How good of a President would Alf Landon be?

AlfLandonFan

AlfLandonFan

As you can tell from my username, I am obviously a fan of Alf Landon, but how good of a President would he be?
Let's say, in 1936, Huey Long runs, splits the vote, and Alf wins.

For some background on Landon, he was a supporter of Roosevelt in 1912, and liked most of the New Deal but criticized the more liberal spending. He wasn't a big fan of Social Security, either, but those attacks were made by Republican campaign partners, and not himself. He often clashed with isolationists in his party, but he was against Lend-Lease, believing Britain should just be given $5 billion outright.

So, how does Alf Landon fare as President? Would he be better than Roosevelt? Worse? The same?
 

brunohusker

Well if he can somehow even manage to get close to winning he might do okay. However I worry that if he loses in 40 the gop might split and isolationists might end up seeing his more liberal wing with distrust and the gop conservatives win out earlier.
 

Amadeus

He would probably have been a capable President. He seems to have agreed with FDR on practically everything, broadly supporting the New Deal and bucking isolationists within his own party to advocate support for the Allies. Even late in life he felt that the GOP was not progressive enough. Any differences between him and Roosevelt would probably come down more to temperament and personality than policy. He has no chance of winning in 1936, but if he sits out that race and runs in 1940 instead - and Roosevelt does not run - he would be a plausible Presidential prospect.
 
Tabs

Tabs

I personally think he’d have been a good president, even as a huge FDR fan. He had good policies, and contrary to how a lot of modern media portrays him, he was very much in favor of intervening in World War II. I agree with Amadeus that he’s a plausible 1940 candidate, in a timeline where FDR doesn’t run, and I think he would’ve been the best candidate for them to run in such an election.
 

brunohusker

Tabs said:
I personally think he’d have been a good president, even as a huge FDR fan. He had good policies, and contrary to how a lot of modern media portrays him, he was very much in favor of intervening in World War II. I agree with Amadeus that he’s a plausible 1940 candidate, in a timeline where FDR doesn’t run, and I think he would’ve been the best candidate for them to run in such an election.
Click to expand...
Yeah I don’t get why people see him as an isolationist. He was a businessman and not only that part of the more liberal ( for the time) wing of the party. The isolationist republicans were either very conservative like Bob Taft or they were old school progressives like George Norris and Hiram Johnson. Granted I think Norris changed after Pearl Harbor, like many people.
 

Aubreyyy

Tabs said:
I personally think he’d have been a good president, even as a huge FDR fan. He had good policies, and contrary to how a lot of modern media portrays him, he was very much in favor of intervening in World War II. I agree with Amadeus that he’s a plausible 1940 candidate, in a timeline where FDR doesn’t run, and I think he would’ve been the best candidate for them to run in such an election.
Click to expand...
Does modern media portray alf landon at all
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top