We should first set up how we would like to proceed with this. Should we go by month by month? Should we decide who's going to be included in the cabinet and government and then progress from there? How?
Freshman with a Reputation
Monday, Jul. 18, 1949
Had Thomas E. Dewey been elected President, John Foster Dulles would probably have been his Secretary of State. Last week Governor Dewey did the next best thing for his longtime friend and adviser: he appointed Dulles to succeed retiring U.S. Senator Robert F. Wagner.
Dulles, vacationing on Main Duck Island in Ontario, flew to New York to talk things over with the governor, then continued on to Washington to take his Senate seat. For a freshman Senator, the new arrival had an impressive background. As a top-flight international lawyer, official Republican Party foreign-policy adviser and member of the U.S. delegation to the United Nations, junior Senator Dulles already had a reputation that many a senior Senator would never attain. In his first senatorial statement, Dulles announced his support of the Atlantic pact and an arms program to back it up, but reserved decision on how much should be spent on arms. Dulles will serve until December 1. He told reporters that he had "no expectation" of becoming a candidate in the special November election to pick a successor for the remainder of Wagner's term, which expires in 1951.
He is for: most New Deal social reforms; a federal FEPC; Government support of farm prices (but "not high enough to make production controls necessary"); lower federal taxes; a balanced budget; strong national defense; universal military training; union of Western Europe; the Truman Doctrine; equal attention to the problems of the Orient; partition of Palestine; admission of D.P.s to the U.S.
He has changed his mind: on reciprocal trade agreements (from and to pro); on labor legislation (from pro-Wagner Act to pro-Taft-Hartley); on internationalism (from "keep completely out of the affairs of Europe" to broad U.S. participation in world affairs).
Monday, Nov. 15, 1948
Oats for My Horse
The news went around the world with the speed of light: the owlish little man in spectacles—not the fellow with the mustache—had won the U.S. election after all. And the experts, including especially all the American experts with their wonderful, scientific slide-rule assurance, had been grievously, laughably wrong. The world, cheering for a miracle of any kind, loosed a 'delighted, friendly roar.
Grins & Giggles. In Mexico City, Bullfighter Paco Gorraez heard the news in a cafe. "By God," he said, "but the old owl can really fly!" Then he strode across the café, confronted TIME Reporter Rafael Delgado Lozano, who had persuaded him not to bet on Harry Truman. Expertly, he punched Expert Lozano in the nose.*
. At the U.N. meetings in Paris, word that Tom Dewey had conceded came just as delegates were voting on the rights of non-self-governing territories. Russia's Andrei Vishinsky and the Ukraine's Dmitri Manuilsky were so startled that (until they corrected themselves) they both voted yes instead of no. "Amazing, amazing," was all Vishinsky could say.
' In Munich, Publisher Felix Buttersack moaned: "What shall I do?" Two hours after the polls closed, his newspaper, Merkur, had scooped Bavaria with the headline: THOMAS E. DEWEY—AMERICA'S NEW PRESiDENT.† Merkur carried a vivid account of how the victorious Governor Dewey had thanked the people in a radio address. Buttersack said he had simply trusted the polls. "What," added Felix Buttersack, "is Dr. Gallup going to do?"
The Paris newspaper Le Figaro had advice on that question. Learnedly snatching a line from Henri IV (to the Duc de Crillon), it paraphrased in headlines: BRAVE GALLUP, Go HANG YOURSELF. But the French were not so severe about it as that sounded.
The President of France did not say a word as the results came in; he just grinned. Plump Vincent Auriol was an old campaigner himself. "Toward the end," a member of his staff confided, "he was giggling." In Rio de Janeiro, 0 Mundo, called Harry Truman's victory "the most sensational news since the launching of the atomic bomb." In London (though U.S. shares dipped), British stocks went up. London's socialist Tribune took credit for not being too greatly surprised, republished a July cartoon showing Harry Truman feeling fine.
"Victory in 1950." Western Europe had its own reasons for the way it felt. Very few people had any grudge against Tom Dewey. A lot of Europeans were just like Premier Themistocles Sophoulis in Athens,-who said: "Somehow I feel I know President Truman. Governor Dewey might have been equally good, but I would have to learn that first." In Switzerland the eminent Gazette de Lausanne decided that "the victory of Truman is really the victory of Marshall."
That statement was an alpine oversimplification, but it revealed what Europeans were grateful about. To some, Harry Truman was the embodiment of the Truman Doctrine; to others he was "the Marshall Plan President." Europe now felt sure that those policies would continue, and that there would be no anxious waiting period while a new administration made up its mind.
The election results led to other oversimplifications. Said a Dutch milkman, hitching up his leather apron: "I am glad —my horse will get more Marshall oats."
Quite apart from more oats, Western European Socialists were jubilant to think that the U.S. was not "swinging right." In France, Socialists were already telling themselves that it was "a triumph for the international third force," that it would diminish the chances of General Charles de Gaulle returning to power (see FOREIGN NEWS). British Socialists were more cautious, but they thought it meant fewer strings attached to ECA aid. Undeterred by the downfall of other prophets, one prominent Laborite gleefully predicted: "This assures a Labor victory in 1950."**
"Flower of the Nation." To some nations, the results brought dismay. It had been Tom Dewey, after all, who had insisted on more help to the sagging government of China. "Next January," Chinese had told themselves, "will be the turning point." Last week, as Nanking read the bitter bulletins from Manchuria and the north (see FOREIGN NEWS), it received a depressing dispatch from Washington: "There is little reason to believe that President Truman's astonishing victory will affect greatly the Democratic administration's existing China policy."
The Japanese were confused. Lamented one Japanese: "We have just picked a new Prime Minister and a cabinet on the basis of a Dewey election . . ."
For Communists everywhere, the upset meant a frenzied scramble for a new pitch. The Moscow radio clapped a hand over its own mouth for more than 24 hours. Excited Communists in Frankfurt tacked up a candid sign on the door to their conference room: "Meeting scheduled for today has been postponed because of Truman's election." Explained a harassed party official: "We have suspended scheduled activities for today, awaiting new orders."
The new orders finally came. Truman, said Moscow, was not the biggest warmonger after all. Who had advanced "a frankly reactionary and aggressive program?" Said Foreign Minister Molotov last week: Tom Dewey. And what did the U.S. elections mean? Said Molotov: "A majority of the Americans rejected this program." And what of the surprisingly small number of Americans who had voted for Henry Wallace? Said Moscow: "The flower of the nation. Each ... is worth more in moral authority . . . than 100 voting robots."
The Russians sounded grumpy, as if they just could not enjoy political surprises. But most others found it a rather relaxing interlude in a tough year—even the Scots, who also take politics seriously. Said one dour Scotsman who found himself in London last week: "I thought something silly like this might happen. I hope it won't go to the puir wee mon's head."
*Cabled TIME'S Mexico City Correspondent John Stanton: "Let this be a lesson to all of us."
† For news of other Felix Buttersacks, see PRESS.
** Or, if Britons chose, they could read the latest findings of the British Gallup poll, which showed that the Labor Party had sunk to a new low last month: Tories, 48%; Labor, 41%; Liberals, 10%; Others, 1%. Last week some wags persisted in regarding these findings as "good news for Attlee."
Even as we carry forward our program and this is the fourth major objective, to restore and strengthen and unify the free nations of Europe, we shall bring an end to the tragic neglect of our ancient friend and ally, China. The menace to peace is world-wide and our efforts to create a peace must also be world-wide. As the last war taught so clearly, a two-ocean navy is essential, so also it is perfectly clear that we can and we will, recognize the obvious truth that we need a two-ocean foreign policy.
The United States and Communist Russia confront each other across a devastated and divided Europe. What is needed is a third great, peaceful power which will be so strong that no despotic ruler of a totalitarian nation will think the cause of freedom so weak that he dares to wage war. What is needed is to restore stability in the world through a united Europe-a strong third power devoted to the cause of peace. What is needed is a united states of Europe.
In shaping our foreign policy from now on, I intend that we shall continuously, unfailingly, every day remember the lesson of Munich. However deeply we desire peace we cannot buy peace with appeasement. That course has always led throughout history and always will lead to greater and greater demands on the part of the aggressor. In the end it can lead only to slavery or to war.
At a dozen points in a half-dozen years of the Nineteen Thirties Winston Churchill reminds us, the freedom-loving nations could have stopped the piecemeal aggression which finally set the whole world aflame. The naked tragedy of it all is that in those fateful years the free nations seemed to lack the understanding, and the decision and the leadership to do what was necessary until it was too late. I say with the deepest of conviction: that must not happen again.
But all is not rosy for the Republicans, and all hope is not lost for the Democrats.
He insists that the newly united Republic of Korea is in danger due to the Chinese threat above it, an unstable creation of Dewey's where communist insurgents still operate in the North and where Communists stand for office in Soviet demanded elections.
They realize Dewey won the election by their splitting of the Democratic Party and are fearful of another split.
The unions are angry too. FDR's support has been withdrawn under Dewey. His ending of the 1952 Steel-Workers Strike, while ending in higher wages and a return to work, did not meet all of the union's demands and was viewed as heavy-handed, with the use of federal troops to secure facilities (as this was in the closing days of the war).
Then there are the witch-hunters, McCarthy and Nixon. Democrats have latched on to McCarthy's more outrageous comments and have lamented the change in the Dewey who once said: "You can't kill an idea with a bullet."
Careful or it'll go all South Vietnam on ya.
Just how important was the South to the GOP at the time, anyways?
Teddy Roosevelt would have approved that solution.
This inquisition is going to backfire, you just wait and see.
In 1953, Warren was appointed Chief Justice of the United States by President Dwight D. Eisenhower, who wanted a conservative justice and commented that "he represents the kind of political, economic, and social thinking that I believe we need on the Supreme Court ... He has a national name for integrity, uprightness, and courage that, again, I believe we need on the Court".[11] Warren resigned from the governorship shortly afterwards, replaced by Lieutenant Governor Goodwin Knight.
Warren's nomination was caused in part by his support for Eisenhower in the 1952 campaign, although whether an explicit deal was ever in place is not known. Warren stood as a "favorite son" candidate of California for the Republican nomination in 1952 but withdrew in support of Eisenhower. Warren also provided crucial campaigning service to Eisenhower in California after Vice Presidential Candidate Richard Nixon was weakened by controversy over an alleged "slush fund".
I really hope we get more people who have a knowledge of 1950s America (and the world) to post here. I'm interested in all of the political, cultural, and social butterflies that would result from all of this.
Just off the bat, I think the super-McCarthyism is going to take its toll on society. I kind of wonder if they'll find actual moles and spies, though. Maybe Arthur Miller's play will be set in a period even darker than the Salem trials. But maybe it won't be super-McCarthyism, since McCarthy will be a member of the ruling establishment now, and there will be measures in place to keep him from becoming too strident.
I kind of wonder how Dewey's racial reforms compared to OTL Truman's. In any case, racial politics will be complicated if the liberal wing of the Dems are defeated in the nominations. Will that cause racial minorities to seek representation in third parties?
Maybe the less progress in worker's rights will have hard-hitting repercussions later on. Perhaps the '60s will be about economic, not social, turmoil? But it's too early to see.
I don't think McCarthy will tone down with a Republican in the White House. He has his eye on Pennsylvania Avenue, and if Ike Eisenhower couldn't get him to shut up, what hope does Dewey have?
More on topic, first, it appears stress from caimpaigning and the RNC contributed to Taft's decline in 1952. If he's on the Court, we might actually be able to squeeze a few more years out of him. As for a running mate, after Warren Nixon is the obvious candidate. He's anticommunist, but not as mired in controversy as McCarthy is. People trust Richard Nixon (These were all reasons he got the nod OTL). A more unlikely candidate might be Prescott Bush (R-Conn), who was elected Senator this year OTL, though he's more likely as a candidate in 1956 than 1952.
I personally think someone like Eisenhower would be a good VP pick, especially if someone like Macarthur gets the Democratic nomination, since Ike would be able to negate any foreign policy advantage Macarthur would be seen to have. On the other hand, if Dewey goes up against someone other then Macarthur, would he even see a need to replace Warren on the ticket? I’m not sure personally, but I think Dewey would remove Warren regardless, since he has to know Warren’s most interested in the supreme court and would be fine being appointed to it. Thus, Dewey would be free to pick a new VP of his choosing and could set up this person (Likely Eisenhower) as the likely 1956 Republican nominee, ensuring the moderates keep control of the GOP for at least four more years. I could be totally off the mark though.