AH Challenge:President Pappa Joe Kennedy

Your Challenge is, if you choose to accept it...Is try to pinpoint a POD where Joesph P. Kennedy Sr. is or has been president by no latter than 1964. Please disscuss
 
It's been done professionally: see the novel Fatherland.

But just for the sake of argument, you'd need to remove FDR from the mix in the late 1930s/very early 1940s to minimize any interventionist tendencies/give the isolationists essentially a clear shot at the White House. Let's say for whatever reason, a cerebral hemorrhage occurs in January 1940 (I picked that date arbitrarily), yielding John Nance Garner as president.

Garner wouldn't be the choice by the convention (a presidential candidate from the south--in his case, Texas--was not viable at the time). Now you have a vacuum, especially in the internationalist camp, of leadership. That would allow Kennedy the opportunity to resign as ambassador to Great Britain and return, with his old FDR-based promises in hand. He's viewed as a more-or-less logical successor to FDR.

The Democrats' convention is a mad scramble, with several candidates (e.g., McNutt, Garner, Farley, Kennedy) all in the running. Kennedy may carry the day based on spraying around considerable amounts of his own money and strong appeals to urban Catholic voters/urban ethnic voters (I could see the Boston, Chicago, northern NJ, and Tammany Hall machines all lining up behind Kennedy). As a nod toward party unity, he names Burton Wheeler of Montana as his running mate.

The GOP convention in Philadelphia is equally up for grabs, with the isolationists (Taft, Vandenberg) apparently holding the upper hand over Willkie (and there's Herbert Hoover in the wings, hoping to be named in the event of a deadlock). I'll assume that the amateurs in the GOP still carry the day, naming Willkie as the candidate with McNary as his running mate as in OTL.

Now what we have is a role reversal on the national level, leading to mass crossing of party lines and ticket splitting. Isolationist Republicans, especially in the midwest, swallow hard and vote for Kennedy at the top of the ticket while returning their own kind to the House and Senate. At the same time, interventionist Democrats grit their teeth and vote for Willkie, while sending Democrats to Congress. But it's the dead rising to vote in New York, Boston, Chicago, and northern New Jersey (the Crump machine in Memphis is an exception) that carry the day for Kennedy (the GOP machine in Philadelphia isn't enough to balance those others) in a narrow victory.

What you now have in early 1941 is a solid isolationist in the White House who can reach across party lines. I could see Kennedy appointing Charles Lindbergh to some sort of post (possibly ambassador to Germany?), as well as dealing with Henry Ford (a known anti-Semite; possibly Secretary of Commerce?) and Gerald Nye (the Senate leader of America First). There won't be involvement with the war in Europe, although a naval war with Japan is not out of the question by any stretch.
 

maverick

Banned
I'm not sure about Kennedy appointing so many Republicans in his administration, not that assembling his cabinet purely motivated by his personal interest rather than partisan loyalty was beyond him...

But who would be his VP?
Tennessee Sec of State Cordell Hull?
Alabaman Speaker of the House William Bankhead?
Maryland's James Farley?
 
I think this is ASB, actually.

Electing a nouveau riche, catholic, rum runner in that day and age? I don't think so!

Al Smith, a perfectly respectable politician (to the extent such things exist:)) lost, largely because of his catholicism.

Add to that the unsavory source of his money, and I really, REALLY don't think this is possible.
 

maverick

Banned
There were other causes, such as the continuous growth of the American Economy under the Republican Administration and the fact that thanks to his accent, Al Smith sounded like a foreigner, especially to southern audiences...

Not to mention than during the Fourth Party System (1896-1932), before the New Deal coalition, the Republican Party was the natural party of government...
 
It's been done professionally: see the novel Fatherland.

But just for the sake of argument, you'd need to remove FDR from the mix in the late 1930s/very early 1940s to minimize any interventionist tendencies/give the isolationists essentially a clear shot at the White House. Let's say for whatever reason, a cerebral hemorrhage occurs in January 1940 (I picked that date arbitrarily), yielding John Nance Garner as president.

Garner wouldn't be the choice by the convention (a presidential candidate from the south--in his case, Texas--was not viable at the time). Now you have a vacuum, especially in the internationalist camp, of leadership. That would allow Kennedy the opportunity to resign as ambassador to Great Britain and return, with his old FDR-based promises in hand. He's viewed as a more-or-less logical successor to FDR.

The Democrats' convention is a mad scramble, with several candidates (e.g., McNutt, Garner, Farley, Kennedy) all in the running. Kennedy may carry the day based on spraying around considerable amounts of his own money and strong appeals to urban Catholic voters/urban ethnic voters (I could see the Boston, Chicago, northern NJ, and Tammany Hall machines all lining up behind Kennedy). As a nod toward party unity, he names Burton Wheeler of Montana as his running mate.

The GOP convention in Philadelphia is equally up for grabs, with the isolationists (Taft, Vandenberg) apparently holding the upper hand over Willkie (and there's Herbert Hoover in the wings, hoping to be named in the event of a deadlock). I'll assume that the amateurs in the GOP still carry the day, naming Willkie as the candidate with McNary as his running mate as in OTL.

Now what we have is a role reversal on the national level, leading to mass crossing of party lines and ticket splitting. Isolationist Republicans, especially in the midwest, swallow hard and vote for Kennedy at the top of the ticket while returning their own kind to the House and Senate. At the same time, interventionist Democrats grit their teeth and vote for Willkie, while sending Democrats to Congress. But it's the dead rising to vote in New York, Boston, Chicago, and northern New Jersey (the Crump machine in Memphis is an exception) that carry the day for Kennedy (the GOP machine in Philadelphia isn't enough to balance those others) in a narrow victory.

What you now have in early 1941 is a solid isolationist in the White House who can reach across party lines. I could see Kennedy appointing Charles Lindbergh to some sort of post (possibly ambassador to Germany?), as well as dealing with Henry Ford (a known anti-Semite; possibly Secretary of Commerce?) and Gerald Nye (the Senate leader of America First). There won't be involvement with the war in Europe, although a naval war with Japan is not out of the question by any stretch.

How plausible is it that, America can trully turn a blind eye to the war in Europe under the Kennedy Administration? Would there still be a lend-lease act possibly originating in the more interventionalist senate that get's passed? Would Kenndedy veto it? How might Pappa Joe react to the bombing of Pearl Harbour? Would we still se the interminet camps? How will it effects the tours that his sons would envitabley take? With an Isolationist in office might Hitler try to speed up his plans to Attack America?
 
How plausible is it that, America can trully turn a blind eye to the war in Europe under the Kennedy Administration? Would there still be a lend-lease act possibly originating in the more interventionalist senate that get's passed? Would Kenndedy veto it? How might Pappa Joe react to the bombing of Pearl Harbour? Would we still se the interminet camps? How will it effects the tours that his sons would envitabley take? With an Isolationist in office might Hitler try to speed up his plans to Attack America?

Entirely plausible, given the popularity of America First in particular and isolationism in general. I doubt there would be a Lend-Lease Act that would get by: it would have to be introduced by an internationalist senator, and would have to get past the isolationist bloc (Taft; Vandenberg; Nye), facing administration indifference/hostility. Kennedy might not veto it but it sure wouldn't get top priority: it would become a sideshow, along the lines of delay being the deadliest form of denial.

American attitudes toward Japan were another matter, however. Especially on the west coast, it was almost an article of faith at the time that sooner or later there would come a day of reckoning with Japan for pre-eminence in the Pacific. Given that, assuming Pearl Harbor happened as it did in OTL, one suspects the war in the Pacific would have followed the same general lines up to a point: I have to question that, given the lack of cooperation between Great Britain and the US (recall that the US is staying aloof from the European conflict) that the US would have nuclear weapons in 1945. Recall that Einstein's letter to FDR in 1939 led to the establishment of the Manhattan Project; Kennedy might well have seen that as some sort of scientific boondoggle and reduced funding. As such, victory over Japan might have been delayed until 1946 or 1947, and could have involved either a strangulating blockade, a bloody invasion of the home islands, or both.

About his sons...probably the older two (maybe three depending upon how long the war with Japan lasted) would wind up in the armed services but likely with cushier billets. I doubt they would have really gotten in harm's way to a great extent: John Kennedy probably wouldn't have had command of a PT boat, but probably would have been piloting a desk in San Diego. It's debatable whether any of them would have been seen as presidential material in their own right in the 1960s.

Would Hitler have tried to accelerate plans for an invasion of the western hemisphere? Doubtful. He had his hands full on the eastern front, and was largely stalemated in the battle of Britain. I question that even a homicidal lunatic such as he would have overextended himself by going after the western hemisphere, particularly with a sort-of-benevolently-indifferent isolationist in the White House.
 
Intriguing tidbits about how the war might develop under Kennedy...I would think Pappa Joe would have no problem enacting Executive Order 9066 or perhaps with harsher measures in a War with Japan. The next question would there be any internal opposition from the dem's in '44 against Kennedy? The Republicans would most likley still run Dewey against him...who might actually fare better in TTL but Kennedy will probably run a "dont change horses in mid stream" campaign.

1948 is a different story...You may really start to see the New Deal Coaltion unravel as it did in OTL...Depending on who Joe gave the nod to in '40 for VP...It would turn out to be a very interesting primary season...esp if US had declared victory in Japan. Henry Wallace, Harry Truman, Strom Thurmond all might want to challenge JPK's successor.
 
About his sons...probably the older two (maybe three depending upon how long the war with Japan lasted) would wind up in the armed services but likely with cushier billets. I doubt they would have really gotten in harm's way to a great extent: John Kennedy probably wouldn't have had command of a PT boat, but probably would have been piloting a desk in San Diego. It's debatable whether any of them would have been seen as presidential material in their own right in the 1960s..

I'm not sure, he made no move in OTL to stop them, and lost his eldest in action

FDR's sons were in action too

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 

maverick

Banned
As such, victory over Japan might have been delayed until 1946 or 1947, and could have involved either a strangulating blockade, a bloody invasion of the home islands, or both.

But remember that IOTL America used two thirds of its resources in Europe and only one third against Japan...ITTL, They'll be using their entire military capabilities...
 
Now, I am not the expert that some of those who have posted before me are, but in my opinion,for Joseph Kennedy to have any shot at the White House, two things need to happen. The first of which is, that Kennedy needs experience, a man who had run the SEC, and had been abassodor to England, will not make a compelling candidate, for President, espicially a catholic. The Second is, after he was appointed ambassador, he said some rather controversial things, denying the ability of England to survive.

So either have England fall (I don't mean ASB Nazi England fall, I mean surrender/lose the war.) So Joe Kennedy can say "I told you so" or give Kennedy another job besides ambassador, such a Gov of Mass for example, so he doesn't put his foot in his mouth.
 
Now, what are the chances that in OTL, that Kennedy may decide to a fusion ticket and pick Charles Lindbergh as his VP? What effects might this have on the nation...If Kennedy steps down for a chance to run his third term, and throws his full support behind Lindbergh?
 
I'm not sure, he made no move in OTL to stop them, and lost his eldest in action

FDR's sons were in action too

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

True, Kennedy didn't stop his sons from service, but I have to wonder if he didn't see that as part of the process for grooming one of his sons for the White House. It's been taken as something of an article of faith that had Joe Jr. not been killed in action, he, rather than John, would have run for Congress in 1946 and been aimed at the Oval Office instead.
 
Now, what are the chances that in OTL, that Kennedy may decide to a fusion ticket and pick Charles Lindbergh as his VP? What effects might this have on the nation...If Kennedy steps down for a chance to run his third term, and throws his full support behind Lindbergh?

There's a scary thought. In some ways, it's almost the mirror image of Roth's novel The Plot against America, where the Republican convention stampeded for Lindbergh with Burton Wheeler (an isolationist Democrat from Montana) as his running mate. Might Kennedy have chosen Lindbergh? Not implausible, given both were of isolationist/America First proclivities.

Given a Kennedy/Lindbergh vs. Willkie/McNary election, I think Willkie wins a close one and the run of events is not grossly dissimilar from OTL: Pearl Harbor would likely have happened roughly about the same time, with the same general course of events devolving. However, that presumes that the so-called amateurs still swung the Republicans for Willkie. If the Democrats got Kennedy, it's not inconceivable that the isolationists would have carried the day for the Republicans, with perhaps a Taft/Vandenberg ticket. Now you're looking at the flip side of the '40 election in OTL: instead of two interventionist candidates, you have two isolationist candidates. Doubtful in that case whether the US would have gotten involved in Europe any time soon; the war in the Pacific, as noted elsewhere, is another matter: Hitler could have had a flash of lucidity and left the US alone with respect to submarine warfare. Thus, the war in the Pacific would have been essentially between the US and Japan, with some...association, for lack of a better word, with Great Britain and others, simply because Japan was a common enemy.
 
Top