FDR Never Paralyzed

And if the Half Deal works, Smith gets re-elected...

many things like Social security and the FDIC and Works Progress Administration where things people really cared about, i'd say no Works Progress Administration no re-election, also, FDR could reach people, that help, bring the Presidency to the people, it may of saved the country, if the people feel that the President is acting "above" them and isn't doing enough...........
 
many things like Social security and the FDIC and Works Progress Administration where things people really cared about, i'd say no Works Progress Administration no re-election, also, FDR could reach people, that help, bring the Presidency to the people, it may of saved the country, if the people feel that the President is acting "above" them and isn't doing enough...........

Half of getting the economy back on track, BA, is restoring confidence in the financial system and stock market. That's a given. Al Smith will end prohibition just like FDR did; also a given.

I think the problem is the counterfactual "half deal" is that we don't know what it will include. People can't attack the half-deal for not including programs that we know about in OTL; that's like attacking LBJ for not having a national healthcare program.

The economy is going to recover from the stock market crash sooner or later, and by 1932, things have pretty much hit the bottom--things aren't going to get much worse than they already are. If the economy begins slowly picking up steam by 1936, then Smith will take the claim for that act, and no one has a shot of beating him, no matter what programs never got pitched.

While you might mourn the loss of programs that wind up getting started later or not created at all, I think the USA avoids radicalism and Huey Long; indeed, Mr. Long may well get shot before 1936 anyhow...
 

Typo

Banned
The effects of the new deal is not only a very complex subject, but also very -very- politicalized, so I doubt you can find a really good unbiased analysis of the subject.
 
The effects of the new deal is not only a very complex subject, but also very -very- politicalized, so I doubt you can find a really good unbiased analysis of the subject.

Here's my POV on this topic, one I hope we can find consensus around:

1. The US Government needs to restore confidence in the banking sector.
2. The US Government needs to get involved, in a public (although not necessarily a major way) to restore consumer confidence.
3. The US Government needs to encourage foreign trade and deal with Smoot-Hawley
4. Prohibition is going down; some kind of gains will be made by ending the ban on drinks.
5. Much of the US Electorate is going to be encouraged by nothing more than the a "BOLD GOVERNMENT INITIATIVE" or six. The US Government simply weighing in on economic affairs after the lassiez-faire failures of the 1920s would go a long way to soothe the fears of the American People.
6. Economies work in cycles; some kind of upswing after 1932 is happening no matter what.

I think these six points are solid enough. Some of these programs are indeed total hogwash--agricultural subsidies and paying people not to farm is pretty much indefensible; banning child labor is clearly the right thing to do. But I think that any US administration in 1932 is going to play by these six points and thus avoid a Long, Lindbergh or other dorked up presidency.
 

Hnau

Banned
Some of these programs are indeed total hogwash--agricultural subsidies and paying people not to farm is pretty much indefensible

Ooh, I'd really like to see what happens without that. Agricultural subsidies being used in the New Deal created a powerful interest group that has yet to lose its power. However, there's a precedent set for such agricultural policy by the 1930s... the Grain Futures Act and the Agricultural Marketing Act being the two most recent.
 
Al Smith is probably elected. If I understand Al Smith's positions correctly, if he is elected he will oppose NIRA and several other programs, and thus the Depression ends by 36.
 
Last edited:
Here's my POV on this topic, one I hope we can find consensus around:

5. Much of the US Electorate is going to be encouraged by nothing more than the a "BOLD GOVERNMENT INITIATIVE" or six. The US Government simply weighing in on economic affairs after the lassiez-faire failures of the 1920s would go a long way to soothe the fears of the American People.

It is the bold government initiatives of the 1920s that got the US into the mess to begin with. Hoover and Coolidge were not 'hands off'.
 
FDR had already served as Wilson's Assistant Naval Secretary and was James M. Cox's running mate in 1920. After the 1920 election, most people did consider Roosevelt's political career dead. Without polio, I believe that would have been the case. One of the driving forces behind the New Deal were from his experiences with his polio. He often visited Warm Springs, Georgia, which was in one of the poorer regions of the country. Without his experience with the poverty and destitude of Warm Springs, I very much doubt that he would have had the drive to reenter politics.

Amusingly enough I just saw the HBO movie about his time at warm spring on TV a few days ago

Wonder if his affair with Lucy Mercer would have gone down differently

Say how would Al Smith would have handle WWII
 
Last edited:
Adding to the above, you probably get president Al Smith in 1932. The implications of this, and the likely shifts in the next fifteen years are almost certainly going to butterfly the fine points of WW2 around.

I can't see Al Smith being renominated in 1932 after his performance in 1928. We're more likely to see Newton Baker, George White, Albert Campbell Ritchie or possibly even John Nance Garner get the nomination.
 
Top