If no WWII, does FDR run in '40?

Please allow me to add a few additional thoughts to this discussion of what (without the giganatic presence of FDR) would have been a very "interesting" political year.
1. I agree with the others on this thread who have written that Garner would have run for President. I think he was enough of a mean old SOB to run just for the sheer pleasure of harrasing the New Dealers who he truly disliked and he might have though he had at least a chance to get the nomination.
2. Hopkins would have been the best New Dealer candidate from a policy standpoint and he was indeed close to FDR, but as ponted out above, he had made no friends in Congress or the Party with his adminstration of the WPA and by 1940 his health was beginning to fail.
3. In 1940 Jackson and Truman were too unknown to seriously consider running but I could see Truman as Missouri's favorite son candidate at the Convention, hoping for lightening to strike.
4. Wallace could run but I do not see him gaining much support outside of a few Midwestern states.
5. Farley would definitely run, thinking (incorrectly) that he had, or would have, FDR's support. Farley would have the Catholics and the Big cCty bosses behind him but when this religion proved to be too big an obstacle in the South and the Midwest, FDR would cut him loose without a second thought.
6. So that brings me back to Cordell Hull. He as a Southerner but not from the deep South, he was a respected Party elder, his health had not yet seriously deteriated because of the strains of wartime conferences. HIs Good Neighbor and tariff reduction policies gave him the image of a statesman and FDR liked him. I think he is the eventual nominee of a brokered convention.
7. I disagree with some posters who discount Wilkie. Without FDR, 1940 shapes up as a GOP year but the Party is split between Midwestern conservatives and Eastern liberals/moderates. The Indiana born and raised, Wall Street lawyer Wilkie is perfectly placed to exploit this split as he did in OTL and I could see it happening even if it is clear that FDR is not running. Wilkie had tremendous support from the press barons such as Luce of Time/Life and the Whitneys of the Herald Tribune and his position of "the New Deal without the excesses and administrative follies" was a smart one. Finally, Wilkie was a tremendoulsy charismatic and appealing figure (by 1940 standards) and he would be the closest thing to FDR in terms of popular appeal.
8. So. . . Hull vs Wilkie with Wilkie winning a solid but not overwhelming victory. Any thoughts from my fellow posters as to the makeup of a Wilkie Administration and its likely actions?
 
Prove it. And no, linking to some newspaper article isn't 'proof'.
Mainstream Economic academia. A few Libertarians on the fringe aren't something I'd follow, nor will I follow to be Politically Correct and inoffensive within this topic, no offense intended, but I'm not muting.

Before the fifties the position of senate majority leader was merely a party caucus administrative job, a lowly floor manager, there was little prestige in it. Then Robert Taft took the job at the beginning of the Eisenhower era, bringing his weight to the position--and in 1955 LBJ came in and quietly transformed senate majority leader into a position worthy of the America of the imperial presidency.
The Senate Majority leader position did still allow a grand deal of self-building and political "Lion-ess" in character. Had since the 19th century (I believe the cause was the waning of the Imperial Presidency following Lincoln and the rise of the legislature, albeit by the same token the head of the Senate itself could have waned following the reemergence of the Imperial Presidency. My knowledge of the details here are admittedly spotty). It may not have necessarily sold to the electorate, but it'd have made Barkley into a force who could run a good election. It all depends on if he made the run.
 
Last edited:
Please allow me to add a few additional thoughts to this discussion of what (without the giganatic presence of FDR) would have been a very "interesting" political year.
1. I agree with the others on this thread who have written that Garner would have run for President. I think he was enough of a mean old SOB to run just for the sheer pleasure of harrasing the New Dealers who he truly disliked and he might have though he had at least a chance to get the nomination.
2. Hopkins would have been the best New Dealer candidate from a policy standpoint and he was indeed close to FDR, but as ponted out above, he had made no friends in Congress or the Party with his adminstration of the WPA and by 1940 his health was beginning to fail.
3. In 1940 Jackson and Truman were too unknown to seriously consider running but I could see Truman as Missouri's favorite son candidate at the Convention, hoping for lightening to strike.
4. Wallace could run but I do not see him gaining much support outside of a few Midwestern states.
5. Farley would definitely run, thinking (incorrectly) that he had, or would have, FDR's support. Farley would have the Catholics and the Big cCty bosses behind him but when this religion proved to be too big an obstacle in the South and the Midwest, FDR would cut him loose without a second thought.
6. So that brings me back to Cordell Hull. He as a Southerner but not from the deep South, he was a respected Party elder, his health had not yet seriously deteriated because of the strains of wartime conferences. HIs Good Neighbor and tariff reduction policies gave him the image of a statesman and FDR liked him. I think he is the eventual nominee of a brokered convention.
7. I disagree with some posters who discount Wilkie. Without FDR, 1940 shapes up as a GOP year but the Party is split between Midwestern conservatives and Eastern liberals/moderates. The Indiana born and raised, Wall Street lawyer Wilkie is perfectly placed to exploit this split as he did in OTL and I could see it happening even if it is clear that FDR is not running. Wilkie had tremendous support from the press barons such as Luce of Time/Life and the Whitneys of the Herald Tribune and his position of "the New Deal without the excesses and administrative follies" was a smart one. Finally, Wilkie was a tremendoulsy charismatic and appealing figure (by 1940 standards) and he would be the closest thing to FDR in terms of popular appeal.
8. So. . . Hull vs Wilkie with Wilkie winning a solid but not overwhelming victory. Any thoughts from my fellow posters as to the makeup of a Wilkie Administration and its likely actions?

I still see no way that Willkie gets the nomination absent WWII. Just none. I still think that Dewey had a better shot compared to Taft, given that Eastern liberals and moderates still had significant sway in the GOP, and given that the GOP would have wanted someone young and popular - someone as far away from the Hoover years as possible.

The other potential compromise choice, should neither Dewey nor Taft be able to get the GOP nomination is Arthur Vandenberg.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
I still think Taft would nab the Republican nomination in 1940 if there was no European war going on.

Here's some things about Dewey; he's young in a time when being young is not a good thing to be in politics. Youthfulness in politicians didn't start becoming widely acceptable until Kennedy, and even then it wasn't the easiest of sales. In fact, Dewey's youth was seen as a major detriment by much of the Party.

This is coupled with his political inexperience. While Dewey certainly proved himself to be tough on crime, he was still just a District Attorney in 1940. When he ran for Governor of New York in '38, he lost. Badly, IIRC.

By contrast, Taft was elected to the Senate in '38, where he very quickly proved himself immensly skilled and able with even his most hardcore Democratic opponents liked him.

There are also some misconceptions here about Taft. First off, while he was a hardcore conservative, he wasn't the reactionary many depict him as. He actually supported select New Deal programs, like Social Security. Public housing programs also enjoyed his support, though that might have come later.

Taft would probably have continued FDR's military build-up since he believed in a strong national defense centered around a large Army and Navy (militant isolationist indeed ;)). And since the build-up was by and large responsible for dragging the economy out of the second part of the Depression (which began around 1937), we may very well see the economy continue to improve, albeit most likely at a slower rate since many New Deal programs will be cut out.

So, again, 1940 is Taft's year. Whether or not he wins the election may have a lot to do with who he is running against. Taft was a poor, uncomfortable campaigner who made Nixon look charismatic. Be that as it may, I still think the Republicans will manage to just grab the White House, though probably not Congress.

Also, a brief note on Arthur Vandenberg. He would probably be Secretary of State in the Cabinet of any Republican who was elected in 1940. After his faction's lackluster performance at the convention, that became his main aspiration. So no matter which Repub you have win, be it Willkie or Taft or Dewey, you'll probably have Vandenberg wind up as SecState.
 
Last edited:
Top