US postwar politics if Roosevelt won in 1912

[Hawkeye]

How would the Democrat and Republican parties be different if president Taft decided to not seek reelection for whatever reason and ex-president Theodore Roosevelt went on to win the Republican nomination and the 1912 election? Particularly how it would affect the Republican party in 1920 assuming he also wins in 1916 and leads through WWI. I'm not interested in how he would handle the war or not. Instead I want to focus on how his involvement would affect postwar politics.

So let me set up a general scenario about what happens during Roosevelt's terms in 1912-1916.

• Roosevelt wins the electoral collage with a comfortable lead but democrats win the house while republicans retain the senate.
• He supports the preparedness movement and builds up the military while being more hostile to Germany. Which causes a public backlash.
• Passes a women's suffrage amendment, 8 hour work day, farm relief, and lobbyist registration reforms before 1914.
• Narrowly wins the 1916 election against Wilson again with 267 electoral votes (266 needed at the time), losses the popular vote, democrats win both house and senate.
• US opinion about the war changes and Roosevelt convinces both chambers to declare war on Germany by February 10th, 1917.
• Germany surrenders May, 1918. It's allowed to join the League of Nations in five years, Rhineland occupied for 1 year and permenantly demilitarized, give a corridor to the Poles (but not Danzig), pay reparation's, lose it's colonies, and may absorb most of German Austria.
• Most Germans aren't happy with this but feel it cold have been worse. Relations between France and the US+Britain are strained.
• Republicans recover in the senate with a razer thin majority, democrats retain the house, republicans make some gubernatorial gains.
• US joins the League but under certain conditions.
• Roosevelt decides not to run for reelection in 1920 and a recession starts after the war.

So where would US politics go from here? Would the progressive's join the republicans? Who would run in 1920? Which party would be conservative and liberal?

 

[Mikestone8]

So where would US politics go from here? Would the progressive's join the republicans? Who would run in 1920? Which party would be conservative and liberal?

Well, if there's a recession on the Democrats are going to win, and probably the next few elections as well. As to whom they nominate, it isn't likely to be Wilson or Bryan, both of whom are seen as losers. Perhaps the OTL nominee, James M Cox, is as likely as anyone.

As to the Republicans, TR will probably try to get Leonard Wood nominated. But it doesn't greatly matter, as economic recession and weariness with wartime sacrifices will most likely ensure the Republican's defeat, no matter who he is.

I'm not sure that it really matters where the Progressives go. In the aftermath of war people will just want to rest and get back to their normal lives. Interest in reform will be minimal. Longer term, it could go either way depending on whether the Great Depression still happens, and if so on whose watch.

 

[Hawkeye]

Well, if there's a recession on the Democrats are going to win, and probably the next few elections as well. As to whom they nominate, it isn't likely to be Wilson or Bryan, both of whom are seen as losers. Perhaps the OTL nominee, James M Cox, is as likely as anyone.

As to the Republicans, TR will probably try to get Leonard Wood nominated. But it doesn't greatly matter, as economic recession and weariness with wartime sacrifices will most likely ensure the Republican's defeat, no matter who he is.

I agree that Cox would win and would probably have Democratic majority in both houses. His focus on labor reform and workers insurance would do well for him in a recession campaign. But I've heard he was a terrible candidate in OTL, backlash from Wilson's administration notwithstanding. He was a supporter of joining the league of nation's which was unpopular and his VP sharing the name of Roosevelt and support for censoring the German language didn't win him any favors from Midwestern German-Americans.

So I think he'll easily win 1920 but his reelection might not be so secure. The economy will probably recover quickly and he'll likely get credit for that. But I think that a prohibition amendment is also likely to pass under his administration. Crime will escalate as a result and his aggressive foreign policy would be unpopular as well.

I think a Republican candidate could seriously challenge him in 1924 running on a "return to normalcy" campaign like in OTL. Especially if President Cox is caught in a scandal. I don't know who his opponent will be but it'll probably be an old guard type. I'm guessing Hoover or maybe Harding.

 

[Red_Neptune]

The scenario, I think, is a bit implausible in some regards. TR in 1916 is going to find it very difficult to win, especially if he talks the way he does. Teddy Roosevelt IOTL was probably the main reason that Hughes lost -- Hughes' campaign strategy, which centered on drawing opposition to Wilson's foreign policy (from both those who thought he was too belligerent, and others who thought he wasn't belligerent enough), failed largely because of TR's bombastic comments that urged American entry into the war. It led to a disastrous Republican performance in the West, while Wilson nearly won solid red states in both the Midwest and the Northeast.

Now, it will end up being different if TR is President, of course. I think TR will certainly take a more hardline stance against Germany and USW (a Cabinet where Elihu Root is probably Secretary of State is not going to pursue a peace-centric platform), though the belligerent rhetoric is probably going to go away. It is likely he ends up losing to Wilson in 1916 for the simple reason that many people thought Wilson was actually too belligerent, but let's go with the scenario anyways. I don't see why 1918 is going to see Republicans gains -- Versailles IOTL wasn't even as harsh as it could have been, and German-Americans are going to be furious (besides, why would TR -- who never really wanted to appease ethnic Americans at home -- push for a treaty that makes Germans relatively happy?).

I also don't see how neither Germans nor German-Americans are in any way going to be pleased by any peace treaty, esp. considering that the pre-war attitude in Germany was one of extreme hyper nationalism; the stab in the back myth didn't rise out of nowhere. The Republican gains in Congress IOTL -- +24 seats in the House, +6 in seats in the Senate, and +4 governorships -- are likely going to end up going to the Democrats, because no ethnic minority is going to be satisfied by any peace treaty (try appeasing both Polish- and German-Americans, or both Irish- and Italian-Americans). The dissatisfaction over the situation will be directed at Teddy Roosevelt now, with some thinking TR was too harsh and others thinking he was too meek.

In other words, the Republican landslide of 1920 will be a Democratic one. I actually think TR, like Wilson, will try to gain renomination but fail, in which case he will push for Leonard Wood to be nominated. Republican leaders will very likely end up nominating a conservative like Harding or Coolidge; on the Democratic side, James Cox is likely going to be the Presidential nominee, although someone other than FDR will end up being the Democratic VP nominee. In any case, Cox will easily win. The Progressives would of course be part of the Republicans if TR is a Republican, although La Follette will nonetheless likely end up running in 1924. I think the Dems will control the country from 1921-1933, though they will be certain to suffer heavy losses as the Depression begins. In any case, I don't really see it reorienting the parties -- the Republicans were always more business-friendly ("conservative"), and will likely blame the Depression on a lack of protective tariffs or excessive spending by the Democratic administration.

 

[Mikestone8]

I agree that Cox would win and would probably have Democratic majority in both houses. His focus on labor reform and workers insurance would do well for him in a recession campaign. But I've heard he was a terrible candidate in OTL, backlash from Wilson's administration notwithstanding. He was a supporter of joining the league of nation's which was unpopular and his VP sharing the name of Roosevelt and support for censoring the German language didn't win him any favors from Midwestern German-Americans.

So I think he'll easily win 1920 but his reelection might not be so secure.

But TTL he isn't obliged to defend Administration policies, so his tack on the LoN (whatever version of it TR's administration may have come up with) won't necessarily be the same as OTL.

And the economic miseries of the time will carry a lot more weight than the League question.

 

[Red_Neptune]

But TTL he isn't obliged to defend Administration policies, so his tack on the LoN (whatever version of it TR's administration may have come up with) won't necessarily be the same as OTL.

And the economic miseries of the time will carry a lot more weight than the League question.

True, but the LoN wasn't the big reason the Dems lost in such a massive landslide; the Republicans were anyhow supportive of the League but with reservations, and indeed tried to downplay the issue. The big reason Cox lost as badly as he did was because a) ethnic groups were heavily dissatisfied with the Treaty: German-Americans thought it was too harsh on Germany, while Polish- or Italian-Americans thought it wasn't harsh enough; Irish-Americans felt betrayed by Wilson's refusal to advocate for Ireland against the UK (something TR is unlikely to do); etc. etc.

 

[Red_Neptune]

So I think he'll easily win 1920 but his reelection might not be so secure. The economy will probably recover quickly and he'll likely get credit for that. But I think that a prohibition amendment is also likely to pass under his administration. Crime will escalate as a result and his aggressive foreign policy would be unpopular as well.

I think a Republican candidate could seriously challenge him in 1924 running on a "return to normalcy" campaign like in OTL. Especially if President Cox is caught in a scandal. I don't know who his opponent will be but it'll probably be an old guard type. I'm guessing Hoover or maybe Harding.

1. Prohibition was intentionally downplayed by both parties, who did not want to touch it with a ten foot pole because of how toxic it was.

2. Crime did escalate TTL, especially in urban centers. Coolidge still swept all five boroughs of New York, easily won Boston, won Philadelphia with ~80% of the vote, and lost only one county in New Jersey while overwhelmingly winning the state.

3. Cox isn't going to pursue an "aggressive," or even active foreign policy. He wasn't a Wilsonian, and indeed was identified with the anti-Wilsonians like Smith, Raskob, etc. Besides, no one aside from Wilson -- who was borderline delusional by the end of his term -- is going to practice such an active foreign policy; the US will still be active in Europe, but will use its financial muscle to mediate conflicts there as in OTL. In Latin America, pre-1914 foreign policy will still stick.

4. If the economy is doing well, why would Cox be challenged on a "return to normalcy" campaign?

5. The Harding administration was caught in a scandal, and Coolidge nonetheless defeated his Democratic opponent by 25 points in the popular vote. Yes, Harding might have done worse; but so long as Cox isn't directly implicated, he'll come out fine and coast to victory.

One last nitpick: Hoover wasn't a friend of the Old Guard until the 1928 election, and even then much the Old Guard was reluctant to back an ex-Bull Mooser. Harding's health was always fragile, and his Presidential ambitions will likely be stopped. I think Lowden or Curtis is the likely nominee if Cox wins.

 

[Mikestone8]

The big reason Cox lost as badly as he did was because a) ethnic groups were heavily dissatisfied with the Treaty: German-Americans thought it was too harsh on Germany, while Polish- or Italian-Americans thought it wasn't harsh enough; Irish-Americans felt betrayed by Wilson's refusal to advocate for Ireland against the UK (something TR is unlikely to do); etc. etc.

Trouble is, there's no way to mollify one ethnic group without antagonisig another, so the ToV will be unpopular anyway.

Also, Iirc TR favoured a strong Anglo-US partnership as the best guarantee of peace, so, while he may give advice to his British friends, he's not gong to take up the cudgels against her in behalf of Irish nationalists, esp as Irish-Americans mostly voted Democratic anyway, hence weren't really worth appeasing.

 

[marktaha]

Can visualise Hoover as being elected as New Deal President in 1932.

 

[Aisha Clan-Clan]

really don't see TR doing a treaty anywhere as lenient as otl's versailles if he's potus