Which of Franklin Roosevelt's Opponents Would have Made the Best President?

Which of Franklin Roosevelt's opponents would have made the best President?

  • Alfred Landon in 1936

    Votes: 9 9.1%
  • Wendell Wilkie in 1940

    Votes: 32 32.3%
  • Thomas Dewey in 1944

    Votes: 58 58.6%

  • Total voters
    99
Willkie is my pick. He's enough like FDR to get into and win the war, but as a businessman different enough to (hopefully) rein in runaway government.
 
I am amazed Wendell Willkie did as well as he did in the election. He must have been a more compelling presidential candidate than a business man with no real political experience sounds like.

It is concievable that he had sonme outside assistance at the Republican convention in 1940 organised by William Stevenson. M16 had been involved in influencing union election at the time with the aim of weakening the influence of fellow travellers who toed the Moscow line on the war particularly the United Mineworkers. Wilkie was arguably more hawkish than Roosevelt on the war but Britain would have had problems in any transitional period between Roosevelt and any successor over lend lease and other deals to arm Britain. Wilkie was however the best option on offer should Roosevelt lose. Alistair Cooke describes an influx of delegates cherring Wilkie so I suspect Stevenson played a hand in the 1940 Republican convention albeit covertly. Of course I can't substantiate my theory but I wouldn't put it past Stevenson

As for influence well a Wilkie presidency would have had influence particularly in between the election and Pearl Harbour if there was to be a Pearl Harbour. Dewey would have probably had greater influence in the long term reviving Liberal Republicanism
 
The main problem with Wilkie is probably congress. If Wilkie wants to get anything done in 1941, he's going to have to work either with Republicans who disagree with him, or Democrats who probably aren't going to be thrilled to be working with an ex-Democrat. Also, Wilkie's sheer inexperience would be problematic.

I wonder, is Wilkie a viable candidate in a situation where Roosevelt isn't running? Since that's about the only situation in which a Wilkie Presidency is possible. I know, this is a bit of a tangent since I didn't want to get bogged down into discussions of how a "Landon Presidency" is extremely implausible, I knew that already. Anyway, if FDR decides to be a two termer, does Wilkie still have a chance at the nomination?

If not, the consequences of the 1940 election could be dire. There's a chance we end up with an isolationist District Attorney as President of the United States in the middle of the Second World War. True, he'd be more experienced than Wilkie, but his non interventionist stance would be very problematic.
 
Dewey was not an isolationist, just *extremely fluid* in his views. If you think Romney is an unprincipled flip-flopper today, Dewey was changing his positions practically on the hour at the RNC depending on who he was talking to. At core he was a moderate internationalist like FDR, as we found out in 1944 and 1948.
 
I think there is a real question of whether the war with Japan would have happened, or in the same time and place. It took two intractable policies (Japanese domination of China v. the Stimson Doctrine) and a long series of economic embargoes over 1940-1941 to bring war. Even the oil embargo of July 1941 was not intended to be as drastic as it was.

Would a Willkie administration pursue the same policy over China and Japan? Maybe the Northern group wins the Japanese strategy debate in this scenario.
 
The main problem with Wilkie is probably congress. If Wilkie wants to get anything done in 1941, he's going to have to work either with Republicans who disagree with him, or Democrats who probably aren't going to be thrilled to be working with an ex-Democrat. Also, Wilkie's sheer inexperience would be problematic.

I wonder, is Wilkie a viable candidate in a situation where Roosevelt isn't running? Since that's about the only situation in which a Wilkie Presidency is possible. I know, this is a bit of a tangent since I didn't want to get bogged down into discussions of how a "Landon Presidency" is extremely implausible, I knew that already. Anyway, if FDR decides to be a two termer, does Wilkie still have a chance at the nomination?

If not, the consequences of the 1940 election could be dire. There's a chance we end up with an isolationist District Attorney as President of the United States in the middle of the Second World War. True, he'd be more experienced than Wilkie, but his non interventionist stance would be very problematic.

If FDR does not run, I bout that Willkie will get the nomination.
 
Top