WI: POTUS Earl Warren

Hey, here is a fresh topic, that I really don't think we havent really discussed yet. For all the Cold Warrior's and Post War American Domestic policy enthusiasts, what would an Earl Warren Presidency look like in the '50's? I think the most plausible scenario is that the Dewey/Warren Ticket beats Truman as expected and then President Truman is gun down by the Puerto Rican Nationalist Assassins on November 1st, 1950...thrusting Warren into the Presidency(I know, I know double POD...I just doubt US Puerto Rican Relations would change that drastically under 2 years of Republican Adminstration).

How would Warren govern as POTUS? Would Warren be the unifier he was in Sacremento during his governorship, or would he be the controversial leader he emerged as during his career as Cheif Justice? What might he do about MacArthur and the Korean War? Would he push for a strong Civil Rights Bill? And could he beat Stevenson in '52? And any other thoughts on what the legacy of his Presidency might be?:D
464px-Earl_Warren_Portrait%2C_half_figure%2C_seated%2C_facing_front%2C_as_Governor.jpg
 
You man President Dewey was gunned down right?

Anyway, I think Warren pushes C.R. harder but runs into Dixiecrat opposition that Stevenson attempts to capitalize on but Warren pulls out a squeaker because of Thurmond's second third party bid. This causes an implosion by the Dems which ensures Warren's (or his VP can't remember when the 22nd was passed) victory in '56. Just some thoughts. I defer to the Beav :p
 
Anyone can beat Stevenson, who's too liberal and more importantly, out of touch with ordinary voters. I dislike using the word "elitist" to describe any presidentiable, but Stevenson does fit the mold. Harry Truman won on the most left-wing domestic platform in Democratic history in 1948 (though 90% was never implemented) but he was in touch with the voters, and Dewey was completely out of touch with the electorate. Warren would not be accustomed to the rough-and-tumble of DC politics, and was completely guileless when Nixon pulled the rug out from under him and delivered the CA delegation to Ike in '52. Warren would go to war in Korea, and would fire MacArthur. It is an issue of civilian control of the military, which dictates that the dispute must be swiftly resolved in the President's favor. Civil rights in 1952? Forget it. It didn't enter the national consciousness until Brown, and Warren would be vilified for even proposing such a thing. Let's not forget that Warren's chief rival for the CJ post was John W. Davis. I see Warren governing much as Ike did, except without Ike's godlike, quasi-Independent status, he will be subject to harsh criticism by the media and Beltway insiders. Without Ike's untouchable military prestige, he may succumb to the missile-gap proponents like Symington et al which means vastly increased defense expenditures.
 
Now, what are the Democrats doing? If they are smart, they would run a LBJ/JFK ticket in 1956, and since the incumbent is not God, it will be competitive. If Warren is doing too well, it could be a Harriman/LBJ or Harriman/JFK ticket, which delivers similar results in 1960. Since Nixon has been a national figure since 1948, he would be a strong contender depending on who Warren's VP is. But unlike OTL, he would have to fight Rocky for it, and not just shadowboxing as in 1960 and 1968 IOTL. If Warren picks Everett Dirksen as VP, who'd be a good choice, then you have Nixon and Rocky duking it out in '60 with a Democratic race of OTL. Rocky's chances against JFK are better than Nixon's, but ideological differences between Rocky and the Kennedy brothers, especially on economic questions, are practically non-existent. With Nixon there is a bit of a gap, though not exactly a chasm either.
 
I collaborated on a TL on this subject with a friend on the Atlas Forum (it was unfinished, but hopefully should still be a good read ;)): http://www.uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=112578.0

Historico, didn't you read this timeline on the atlas forum? What did you think about it?

We had Earl Warren and the Republicans make the major pushes for civil rights legislation to the point where they were seen as the party of civil rights- not the Dems. This pushed Southern populists in control of the Democratic Party, leading to a George Wallace victory. As a social conservative who supported ballooning the Great Society, George Wallace thrusts the Democratic Party into a populist direction: socially conservative but economically liberal. This thrusts the Ron Paul/Barry Goldwater (minus Barry's foreign policy) libertarian conservatives in control of the Republican Party (to counter the populists), leading to a Ron Paul victory in 1980. Unfortunately, nobody on the Atlas Forum likes Ron Paul (and that probably goes true for AH.com too). :p

I think as a POD, Ike can simply decide that he doesn't want the Presidency at the RNC, and endorses Warren (who ran as a favorite son) for the nomination. I don't see Ike endorsing Taft. Also, Warren can appoint Ike as his Secretary of Defense, so I imagine their foreign policies would be very similar.

Also, if you guys don't like Ron Paul, don't worry, he won't get close to becoming President in my Barry Goldwater timeline. ;)
 
Last edited:
I agree with Han's proposal for Ike as SecDef. I will also confirm his instinct that mention of the name "Ron Paul" in Chat will unleash a torrent of scorn from the left, the centre, and those of us on the non-Libertarian right. :p
 
You man President Dewey was gunned down right?

Anyway, I think Warren pushes C.R. harder but runs into Dixiecrat opposition that Stevenson attempts to capitalize on but Warren pulls out a squeaker because of Thurmond's second third party bid. This causes an implosion by the Dems which ensures Warren's (or his VP can't remember when the 22nd was passed) victory in '56. Just some thoughts. I defer to the Beav :p

Sorry, small slip early in the morning, but yes We would have to have President Dewey assassinated inorder for Warren to become the 35th President. I do agree that Warren will lobby hard to get Civil Rights through Congress but the only question is when...Which I think is an important one, because he'd be 65 if he stood for reelection in '56(The 22nd Amendment would be a non issue because it was only ratified in 1951, so he'd be eligible) and the big CRA hooray would be in his "Third" Term if reelected.
 
Anyone can beat Stevenson, who's too liberal and more importantly, out of touch with ordinary voters. I dislike using the word "elitist" to describe any presidentiable, but Stevenson does fit the mold. Harry Truman won on the most left-wing domestic platform in Democratic history in 1948 (though 90% was never implemented) but he was in touch with the voters, and Dewey was completely out of touch with the electorate. Warren would not be accustomed to the rough-and-tumble of DC politics, and was completely guileless when Nixon pulled the rug out from under him and delivered the CA delegation to Ike in '52. Warren would go to war in Korea, and would fire MacArthur. It is an issue of civilian control of the military, which dictates that the dispute must be swiftly resolved in the President's favor. Civil rights in 1952? Forget it. It didn't enter the national consciousness until Brown, and Warren would be vilified for even proposing such a thing. Let's not forget that Warren's chief rival for the CJ post was John W. Davis. I see Warren governing much as Ike did, except without Ike's godlike, quasi-Independent status, he will be subject to harsh criticism by the media and Beltway insiders. Without Ike's untouchable military prestige, he may succumb to the missile-gap proponents like Symington et al which means vastly increased defense expenditures.

Interesting, so your saying Warren's outsider status would actually be a hinderance to working in '50's era D.C.,:D I could definatly agree with that, and when he pushes for Civil Rights later in his Presidency, he very well could have used up any congressional Political Capital by other previous issues. Luckily the fifties were a rather quiet decade domestically, only for the shallow recession of 1958, so I could see him despite his age managing to win in '52(which may be harder, depending if he can rebound from Korea) and '56 on the good Economy alone.

As for Stevenson in '52...I honestly think he seemed to be the strongest candidate in that year, and was about as anti-Truman as you can get from a Party Nominee and an Incumbent President. But his eggheadedness would be no match for a sitting President, thrust into office via assassination, and who supports a lot of New Deal-style programs(He intiated a Public Works, building up state education systems through community colleges, and Pro-Highway construction as governor)
 
Now, what are the Democrats doing? If they are smart, they would run a LBJ/JFK ticket in 1956, and since the incumbent is not God, it will be competitive. If Warren is doing too well, it could be a Harriman/LBJ or Harriman/JFK ticket, which delivers similar results in 1960. Since Nixon has been a national figure since 1948, he would be a strong contender depending on who Warren's VP is. But unlike OTL, he would have to fight Rocky for it, and not just shadowboxing as in 1960 and 1968 IOTL. If Warren picks Everett Dirksen as VP, who'd be a good choice, then you have Nixon and Rocky duking it out in '60 with a Democratic race of OTL. Rocky's chances against JFK are better than Nixon's, but ideological differences between Rocky and the Kennedy brothers, especially on economic questions, are practically non-existent. With Nixon there is a bit of a gap, though not exactly a chasm either.


If Stevenson is defeated by Warren in '52, and if '56 seems much more of a competetive election than Harriman is there best shot at winning. Especially if Warren is seen as a President cheifly concerned with Domestic matters and "weak" on Defense in the face of the Soviets, than Harriman longtime Foriegn Policy credentials could very well be an assent to balance out the fact that he had only been office as NY Governor since Jan '55. If Warren seems to make any moves on Civil Rights, then Harriman has no choice but to pick a Southernor to balance the ticket. Since Warren and Harriman would be the same age, he would have to be fairly youthful...Why not got with Jack's good friend Senator George Smathers of Florida(Who was very staunchly opposed to Civil Rights during this time)

As for 1960 goes, things could get very interesting on the Republican side, depending on how popular Warren is at the end of his Presidency. If Nixon stay's in the senate for the duration of the Warren years (1950-1960) then I do think he would be a great deal more conservative than when he ran IOTL 1960 race. I could definatley see him stepping into the role as "Mr. Republican" after Taft's death and probably fight alot with the Warren adminstration over its domestic policies. However, I still think hed be the interventionalist he was, and proably back most of the Civil Rights Legislation to please moderates.

Rocky career could be a great deal much more prominent in an Dewey-Warren Era. He served as Assistant Secretary of State for Truman in '45, before resiging because of disagreement on Foriegn Policy, and was always a champion for Latin America during his public career. If Herter decides to stay in Massachusetts, I could easily see Rocky being the nation's top diplomat as Warren's Secretary of State. Largely due to their progressive stances on the issues, Secretary Rockefeller could run as Warren's Ideological heir in 1960, which may or may not be a good thing
 
I collaborated on a TL on this subject with a friend on the Atlas Forum (it was unfinished, but hopefully should still be a good read ;)): http://www.uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=112578.0

Historico, didn't you read this timeline on the atlas forum? What did you think about it?

We had Earl Warren and the Republicans make the major pushes for civil rights legislation to the point where they were seen as the party of civil rights- not the Dems. This pushed Southern populists in control of the Democratic Party, leading to a George Wallace victory. As a social conservative who supported ballooning the Great Society, George Wallace thrusts the Democratic Party into a populist direction: socially conservative but economically liberal. This thrusts the Ron Paul/Barry Goldwater (minus Barry's foreign policy) libertarian conservatives in control of the Republican Party (to counter the populists), leading to a Ron Paul victory in 1980. Unfortunately, nobody on the Atlas Forum likes Ron Paul (and that probably goes true for AH.com too). :p

I think as a POD, Ike can simply decide that he doesn't want the Presidency at the RNC, and endorses Warren (who ran as a favorite son) for the nomination. I don't see Ike endorsing Taft. Also, Warren can appoint Ike as his Secretary of Defense, so I imagine their foreign policies would be very similar.

Also, if you guys don't like Ron Paul, don't worry, he won't get close to becoming President in my Barry Goldwater timeline. ;)

I loved the TL, I was just looking for an earlier POD so we could get the maximum effects of Warren being in office(Him serving over 10 years rather than 8)
 
Smathers might be a good choice for Harriman's VP. A Secretary of State would have no political base (yes, Hillary '12 supporters, I'm looking at you), and Rocky would have no elective experience, which would seriously harm his chances. Conservatives would never vote for Rocky, and Warren would be humiliated if his favored candidate got trounced by Nixon on the first ballot. Nixon was sincere in his support for civil rights- an honorary member of the NAACP among other things. He'd be making a serious error if he picked anyone but Hugh Scott for VP. IOTL I still believe that Lodge was a socioeconomic balancing move, quite intentionally. Unintentionally, JFK did the same with LBJ, though both were equally wealthy.
 
Interestingly, in Inside U.S.A. (published 1947), the author John Gunther characterizes Warren as a man who "…might make a tolerable President of the United States." Thus, Warren warranted consideration for real.
 
Top