American Know How: The La Guardia Presidency and the Technocrats

I could use some help with a premise. I have the crazy notion to combine a wank of the Technical Alliance (the thinktank that invented the concept of technocracy and disbanded after releasing it's Energy Survey in the early 30's) with a presidency of Fiorello La Guardia.

My basic thoughts are that La Guardia goes from Congress to the Senate instead of to Alderman and then onto the Vice Presidency instead of Mayor of New York and that the president dies, leaving him in charge. As VP La Guardia's pet project would be adopting the Technical Alliance as a federal committee after they release their survey and once he becomes president he'd start implementing policies they advise. The goal of this TL is to combine the progressive response (which grew in the 20's and then found itself competing with fascism and other ideologies during the Depression of the 30's) to the Depression with the technocracy movement to create something that hasn't been portrayed before.

I know an Italian-American Vice-President at that point in American history isn't incredibly likely, but bear with me if you would.

Any advice for how to implement these ideas into a coherent timeline? How long does a Congressman usually take before a successful bid for Senate? For a Senator to get on the presidential candidate ticket? Is there precedent for the government adopting independent thinktanks as special advisory committees? What are some policies that you think a technocratic thinktank in the 1930's might suggest and how might their techno-progressivism differ from the New Deal progressivism of FDR from OTL?
 
Monorails, Zepplins, Eugenics & a Federal Broadcasting Service! ;)

Well La Guardia is a Republican and I assume you want him to join up with FDR. Roosevelt was happy to team with him as a progressive to root out conservative Democrat control in New York but a joint ticket... my knowledge of US political practice has always been slim, however a 'Progressive Alliance' ticket joining the New Deal Democrats to other groups isn't insane, say La Guardia leaves the Republican and takes up the ticket as an independent at some point, 1940 maybe, in an effort to shore up American support for the project while shafting the DNC's old guard.
 
Monorails, Zepplins, Eugenics & a Federal Broadcasting Service! ;)

Well La Guardia is a Republican and I assume you want him to join up with FDR. Roosevelt was happy to team with him as a progressive to root out conservative Democrat control in New York but a joint ticket... my knowledge of US political practice has always been slim, however a 'Progressive Alliance' ticket joining the New Deal Democrats to other groups isn't insane, say La Guardia leaves the Republican and takes up the ticket as an independent at some point, 1940 maybe, in an effort to shore up American support for the project while shafting the DNC's old guard.

The problem by waiting until OTL FDR's time is that you'd have two old men in the office. With FDR'S health not great you'd think the Democrats would insist on someone a bit younger.
 
Monorails, Zepplins, Eugenics & a Federal Broadcasting Service! ;)

Well La Guardia is a Republican and I assume you want him to join up with FDR. Roosevelt was happy to team with him as a progressive to root out conservative Democrat control in New York but a joint ticket... my knowledge of US political practice has always been slim, however a 'Progressive Alliance' ticket joining the New Deal Democrats to other groups isn't insane, say La Guardia leaves the Republican and takes up the ticket as an independent at some point, 1940 maybe, in an effort to shore up American support for the project while shafting the DNC's old guard.

FDR won't work. The constitution specifies that the presidential and vice-presidential candidates must be from different states.
 

Keenir

Banned
I could use some help with a premise. I have the crazy notion to combine a wank of the Technical Alliance (the thinktank that invented the concept of technocracy and disbanded after releasing it's Energy Survey in the early 30's) with a presidency of Fiorello La Guardia.

sounds interesting; you've got my vote.

I know an Italian-American Vice-President at that point in American history isn't incredibly likely, but bear with me if you would.

the big question isn't ancestral nationality...its if he's a Catholic.
 
FDR won't work. The constitution specifies that the presidential and vice-presidential candidates must be from different states.

Where does it say that? Honestly thats just crazy, the reason it doesn't happen is because it tacitically doesn't make sense. you generally always need candidates from seperate and electorally important states. I bet a POTUS LaGuardia gets an R from the midwest named Wendell Wilkie as his VP. I think LaGuardia makes a strong candidate by himself, just make him Governor of NY instead of FDR and you are home. He has to be POTUS before Hoover because then Republicans aren't credible until after Eisenhower. I don't know much about LaGuardia but I believe he cleaned up NYC and imprisoned some mobsters as well as generally made the place nicer. like Rudy Guiliani but in the 20s. I say make him Mayor of New York in the early 20s beats FDR (or Al Smith he might be the Gov.) in a close Gov. race in 24 or 26 after he cleans up NYC and NY he beats Hoover and decides to intervene on Black Tuesday. just thought, that might be too ASB
 
Where does it say that? Honestly thats just crazy, the reason it doesn't happen is because it tacitically doesn't make sense.
Err.. no, it IS there.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleii.html#section1 said:
Article II

Section 1. The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same term, be elected, as follows:

Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.

The electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves.
and
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxii.html said:
Amendment XII

The electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves;


Thus the Presidential and vice-presidential candidates have be from different states - or they lose all the electoral votes FROM THEIR OWN STATE. Now, of course, it COULD be done, in theory. Especially if both were from oh... Wyoming, but practically, yes they do have to be from different states.
 
Where does it say that? Honestly thats just crazy, the reason it doesn't happen is because it tacitically doesn't make sense. you generally always need candidates from seperate and electorally important states. I bet a POTUS LaGuardia gets an R from the midwest named Wendell Wilkie as his VP. I think LaGuardia makes a strong candidate by himself, just make him Governor of NY instead of FDR and you are home. He has to be POTUS before Hoover because then Republicans aren't credible until after Eisenhower. I don't know much about LaGuardia but I believe he cleaned up NYC and imprisoned some mobsters as well as generally made the place nicer. like Rudy Guiliani but in the 20s. I say make him Mayor of New York in the early 20s beats FDR (or Al Smith he might be the Gov.) in a close Gov. race in 24 or 26 after he cleans up NYC and NY he beats Hoover and decides to intervene on Black Tuesday. just thought, that might be too ASB

Dathi Thorfinnsson quoted the relevant passages. If you want more modern proof, Dick cheney had to reregister his residency as being in Wyoming in order to join Bush on the Republican ticket. I'm not really sure where you are coming from with regards to the feasibility; it was a perfectly reasonable stipulation given the system of government the constitution's writers were attempting to create, and still makes sense today.

BTW, Wilkie was from New York as well, so the same laws preventing laGuardia from running a fusion ticket with Roosevelt keep Wilkie off of the GOP ticket while Fiorello is in office.
 
Right, well best bet is to have the Democrats win in 1924/28, the twenties was known for the two big Parties being truly quite similar I believe. Have a progressive resurgence in the GOP during their time in the wilderness in time for FLG to win the 1932 nomination, I doubt butterflies will remove the inherent flaws of the orthodox economic system of the time to not have a Depression of some sort in 1928-1932.

Bit wooly but unless you want a massive POD further back it seems reasonable, also La Guardia might have to change his name. Might be fine for NYC but Mid-West average Joe might not be too keen.
 
Dathi Thorfinnsson quoted the relevant passages. If you want more modern proof, Dick cheney had to reregister his residency as being in Wyoming in order to join Bush on the Republican ticket. I'm not really sure where you are coming from with regards to the feasibility; it was a perfectly reasonable stipulation given the system of government the constitution's writers were attempting to create, and still makes sense today.

BTW, Wilkie was from New York as well, so the same laws preventing laGuardia from running a fusion ticket with Roosevelt keep Wilkie off of the GOP ticket while Fiorello is in office.

yea sorry I reread the Constitution so thanks for the refresher. sub Wilkie for Stassen and I think I got a shot.
 
Last edited:
The parties did indeed grow together in doctrine in the twenties, so my first thought would have been to let Al Smith defeat Herbert Hoover in 1928. But Smith lost big, and did not even carry New York. Most interesting, Smith was a Catholic who opposed prohibition, yet his greatest support came from the bible belt South! On that note, I would say the name and faith of the candidate would not be a big issue.

For Hoover to lose, you need multiple POD's in 1928. If Smith became president, he would have been as unprepared as Hoover to handle the market crash and the falling economy. The GOP gets its chance in 1932 to return to its liberal stance of earlier decades. La Guardia would have been as good a candidate as any.

The 1928 election:

map 28.png
 
Any alternatives to Smith? Hoover got any skeletons in his closet that could come out at the wrong time?

William G. McAdoo looks a strong figure, he's "dry" and although losing two previous nominations in 1920 and 1924 giving the apparently 'doomed' nature of 1928 he would be the only heavyweight running, as Smith would have too many flaws to beat him.

Say scandals regarding prohibition and corruption (Teapot Dome breaks late?) hit at the right time. Really McAdoo has a lot of advantages and giving the amazingly close call of a lot of states Texas/Tennessee/Virginia had Hoover winning with only 10/15,000 votes, and even New York has only a 50,000 vote margin (out of 4 million votes), a tip to McAdoo is doable.

Also ironically given his past he'd probably end up a parrallel to Hoover in OTL, namely attempting limited interventionism, probably even more actually though probably not enough to save him in 1932. Then FLG can step in to save the day with his technocrats.
 
yea sorry I reread the Constitution so thanks for the refresher. sub Wilkie for Stassen and I think I got a shot.

I'm sorry, but this won't work either. Circa 1932 or so, Harold Stassen is a political nobody (as is wendell wilkie, as it happens) who isn't going to be elected governor until 1938 and, even assuming benevolent butterflies, probably can't get onto a national ticket until 1944 at the earliest (in fact, ignoring political considerations, he isn't even old enough to serve as president until 1942). As for Wilkie, he was a democrat for a good chunk of time during the thirties (can't remember when he joined the GOP), and left due to disagreements with President Roosevelt, so a President LaGuardia means that Wilkie probably stays a democrat.

If you want LaGuardia elected in the late 20s or early 30s, his VP would have to be somebody completely different. Charles Curtis (though this would require butterflying Hoover, most likely), James Watson, John Blaine, and William Borah seem decent options. Not a very thorough list, but this period isn't my specialty and I have limited time currently, but it does give you an idea of what the VP (or presidential, depending on the method of getting Fiorello into the oval office) candidate would look like.
 
So Fio doesn't take a break from Congress to be President of New York's Alderman, and laser-guided butterflies a few years later in 1929 cause a Democrat to win the Presidency instead of Republican Herbert Hoover, allowing Governor of New York (1924-1932, having defeated fellow Progressive Al Smith originally) Fio La Guardia to be elected in 1933 after the Depression occurs a little earlier or a little later than OTL. He's not exactly a young president but he has some time to change America before he'll die.

It might be necessary to write FDR out of the picture entirely...

And in the first year of his presidency, La Guardia reads the Technical Alliance's release of their Energy Survey and adopts them as a government thinktank...
 
Top