Robert Taft wins the 1948 Presidential Election

Taft ran for the Republican nomination in 1948 but lost to Dewey. What happens if he succeeds getting on the ticket and beats Truman? Will there still be a Cold War?
 
Interesting and not so obvious questions. IRL, Dewey, a total favorite, took all for granted, didn't moved his ass to campaign and lost in an upset. I can easily imagine Taft would do really active campaigning, yet even in 1952, when basically every Republican would win, many party leaders worked to sabotage his campaing due to fear of his inelectability.

In 1948 I'd still say narrow Truman re-election.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
I actually think we'll see a much more successful earlier Cold War for the Soviets. Robert Taft was anti-NATO, anti-UN, and a staunch isolationist.

While I'm not sure about pulling out of the UN, the other two could have significant long-term impacts, especially regarding Korea and the rebuilding/garrisoning of post-War Europe.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
Interesting and not so obvious questions. IRL, Dewey, a total favorite, took all for granted, didn't moved his ass to campaign and lost in an upset. I can easily imagine Taft would do really active campaigning, yet even in 1952, when basically every Republican would win, many party leaders worked to sabotage his campaing due to fear of his inelectability.

In 1948 I'd still say narrow Truman re-election.
Actually, Robert Taft was a piss-poor campaigner. He was very uncomfortable soliciting donations at fundraisers and such and was nowhere near what anybody would call "charismatic." Dewey sitting on his ass is the equivalent of Taft campaigning his heart out.

There are a lot of ways to beat Truman. I read a short story about it once, I'll go peruse it and get back to you.
 
Well, with no NATO, or a weaker equivalent, there would likely be no Warsaw Pact. (Remember, they came along a number of years later.) The US wouldn't be interfering in the affairs of other countries- so we'd have a better image. Taft couldn't have been more opposite Henry Wallace on many issues*, but both their foreign policies would result in a far better image of America abroad.
As for eliminating Dewey, just have Dutch Schultz get his way...
*Both are woefully underappreciated.
 
Well, with no NATO, or a weaker equivalent, there would likely be no Warsaw Pact. (Remember, they came along a number of years later.) The US wouldn't be interfering in the affairs of other countries- so we'd have a better image.

I'm not so sure that the wrecked European countries where Soviet-style communism could become a reality would agree. If Taft is elected (which is a huge stretch), Western Europe is going to quickly find that it has no friend in the United States, which is going to turn its back on the democratic capitalist powers there. I assume that Taft will cut off the Marshall Plan completely, bleeding the recovery and risking that other western powers too fall under the Iron Curtain (Italy, maybe?)

Of course, this is going to lead to backlash on the domestic front, where Taft's policies will be deeply unpopular among anyone not in the top tax brackets as it is. I expect that the Democrats will attack Taft on both foreign policy and domestic policy to drive the labor vote out in 1950 and take back Congress, assuming that Taft and the Republicans win either the House or Senate in '48.

The Democrats are going to try and push Taft toward intervention in Korea, but with Taft, it's again a nonstarter. Thus, Kim Il Sung probably pushes on forward, and without American aid, the South falls and a united Democratic People's Republic of Korea is situated in Seoul. This, combined with the fall of the nationalists in China, will probably raise the tensions within the Republican Party between the anticommunist hawks and the Taft wing of the party. The Democrats, of course, will unite behind a common opposition to Taft, and will nominate someone who can win in 1952.

My guess is that Dwight Eisenhower will accept the Democratic nomination in 1952. If Taft is renominated, which, with these developments, I'm not exactly sure he would be, the Republicans get destroyed in a 1932-esque Democratic victory. Of course, there's always the chance that Doug MacArthur or Dewey could try and primary him...
 
I'm not so sure that the wrecked European countries where Soviet-style communism could become a reality would agree. If Taft is elected (which is a huge stretch), Western Europe is going to quickly find that it has no friend in the United States, which is going to turn its back on the democratic capitalist powers there. I assume that Taft will cut off the Marshall Plan completely, bleeding the recovery and risking that other western powers too fall under the Iron Curtain (Italy, maybe?)

I think Taft eventually got on board with the Marshall Plan but argued less money should be put into the project.
 
I think Taft eventually got on board with the Marshall Plan but argued less money should be put into the project.

I read somewhere that for every $1 the US gave in Marshall aid we got $7 back in economic growth. That's why our standard of living was so high in the 1950's (2 cars in EVERY garage?). The outside world needed to buy the equipment to rebuild from somewhere. Guess who?:D

If Taft kills the Marshall Plan he won't make it thru the primaries.:eek:
 
I think Taft eventually got on board with the Marshall Plan but argued less money should be put into the project.

I think it really depends on the POD here. If we're talking that everything goes as OTL, Taft might be alright with it, as it will already be in action by 1949. Then again, this is Bob Taft we're talking about. He's a paleoconservative who deplores government spending of any kind and is a through and through isolationist, so I have my doubts about him hitching his wagon onto the Marshall Plan.

Again, though, you're going to have to have something big happen to make Bob Taft a viable candidate in 1948. Remember, the war has just ended, both parties are seeing reds everywhere and have rejected isolationism, and the country has a strong and viable union movement that provides boots on the ground for liberal candidates, and the very idea that Taft, the man who is perhaps more responsible for the American labor movement's repression in the late forties than anyone else, will drive out liberals and labor like no candidate before him.

Furthermore, what can Taft win on? Repealing Social Security and abolishing farm subsidies isn't going to win the elderly vote or the farm vote, the latter of which is still important at this point in time. Promising to ditch Europe and 'let the commies have it' isn't going to win those concerned with the communist threat, and will probably drive Republicans into the Democratic column. Promising to bust the unions and kill regulation of industry isn't going to help him much in the industrial sector, either.

Frankly, I think a Taft win is just about as likely as a Barry Goldwater or Ron Paul win. It's impossible in the post-New Deal era. He's just too much of a fringe, reactionary candidate to have a chance in the general election.
 
Top