WI: 1948 Election Goes to the House

Here are the divergences. I think these are somewhat plausible.

1) The Dixiecrats max out at 127 votes.

2) Dewey wins California and its 25 electoral votes.

266 are needed to win.

This leaves the following:

Truman has 161 EVs. Dewey has 214. Dixies have 127.

The vote heads to the House.

In the actual election, Truman won 28 states.

However, in my TL, that becomes 20. The Dixies now have 11 states. Dewey now has 27. And before the House votes, there is of course jockeying. And Strom and the other Dixiecrats now have a lot of power. For Truman to reign victorious, he's going to need them to flip. And that comes at a price.

So, what is that price and how does that shape the next few years?
 
The Republicans had a substantial majority in Congress, and Dewey (or Taft, or Vandenburg, or, whoever) could have easily gotten the 25 delegations needed, without the South's help. The Senate might have chosen a Democratic VP (they can only choose from among the top two, and it would be Barkley, probably) or a Republican for continuity's sake. Both Truman and Dewey wouldn't have compromised with Thurmond, leading to a Northern moral victory, and Southern approval is basically irrelevant to them.

Dewey will win this, and he has no motive to compromise with the South, whose racial politics are utterly anathema to him, and so he'll just let the House do its thing, and Thomas E. Dewey will become President. Truman had too many principles to do something like this.
 
Honestly, I'm pretty sure Dewey simply wins under these circumstances. The Red Scare continues, and there'll probably be an attempt to privatize Social Security, whether Dewey wants it or not.
 
Depends what happens in the House races. In the outgoing (80th) Congress Dewey would certainly have won, but since the 20th Amendment it has been the new House that chooses a POTUS in this situation.
 

Minty_Fresh

Banned
Truman might have been more willing to cooperate with the Dixiecrats, who were unwilling to make moves against social security and things popular with the southern populist wing of the Democratic party, than Dewey was. I don't know what Truman would be willing to give up in return, however. While he may or may not have at one time been a KKK member, I don't think integration of the armed services was something he was going to compromise on. Likely, the compromise comes down to pork and patronage, and I think Truman would be willing to give that in return for support.
 

bguy

Donor
The Republicans had a substantial majority in Congress, and Dewey (or Taft, or Vandenburg, or, whoever) could have easily gotten the 25 delegations needed, without the South's help. The Senate might have chosen a Democratic VP (they can only choose from among the top two, and it would be Barkley, probably) or a Republican for continuity's sake. Both Truman and Dewey wouldn't have compromised with Thurmond, leading to a Northern moral victory, and Southern approval is basically irrelevant to them.

Dewey will win this, and he has no motive to compromise with the South, whose racial politics are utterly anathema to him, and so he'll just let the House do its thing, and Thomas E. Dewey will become President. Truman had too many principles to do something like this.

Isn't it the incoming Congress that elects the President in a deadlocked election though? Looking at the historical 81st Congress, the Democrats controlled the congressional delegations of 26 states (11 of which are southern), the Republicans controlled the delegations of 19 states, and 3 states were tied. Dewey needs 25 states for a majority, so even if his slightly better performance leads to a better Republican performance in the Congressional races (say the Republicans win a majority of the congressional races in all 3 of the states that OTL had tied delegations, and also flip Ohio with OTL went 18-17 for the Democrats), that still leaves him 2 states short of a majority, so I don't see how he can win in the House.

Honestly, I'm pretty sure Dewey simply wins under these circumstances. The Red Scare continues, and there'll probably be an attempt to privatize Social Security, whether Dewey wants it or not.

What Congressional Republicans in the 1940s were calling for privatizing social security?
 
I wrote about the issue of *which* Congress chooses back in 2001:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.history.what-if/yMtjG1ksWOQ/cBAe_70cvWcJ
***

Putting the 1948 presidential election into the House of Representatives
requires no great effort. Just (a) have Dewey make a marginally better
campaign in Ohio (a change of less than 3,600 votes there will do), and (b)
get Henry Wallace on the ballot in Illinois, and assume he will do about as
well there as in Michigan or Wisconsin (about 2 percent--even if half of it
is from people who didn't vote or voted for minor left-wing candidates, as
long as the other half is from Truman voters, Dewey carries the state). The
result is that the Electoral College stands at 250 votes for Truman, 242 for
Dewey, and 39 for Thurmond...

(Alternatively, you can keep Wallace off the ballot in Illinois and keep
the state in the Truman camp--but change 9,000 votes in California in
addition to the 3,600 in Ohio.)

Previously, I did not think this would make much difference, because I
assumed that under the Twentieth Amendment, the new Congress decides on the
President and Vice-President in the event there is no majority in the
Electoral College. The new, 81st Congress was heavily Democratic (though I
don't have a state-by-state delegation breakdown for the House) and would
therefore presumably choose Truman. (I don't think the Dixiecrats controlled
enough state delegations to matter--though again I will have to check.)
Certainly that is in accord with the *purpose* of the Amendment--the whole
point of pushing back the opening date of the new Congress to January 3 (17
days before the presidential and vice-presidential terms start) was to
prevent a lame duck Congress from making the choice. And yet...there is
nothing in the text of the amendment which specifically states that only the
new Congress can make the choice. In a 1980 Atlantic Monthly article
entitled "Deadlock: What Happens if Nobody Wins", Laurence M. Tribe and
Thomas M. Rollins argue that "The outgoing Republican Eightieth Congress...
could have responded by moving up the date for picking among Democrat Truman,
Republican Thomas Dewey, and States' Rights candidate Strom Thurmond. In any
year, this tactic would surely stir popular protest, but a partisan Congress
could decide to take the heat: the re-elected members are likely to be from
safe districts; the lame duck members have little or nothing left to lose."
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/80oct/deadlock2.htm Tribe and Rollins
argue that this is so contrary to the history and principle of the 20th
Amendment that "the silence of the Constitution's text becomes almost
irrelevant. The document should be interpreted to forbid lame duck
manipulation of the presidency, although a partisan Congress might decide
differently -- and it is anyone's guess how far the courts would go to halt
the lame ducks as they tramp across the spirit of the document for their own
narrow ends." Indeed, I could easily see the Supreme Court of 1948 refusing
to decide this, holding it was a "political question." (In analyzing the
plausibility of the Court so holding, please let's not get into another
debate on Supreme Court decisions of 2000. We are talking about the court of
the 1940's, which expressed a marked reluctance to get into what Justice
Frankfurter in *Colegrove v. Green*, 328 US 549 [1946] described as the "political
thicket.")

(The Tribe-Rollins article also has some interesting scenarios on the 1980
election, http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/80oct/deadlock.htm but they
depend on Anderson doing much better than in OTL and the Reagan-Carter race
being much closer.)
 

Minty_Fresh

Banned
What Congressional Republicans in the 1940s were calling for privatizing social security?

Privatization is more of a neoliberal approach to rolling back the state, holding that the resources built up by the state would be better served being returned to the people in the form of business control of them, who would operate them better than the bloated bureaucracy of the government.

Congressional Republicans were divided in the 40s over it, however. The older, isolationist and protectionist wing of the party led by Taft thought that social security was merely one of Hayek's paths towards socialism and serfdom, and sought to roll it back due to the confiscatory nature of the program. The more moderate, post-New Deal wing of the party (rightly in my view) realized that opposing social security was a surefire way to lose elections and keep losing elections, and therefore made their peace with it. Some Republicans sought a middle way where the contributions to social security would be lowered out of an interest in fiscal responsibility, especially due to their realization that social security's expenses would grow quicker than its contributions as the American population grew from the wave of poor post-war immigrants.

Privatization was later seen as something that the Reaganite wing of the party in the 80s wanted to move towards. The ones who were more moderate on the issue in the party but still sought some kind of reform, like George W. Bush, advocated for partial, voluntary privatization, seeing it as a way that would reduce the rapidly ballooning costs of social security.
 
I always assumed privatization was a necessary figleaf to abolishing SS because otherwise, well, are you gonna refund everyone's payroll taxes or what? You'd need some pretense that taxpayers aren't getting stiffed by the transition.
 
Politically, an attempt by the 80th Congress to vote in Dewey would have been a stretch assuming the 1948 House elections were similar to OTL. Democrats were voted a big majority in the 81st going from 184 seats at the end of the 80th to 263 at the start of the 81st. It would have been a pretty indefensible naked power grab, made worse by the fact that Truman based part of his election pitch on getting rid of the "do-nothing" 80th Congress. The Congressional election results could not have been a clearer repudiation of the GOP-controlled 80th Congress. If the Republicans went ahead and voted Dewey in, you could have a nasty battle where Democrats in the 81st vote for a different result, leading to a rather messy Constitutional question of which Congress has the power to conduct the vote. In the 81st, Democrats controlled 26 delegations including the South with 4 delegations split 50-50. While the Dixiecrats had their issues with Truman (obviously), it's hard to see them voting for Dewey when Truman was at least someone they could do business with on issues not involving civil rights.
 
Politically, an attempt by the 80th Congress to vote in Dewey would have been a stretch assuming the 1948 House elections were similar to OTL. Democrats were voted a big majority in the 81st going from 184 seats at the end of the 80th to 263 at the start of the 81st. It would have been a pretty indefensible naked power grab, made worse by the fact that Truman based part of his election pitch on getting rid of the "do-nothing" 80th Congress. The Congressional election results could not have been a clearer repudiation of the GOP-controlled 80th Congress. If the Republicans went ahead and voted Dewey in, you could have a nasty battle where Democrats in the 81st vote for a different result, leading to a rather messy Constitutional question of which Congress has the power to conduct the vote. In the 81st, Democrats controlled 26 delegations including the South with 4 delegations split 50-50. While the Dixiecrats had their issues with Truman (obviously), it's hard to see them voting for Dewey when Truman was at least someone they could do business with on issues not involving civil rights.

After having lost four presidential elections in a row, the question is whether the Republicans would care, or just lunge at an opportunity that's in front of them, no matter the consequences. And while President Dewey would have considerable difficulty accomplishing anything under these circumstances, it should be remembered that post-election, the Dixiecrats joined with the GOP to block not only Truman's civil rights legislation, but his entire domestic agenda altogether. Even at this point, you can see the basic logic behind the South's defection to the other party, since quite a few of their lawmakers were more than willing to, if not dismantle the New Deal, at least prevent it from moving another inch.
 
After having lost four presidential elections in a row, the question is whether the Republicans would care, or just lunge at an opportunity that's in front of them, no matter the consequences. And while President Dewey would have considerable difficulty accomplishing anything under these circumstances, it should be remembered that post-election, the Dixiecrats joined with the GOP to block not only Truman's civil rights legislation, but his entire domestic agenda altogether. Even at this point, you can see the basic logic behind the South's defection to the other party, since quite a few of their lawmakers were more than willing to, if not dismantle the New Deal, at least prevent it from moving another inch.

You're right: the Republicans might well not care, though the chances of Dewey getting much done are between zero and null if they do. The relationship of the South to the New Deal was a bit more complex than you suggest. In some places, projects like the TVA and rural electrification were highly regarded and untouchable. Efforts to strengthen organized labor were not. In short, while the concept of "big government" may not have been that popular, there were aspects of the New Deal that had some of its strongest support in the South. To be less charitable about it, the South hated big government unless it meant federal money flowing in, unless money was earmarked for certain classes of people. This remains true to this day.
 

bguy

Donor
Congressional Republicans were divided in the 40s over it, however. The older, isolationist and protectionist wing of the party led by Taft thought that social security was merely one of Hayek's paths towards socialism and serfdom, and sought to roll it back due to the confiscatory nature of the program.

I've still never heard of any of the Taft wing of the GOP calling for privatizing Social Security. Here's Senator Taft's own words on the subject:

From his February 28, 1949 letter to Cornelius Price (pg. 47 of Volume 4 of The Papers of Robert A. Taft)

I am strongly in favor of increasing these benefits and making better provision for those who die before reaching the age of 65. We are proposing to reduce the age limit for women from 65 to 60, but I doubt if we can yet do that for the men.

And from his January 24, 1950 letter to Joseph Fulton (pgs. 129-130 of Volume 4 of The Papers of Robert A. Taft)

6. What extension of social security rights does Senator Taft favor, with particular reference to old age pensions?

Answer: Senator Taft favors, in general, the increases of old age pensions under the Old Age Pension Plan, which have been approved by the House of Representatives, and also the extension of such pensions to all employees not now covered.

So far from wanting to abolish or privatize social security, Taft actually wanted to expand it.

And while Taft was far from the most conservative Republican in the Congress at that time, it is notable that when the Republicans held the presidency, the Senate, and the House in 1953-1954 they proceeded to expand social security (extending it to include Hotel workers, laundry workers, all agricultural workers, and state and local government employees).

As such I don't see any possibility that there will be an attempt to privatize social security during a Dewey Administration. Neither Dewey or Taft would stand for it.

David T said:
In any year, this tactic would surely stir popular protest, but a partisan Congress could decide to take the heat: the re-elected members are likely to be from safe districts; the lame duck members have little or nothing left to lose."

Would Dewey even be willing to accept the Presidency obtained in such an underhanded manner?
 
Previously, I did not think this would make much difference, because I
assumed that under the Twentieth Amendment, the new Congress decides on the
President and Vice-President in the event there is no majority in the
Electoral College. The new, 81st Congress was heavily Democratic (though I
don't have a state-by-state delegation breakdown for the House) and would
therefore presumably choose Truman. (I don't think the Dixiecrats controlled
enough state delegations to matter--though again I will have to check.)
Certainly that is in accord with the *purpose* of the Amendment--the whole
point of pushing back the opening date of the new Congress to January 3 (17
days before the presidential and vice-presidential terms start) was to
prevent a lame duck Congress from making the choice. And yet...there is
nothing in the text of the amendment which specifically states that only the
new Congress can make the choice. In a 1980 Atlantic Monthly article
entitled "Deadlock: What Happens if Nobody Wins", Laurence M. Tribe and
Thomas M. Rollins argue that "The outgoing Republican Eightieth Congress...
could have responded by moving up the date for picking among Democrat Truman,
Republican Thomas Dewey, and States' Rights candidate Strom Thurmond. In any
year, this tactic would surely stir popular protest, but a partisan Congress
could decide to take the heat: the re-elected members are likely to be from
safe districts; the lame duck members have little or nothing left to lose."
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/80oct/deadlock2.htm Tribe


Would they need to pass a law (which Truman could presumably veto) in order to do this?
 
Top