Is there a pet project of Knowland’s that Mac could use to convince him to let labor reform go through? If Mac knows about Knowland’s admiration for him then maybe an invitation to Camp David for a weekend would help bring him around?
Patton in Korea/MacArthur in the White House
- Thread starter BiteNibbleChomp
- Start date
- Status
Knowland’s pet project is beating Nixon to the Presidency via control of the California delegation, aka the reason the Big Switch of ‘58 was attempted and failed spectacularly for everyone except Nixon.
Think you might be safe. I'm definitely not, I just put his favourite person on the entire planet in the White House
Mind if I take the Camp David idea?
I do wonder if that would really be a concern ITTL? Nixon's only AG here, a far less nationally prominent spot than VP, and he'd only be 44 when Mac's term is up... hardly the obvious frontrunner the way he was under Ike (although certainly a possibility).
- BNC
Of course, feel free. It’d be cool to see an idea I had used in the TL 🙂
bguy
Donor
Like Electric Monk said Knowland really wants to be president. If he has an inkling that MacArthur doesn't intend to run again in 1956 (and given MacArthur's age that thought must have occurred to Knowland), then he might be persuadable in exchange for a guarantee of MacArthur's support for his presidential run.
The problem is Knowland is hardly the only obstacle to enacting significant labor reform. There are a ton of anti-union members of Congress at this time (especially in the House). Indeed Taft-Hartley as enacted was greatly watered down from the version the House originally passed which also included provisions allowing for private parties to seek injunctions against secondary boycotts and jurisdictional strikes, a ban on industrywide bargaining, a ban on employers contributing to union welfare funds, severely restricted the union shop, and would have subjected unions to anti-trust laws.) At the conference committee on the bill Robert Taft convinced the House to agree to remove all those provisions from the final bill since Taft didn't believe there were the votes in the Senate to override a veto from Truman if those provisions remained, but the fact they were ever included in the House version shows how anti-union a majority of the House was. (Nor was this anti-union sentiment just from Republicans members either. 20 Democratic senators and 106 Democratic representatives voted to override Truman's veto of Taft-Hartley.)
Suffice it to say there's a reason that even Lyndon Johnson, probably the greatest legislative tactician to ever hold the presidency, when fresh off his landslide victory over Goldwater, at a time when he was getting a Voting Rights Act, Medicare, and federal funding for education all enacted with ease, failed at getting repeal of Section 14(b) of Taft-Hartley through Congress. It's a very, very tough bill to get passed.
MacArthur does have an important potential ally in Speaker Joe Martin who was both a moderate (Martin believed union shops were necessary for collective bargaining, so he probably would be ok with repealing Section 14b) and who also happened to be another big admirer of MacArthur's. (IOTL Martin favored MacArthur over both Taft and Eisenhower for president in 1952.) But at least IOTL Martin's control over the House wasn't particularly strong and especially not on labor issues. (Martin had also been Speaker in 1947 when Taft-Hartley was passed, and he thought the House's original version of the bill went to far but also didn't feel he could block it and stay Speaker, so he let the House pass it while trusting the Senate to water it down.) Martin also has a potential serious rival in House Majority Leader Charles Halleck (who didn't particularly like Martin and even IOTL regretted not challenging Martin for the Speakership in 1952.) If Martin tries to push serious labor reform through the House, he will almost certainly provoke a leadership challenge from Halleck.
marathag
Banned
Ike renamed FDR's 'Shangri-La' to "Camp David" for his grandson David Eisenhower
Name going to change, but I'm not sure what to, but the area was known as Naval Support Facility Thurmont- so I'd say it goes back to that, or it get named for somebody who died in Korea
marktaha
Banned
Making it impossible for states to pass Right to work laws? No way would that get through -I'd have thought MacArthur more likely to favour a Federal one.
I wonder how Mac will handle the Middle East and Iran and the Suez Crisis compared to how Ike did IOTL
Probably rather similarly - he was rather anti-colonialist.
Honestly, I was speculating to myself somewhat that he may take the hands off approach as he focuses more on Asia and the Pacific. I suppose I could see it both ways though.
That was the first thought for a rename I had too! Think I'll go with 'Camp Arthur' though (thanks @Locke01 )... seems to be the more realistic pick.
Mac almost definitely wouldn't support a federal right-to-work law. His ideology is rather hard to pin down, but 'libertarian' fits better than anything else I've so far found... the way he describes it, federal government should be small and not do much - definitely not getting in the way of workers doing whatever they want and organising. (I will note that he often contradicted himself though, he expressed doubts about the New Deal being "within the realm of fruition" and then later used parts of it in Japan - but he's fairly consistent on wanting small government).
Suez will be the timeline's final act... let's not rush things!
...
- BNC
Ooh good to know. No worries I won't rush you. And I agree "Camp Arthur" is a great rename tooSuez will be the timeline's final act... let's not rush things!
...
- BNC
Mac historically warned Kennedy against involvement in Vietnam. His argument was, “never fight a land war in Asia” with the example of Japan’s experience in WWII showing that such a conflict in all but unwinnable, especially once China gets involved. It’s possible that Korea in TTL will have changed his mind as Patton managed to scrape a victory together despite their involvement.
Of course that all depends on what’s happened there with the French as well.
Speaking of the French I wonder how Charles de Gaulle and Mac will get along with Mac as President
IOTL de Gaulle was out of power at this time, so I wasn't expecting to bring him into TTL. Though now that you've mentioned it... maybe. Probably more interesting than the twenty-odd governments the 4th Republic offered
I will be including Churchill fairly soon
On a side note, today marks 70 years since Mac got sacked by Truman. Not sure if this thread is the right place to celebrate it, but up to you guys
- BNC
Awesome! And wow 70 years?!IOTL de Gaulle was out of power at this time, so I wasn't expecting to bring him into TTL. Though now that you've mentioned it... maybe. Probably more interesting than the twenty-odd governments the 4th Republic offered
I will be including Churchill fairly soon
On a side note, today marks 70 years since Mac got sacked by Truman. Not sure if this thread is the right place to celebrate it, but up to you guys
- BNC
- Status