(1) As a senator from a farm state, Curtis was a bit more open to farm relief than Hoover was: "As majority leader, Curtis loyally supported the Coolidge administration, but as a farm-state senator he strongly advocated the kind of federal farm relief that the president opposed. He consistently voted for the McNary-Haugen bills that Coolidge vetoed. In May 1928, however, he shifted his vote to sustain—by a one-vote margin—Coolidge's veto. He explained that, regardless of his belief in the issue, he felt it was his duty as leader to stand by the president. This was not an easy vote for Curtis, who at the time was an announced candidate to succeed Coolidge in that year's presidential election, and who was counting on strong support from the farm states."
https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/generic/VP_Charles_Curtis.htm
(McNary-Haugen was a scheme to help farmers through a government corporation which would buy up their surpluses and dump them abroad or keep them off the market until prices rose. It was very popular among farmers, though economists generally agreed with Coolidge that it would not work, and that the guaranteed higher prices would just encourage larger surpluses.)
(2) I think that the role of Smoot-Hawley in deepening the Depression has been much exaggerated [1], but in any event Curtis was a staunch protectionist and would have supported it as president as he did as vice-president. "He [Curtis] pointed with pride to the fact that one of the first legislative enactments of the Harding administration was the Emergency Tariff Act, followed by the FordneyMcCumber Tariff Act, and later the Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act, all of which included protection on farm products. Curtis proudly claimed that he helped effect the enactment of these farm tariff provisions, an indignant retort to Roosevelt's assertion that the Republican tariff was a fraud upon the American farmer." Martin Ewy, *Charles Curtis of Kansas: Vice President of the United States, 1929-1933*, p. 55.
All in all I don't think Curtis would be any more (or less) effective than Hoover in dealing with the Great Depression, and like Hoover would overwhelmingly be defeated if he ran for re-election in 1932. BTW, it was Curtis, not Hoover, who made the much-ridiculed statement that "prosperity is just around the corner."
https://books.google.com/books?id=7bXY94wXD2EC&pg=PA107
(3) As for Native Americans: Of course having one of their own as president would be a source of pride for Native Americans, but in fact he was somewhat controversial among them because of the Curtis Act of 1898.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_Act_of_1898
"On its website, the Oklahoma State Library states, “The Curtis Act helped weaken and dissolve Indian Territory tribal governments by abolishing tribal courts and subjecting all persons in the territory to federal law. This meant that there could be no enforcement of tribal laws and that any tribal legislation passed after 1898 had to be approved by the president of the United States.”
“Prior to 1896, each of the Five Civilized Tribes had exercised sole jurisdiction over its citizenship requirements, determining who was a tribal member and who was not. With the passage of the Curtis Act, Congress authorized the Dawes Commission to prepare new citizenship rolls for each tribe. Sen. Henry L. Dawes, of Massachusetts, undertook the compilation of a census to be used as the basis for allotment of tribal lands to individual Indians. Enrollment of tribe members, and ensuing allotment, was done without tribal consent.”
"In Native Americans Today: A Biographical Dictionary, Bruce Elliott Johansen wrote, “Curtis’ endeavors to foster allotment and assimilation were opposed by many Native American leaders of Indian Territory. In essence, the Curtis Act paved the way for Oklahoma statehood in 1907 by destroying tribal land titles and governments there.”
"Rose Stremlau wrote in her book, Sustaining the Cherokee Family: Kinship and the Allotment of an Indigenous Nation, “The Curtis Act destroyed tribal sovereignty in Indian Territory. First, it suspended tribal laws and judicial systems. Second, it removed tribal control over assets, entrusting them instead to the secretary of the interior. Third, Congress posted an inspector in Indian Territory to supervise and, essentially, cripple the governments of the Five Tribes. Fourth, the Curtis Act provided a framework for dismantling tribal resource bases.”..."
https://theonefeather.com/2014/02/charles-curtis-americas-indian-vice-president/ No doubt Curtis thought that was he was doing was right, and in the Native Americans' own interest, but not all of them agreed.
(4) On foreign policy, I don't think he would go any farther than Hoover in terms of US involvement in the Manchurian crisis, and maybe not even as far. He had after all helped Lodge defeat the League in 1919-20.
[1] See my posts at
https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...-act-no-great-depression.324772/#post-9529921 and
https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...-a-multi-term-president.348959/#post-10976875