"Hipster" PMs and Presidents Thread

So here's one I found recently. A bit off the wall but that's the point of this thread, right?

David Sinton Ingalls was a distant member of the Taft clan in Ohio who married into the Harkness fortune. In the First World War, Ingalls became the first flying ace in the US Navy. He went on to graduate from Yale and then Harvard Law. He was a member of the Ohio House of Representatives who wrote the Ohio Aviation Code. He served as Assistant Secretary of the Navy under Herbert Hoover whom he befriended. He accomplished all of that by the time he was 30. Later in life he befriended Charles Lindbergh of America First fame.

Despite losing a close election for Governor of Oho in 1932 (54% to 46%), he stayed active in state and national politics and government. In 1952, Ingalls helped run his second cousin Robert Taft's presidential campaign. For the next 30 years he worked in law other various conservative enterprises around the State of Ohio before his death in 1985.

It's not difficult to imagine a world where this man, with all of the political and financial support he would have had at his disposal, might have succeeded in becoming President of the United States with some better timing. Perhaps not losing that race in 1932 or choosing a different office that year would have made the difference.
Of course, the problem with him winning the gov race in 1932 is that it would probably lead to him being nominated for President in 1936. After all, the reason Landon was nominated was that he was the one GOP victory in the past few years. Of course, he could decline it but then he'd still have to win reelection in 1936. If he could have done it, he would have been quite the behemoth.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 16736

Of course, the problem with him winning the gov tax in 1932 is that it would probably lead to him being nominated for President in 1936. After all, the reason Landon was nominated was that he was the one GOP victory in the past few years. Of course, he could decline it but then he'd still have to win reelection in 1936. If he could have done it, he would have been quite the behemoth.
Good point about his likelihood of being nominated for the GOP ticket in 1936. I honestly didn't even think of that. And there are other problems getting him to the White House as well. Ingalls would almost certainly be overshadowed by Robert Taft until he died in '53. I think he would have also struggled with the fact that governors in Ohio were elected for two year terms at that time, meaning he'd be running for reelection every cycle and would be vulnerable to some strong Democratic challengers on a consistent basis. If he won, he'd be a hardscrabble battle-tested pol. If he lost then he's be right where he ended up IOTL. Things would have to line up pretty perfectly for him to thread the needle, but if they did then he'd be tough to stop - a behemoth as you said.
 
Good point about his likelihood of being nominated for the GOP ticket in 1936. I honestly didn't even think of that. And there are other problems getting him to the White House as well. Ingalls would almost certainly be overshadowed by Robert Taft until he died in '53. I think he would have also struggled with the fact that governors in Ohio were elected for two year terms at that time, meaning he'd be running for reelection every cycle and would be vulnerable to some strong Democratic challengers on a consistent basis. If he won, he'd be a hardscrabble battle-tested pol. If he lost then he's be right where he ended up IOTL. Things would have to line up pretty perfectly for him to thread the needle, but if they did then he'd be tough to stop - a behemoth as you said.
The idea of winning a state election leading to being the nominee in an unwinnable election is something I got from Richard Nixon's memoirs where he mused that losing the 1962 gubernatorial election prevented bosses from recruiting him in 1964 and losing.

But anyway, the 1920s GOP is fascinating to me in that they seemed to have found the perfect political combination for victory and were ascendant everywhere, even making way into cracking the Solid South. Absent a Great Depression or it being merely a Panic of 1929, it's interesting to imagine the Republicans continuing to win elections and who their Presidents would have been after Hoover's second term especially if there's a new branch of Southern Republicans. I imagine guys like Ingalls and Taft would have been on the list.
 
I think that Mick Young can easily be forgotten from Australian politics as a potential leadership contender, given that he resigned under a donation scandal in 1987, well before anyone besides Paul Keating was thinking about taking over from Hawke. He was an effective, if slightly scandal-prone, minister, a strong parliamentary debater and a key Beazley ally and friend. Were it not for his succession of scandals in the 1980's, and his premature death of leukaemia in 1996, I get the feeling that he'd be up there with Kim Beazley and Gareth Evans as potential post-Keating Labor leaders.
 
i found a hipster New South dude

Bill Waller was Governor of Mississippi from 1972 to 1976. Back when the guy was a legal prosecutor, he jailed the person who killed Medgar Evers. After losing the 1967 Democratic primary, he ran in 1971 and won. Looking at his political positions, he has many elements of the “not racist Wallace” AH scenario. After his one term as Governor, he ran again in 1987 and for Senate in 1978, so a career for him as late as the 1990s could be possible.
 
If anyone wants a centuries-long political dynasty, the Adams Family went far beyond John Quincy. I know Charles Francis Adams Sr. sometimes get used, but I think the rest are pretty obscure.

Charles Francis Adams Sr.
(1807-1886) - Longest-living son of John Quincy Adams. Historian, lawyer, journalist, and politician best known for serving as the vice presidential nominee of the Free Soil Party in 1848 (having previously been a Conscience Whig) and Ambassador to Britain during the Civil War (during which time he played a major role in ensuring its neutrality). While in London, he apparently had correspondence with Karl Marx. He was a candidate for the Liberal Republican nomination in 1872, but lost to Horace Greeley, who went on to lose the general election in a landslide anyway.

John Quincy Adams II (1833-1894) - CFA Sr.'s oldest son. Ran for several offices, but never obtained anything higher than Massachusetts state legislature. Mostly uninteresting other than the fact that he switched to the Democratic Party in 1866 because he opposed Reconstruction. Grover Cleveland offered him a spot in the cabinet during his second term, but he turned it down only to die a year later. If one of his gubernatorial runs succeeded, he easily could've gone on as an alt Cleveland to bring the Bourbon Democrats to the White House.

Charles Francis Adams Jr.
(1835-1915) - The second son. Fought in the Civil War and achieved the rank of beveret brigadier general. After the war, he became very interested in railroad regulation and eventually ended up as the government-appointed president of Union Pacific Railroad by 1884. He was a moderate reformer who opposed corruption, but believed that companies should be "persuaded" to stop rather than forced to do so by the government. He described himself as "socialistic" in his concern for the poor (though the word had different connotations at the time), supported Georgism, was inspired by the works of John Stuart Mill, and joined the American Anti-Imperialist League. However, he was also extremely racist. Along with many anti-Catholic and anti-immigrant beliefs, he was a hardcore Lost Causer who believed African-Americans were unfit for military service (despite, or rather because of, leading a black division during the war) and gave a speech in 1908 called “The Solid South and the Afro-American Race Problem” that essentially talked about how horrible Reconstruction was and blamed African-Americans for all their problems. Even contemporaries though it was bad. Unlike his brother John Quincy, he remained a Republican, so perhaps he could have a role to play in an earlier Southern Strategy.

Henry Adams
(1838-1918) - More committed to journalism and academics (specializing in American and Medieval History) than politics, but still had his fair share of opinions. He supported civil service reform and the silver standard and opposed political corruption, imperialism, and monopolies. The complete opposite of his Leeaboo brother, he believed that Robert E. Lee should have been hanged. However, he was also an antisemite who believed that Jews controlled the world. He also had a bonkers theory that applied the second law of thermodynamics (entropy) to history. As a traditionalist who romanticized the Middle Ages and believed the modern era was tainted by industrialism, demagogy, and militarism, he believed that civilization would go through four stages: religious, mechanical, electrical, and ethereal. The beginning of the ethereal stage, and thus the apocalypse, would occur in 1921. He did not live long enough to see his theory disproven.

Brooks Adams
(1848-1927) - Another historian and political scientist who shared his brother Henry's fatalist, quasi-reactionary, proto-third positionist views. His theory of was slightly more well thought out than Henry's, focusing on the idea that all great civilizations rise and then face decay due to the centralization of political and financial power. At one point, he suggested that this decline could be stopped in the United States through an authoritarian socialist government.

Charles Francis "Deacon" Adams III
(1886-1954) - Entering a new generation, CFA III was the son of John Quincy Adams II. He was a businessman who served as mayor of Quincy, Massachusetts from 1896-97 and Secretary of the Navy under Herbert Hoover. He didn't appear to share any of the wacky views of his uncles, but he did have an interesting proposition for the presidency: the president should be term-limited, forced to renounce partisan memberships, and automatically became a senator after his term ends. He had a son, Charles Francis Adams IV (1910-1999), but he didn't appear to be very political.

Thomas Boylston Adams
(1910-1997) - Grandson of Charles Francis Adams Jr. The most recent of the politically active Adamses, but also the least high-profile. He ran as an anti-Vietnam War Democrat for Senate in 1966 and House of Representatives for Massachusetts's third district in 1968, coming a distant third in the primaries both time. Still, he was a notable businessman and academic, so if he played his cards differently, starting out with more obtainable offices than quixotic runs for Congress, he might've gone somewhere as a leading liberal.
 
Last edited:
Thomas Boylston Adams (1910-1997) - Grandson of Charles Francis Adams Jr. The most recent of the politically active Adamses, but also the least high-profile. He ran as an anti-Vietnam War Democrat for Senate in 1966 and House of Representatives for Massachusetts's third district in 1968, coming a distant third in the primaries both time. Still, he was a notable businessman and academic, so if he played his cards differently, starting out with more obtainable offices than quixotic runs for Congress, he might've gone somewhere as a leading liberal.
I will use this
 
I notice Styles Bridges used a lot in lists as an angry conservative who loses elections, but I have to ask, could he have actually been elected? The guy was after all a savvy politician who managed to get elected at quite a young age and proceed to exercise sizable power in the Senate including becoming the Republican leader before he passed away. He was also fiercely anti-Communist and sort of a proto McCarthy as far as political views. He definitely couldn't have won in the 1930s against Roosevelt but it's not impossible to imagine if things went bad and enough of a backlash formed that a man like him could win, especially if he tempered his campaigning to more fit the mood.
 
So assuming no Great Depression or it merely being the Panic of 1929 leading to Hoover being reelected in 1932, is there any interesting candidates for Republican nominees in 1936? I ask in this thread because I was curious if there any up and comers in the Republican Party that ended up getting screwed over by the Depression. An above poster mentioned David Sinton Ingalls which is a good pick. Smedley Butler also ran for Senate in Pennsylvania as a Republican but he's hardly hipster.
 
In my new election game, this guy, James H.R. Cromwell is a serious contender for the Presidency. He seems like an interesting character, being appointed Ambassador to Canada in early 1940 before losing election to the Senate from New Jersey that same year. Politically, he was a supporter of the New Deal, and in my opinion is an interesting patrician Democrat. Also, he was married to Doris Duke and went through a heavily-publicized divorce.
 
Some of the reformist fusionist anti-Tammany mayors of New York interest me in that they were generally pretty accomplished but didn't survive past one term. Perhaps they were able to be all things to all people when being a candidate and inevitably disappointed when in office while creating nostalgia for Tammany. Perhaps people liked the idea of the scientific progressive reform of these types more than in practice. Either way, I wonder if some of them could have had higher office if they survived.

Seth Low was a former President of Columbia University who ran and won the mayorship of New York City. He started getting rid of the patronage system, reduce corruption, and lower taxes but was still run out by Tammany through their candidate George McClellan Jr who himself would later turn on the machine which would lead to him being forced out of office. Perhaps a weaker candidate could lead to Low being reelected and then having firmly built a brand of Honest Seth, he could get elected to higher office and run for President like Grover "the Good" Cleveland. Perhaps he could even be a compromise candidate between the Republican wings in 1916.

Perhaps more interesting was John Mitchel, the Boy Mayor of New York, who got into office on a fusionist ticket at the age of 34. Mitchel worked to also reduce corruption and balance the budget but this put him in conflict with teachers. But what really ended up dooming him was neither teacher's unions nor Tammany but the war. Mitchel was pro-war, and NYC, being a big immigrant community, was not so keen on the war. He lost the Republican nomination but ran for reelection as an independent. He proceeded to run a horrifyingly nativist campaign, accusing those against the war (often immigrants) of treasonous behavior. He ended up lost big to the Democrat who was Hearst's man through and through and only barely beat the anti-war Socialist candidate. It's interesting to wonder if without US involvement in the war whether Mitchel could keep his... tendencies under the radar and ascend to higher office until he runs for President in a national campaign during which the nativism would be more popular.
 
Louis Robichaud. He was elected Premier of New Brunswick as a Liberal at age 34 in 1960, made New Brunswick a officially bilingual province, sought to make Francophones and Anglophones in that province equal, and set up the Equal Opportunity program, which greatly increased the quality of schools and hospitals in the rural parts of new Brunswick. He was also fluently bilingual, was on the left of the Liberal party, and allegedly was offered the post of Minister of Justice in 1967, which would eventually go to one Pierre Trudeau. Making him Liberal Leader and/or Prime Minister in 1968 or after would result in a vastly different Canada today.

For no particular reason, I think I am going to tag @CanadianTory and @True Grit in this.
 
My last two posts were short lists about interesting Founding Fathers and the Adams Family, so here's a continuation of that theme with more early Americans and some Hamiltons:

Pierce Butler (1744-1822) - Irish-born son of an English aristocrat who served in the British army and retired to South Carolina in 1773 before becoming an adjutant general in the Revolution. He was one of the most pro-slavery delegates of the Constitutional Convention, strongly supporting the fugitive slave clause and the three-fifths compromise. Originally a originally a Federalist, he switched to the Democratic-Republicans in 1795, then became an independent in 1804. He was a friend of Aaron Burr and hosted him after his duel with Hamilton, something that contributed to Butler's demise in national politics. His contemporaries called him an enigma for his contradictory political views. Despite being a slaveowner and literal aristocrat, he supported the "common man" and sided with the poor South Carolina upstate against the planter class. He supported most of Hamilton's economic policies, but opposed other parts, like the protective tariff, and was apparently pro-France (he was against the Jay Treaty). The best summary that I've read about him is that he believed that a strong central government was necessary to build the economy and garner respect among foreign nations, but above all else it must respect the rights and interests of the average (white) citizen. In a TL where he manages to stick with a single faction or where early American politics are less partisan, these beliefs could make him an interesting player.

Noah Webster (1758-1843) - Someone I used for my TL; he's most famous for his dictionary, but he was also politically active. A former schoolteacher, Webster first gained fame for his educational materials in the 1780s, which somehow landed him a friendship with Benjamin Franklin and correspondence with other important people like George Washington. He credited a paper he wrote in 1785 on the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation with inspiring the Constitutional Convention and his articles supporting the document as being just as influential as the Federalist Papers in its ratification, but he was also infamously egotistical, so this is likely an exaggeration. He received a loan from Alexander Hamilton to run a pro-Federalist newspaper in the 1790s, and in the early 1800s he moved back to his native Connecticut and served a few terms in the state legislature before retiring to private/scholarly life, where he eventually wrote Webster's Dictionary. But what if he had decided to stay in politics? He seemed to be an early Henry Clay in terms of policies (combining Hamiltonian economic policies with Jeffersonian social equality), but become more conservative and elitist with age (to the point that he opined that the voting age should be increased to forty-five).

John Randolph of Roanoke (1773-1833) - A Virginian aristocrat and descendant of Pocahontas who, as a member of the House of Representatives, denounced, of all people, his cousin Thomas Jefferson as a big-government shill and abandoned the Democratic-Republicans to label himself as a "Tertium Quid." Thus, he went from being a powerful Republican and chairman of the Ways and Means committee to a practical political pariah, but he still managed to stay in office for decades, even serving briefly in the Senate. He essentially comes off as a paleoconservative - opposed to virtually any action by the federal government, anti-war, and not particularly keen on the whole Jeffersonian/Jacksonian Democracy thing (in his own words, "I am an aristocrat. I love liberty, I hate equality"). He also continued the proud Virginian tradition of being anti-slavery in the loosest possible sense of the term. Despite owning hundreds of slaves, he opposed the slave trade and was against continuing the institution westwards, and he manumission his slaves in his will, with those over the age of forty given ten acres of land in Ohio. Additionally, he was an early member of the American Colonization Society, which founded Liberia, though he was more motivated by the fear of free blacks setting a "bad example" for slaves than actual concern for their well-being. This alone makes him interesting, but his eccentricities go beyond this and make him fun. Despite having Klinefelter syndrome (which essentially made him look like a prepubescent boy his entire life, with no beard and a high-pitched voice) and being a heavy drinker and opium user, he was a great orator and socializer known for his energy, eloquence, and wit. He often kept his hunting dogs with him, and Henry Clay had to force him to remove them from the house floor. He was very bellicose and fought a duel with Clay and bet another member of the House with his cane over a personal dispute. He was a lifelong bachelor - this was likely because his medical condition made him impotent, but at least one historian believed he had a crush on Andrew Jackson. Finally, while most of these people's paths to the presidency are purely speculative, Randolph was apparently urged to run in 1824. Can you imagine this guy as an alternate to Andrew Jackson as president?

James Alexander Hamilton (1788-1878) - Alexander Hamilton had lots of children and descendants, many of whom had careers in law, military, and politics, but none of them had any particular claim to fame besides their heritage. Hamilton's son James is little different, but while most of the family were Whigs and Republicans, keeping with the family tradition, he was a Democrat who held minor posts in the Jackson Administration and vigorously opposed his father's national bank. It would make for some fun irony if he either replaced Van Buren as Jackson's successor or remained active enough in Democratic politics to make a run for president later on. I'm not sure where he stood on the Barnburner vs. Hunker debate, so he either could become a champion of the anti-slavery faction of the Democratic Party or a stain on the Hamilton family reputation as a doughface (a term, funnily enough, coined by John Randolph to refer to Northerners who supported the Missouri Compromise) a la Franklin Pierce and James Buchanan.

Pierpont Morgan Hamilton (1898-1982) and Alexander Morgan Hamilton (1903-1970) - Two brothers, descendants of Alexander Hamilton and grandsons of J.P. Morgan,on their mother's side. With that heritage, they seem destined to become champions of American capitalism. IOTL, they were not particularly significant besides their ancestry, but that could be changed. Pierpont had a distinguished career in the military, serving in both world wars, becoming a major general in the air force, and spent many of his inter- and postwar years in business. Alexander ran for the New York Senate in 1930, but lost. He later served some in some posts in city government, in which he was known for taking a one-dollar salary, before resigning over disagreements with Mayor La Guardia.
 
Last edited:
Atlanta Mayor Bill Campbell was considered by some to be the future first black President for a few years in the mid-90's: A suave, moderate, pragmatic reformer with an ability to build bridges between different racial groups. A dissapointing second term (and a federal conviction for tax evasion) put a stop to any future plans but lets have a few things turn out differently and I could definetly see him run for President in 2008 or 2012 after a few years as Governor or Senator.
 
Frank Church and John Tower strike me as being two sides of the same coin: They were both most well known for chairing important committees (the Church Committee and the Tower Commission), both had at least some interest in being President, and both were always outpolled by more interesting people.
 
This. And Buck Humphrey should indeed get more love. There's a great picture of a beaming HHH holding baby Buck around the start of the Seventies, one of those moments where you could see The Hump was a sweet guy around his family.

Fun fact: my mother's last name is Humphreys and her and her siblings thought that (recently VP) Hubert Humphrey was their father when they were kids. I'm pretty sure my uncle mentioned that picture with Buck Humphrey at one point and he thought it was him.

___

As for actual hipster politicians, I could see Ed and Tommy Thompson from Wisconsin could have become major figures in the GOP. Tommy Thompson is the longest serving Governor in Wisconsin's history and Ed Thompson was a one-time Libertarian Party candidate. If you could have them both be members of the Republican Party and extremely active in politics - I could see them being talked about as the Republican Kennedys (relatively young with the potential of becoming big figures) in the 90s.

Ed Thompson is certainly to the Left of, and a little bit wackier than, Tommy Thompson and could be the RFK to his JFK under different circumstances.
 
Jean-Paul St. Laurent is an interesting one for Canada. The son of Louis St. Laurent, he served as an MP for about half the time his father was Prime Minister before being defeated in 1958. Had he been re-elected (or had his father led the Liberals to victory the previous year), I could see him as a prominent figure in the Liberal Party going forward.
 
Jean-Paul St. Laurent is an interesting one for Canada. The son of Louis St. Laurent, he served as an MP for about half the time his father was Prime Minister before being defeated in 1958. Had he been re-elected (or had his father led the Liberals to victory the previous year), I could see him as a prominent figure in the Liberal Party going forward.

Don't forget Louis St. Laurent II, grandson of Prime Minister Louis St. Laurent. Currently serves as an Attorney in Florida, but still has deep roots in both Quebec and the Liberal Party. A few changes to OTL and who knows, he could conceivably be a prominent cabinet minister or such in a possible TL. Move over Trudeau's, and make way for the St. Laurent's.
 
Top