WI: Teddy Roosevelt wins re-election in 1920

Prior to his death in 1919, Roosevelt was th front runner for the Republican nomination in 1920. Assuming his malaria were butterflies away and he both got the nomination and won the Presidency, what would four more years of Roosevelt look like? If he still were alive and wanted it, would he run for re-election in 1924? Possible VP choices for Roosevelt in 1920?
 

SsgtC

Banned
Probably a rolling back of a lot of the segregation that had taken place during the Wilson Administration. While he likely couldn't do much at the state level, he would likely push it at the Federal Level. Especially since, prior to Wilson, the Federal Government had been the largest employer of black Americans in the Nation.
 
Probably a rolling back of a lot of the segregation that had taken place during the Wilson Administration. While he likely couldn't do much at the state level, he would likely push it at the Federal Level. Especially since, prior to Wilson, the Federal Government had been the largest employer of black Americans in the Nation.

Good points on that. Have to wonder how strong the progressive faction of the GOP would be with 4-8 more years of Teddy in the Roaring Twenties
 

SsgtC

Banned
Good points on that. Have to wonder how strong the progressive faction of the GOP would be with 4-8 more years of Teddy in the Roaring Twenties
Probably pretty strong. Or at least stronger. The Conservative faction had already started to take control of the party back in 1908. And TR leaving to form the Progressive Party in 1912 only accelerated that.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
I would be very interested in seeing this alternate 1920 election campaign, and a Roosevelt term, assuming Roosevelt wins.

First thing I would ask--what themes would TR use in the campaign against Wilson?

Warren Harding used peace, prosperity and a return to "normalcy" which fit well with pulling back from adventurous policy at home and abroad. It fit the mood of voters fatigued by and disillusioned with Wilson's wartime crusade and wartime regimentation.

TR really cannot convincingly do what Harding did. Between his known rambunctiousness, activism and rhetorical flourishes, he does not do "normalcy" which probably sounds to him like "complacency" or "national dry rot".

So, what narrative does TR have to acknowledge that he is as much the adventurer as Wilson is, but "trust me, my adventures will be better"?

Will conservatives and big business feel left out in the cold and underserved? What would TR be promising them to make them feel better?

On the other hand, if Roosevelt runs as Roosevelt, I see it moving the "overton window" of what's politically acceptable a bit to the left on economic and regulatory issues and a bit to the right on naval/military issues. With difficult to predict consequences.

Now, moving on to a Roosevelt Administration in power from 1921 to, whenever.

What will TR's attitude be towards various things like naval arms control and the Washington Treaty (especially the renunciation of fortification in the Western Pacific), the Ruhr crisis, Boleshevism, Ireland and so on?

I see him completely supportive of the bipartisan zeitgeist to limit immigration of southern and eastern Europeans in particular.

Probably a rolling back of a lot of the segregation that had taken place during the Wilson Administration. While he likely couldn't do much at the state level, he would likely push it at the Federal Level. Especially since, prior to Wilson, the Federal Government had been the largest employer of black Americans in the Nation.

I am less optimistic on this. I doubt he would do anything Harding did not do, and likely he would do less. Harding refused to dignify rumors he had partial African ancestry. He also insisted on having having no racial exclusion from his audiences in the south.

Meanwhile, while Theodore Roosevelt had less racial prejudice against African-Americans than Wilson, his evolution in office should be instructive. He invited Booker T. Washington to the White House in 1901, cited as an example of progressivity on race. But he did not like all the abuse he got for it, and he was much more deferential to white southern opinion in the Brownsville incident of 1906. He also had tried to expand Republican support among white southerners. He wrote that he felt such tentative rhetorical support and patronage the turn of the century and early 20th century Republican Party gave to black civil rights was costing the party potential supporters.

At any rate he seemed to have less fight and courage on racial issues in 1906 compared to 1901, and I don't see what would have happened between 1907 and 1921 that would have encouraged him exert himself on behalf of African American interests.

I would say that it's notable that from 1872 to 1936, the factions of the GOP that was more "progressive" on economic, labor, regulatory and reform issues, were *less* interested in rhetoric on civil rights or being the party of Lincoln than conservative stalwarts were. It was people more conservative on labor, regulation and reforms who voiced more support for black civil rights and received the support of such African-Americans who were able to be active in Republican Party affairs. Taft had more black support than Roosevelt in 1912.

Probably pretty strong. Or at least stronger. The Conservative faction had already started to take control of the party back in 1908. And TR leaving to form the Progressive Party in 1912 only accelerated that.

The strength of the conservative faction from 1908 through 1912 and beyond makes me wonder if TR really would have the Republican nomination in the bag in 1920 and have support of a majority of delegates. He had a great name-recognition advantage, and credibility with key factions, but is priorities were probably pretty different from those of most Republican delegates in 1920.
 
Give it time, maybe they're busy.

I think the biggest issues about Teddy getting re-elected is the two-term limit most presidents abided by, even before the 22nd Amendment. FDR was just the first (and only) guy to exceed that limit; everyone else was being courteous to George Washington's two terms. Teddy only ran in 1912 because Taft basically betrayed him (or so he felt), and decided to do whatever it took to remove him from office. Unless Woodrow Wilson was a) on Teddy's shit list, and b) so strong that no Republican candidate can stand up to him, Teddy probably won't make it personal and try to rerun in 1920.

Also, in 1920, the guy was spent, emotionally speaking. After his son's death (Quentin Roosevelt, shot down by German AAA) in WW1, he never recovered. So while he could be healthy enough to run, I'm just wondering if the guy's mental state helped.
 
Crud, I didn't want to be a thread killer here.

Anybody else have thoughts? @Mikestone8 ?

Biggest question is whom he picks for Sec of the Treasury. If it's someone other than Mellon that could create significant changes.

I wouldn't expect much in the way of radical reform though. A heavily GOP Congress won't want that, and the public doesn't really care any more. Essentially, Harding got it right in promising them normalcy. After a tumultuous decade they basically wanted a rest cure.



[QUOTE Saint_007]Unless Woodrow Wilson was a) on Teddy's shit list, and b) so strong that no Republican candidate can stand up to him, Teddy probably won't make it personal and try to rerun in 1920.[/QUOTE]

Wilson was very much on TR's [what you said]. And it was mutual. They detested one another.
 
Wilson was very much on TR's [what you said]. And it was mutual. They detested one another.
In which case, it boils down to Teddy's emotional state (since malaria had been butterflied away) and how willing he was to break the tradition of limiting himself to two terms (technically, his first term was Acting President after McKinley's death, but since McKinley was assassinated shortly after his reelection, it didn't count).
 
In which case, it boils down to Teddy's emotional state (since malaria had been butterflied away) and how willing he was to break the tradition of limiting himself to two terms (technically, his first term was Acting President after McKinley's death, but since McKinley was assassinated shortly after his reelection, it didn't count).

If Wilson was nominated for a third term, the TR would almost certainly run. And what a grudge match that would be!

Otherwise, he still might but it's a tad less certain. If not he probably backs Leonard Wood, though that wouldn't be the guarantee of nomination that it was for Taft in 1908.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Also, in 1920, the guy was spent, emotionally speaking. After his son's death (Quentin Roosevelt, shot down by German AAA) in WW1, he never recovered.

If Quentin's dad Theodore does not have malaria that is going to change Quentin's family and social life before the time in which he was killed. He *could* die young under similar or quite different circumstances, but his "flight path" from OTL will definitely be butterflied away.
 

SsgtC

Banned
If Quentin's dad Theodore does not have malaria that is going to change Quentin's family and social life before the time in which he was killed. He *could* die young under similar or quite different circumstances, but his "flight path" from OTL will definitely be butterflied away.
Not really. Roosevelt actively encouraged all his sons to serve in the military. TR, even after the Spanish American War, believed strongly in the "glory" of war.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
I wouldn't expect much in the way of radical reform though. A heavily GOP Congress won't want that, and the public doesn't really care any more. Essentially, Harding got it right in promising them normalcy. After a tumultuous decade they basically wanted a rest cure.

If Wilson was nominated for a third term, the TR would almost certainly run. And what a grudge match that would be!

Could the grudge match of these two outsized egos and drama kings add to the appeal of a third party candidate? Structurally that is hard, and I think the most substantial third party was the Socialists, and they were also for radical change. But I wonder if somebody might come up with a "normalcy" ticket.

---that aside, if TR is nominated and wins (whether against Wilson or some other Democrat) the Presidency in 1920, who else might be Secretary of State, and would they be as drastically laissez-faire and low tax as Andrew Mellon? Granted, there would be no way to justify the continuance of high wartime tax levels and industrial controls.

Of course there's several areas worthy of exploration even if TR cannot do a major domestic/economic reform package:

1) As Mike said, who gets Treasury

2) Do his Supreme Court picks differ substantially from Harding/Coolidge?

3) Would he want to put more land in the national park system and succeed at it? Or would western politicians and those under the influence of extractive industries thwart any ambition in this direction?

4) Who runs in 1924?

5) What is his attitude towards veterans benefits and issues?

6) What is his attitude towards war debts and reparations or any adjustment thereof?

7) Where does he stand vis-a-vis Germany, France and Britain during the Ruhr crisis? The League of Nations?

8) How does he feel about things like the the nine-power treaty over China, and swearing off fortification of the Philippines and Guam, and terms of naval arms control in general?

9) Are a couple of banana wars in the Caribbean going to be about as interventionist as he gets?

10) Are his ideas on tariffs any different that Harding/Coolidge?
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Not really. Roosevelt actively encouraged all his sons to serve in the military. TR, even after the Spanish American War, believed strongly in the "glory" of war.

Lots of people fight in wars without dying, even some people who do reckless or risky things. It comes down to butterflyable luck and micro-circumstances more than to just the binary decision to serve in combat or not.
 
Lots of people fight in wars without dying, even some people who do reckless or risky things. It comes down to butterflyable luck and micro-circumstances more than to just the binary decision to serve in combat or not.
Quentin was a pilot, meaning he was flying what was basically a small wooden coffin. The Entente commanders didn't believe in giving people parachutes because they were afraid people would jump out of the plane instead of fight (yeah, they were stupid that way).

Still, it's entirely possible Quentin survives his service, in which case, we're talking about a more invigorated and emotionally solid Teddy in 1920.
 
Quentin was a pilot, meaning he was flying what was basically a small wooden coffin. The Entente commanders didn't believe in giving people parachutes because they were afraid people would jump out of the plane instead of fight (yeah, they were stupid that way).

Still, it's entirely possible Quentin survives his service, in which case, we're talking about a more invigorated and emotionally solid Teddy in 1920.

I mean we can have Quentin surviving as a possible POD for why he doesn't die.
 

SsgtC

Banned
Lots of people fight in wars without dying, even some people who do reckless or risky things. It comes down to butterflyable luck and micro-circumstances more than to just the binary decision to serve in combat or not.

Quentin was a pilot, meaning he was flying what was basically a small wooden coffin. The Entente commanders didn't believe in giving people parachutes because they were afraid people would jump out of the plane instead of fight (yeah, they were stupid that way).

Still, it's entirely possible Quentin survives his service, in which case, we're talking about a more invigorated and emotionally solid Teddy in 1920.

I mean we can have Quentin surviving as a possible POD for why he doesn't die.

Here's the thing though. Even his own squadron mates knew there were only two possible outcomes for Quentin: he was either going to do something incredibly brave and receive the Medal of Honor, or he was going to do something incredibly stupid and get killed. He consistently ignored advice to reign in his impulsiveness and be smarter in the way he flew. IMO, if he wasn't killed in that particular fight, he would have been killed in another one.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
OK, well I'm up for seeing a scenario where Theodore Roosevelt is spared a life tragedy and gets elected President in 1920, *or* a scenario where Quentin still dies in the war, giving TR a a big case of sadness, depression and moroseness, yet he still goes on to campaign and win in 1920, as perhaps his mental health still allows him to function well enough given his greater physical health. So, I would ask:

Could the grudge match of these two outsized egos and drama kings add to the appeal of a third party candidate? Structurally that is hard, and I think the most substantial third party was the Socialists, and they were also for radical change. But I wonder if somebody might come up with a "normalcy" ticket.

---that aside, if TR is nominated and wins (whether against Wilson or some other Democrat) the Presidency in 1920, who else might be Secretary of State, and would they be as drastically laissez-faire and low tax as Andrew Mellon? Granted, there would be no way to justify the continuance of high wartime tax levels and industrial controls.

Of course there's several areas worthy of exploration even if TR cannot do a major domestic/economic reform package:

1) As Mike said, who gets Treasury

2) Do his Supreme Court picks differ substantially from Harding/Coolidge?

3) Would he want to put more land in the national park system and succeed at it? Or would western politicians and those under the influence of extractive industries thwart any ambition in this direction?

4) Who runs in 1924?

5) What is his attitude towards veterans benefits and issues?

6) What is his attitude towards war debts and reparations or any adjustment thereof?

7) Where does he stand vis-a-vis Germany, France and Britain during the Ruhr crisis? The League of Nations?

8) How does he feel about things like the the nine-power treaty over China, and swearing off fortification of the Philippines and Guam, and terms of naval arms control in general?

9) Are a couple of banana wars in the Caribbean going to be about as interventionist as he gets?

10) Are his ideas on tariffs any different that Harding/Coolidge?
 
OK, well I'm up for seeing a scenario where Theodore Roosevelt is spared a life tragedy and gets elected President in 1920, *or* a scenario where Quentin still dies in the war, giving TR a a big case of sadness, depression and moroseness, yet he still goes on to campaign and win in 1920, as perhaps his mental health still allows him to function well enough given his greater physical health. So, I would ask:
The scenario is simple. If TR is alive and well in 1920, he is reelected president. You should read "1920, the year of the 6 Presidents." Longer term, both parties had progressive and conservative wings. During the Depression, all the Progressives became Democrats. It is quite possible that a second TR administration would gather all the progressives to the Republican side, leaving the Democrats as the country's conservative party.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
The scenario is simple. If TR is alive and well in 1920, he is reelected president. You should read "1920, the year of the 6 Presidents." Longer term, both parties had progressive and conservative wings. During the Depression, all the Progressives became Democrats. It is quite possible that a second TR administration would gather all the progressives to the Republican side, leaving the Democrats as the country's conservative party.

Who would have the advantage in the 1924 election, a TR who has brought in progressives to overwhelm the Republican party, or a conservative Democratic alternative.

What might the conservative Democratic slogan be? "Because we want a President who can shut up once in a while!"
 
Top