Let's assume that the party bosses get their way on who Harding's running mate would be and that Harding's Presidency goes more or less as per OTL with him dying in 1923, leaving Irvine Lenroot as the 30th President of the United States. How does the Lenroot administration go? What does the 1920s look like with President Lenroot instead of President Coolidge?
WI: President Lenroot (1923-?)
- Thread starter Whiteshore
- Start date
Anything of substance on Lenroot is a bit difficult to come by, but from what I've seen, he was viewed as a progressive who would have given some balance to the decidedly conservative Harding. (Makes sense, upon reflection, given that he was from Wisconsin and was a contemporary of La Follette.) Guessing he'd have thrown out the Ohio Gang unceremoniously, replacing them with no-nonsense types.
Assuming he was indeed a progressive, I don't know how well he would have gotten along with Mellon as SecTreas, and whether there would have been significant departures from the economic policies as they were IOTL. However, I'd venture a guess that he wouldn't have been too thrilled with the unbridled speculation on Wall Street, and might well have taken steps to curb it.
Prohibition represents another question: during the war years, prohibition was something of a progressive pet cause in the name of social amelioration. But by 1923, it should have been (was?) self-evident that it wasn't working very well, that enforcement was spotty at best, and that the potential for corruption (anathema to progressives) was huge. Guessing Lenroot might have declared the experiment a failure and pushed to end it as part of the 1924 campaign, thereby making his re-election a landslide.
All in all, the 1920s with Lenroot might well have been an improvement over what we know as the 1920s.
As part of my permutations on keeping the USA out of the Great War I have pondered about as vaguely on alternatives. One of my favorites is TR seeking his "Second" full-term from 1908 to 1912, Taft goes to the SC in 1910, the 1912 election slides to Champ Clark narrowly, we get the six-year single term, so election in 1918 opening to a compromise GOP candidacy as TR helps polarize the convention between conservative and progressive wings. I toy with Hughes as a front runner but I can see a Harding compromise for many the same reasons as OTL, I think Coolidge is not prominent enough, so if Harding then a Lenroot balanced ticket for 1918 to 1924. It leaves open him running on his own I think under the proposed Amendment in 1924 and should derail the Depression on policy changes in addition to the butterflies from Clark forward. Harding might discredit the conservative wing and Lenroot rest the progressive tenor? If so I think a vaguely more progressive leaning GOP can dominate the White House with successive candidates for quite sometime. I truly would argue it butterflies FDR and the New Deal entirely. Might this polarize the Democrats to a conservative Solid South and a progressive Northern/Western alignment that only helps the GOP hold to its moderate/progressive lean right through to the modern era.
How on earth do you manage to ram through an amendment changing the presidency to a single six year term? Yes, I know there was some sentiment in favor of it but that strikes right at the heart of the executive branch in the Constitution--and I could imagine easily the GOP standing solidly against it.
bguy
Donor
Well here's the link to Mike Stone's post discussing the 6 year term amendment. He makes a pretty convincing argument that between the Democrats and the Taft Republicans (who want to kill any chance of a TR comeback) there were enough votes to get the amendment ratified if not for Wilson getting it bottled up in the House.
https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...ent-champ-clark-in-1913.427413/#post-15756900