WI: FDR's Legacy at Two Terms

What would Roosevelt's legacy be if he had only served two terms? Bear in mind, much of the greatness he is remembered for is the culmination of 4 terms. He would not even be around for the US entry into WW2 in this scenario, which is a major portion of his legacy.
 
What would Roosevelt's legacy be if he had only served two terms? Bear in mind, much of the greatness he is remembered for is the culmination of 4 terms. He would not even be around for the US entry into WW2 in this scenario, which is a major portion of his legacy.

Well, after him, we'd probably have President Wilkie who dies, in office, and then President McNary, who also dies in office, and then followed by whoever the SoS is. I think FDR is going to be rated very highly because Wilkie, McNary, and the SOS won't be anywhere near as competent, and Wilkie's isolationism will further make FDR, an internationalist as shown by his implementation of the draft in 1940 (his second term), seen better by the American people. I think he'll be in the top ten, and even in the top five in some polls amongst liberals. After all, he still saved the economy and realigned the political system.
 
Personally, I think his handling of the Great Depression and laying the groundwork for his successor to stand up to the Nazis is more than enough to put him in the Top 10, though his successor will probably be the one to make the Top 3.
 
Well, after him, we'd probably have President Wilkie who dies, in office, and then President McNary, who also dies in office, and then followed by whoever the SoS is. I think FDR is going to be rated very highly because Wilkie, McNary, and the SOS won't be anywhere near as competent, and Wilkie's isolationism will further make FDR, an internationalist as shown by his implementation of the draft in 1940 (his second term), seen better by the American people. I think he'll be in the top ten, and even in the top five in some polls amongst liberals. After all, he still saved the economy and realigned the political system.

Wilkie always baffled me. What makes you think he'd win? Whoever the chosen Democrat would be in 1940 would most likely win. Probably not Garner. I do think that FDR would be most favorably remembered, though.
 
Wilkie always baffled me. What makes you think he'd win? Whoever the chosen Democrat would be in 1940 would most likely win. Probably not Garner. I do think that FDR would be most favorably remembered, though.

Well, I did a bit of an experiment on it and what I found is that even if the Democrats win the popular vote by a few percentage points, Wilkie still wins with over three hundred EVs. Even IOTL, many states were closely won by Roosevelt and with the Democrats fielding a far less strong candidate like Cordell Hull, I can see Wilkie winning the election.
 
To be honest, part of what inspired this was Obama's waning days. I think if he could get another term, his legacy would be much stronger, and at the moment it's more about the path we're on rather than where we are. By 1940, we're getting out of the Depression, but we're not out of the Depression. And FDR made serious fumbles in 1937, the taste of which won't be washed away by 8 more years. His efforts to cut back spending and balance the budget lead to a major recession in the middle of the Depression, which up to that point the US had been getting out of and would continue to get out of after he stopped trying to balance the budget, and that in addition to the "court packing scheme" strengthened the Republicans, leading to a Conservative coalition that would last over a generation. By 1940, the honeymoon period was over. That doesn't mean I'm saying that we rebuked the New Deal and the Republicans were going to win. Certainly not. But it was not as believed that FDR was the instant messiah as in 1933.
 
Last edited:
To be honest, part of what inspired this was Obama's waning days. I think if he could get another term, his legacy would be much stronger, and at the moment it's more about the path we're on rather than where we are.

I definitely wish that was the case, but, Obama is no FDR. I think that he could probably win a third term (in fact, I think that would be very likely to).

However, I don't think it wouldn't go like the last 4 years in terms of Congress. That is, gridlocked. The GOP is well set to reverse any losses that might beset them in 2016 Senate elections in 2018. I think so little would get done on that front that, well, it would be a redux of the past 4 years.

Obama might well end up worse in the legacy department, barring any foreign policy achievements. I'm sure if he were to be a mediator/arbitrator to a successful two state solution or something equivalent (Korean Unification springs to mind), that would redefine his Presidency. However, at heart, after 8 years in office, Obama has proven to be a moderate incrementalist. It's just a shame he doesn't have similar folks on the other side of the aisle.
 
The most important part of two term FDR's legacy is the expanded role of the Federal Government. Social Security is the most important part of that expanded role. I think the Democrat is going to win in 1940. It probably wouldn't have been Paul V McNutt.
 

jahenders

Banned
After two terms he would still have a strong enough legacy to be in the top 10, but his perception would be diminished. He wouldn't be the guy that won WWII, he'd just be a guy that laid some groundwork -- whoever was in office would get the credit and might blame him for any problems (claiming poor preparation).

If he was a known lame duck in 1940, he might not have had the clout/alliances to do some of what he did in late 1940 vis-a-vis the UK, etc.

If nothing else, the fact that he could claim victory in 4 Presidential elections factors into his overall Presidential rating -- you impact the definition of the office by being in it that long.

There would also be some impact from having less of Eleanor. A lot of her African-American rights stuff was in the 40s. Without FDR in power, she loses a lot of bully pulpit influence.

Finally, he appoints 3 or so less Supreme Court justices. His successor might appoint similar, but not a given.

What would Roosevelt's legacy be if he had only served two terms? Bear in mind, much of the greatness he is remembered for is the culmination of 4 terms. He would not even be around for the US entry into WW2 in this scenario, which is a major portion of his legacy.
 
Unfortunately, a significant part of what enabled Willkie to get the GOP nomination was the fact that Roosevelt was going for a third term. Without the clear internationalist stance on the part of the Dems, the corresponding segment of the GOP wouldn't have been able to muster the momentum it did.

My sense is that had the Dems nominated a more conservative standard bearer (Garner? Hull was getting rather up in years, I believe) or more controversial one (Farley, perhaps, even though he was Catholic--or if you really want a stretch, Joseph Kennedy), the GOP would have wound up with Taft or Vandenberg. Both were isolationists at the time; Vandenberg came around shortly thereafter.

Try that on for a dystopian TL: a defeatist / America First type in the form of Kennedy running against an isolationist in the form of Taft. That suggests to me the UK is going to have to go it alone for quite a while against the Luftwaffe for openers. If Pearl Harbor happens on or about the same time, there'll be a showdown in the Pacific--but that had been brewing for 45 years or so anyhow. And that'll go on to end via conventional arms, since it's difficult to imagine either Kennedy or Taft backing Einstein's recommendation for what became the Manhattan Project.

Maybe it's possible-not sure how-that the so-called "amateurs" could put Willkie over the top to face Kennedy, Garner, or Farley. In that case, Willkie succeeds Roosevelt, and probably the course of events isn't greatly different than in OTL. Willkie's internationalism was fairly close to Roosevelt's, so I could see him backing similar measures. The only kicker is what Charles McNary does on assuming the presidency in '44, if Willkie dies then. One would hope he'd be a caretaker in effect for the rest of the Willkie term and then pledge to see things through to conclusion based on Willkie's policies.

All that would make 1948 very interesting. You could have Ike running for the GOP against who knows who for the Dems: not Truman since he'd never have been VP.
 
and Wilkie's isolationism

Wilkie was not an isolationist. He won the Republican nomination because he was the most interventionist of the candidates at a time when the American public was frightened at the Fall of France.

During the campaign, Wendell struck a less interventionist mode - but he did so in the context of keeping the Republican Party united, and by portraying FDR as someone who was more likely to directly enter the war (as opposed to merely helping the Allies). Willkie supported both aide to Britain and a peacetime draft.

After the election, FDR used Willkie as an emissary around the world to support US foreign policy goals before and during the war. When Lindbergh fought against the repeal of the Neutrality Act, Willkie opposed him publicly. FDR was very grateful for Willkie's public support. During the war, he wrote a book called One World that documented his foreign travels and support for an international organization to promote peace.

The belief that Willkie was an isolationist is just one of many myths that still surround FDR's presidency. I think some of it may have to do with the documentary The World at War which claimed in one episode that Willkie was "an out and out isolationist" which was completely false. It was one of the few factual missteps of the documentary, and might have to do with the British resentment at America not entering the war prior to Pearl Harbor.
 
Wilkie was not an isolationist. He won the Republican nomination because he was the most interventionist of the candidates at a time when the American public was frightened at the Fall of France.

During the campaign, Wendell struck a less interventionist mode - but he did so in the context of keeping the Republican Party united, and by portraying FDR as someone who was more likely to directly enter the war (as opposed to merely helping the Allies). Willkie supported both aide to Britain and a peacetime draft.

After the election, FDR used Willkie as an emissary around the world to support US foreign policy goals before and during the war. When Lindbergh fought against the repeal of the Neutrality Act, Willkie opposed him publicly. FDR was very grateful for Willkie's public support. During the war, he wrote a book called One World that documented his foreign travels and support for an international organization to promote peace.

The belief that Willkie was an isolationist is just one of many myths that still surround FDR's presidency. I think some of it may have to do with the documentary The World at War which claimed in one episode that Willkie was "an out and out isolationist" which was completely false. It was one of the few factual missteps of the documentary, and might have to do with the British resentment at America not entering the war prior to Pearl Harbor.

Ah. Well, thank you for clearing that misconception. Even so, judging by their OTL deaths, I'd expect President Wilkie to die soon after Pearl Harbour and President McNary to die a few months after that, succeeded by Arthur Vandenburg who, as sources seem to indicate, would be Secretary of State during the Wilkie presidency. Vandenburg may also die, or perhaps leads the Republicans to a vast defeat in 1944 to the resurgent Democrats railing against the many failures so many brief administrations would have probably caused.
 

bguy

Donor
Try that on for a dystopian TL: a defeatist / America First type in the form of Kennedy running against an isolationist in the form of Taft. That suggests to me the UK is going to have to go it alone for quite a while against the Luftwaffe for openers. If Pearl Harbor happens on or about the same time, there'll be a showdown in the Pacific--but that had been brewing for 45 years or so anyhow. And that'll go on to end via conventional arms, since it's difficult to imagine either Kennedy or Taft backing Einstein's recommendation for what became the Manhattan Project.

Taft was dubious about economic sanctions on Japan, so if he's President there is a good chance war with Japan is avoided. If a Pacific War does happen, OTL by the spring of 1945 Taft was urging the President to offer concessions (including letting Japan keep Formosa) to induce the Japanese to come to terms. As such it seems likely that a President Taft would permit Japan to make a conditional surrender that would prevent the need for a US invasion of the Home Islands.
 
Top