Typical third positionists pretending they're in the middle when they're extremists on the third axis, racism.
Ruins Revisited: The Robert Taft Story
- Thread starter Emperor Julian
- Start date
- Status
Typical third positionists pretending they're in the middle when they're extremists on the third axis, racism.
Just realized Taft could be the second president to finish third during a reelection campaign, after his old man. As a socialist, I don't want this to happen, because I think Patton would beat Taylor in a runoff. But as an Ohioan, I would be happy to see the Taft family cursed.
In my opinion, if Patton makes it into the runoff, he'll win, because a large enough portion of the progressives/republicans will turn out for him against the other party, although I think this is slightly less likely in the case of it becoming a Taft/Patton runoff, since there is a large enough bloc (Socialists and some radicals) who would be opposed to voting for a militarist like Patton, and might just stay home. I still hope that Taylor wins though, and he does still have the African-American vote locked down, which could carry him to victory.
Without the electoral college, the African-American vote could matter a lot... If they're allowed in the voting booth. Maybe the progressives can put something together to ensure they are.
Just occurs to me that I haven't commented on this thread in a while. I apologize for that.
Anyway, really liking how things are developing, especially how a centrist platform is forming around Patton in response to how much things have been splintering off to the left and right. I'm hoping he wins, honestly, just for that.
Anyway, really liking how things are developing, especially how a centrist platform is forming around Patton in response to how much things have been splintering off to the left and right. I'm hoping he wins, honestly, just for that.
Eh... Patton doesn't seem like he'd be a very stable leader. This also seems to be more of a vanity campaign than anything else, and while he is centrist on domestic policy, he seems pretty hawkish on foreign policy, which could see us enter the Cold War between the Franco-British and Soviets as a third bloc, and all the military spending that comes with that.
Also, what is my boy George McGovern doing right now?
The Rise of Patton
Historian Marsha Spielberg, PhD: "Patton appealed to a Protestant, Anglo-Saxon working class that felt that the Progressive Party was controlled by immigrants and minorities. A prejudiced charge, certainly. But not entirely untrue."
Patton biographer Jim Ducane: "General Patton's campaign ultimately had three main planks: one, increasing the U.S. security presence in Latin America to ensure that criminals of the Great American War were brought to justice. Two, to preserve the Fair Society from both right-wing and left-wing reforms he claimed would destabilize it. Third, he wanted to break an entrenched political class he felt was more concerned with ideology than policy."
On other issues, Patton remained incredibly vague. This proved to be no deterrent to his supporters.
Mike Forester, Patton supporter in 1948: "We liked Patton because he hit all the stuff wrong in Washington. He really felt our frustration. Olson, LaGuardia, even Taft had used similar rhetoric, but the media hated Patton for doing the same. And that's why we loved him. We needed a general to set things right. Taft didn't understand the working people. Taylor was too concerned with other issues. Patton was our man."
Bruce Starr, Patton supporter in 1948: "Yes, I still remember how it was fifty-plus years ago. Those were wild rallies, lots of fun, huge crowds. And the crowds got bigger and bigger! I haven't been to a rally like that since. Hell, the only time before was when my dad took me as a kid to see Floyd Olson's rally in 32."
President Taft was concerned by the rhetoric of Patton, and the idea of a general with no political experience becoming President.
Impersonator of Taft, reading from a letter: "Is this bumbling fool to be our Caesar, our Bonaparte, our Tukhachevsky? Is the legacy of George Washington, the second Cincinnatus, now to be dust upon the wind?"
Taft Biographer Alexander Patterson, PhD: "Taft was everything Patton wasn't: an intellectual, a lawyer, reserved, elitist, and disdainful of loud antics. When he was a student at Yale university, one of his neighbors, the one below him, took up playing the violin, and began practicing at night after classes. Taft grew frustrated with this noise distracting him from his cerebral pursuits, and lowered a ringing alarm clock to his neighbor's window. His neighbor gave up the violin. For Taft, Patton was like that discordant violin sound, a distraction from the worthy cerebration of an intellectual campaign against a Senator Taft respected."
The President's disdain grew into fear as Patton rose in the polls and attracted larger and larger crowds.
Historian Kyle Anderson, PhD: "Taft actually met with Taylor, and privately broached the idea of an anti-Patton unity front. While they both quickly realized that such an act would be politically unfeasible, they agreed that focusing on attacking Patton would be a better strategy than attacking each other."
Marsha Spielberg: "Running from the center, if Patton got into a run-off with either Taft or Taylor, he would be heavily favored to win. Only by ensuring that they went against each other did the two candidates have a chance at winning."
Patton and his dog, Willie
Taft appealed to Lyndon Johnson to withdraw support for Patton, but was rebuffed.
Historian Martin Luther King Jr., PhD: "Lyndon Johnson knew he was playing with fire, and that Patton could backfire. However, as concerned with a Patton presidency as he was, when he was at huge joint rallies with Patton in Texas, he realized that the General's popularity in the Southern U.S. had saved his reelection campaign - and indeed the People's Coalition."
While Lyndon Johnson disliked some of Patton's rhetoric and certainly his conspiracy theories, he knew that Patton's rise was vital to his own political future. One of Patton's most common refrains related to the conspiracy theory that Luis Miguel Sanchez Cerro, former fascist leader of Peru, was still alive and the U.S. military was not pursuing him properly.
A clip of Patton speaking: "Where's Sanchez? We can't go after Vargas because of some crooked peace deal, but that crazy son-of-a-bitch Sanchez needs to be caught and killed!"
General Sanchez, the notorious fascist dictator, at the beginning of his rule
Peruvian Historian Isabella Rodriguez: "While the Revolutionary Union insurgents continued to publish declarations in Sanchez's name into the early 1950s, there is no verifiable communication from him that dates to late than March 1942, on the eve of the failed counter-attack by his forces to 'liberate' Lima. It is widely believed that the bombardment of Peruvian forces by the United States Air Force in that battle must have killed Sanchez, and his supporters kept up a pretense he was alive for morale. If he lived, he was never caught."
While Patton remained as vague about why he thought Sanchez had never been caught as he was about policy, many Americans, who had hoped for some great trial or announcement of death of the psychotic South American despot, shared his frustration that neither eventuality had been realized. Patton remained in close contention and a likely part of the second round, his poll spike proving to be real and not just a brief phenomenon. Taft and Taylor realized they needed to fight back against Patton's campaign. The only problem was that nothing appeared to be working.
Alexander Patterson: "Taft tried to go after Patton on policy, but it fell flat. The public was apathetic to Taft's detailed plan to increase interest rates and reserve requirements in banks to stop inflation, but was responsive to Patton's tirades against the problems it caused. Taylor tried to go after Patton on ideals, but it didn't work. He insisted Patton did not believe in Floyd Olson's radical vision of a Co-Operative Commonwealth, but many Americans saw in Patton a new strongman akin to Olson, someone who did not care about precedents or norms but would get the job done."
It being warmongering and keeping the minorities in their place.
Calling it. Patton is going to be this TL's Trump - winning on popular support despite all logic, then proving it was all just talk.
I think it's a bit early for a Trump analogue but yeah, I definitely see it. It's actually kinda jarring given how I recently read the "Reds!" timeline where he basically joined the side of the communists during a second American civil war in the 1930s.
To be honest, I don't think that Patton will win - precisely because the post seems to very much indicate that he will be elected. The last few years of Ruins have featured a sequence of people who look like they'll win but then lose (Landon, La Follete, Wallace, possibly Taylor, etc.). If anything, I would assume that the winner's going to be Taft - precisely because the prospect of him winning seems, at the moment, to be the least likely of all outcomes save the Second Coming of Huey Long to give us Share Our Wealth. When Roy Cohn speaks of "fascism, racism, and imperialism" losing, I don't think he means Taft losing in 1948; I think he means continuing the status quo into 1949-1953, which is Taft being stymied by a Congress that is somehow able to use his conservative ideology for its own progressive goals.
That being said, I do think that Patton's candidacy will strengthen the People's Coalition and pave the way for a successful LBJ candidacy in 1952. It just seems like the next logical path for the universe to take.
That being said, I do think that Patton's candidacy will strengthen the People's Coalition and pave the way for a successful LBJ candidacy in 1952. It just seems like the next logical path for the universe to take.
Last edited:
Bulldoggus
Banned
Taft as Reverse Harry Truman? I can see it.
Also, again, it must be said, Roy Cohn is a mendacious partisan attack dog in any timeline, and we should take his interpretation with a grain of salt. I get the vibe of apologia from every word he says. I'd also bet decent money that the NYC branch of the Progressives is very left wing, likely one of the most left-leaning in the country.
I for one welcome and eagerly await the cleansing fires of nuclear annihilation.
A populist, christian-Democratic-y, ordoliberal-ish party based around Catholics (especially when things like Abortion and Gay Rights become issues) and southerners who aren't pretty much a couple generations removed from fire-eaters and filibusters seems like a logical hole to be filled.
Oh well, I thought we'd get Taylor and full African-American civil rights in the 1950s. Hope Taylor runs again in 1952 if he loses, he's an all-round great candidate regardless.
Although those African-American voters are still swirling around... if the Progressives do everything possible to maximize turnout, they might pull it off.
Although those African-American voters are still swirling around... if the Progressives do everything possible to maximize turnout, they might pull it off.
I personally think that Julian's MO is to
.
I don't see Patton or his party building much of a base among Catholics given that from what we've been told that their support base is grounded in Southern WASPs who dislike immigrants. That is literally the most anti-Catholic section of American society.
Stop trying to make American Christian Democracy happen. It isn't going to happen
.I don't see Patton or his party building much of a base among Catholics given that from what we've been told that their support base is grounded in Southern WASPs who dislike immigrants. That is literally the most anti-Catholic section of American society.
- Status