Populist Presidents

[Beck Reilly]

In your opinion, who was the greatest Populist Party President of the last century? Feel free to explain why he (or she) is your choice...

Populist (People's) Party: Pro-reform, Pro-labor Party of the People

[NapoleonXIV]

Stevenson, he had a better chance than most and he was an intellectual. Non-intellectual Populists are scary.

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Populists without brains are bad.

[Beck Reilly]

What, exactly, does "brains" mean? College-educated, high-school educated, just plain intelligent? In order to have "brains," what do you have to do?

[Xen]

What, exactly, does "brains" mean? College-educated, high-school educated, just plain intelligent? In order to have "brains," what do you have to do?

First you must follow the Yellow Brick Road, and see the wonderful wizard of Oz.

[Leej]

Huzzah I guessed right (I have no idea what any of these means so voted Long- the man with the most votes)

[Grey Wolf]

Huzzah I guessed right (I have no idea what any of these means so voted Long- the man with the most votes)

Leej, lol, I like it ! Was it something about his name that made you pick him ?

I voted for Debs

Grey Wolf

[Beck Reilly]

LoL, sorry for the confusion. There has never been a Populist President of the US and, obviously, none of these men were ever elected President. I was hoping that people may explain why the ATL President's were great but that didn't really develop, so I sort of gave up...

[Grey Wolf]

LoL, sorry for the confusion. There has never been a Populist President of the US and, obviously, none of these men were ever elected President. I was hoping that people may explain why the ATL President's were great but that didn't really develop, so I sort of gave up...

Well, I kinda understood that :) I knew maybe half the names - including Wood who I am glad to see has no votes

I voted for Debs because he seems to be the closest analogue to the leaders of Britain's Labour Party or Germany's SPD

Grey Wolf

[Beck Reilly]

LoL, sorry. If you have any questions about any of them in OTL, I'd be happy to answer them.

[NapoleonXIV]

OIC

Adlai Stevenson in his two terms as President created the Liberal concensus which mainly governs the US to this day. His "Competing Ideologies' solution to the nascent Vietnam Crisis in 1958 became the model for the CoDominium Union of the US and the Soviet Union under Kennedy in 1964.

[Grey Wolf]

LoL, sorry. If you have any questions about any of them in OTL, I'd be happy to answer them.

I guess my main question is what criteria you were using - some like Bryan I recall ran on POPULIST Party platforms, whilst Debs was a socialist. Others I had thought were within the main party system ?

I don't know Weaver, La Follette, Lewis and Watson

I know I could look them up - lol, I'll probably do that anyway

Grey Wolf

[Grey Wolf]

Ah, let's see

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Debs - Socialist candidate 1900-1920

Weaver - Greenback Labour whatever that is, 1880
and People's 1892

Bryan, DEMOCRAT 1896 AND 1900

Watson - Peoples 1904 and 1908

La Folette - Progressive 1924

Stevenson - DEMOCRAT - 1952 and 1956

The others didnt stand in elections, just in the caucuses/primaries ?

btw what do you think of Perot ?

Grey Wolf

Presidential election date from :-
http://search.eb.com/elections/etable2.html
__________________

[Beck Reilly]

Yes, some of them, like Debs, Wood, and Stevenson, were within either the Democratic, Socialist, or Republican parties. My rationale is that, with the creation of a powerful Populist Party, these men's political goals will coincide with the Populist platform and they will join that party instead of the others.

James Baird Weaver - He was, simply, the Populist candidate in the 1892, and, I figure, would have been the candidate in the next two elections had the Populist Party survived.

Robert Marion La Follette, Sr. - One of the principal leaders of the U.S. Progressive movement. La Follette broke completely with the Republican Party after its 1924 convention rejected his platform proposals. He organized the League for Progressive Political Action and became its presidential candidate in the same year. With combined agrarian and labor support, including that of such organizations as the American Federation of Labor, the agrarian Non-Partisan League, and the Socialist Party, La Follette received 13 electoral votes and about 4,831,000 popular votes, badly trailing the Republican and Democratic candidates. He returned to his Senate post and died in Washington, D.C., on June 18, 1925. I figure he would have been the Populist candidate in 1924.

John Llewellyn Lewis - President of the Panama (a town in Illinois; not the country ;) )local of the United Mine Workers of America, lobbyist for the United Mine Workers (UMW), organizer for the American Federation of Labor (AFL), and vice president of the UMW. The first president of the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO). Perhaps the most colorful labor leader in America, Lewis was often the center of stormy controversy. Most labor historians both accused him of exerting dictatorial control over the UMW and credited him for the remarkable rise in the standard of living of miners between World Wars I and II. His control over the UMW also gave Lewis an important position in national labor affairs and considerable influence over the American economy; and his flair for drama and pungent statement made him a favorite source of newspaper copy. A brilliant organizer as well as a superb orator, Lewis successfully challenged the giant automobile and steel industries by means of crippling sit-down strikes. After World War II, however, his power waned as the importance of coal in the economy declined. In 1947 and 1948 Lewis was a subject of nationwide controversy as he defied newly enacted provisions of the new National Labor Relations Act that put certain constraints upon labor. He broke with the AFL in 1947 over the issue of compliance with these provisions, known as the Taft-Hartley Act, and remained one of its most consistent opponents. After his retirement as president of the UMW, Lewis continued to work as trustee of the UMW retirement fund. Probably the Populist candidate in 1928 and 1932.

Thomas Watson - A powerful orator, Watson was a Populist leader from Georgia who urged cooperation between blacks and whites. He was the Huey Long of the early 1900s. Later in his life he turned bitter and racist but I figure that won't happen in TTL. He'd have been the Populist candidate between 1904 and 1912.

Any others? Can anyone think of a possible Populist President that I'm missing?

[Beck Reilly]

The People's Party is the Populist Party. They're two names for the same thing.

Yes, some of the others, like Wood, did not gain the nomination, while some, like Long, who didn't live long enough to seek a nomination (he was assassinated) and others didn't even try (like Lewis).

[Grey Wolf]

Any others? Can anyone think of a possible Populist President that I'm missing?

Well, I guess that the only question is what happens later ? If the USA has a mainstream Populist Party which contests and wins elections, then later on it would have candidates

What about Eugene McCarthy or Robert Kennedy for example ?


Grey Wolf

[Beck Reilly]

Oh, didn't see the part about Perot.

I think that he had merit and some good ideas in his first try in 1992. At that time, the government had run up a huge deficit and it was an equally huge problem. Also, I agree with the campaign finance reforms which he wanted and health care reforms as well. I don't know why I pay more for drugs made in this country than Canadians do. Every other major Western nation has a government run health care system except the US. I don't know why it's taking everyone so long to realize that we need a change...

I think that his second attempt, in 1996, was a little less well done. I'm sorry but, no matter what you say about Clinton's personal life, he brought the nation out of record deficit and into a record surplus. Life was good and we had, seemingly, plenty of friends in the world. Now, we have a grand total of 3 and another record deficit. Anyways, in 1996, I don't think Perot was as warranted with his complaints but the morality and health care reforms that he emphasized were, certainly, good.

Sticking with the thread, I think he would have made a fairly good Populist, except Populists would be, traditionally, of a rather poor upbringing. Perot was a billionaire.

[Beck Reilly]

As for the 'future' of the Populist Party (if we lived in the 1940s), I actually see the Populists turning quite Conservative, especially if they decide to stick to their main regions of support, the south and west. In in the 1950s, I could see a war-hero running on the Populist ticket. In the 1960s I could see someone like Goldwater running, if the PP turns conservative like I suspect it might. If not, though, as much as I hate to admit it, RFK would fit in with a liberal PP. In the 1970s, I could see someone like George Wallace (if he sticks with the pro-equality stance he started his career with and does not turn pr-segregation) or, if he does turn pro-segregation, someone like Curtis E. LeMay, who was his running mate in OTL but was NOT racist. Again, if the PP does not turn conservative and does stay liberal, I could definitely see Eugene McCarthy running as a Populist.

[Grey Wolf]

As for the 'future' of the Populist Party (if we lived in the 1940s), I actually see the Populists turning quite Conservative, especially if they decide to stick to their main regions of support, the south and west. In in the 1950s, I could see a war-hero running on the Populist ticket. In the 1960s I could see someone like Goldwater running, if the PP turns conservative like I suspect it might. If not, though, as much as I hate to admit it, RFK would fit in with a liberal PP. In the 1970s, I could see someone like George Wallace (if he sticks with the pro-equality stance he started his career with and does not turn pr-segregation) or, if he does turn pro-segregation, someone like Curtis E. LeMay, who was his running mate in OTL but was NOT racist. Again, if the PP does not turn conservative and does stay liberal, I could definitely see Eugene McCarthy running as a Populist.

War heroes, ah that interesting American phenomenon. From Zac Taylor and Winfield Scot to Grant and Eisenhower, and more recently we see Wesley Clarke, lol. Of course in the earliest days you had Washington, later Jackson. The overall verdict IMHO is 50% - can hardly say Taylor did anything much, Grant is usually seen as starting good and heading into disaster, whether Jackson was good or bad depends on your point of view and maybe what you are looking at in his career

Le May... I remember him for destroying the world with a slightly different name in an alt-hist novel

Which war heroes say from WW2 were you thinking of for the Populists ? Not Eisenhower and certainly not MacArthur... What if Patton had lived perhaps ?

Grey Wolf

[Beck Reilly]

LeMay... I remember him for destroying the world with a slightly different name in an alt-hist novel

Which war heroes say from WW2 were you thinking of for the Populists ? Not Eisenhower and certainly not MacArthur... What if Patton had lived perhaps ?

No, a Populist war hero, IMHO, would probably have not been one of the higher-ranking generals but probably a no-name who won a chest full of medals. People like to be able to see an example of a regular person who do extraordinary things.

Goddamn Dr. Strangelove. If that's what your thinking of, try to block that from your mind. That movie (did they make a book?) did more to harm the reputation of Curtis LeMay that anything. LeMay was, in actuality, a rather nice person, and he was always in control of himself. LeMay was a war hero (WWII) and one of the main reasons why we did not have a WWIII (Strategic Air Command was his brain child). He certainly WAS NOT Jack Ripper (got the characters mixed up for a second) in Dr. Strangelove.

[Grey Wolf]

No, a Populist war hero, IMHO, would probably have not been one of the higher-ranking generals but probably a no-name who won a chest full of medals. People like to be able to see an example of a regular person who do extraordinary things.

Goddamn Dr. Strangelove. If that's what your thinking of, try to block that from your mind. That movie (did they make a book?) did more to harm the reputation of Curtis LeMay that anything. LeMay was, in actuality, a rather nice person, and he was always in control of himself. LeMay was a war hero (WWII) and one of the main reasons why we did not have a WWIII (Strategic Air Command was his brain child). He certainly WAS NOT Buck Turgidson in Dr. Strangelove.

Am thinking of that novel after the Cuban Missile Crisis becomes war...completely forgot its name but it was recentish and well reviewed. Theres a character in charge of SAC clearly supposed to be le May

Grey Wolf

[Beck Reilly]

Oh, you're thinking of Resurrection Day by Brendon DuBois (God there's a lot of bad crap about General LeMay out there). I enjoyed the novel but I don't believe LeMay would ever have done this in real life. In OTL, in the same circumstances, yes, LeMay argued for bombing Cuba, but, always a good soldier, LeMay followed his orders.

It's basically the same situation Douglas MacArthur found himself in in Korea.

[Straha]

politics would become a 2 party system with the populists being for labor and the republicans being pro-capitolist. Both parties wouldn't try to focus themselves on social issues in their platform and only take the issues as they come. The religious right would be the religious left(in economics but in social policy they're the same). The reasoning behind the socially conservative-economically liberal and socially lbieral-economically conservative splits is because the rivh tend to be socially liberal and alot of the blue collar unionized workers have liberal economic views and conservative social views.

[wkwillis]

In 1916 Hughes wins after 25,000 votes shift in California because of a massive advertising campaign that the US needs to arm in case either side wins the war and decides to do something to the US with all those experienced troops. The American public buys that, since a lot of them were once citizens of those European countries and know how their governments think.
The Germans discontinue the sub war because they know the Republicans (the 1916 Republicans, no resemblance to the 2004 version) are itching to start a war. The Republicans declare war without a causus belli over the objections of the Democrats and Populists. The US subsidizes the French and British by taking over their war debts to the US, bailing out the Morgan interests. They also institute a draft. Neither action is at all popular.
The Germans figure they're in trouble, so they offer the Russians a good peace treaty if they throw out the monarchy and go socialist, and the Russians take it. The German army heads west a year ahead of schedule. Italy is offered and signs a good treaty to gain the Tyrol, allowing the AustroHungarian troops to concentrate against the Entente armies in Salonika and occupy it. The French finally sue for peace after the collapse of the evacuation under aerial attack, and it's all over.
Both the Democrats and the Republicans are in deep shit with the American people. The Populist party candidate is a military veteran from the Spanish American war who had opposed the US entry into WWI, but had campaigned for the Republicans before the 1916 election on a rearming America basis. He gets only 40% of the vote, but that's more than enough considering that the Republicans and Democrats are mostly campaigning against each other. He also runs a lot of congressional and state legislative candidates and they get elected for the same reason. This gives him the clout to get several amendments passed.
The first amendment is to let women vote. That gives him victory in the next election. The second amendment is to let black people vote in the south. That loses him a lot of votes in the south, which goes solidly democratic, but with only 20% of the US population that doesn't count for much. The northern Democrats go Populist and give him 60% of the vote in 60% of the states.
The blacks give him their votes in the north and the south, but it's the north that counts, especially since one of the populist platform planks is limited immigration, which makes a lot of southern blacks move north for the jobs that would have been taken by immigrants. The income tax is used solely to pay off the European war bonds, and is only levied on the rich, mostly because they were the ones who got their war bonds bailed out. Not that it stops them from complaining.
The Europeans have a peace of exhaustion. No communists take power, but socialist parties are important everywhere, especially in German, France, England, Russia, Italy, and AustriaHungary. The minor powers are slowly pressured by threats of revolution with implicit support from the great powers. The borders are unchanged, and stay that way. Democracy and socialist ideology guarantee that minorities are treated decently.
Japan chose the wrong side in the war and is explicitly contained, losing the Chinese and Korea territories. They are less susceptible to socialist revolutions but are isolated diplomatically. They leave the world stage as a military power and concentrate on commercial success. Successfully.

[Underboss_3]

[QUOTE=Walter_Kaufmann]No, a Populist war hero, IMHO, would probably have not been one of the higher-ranking generals but probably a no-name who won a chest full of medals. People like to be able to see an example of a regular person who do extraordinary things.[QUOTE]

What about President Audie Murphy? He was the most decorated sodier of World War II. He could have been just as easily sucked into the political world rather than the world of acting.

[Norman]

No doubt, the greatest in terms of contributions to history (good and bad) - Andrew Jackson. The picture of muddy booted frontiersmen in the whitehouse is to me the ultimate 'populism'.

[Straha]

If the populists take power, the Conservative Democrats leave the party in the period 1897-1901 instead of 1972-94. The USSC votes down most of the Populist agenda and the supreme Court packing Crisis takes place four decades early. TR becomes a Democrat.

OK. 45 States at this point. Presume they push through the remaining 3. 48 states. Takes 2/3rds in Congress which they are unlikely to have. So the alternative is 3/4ths of the states asking for a new constitutional convention. New England was solidly Republican so that's six states who will not vote for it. The MidAtlantic states were not good Populist ground and labor was not firmly part of the Bryan coalition. So we are up to 9 no states. Presume Bryan between his two parties can bring in 11 Dixie states, 5 out of six on the border (everybody but Deleware), 8 Mountian States, and 4 Great Plains = 28. Iowa, Minnesota and Wisconsin are farm - industrial mixes but lean towards the populist and progressive side. If you give Bryan these three plus the two farming / lumber states of the northwest you get to 33. He would need 3 more out of California, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio and Michigan. It would have been very tough and the same courts would then have nitpicked minor discrepancies in the state by state results.

[Othniel]

Mind if I use any of this information in my Industrialist for President Timeline? BTW, shouldn't Wallace or Townsend be on here?