alternatehistory.com

The recession of 1960 was not particularly severe, but it may have been sufficent to determine that year's very close presidential election. (Of course, practically *anything* can determine a very close election.) Theodore Sorenson noted that "the votes of newly unemployed workers alone in Illinois, New Jersey, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri and South Carolina were greater than Kennedy's margin in those states." https://books.google.com/books?id=nOd_ka8KakYC&pg=PA24 Now of course it might be objected that not all newly unemployed workers voted for Kennedy, and many who did so would have done so even if the economy were better and they kept their jobs. But OTOH, there were also the spouses, friends, and families of the newly unemployed--as well as co-workers worried that they might be the next to be laid off. In any event, if the economy had been better, it might not have enabled Nixon to carry all the states Sorenson mentioned, but it would very likely be enough to enable him to carry Illinois, Missouri, and New Jersey, all of which Nixon lost by 0.8 percent of the vote or less. Had Nixon carried these three states, with their fifty-six electoral votes, he would have 275 electoral votes, more than enough to win. http://psephos.adam-carr.net/countries/u/usa/pres/1960.txt

So the question is, Is there anything the federal government could have done to ease the economic situation and thus help Nixon win? Nixon thought there was--in particular, a more expansionist monetary policy by William McChesney Martin, chairman of the Federal Reserve. Accoridng to the late Andrew F. Brimmer, Nixon seems to have had a grudge against Martin many years afterwards:

"However, in October 1969, Mr. Nixon announced that [Arthur] Burns would became chairman of the Federal Reserve System in February 1970. This was (and still is) the longest lead time for the appointment of a Federal Reserve chairman on record. Although Martin did not say it, I am convinced that Mr. Nixon's desire to make Burns chairman of the Federal Reserve System can be traced back to his defeat in the 1960 presidential election. Mr. Nixon has written that, in March of that year, Burns came to Washington to brief him on the economic outlook. He told Mr. Nixon that the Federal Reserve's restrictive monetary policy along with tight fiscal policy would throw the economy into a recession by the fall. Since he assumed Mr. Nixon would be a candidate for the presidency at that time, the recession would cause him to lose the election. Burns advised Mr. Nixon to urge President Dwight D. Eisenhower to relax fiscal policy promptly and to press Martin to ease the Federal Reserve's restrictive
monetary policy so as to forestall a recession. Mr. Nixon said he urged President Eisenhower to follow Burns' advice, but the president refused. As a result, according to Mr. Nixon, the recession occurred, and he lost the election. Against that background, I believe Mr. Nixon was more comfortable with Dr. Burns as Federal Reserve chairman than he was with Martin as head of the nation's monetary authority."
https://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications/the-region/remembering-william-mcchesney-martin-jr

Obviously, apart from a more expansive monetary policy by Martin, the other possibility was a more expansive fiscal policy by Ike. But the latter seems very improbable--Eisenhower saw himself as the protector of the budget from the Democratic "spenders" in Congress.

In any event, was it even possible as of March 1960 for Ike or Martin to prevent the recesson? Or are the effects of fiscal and monetary policy too delayed for that?
Top