If Al Smith Doesn't Run in 1928 Can He Win in 1932?

[Amadeus]

In 1928 New York Governor Al Smith made a disastrous run for President. The booming economy and prejudice against his Catholic faith allowed Herbert Hoover to win a landslide victory. And by vacating the Governorship Smith created a powerful rival in Franklin Roosevelt who would beat him for the Presidential nomination four years later. The POD is Smith decides to sit out the 1928 Presidential race and instead run for re-election as Governor of New York. Can he win the Democratic nomination and the general election in 1932?

 

[SandroPertini98]

Probably yes but his noted opposition to New Deal could cause severe damages to America, opening the door in 1936 for a Republican comeback or a more radical (Long, Sinclair and others) victory.

 

[David T]

Probably yes but his noted opposition to New Deal could cause severe damages to America, opening the door in 1936 for a Republican comeback or a more radical (Long, Sinclair and others) victory.

There would be no "New Deal" for Smith to oppose if FDR didn't run. People would judge him not by comparison to FDR but to Hoover--and he would therefore look pretty good.

That being said, I do not doubt that a Smith presidency would be more conservative than FDR's. (As I indicate at https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/wi-al-smith-won-in-1928.451133/#post-17545720 I do not agree with people who say that "Smith moved to the right because he resented FDR as an usurper"--I think that in many ways Smith was a conservative all along.) I do not think this will fatally damage Smith's chances for re-election. There was a worldwide economic recovery from 1933-36, and it included countries governed by center-right parties--the National Government in the UK, the Lyons Government in Australia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyons_Government etc. But at least one policy Smith advocated in 1932--a national sales tax--could have set back recovery.

I do not know whether the Democrats would in fact have nominated Smith in 1932 if he had sat out 1928. Obviously his chances would be better than in OTL's 1932 (when he had the burden of 1928's landslide loss) but the Democrats, sensing victory, might still prefer a less controversial (if only because not Catholic) candidate. In 1928 they were willing to take a chance on Smith because beating Hoover looked like a long shot anyway.

 

[Amadeus]

There would be no "New Deal" for Smith to oppose if FDR didn't run. People would judge him not by comparison to FDR but to Hoover--and he would therefore look pretty good.

That being said, I do not doubt that a Smith presidency would be more conservative than FDR's. (As I indicate at https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/wi-al-smith-won-in-1928.451133/#post-17545720 I do not agree with people who say that "Smith moved to the right because he resented FDR as an usurper"--I think that in many ways Smith was a conservative all along.) I do not think this will fatally damage Smith's chances for re-election. There was a worldwide economic recovery from 1933-36, and it included countries governed by center-right parties--the National Government in the UK, the Lyons Government in Australia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyons_Government etc. But at least one policy Smith advocated in 1932--a national sales tax--could have set back recovery.

I do not know whether the Democrats would in fact have nominated Smith in 1932 if he had sat out 1928. Obviously his chances would be better than in OTL's 1932 (when he had the burden of 1928's landslide loss) but the Democrats, sensing victory, might still prefer a less controversial (if only because not Catholic) candidate. In 1928 they were willing to take a chance on Smith because beating Hoover looked like a long shot anyway.

How Smith handles the banking crisis will likely determine the success or failure of his Presidency.

That said I agree Smith isn't guaranteed to win the nomination in 1932. If the Democrats look certain to win, the elements of the party opposed to Smith would certainly do their utmost to block his candidacy. A possible outcome is a 1912 type situation where Smith gets a majority but not a super majority of convention delegates, and the party turns to a compromise candidate.

 

[David T]

How Smith handles the banking crisis will likely determine the success or failure of his Presidency.

I'm almost certain he would handle it the way FDR did. Once you reject nationalization of the banks--something which neither FDR nor Smith wanted--what FDR did was the logical solution and was in fact worked out with the aid of Hoover Treasury Department people. Hoover himself doubted his legal authority to declare a bank holiday but was willing to issue a proclamation limiting withdrawals, etc. if FDR would officially approve it. (Accounts differ on how sympathetic or unsympathetic FDR was to Hoover's plan but in any event he would not officially endorse it. Hoover was afraid that any action he himself might take would be reversed by FDR or Congress.)

Smith would not have any legal/constitutional doubts about his power to save the banks. "Now I say, and I've said all along, that in a depression we're in a state of war. This stagnation of business, or whatever you call it, is doing more damage at home to our own people than the great war of 1917 and 1918 ever did. The only thing to do is to lay aside the red tape and the regulatory statutes and do what a democracy must do when it fights. And what does a democracy do in a war? It becomes a tyrant, a despot, a real monarch. In the world war we took our constitution, wrapped it up and laid it on the shelf and left it there until it was over..." https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/what-if-fdr-was-fascist.376246/#post-11733981

 

[Amadeus]

Smith would not have any legal/constitutional doubts about his power to save the banks. "Now I say, and I've said all along, that in a depression we're in a state of war. This stagnation of business, or whatever you call it, is doing more damage at home to our own people than the great war of 1917 and 1918 ever did. The only thing to do is to lay aside the red tape and the regulatory statutes and do what a democracy must do when it fights. And what does a democracy do in a war? It becomes a tyrant, a despot, a real monarch. In the world war we took our constitution, wrapped it up and laid it on the shelf and left it there until it was over..." https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/what-if-fdr-was-fascist.376246/#post-11733981

That's a rather disturbing quote. Roosevelt had a less than stellar record on civil liberties, but I'm quite glad it was him leading the country in 1933 and not a man who called for an American tyranny.