930s southern conservatives (democrats) would care about but we can find some things that do not include racism or compromising our efforts to steal voters away from the SPA. I know I keep saying this but I think no matter how the war goes, we will see localized violence in regions that are part of the Federalists, SPA and AFP. The kind that is too small to be represented in Hearts of Iron.

In this idealized scenario where my plan somehow works flawlessly, we work on keeping the southern democrats with us. We keep them happy with other issues they care about while we continue to whittle away at the AFP. When the civil war happens they are seen as a group of extremists instead of vanguards of Dixie or whatever. After the war, the AFP and their ideology gets highly stigmatized. The south experiences a backlash against sentiments like that. While it depends on how the dominoes fall, I am confident we can get rid of Jim Crow after the civil war at the least.

The worst case scenario for the south is if we ignore it or pour gasoline on the fire. Our coalition shrinks further. In the case of the south, more whites are radicalized. The AFP swells in membership and is emboldened. further. Wide scale atrocities are carried out against black southerners. We end up with a civil war as bad or worse than the first civil war in terms of lives lost and property damage. White southerners are even more embittered from losing family members, property and suffering reprisals from losing. Reconstruction no matter how we do it gets very ugly because they will feel validated. As it gets ugly, racist whites in the other parts of the country start to side with them. The south becomes our balkans or a wasteland. I do not know if it can actually get that bad but that is why I said "worst case scenario".

The worst case scenario in general to me involves alienating more than southern democrats. That translates to more states lost through joining the SPA, AFP, seceding or getting annexed. Even if we win that we would spend most of the quest trying to unfuck the country instead of making America the next superpower.

We have already lost the South electorally. I say this as a fact. It was hard to say that we ever had it in the first place.

Take a moment and think about what the AFP actually is. Long is essentially an embodiment of recurrent Southern populism that has come in waves since the time of Andrew Jackson in one dictatorial power hungry package. In the 1950s and 1960s, it is tempting to think of the South as a monolithic bloc and on the issue of segregation it was but on other issues particularly in Johnson's Great Society programs, there was a severe divide between Southern politicians that were actually extremely supportive of these programs or at least tolerant of them like J. Lister Hill of Alabama, William Fulbright of Arkansas who's name some people might recognize as associated with Fulbright scholarships, W. Kerr Scott of North Carolina, etc.(Note that I am not necessarily referring to these specific politicians, few were in office at this time, but rather more the ideological tendencies they represented)

What we need to understand is that Long has already co-opted those populist elements into the AFP. What we have left are the worst of the Southern Democrats. We have the Richard Russells, the James O. Eastlands and the Harry F. Byrds. Or at least we did.

Nevertheless, the point I am trying to make is that we never had a chance of making meaningful change in the South that doesn't alienate the political establishment. Worse, we didn't even get the less shitty half of the political establishment. We got the half of the political establishment that thought the New Deal after 1937 was too much.

There flat out is not room for compromise with the Southern Democrats that would be even remotely acceptable, and even if there were, why would we do so? We would be gluing ourselves to the most morally bankrupt part of the New Deal Coalition, so we could have worse than even odds on a collection of border states that are collectively worth about the same as New York alone?

The first time America ever tried to implement universal healthcare in a modern form was in Truman's Fair Deal in 1948-1949. It never even got off the ground because the South was too busy controlling all of the Senate and House Committees that were needed to even bring legislation to the floor, let alone voting on it or trying to break the filibuster, and any power we manage to claw back out of the South by patronizing and accommodating them is absolutely marginal compared to how much potential they have to fuck shit up.

Even then, they don't have much power to offer anymore! On their home turf, running presumably a knock down drag out segregationist campaign, Long still carried the overwhelming majority of the South! The fact is that Long now has control of the machines, the courthouse cliques, and the political organizations that give you control of the South now and there is no way we could contest it by meeting the remaining conservative Southern Democrats halfway, thereby poisoning our message in the rest of the country for minuscule benefit.

I can promise you we would not have tied NYC(minus the skullduggery we committed) if we went with a more moderate platform, and no amount of moderation is going to let us meaningfully compete in the South beyond the vestiges.

To put it another way, when given the choice between JFK and Nixon in 1960, much of the South stayed in line by sub-5% margins. Even with LBJ, at the time flagbearer of the South on the ticket, Texas stayed in line by 2%, South Carolina by 2.5%, and North Carolina by 4%. Tennessee didn't stay in line at all.

Even with how lukewarm JFK ended up being on Civil Rights, Byrd still bolted and beat out JFK in Mississippi and Alabama just straight up cast half its electoral votes to Byrd anyways.

In 1964 against Barry Goldwater, riding on the back of a tremendous wave of popularity with approval ratings in the 70% range and perceived as fulfilling a legacy of JFK with the 1964 Civil Rights Act(in part a narrative set by his own actions), LBJ straight up was not put on the ticket in Alabama and was stomped throughout the deep South with Barry Goldwater, carrying Louisiana, Alabama, South Carolina, and Georgia by tremendous margins in addition to barely carrying his home state of Arizona despite Goldwater's constant campaigning gaffes.

As it stands, until the South's current political environment is totally and fundamentally altered, there is very little to gain by accommodating them and almost everything to lose.
 
The worst case scenario in general to me involves alienating more than southern democrats. That translates to more states lost through joining the SPA, AFP, seceding or getting annexed. Even if we win that we would spend most of the quest trying to unfuck the country instead of making America the next superpower.
Agreed, were playing the federalists, which means adhering closer to the status quo, which means were at risk of appeal loss constantly, our base is the moderates and going to far one way risks losing more than the radicals by far
By playing to much to one side the side were alienating will grow themselves radical, weakening us and making even those were trying to appeal to abandon ship to the very side were appealing to.

If i make sense at all let me know.
 
Even then, they don't have much power to offer anymore! On their home turf, running presumably a knock down drag out segregationist campaign, Long still carried the overwhelming majority of the South! The fact is that Long now has control of the machines, the courthouse cliques, and the political organizations that give you control of the South now and there is no way we could contest it by meeting the remaining conservative Southern Democrats halfway, thereby poisoning our message in the rest of the country for minuscule benefit.
Huh, I didn't consider it from that angle. Given that Byrd threw his punch and only succeeded in dividing the Longist South, maybe calling his bluff was the best possible choice for us. We lost the support of the Southern Democrats (four states, including Virginia), but we tied NYC and gained latitude for coopting populist and reformist platforms for however long we have until the Civil War. Which means that we may be able to undercut the SPA in the Steel Belt, and any not-diehard moderates in the South.
Actually, hold on. Can we ratfuck the AFP to any meaningful extent? If you think the answer is yes, then how would you suggest doing that?
 
I'd say we also go a bit right, with pro business policies that don't undermine our union bend, that way the corps start to go with us and abandon Long.
 
I'd say we also go a bit right, with pro business policies that don't undermine our union bend, that way the corps start to go with us and abandon Long.
Fuck that, I say we encourage assholes like Henry Ford to join up with Long, just so that we can grind him under our boot with the rest of the Southern traitors and show that not even the wealthiest men of America is above the rule of law.
 
Fuck that, I say we encourage assholes like Henry Ford to join up with Long, just so that we can grind him under our boot with the rest of the Southern traitors and show that not even the wealthiest men of America is above the rule of law.
Gonna note a weird bit of KR lore is that a syndie went after the Fords so Henry Ford already backs Long. But there are plenty others like him up for grabs, like JP Morgan or if you notice, the governor of new York is literally a Lehman as in Lehman brothers.
 
Were suppose to be federalist, not syndicalist lite
Just because we're the federal government doesn't automatically mean we have to tolerate Nazis like him.
Gonna note a weird bit of KR lore is that a syndie went after the Fords so Henry Ford already backs Long. But there are plenty others like him up for grabs, like JP Morgan or if you notice, the governor of new York is literally a Lehman as in Lehman brothers.
That's even better, because making an example of Ford will send a message to these robber barons not to interfering with our domestic agenda.
 
Last edited:
He sucks, yea but i think it would be worth undercutting Long by getting the businesses onside even if it means attracting Ford as well.
Even assuming we get them on our side, these guys will just turn on us the minute the Civil War is over, because our policies are against their financial interests. So I say we let them defect to Long, and then make an example of them once we've crushed the South's second little temper tantrum.
 
Even assuming we get them on our side, these guys will just turn on us the minute the Civil War is over, because our policies are against their financial interests. So I say we let them defect to Long, and then make an example of them once we've crushed the South's second little temper tantrum.
It would be better to get them onside to limit the power of the rebel factions in the civil war, making the enemies stronger to stroke ideological interests is counter productive. We can do far more against any regression post civil war than the destruction caused by trying to do it now. And even then wouldn't even guarantee that.
 
Even assuming we get them on our side, these guys will just turn on us the minute the Civil War is over, because our policies are against their financial interests. So I say we let them defect to Long, and then make an example of them once we've crushed the South's second little temper tantrum.
The Big Business leaders that back Long in the base Kaiserreich mod might not necessarily back Long here if we anger them too much. Some American business leaders or business friendly politicians might choose to ask the Canadians to occupy New England to protect their interests during the Civil War instead of remaining under Federalist control. They might potentially choose to back a military coup against Olson instead and we could unexpectedly end playing as MacArthur's military government or maybe Vice President Roosevelt's provisional government out of the Pacific States instead.
 
The Big Business leaders that back Long in the base Kaiserreich mod might not necessarily back Long here if we anger them too much. Some American business leaders or business friendly politicians might choose to ask the Canadians to occupy New England to protect their interests during the Civil War instead of remaining under Federalist control. They might potentially choose to back a military coup against Olson instead and we could unexpectedly end playing as MacArthur's military government or maybe Vice President Roosevelt's provisional government out of the Pacific States instead.
I mean playing MacArthur would be fun AF. All hail the Caesar, Baby.
 
This will probably come out all wrong and screwed up, but whatever, I feel like it needs to be said: please, let's not get caught up in a purity spiral here.

I agree with Ghostdevil's general point that we are the reformist center (center-left, with Olson in charge), and that we should play to our strengths. The point of our position is to compromise to the best possible starting position before the civil war breaks out, and to secure a victory that is as quick and bloodless as possible.

None of the people we'll compromise with will be purely good characters. Not the bankers, not the industrialists, not the unions, not the military, and certainly not the politicians. TTL's USA is in an even uglier state than OTL's USA was around this time, which is why the country is nearing its breaking point. If we do not navigate carefully, or get too bullish about 'purifying' our faction and the country before, during, or after the war, we may find ourselves reigning over a wasteland of a country after the civil war.

Case in point: the bankers, financiers and industrialists we have a chance to sway to our side. Are they good people, driven by pure moral impulses to create the best possible world for everyone? Absolutely not, these are business sharks, who made their way to where they are now with ruthlessness and cunning.

Why do we want these people on our side, then?

Because that same cunning and ruthlessness mean that they aren't idiots, and they realize what's good for their own self-interests. As reasonable people, they can understand that Reed's and Long's victories are bad for their self-interests. The former's for obvious reasons. The latter's because a corporatist state only has a limited number of 'designated winners,' if you will, leaving all other businessmen out in the cold. If we can make them see that we are their best bet for a profitable future, then we will have a chance to undercut our rivals and secure a faster and less devastating peace from which to push reform on a somewhat-whole country.

Now, reform and why I think this is not a dead-end path. I'm pretty confident that most of the country understands that reform is absolutely necessary at this point, and there definitely will be reform under t he Olson-Roosevelt administration (hyphenated b/c we'll lose Olson to cancer in 1939 per KR lore). Both of these candidates are strong reformers per the game. Olson's Farmer-Labor does a bunch of mixed-economy and social welfare reforms, while Roosvelt Jr. rams through the New Deal past both the SPA and the AFP if he's elected, and the country ain't filled with dummies neither. Everyone save for the Southern Democrats sees the writing on the wall and knows reform is necessary. The only question they have is what kind of reform does the country need.

Anyway, it's been a long week and the above was rant on how we should stop worrying and embrace the ratfucking centrist that lives in all of us. It's the advantage we have in our starting position, and I don't want us to lose it in a useless purity spiral.

Thank you for coming to my TED Talk.

P.S.: I did some Googling and found out that Floyd Olson is the tallest of all the potential faction leaders in the civil war. At 6'2", he is taller than John Reed (who was 6'0"-ish, as best as I can find), Dougie Mac (6'0") and Huey Long (5'10"). Thus, I propose that we resolve the Civil War through personal duels and assert our title as Warboss of America through eating our rivals. It is our right, as the biggest and the strongest of the lot.
 
Last edited:
Anyway, it's been a long week and the above was rant on how we should stop worrying and embrace the ratfucking centrist that lives in all of us.
Embrace the Centrism... which lives on in all American's something we need in these dark and uncertain times.
Thus, I propose that we resolve the Civil War through personal duels and assert our title as Warboss of America through eating our rivals. It is our right, as the biggest and the strongest of the lot.
Ahh yes the Oldest Trick in the Book, using Physical Dominance to get what you want.

Like LBJ...maybe it will be called the Olsen Persasuion or the Compromiser Comeback.
 
This will probably come out all wrong and screwed up, but whatever, I feel like it needs to be said: please, let's not get caught up in a purity spiral here.

When I was talking about potential ways to keep other coalition members on our side by helping businesses I did not name Ford. There are many business owners big and small in the country, across the country. I do not understand the idea where most most of our citizens do not have incredibly problematic views in the 1930s comes from. There is already a SPA quest that is being actively played.

Embrace the Centrism... which lives on in all American's something we need in these dark and uncertain times.

Better than going out of our way to make the coalition collapse by making no compromises.
 
Back
Top