Liberal Party of NY becomes a national party?

[wilcoxchar]

I came across an interesting quote in the Wiki entry on the NY Liberal Party:

At their founding, the Liberal Party had conceived a plan to become a national party, with former Republican presidential candidate Wendell Willkie as its national leader and candidate for Mayor of New York City in 1945. However, Willkie's unexpected death later in 1944 left the Liberals without any truly national figures to lead the party.

Is this true, and if Wilkie hadn't died, could the party have become nationally prominent? The Liberal Party has been part of some interesting aberrations in New York electoral history, such as leading John Lindsay to reelection as NYC mayor in 1969 after he lost the Republican primary, and supporting John Anderson in his 1980 presidential bid.

 

[serbrcq]

This could be really interesting, given what a unique (and startlingly modern) set of beliefs Willkie had: fiscal conservativism, internationalism, anti-racism.

A US Liberal Party in the 40s and 50s that incorporated these beliefs would have been a perfect standard-bearer for the Cold War and might have done very well. In an extreme case, it could open a new dimension in American politics between internationalist libertarianism and populist, isolationist protectionism.

 

[vultan]

This could be really interesting, given what a unique (and startlingly modern) set of beliefs Willkie had: fiscal conservativism, internationalism, anti-racism.

A US Liberal Party in the 40s and 50s that incorporated these beliefs would have been a perfect standard-bearer for the Cold War and might have done very well. In an extreme case, it could open a new dimension in American politics between internationalist libertarianism and populist, isolationist protectionism.

Perhaps it would lead to the fabled scenario of the two major parties in the US being libertarian and populist, rather than the bland conservative/liberal paradigm.

 

[Ariosto]

I had another thread with this exact premise, but it didn't go anywhere. This is what I said then:

Anwsering my own question, I believe that he could, though it would not be the great success that he had hoped. He could easily win the election in New York City to become its mayor, which is akin to the governorship in other states. After his victory there, the running of candidates in elections for Congress would be the next step. 1946 may or may not prove to be a great success for the Liberal Party, since it is in essence a union of New Deal Democrats and Progressive Republicans.

If it is a success, then the now mostly Conservative Democratic and Republican parties will unify to form the Conservative Party. Basically, the political situation becomes what it is now. If not, then there is an equal division in support between the three parties, though the Liberals are largely cornered into the Northeast and become a regional party. Wendell Willkie is nominated for President in 1948, and carries most of the Northeast, but not much else. Willkie dies a little over a year later, during the first term of the Taft administration.


Edit: The funny thing about this whole idea is that it was put forward by Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Besides offering Willkie the Vice Presidential slot (I researched and he actually did. Willkie, however, hesitated in accepting the offer), he had planned to form with him the Liberal Party which was to be made up by members of the New Deal Coalition and Progressive Republicans. Wendell Willkie was supposed to be the "young face", since FDR himself did not expect to live long. He was suprised when he learned that Willkie had died (When President Roosevelt was informed, he screamed "What the hell was wrong with him?!")

Need to think a little to myself now on the matter, given this was years ago when I posted this. Realism has a different meaning.
​

 

[vultan]

I had another thread with this exact premise, but it didn't go anywhere. This is what I said then:

Need to think a little to myself now on the matter, given this was years ago when I posted this. Realism has a different meaning.
​

You mean that never happened? Because that would have been a heck of a POD!

 

[Ariosto]

You mean that never happened? Because that would have been a heck of a POD!

You mean Roosevelt offering the VP-ship to Willkie? Yes that actually happened.
​

 

[wilcoxchar]

Hmm. I wonder, if Wilkie is nominated by the Liberal Party for president in 1948, who would be the VP nominee and what happens with Henry Wallace and the Progressives? I'm not sure how much overlap there is between the Liberal and Progressive positions, but with the Liberal Party already existing as a left-leaning third party would the Progressive Party even be founded?

 

[serbrcq]

Hmm. I wonder, if Wilkie is nominated by the Liberal Party for president in 1948, who would be the VP nominee and what happens with Henry Wallace and the Progressives? I'm not sure how much overlap there is between the Liberal and Progressive positions, but with the Liberal Party already existing as a left-leaning third party would the Progressive Party even be founded?

Willkie wasn't a leftist, though, he was a pro-business liberal Republican. This would be the European sense of the word liberal, meaning libertarian (although much more moderate than OTL's American libertarians).

So I don't see why Wallace's socialist-leaning Progressives wouldn't have been formed. Would have been an interesting 1948 election, though, with five major candidates (Dem, Rep, Liberal, Dixiecrat and Progressive).

An interesting thought - if this Liberal Party is concentrated in the Northeast, maybe JFK joins it.

 

[wilcoxchar]

Hmm, I'm trying to figure out how the 1948 election might go, and I'm guessing it would go to the House. The Liberal Party could pull enough support from Truman in places like Illinois, California, and Ohio to swing them to Dewey (since the Liberals supported Truman in OTL), and then even if they just win New York, it would be enough to swing the election to the House. This is also discounting any further success the Liberal Party as elsewhere.

Here's the electoral map based on these changes.

 

[MasterSanders]

This would make a great Ed Thomas style timeline...

Possible nominees...

1948 Willie
1952 Warren
1956 Warren
1960 Kennedy
1964 Goldwater (maybe?)
1968 Rockefeller
1972 John Lindsay
1976 Schweitzer?
1980 Anderson
1984 Hart?
1988 Hart
1992 Perot
1996 Perot
2000 McCain
2004 Edwards?
2008 Romney
2012 Huntsman
2012

 

[Ariosto]

Hmm, I'm trying to figure out how the 1948 election might go, and I'm guessing it would go to the House. The Liberal Party could pull enough support from Truman in places like Illinois, California, and Ohio to swing them to Dewey (since the Liberals supported Truman in OTL), and then even if they just win New York, it would be enough to swing the election to the House. This is also discounting any further success the Liberal Party as elsewhere.

The biggest problem with this though is the Liberals would draw from Dewey with about the same fervor as they would from Truman, if not more so. In fact it is likely that Dewey is not even made the nominee of the Republican Party that year given the Moderate Wing he leads would be fractured, with more than a few having left to support, if not join, the Liberal Party. In that case it is reasonable that MacArthur may become the Republican nominee given the more Conservative orientation of the Party, and the relative closeness of the Wisconsin Primary where he was eliminated as a major contender. Robert Taft after some time, now in the position Dewey was in OTL, will back him, and Harold Stassen despite a surprising showing in Wisconsin will be shunted aside in Mac's favor.

So, Douglas MacArthur (R-NY) / Arthur Vandenberg (R-MI), I believe, though I am sure there are those better suited for the role of VP that I am neglecting.

None of the other races are going to experience any major changes; despite MacArthur winning the Republican nomination I don't see Eisenhower agreeing to run for the Democratic nomination; its not that its not possible but, I suspect that the polls will show many Republican voters drifting over to the Liberals, and so the risk of MacArthur becoming President will seem somewhat remote.

I'll need to think on this some more to expand on it; currently kinda pressed for time.

​

This would make a great Ed Thomas style timeline...

Possible nominees...

1948 Willie
1952 Warren
1956 Warren
1960 Kennedy
1964 Goldwater (maybe?)
1968 Rockefeller
1972 John Lindsay
1976 Schweitzer?
1980 Anderson
1984 Hart?
1988 Hart
1992 Perot
1996 Perot
2000 McCain
2004 Edwards?
2008 Romney
2012 Huntsman
2012

If you have no problem killing Butterflies maybe.
​

 

[MasterSanders]

If you have no problem killing Butterflies maybe.

Perhaps...

I would like to amend my post suggesting Kennedy would be the nominee in 1960... although Kennedy had many OTL "liberal" tendencies, he and his family were too "Americanist" to fit under the Liberal banner. JFK donated to America First, and had ties with progressive nationalists such as Joseph McCarthy.

In this timeline, unless some major butterflies happen, Kennedy would likely remain a Democrat.

 

[Plumber]

The Liberals suck away enough Republican votes that the Republican candidate (more likely to be Taft) only wins the Dakotas-Kansas line. The Liberals take Maine, Vermont and NH, Dixiecrats same as OTL. Truman wins everywhere else, the Liberals won't hurt him any more than Wallace's Progressives did. The two will cancel out in New York, so Wallace's greatest damage to Truman will be gone.

 

[Ariosto]

The Liberals suck away enough Republican votes that the Republican candidate (more likely to be Taft) only wins the Dakotas-Kansas line. The Liberals take Maine, Vermont and NH, Dixiecrats same as OTL. Truman wins everywhere else, the Liberals won't hurt him any more than Wallace's Progressives did. The two will cancel out in New York, so Wallace's greatest damage to Truman will be gone.

No, Willkie's damage would be like that of Perot in 92, in that he sucks away equally from both Truman and MacArthur [likely if he wins Wisconsin]. Its part of the reason why he did so well against Roosevelt in 1940, in that he could extend his appeal into the Democratic Party, being a former member of that Party himself a scant two years previously.

There are other butterflies of course.

For one, with certain Democrats being pulled from the Party by the Liberal Party Campaign it is entirely possible that the Civil Rights Plank pushed by Humphrey at the '48 DNC is defeated, with the Southern Delegations thus remaining in the fold. No desegregation of the armed forces as a result.

What makes this even more interesting is that Truman now isn't going to be behind by this seemingly large margin; in all likelihood he is going to be ahead of MacArthur and Willkie. Thus, it is entirely possible that he does not go on his famous Whistlestop Tour. Course he still campaigns for the Office, but it is not nearly as strenuous or notable. Willkie and MacArthur however are not going to pull any punches, and are going to fight even harder than Dewey ever did.

So a Democratic landslide, especially that of OTL, is darn near implausible, but a Democratic victory is quite likely.
​

 

[Plumber]

No, Willkie's damage would be like that of Perot in 92, in that he sucks away equally from both Truman and MacArthur [likely if he wins Wisconsin]. Its part of the reason why he did so well against Roosevelt in 1940, in that he could extend his appeal into the Democratic Party, being a former member of that Party himself a scant two years previously.
​

Normally, yes, but not with Wallace in the race I think.

 

[Ariosto]

Normally, yes, but not with Wallace in the race I think.

No, Wallace plays well with the Progressives, a different faction within then that from which Willkie would pull from, which is more centrist; the former Bourbons.

Even so, Wallace would collapse as OTL, maybe doing slightly better only because Truman does not launch his Whistle Tour.
​