Old Reliable: The Landon Presidency

Liberalism was originally in the nineteenth century to be a movement promoting individual liberty and limited government though not as extreme as modern libertarianism. On the other hand, progressivism was a response to the modernization and corruptions of the Gilded Age. It promoted government action to regulate society and business, and it valued efficiency above liberty or equality. Modern liberalism emerged when it began promoting both equality and liberty using the power of government during the Great Depression. In order to stave off the power of radical movements and distinguish themselves from conservatives at that time, liberalism adopted many socialist and progressive ideas into their movement creating what we know today as modern liberalism.
 
Liberalism was originally in the nineteenth century to be a movement promoting individual liberty and limited government though not as extreme as modern libertarianism. On the other hand, progressivism was a response to the modernization and corruptions of the Gilded Age. It promoted government action to regulate society and business, and it valued efficiency above liberty or equality. Modern liberalism emerged when it began promoting both equality and liberty using the power of government during the Great Depression. In order to stave off the power of radical movements and distinguish themselves from conservatives at that time, liberalism adopted many socialist and progressive ideas into their movement creating what we know today as modern liberalism.

Thanks for explaining that.
 
As I've said before, the basic problem with Landon-wins scenarios is that in a world different enough from ours to make a Republican victory plausible in 1936, he will almost certainly not be the GOP nominee. He got the nomination because he was practically the only fairly prominent Republican to survive the Democratic landslide of 1934.

And no, Huey Long living is not nearly enough. As I have said before, "Now it is true that FDR was worried because a secret poll commissioned by Jim Farley in early 1935 showed that Long could get as many as four million votes. https://books.google.com/books?id=UQlEq9GILRgC&pg=PR98-IA113 But in the first place we now know that even had Long gotten that many votes it couldn't possibly have changed the outcome, FDR having defeated Landon by over eleven million votes (and this is even assuming that all of Long's votes would come from FDR). Second, it is extremely unlikely that Long would in fact get anything like that four million votes. In general, third party candidates do worse in actual elections than in polls, especially polls taken several months before the election. (The "novelty factor" wears off and the "it's a wasted vote because he can't win" argument becomes more widely accepted as Election Day approaches.) Furthermore, in this case, there is an additional reason to expect Long's support to decline--the economy improved tremendously between the time Farley's poll was taken in 1935 and Election Day of 1936:

"The U.S. recovery from the Great Depression was nearly as exceptional as the Depression itself. After falling 27 percent between 1929 and 1933, real GDP rose by 43 percent between 1933 and 1937. Indeed, the economy grew more rapidly between 1933 and 1937 than it has during any other four year peacetime period since at least 1869.1 *The most rapid growth came in 1936, when real GDP grew 13.1 percent and the unemployment rate fell 4.4 percentage points.*" [emphasis added--DT] http://tippie.uiowa.edu/economics/tow/papers/hausman-fall2012.pdf

BTW, four million votes for Long at FDR's expense would not even be enough to elect Willkie in the considerably closer election of 1940! http://psephos.adam-carr.net/countries/u/usa/pres/1940.txt

https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...ctory-in-1936-elections.390110/#post-12490583
 
Interesting scenario. I have a soft spot for the big losers in presidential politics.

Maybe if FDR's health got worse and he was for whatever reason unable to run for a second term, the party would be divided? If someone like Garner got the nomination, I think you might see The Union party attracting a bigger name to its cause and doing better.

Though the best way to probably get Landon into the Whitehouse is to have him either lose narrowly enough in 1936 to seem like a credible candidate in 1940, or skip 1936 to run in 1940 if FDR retires.

Look forward to seeing the idea you come up with to get him in there though.
 
The Battle over Social Security

Roosevelt, after the disaster of the `34 midterm election, was quick to realize that his New Deal legislation was at threat. He attempted to assemble the lame-duck Congress into session, but such efforts were futile. The outgoing Representatives and Senators were either tired, or uninterested. They lost, and that was it.

But he had one thing to count on: that as a result of their appeal toward his own liberal opponents, then they would not be able to stall for long. At some point, they would have to compromise. He understood that there was no alley of maneuvering available, other than attrition.

And so, he proposed the Social Security Act: a payroll tax to finance pensioners' benefits, a lump-sum benefit at death, as well as aid to individual states for welfare programs and disabled or child assistance programs.

Naturally, the Republicans opposed this. Senator Taft from Ohio, the conservatives' leader, attempted to mark himself as the rear of the anti-S.S. front. however, Chairman Murphy made it clear that he would be... disciplined if he stepped out of the Party's line and did not retain the back-bench for the moment.

Instead, they chose the little known William Lemke, Congressman from North Dakota. While he was generally a pro-New Dealer, Murphy managed to convince him that it was preferable that bill, at least in it's current form, failed to pass.

He arranged for Lemke to make speeches on radio, attend interviews. He was put in the spotlight at every opportunity. The C.W.R. movement had it's newest face. He would lead the charge.

A few days before the Senate was to vote on the bill, Lemke gave a speech in the House chamber. In it, he proposed an alternative bill: the Senior Care Act, in which authority over the pensions would be devolved to the states, with the money being received in federal income taxes and state payroll taxes. This outraged Democrats and Republicans alike. Murphy's office received many profane and unpleasant calls from various Congressmen.

To restore order in the ranks, he instructed his surrogates to spread rumors of a purge: in two years, they'd set up their own candidates to challenge the dissidents for re-nomination. He said, "if they won't go along now, then I think I'll really do it."

Sure enough, they quieted down (save for Taft, who was powerful and experienced enough to ignore their threats). Speaker Byrns, reluctantly, agreed to hold a vote on the Republicans' bill. It passed, 228-207.

Roosevelt and the Democratic leadership, quite alarmed, decided to go to the table with Lemke. The two formed a friendship of sorts, and he decided to use that to his advantage, urging the Dakotan to give up on the S.C.A. before it would get to the Senate. Murphy was whispering in his other ear, assuring him that they had the upper hand by that point. Lemke listened to the latter.

The S.C.A., however, was killed in the Senate, 61-39. However, Roosevelt understood that Social Security would, most likely, most meet a similar fate. He told the Congressional Democrats, "in a few months, or in a year, however long until we can, we'll bring it back."

But Murphy had his victory.
 
Next update:

80e891cc7fb9cdc4fe08cf746dc821bd-pearlsquare.jpg
 
Top