The Incident of Sept. 6, 1901 and the Continued Presidency of William McKinley

The Lafollette presidency 1905 - 1913, would have meant more progressive reforms than OTL.

Possibly. LaFollette often followed the rule that "Half a loaf is worse than nothing if it fills the public's appetite." He would often veto legislation if it did not go as far as he intended (although he could back down on occasion. His railroad refoem legislation was actually weaker than in many other states, as he was anxious to pass it and take his position in the Senate.). In fact, this tendency is what caused his break with TR, who he viewed as a weak willed appeaser(!!!!)
My own suspicion is that LaFollette would get less legislation passed, but the stuff that did pass would be of more substance. He also would have no problem using the bully pulpit, and would likely adopt a tactic he used in Wisconsin; traveling to the districts of troublesome congressmen and agitating against them by reading their votes to the citizens. That alone would be interesting.
 
So does that mean an earlier prohibition?

Its possible, although it should be noted that LaFollette was a moderate wet. Although he admitted enjoying a drink on occasion, he stayed noticably silent on the issue; likely because the Progressives in Wisconsin were split down the middle over the issue (many German and Slavic ethnic voters, who sided with the Progressives were Wets, but the Scandinavian voters, who made up a large bloc of Progressive voters were Drys.) One of the reason's for ivrine Lenroot's breaks from LaFollette was over his noncommital practices over this issue.
 
Top