WI Wendell Wilkie wins the 1940 presidential election?


Wendell Wilkie buttons of Jane Jacobs at @UrbanspaceTO
by Randy McDonald, on Flickr

I just found out, via my visit to the excellent Jane at Home exhibition in Toronto's Urbanspace Gallery, that Jane Jacobs had supported Wendell Wilkie's bid for the American presidency in 1940. 24 at the time, Jacobs disliked Roosevelt's opting for a third term. (The exhibit also quotes her as saying later that Wilkie would have been a terrible president.)

Was there any chance of Wilkie managing to win the presidency in 1940? I ask this as someone who knows next to nothing about this particular episode in American history. It does seem to me that a Wilkie victory could have had pretty significant consequences domestically and internationally. What would have happened to the New Deal, for instance, or to the United States' relationship to the outside world?
 
Last edited:
Willkie had been a Democrat, though, and split with FDR a few years earlier.

I wrote an AH book (available as an ebook or print, "Not By Might, But By Right" (at lulu.com, linked below, and elsewhere like Amazon, etc.) about such a thing happening because FDR chooses not to run. Essentially, I figure FDR would have become rather involved in thigns as far as foreign relations go anyway; Willkie was an internationalist and would have still supported things like Lend-Lease, at least to Britain.

I won't wpoil any more of my book, but I will note that FDR kept Republicans in his cabinet - it really was a time of more or less bipartisan action, though there were the isolationists around. One interesting aspect is that Willkie died in '44, and his VP earlier that year, though butterflies could have caused Willkie to die earlier due to the stress of war.

I dont' know about a terrible president, but he'd have realized he was in over his head in a few areas and utilized others' help. (Including, as I noted, Roosevelt's to some degree.)
 
WI FDR's health issues come out during the election?

I think it is possible that Wilkie might change the Republican Party.

Also how would Democrats react in 44?
 
With FDR running, there is not one iota of hope for Wilkie. If FDR's health issues or the Roerich papers come out, the Democrats are going to release Wilkie's sex scandals. If FDR decided against running, Wilkie's appeal as the Republican FDR is reinforced, and he can edge out a victory against the Democratic contender, who is probably Cordell Hull.

Wilkie's probably gonna die a few months after Pearl Harbour as he died in 1944 IOTL. A few months later, now President McNary dies, and whoever is SoS (Wilkie thought of leaving on Cordell Hull or he may have Vandenberg as SoS) becomes president. Either way, this quick succession is going to be very bad at a time when FDR is most necessary to hold the reins. Wilkie would not be terrible himself as international-wise he was very similar to FDR, but the death of him and his VP will be very bad for the US.
 
Last edited:

NoMommsen

Donor
Why should he die 2-3 years earlier than OTL ?

Possible, yes, with his story of several heart infarctions - later (would make a nice POD).

But there is no conclusive, strong reason for this to happen by becomming president. As a physician myself I would only see a possible increase in risk factors, but that's all, nothing that has to lead to such a fatal outcome.
 
If memory serves, Willkie and Roosevelt were mostly alike in terms of domestic policies, and I have heard stories that Roosevelt actually sent Willkie places as a sort of informal ambassador after the elections.
 
Why should he die 2-3 years earlier than OTL ?

Possible, yes, with his story of several heart infarctions - later (would make a nice POD).

But there is no conclusive, strong reason for this to happen by becomming president. As a physician myself I would only see a possible increase in risk factors, but that's all, nothing that has to lead to such a fatal outcome.

We have a doctor in this forum? Awesome.

To your point, Wilkie's health was worse than FDR's and FDR could have died beforehand (good thing he didn't or we'd have Henry Wallace as president). Not to mention the presidency has a reputation of taking a toll on health, even more that Wilkie's OTL position of envoy did, and this is especially true during crises. You're right that he doesn't have to die, but he likely will. Just look at what happened to FDR IOTL. He went from being a healthy albeit disabled man to dying. Wilkie already has bad health, and the presidency will simply worsen it. The same goes for McNary.
 
Was there any chance of Wilkie managing to win the presidency in 1940?

Yes.

Robert Heinlein discussed the Willkie campaign in his book Take Back Your Government (written in 1946, after over 12 years of heavy involvement with the California Democratic Party). Heinlein described Willkie as in many ways close to an "ideal candidate": a mature, successful man, physically personable without being "pretty", a good speaker, with an unexceptional family life (as far as anyone knew, including RAH at the time). Also, Willkie was backed by a huge popular movement, ginned up in the space of a few months by some very clever PR and advertising men.

On the other side - Roosevelt was a hugely popular incumbent, but he was running for a third term, which offended a lot of voters. Many people considered it tantamount to becoming a "president-for-life" dictator.

What defeated Willkie, in Heinlein's opinion, was that he was a first-time candidate who made a lot of unforced errors, saying things that hurt him for no good reason - a syndrome Heiniein had seen before.

If Willkie had better coaching, or learned on his own to avoid these blunders...

I ask this as someone who knows next to nothing about this particular episode in American history. It does seem to me that a Wilkie victory could have had pretty significant consequences domestically and internationally. What would have happened to the New Deal, for instance, or to the United States' relationship to the outside world?

Willkie ran as an opponent of some key elements of the New Deal, notably public-utility operations such as the TVA. His winning would be seen as a mandate to revise or repeal those parts of the New Deal. However, it's almost certain that Democrats would have retained control of Congress - completely certain that they would control the Senate - so Willkie would have trouble getting changes in the New Deal law enacted.

As to foreign affairs: Willkie was privately something of an internationalist. However, he would have won as a Republican, and in 1940 the Republicans were largely isolationist. If the Republicans did really well in the House, they could have a very narrow majority, provided they were supported by the handful of Progressive members.

The Progressive Party had formed as a liberal break-off from the Republicans; most Progressives reverted to the Republican label over time, but a few stayed with the Progressive label. It should be noted that in this era (1910-1940) there were lots of Republicans who might be considered "left-wing", or at least not conservative. For instance, Representative Jeannette Rankin of Montana, was a suffragette and social reformer, the first women elected to the House (in 1916), a pacifist who voted against declaring war on Germany in 1917, was defeated in 1918, returned to the House in 1940, and cast the only vote against declaring war on Japan in 1941. She was also a Republican.

The Progressives were drawn from Republicans of that stripe, who were willing to take up a different party name. And they were fervently isolationist in 1940. If Willkie won... he would be dependent on that Progressive bloc in Congress, and the Progressives by name, if sufficiently offended, might caucus with the Democrats and give them control.

So even though Willkie might harbor internationalist sentiments, he would be constrained from acting on them, much more than Roosevelt..
 
What defeated Willkie, in Heinlein's opinion, was that he was a first-time candidate who made a lot of unforced errors, saying things that hurt him for no good reason - a syndrome Heiniein had seen before.

If Willkie had better coaching, or learned on his own to avoid these blunders...

I think that may well be what undermined him in Jacobs' view, FWIW.

Willkie ran as an opponent of some key elements of the New Deal, notably public-utility operations such as the TVA. His winning would be seen as a mandate to revise or repeal those parts of the New Deal. However, it's almost certain that Democrats would have retained control of Congress - completely certain that they would control the Senate - so Willkie would have trouble getting changes in the New Deal law enacted.

So, not much change domestically.

The Progressives were drawn from Republicans of that stripe, who were willing to take up a different party name. And they were fervently isolationist in 1940. If Willkie won... he would be dependent on that Progressive bloc in Congress, and the Progressives by name, if sufficiently offended, might caucus with the Democrats and give them control.

So even though Willkie might harbor internationalist sentiments, he would be constrained from acting on them, much more than Roosevelt..

The big changes would be internationally. Would a Wilkie Administration be able to get involved internationally as FDR did in his third term? Might this be a TL where the US only fights in the Pacific, for instance?
 
Might this be a TL where the US only fights in the Pacific, for instance?

The Nazis will probably still declare war on the US, and Wilkie was a internationalist and in his role as Comanche in chief, he won't let the isolationist hold him back. Not to mention almost all isolationist sentiment dissapeared almost overnight after Pearl Harbour, to the point that even Burton K. Wheeler was pro-war. So nope.

What is possible is that Wilkie will lessen Lend-Lease in the first year of his presidency.
 
I am undecided on his health. One you increase his job stress particularly after 12/7/41 but as President, he probably takes better care of himself.
 
Top