AHC and WI: Hubert Humphrey stays a Republican?

[vultan]

So, was reading the wiki on HHH, and I found this interesting tidbit:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Humphrey was a Willkie Republican in 1940, but during the postwar mop-up, when old American radicals were kicked out of a newly war-enamored Left, Humphrey busily extirpated Bryanism from the Minnesota Farmer-Labor Party so that the populist FL might merge with the Trumanite hawks of the Democratic Party. “A Republican less than five years earlier,” [political scientist Jeff] Taylor notes of HHH in 1947, “he was now reading lifelong Farmer-Laborites out of the party.” The Humphrey fusionists vanquished “the traditional agrarian populists within the Minnesota Farmer-Labor Party.”[3]

So, under what conditions could Hubert Humphrey stay a Republican? Is it as easy as keeping Henry Wallace on the Democrat ticket in 1944?

If he does stay, I'd imagine he'd be a Republican very much in the mold of Harold Stassen (only maybe more successful).

Thoughts?

[Orville_third]

It's the opposite. Humphrey was writing a letter to Henry A. Wallace praising him congratulating him on becoming Commerce Secretary when FDR died....literally.
http://www.lib.uiowa.edu/spec-coll/Bai/newman.htm

[Peelitebkearns]

I didn't know that about HHH-you learn something everyday!

As you point out though, he left along with a host of other people who felt more in tune with the democrats than the republicans by the time Truman took office.

Baring this fact in mind, I think it's very dificult to mold the republicans to his satisfaction with a post 1940 pod. You may even need a TR eara pod to bring this about-as I understand it, the Democrats were in general the more conservative of the 2 parties until the 1920's.

If you get Hughes elected in 1916, a conservative democrat probably wins 4 years later and the dems oversee the 'Roaring 20's' and the Great Depression.

From there, you get a republican new deal and all that entails, meaning that HHH (and many like him) will feel more at home with the republicans.

[Zacoftheaxes]

Originally Posted by Peelitebkearns

I didn't know that about HHH-you learn something everyday!

As you point out though, he left along with a host of other people who felt more in tune with the democrats than the republicans by the time Truman took office.

Baring this fact in mind, I think it's very dificult to mold the republicans to his satisfaction with a post 1940 pod. You may even need a TR eara pod to bring this about-as I understand it, the Democrats were in general the more conservative of the 2 parties until the 1920's.

If you get Hughes elected in 1916, a conservative democrat probably wins 4 years later and the dems oversee the 'Roaring 20's' and the Great Depression.

From there, you get a republican new deal and all that entails, meaning that HHH (and many like him) will feel more at home with the republicans.

The Twenties would not be roaring under a conservative democrat, and a Republican New Deal would be a shit ton of tariffs, so that could seriously fuck things up.

[Ariosto]

Is it possible for Hubert Humphrey to lead a merger of the Republican and Farmer-Labor Parties at some point during the 1940's? Certainly more difficult, but it does provide more strength for the Moderate and Liberals within the Republican Party.

I can see Henrik Shipstead, a former member of the FL turned Republican Senator aiding in such an effort.

[Ariosto]

Building off what I said before, Hubert Humphrey I imagine in '48 would be a Harold Stassen supporter, though no notable changes would come until the Convention itself. Given his remarkable tenure to that point as Mayor, I find it likely that he would give the nominating address for Stassen in Philadelphia.

I also imagine he would meet a similar level of success in pushing for his Civil Rights Plank to be adopted into the Republican Party Platform; while the Party was not as enthused on the issue as the Democratic Party, they did not have a notable Dixiecrat Wing to contend with. Remarkable butterflies from that alone.

[TNF]

Assuming that HHH stays a Republican, he's going to be a very, very lonely Republican. Aside from his social liberalism, Humphrey was also very close to, if not, a social democrat. Not going to be easy to sell social democracy from within the party of 'free markets'.

Another interesting WI might be 'WI George McGovern stayed a Republican'?

[vultan]

Originally Posted by Ariosto

Is it possible for Hubert Humphrey to lead a merger of the Republican and Farmer-Labor Parties at some point during the 1940's? Certainly more difficult, but it does provide more strength for the Moderate and Liberals within the Republican Party.

I can see Henrik Shipstead, a former member of the FL turned Republican Senator aiding in such an effort.

Even with Shipstead, I kind of doubt it. Though I'm not an expert on the time period, I believe the main impetus for the Democrat-FL merger was because the Democrats were growing increasingly marginalized, and the vote-splitting between the two groups was obviously favoring the Republicans. There was ultimately more in common between those two parties.

[DanMcCollum]

Originally Posted by Zacoftheaxes

The Twenties would not be roaring under a conservative democrat, and a Republican New Deal would be a shit ton of tariffs, so that could seriously fuck things up.

Not necessarily. Progressive Republicans, at least up until WW1 were pro-freetrade. They believed tha by allowing foreign competition, it would break up the monopolies and trusts. Any Republican president that wouldimpliment a *New Deal would be from the Progressive Wing of the Party.

[DanMcCollum]

Originally Posted by vultan

Even with Shipstead, I kind of doubt it. Though I'm not an expert on the time period, I believe the main impetus for the Democrat-FL merger was because the Democrats were growing increasingly marginalized, and the vote-splitting between the two groups was obviously favoring the Republicans. There was ultimately more in common between those two parties.

Somewhat. The real cause of the decline of the FLP was several fold. First was the death of Floyd Olson, of cancer, which left the party without strong leadership during a verepy trying time. Second was the labor laws passed by the Roosevelt administration and the near open-war which emerged between the AFL and the CIO; a conflict which alienated the Farmer part of the Farm-Labor Party, as they fled back to their traditional home in the Republican Party. Finally was the Roosevelt recession in 38 which bay hurt the FLP which was closely associates with FDR.
After the Party was decimated in the 1938 election, Labor migrated into the Democratic Party, and the Farmers returned to the Republicans. A very similar process occured with the Progressives in neighboring Wisconsin and, to a lesser extent with rhe Non-Partisan League in North Dakota.
As to HHH, it seems that he could claim that he never left the Republicans, they left him. It's important to realize that one of his first acts after merging the Send with the FLP was to purge the radicals from the organization. HHH would still hold strong relations with the liberal and moderate wing of the Republican Party. He was good friends with Rocky and Dewey once states that (paraphrasing) "There isn't three degrees of ideology between him and us". It's one of the reasons that everytime Humphrey ahows up in a TL as some radical leftist, I find it absurd. He was, at heart, always a good Upper Midwestern Progressive.

[Cathcon1]

Hmmmm.... 1940... The popular Franklin Delano Roosevelt, after giving it much though, announces that he will not break from Washington's tradition, throwing the convention into an uproar. In the ensuing chaos, Vice President Garner is nominated along with PG James Farley for VP. On the GOP side of the river, the Republicans nominate, at long last, Robert La Follette Jr. for President and Thomas Dewey for Vice President. In the general election, La Follette beats out Garner, winning the upper west, much of the Mid-West, and the North-East, beating out Garner's wins in the South, South-West, and parts of the Mid-West. While La Follette is an isolationist, come Pearl Harbor, he vows that American will respond directly to the attack and launches us into WWI. Humphrey rallies for his Republicans and supports the war, eventually being elected to Mayor of Minneanapolis, etc. I'm not gonna try to put out a big list of Presidents, but that can start you off.

[DanMcCollum]

Originally Posted by Cathcon1

Hmmmm.... 1940... The popular Franklin Delano Roosevelt, after giving it much though, announces that he will not break from Washington's tradition, throwing the convention into an uproar. In the ensuing chaos, Vice President Garner is nominated along with PG James Farley for VP. On the GOP side of the river, the Republicans nominate, at long last, Robert La Follette Jr. for President and Thomas Dewey for Vice President. In the general election, La Follette beats out Garner, winning the upper west, much of the Mid-West, and the North-East, beating out Garner's wins in the South, South-West, and parts of the Mid-West. While La Follette is an isolationist, come Pearl Harbor, he vows that American will respond directly to the attack and launches us into WWI. Humphrey rallies for his Republicans and supports the war, eventually being elected to Mayor of Minneanapolis, etc. I'm not gonna try to put out a big list of Presidents, but that can start you off.

I like it, I really do, and see only two small problems. The first being that, as of 1940, RML Jr., was still, nominally, a member of the Progressive Party. This may not be a huge issue, however; he still associated very closely with the Republican bloc in Congress, and was seen as a liberal member (I think most assumed he went along with the Progressive Party schtick out of loyalty to his brother ... which isn't too far from the truth)
Secondly, if FDR decides not to run in 1940, I don't see Gardner as the most likely candidate; he was too conservative, and was on the outs with Roosevelt in any case. I suspect FD tries to push through a chosen successor. There has been some talk that Joe Kennedy would have been one of his first choice, which certainly would have made for an interesting election, but I feel JPK was too conservative as well. (Truthfully, one of FDR's biggest problems in OTL was that he never groomed a successor to his administration, for what ever reason.) I could see a Moderate-to-Liberal Democrat from the the middle of the country get it, with, possibly, JFK as VP to balance the ticket geographically.
In either case, I could still see LaFollette win (in many ways, he was close to FDR, who had once considered grooming LaFollette for the Vice-Presidential slot) and could argue he was the true heir to the New Deal, while lashing out against the corruption of Big City Democrats and Conservative Southernors.