A Roosevelt dictatorship?

[Plus-Sized Scribe]

I don't know how many of you are aware of it, but apparently a sizable portion of people in the government in 1932 and 1933 - including John Nance Garner, his first VP - wanted Franklin Delano Roosevelt to rule the country as a "benevolent dictator" like they presumed Mussolini was doing. Just to ensure the country weathered the Great Depression.

Now, of course, Roosevelt refused to do that. But what if he had done it? And what if he was in some way killed or grievously incapacitated alongside Garner or one of his other VPs? What state would America be in, with all power now concentrated in the executive branch?

This is rather fascinating to me as a potential POD. Thoughts?

 

[Mark E.]

When he ran in 1932, FDR was warned that he might have to resort to being sort of a dictator. His executive order to outlaw gold was as close as he came, fortunately. Now, move to WW2, and the rationing, lights out drills, etc. came a little closer than we like to think.

 

[Aisha Clan-Clan]

Scott Palter's Dark America/Panay war atls have something like this

 

[Zincwarrior]

I don't know how many of you are aware of it, but apparently a sizable portion of people in the government in 1932 and 1933 - including John Nance Garner, his first VP - wanted Franklin Delano Roosevelt to rule the country as a "benevolent dictator" like they presumed Mussolini was doing. Just to ensure the country weathered the Great Depression.

Now, of course, Roosevelt refused to do that. But what if he had done it? And what if he was in some way killed or grievously incapacitated alongside Garner or one of his other VPs? What state would America be in, with all power now concentrated in the executive branch?

This is rather fascinating to me as a potential POD. Thoughts?

Please review your history. There were strong arguments at the time that he did just that: trying to pack SCOTUS, 4 terms, etc.

 

[BigBlueBox]

Please review your history. There were strong arguments at the time that he did just that: trying to pack SCOTUS, 4 terms, etc.

He ran four times because he was so popular he could win four times. Outside of America a prime minister staying in power for 16 years is completely normal. As for the Supreme Court, he proposed a fix to its obstructionism, Congress didn’t go through with it. The Supreme Court is an unelected gang of 9 that should defer to the executive and legislature in most situations.

 

[Plus-Sized Scribe]

Please review your history. There were strong arguments at the time that he did just that: trying to pack SCOTUS, 4 terms, etc.

There is a serious difference between being necessarily heavy-handed and being an out-and-out dictator. I see your viewpoint, but what I'd been considering was something even more excessive for the scope of this thought exercise.

 

[jmc247]

Please review your history. There were strong arguments at the time that he did just that: trying to pack SCOTUS, 4 terms, etc.

In this TL he gets to wear his toga full time.

Spoiler

 

[Plus-Sized Scribe]

Heh. The Fireside Chats get dubbed the Gunpoint Chats because of how people perceive his rule, perhaps?

 

[David T]

Please review your history. There were strong arguments at the time that he did just that: trying to pack SCOTUS, 4 terms, etc.

First of all, the fact that court-packing (which was perfectly constitutional and not unprecedented--the size of the Court had been changed for political purposes before https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/court-packing-before-fdr-please-move-to-chat.467104/) failed even with a Congress overwhelmingly Democratic shows how far from being a dictator he was. As for four terms, people were perfectly free to vote for Willkie in 1940 or Dewey in 1944 if they wanted to (as indeed 45-46% of the voters did).

 

[Born in the USSA]

Didn't he have some hand in the movie Gabriel Over the White House? I know he called it "a tremendous help" and on his first inauguration a paper ran a headline "To Dictatorship if Needs Be".

 

[Anarch King of Dipsodes]

FDR had no inclination toward dictatorship; he believed in democracy. And inasmuch he was not only elected by a landslide as President in 1932, but also was backed by overwhelming majorities in Congress, there was no need for him to assert "dictatorial" powers. Democracy gave him everything he wanted.

 

[Scott Washburn]

Keep in mind that for classically educated people of that era the term 'dictator' had a slightly different connotation than it does now. During the Roman Republic they often appointed a 'dictator' during a time of crisis (typically a war) and for a limited period that person had absolute power to deal with that crisis. Once the crisis was past or the time period ran out the person lost those powers and things reverted to normal. People probably wanted some sort of an arrangement like that for FDR. During the Civil War McClellan wanted a dictator like that (himself, of course) with similar powers to direct the war.

 

[David T]

"Now I say, and I've said all along, that in a depression we're in a state of war. This stagnation of business, or whatever you call it, is doing more damage at home to our own people than the great war of 1917 and 1918 ever did. The only thing to do is to lay aside the red tape and the regulatory statutes and do what a democracy must do when it fights. And what does a democracy do in a war? It becomes a tyrant, a despot, a real monarch. In the world war we took our constitution, wrapped it up and laid it on the shelf and left it there until it was over..." Sounds dangerously authoritarian, right? But it wasn't FDR who said it--it was Al Smith!

https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/what-if-fdr-was-fascist.376246/#post-11733981

 

[Jaenera Targaryen]

He ran four times because he was so popular he could win four times. Outside of America a prime minister staying in power for 16 years is completely normal. As for the Supreme Court, he proposed a fix to its obstructionism, Congress didn’t go through with it. The Supreme Court is an unelected gang of 9 that should defer to the executive and legislature in most situations.

...which completely defeats the whole point of an independent judiciary being a check on the executive and the legislature.

 

[Colonel Zoidberg]

Please review your history. There were strong arguments at the time that he did just that: trying to pack SCOTUS, 4 terms, etc.

Packing the Court was merely Roosevelt trying something to see if it would work - if he were trying to become a dictator, he would have fought harder for it. As it was, he just felt there “ain’t no rule” saying he couldn’t, so what the hell, let’s try it. Really, there was a lot of FDR’s presidency that boiled down to, what the hell, let’s try it.

As for the four terms, I read that he really didn’t want to go past two, but he had the support to do so and he didn’t feel comfortable giving his endorsement to anyone else. If John Nance Garner were up for it, FDR would just as soon have endorsed him in 1940.

 

[Anarch King of Dipsodes]

During the Civil War McClellan wanted a dictator like that (himself, of course) with similar powers to direct the war.

Umm, no. In his heyday (fall 1861) McClellan wrote his wife that lots of people were urging him to take supreme power. "But nothing of the sort would please me - therefore I won't be dictator. Admirable self-denial!"

The monstrous egotism is obvious, but to be fair, McClellan never sought to establish himself or anyone else as dictator.

BTW, "on the other side of the hill", as it were, the editor of the Richmond Whig wrote in an editorial: "We [meaning the Confederacy] need a dictator... Usurpations of power by the chief, for the preservation of the people from robbers and murderers, will be esteemed as genius and patriotism..."

 

[Deleted member 109224]

He ran four times because he was so popular he could win four times. Outside of America a prime minister staying in power for 16 years is completely normal. As for the Supreme Court, he proposed a fix to its obstructionism, Congress didn’t go through with it. The Supreme Court is an unelected gang of 9 that should defer to the executive and legislature in most situations.

...which completely defeats the whole point of an independent judiciary being a check on the executive and the legislature.

This seems like it ought to belong in chat.

 

[Greg Grant]

Didn't he have some hand in the movie Gabriel Over the White House? I know he called it "a tremendous help" and on his first inauguration a paper ran a headline "To Dictatorship if Needs Be".

Yeah. That whole thing really needs to be explored by someone. The first time I saw that movie, no one forewarned me. I went into it cold, as just another flick with a curious title on Turner Classics Movie channel. Ten minutes into it, I had a full on confused dog head tilt and wanted to know everything about it and how it came about and what drove folks to think "yeah, this is great!" When we watch propaganda for various political causes from that era, we generally can see it coming ahead of time because of how well documented the movies are. But to watch something like that, in English language, made in America and the context of it - oof. Not nearly enough had been written about that movie. It seems to occupy a white spot in history.

 

[Scott Washburn]

Umm, no. In his heyday (fall 1861) McClellan wrote his wife that lots of people were urging him to take supreme power. "But nothing of the sort would please me - therefore I won't be dictator. Admirable self-denial!"

Yes, you are right. I think it was Hooker who was talking about a dictatorship.

 

[BELFAST]

He ran four times because he was so popular he could win four times. Outside of America a prime minister staying in power for 16 years is completely normal. As for the Supreme Court, he proposed a fix to its obstructionism, Congress didn’t go through with it. The Supreme Court is an unelected gang of 9 that should defer to the executive and legislature in most situations.

I thought it was their job to protect the US constitution and stop the President and Congress exceeding the powers granted to them in the constitution.
They should defer to the constitution at all times otherwise what is the point of having a written constitution.