- Location
- NYC (né Falkirk)
- Pronouns
- he/him
In the interests of balance, a companion piece to my thread on the Democratic Party fading away following the American Civil War.
Throughout the 1920s, and indeed largely since the end of the American Civil War, the Republican Party dominated national politics. When the seemingly boundless prosperity of the Roaring Twenties came crashing down with Wall Street in 1929 and ushering in the Great Depression. Failure to adequately deal with the Depression saw sitting President Herbert Hoover turfed out in the 1932 election, with Franklin Roosevelt becoming the first Democratic candidate to win majorities in both the electoral and popular votes since Franklin Pierce in 1852. The Republicans would continue to decline during the 1930s as Roosevelt's New Deal programme proved effective and popular. They would not capture the White House again until the 1952 election, and that only came at a concerted effort to draft popular General Dwight D. Eisenhower as candidate.
Could things have gone even worse for them? Could Herbert Hover have even wound up as the last President of the Grand Old Party?
Historically the 1936 elections were amongst the biggest landslides in US history. Roosevelt was re-elected with over 60% of the popular vote and his Republican opponent, Kansas Governor Alf Landon, only carried the states of Maine and Vermont. The House and Senate were just as bad, with the Republicans only holding 88 seats in the former and a mere 16 in the latter. They were also declining in state capitals across the nation. The only other serious candidate for the Republicans was Senator William Borah of Idaho, who might have done ever so slightly better, but probably to the tune of carrying a couple more states in the North East than mounting a more pressing challenge to Roosevelt. Hoover gave some thought to looking to receive the nomination again and pull a Grover Cleveland, but backed out once it became clear that A) he could not pull a Grover Cleveland and B) his party colleagues were very much aware of this. If, long-shot as it was, the forces that tried to unite to stop Landon - the aforementioned Borah, Frank Knox, and Arthur Vandenberg - line up behind Hoover then he might win the nomination and lead them to an even worse direction. They could conceivable reduce that number of 88 Representatives by half! However, as I said a long shot.
During the New Deal era there were plenty of third-parties that managed to gain seats in Congress, without even mentioning the many more that managed at a state level. The Wisconsin Progressive Party and the Minnesota Farmer-Labour Party both had a majority of Representatives in their states, and then there was Frank R. Havenner of the California Progressives and Vito Marcantonio who defected to the American Labor Party after being defeated as a Republican in 1936. There were a couple that never fully materialised that might have further split the opposition to the Democrats. The first was the insurgent challenge of Huey Long, who intended to challenge Roosevelt at the convention, back a stalking horse third party challenger in 1936, and then ride to victory in 1940 as the Democratic nominee after four years of Republican misrule. Now, this was fully intended to harm the Democrats, but might it not do more harm to the Republicans in the West as an insurgent populist campaign especially with Landon as the Republican nominee? One of the rumoured stalking horses Long considered was the aforementioned William Borah, and the eventual candidate for the movement after Long's death was North Dakota Congressman William Lemke, himself a Republican. It's unlikely the Share Our Wealth/Union ticket would carry any state bar perhaps Louisiana, where Long and his machine might be rather... persuasive; but might they have cost the Republicans even more seats in the Appalachians and Mid-West? The second was the New York Liberal Party, who were founded with an idea of going national within a few years. Again, the plan was all laid out, they would have a high profile candidate for New York City in 1945 in the shape of 1940 Republican presidential candidate Wendell Wilkie then go national in time for the 1948 elections. Like Long, Wilkie died before the plan could be put in motion. Say Wilkie has a few more years of life in him though and is able to stand as their candidate in 1948. They are unlikely to carry any states at all but might draw away enough of the liberal Republican voters, especially if conservative Robert Taft is the candidate of that party rather than their man Thomas Dewey, and might actually through New York's electoral votes to Harry Truman for a bigger victory.
Then we come to 1952, with the split between the Dewey/liberal and Taft/conservative wings of the party more pronounced than ever. By that year Tom Dewey was a two time loser in presidential elections, the last time embarrassingly so since a lot of people thought he would win (including that infamous Chicago Daily Tribune headline), and the Conservatives felt, justifiably, that it was their turn to field a candidate. The conservative wing of the Republican Party still held plenty of isolationist sentiment and Taft in particular was opposed even to NATO for a time, it was feared by the moderate end of the Party that Taft would lead them to their sixth consecutive defeat in presidential elections. It was worried too that another defeat would allow Joseph McCarthy and his followers to gain a lot of momentum in the House and Senate. Thus, the draft Eisenhower movement kicked off. It wasn't the first time, both parties had courted him ahead of 1948 with sitting President Truman even offering to step down and stand as his Vice-President if Ike were to stand as a Democrat. It took a lot of persuading for Eisenhower to stand in 1952, what if he had kept the same stance he had in 1948? Even with him as a candidate the 1952 Republican National Convention was an acrimonious affair and would likely be even more so with Taft up against Dewey himself (he did not run in 1952 because he felt Eisenhower was the only choice) or someone from his wing of the party. It's possible Earl Warren emerges as a compromise candidate, but Taft might be adamant that it's his turn, he was very much aware that it was probably his last chance. The Democrats have a better chance of beating Taft, whether they nominate Adlai Stevenson, Estes Kefauver, or even Truman again (though that requires a very different second term for Harry).
The Republicans have no been locked out of the presidency for more than twenty years, the left and right of the party both having suffered defeats, unpopular demagogues running amok in the House and Senate. They're not bouncing back in 1956, the Dewey and Taft wings of the Party might split.
Might these be combined, a worse drubbing in the 1930s, some insurgent parties leaching the anti-Democrat vote, and a failure to capture the White House for well over two decades. Could the Dewey/Rockefeller wing of the Republicans join with a national Liberal Party? Could the Taft/Goldwater wing make common cause with the Southern Democrats who might be drifting further away from the rest of the Party nationally until they decide to go it on their own (as they did in 1948) seeing the Republicans as a moribund entity whose name was never more than mud in the South? Could a new presidential possibility emerge from the left as well as the right? A concerted effort from the various Progressive/Farmer-Labor/Labor/Socialist parties throughout the country? How long until there is a President of the United States not from the Democratic Party?
Throughout the 1920s, and indeed largely since the end of the American Civil War, the Republican Party dominated national politics. When the seemingly boundless prosperity of the Roaring Twenties came crashing down with Wall Street in 1929 and ushering in the Great Depression. Failure to adequately deal with the Depression saw sitting President Herbert Hoover turfed out in the 1932 election, with Franklin Roosevelt becoming the first Democratic candidate to win majorities in both the electoral and popular votes since Franklin Pierce in 1852. The Republicans would continue to decline during the 1930s as Roosevelt's New Deal programme proved effective and popular. They would not capture the White House again until the 1952 election, and that only came at a concerted effort to draft popular General Dwight D. Eisenhower as candidate.
Could things have gone even worse for them? Could Herbert Hover have even wound up as the last President of the Grand Old Party?
Historically the 1936 elections were amongst the biggest landslides in US history. Roosevelt was re-elected with over 60% of the popular vote and his Republican opponent, Kansas Governor Alf Landon, only carried the states of Maine and Vermont. The House and Senate were just as bad, with the Republicans only holding 88 seats in the former and a mere 16 in the latter. They were also declining in state capitals across the nation. The only other serious candidate for the Republicans was Senator William Borah of Idaho, who might have done ever so slightly better, but probably to the tune of carrying a couple more states in the North East than mounting a more pressing challenge to Roosevelt. Hoover gave some thought to looking to receive the nomination again and pull a Grover Cleveland, but backed out once it became clear that A) he could not pull a Grover Cleveland and B) his party colleagues were very much aware of this. If, long-shot as it was, the forces that tried to unite to stop Landon - the aforementioned Borah, Frank Knox, and Arthur Vandenberg - line up behind Hoover then he might win the nomination and lead them to an even worse direction. They could conceivable reduce that number of 88 Representatives by half! However, as I said a long shot.
During the New Deal era there were plenty of third-parties that managed to gain seats in Congress, without even mentioning the many more that managed at a state level. The Wisconsin Progressive Party and the Minnesota Farmer-Labour Party both had a majority of Representatives in their states, and then there was Frank R. Havenner of the California Progressives and Vito Marcantonio who defected to the American Labor Party after being defeated as a Republican in 1936. There were a couple that never fully materialised that might have further split the opposition to the Democrats. The first was the insurgent challenge of Huey Long, who intended to challenge Roosevelt at the convention, back a stalking horse third party challenger in 1936, and then ride to victory in 1940 as the Democratic nominee after four years of Republican misrule. Now, this was fully intended to harm the Democrats, but might it not do more harm to the Republicans in the West as an insurgent populist campaign especially with Landon as the Republican nominee? One of the rumoured stalking horses Long considered was the aforementioned William Borah, and the eventual candidate for the movement after Long's death was North Dakota Congressman William Lemke, himself a Republican. It's unlikely the Share Our Wealth/Union ticket would carry any state bar perhaps Louisiana, where Long and his machine might be rather... persuasive; but might they have cost the Republicans even more seats in the Appalachians and Mid-West? The second was the New York Liberal Party, who were founded with an idea of going national within a few years. Again, the plan was all laid out, they would have a high profile candidate for New York City in 1945 in the shape of 1940 Republican presidential candidate Wendell Wilkie then go national in time for the 1948 elections. Like Long, Wilkie died before the plan could be put in motion. Say Wilkie has a few more years of life in him though and is able to stand as their candidate in 1948. They are unlikely to carry any states at all but might draw away enough of the liberal Republican voters, especially if conservative Robert Taft is the candidate of that party rather than their man Thomas Dewey, and might actually through New York's electoral votes to Harry Truman for a bigger victory.
Then we come to 1952, with the split between the Dewey/liberal and Taft/conservative wings of the party more pronounced than ever. By that year Tom Dewey was a two time loser in presidential elections, the last time embarrassingly so since a lot of people thought he would win (including that infamous Chicago Daily Tribune headline), and the Conservatives felt, justifiably, that it was their turn to field a candidate. The conservative wing of the Republican Party still held plenty of isolationist sentiment and Taft in particular was opposed even to NATO for a time, it was feared by the moderate end of the Party that Taft would lead them to their sixth consecutive defeat in presidential elections. It was worried too that another defeat would allow Joseph McCarthy and his followers to gain a lot of momentum in the House and Senate. Thus, the draft Eisenhower movement kicked off. It wasn't the first time, both parties had courted him ahead of 1948 with sitting President Truman even offering to step down and stand as his Vice-President if Ike were to stand as a Democrat. It took a lot of persuading for Eisenhower to stand in 1952, what if he had kept the same stance he had in 1948? Even with him as a candidate the 1952 Republican National Convention was an acrimonious affair and would likely be even more so with Taft up against Dewey himself (he did not run in 1952 because he felt Eisenhower was the only choice) or someone from his wing of the party. It's possible Earl Warren emerges as a compromise candidate, but Taft might be adamant that it's his turn, he was very much aware that it was probably his last chance. The Democrats have a better chance of beating Taft, whether they nominate Adlai Stevenson, Estes Kefauver, or even Truman again (though that requires a very different second term for Harry).
The Republicans have no been locked out of the presidency for more than twenty years, the left and right of the party both having suffered defeats, unpopular demagogues running amok in the House and Senate. They're not bouncing back in 1956, the Dewey and Taft wings of the Party might split.
Might these be combined, a worse drubbing in the 1930s, some insurgent parties leaching the anti-Democrat vote, and a failure to capture the White House for well over two decades. Could the Dewey/Rockefeller wing of the Republicans join with a national Liberal Party? Could the Taft/Goldwater wing make common cause with the Southern Democrats who might be drifting further away from the rest of the Party nationally until they decide to go it on their own (as they did in 1948) seeing the Republicans as a moribund entity whose name was never more than mud in the South? Could a new presidential possibility emerge from the left as well as the right? A concerted effort from the various Progressive/Farmer-Labor/Labor/Socialist parties throughout the country? How long until there is a President of the United States not from the Democratic Party?