DC Stephenson avoids the 1925 murder scandal and after a much worse great depression he's elected in either 1932 or 1936 against Garner, whichever is more plausible. How bad do things get and how would he compare to contemporary fascists?
Easy, he's not running as a republican. I'm pretty sure that if he doesn't run as a third party he could get dixiecrat support in 1932 and in 1936 we're assuming FDR was assassinated and he just has to beat Garner.How does Stephenson, a Republican, win in 1932 or 1936 against a Democrat, especially after the Great Depression (that everyone blamed on the GOP)?
Okay so,Easy, he's not running as a republican. I'm pretty sure that if he doesn't run as a third party he could get dixiecrat support in 1932 and in 1936 we're assuming FDR was assassinated and he just has to beat Garner.
I thought the only organization Stephenson was affiliated with was the Klan and I thought Garner was viewed as just plain weak,Okay so,
1. Stephenson was a Republican by his murder trial, so this will require him to return to the Democratic Party.
2. Why would Dixiecrats oppose the born-and-bred Texan John Nance Garner, the guy who voted for the poll tax in 1901 and supported African- and Mexican-American disenfranchisement.
3. Why would the Garner administration be unpopular enough that a *quasi-fascist* gets elected? Garner was no archconservative IOTL -- he supported the income tax, opposed tariffs, and presided over the quite progressive 72nd Congress. And if FDR was assassinated, there will be even more pressure to follow Roosevelt's policies and implement a program similar to the New Deal (which was based more on pragmatism than ideology, anyways).
The Klan in Indiana was popular amongst Republicans as well (the KKK was not only anti-black — it was also anti-Catholic, anti-Jew, etc. that appealed to all sections of society).I thought the only organization Stephenson was affiliated with was the Klan and I thought Garner was viewed as just plain weak,
Would it be too much of a stretch to choose whichever is the more probable of the two election dates and focus on what he can do as president? Does the constitution say anything that would stop him from implementing mandatory jim crow nationwide?Stephenson was a master politician. He would make dramatic arrivals at rallies, flying in and landing at the site, to deliver a rousing speech.
He had mobilized women; the female Klan auxiliary in Indiana was remarkably powerful.
He was indeed a mass organizer; Indiana had one of the highest proportions of Klan membership of any state.
He was not above showmanship; he would receive visitors in an office, pausing to answer the telephone and bark orders into it. After a while he would answer the telephone one more time, speak quietly and respectfully, and end the conversation, "Yes. Mr. President."
(There was a button on the floor under his desk which rang the telephone. However, there were rumors that Harding had secretly joined the Klan, to counteract rumors that he was "passing".)
And there were some funny things about Madge Olberholzer's suicide.
Nevertheless, if he had been able to hold himself back, he would have been a power in Indiana; he probably could have overcome the anti-Klan and anti-Stephenson Klan factions in the legislature and become governor himself, and from there, who knows?
That works. What does he do after that?He's elected to Congress in 1922, and ends up on the 1932 ticket with FDR when the president-elect is assassinated....
Blames Catholics and Jews for the loss of the dear leader.That works. What does he do after that?
Will he have the authority to put up internment camps (death camps are likely out of the question) or is he more likely just to incite an American pogrom?Blames Catholics and Jews for the loss of the dear leader.
I don't know. The challenge was to get him into the presidency, not what he does with it.Will he have the authority to put up internment camps (death camps are likely out of the question) or is he more likely just to incite an American pogrom?
Actually what he does with it was the exact question, not that getting there isn't important.I don't know. The challenge was to get him into the presidency, not what he does with it.
I'm pretty sure him avoiding the scandal and pulling a Trump is fairly plausible so does anybody know how far he could push the constitution? Would he have an aggressive foreign policy?
Actually I was referring to the relentless race baiting.No, it's laughable to compare him to Trump, who was one of the nation's leading celebrities for decades. There was one and only one potential presidential candidate of that era comparable to Trump: https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...ism-still-matters-today.461532/#post-18403565
(Although as I also noted in that threas, Ford differed from Trump in some important respects: https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...ism-still-matters-today.461532/#post-18405150 https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...ism-still-matters-today.461532/#post-18405294)