Democratic White House from 1933-1961: Cultural Impact?

The Democrats held the white house from 1933 to 1953 until Eisenhower won for the Republicans in 1952.

Eisenhower largely ran in 1952 to block Taft, and he'd have been content with any internationally-minded Republican.

Let's say Taft is the 1952 Republican nominee and thus Eisenhower opts to run as a Democrat to block him. If Ike governs for 8 years, the Democrats will have held the White House for 28 years and would likely be associated with the 1950s culturally the way the Republicans under Eisenhower were historically.

What would the culture be like in such a scenario?
 
I mean...Firstly,, most Americans in OTL's 1950s were Democrats already, supportive of the New Deal and fans of government intervention. It just happened Eisenhower was personally popular, and Truman unpopular, enough to defy normal party lines. With Dwight running, the Dems probably win 1952 and definitely win 56, with a better economy and a final end in Korea. Either way, i'd say the main change will be to the Republicans. After FDR's term, the Republican Party was basically on life-support. It was only Truman's stumbling, and Dwight's success, that let them make a comeback. Without Dwight, the Party of Lincoln may be dead at last. Of course, America won't go on with just one party. Most likely, there will be a split within the Dem's ranks. Possibly Hubert Humphrey wins the nomination in 1960 and, with his avowedly pro-Civil Rights stance, causes the Dixiecrats to flee in disgust to make their own party, AIP-style? Eh. Either way, there are other effects. For instance, with Ike as a Democrat, you've probably butterflied away Richard Nixon's career. The Red Scar may get strangled in its crib if Dwight openly speaks out aganist it, something he wanted to do IOTL, as McCarthy was a Republican, and he didn't want to badmouth a member of his own party. McCarthy's a jackass, but even he wouldn't be bale to insult Ike and get away with it. That has all sorts of Butterflies.
 
I mean...Firstly,, most Americans in OTL's 1950s were Democrats already, supportive of the New Deal and fans of government intervention. It just happened Eisenhower was personally popular, and Truman unpopular, enough to defy normal party lines. With Dwight running, the Dems probably win 1952 and definitely win 56, with a better economy and a final end in Korea. Either way, i'd say the main change will be to the Republicans. After FDR's term, the Republican Party was basically on life-support. It was only Truman's stumbling, and Dwight's success, that let them make a comeback. Without Dwight, the Party of Lincoln may be dead at last. Of course, America won't go on with just one party. Most likely, there will be a split within the Dem's ranks. Possibly Hubert Humphrey wins the nomination in 1960 and, with his avowedly pro-Civil Rights stance, causes the Dixiecrats to flee in disgust to make their own party, AIP-style? Eh. Either way, there are other effects. For instance, with Ike as a Democrat, you've probably butterflied away Richard Nixon's career. The Red Scar may get strangled in its crib if Dwight openly speaks out aganist it, something he wanted to do IOTL, as McCarthy was a Republican, and he didn't want to badmouth a member of his own party. McCarthy's a jackass, but even he wouldn't be bale to insult Ike and get away with it. That has all sorts of Butterflies.

Nixon got elected Senator before Ike ran for President, and the Red Scare was in full swing by 1952 anyways, so I don't think a Democratic Ike could (or even would) stop it.
 
Nixon got elected Senator before Ike ran for President, and the Red Scare was in full swing by 1952 anyways, so I don't think a Democratic Ike could (or even would) stop it.
True, the Red Scare was in full swing, but McCarthy's influence would be significantly dulled if the White House came out aganist him. Meanwhile, while Nixon was already a Senator, now, he's just another member of a most-likely collapsing party, not the second-most powerful man in the country. His rise to prominence is most likely averted.
 
True, the Red Scare was in full swing, but McCarthy's influence would be significantly dulled if the White House came out aganist him. Meanwhile, while Nixon was already a Senator, now, he's just another member of a most-likely collapsing party, not the second-most powerful man in the country. His rise to prominence is most likely averted.

Opposition from the Truman administration did little to stop McCarthy, who gave his famous Wheeling, WV speech in 1950 while Truman was still in the first half of his second term. Truman despised McCarthy and tried to stop him from the White House, to little effect on McCarthy's popularity, which continued until the Army hearings and McCarthy's censure in 1954. The irony is that while McCarthy had no evidence at all to support his allegations, we now know from VENONA that he was, in fact, right that there were Communist spies in the government. I don't think changing Presidents would have made much of a difference; the Red Scare was a full-blown hysteria that got going in the late 40s and which exploded once the Soviets set off their first H-bomb. I don't even think Ike -- the ultimate WWII hero -- could have stopped it. The fear was there and it was exploited by people like McCarthy and Nixon, who saw in it a path to political advancement. It was, after all, the Alger Hiss hearings that pushed Nixon to the Senate in 1950 and to the vice-presidential nomination in 1952. It was a meteoric rise for someone who was a 33-year-old House freshman in 1947.
 
I have never seen any evidence that Eisenhower considered running as a Democrat in 1952. Sure, plenty of Democrats including Truman wanted him to--but where is the evidence that Ike himself considered it? Clark Clifford would later write in his memoirs: "Neither the President nor I realized at the time that Eisenhower had no intention of running as a Democrat because he privately disagreed with much of both the New Deal and the Fair Deal." Sure, Ike disagreed with Taft on foreign policy (on some domestic issues like housing, Taft was actually to the left of Ike) but felt that the way to fight Taft on issues like collective security was within the Republican Party--and with Dewey discredited by past defeats, Ike was the only man who might plausibly keep Taft from the nomination.

Having eight more years of the Democrats in the White House from 1953 to 1961 does not require the unlikely "Ike runs as a Democrat" POD. Just have Stalin die earlier, which would result in the Korean War ending earlier. With the world situation less tense, Ike might decide not to run, which could lead to a Taft-Stevenson race, where I would favor Stevenson to win (remember, the Korean War, probably the biggest burden for the Democrats in OTL, has been ended in this ATL). Assuming peace and prosperity in 1956, Stevenson is re-elected...
 
Alternatively, if his second term goes better for him (say RoC forces fare better in the late 40's), Truman could actually win a third one in 1952, and do well enough that another Democrat could win in 56.
 
The Republicans were terrified the Democrats would be the major party and the party in the White House for decades into the unknown future (from the 1930s/1940s). That is why they passed the 22nd Amendment, and why they buddied up with the Southern Democrats for that lovely Conservative Coalition against any more major New Dealer legislation. So this is actually really fascinating, because it is precisely what the Republicans feared.
 
So if Eisenhower (or Stevenson as David T alleges) were to have the White House until 1961 the GOP might wither on the vine to an extent and the Democrats might split by ~1960 and merge with the weak GOP?

I'm not so sure that'd happen. The GOP had managed to take the house in 1946 and though they lost it in 1948, the GOP was already gaining seats in the house by 1950 (28 seats) and they took the house in 1952. A Democratic win might butterfly away the retaking of the house in 1952, but there was some GOP recovery.

Granted, the Korean War likely had to do with GOP gains in 1950. One could chalk up the GOP gains between 1946 and 1952 to a combo of Truman's unpopularity and Ike's popularity too. Maybe with no war the GOP doesn't make its 1950 gains - possibly contributing to a kind of 1932-1960 Democrat-dominated Era of Good Feelings?


Long-term, maybe there's a Democrat surge, the Dixiecrats split off into a Conservative Party, and the Republicans end up a minor party like the British liberals (with strong support in Upper New England, Upstate New York, and the plains)?
 
Last edited:
I don't think Republicans would become extinct if they get crushed in 1952, let alone until 1964. One way or another, Republicans still rise again. It's just a matter of when. Maybe by 1960 their candidate wins again. Or by 1968.
 

Wallet

Banned
I mean...Firstly,, most Americans in OTL's 1950s were Democrats already, supportive of the New Deal and fans of government intervention. It just happened Eisenhower was personally popular, and Truman unpopular, enough to defy normal party lines. With Dwight running, the Dems probably win 1952 and definitely win 56, with a better economy and a final end in Korea. Either way, i'd say the main change will be to the Republicans. After FDR's term, the Republican Party was basically on life-support. It was only Truman's stumbling, and Dwight's success, that let them make a comeback. Without Dwight, the Party of Lincoln may be dead at last. Of course, America won't go on with just one party. Most likely, there will be a split within the Dem's ranks. Possibly Hubert Humphrey wins the nomination in 1960 and, with his avowedly pro-Civil Rights stance, causes the Dixiecrats to flee in disgust to make their own party, AIP-style? Eh. Either way, there are other effects. For instance, with Ike as a Democrat, you've probably butterflied away Richard Nixon's career. The Red Scar may get strangled in its crib if Dwight openly speaks out aganist it, something he wanted to do IOTL, as McCarthy was a Republican, and he didn't want to badmouth a member of his own party. McCarthy's a jackass, but even he wouldn't be bale to insult Ike and get away with it. That has all sorts of Butterflies.
The GOP was not on life support after FDR. 1944 was only a 4% difference in the popular vote despite FDR being a popular war time leader. The population had incumbency fatigue. They took the senate in 1946.

Sure, Truman had his issues. But the Republican insurgence was caused by the recession caused by moving back from a war economy to peace time economy. There was no longer a demand for weapons but not yet for civilian goods. Not all the troops found jobs yet.
 
Can we focus more on the cultural impact of 1950s cultural conservatism and political domination being associated with the Democrats?

Would the Republicans end up as the party that takes on (assumes the mantle of) 1960s social liberalism?

Who would be the 1960 nominee? Senator Nixon? Henry Cabot Lodge Jr? Earl Warren? Rockefeller?
 
It's harder for the Republicans to merge with the Dixiecrats with so many civil rights issues still outstanding. There's a reason the merger happened IOTL only after the most blatant issues were "put to bed" in a de jure sense. By the time we get to 1968 there's more open cooperation on racially-charged matters between Republicans and southern Dems, but there's too much wrong with the South in the 1950s for a split-and-merge to happen. More likely you have a prolonged period of opposition in chaos as a coherent ideology acceptable outside the South finds a national voice.

Perhaps with some of the Cold War tension off we see an earlier reemergence of the isolationists?
 
Top