A Robert Taft Presidency (1953-1961)

I was prompted to put up this thread when someone I know said "the closest we've ever gotten to President Ron Paul was when Taft nearly became the Republican candidate in 1952."

So. We've had several discussions on Robert Taft, but not quite like this. We've had some scenarios floated where he is elected in the early-to-mid forties (most infamously in For All Time), but that was mostly to put an isolationist in office either right before or right after WWII to create a more dangerous world, either with Nazis or Communists. Also, we've had some timelines where he is elected in 1952, but that is so he can die on time in 1952 for some other character to take the office (I've seen it done with Douglas MacArthur and Joseph McCarthy, among others).

ANYWAY, what I'm asking is how a Robert Taft who was elected in 1952, and subsequently reelected in 1956 (we use mild ASBs to handwave away his cancer) would govern the country. This is NOT a discussion on how he beats Eisenhower or why Ike doesn't jump in, or how he beats Truman/Kefauver/Stevenson/whoever. This is also NOT a conversation on who his running mate. Neither of those is important.

How would a President who was leader of the Conservative Coalition at the height of the Liberal Consensus lead the country. A champion of the Old Right who was opposed to the New Deal and and isolationist at best reluctant to support Truman on foreign policy. How would the development of NATO go? Domestically, how would he be? What would the long-term affects be?

Discuss.
 
A good question, actually. In 1952, the United States is in the midst of the Korean War, and i could see Taft trying to negotiate an end to it (the problem, of course, is that Taft was as diplomatic as a rock). One of the things that I've always respected about Taft is that sheer facts could, on occasion, overrule his ideology. Although he may take moves to limit many of the New Deal policies (I could see him selling off the TVA, for instance) I don't think he'd be foolish enough to take any real steps against Social Security, for instance.
The wave of strikes which hit the country in the post-war era were dying off (although several were still strong, such as the Kohler strike in Wisconsin), and i don't think he'd push for any stricter restriction on Union rights than Taft-Hartley, but he certainly wouldn't look favorably on Unionism in the US.
Honestly? Sans the Cancer, I think Taft would have followed his Father as a one-term president. Although he might not openly attack any of the sacred cows of the New Deal, he is going to try to cause waves (look at his leadership during the 'Do Nothing' congress, where he flippantly set aside public opinion to do what 'he thought was right'.) I could see him pissing off all the wrong people, and we suddenly end up with President Stevenson or Kefauver in 1956.
 
A good question, actually. In 1952, the United States is in the midst of the Korean War, and i could see Taft trying to negotiate an end to it (the problem, of course, is that Taft was as diplomatic as a rock). One of the things that I've always respected about Taft is that sheer facts could, on occasion, overrule his ideology. Although he may take moves to limit many of the New Deal policies (I could see him selling off the TVA, for instance) I don't think he'd be foolish enough to take any real steps against Social Security, for instance.
The wave of strikes which hit the country in the post-war era were dying off (although several were still strong, such as the Kohler strike in Wisconsin), and i don't think he'd push for any stricter restriction on Union rights than Taft-Hartley, but he certainly wouldn't look favorably on Unionism in the US.
Honestly? Sans the Cancer, I think Taft would have followed his Father as a one-term president. Although he might not openly attack any of the sacred cows of the New Deal, he is going to try to cause waves (look at his leadership during the 'Do Nothing' congress, where he flippantly set aside public opinion to do what 'he thought was right'.) I could see him pissing off all the wrong people, and we suddenly end up with President Stevenson or Kefauver in 1956.

Well, for the sake of discussion let's assume he pulls a (teehee) Harry Truman in 1956.

Honestly, how would the Republican Party look with an earlier takeover by the conservatives? Assuming Barry Goldwater still gets elected to the Senate, foreign policy aside he is Taft's successor. What happens to the Dewey/Rockefeller wing?

Speaking of foreign policy, I don't claim to be familiar with the nitty-gritty details of how Ike dealt with it, but this occurred to me. As much as he was supposed to be the internationalist to Taft's isolationist, we're talking about the guy who pulled out of Korea, didn't intervene in Indochina and Hungary, and told the Europeans where to get off over Suez. Honestly, how much different could Taft be?
 
Well, for the sake of discussion let's assume he pulls a (teehee) Harry Truman in 1956.

Honestly, how would the Republican Party look with an earlier takeover by the conservatives? Assuming Barry Goldwater still gets elected to the Senate, foreign policy aside he is Taft's successor. What happens to the Dewey/Rockefeller wing?

Speaking of foreign policy, I don't claim to be familiar with the nitty-gritty details of how Ike dealt with it, but this occurred to me. As much as he was supposed to be the internationalist to Taft's isolationist, we're talking about the guy who pulled out of Korea, didn't intervene in Indochina and Hungary, and told the Europeans where to get off over Suez. Honestly, how much different could Taft be?


very different. You're conflating military interventionism with internationalism. Ike was actually kind of dovish when it came to actual military interventions, but still bought into the Cold War consensus and active international engagement. Ike opposed the Suez adventure out of anti-imperialism, not isolationism, and opposed intervention in Hungary out of pragmatism. Taft was basically an "America Firster" who was an old-style isolationist.

As for the GOP, if we're going ASB enough to allow Robert Taft a two-term presidency in the fifties, I'm going to assume the conservative wing becomes dominant much earlier, unless Taft finishes very unpopular, and is discredited by 1960 when the GOP loses badly like GW Bush in '08 or something.
 
Robert Taft would have to pull a Harry Truman in '52. However it's worth noting Truman thought he would have been a harder opponent than Dewey. He would actually fight an election. I don't see him winning in '56.

Foreign policy wise? Taft keeps the Truman precedent of not couping democracies that elect leftists. No Ajax, no Guatemala. No helping French in Vietnam. Suez goes unpunished.

Eisenhower was bad at foreign policy because he was too hawkish. His ineptness there is similar to Clinton: not that good at it but the economy's booming, so it's fine. Taft would be a disaster because his foreign policy would be way too dovish. McGovern was a greater hawk than the man. However, there is possibility for growth. Later in life he supported social security, the GI Bill, and I believe federal subsidies for housing.
 
Robert Taft would have to pull a Harry Truman in '52. However it's worth noting Truman thought he would have been a harder opponent than Dewey. He would actually fight an election. I don't see him winning in '56.

Well, for the sake of discussion, we're assuming he gets two terms.
 
i think that just as Taft would have to accept Social Security, he would have to accept an active US leadership in the anti communist alliance. s So his foreign policy would not be different than Eisenhower. I assume Dulles would be his secretary of state.
 
America was just not that conservative in that time period too have some one like Taft in the White House. But say he gets the GOP nomination in 52, does Truman change his mind and run? Or better yet does Ike run has a Democrat? Eisenhower did not think much of Taft. Lets say Taft beats Stevenson in 52. I can see the Democrats getting Eisenhower to run against Taft in 56. Taft is a nightmare, he like Ron Paul and company believe their kooky ideas would work. If not Ike in 56 who would the Democrats run in 56? Not Stevenson no one thought the could beat Ike so no one cared who got the 56 nomination. So I throw out a wild card. Eleanor Roosevelt. I know lots will say America is not ready for a woman in 56. But they are not ready at any time for a person like Taft. ER pounds Taft in 56.
 

bguy

Donor
Taft would be a disaster because his foreign policy would be way too dovish. McGovern was a greater hawk than the man.

What specific foreign policy disaster do you see happening in a Taft administration? He favored supporting Taiwan, so he isn't going to let it be conquered. NATO will certainly be weaker, but given the US preponderance in atomic weapons at this time, the Soviets wouldn't risk invading Western Europe even if there were no US soldiers on the continent. Nor is Taft just going to up and pull out of Korea (at least not while the fighting is ongoing). The army will certainly end up signficiantly smaller, but that may make us less likely to get drawn into Vietnam in the '60s.

However, there is possibility for growth. Later in life he supported social security, the GI Bill, and I believe federal subsidies for housing.

He supported federal aid to education and federal funding for hosptial construction as well.
 
Top