So if I understand it right the US economy would be weaker? Or stronger?
Well, the Republicans were pro-New Deal IOTL until 1968, so I'd say around the same.
So if I understand it right the US economy would be weaker? Or stronger?
For a dissent from the idea that Landon's domestic agenda was New Deal-ish see Elliot A. Rosen, *The Republican Party in the Age of Roosevelt: Sources of Anti-Government Conservatism in the United States,* pp. 54-55.
"Landon's domestic agenda extolled individual responsibility, fiscal restraint, efficiency, and government decentralism. Congress, he believed, had abdicated its authority to the executive; representative institutions were under siege. Speaking at Chicago on october 9, he pledged budget balance as 'absolutely imperative' to restore business confidence. Corporations would be granted tax relief, and destablilizing infaltionary policies would be avoided. 'The spenders must go,' he insisted, 'reinforcing his reputation as a budget balancer.
"Landon's desire to return to states rights' was also reflected in his approach to social policy. Whereas Charles Taft urged acceptance of social insurance under the parameters legislated in 1935, landon condemned the law as paternalistic, discouragint infivifuals from saving for their own needs in old age. Landon proposed old-age pensions based on supplementary payments made to the needy administered by the states and funded in part by federal taxation for that purpose. Social insurance, he suggested, was 'an appropriate area for the states' not the responsibility of Washington. States, in fact, shied away from taxing employers and employees for thus purpose lest they lose out to those that did not do so.
"Norman Thomas, the Socialist Party candidate for president, chalenged Landon to define 'freedom from interference' since employers commonly equated it with their right to prevent unions from organizing a nonunionized plant or industry. Specifically, Thomas wanted to know where Landon stood in connection with the ongoing strife between labor and the steel industry. When Thomas deplored the low wage structure and unsatisfactory working conditions for miners in Cherokee County, Kansas, Landon held that the State of Kansas could not interfere with local issues such as of wages, health, and safety.
Elsewhere, Rosen states (p. 36): "in the end at Milwaukee in the course of the campaign, Landon proposed federally subsidized old-age pensions in the form of supplemenatey payments that assured a minimum income, too often in reality a means test and a return to classic poor laws."
In both midterm elections for Harding and Coolidge the Ds had strong gains. They weren't deadYes, they were. They were as dead as the Republicans from 1932-1938. Also, the strong economy will help the Republicans no matter what.
In both midterm elections for Harding and Coolidge the Ds had strong gains. They weren't dead
Of course given that FDR himself had campaigned on a balanced budget in 1932, enacted the Economy Act in 1933, and pushed through tax hikes and spending cuts in his second term, Landon campaigning as a budget balancer isn't that inconsistent with him being New Dealish.
Still not enough; there just aren't enough Long and Landon voters out there.I've just thought of a scenario to have FDR lose. Have the Hughes Court declare the New Deal null and void in 1935, have FDR do his court-packing thing early, and then have Long run for president as an independent. From there, maybe Landon can slip through the cracks and get elected in something electorally like 1968.
Still not enough; there just aren't enough Long and Landon voters out there.
Well, I was thinking enough FDR voters see him as a dictator because of the whole court-packing thing and they either stay home or vote for Landon.
Of course, the easiest way is by having Zangara kill FDR. Then have President Garner do nothing, and we have a Republican in 1936.
For that matter, any chance of Landon losing Maine and/or Vermont?
The problem with that scenario is President Garner won't do nothing. Most of the New Deal will still get passed on his watch.
snip
So he'll be less successful than FDR, but still pretty successful? I guess that makes sense.
BTW, hat was Garner's view on the bank holiday, and what would he have done.