No Mao 1949 -- American Butterflies

[John Fredrick Parker]

For this thread, Mao doesn't come to power in 1949 in China*.

What I want the focus of this thread to be is, How does this affect US politics?What differences do we see compared to the Red Scare OTL? How is Truman's second term different?

I have the idea that TTL, Kefauver gets the nomination in 1952 -- could he win? If so, what would his presidency be like?

What other implications are there? Does this affect how the US fights the Cold War, and what are the impacts there?

*TTL, he was dealt with back in 1934, but that's another thread -- I just ask that we work on the assumption that butterflies don't reach the US until 1949. and that concerns regarding the premise are taken to linked thread.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

Ahem -- also, please disregard "If no Mai"

 

[Atlantic Friend]

Truman possibly cannot be accused of having lost China, and that should steal some thunder from McCarthy.

The Korean War becomes less likely, as the Soviet Union is the only Communist power supporting Kim il Sung. But if it does break out there's now a much more serious chance of it triggering instant WW3, with Soviet forces clearing Berlin and advancing towards the Rhin (or rather, the Atlantic).

 

[RogueBeaver]

Kefauver's an alcoholic lightweight, so quite possible his liver goes before his first term is over. The Dixiecrats hated his guts- he was a traitor and proud of it. Even LBJ despised him, but for being an alcoholic showboating lightweight, not for civil rights. So anything remotely related to civil rights will be shot down. Cowfever will push on organized crime, how successful he is depends on the fact that Edna is loyal only to himself, and wouldn't have an ounce of respect for Cowfever. Foreign policy is a continuation of the Truman Doctrine.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

Hm, well I'm not hitched to the Kefauver idea -- what about Truman? To start with, would he have accepted a second term, even if he had much better poll numbers than OTL?

(I'm taking it Edna is Hoover?)

 

[Han]

I still think Eisenhower would have won in 1952. The Democrats had been controlling the White House for twenty freakin' years, and Ike was massively popular for being the liberator of Europe. Perhaps the race might have been closer, due to the butterflies of China not falling, but I still think Ike would've won.

 

[RogueBeaver]

His polling numbers started sliding after Mao's takeover of China, were stable till the '50 midterms, then fell off a cliff. With ROC on mainland China, it is quite possible that Truman gets a second term. The problem is that he wasn't keen on it and Bess was implacably opposed to the idea. Yes, Edna is Hoover, and it's not hard to guess who coined that one. (Ironically, said individual's career might be boosted by Cowfever's organized crime push)

 

[RogueBeaver]

I still think Eisenhower would have won in 1952. The Democrats had been controlling the White House for twenty freakin' years, and Ike was massively popular for being the liberator of Europe. Perhaps the race might have been closer, due to the butterflies of China not falling, but I still think Ike would've won.

Who said Ike would run? He wasn't particularly keen on running IOTL, and with a smoother national security situation, there's not really a need to. Truman would kick Taft's fat ass across the country from DC to San Francisco in November, so no worries there. In 1956 the GOP might run a Nixon/Dirksen or Nixon/Goldwater ticket. I've mentioned ITTL Democratic tickets (Harriman/Smathers, LBJ/JFK, Harriman with either) before.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

Harriman does seem possible -- Truman, OTL, liked him as a successor at one point, IIANM. What would his presidency be like?

There's also the possibility of Aldai Stevenson. Same question?

 

[RogueBeaver]

Stevenson could never win a presidential election, and I've outlined why in the other thread. As for Harriman, he's a New Dealer but a moderate one and pro-business, being a tycoon himself. So no new regulation, perhaps some mild deregulation, continuing Truman's foreign policy and governing much as Ike did. Harriman was not pro-civil rights, so don't expect advances in that field.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

So it sounds like, with Stevenson unable to win the White House Truman and Eisenhower unlikely to even run in 52, the two possibilities are Kefauver and Harriman, depending on Truman's direct involvement and influence in the election.

In either case, it sounds like civil rights does less than well, and the Truman Doctrine continues. Do I have that about right?

 

[Han]

Who said Ike would run? He wasn't particularly keen on running IOTL, and with a smoother national security situation, there's not really a need to. Truman would kick Taft's fat ass across the country from DC to San Francisco in November, so no worries there. In 1956 the GOP might run a Nixon/Dirksen or Nixon/Goldwater ticket. I've mentioned ITTL Democratic tickets (Harriman/Smathers, LBJ/JFK, Harriman with either) before.

Hm, you have a point there, but do you really think the Dems would've held onto the White House for another four years? Twenty years is an awfully long time, though I do like the sound of a Nixon/Dirksen ticket in 1956.

 

[RogueBeaver]

That's correct.

 

[Atlantic Friend]

Why wouldn't Ike run? As a prestigious and victorious general, he'd make a great candidate for the GOP regardless of the geopolitical situation. And no Mao doesn't mean no Stalin - the USSR probably loomed bigger on American minds in 1950 than Red China.

 

[RogueBeaver]

Hm, you have a point there, but do you really think the Dems would've held onto the White House for another four years? Twenty years is an awfully long time, though I do like the sound of a Nixon/Dirksen ticket in 1956.

I won't cite the full list of precedents, but in the 20th century- the GOP dominance from 1900 to 1932, Wilson excepted, the Democratic dominance from 1932 to 1968, excepting Ike, and GOP dominance from 1968 to 2008, interrupted by a fluke (Carter) and a centre-right Democrat (Clinton).

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

Well, the civil rights conundrum is a bit of a downwer... wait! You said Kefauver, given his alcoholism and liver problems would be unlikely to survive his first term, right?

What if he's got a VP who's supportive of civil rights, but tactful enough not to do the cause harm? Is there anyone in the running who could do this? If Kef's term is short enough, could this be an overall boon to the movement (compared to OTL)?

 

[RogueBeaver]

Why wouldn't Ike run? As a prestigious and victorious general, he'd make a great candidate for the GOP regardless of the geopolitical situation. And no Mao doesn't mean no Stalin - the USSR probably loomed bigger on American minds in 1950 than Red China.

Because Ike would probably not be interested in politics. It took a lot of persuasion to get him to agree IOTL, and only when they brought in his friend Jacqueline Cochran did he agree. Lodge & Co. could get fed up with suppllicating Ike on bended knee and say "screw this, we'll find someone else and win the next one." Arch-Brahmins don't like being supplicants.

 

[RogueBeaver]

Well, the civil rights conundrum is a bit of a downwer... wait! You said Kefauver, given his alcoholism and liver problems would be unlikely to survive his first term, right?

What if he's got a VP who's supportive of civil rights, but tactful enough not to do the cause harm? Is there anyone in the running who could do this? If Kef's term is short enough, could this be an overall boon to the movement (compared to OTL)?

Who would that be? It would have to be a Northerner for balancing purposes. Perhaps Adlai Stevenson, but he wasn't too keen on civil rights either in the 1950s- just read the Democratic platforms of 1952 and 1956 whose civil rights platforms toe the Dixiecrat line.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

Hubert Humphrey?

 

[Han]

I won't cite the full list of precedents, but in the 20th century- the GOP dominance from 1900 to 1932, Wilson excepted, the Democratic dominance from 1932 to 1968, excepting Ike, and GOP dominance from 1968 to 2008, interrupted by a fluke (Carter) and a centre-right Democrat (Clinton).

But in all those examples you listed, there were breaks in between periods of dominance, such as Clinton, Carter, Ike, Wilson, etc. Also, a lot of those periods of dominance could easily have been avoided- for example, if Ford had beat Carter in 1976 (very plausible), it would've been unlikely that the GOP would've won in 1980, leading to the Democratic Party into power for at least the next eight years. I believe that the Democratic Party would've been the more dominant party in this scenario (such as OTL), but in terms of Presidential Power, there probably would've been a Republican break in between the Democratic years of power. I don't see the Dems (or the Repubs, for that matter) controlling the WH for 24 years straight (although, if that happened, the GOP would certainly win the next few elections).