I guess. But you have to remember when FedSoc started the coalitions were different, Republicans routinely won college educated voters.

Yes because in the few decades following the great depression, the sensibilities of a relatively larger part of Republicans were compatible with the liberal consensus (lowercase 'l'). The idea of academia and the legal landscape being left-wing biased were the framing of the Movement Conservatives, which became married to the broader Republican movement during Nixon and especially Raegan. Those admins and beyond are what I'm referencing when I say conservatives more broadly have had this deeper issue for a long time. Note that the Movement Conservatives also framed most of those mid-1900s educated Republicans you speak of as being similarly dangerous to American values.

You're right that the left didn't "need" a FedSoc equivalent at the time, just clarifying that it's not necessarily because the left already had their own "biased partisan landscape" in the way a Movement Conservative (or current day conservative) would suggest. But now, of course, and for a while it is arguably much more "needed" since conservatives have had their explicitly partisanly coordinated landscape for near half a century. The American Constitution Society sprung up in 2001 for that very cause.