The right man at the right time? Hoover in 1920

As most students of US history know, Herbert Hoover was a candidate for the presidency in 1920; in fact, he was a rare instance of being sought for the standard bearer's role by both parties. As we all know, he chose the Republicans and indeed, got a non-negligible number of votes at the convention that ultimately nominated Harding.

We also know how inept Harding was as a president, and that Hoover never got a chance to implement any of his policies since the crash and subsequent depression overrode any programs he might have had in mind going in. At the same time, we do know that Hoover was a solid cabinet member, serving as Secretary of Commerce under both Harding and Coolidge.

Thus: how do we get the 1920 Republican convention to choose Hoover (likely after multiple ballots) as the nominee? [Suggestion: somehow get Hoover to take his California candidacy more seriously such that he beats Hiram Johnson in the primary; IOTL, Hoover lost to Johnson, effectively ending any no-nonsense consideration as a candidate.] Who is the choice for the vice presidency? [Suggestion: Frank Lowden of Illinois. He brings a major state's electoral votes and experience in elected office, which clearly Hoover had none of.] And how does a Hoover presidency beginning in 1921 alter the course of the Roaring Twenties in the US [Suggestion: the appointment of Charles Dawes as Secretary of the Treasury might lead to curtailment of the unbridled margin buying that led ultimately to the 1929 crash...], and perhaps abroad?
 
Last edited:
I suspect that Collidge could still end up as the VP nominee. The question will be whether Hoover does better or worse than Harding in the general assuming the former is nominated.
 
Hoover didn't even declare he was a Republican until that year: many Democrats wanted to run him. It was the Ike situation basically, both parties wanted to run the national hero and no one knew where their sympathies lay since they served in a Democratic administration. Hoover was a "progressive" (centrist) Republican, not TR but not a conservative either.
 
I suspect that Collidge could still end up as the VP nominee. The question will be whether Hoover does better or worse than Harding in the general assuming the former is nominated.

Coolidge was a last-second nomination from the floor, essentially, by a delegate from OR. In the mood of the convention at the time, that pretty much stampeded the delegates, who were otherwise ready to nominate Irvine Lenroot--which, ironically, would have been the best move Harding made, either as president, president-elect, or nominee. It's difficult to imagine that the convention would have opted for two relatively bland, colorless candidates in Hoover and Coolidge: hence I'd believe Lenroot would have had the second spot.

Hoover's abilities as an administrator were never open to question: those were exceedingly well established. Similarly, Hoover had no embarrassing or corrupt friends along the lines of Harding's Ohio gang. If anything, Hoover was breathtakingly boring with nearly no charisma whatsoever: he would have been elected on merit and on capabilities.

Would he have tried more seriously to enforce prohibition?

I have doubts along those lines. At one point Hoover called prohibition "a noble experiment", which seems to me to be spoken more out of duty than conviction, since he had been recorded to have groused that prohibition made him get rid of his wine cellar. If anything, I suspect a Hoover presidency in the early 1920s would have recognized prohibition as unwieldy and unworkable, and made moves toward repeal.

Hoover didn't even declare he was a Republican until that year: many Democrats wanted to run him. It was the Ike situation basically, both parties wanted to run the national hero and no one knew where their sympathies lay since they served in a Democratic administration. Hoover was a "progressive" (centrist) Republican, not TR but not a conservative either.

True, generally: Hoover identified with the Progressives in 1912, and moved toward the center as time progressed (indeed, in OTL, the rightward shift continued: over time, Hoover was viewed as one of the most conservative presidents/public figures of the day.) Perhaps an earlier presidency might have halted his rightward drift.
 
You make a good argument for Lenroot, and with Hoover in 1920's there will be some clear differences frim Harding and Coolidge but some similarities as well.
 
How would the Eastern establishment feel about two "western" candidates on the ticket? And two progressives to boot?
 
Slightly OT, but one ironic possibility -- if you have Hoover run as a Democrat -- would be a Hoover/FDR ticket. IOTL, FDR - who was friendly with Hoover in the Wilson Administration (and something of an admirer) - urged Hoover to run. And the same forces that pushed for FDR on Cox's ticket talked up a Hoover-Roosevelt ticket.
 
How would the Eastern establishment feel about two "western" candidates on the ticket? And two progressives to boot?

At the time, Hoover was moving toward the right (well, at least toward the center). And his pro-business policies were well known since he himself had been successful in the business world. Thus, I don't think he'd be a really tough sell to the more conservative/moneyed/Wall Street-oriented members of the party. In fact, given his experience and stances overall, I'd guess he'd be more or less universally acceptable.

If Hoover backed Lenroot (probably not too much of a reach), chances are it wouldn't be too difficult to put him over the top. On the other hand, could Wallace McCamant of OR start a floor stampede to nominate Coolidge as in OTL? I don't see a Hoover nomination as a complete block to that. If some group insisted on east/west, progressive/conservative balance, it could work. Given Hoover's overall health, though, if Coolidge were chosen, I doubt we'd ever see Coolidge in the White House.
 
At the time, Hoover was moving toward the right (well, at least toward the center). And his pro-business policies were well known since he himself had been successful in the business world. Thus, I don't think he'd be a really tough sell to the more conservative/moneyed/Wall Street-oriented members of the party. In fact, given his experience and stances overall, I'd guess he'd be more or less universally acceptable.

If Hoover backed Lenroot (probably not too much of a reach), chances are it wouldn't be too difficult to put him over the top. On the other hand, could Wallace McCamant of OR start a floor stampede to nominate Coolidge as in OTL? I don't see a Hoover nomination as a complete block to that. If some group insisted on east/west, progressive/conservative balance, it could work. Given Hoover's overall health, though, if Coolidge were chosen, I doubt we'd ever see Coolidge in the White House.

Also, if east and west were an issue, why wrren't they in 1928 when Hoover's running mate (and subsequent VP) was from Kansas?
 
Slightly OT, but one ironic possibility -- if you have Hoover run as a Democrat -- would be a Hoover/FDR ticket. IOTL, FDR - who was friendly with Hoover in the Wilson Administration (and something of an admirer) - urged Hoover to run. And the same forces that pushed for FDR on Cox's ticket talked up a Hoover-Roosevelt ticket.

This makes for some interesting butterflies if it goes ahead. I'm not sure that Hoover can win in 1920 (a Democrat winning in 1920 is nearly ASB)
 
This makes for some interesting butterflies if it goes ahead. I'm not sure that Hoover can win in 1920 (a Democrat winning in 1920 is nearly ASB)

Persuading Hoover to run as a Democrat would be verging into ASB territory. By 1920, even though there was still something of a flirtation with the Democrats (IIRC, his name was entered in a few Democrat primaries here and there), Hoover was well on his way to casting his lot with the GOP.

But for the sake of discussion, assuming that somehow Hoover had been persuaded to be the Democrats' standard bearer, I agree that it's highly unlikely for him to win. It would have taken a monumentally galvanizing candidate to persuade the nation to stay with the Democrats after eight years of Wilsonian sermonizing, and that is pretty much what Hoover was NOT.

Now, assuming no Hoover at the GOP convention, that frees up a relatively small handful of delegates that could go to other candidates. Might it be just enough to forestall the deadlock and the smoke-filled room that gave us Harding? Can't say for sure but at some point I'll see if I can get a handle on that.
 
Top