PC/WI: A LaFollete winning Republican Nomination and become President

Thomas1195

Banned
Is it possible to have a LaFollete (either Robert Sr, Bob Jr or Philip) to win Republican Nomination and US presidency as a Republican with any post-1900 POD? Or would it require a pre-1900 POD?

How would his policies look like?
 
I think the easiest way would be for a reverse split to happen.

In OTL, Roosevelt split in 1912 to run the Bull Moose ticket and La Follette largely ran on many of those similar themes later on (encouraging small enterprise through trust busting, infrastructure improvements, a "third way" on tariff policy). I think they are misunderstood in being what you call "Progressive" in the idea that they wanted to curtail business in general, but rather that they identified with the idea of a small business based economy for both economic (to ensure stability) and political (to avoid undue influence) reasons.

So in this scenario, the LaFollette/Roosevelt wing becomes tangible (Roosevelt in this case does not personally alienate La Follette in 1912) and dominant among the party mechanisms at conventions and the Old Guard, committed to gold and the tariff, and tolerant of bossism, is ousted to form a Northeastern Rump Party, perhaps called something like "the National Republicans" or "the American Party" due to their immigration restrictionism and belief in a strong tariff and industrial policy. This would allow LaFollette to rise in the revamped Republican Party and be able to win in the three way elections that would become the norm, perhaps as early as 1920.
 
I once had a series in soc.history.what-if in which Young Bob defeats Joe McCarthy in 1946, and goes on to be Dewey's running mate in a successful 1948 campaign. So this makes him vice-president (and one Puerto Rican nationalist's bullet away from the presidency). Part 4 is of my series is a DBWI:

***
Probably very few people have heard of Joe McCarthy. Even experts in Wisconsin political history know only that he made two unsuccessful attempts at unseating Wisconsin GOP Senators in primaries (Alexander Wiley in 1944, Bob La Follette, Jr. in 1946), was appointed Senator by Governor Rennebohm in 1948 to fill the vacancy caused by La Follette being elected vice-president, and then lost to Democrat Thomas Fairchild in 1950, after which he faded into political obscurity. (Personally, although McCarthy was an undistinguished Senator, I don't think it is entirely fair to blame him for losing in 1950. That was just too much a Democratic year. No matter how President Dewey protested that Truman had really been responsible for the "loss" of China, the Soviet A-bomb, and the Korean War, the GOP, as the party controlling the White House, was bound to be blamed.)

But people forget that McCarthy gave "Young Bob" La Follette a run for his money in 1946. La Follette might have lost had he made the mistake he was tempted to make--endorse his old friend Ralph Immel against Governor Goodland. That would probably have driven thousands of Goodland supporters into McCarthy's camp. (So what if McCarthy had won the primary? In that event, he would probably have beaten the Democrat Howard McMurray in the general election, and would have served at least a full term in the Senate, but I still don't think he would have made any particular name for himself.) Anyway, I think the near-loss to McCarthy had two historically significant effects on La Follette:

(1) McCarthy had accused La Follette of being obsessed with helping labor and not interested enough in other groups, above all farmers. La Follette, realizing that this theme had come close to defeating him, hired a staffer who was very good at agricultural questions and who noticed an obscure provision of the Commodity Credit bill that the 80th Congress was set to pass at the end of its first session. This provision would have made it impossible for the federal government to build grain storage bins near farms. As the staffer pointed out to La Follette (who pointed it out to key GOP farm-state Senators, and especially to his friend Bob Taft) this would mean that if the fall of 1948 should bring a large harvest and a decline in farm prices--which in fact was to happen--the results could be politically catastrophic for the Republicans. With no bins available, farmers would not be able to deposit their grain and collect support payments--and Truman would be sure to blame "that notorious Republican 80th Congress." Fortunately, La Follette persuaded the other Republicans to delay this section's effect for a few years. Had the provision passed in its original form, I would by no means rule out a Truman victory in 1948, despite the Wallace and Thurmond candidacies.

(2) The failure of organized labor to back him against McCarthy, and the fact that the left-wing CIO unions were especially hostile, may have been behind his decision to form the "new La Follette Committee" to investigate communism. Oh, I'll grant the committee wasn't a *total* success. Communists and fellow travelers, for obvious reasons, accused it of "witch-hunting." Liberals, while conceding that La Follette was a lot fairer than Martin Dies or Parnell Thomas, argued that the committee didn't really discover much that was new. It did have a big effect on the GOP, though--it (and his denunciations of the Soviet Union) gave him a reputation as the party's "Mr. Anti-Communism" and caused a lot of the Republicans to lose their hostility to La Follette despite his still generally liberal record on domestic issues. The result is that there was not as much protest as one might expect on the Right when Dewey chose La Follette as his running mate. (Even so, "Young Bob" did have to move to the right a bit--announcing that he now supported Taft-Hartley, though he wanted "a few changes" in it.) Even the *Chicago Tribune*, while expressing unhappiness over another "me too ticket" in domestic affairs, admitted that "whatever our disagreements with Senator La Follette, he and his family have always stood for putting America First."

In retrospect, it is a good thing for the GOP that Dewey chose La Follette. The Republican victory was surprisingly close in Illinois, Ohio, Wisconsin, and California. No doubt Earl Warren (who was also mentioned as a possible vice-presidential candidate) would likewise have enabled Dewey to carry California, but I am not sure about the other three states. Even in OTL, the closeness of the election made the *Chicago Tribune*'s ludicrous "Dewey Defeats Truman In Landslide" early evening edition a collector's item...

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.history.what-if/mRTOgEp6hEI/Ijpl0ZaB1fgJ

***

For Parts One, Two, and Three see

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.history.what-if/E7W7oekwLyY/HsjkH40BQtgJ
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.history.what-if/ER88zGXFw9k/CeP8cih4J8oJ
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.history.what-if/6KOM7ElfQUY/uxxudWzhSoMJ
 
Last edited:

Thomas1195

Banned
This would allow LaFollette to rise in the revamped Republican Party and be able to win in the three way elections that would become the norm, perhaps as early as 1920.
It seems that this Republican Party would be the leftmost non-socialist party, with American Party occupying the rightmost position of the political spectrum. The Dems stand between the two.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Is it possible to make Robert LaFollette Jr winning Republican Nomination? The VP path is not that hard, but winning a Nomination is and would require a much earlier POD.
 
Is it possible to have a LaFollete (either Robert Sr, Bob Jr or Philip) to win Republican Nomination and US presidency as a Republican with any post-1900 POD? Or would it require a pre-1900 POD?

How would his policies look like?
I can do a Democratic for ya
In fact I will,
In 2012 Douggie LaFollette wins the recall election for governor (Idk why) and becomes a driving Progressive force in the Democratic Party in his four years of service as governor and replaces Bernie in the 2016 Primaries. Douggie does basically the same as Bernie in the Primaries, but does better in the midwest and wins after winning NH and IA and having enough momentum to kick him to the finish line.

He beats Trump because he has less scandals than Hill and can do better in midwestern states, although he will probably do worse than Hillary in the African-American vote.
 
Top