WI: Democrats Nominate Garner/Roosevelt in 1932

Just like it says on the tin. What if the Democrats put Garner at the top of the ticket in 1932 instead of Roosevelt, and FDR as VP for Garner. How does this change things?

I'm not sure how feasible it is, but either his hand gets forced into doing *New Deal projects by Congress and the public at large or a Roosevelt or Huey Long primary challenge or William Borah candidacy torpedoes him in '36.

I was just thinking about this.

Say Garner squeak out a win, maybe Roosevelt has a fall that shakes people's confidence. Garner/Roosevelt win a modest landslide in 1932, but likely less that IOTL. Garner, crafty insider that he is, may give Roosevelt a more prominent role than the "buck of piss" he got - Roosevelt could be a very public figure for the Administration - still doing fireside chats and photo ops, which Garner plays the Presidential role.

Garner's election has been used as a way to make the Great Depression worse - if FDR is assassinated for example. But I do not think Garner would do nothing. The liberal and New Deal minded Joseph T. Robinson is running the Senate with an iron fist, so there will be action taken there. Additionally, liberal Cabinet members and other administration officials will take unsanctioned actions, reformers who want to get ahead even without total approval. Garner cannot veto everything his party passes.

What we may see is the delay of the Imperial presidency - with Garner taking a step back from the hand's on Roosevelt of OTL, letting Congress (which he has great backdoor influences on) have a longer leash, as they did IOTL up to this time.

So Garner has modest reforms to stop the Depression, which ironically may end up with the same final result that we saw with Roosevelt, given his recession in '37. So Garner could likely get re-elected with a modest win, Roosevelt still by his side, and have the Democrats well poised come 1940 - with perhaps the first time a Vice President running and winning - or maybe not...?

I doubt Garner would break Washington's rule of two-terms max.

First question (to statesman): how do you figure that Garner would have liberal cabinet members? He had a fairly well-established reputation as a red-baiter.

Second question (to sciscisciortino): how does Borah figure into 1936? You're perhaps projecting him instead of Landon?

Whanztastic said:

Garner's election has been used as a way to make the Great Depression worse - if FDR is assassinated for example. But I do not think Garner would do nothing. The liberal and New Deal minded Joseph T. Robinson is running the Senate with an iron fist, so there will be action taken there. Additionally, liberal Cabinet members and other administration officials will take unsanctioned actions, reformers who want to get ahead even without total approval. Garner cannot veto everything his party passes.

Click to expand...

Garner supported increased public works spending (e.g. the Garner-Wagner Act which was vetoed by Hoover) and was a long time advocate for deposit insurance (probably the most important of the early New Deal measures), so both of those definitely happen. He was skeptical that the NRA could be made to work (a justifiable skepticism as it turned out) but felt it was worthwhile to at least try it, so something like it probably happens as well. I haven't been able to ever find anything about his stance for farm price supports but given he was from the rural south it seems likely he would support them. Ditto for securities regulations. And Social Security will pass Congress by a veto proof margin regardless of whether Garner supports it or not. As such much of Garner's New Deal will be very similar to Roosevelt's.

The main differences between Garner and FDR's first term would probably be:
1) Garner is much more serious about balanced budgets than FDR was, so he will raise taxes higher than FDR did.
2) Garner is much less friendly to labor, so he probably vetos the Wagner Act. (Not sure if Congress can override that veto or not.)

Garner's tax hikes will probably leave the economy somewhat worse in 1936 than it was OTL, and labor unrest will certainly be higher, but the economy should still improve enough from the programs he did pass for Garner to win a second term.

1940LaSalle said:

First question (to statesman): how do you figure that Garner would have liberal cabinet members? He had a fairly well-established reputation as a red-baiter.

Click to expand...

Garner had a poor rep on labor relations, but he was supportive of other New Deal programs like the FDIC and even the NRA, I believe, and being from Texas he would've been more proactive about the Dust Bowl.

Edit: Ninja'd by bguy.

But yeah - Garner wouldn't be the sheer calamity some people expect.

Whanztastic said:

So Garner could likely get re-elected with a modest win, Roosevelt still by his side, and have the Democrats well poised come 1940 - with perhaps the first time a Vice President running and winning - or maybe not...?

Click to expand...

You mean, the first time a Vice President running and winning since Martin Van Buren, and John Adams and Thomas Jefferson before him?

Another weird thought - how tall is Garner?

When the assassain shoots he might be in a slightly different place - and end up shot and killed, with FDR sworn in and "saving the country" (in many minds) anyway.

Another thought - would Garner serve 2 terms? He would be 70 in 1937. Then again, he tried in '40, albeit it would have been only his first term.