AHC: The Cat Tosses His Hat

-Couldn't find anything in search.

Find a way for Theodor Geisel, aka Dr. Seuss, to enter into politics, and then decide how far he could go up the ladder.

-If this has been discussed, please point me into the right direction.
 
It doesn't seem too difficult, and it's certainly an interesting scenario. He was passionate about politics for all of his life, and an ardent supporter of FDR and the New Deal. Perhaps there could be some personal occurrence or event in his life that drives him to go into politics?

The other question, you posed, is how successful he would be. Well, he was tremendously charismatic, and intelligent. His remarkable ability to boil down complex issues into simple and clearly communicated phrases was always directed at children, but it could be redirected to serve political purposes. I would say he could be quite successful; if he rode the Democratic waves right, and didn't get into any scandals, he could be first elected after WWII (say in 1946) to Congress and run for Senate by the 1960s, say elected for the first time with Kennedy.
 
You know, whether or not Geisel may have been able to do politics, I'm of the opinion that making Theodor Geisel a politician is almost as bad as turning Fred Rogers into a politician. Whether it's plausible or not, it's going to leave a sick feeling in my stomach.

I mean, just imagine if he does his own campaign ads.
 
You know, whether or not Geisel may have been able to do politics, I'm of the opinion that making Theodor Geisel a politician is almost as bad as turning Fred Rogers into a politician. Whether it's plausible or not, it's going to leave a sick feeling in my stomach.

I mean, just imagine if he does his own campaign ads.

I would not, could not vote for a tax raise, oh no I won't,
I would not, could not vote for them on a boat.
I would not, could not vote for a tax raise in a maze.
I would not, could not vote for them in a haze.
I would not, could not vote for a tax raise on holidays.
I would not, could not vote for them if it pays.
I would not, could not vote for a tax raise, oh no I won't,
I'd rather blow my brains out of my throat.
So vote for a tax raise I won't.


It would be interesting if his views on the Japanese were dug up.
 
Last edited:
It would be interesting if his views on the Japanese were dug up.

They almost certainly would be, but in his era it wouldn't have been an enormous liability, at least not until the '60s. In any case, he recanted those views in later life and certainly would have been able to do so as a politician.
 
I would not, could not vote for a tax raise, oh no I won't,
I would not, could not vote for them on a boat.
I would not, could not vote for a tax raise in a maze.
I would not, could not vote for them in a haze.
I would not, could not vote for a tax raise on holidays.
I would not, could not vote for them if it pays.
I would not, could not vote for a tax raise, oh no I won't,
I'd rather blow my brains out of my throat.
So vote for a tax raise I won't.
He'd be a New Deal/Great Society liberal, right? Not a Reaganite Republican!
It would be interesting if his views on the Japanese were dug up.

Could you expand on this for those of us who have no clue what you mean by it (like me, say:eek:) or point us to a link that does?

The darkest thing I can imagine is that he was bigoted against Asians or maybe just the Japanese in general--but that would just put him on the same page as a whole lot of Americans before the war. Even a number of otherwise liberal/progressive ones. And I am having trouble imagining how that could lead to some kind of dissent re occupying Japan, unless he was so crazy on the subject that he feared mere contact with Japanese people would irrevocably corrupt the soldiers or something extreme like that. I'm having trouble imagining him having such a mindset. Conventional anti-Asian bigotry, sure (though I hope not!) but how upset were most Americans of this mentality at the notion of ruling a devastated Japan our way?

The other way I guess he could get in trouble re occupying Japan would be if he were not racist and had a high appreciation of the Japanese culture and went around begging for more gentle and considerate treatment of the Japanese as fellow human beings. So that's a great way to get embarrassingly out of step with the American consensus both before and of course especially during the war and for some time thereafter. But if that's how he made enemies, IMHO they'd be the right enemies to make.:p

So I'd Google the man and probably the first hit would be Wikipedia which is sneered at here but which frankly I wind up citing pretty freely--is that where these knowing remarks about his awkward stances on Japan or the Japanese would be cleared up at last?

Because this is the first I've heard of it and I'm running late for work...:eek:
----
Nevertheless I couldn't run off without at least trying; sure enough the first, non-Wiki hit I found ignored the whole issue. The Wikipedia bio shows that he was a typical American on the subject during WWII. Here's the relevant quote:

Theodor Geisel said:
But right now, when the Japs are planting their hatchets in our skulls, it seems like a hell of a time for us to smile and warble: "Brothers!" It is a rather flabby battle cry. If we want to win, we’ve got to kill Japs, whether it depresses John Haynes Holmes or not. We can get palsy-walsy afterward with those that are left.

Now that, in context, does not make the man a rabid racist. And apparently the real controversy was that after the war he did indeed get "palsy-walsy!"

Whether that would be some fatal stumbling block for a political career I am not sure at all, but the enemies he'd be making strike me, again, as the right ones to make.
 
QUOTE=Shevek23;4912283]He'd be a New Deal/Great Society liberal, right? Not a Reaganite Republican!
[/QUOTE]

That is true. That rhyme was a little joke.

And :eek:, wow, that is a rather good explanation of things. I appreciate all the input. With your Dr. Seuss quote (which is the one I found too), even if it was the mentality of WWII, do you think that could lead to some type of mudslinging, or an attempted image damaging, campaign in the 1960's as Ganesha suggested the year?

This website (which is possibly really biased) shows some of his political cartoons during WWII.

http://www.who-sucks.com/people/dr-seuss-sucks-7-racist-cartoons-from-the-doctor

As we see with today's society (and I know it's not really a good idea to compare today's with over 50 years ago) that his cartoons could be twisted to make him out as a racist. He did recant his statements and political images of the Japanese later in life.

I could either assume that his quotes and cartoons would be of no big concern and any political candidate who tried to use that against him would be considered something like the desperate class clown.

Or, could the generation of the 60's view it differently than the people of the 40's and (due to the backlash or smeared image) damage control measures would have to be taken?

As for Horton Hears a Who protest...I hadn't heard that one before.
 
Last edited:
Well, considering Geisel was a cog in the propaganda machine of World War II (political cartoons supporting Roosevelt and the War and working for the U.S. Army's animation department), it's possible that he could say that a lot of what he said at that time was exaggerated, because that's what he was paid to do. If his political stance is popular enough, and he is definitely recanting these quotes, his supporters might even be willing to use that as an excuse.

Of course, an opponent could easily use this against him as well. "Can we trust a man who used to make propaganda for a living?"
 
Well, considering Geisel was a cog in the propaganda machine of World War II (political cartoons supporting Roosevelt and the War and working for the U.S. Army's animation department), it's possible that he could say that a lot of what he said at that time was exaggerated, because that's what he was paid to do. If his political stance is popular enough, and he is definitely recanting these quotes, his supporters might even be willing to use that as an excuse.

Of course, an opponent could easily use this against him as well. "Can we trust a man who used to make propaganda for a living?"

In the time he would have been running, it wouldn't have been considered propaganda. The full recognition of US actions during WWII didn't really come about until the '70s at earliest.
 
Top