WI: Democrat Eisenhower Succeeds Four Term FDR

[Deleted member 180541]

• Following a mild heart attack in 1940, FDR decides to stop drinking and smoking, which extends his life by another decade.
• Thomas Dewey, and not Wendell Willkie, becomes the Republican nominee in 1940 and suffers the same crushing defeat in the election.
• FDR manages to keep Henry Wallace on the ticket in 1944 instead of being forced to replace him with Harry Truman, and they once again defeat Thomas Dewey come election time.
• With Thomas Dewey being discredited, the isolationist and conservative Robert A. Taft manages to become the Republican nominee in 1948.
• Eisenhower, alarmed by the nomination of Taft, gives into the ‘Draft Eisenhower’ movement and becomes the compromise candidate in 1948, as support was split between Henry Wallace and Strom Thurmond.
• Eisenhower smashes Taft in the 1948 election and is comfortably re-elected in 1952.
• Republican elected in 1956 (?) and is blamed for the 1958 recession.

 

[peeter]

The big elephant in the room is how the Korean War would go under Eisenhower. I personally don’t know enough about the Korean War or battle strategy to say but how it goes will determine whether he gets elected again in 52

 

[tomiasdesd]

I'd say the easiest answers for the republican in 1956 is Earl Warren or John W. Bricker, maybe even Nixon, but i wouldnt say im confident in these answers

 

[Admiral Bloonbeard]

• Following a mild heart attack in 1940, FDR decides to stop drinking and smoking, which extends his life by another decade.
• Thomas Dewey, and not Wendell Willkie, becomes the Republican nominee in 1940 and suffers the same crushing defeat in the election.
• FDR manages to keep Henry Wallace on the ticket in 1944 instead of being forced to replace him with Harry Truman, and they once again defeat Thomas Dewey come election time.
• With Thomas Dewey being discredited, the isolationist and conservative Robert A. Taft manages to become the Republican nominee in 1948.
• Eisenhower, alarmed by the nomination of Taft, gives into the ‘Draft Eisenhower’ movement and becomes the compromise candidate in 1948, as support was split between Henry Wallace and Strom Thurmond.
• Eisenhower smashes Taft in the 1948 election and is comfortably re-elected in 1952.
• Republican elected in 1956 (?) and is blamed for the 1958 recession.

Eisenhower may beat Taft but it wouldn't be a landslide, Democrats were very unpopular in 1948.

 

[Maeglin]

Eisenhower may beat Taft but it wouldn't be a landslide, Democrats were very unpopular in 1948.

OTL Democrats had Truman's awkwardness hanging over them. Here we are envisaging a full fourth Roosevelt term. Also, it's sodding Eisenhower.

My immediate thought here: this really screws with civil rights.

 

[Amadeus]

Eisenhower may beat Taft but it wouldn't be a landslide, Democrats were very unpopular in 1948.

If the Democrats were very unpopular by that point, then why did they sweep the GOP out of the House and Senate? Moreover, why did a Democratic President manage to win despite every single prediction pointing to a Republican victory?

If anything, Eisenhower would beat Taft by a larger margin than Truman defeated Dewey.

 

[Admiral Bloonbeard]

If the Democrats were very unpopular by that point, then why did they sweep the GOP out of the House and Senate? Moreover, why did a Democratic President manage to win despite every single prediction pointing to a Republican victory?

If anything, Eisenhower would beat Taft by a larger margin than Truman defeated Dewey.

OTL Democrats had Truman's awkwardness hanging over them. Here we are envisaging a full fourth Roosevelt term. Also, it's sodding Eisenhower.

My immediate thought here: this really screws with civil rights.

Hence, an upset.

There's no way Ike gets his landslide victory he got OTL. More like Bill Clinton in 1992 or Obama in 2008.

 

[Admiral Bloonbeard]

OTL Democrats had Truman's awkwardness hanging over them. Here we are envisaging a full fourth Roosevelt term. Also, it's sodding Eisenhower.

My immediate thought here: this really screws with civil rights.

On a second thought, if FDR completes his 4th term, the Democrats would still be popular but there would be a lot of party fatigue. The Republicans would be ready to tackle after 16 years of bashing FDR. If the Democrats nominate Eisenhower, the Republicans could have MacArthur as vice president. But after 8 yeaes of Henry Wallace as vice president, there's gonna be a LOT of red baiting by Republicans. OTL Taft was considering making MacArthur his running mate in 1952. It would be a close race for sure. Eisenhower would win but I imagine a close race.

 

[raharris1973]

My immediate thought here: this really screws with civil rights.

I would agree with that. FDR would be lazier on it. Eisenhower as a Democrat would have minimal motive to not be lazy.

The big elephant in the room is how the Korean War would go under Eisenhower. I personally don’t know enough about the Korean War or battle strategy to say but how it goes will determine whether he gets elected again in 52

Eisenhower as former Supreme Allied Commander has a *lot* of latitude to handle things differently.

First off, we haven't even considered yet if the early Cold War, blow-by-blow has gone exactly the same in the final FDR years, 1945-48 as it went in the Truman years. For instance, did we have the Greco-Turkish aid program, Marshall Plan, aid to Yugoslavia, NATO, and Berlin Blockade? What about Palestine partition and the 1st Arab-Israeli war?

Since we haven't discussed it, I guess we have to assume it is all the same. I think it is pretty reasonable to assume pretty much everything in the Chinese Civil War is going the same, that is far more subject to internal trends and less amenable to international moves than say, events in Germany or Greece.

So we're basically assuming Eisenhower inherits the same global situation, and military situation, that Truman inherited in OTL.

So that means Nationalist China is going down in his first year in office, and the Soviets are getting their A-Bomb around the same time. He'll get crap from this but it won't be too personal because it will be recognized he inherited it. Watching the process won't endear Chiang Kai-shek to him so odds are he won't favor getting involved in the Taiwan Straits (plus he'll be getting advice from Acheson and not Dulles) [Although he may be willing to clean house, but not sure who else he could grab on the Democratic bench if he ditches Acheson, he could go bipartisan if nominal Republicans are OK working for a nominally Democratic POTUS]

Now will Stalin (and Mao) let Kim off the leash in Korea? Maybe, maybe not. Probably so, but the US President being a familiar WWII militay man may give a deterrent edge to what was a knife's edge decision. So maybe there won't be a Korean War.

Eisenhower would be appalled at the state of military readiness across the services, even if he's no advocate of reliance on ground power and prefers primarily air and nuclear based deterrence.

If there is a Korean War, Eisenhower will be getting the same grand strategic and diplomatic advice about having to fight there, that Truman got. But he''ll also be getting the military advice and evaluations saying Korea itself is not strategically important and that the Communist move could be diversionary. He would also see that he would have to rely on MacArthur as his theater commander and likely see that as a negative.

As former Supreme Allied Commander, he could have the freedom to take a pass on fighting for Korea based on his military judgment and the judgment of the JCS, even while condemning the aggression, stepping up defense spending, and strengthening global US defense posture. This could include, or leave out, interposing the 7th fleet in the Taiwan straits. The JCS was saying it wasn't that easy or practical, but at the same time, compared with a ground war in East Asia, it is patently easier.

But the bottom-line is he could get through his term avoiding the Korean War or setting precedents for committing US ground forces to Asia or undeclared wars (so also avoiding commitment to directly fight in Indochina) while building up US strategic airpower and NATO forces.

He'll take criticism, and control of Congress, or one house of it, may flip in '50, but his reelection likely wouldn't be sunk and it would be dependent on the appeal and charisma of his opponent and the state of the economy. With a probable upswing in the economy, Republicans in Congress doing some unpopular things, and a probable rematch with Taft, his reelection chances should be decent despite foreign policy failures in Asia in the rear view mirror by '52.

By '56 the Democrats will be out of schlitz, Taft will be safely dead, and the Republican nominee, be it Warren, Bricker, or Nixon, will be younger and add a little more sizzle and they will add some more Kennedy-esque promise of energizing and 'winning' in foreign policy to contrast with the lethargic Eisenhower, and it should work well for them against whatever Democratic palooka is stuck with the nomination that year. Hopefully by then the French will have surrendered all of Indochina so that America cannot end up getting caught in a ground or nuclear war there as the GOP young Turk jumps up to prove himself. And the GOP Young Turk's presidency should be safely after the Hungarian revolt is over, so he can stay out of too serious trouble.

 

[raharris1973]

I wonder what @RanulfC thinks of the military spending and programmatic consequences of this would be. If I am remembering correctly, he's the expert on military atrophy during the Truman administration.

 

[RanulfC]

I wonder what @RanulfC thinks of the military spending and programmatic consequences of this would be. If I am remembering correctly, he's the expert on military atrophy during the Truman administration.

"Expert Opinioner" maybe

In context there WERE going to be cuts as even FDR wanted to reduce the military budget but with FDR (or Wallace) instead of Truman you might probably get someone who better understands "the bomb" than Truman did. (Truman was one of those convinced that a combination of the Atomic Bomb and long range bombers were an unbeatable combination so there was no need for any service but the Air Force) It's not as likely the cuts will be as deep and as broad under someone other than Truman.

Eisenhower didn't feel the Democrats were a 'fit' with his beliefs but as the OP notes if there's no real 'good' Democratic candidate he "might" run but keep in mind (and context) that at the time the Democrats, (due to the "Dixiecrat" south) were very much the "Conservative" party with the "New Deal" and some of the other FDR moves being very much against the grain. Taft and some of the Republicans were actually against the "New Deal" but the majority were mostly "rhetorically against" but favorable to the New Deal and social reforms. (This is why Taft getting the nomination was so feared that they went to Eisenhower OTL. Keep in mind that Ike and Taft both knew that Ike was more popular and more electable but Taft, rather correctly, saw 1952 as his "last chance". He didn't have enough of a base to defeat Dewey in 1948 and Dewey was very moderate on the New Deal)

All this ties into IF there is even a "Korean War" as it was marginally "approved" OTL by Mao and Stalin as Kim had to lie to them to get their 'permission' to invade, and the US looked particularly 'weak' OTL at that point in time given the military cuts. (Besides if Kim got nuked, which was 'technically' the US's "go-to" option at the time, then the USSR and China would have a "moral high-ground" standing with the world. A big part of the reason Truman didn't authorize the bomb OTL) In this context a stronger US military is going to be a deterrent and more likely both Mao and Stalin counsel Kim to sit tight and weight for Rhee to make the first move.

This was a very real fear of MacArthur and Truman, so much so that a LOT of military hardware was withdrawn from Korea to Japan, (or simply dumped into the ocean en-route) and why South Korea was denied a lot of equipment. Rhee was just as adamant about 'reuniting' Korea by force and it was understood that if he went off the US would be 'stuck' supporting the 'aggressor' in the war.

Something else to consider is if you have fewer cuts that many programs and prototypes that had to be canceled OTL are not TTL. Taking my favorite subject as one example the "Space Race" is literally totally different. In 1946 the program that would eventually lead to OTL's "Atlas" missile was canceled because of funding having to be diverted to "more near-term" air breathing cruise missiles instead of ballistic missiles. A bit more funding and it's likely we get the behemoth of a five-engine monster that was the original "Atlas" concept sometime in the mid-50s. (Not assured mind you because Truman also cut atomic weapons research OTL whereas here it would likely be better funded and that means more work, even if it's only conceptual at that point, on the H-bomb) So the US essentially has an LV that can go toe-to-toe with the Soviet R7 in payload about the same time as the R7 enters service. Even if the USSR gets a satellite up first by that point Eisenhower would be under the same pressure as OTL but instead of a Redstone he's got the option of launching satellites the same mass (if not a bit more) than the Soviets and the 'pressure' to compete drops off sharply. (Specifically if the US knows it's got a working booster capable of putting a man in orbit "in service" instead of still blowing up on the pad)

And make no mistake, the 'confrontational' nature of a LOT of Stalin's post-war shenanigans was predicated on the fact that the US had fewer options to play with and was VERY unlike to start tossing nuclear weapons around over 'incidents' such as Berlin. Having troops and equipment in Europe means that the Western Allies are a LOT less nervous about having to face the Soviets 'alone' in a conventional conflict without things automatically going atomic.

Randy

 

[raharris1973]

In context there WERE going to be cuts as even FDR wanted to reduce the military budget but with FDR (or Wallace) instead of Truman you might probably get someone who better understands "the bomb" than Truman did. (Truman was one of those convinced that a combination of the Atomic Bomb and long range bombers were an unbeatable combination so there was no need for any service but the Air Force) It's not as likely the cuts will be as deep and as broad under someone other than Truman.

This is the first time I've ever heard someone suggest that a hypothetical President Henry Wallace! would be more sensible on defense matters than President Truman, but knowing you and your research interests, I'm actually not so surprised.

Eisenhower didn't feel the Democrats were a 'fit' with his beliefs but as the OP notes if there's no real 'good' Democratic candidate he "might" run

Yeah, I think the OP's idea is that Eisenhower runs because there are no 'good' Democratic or Republican candidates. Dewey's failures ruined moderate, eastern Republicans chances, and the Democrats are schizo with Dixiecrat Strom Thurmond and lefty fellow-traveler Henry Wallace. Ike runs as a Democrat because the Dems are the ones reaching out to him that year.

keep in mind (and context) that at the time the Democrats, (due to the "Dixiecrat" south) were very much the "Conservative" party with the "New Deal" and some of the other FDR moves being very much against the grain.

One should only say that if you make southern whiteness and white supremacy the North Star and magnetic North Pole of conservatism. That may be the salient 21st century guidepost, but I don't think it was in the mid-20th century and earlier. Attitudes toward labor and role of the state in the economy, regardless of race, were more central to ideology then. FDR and his New Deal may have been against the grain of some 1920s Democrats and some Bourbon Democrats of the late 19th century, but he had reshaped the grain of the Democratic Party, and coalition, by 1948, even if the Dixiecrats were still a nontrivial faction with significantly divergent views. Southern white supremacists were still registered Democrats in the late 1940s, but northern Democrats were demanding Civil Rights planks, and the Democrats had been garnering a strong majority of the African-American vote wherever it was allowed to be exercised, mostly outside the south, for about a decade. And the Dixiecrats in '48 famous showed they were bothered enough by trends in the national party to bolt and nominate a separate ticket that year.

 

[RanulfC]

This is the first time I've ever heard someone suggest that a hypothetical President Henry Wallace! would be more sensible on defense matters than President Truman, but knowing you and your research interests, I'm actually not so surprised.

Thanks but there are those (with reason ) who disagree with me and to be honest my "Wallace-fu" is pretty weak but as I understand it he had more dealings with FDR and FDR and Truman didn't really get along.

Yeah, I think the OP's idea is that Eisenhower runs because there are no 'good' Democratic or Republican candidates. Dewey's failures ruined moderate, eastern Republicans chances, and the Democrats are schizo with Dixiecrat Strom Thurmond and lefty fellow-traveler Henry Wallace. Ike runs as a Democrat because the Dems are the ones reaching out to him that year.

With the OP assumption that the Republicans choose Taft that's actually plausible despite Ike's actual politics. The main issue is that beings as Taft was both rhetorically AND actually against the majority of the "New Deal", including parts that were widely popular with the Republican voting base, that the Democrats could likely find a suitable candidate without going to Eisenhower. Specifically, he was very adamant about "Generals not being fit to run for office" being directed at his old Commander MacArthur

One should only say that if you make southern whiteness and white supremacy the North Star and magnetic North Pole of conservatism. That may be the salient 21st century guidepost, but I don't think it was in the mid-20th century and earlier. Attitudes toward labor and role of the state in the economy, regardless of race, were more central to ideology then. FDR and his New Deal may have been against the grain of some 1920s Democrats and some Bourbon Democrats of the late 19th century, but he had reshaped the grain of the Democratic Party, and coalition, by 1948, even if the Dixiecrats were still a nontrivial faction with significantly divergent views. Southern white supremacists were still registered Democrats in the late 1940s, but northern Democrats were demanding Civil Rights planks, and the Democrats had been garnering a strong majority of the African-American vote wherever it was allowed to be exercised, mostly outside the south, for about a decade. And the Dixiecrats in '48 famous showed they were bothered enough by trends in the national party to bolt and nominate a separate ticket that year.

It was the fact that it WAS an actual coalition of both Democrats and Republicans that kept the "New Deal" going so long and in 1948 running a platform against it, (again it was highly popular among the population of the US at the time) was politically risky to say the least. It was in fact the calls for a "Civil Rights" plank which Truman supported, (and Truman's desegregation of the military) that had Southern Democrats pissed at him. One of the reasons Ike supported desegregation was he was well aware that "separate but equal" fundamentally impossible as he'd been dealing with it his most of his career. (Unlike the faux "separate but equal" of Southern segregation the military actually had to BE equal and therefore he was aware of the economic and logistical costs of such a policy in reality)

And since we're on that point I have to point out that's actually another 'flaw' in Ike running as a Democrat because he won't cave to the Dixiecrats that's going to cause them to probably break off ANYWAY And something to keep in mind is that there was a reason Dewey didn't get the nod in 1940 but more importantly he WAS quite popular in '48 AND with Eisenhower instead of Truman he won't sit back and not campaign as he did OTL. (I know the OP has him running in 1940 but that's quite unlikely given he was only a DA and had no real political experience at the time. In '48 OTL Dewey was running mostly on Truman's unpopularity and a "trite" campaign agenda which he didn't directly engage with Truman. TTL it would be different and even Taft would go head-to-head with Eisenhower and run "experience" against "popularity" meaning those four states could be VERY influential TTL ) The 'fact' that the Dixiecrats were splitting the party was one of the major factors OTL for the assumption that Dewey would win since Truman's lack of popular support was assumed he'd lose most of the moderate Democratic vote. In fact his 'whistle-stop' train campaign garnered him a LOT of popular support among moderate Republican voters who were not energized by the lackluster Dewey campaign. Change those factors around and you really mess with the voter turnout and results. (Oddly that's a point where the Democrats fudged up in '52 because they assumed that no one wanted to change Presidents in the middle of a war but the fact was the majority of Americans were just tired of a Democrat being President for so long)

Randy

 

[dmg86]

Actually Dewey was fairly well-known in 1940 for his record fighting the mob.

 

[ric350]

What was Eisenhower’s opinion of MacArthur during/post WW2? They spent the war on opposite sides of the planet, each in control of their sphere, so I don’t know how much interaction they had. Did Mac still think of Ike as a “subordinate“?

ric350

 

[RanulfC]

Actually Dewey was fairly well-known in 1940 for his record fighting the mob.

Yes which helped him into being New York Governor which was his political start. He didn't have any real national political clout. Certainly not enough to consider a Presidential run.

What was Eisenhower’s opinion of MacArthur during/post WW2? They spent the war on opposite sides of the planet, each in control of their sphere, so I don’t know how much interaction they had. Did Mac still think of Ike as a “subordinate“?

ric350

Part of the reason Truman went to Eisenhower was that Ike was WELL aware of MacArthur's tactics and I get the impression Ike wasn't really happy with Mac, partially BECAUSE Mac still considered him a 'subordinate' in many ways. I doubt Mac would have been as dismissive as he was with Truman though.

Randy