 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
History Forum / General / What If / July 200910th Less One: LBJ Not a Congressman
On February 22, 1937, Congressman James P. Buchanan, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, suffered a fatal heart attack. That triggered a special election which brought then Texas National Youth Administrator Lyndon B. Johnson onto the national stage and began his long climb to power. His network of White Stars and friends from his time as Congressman Kleberg's Secretary formed the building blocks for his run at Senate and so on. Let's notch that heart attack down just so; it's not fatal, and Buchanan will eventually die (he was born in 1867); say, in 1941, also of a heart attack. In the mean time, life without Lyndon has progressed in somewhat strange directions: --Brown and Root, Inc, without the love of Lyndon, may not be able to build OTL's Buchanan Dam, and get on their way to becoming KBR, corporate behemoth and war-time profiteers par excellence. The Dam, and its thorny legal grounds will likely survive, but not the expansion that was arranged through the relationship between Lyndon and Alice Glass, whose husband owned the /Austin American Statesman/ among others. --Buchanan Dam, and other projects, led to a surge in rural electrification in Texas' Edwards Plateau. None of that happens here, and the rural electrification part of the New Deal is somewhat different. --The Corpus Christi Naval Station isn't built; without Lyndon, B&R doesn't get a bite at this big contract due to shenanigans revolving around the Garner-FDR fight in a would-be Texas primary. --The "compromise" between pro-Garner and pro-FDR forces at the end of the abortive primaries will have a different post-script. Lyndon won't play spy for the White House, and at the end of the mess, he won't put Sam Rayburn between a rock and a hard place, stripping him of much of his support from the Administration. More broadly, I'd assume that the FDR-Garner fight goes much the same way, but that Rayburn, made Speaker, is much closer to the President through the end of his time in office, having become Speaker. That could lead interesting places. Lyndon, not elected to national office, is going struggle to get FDR's ear or the nation's attention. I doubt he'd stay on as NYA Director through 1941, and so may move on to being something else, but without his Congressional Campaign to raise his profile, that'll be more difficult than OTL. I don't doubt that he'd run if Buchanan dies in 1941, but, should he win, he'd likely resign; alternatively, he could try to win that Senate seat. Thoughts? Best L On Jun 30, 11:32 pm, Luke Schleusener <luke.schleuse...@gmail.com> wrote: > On February 22, 1937, Congressman James P. Buchanan, chairman of the > House Appropriations Committee, suffered a fatal heart attack. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > from his time as Congressman Kleberg's Secretary formed the building > blocks for his run at Senate and so on. Partially. LBJ had built up all his friends in Kleberg's district, and never expected to run in Buchanan's. He had to create networks from scratch. According to Robert Caro, Texas in the 1930s tended to re-elect Representatives until they died or quit, so LBJ was just waiting for an opening. (Who was the next Texas Rep to die or quit after Buchanan? I don't know.) > Let's notch that heart attack down just so; it's not fatal, and > Buchanan will eventually die (he was born in 1867); say, in 1941, also [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > and Alice Glass, whose husband owned the /Austin American Statesman/ > among others. Is it possible that the Browns wind up in debt, or even busted? > --Buchanan Dam, and other projects, led to a surge in rural > electrification in Texas' Edwards Plateau. None of that happens here, > and the rural electrification part of the New Deal is somewhat > different. There's already the Tennessee Valley Authority; in theory it could expand to any other rural area. IIRC, the reason it didn't come to West Texas before LBJ is that the region just didn't have a Congressman who both cared and had the lobbying skills. In theory, there will eventually be a bright Texan rep who sees the pork and dollar signs, but it might be a while. Again according to Caro, the utility companies were unsure they could make a profit on it even with the government paying for the start-up. So that bright Texan rep needs to be not just willing, but actively trying to get it. > --The Corpus Christi Naval Station isn't built; without Lyndon, B&R > doesn't get a bite at this big contract due to shenanigans revolving [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Sam Rayburn between a rock and a hard place, stripping him of much of > his support from the Administration. I really need to study this more, since it's probably the biggest difference. > More broadly, I'd assume that the FDR-Garner fight goes much the same > way, but that Rayburn, made Speaker, is much closer to the President [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > 1941, but, should he win, he'd likely resign; alternatively, he could > try to win that Senate seat. I don't think it was common to run for Senate straight from an appointed position, especially because the Senate in Texas was considered the best position possible. Much better than being a governor, who had term limits and a lot of limits on his power. And LBJ was awfully young in his OTL 1941 Senate run -- without the Congressional position, he probably can't run. So he's probably still scheming for the House. In OTL he became sick of the House very quickly, but I don't know if he always saw it as a mere stepping-stone, or if he only felt that way after being there. > Thoughts? > > Best > > L > Partially. LBJ had built up all his friends in Kleberg's district, and > never expected to run in Buchanan's. He had to create networks > from scratch. According to Robert Caro, Texas in the 1930s > tended to re-elect Representatives until they died or quit, > so LBJ was just waiting for an opening. (Who was the next > Texas Rep to die or quit after Buchanan? I don't know.) Not sure who was the next to die or quit, but the next to be defeated was Maury Maverick in the 1938 primary...  SignatureDavid Tenner dtenner@ameritech.net > Not sure who was the next to die or quit, but the next to be defeated was > Maury Maverick in the 1938 primary... Yeah, but it's not as if Johnson can really run against him. I suppose he could run for, dunno, Mayor of Austin or something and then grab a Congressional seat. Best L On Jul 2, 6:52 am, Luke Schleusener <luke.schleuse...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Not sure who was the next to die or quit, but the next to be defeated was > > Maury Maverick in the 1938 primary... > > Yeah, but it's not as if Johnson can really run against him. I suppose > he could run for, dunno, Mayor of Austin or something and then grab a > Congressional seat. I know next to nothing about Texan municipal politics in that era (other than Maverick being mayor of San Antonio after losing his Congressional seat). I presume LBJ would be able to win an election for Mayor of Austin - would that be enough to give him a springboard to the US Senate without a seat in the House beforehand? And I agree that LBJ is eventually going to rise to the top in politics by hook or by crook. He was too driven not to. ObWI: LBJ lives as long as Reagan, which would mean he'd die in 2001 - effects? Does a living LBJ remain the Dem president that the Dems would like to forget about like the dead LBJ in OTL? Or is his reputation rehabilitated? What is a longer Johnson post-presidency like? Best, Stan B. On Jul 2, 11:57 am, Stan Boleslawski <boleslaw...@forpresident.com> wrote: > I know next to nothing about Texan municipal politics in that > era (other than Maverick being mayor of San Antonio after > losing his Congressional seat). I presume LBJ would be able > to win an election for Mayor of Austin - would that be enough > to give him a springboard to the US Senate without a seat in > the House beforehand? He'd have to beat the Austin machine, which had the back of Tom Miller, who was Mayor from 1933-1949, and 1955-1961. He would, in fact, be rated as a carpet bagger in that case. He could try statewide office as a means to grab a congressional seat. My impression is that that was the way to get a Congressional Seat. > And I agree that LBJ is eventually going to rise to the > top in politics by hook or by crook. He was too driven > not to. Agreed. But the question is, if his path is paved by service in WWII, and then he defeats O'Daniel in 1948 as per OTL, how different is he going to be? How much does that hurt OTL's Democratic Party, but help the Rayburn-Roosevelt alliance. That sort of thing. I'd eliding the non-trivial chance that a non-congressman LBJ would die during WWII. > ObWI: LBJ lives as long as Reagan, which would mean > he'd die in 2001 - effects? I'd be surprised; all his male relations on his father's side died before 70 or so, but let's run with this. > Does a living LBJ remain the Dem president that the Dems would like to forget about > like the dead LBJ in OTL? Probably, at least for a while. He's not going to be on good terms with the party, I'd think, until 1992. I think it'd be easy for Clinton to revitalize LBJ's reputation during the 1990's. > Or is his reputation rehabilitated? Yup. > What is a longer Johnson post-presidency like? Doris Kearns Goodwin moves to Austin, is permanently encamped at LBJ's feet/bedside? More broadly speaking, I suspect he'll go into relative exile for the first decade or so, just ranching in Texas, writing his memoirs (which, ATL, will compete with Caro; that work should be substantially distorted by his survival). Perhaps a surviving LBJ helps Anne Richards win in 1994.... The Democrats, however, have never been as attached to projects of monumentalism and hagiography as the modern-day GOP is; JFK being the singular case, but that tends to conflate the worship of style, rather than substance, and is more mired in the narrative arc of the 1960's than JFK's actual presidency. Johnson, even with Vietnam, would have a rather interesting arc in post-presidential life, given that his policies, rather than his style, might revive and endure. I doubt he could blunt the rise of Reagan and so on, but LBJ around for Watergate and Iran-Contra would be...special. I'd also assume that he's just never going to give up his meddling ways. He'll retain power in Texas, and probably expand after a while. Best L On Jul 2, 12:00 pm, Luke Schleusener <luke.schleuse...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 2, 11:57 am, Stan Boleslawski <boleslaw...@forpresident.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Miller, who was Mayor from 1933-1949, and 1955-1961. He would, in > fact, be rated as a carpet bagger in that case. True. According to Wiki, LBJ was a high school teacher in Houston prior to joining Kleberg's Congressional staff in 1931. The Wiki article is unclear over whether he lived in Austin prior to running for the 10th District representing Austin (unless he was Austin-based when running the Texas National Youth Administration). What opportunities would Houston have provided for him, if any? > He could try statewide office as a means to grab a congressional seat. > My impression is that that was the way to get a Congressional Seat. What statewide office? LBJ dropped out of law school so AG's out. Lieutenant Governor in Texas is a more powerful position than in most states, so that would be out for a novice. Maybe Agriculture or State? > > And I agree that LBJ is eventually going to rise to the > > top in politics by hook or by crook. He was too driven [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > going to be? How much does that hurt OTL's Democratic Party, but help > the Rayburn-Roosevelt alliance. That sort of thing. '48's too early for the GOP to gain any more than the token presence they held in OTL Texas then ; while very few Texans had been alive during the ACW and only the elderly had been born during Reconstruction, the associations were still there. Not to mention that Coke Stevenson in TTL may not switch parties and build up the GOP in Texas. > I'd eliding the non-trivial chance that a non-congressman LBJ would > die during WWII. Very true. > > ObWI: LBJ lives as long as Reagan, which would mean > > he'd die in 2001 - effects? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > with the party, I'd think, until 1992. I think it'd be easy for > Clinton to revitalize LBJ's reputation during the 1990's. So the obvious parallel is Nixon, not surprisingly. > > Or is his reputation rehabilitated? > > Yup. I could picture Clinton consulting a living (and most likely very sickly) LBJ during the Balkan Wars, to try to learn from his mistakes. That is, if even the aged LBJ would admit making mistakes. > > What is a longer Johnson post-presidency like? > > Doris Kearns Goodwin moves to Austin, is permanently encamped at LBJ's > feet/bedside? LOL. > More broadly speaking, I suspect he'll go into relative exile for the > first decade or so, just ranching in Texas, writing his memoirs > (which, ATL, will compete with Caro; that work should be substantially > distorted by his survival). Perhaps a surviving LBJ helps Anne > Richards win in 1994.... Major knock ons there. > The Democrats, however, have never been as attached to projects of > monumentalism and hagiography as the modern-day GOP is; Forgetting about FDR? JFK being the > singular case, but that tends to conflate the worship of style, rather > than substance, and is more mired in the narrative arc of the 1960's > than JFK's actual presidency. The party's cult around FDR and the New Deal was based on substance, and continued to exert a hold on the party into the mid '80s. Mondale's campaign in '84 essentially was based on a return to the New Deal, as if Reagan was just a mere aberration, and the early '80s recession convinced the party that if it only returned to the principles of Roosevelt it would win back power. Obviously no one predicted the economic recovery in 1984. (There are parallels with current and future politics here, with the parties switched, but I do not care to discuss them.) If anything, the GOP seems to be more willing to overlook its past presidents as icons, other than Lincoln ; the modern GOP seems to be rather uncomfortable with Teddy Roosevelt as an iconic figure, and Ike is rarely mentioned as a hero by current Republicans. Obviously McCain is an exception when it comes to TR, and he did cite Ike in one of his 2008 campaign speeches (the first time in my memory that a GOP presidential nominee referenced Ike in a speech.) ISTR reading about Charlie Crist mentioning Eisenhower as a hero*, but it's surprising how rare his name comes up in the party nowadays. From observing Republican discourse, it seems like the party would like to forget every one of its icons post-Lincoln and pre-Reagan, other than Karl Rove and co. trying to make McKinley into the icon he was not. > Johnson, even with Vietnam, would have a rather interesting arc in > post-presidential life, given that his policies, rather than his > style, might revive and endure. I doubt he could blunt the rise of > Reagan and so on, but LBJ around for Watergate and Iran-Contra would > be...special. He'd at least have some private things to say about Iran-Contra - probably not critical towards its aims in Central America but critical as to how it was carried out. I don't know if he'd go public, but he'd still know enough to take some people down if he chose to talk. Unless Reagan appoints him to head the investigative commission that John Tower headed in OTL - if so, it wouldn't be the first time that LBJ was involved with an investigative report that would be widely questioned by many. ): > I'd also assume that he's just never going to give up his meddling > ways. He'll retain power in Texas, and probably expand after a while. Yes, he'd still stay involved in Texas politics - I don't think he'd be welcome in the national party unless he does experience rehabilitation under Clinton. Best, Stan B. *No BoP violation intended, as I don't live in FL and thus could not have voted in any election Crist ran in or is running in next year. I don't mean for this post to be a discussion of Crist, his policies, or his personal life. On Jul 2, 5:45 pm, Stan Boleslawski <boleslaw...@forpresident.com> wrote: > True. According to Wiki, LBJ was a high school teacher > in Houston prior to joining Kleberg's Congressional > staff in 1931. The Wiki article is unclear over whether he > lived in Austin prior to running for the 10th District > representing Austin (unless he was Austin-based when > running the Texas National Youth Administration). The NYA was Austin based; Johnson was born in the 10th district, however, in Blanco County and the Edwards Plateau in Johnson City. When he ran, he hadn't been back all that long, save to run the NYA. > What opportunities would Houston have provided > for him, if any? Dunno. > What statewide office? LBJ dropped out of law > school so AG's out. Lieutenant Governor in > Texas is a more powerful position than in most > states, so that would be out for a novice. Maybe > Agriculture or State? Possibly. Not sure what those races are like in the 1930's. There' s also the chance that like O'Daniel OTL, he can run for governor out of the blue, more or less, when the vacancy occurs in 1941 as O'Daniel still wins the Presidency > '48's too early for the GOP to gain any more than the > token presence they held in OTL Texas then; while [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Coke Stevenson in TTL may not switch parties and > build up the GOP in Texas. Yup. This should be fun. > > I'd eliding the non-trivial chance that a non-congressman LBJ would > > die during WWII. > > Very true. But it will be a very different LBJ with a very different wartime experience who becomes Senator, Majority Leader, and VP if he enters as an enlisted man, not a Congressman on leave. > > Probably, at least for a while. He's not going to be on good terms > > with the party, I'd think, until 1992. I think it'd be easy for > > Clinton to revitalize LBJ's reputation during the 1990's. > > So the obvious parallel is Nixon, not surprisingly. Except, not made of evil. It should make some of the post-Vietnam antics about, for example, Kitty Dukakis, either somewhat less effective or somewhat oddedr. > I could picture Clinton consulting a living (and most > likely very sickly) LBJ during the Balkan Wars, to try > to learn from his mistakes. That is, if even the aged > LBJ would admit making mistakes. I think he'd end up somewhere like where McNamara did, frankly. That is in many ways a better fit than Nixon. I feel like he'd get wheeled out at the 1992 Convention to celebrate the New Democrats of the New South, and so on. > > > What is a longer Johnson post-presidency like? > > > Doris Kearns Goodwin moves to Austin, is permanently encamped at LBJ's > > feet/bedside? > > LOL. Her bio is....special. > > More broadly speaking, I suspect he'll go into relative exile for the > > first decade or so, just ranching in Texas, writing his memoirs [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Major knock ons there. Agreed; bu I'd assume a living LBJ would have power pried from his cold, dead hands. Or he'd come back from the dead. Either way. Anne Richards runs in the 2000 Democratic Primary.... > > The Democrats, however, have never been as attached to projects of > > monumentalism and hagiography as the modern-day GOP is; > > Forgetting about FDR? 1) Special case 2) Better president that Reagan. I'd also point out that FDR worship has gone through a few cycles, and even so, the broad-spec policy stuff is common practice in the G-8; further, there's a difference between the Democratic faith in FDR and the Reagan fantasies, such that the GOP believes that Reagan only cut taxes, as well as using Reagan's foreign policy choices as somehow axiomatic--such as Wolfowitz involving Reagan on Marcos v. Bush on Chicken Kiev. perhaps we're far enough away from FDR that it's not as bad, and maybe the reagan stuff will diminish with time, but it's also got it's own weird engine driving it now. > The party's cult around FDR and the New Deal was > based on substance, and continued to exert a hold [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > win back power. Obviously no one predicted the > economic recovery in 1984. Agreed, to a point. There was also the post-1968 chase to restore the New Deal Coalition, rather than tolerating realignment. > If anything, the GOP seems to be more willing to > overlook its past presidents as icons, other than [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Eisenhower as a hero*, but it's surprising how > rare his name comes up in the party nowadays. Hey, I'm OK if Crist likes a man in uniform. I just want him to admit it. > From observing Republican discourse, it seems > like the party would like to forget every one of its > icons post-Lincoln and pre-Reagan, other than > Karl Rove and co. trying to make McKinley into > the icon he was not. Yeah, it's a special place. > He'd at least have some private things to say > about Iran-Contra - probably not critical [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > investigative report that would be widely > questioned by many. ): Agreed. I feel like Johnson would shiv with aplomb, though. > > I'd also assume that he's just never going to give up his meddling > > ways. He'll retain power in Texas, and probably expand after a while. > > Yes, he'd still stay involved in Texas politics - I don't think > he'd be welcome in the national party unless he does > experience rehabilitation under Clinton. I think so, yeah. Then again, I feel as if he as better odds than Nixon of staging a comeback qua reputation; even Carter was able to rebound. Though Lyndon's ATL memoirs may hurt rather than help, eventually. Best L On Jul 2, 3:25 pm, Luke Schleusener <luke.schleuse...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 2, 5:45 pm, Stan Boleslawski <boleslaw...@forpresident.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Dunno. Oscar Holcombe had a lock on the mayor's office during that time. He was the dominant figure in Houston politics from the 1920s to the 1950s. However, according to Wiki, there was an interregnum between 1937-39 when Holcombe was not mayor. Not really sure why. > > What statewide office? LBJ dropped out of law > > school so AG's out. Lieutenant Governor in [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > the blue, more or less, when the vacancy occurs in 1941 as O'Daniel > still wins the Presidency I think you mean the US Senate, but Pappy O'Daniel as POTUS has to be one of the most original WIs in SHWI history.It's certainly an unlikely TL - it would require FDR to not run for a third term and Garner not having ambitions to succeed him (presumably O'Daniel would have backed a Garner candidacy), not to mention no candidate more acceptable to Northerners being able to get the nomination. Sounds like a recipe for Willkie to get the White House. I really don't think O'Daniel would win any states outside of the Solid South (Oklahoma included) except for maybe New Mexico and Arizona (AZ was still a very Dem state in 1940). The rest of the West goes to Willkie, as does the North and Midwest. > > '48's too early for the GOP to gain any more than the > > token presence they held in OTL Texas then; while [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > experience who becomes Senator, Majority Leader, and VP if he enters > as an enlisted man, not a Congressman on leave. His personality is going to be changed, that's for sure. Not sure how. > > > Probably, at least for a while. He's not going to be on good terms > > > with the party, I'd think, until 1992. I think it'd be easy for [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > I think he'd end up somewhere like where McNamara did, frankly. That > is in many ways a better fit than Nixon. LBJ apologizing for his actions doesn't fit his general personality. At least, not in public. > I feel like he'd get wheeled out at the 1992 Convention to celebrate > the New Democrats of the New South, and so on. Oh yes. He'd be seen as the Father Of The New South, and venerated by the Southern wing of the party. Sounds like a good final public appearance. > > > > What is a longer Johnson post-presidency like? > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Her bio is....special. I can imagine. > > > More broadly speaking, I suspect he'll go into relative exile for the > > > first decade or so, just ranching in Texas, writing his memoirs [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Agreed; bu I'd assume a living LBJ would have power pried from his > cold, dead hands. Or he'd come back from the dead. Either way. That's my presumption as well. Which means a second term for Richards. Alt-LBJ in TTL's 1998 will already be too sick to do much - would W. try to be governor again? Most likely in TTL, the GOP race in 2000 is between Jeb and McCain. > Anne Richards runs in the 2000 Democratic Primary.... She'd be a better pick than Lieberman as Gore's VP. > > > The Democrats, however, have never been as attached to projects of > > > monumentalism and hagiography as the modern-day GOP is; > > > Forgetting about FDR? > > 1) Special case 2) Better president that Reagan. Extremely special case considering the circumstances of his presidency and what he had to deal with. > I'd also point out that FDR worship has gone through a few cycles, and > even so, the broad-spec policy stuff is common practice in the G-8; [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Chicken Kiev. perhaps we're far enough away from FDR that it's not as > bad, The FDR worship has diminished as the number of people who were adults during his presidency has diminished. I suppose when the number of Americans who were adults during Reagan's presidency starts to diminish, Reagan worship won't be as blatant. and maybe the reagan stuff will diminish with time, but it's also > got it's own weird engine driving it now. > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Agreed, to a point. There was also the post-1968 chase to restore the > New Deal Coalition, rather than tolerating realignment. True, and Carter's failure was seen by the party as a failure to stand by its principles established by Roosevelt as well as the party wanting to restore the New Deal Coalition. I'm not going to elaborate on the parallels with the GOP right now as that is REALLY trampling what's left of BoP... > > If anything, the GOP seems to be more willing to > > overlook its past presidents as icons, other than [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Hey, I'm OK if Crist likes a man in uniform. I just want him to admit > it. Liking a man in uniform who happens to be a dead president won't stop someone from getting the Republican nomination for the Presidency ; admitting to liking a living man in uniform (in the way you're talking about) would stop any male candidate from getting the Republican nomination for President or VP (and for that matter the Dem nomination for POTUS or VP as well). It certainly would be a barrier to remaining a high office holder in the GOP. > > From observing Republican discourse, it seems > > like the party would like to forget every one of its [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Yeah, it's a special place. Lewis Gould, in his book "Grand Old Party", stated that TR's domestic policy makes the current GOP somewhat uncomfortable with him as an icon, mainly because of the party's Southernization, and the changed regional demographics of the party has even caused some anxiety about Lincoln. There certainly are Republican office holders who invoke Teddy, and McCain made no secret of Lincoln and TR being his heroes, but with the decline of the northeastern moderates TR's usually only invoked when it comes to foreign policy (a perception based more on image than substance, as for all of TR's hawkish rhetoric, he didn't start any new wars and was quite the peacemaker in office.) > > He'd at least have some private things to say > > about Iran-Contra - probably not critical [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Agreed. I feel like Johnson would shiv with aplomb, though. I don't see why LBJ would object to the aims of Iran-Contra - after all, his administration did many of the same things. And not just in Southeast Asia either. The Dominican Republic is the most obvious Latin American example. Goals are one thing, execution of strategy to reach those goals is another. > > > I'd also assume that he's just never going to give up his meddling > > > ways. He'll retain power in Texas, and probably expand after a while. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Nixon of staging a comeback qua reputation; even Carter was able to > rebound. Carter rebounded through charity work, trodding the same path Herbert Hoover took to rehabilitate himself. I don't see Johnson delving into charity work like Carter or Hoover before him. If he did, it would probably involve helping children in impoverished communities in Texas, whether it be in poor rural areas or urban slums. It would coincide in his interests in education, involving minorities in politics, his home state, and the whole Great Society type of idealism that balanced the "ruthless, corrupt bastard you don't want to mess with" side of his personality. I don't see him getting involved with international efforts a la Carter (or Hoover's charity work on behalf of displaced persons and refugees during and after WW2). That's really not Lyndon. > Though Lyndon's ATL memoirs may hurt rather than help, eventually. Depends how candid he is. Best, Stan B. On Jul 3, 3:15 pm, Stan Boleslawski <boleslaw...@forpresident.com> wrote: > Oscar Holcombe had a lock on the mayor's office > during that time. He was the dominant figure in > Houston politics from the 1920s to the 1950s. > However, according to Wiki, there was an > interregnum between 1937-39 when Holcombe > was not mayor. Not really sure why. Ah, well. I suppose it'd be more challenging for him to grab Houston than San Antonio or Austin. > > Possibly. Not sure what those races are like in the 1930's. There' s > > also the chance that like O'Daniel OTL, he can run for governor out of > > the blue, more or less, when the vacancy occurs in 1941 as O'Daniel > > still wins the Presidency > > I think you mean the US Senate, Yeah, whoops. > but Pappy > O'Daniel as POTUS has to be one of the [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > The rest of the West goes to Willkie, as does > the North and Midwest. Agreed; he was also terribly bored by, and bad at, governing, despite being a magnetic campaigner. Johnson folded a lot of O'Daniel's tactics into his 1941 campaign and for later use beyond. > > But it will be a very different LBJ with a very different wartime > > experience who becomes Senator, Majority Leader, and VP if he enters > > as an enlisted man, not a Congressman on leave. > > His personality is going to be changed, that's for > sure. Not sure how. Let's give him, say, a career alongside William Manchester. I'd bet dollars to donuts that Johnson would claim to have raised the flag on Okinawa the rest of his life. He'll also likely have PTSD; but I can't imagine that the war would diminish his taste for power, to be important. But ATL, Major Johnson grabs Texas Senate in 1948, resuming, by degrees, the arc of his ATL career, probably creating a similar (though somewhat less fraught) relationship with Sam Rayburn. Perhaps one Asian war, however, will impact how he runs another. > > I think he'd end up somewhere like where McNamara did, frankly. That > > is in many ways a better fit than Nixon. > > LBJ apologizing for his actions doesn't fit his > general personality. At least, not in public. Oh, I doubt he'd officially apologize,but I think he'd understand the political value of demonstrating contrition by degrees, rather than unbending pride. > > I feel like he'd get wheeled out at the 1992 Convention to celebrate > > the New Democrats of the New South, and so on. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > wing of the party. Sounds like a good final > public appearance. One should assume, in a wheel chair, given his family's penchant for heart attacks. He'll probably glam up like FDR, the nut. Oddly, that may make welfare reform harder to achieve, but healthcare easier, though HillaryCare will likely still crash and burn. > > Agreed; bu I'd assume a living LBJ would have power pried from his > > cold, dead hands. Or he'd come back from the dead. Either way. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > again? Most likely in TTL, the GOP race in 2000 is > between Jeb and McCain. Agreed. Jeb is more wiley, and thereby, worse, by degrees. > > Anne Richards runs in the 2000 Democratic Primary.... > > She'd be a better pick than Lieberman as Gore's > VP. Yeah, so, Richards-Obama 2008? > Extremely special case considering the > circumstances of his presidency and > what he had to deal with. Yeah; between the Depression and the War, he ends up in a fairly rarified world-historic spot. I'd assume President Garner and President Blackmun in Doug's "Life without Franklin" don't go down quite the same way; or any ATL where the Depression and the War "belong" as such to different Presidents. > The FDR worship has diminished as the number of people > who were adults during his presidency has diminished. I > suppose when the number of Americans who were adults > during Reagan's presidency starts to diminish, Reagan > worship won't be as blatant. I'd suppose; but it's got the blood sacrifice and the dark terror driving it; and somewhat unlike FDR, Reagan's' former WH Staff is laying siege to large swathes of the Country with the Reagan Legacy Project. > True, and Carter's failure was seen by the party as > a failure to stand by its principles established by > Roosevelt as well as the party wanting to restore > the New Deal Coalition. I'm not going to elaborate > on the parallels with the GOP right now as that is > REALLY trampling what's left of BoP... Agreed. Hehehehehe. > Liking a man in uniform who happens to be a > dead president won't stop someone from getting [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > VP as well). It certainly would be a barrier to > remaining a high office holder in the GOP. I know, my joke was funnier. > Lewis Gould, in his book "Grand Old Party", > stated that TR's domestic policy makes the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > demographics of the party has even caused > some anxiety about Lincoln. It's hilarious to watch them squirm. 'cause TR was fantastic imperialist. > > Agreed. I feel like Johnson would shiv with aplomb, though. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > one thing, execution of strategy to reach those > goals is another. Right; but I'm sure he'd decide it's not OK if you're a republican; or rather, not LBJ.... > Carter rebounded through charity work, trodding the same > path Herbert Hoover took to rehabilitate himself. I don't [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > displaced persons and refugees during and after > WW2). That's really not Lyndon. I'd suppose; but I think, even going back to San Marcos, he appreciates good window dressing. Plus, Lady Bird would help. > > Though Lyndon's ATL memoirs may hurt rather than help, eventually. > > Depends how candid he is. I assume it's...through a mirror, darkly. Best L >> > Though Lyndon's ATL memoirs may hurt rather than help, eventually. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >L LBJ was usually fairly indiscreet - look at his showing of his appendicitis scar! And yes it's good to see you back! > LBJ was usually fairly indiscreet - look at his showing of his > appendicitis scar! Well, there's that and there's making aides take dictation while he was on the toilet, but that's certainly not of the revelatory variety. As Goodwin's bio demonstrates and Caro's bio attempts to defeat, Lyndon spent most of his life mythmaking, and would certainly take the chance of a memoir to solidify his version of events, such as they were, I'd suppose. > I think you mean the US Senate, but Pappy > O'Daniel as POTUS has to be one of the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > no candidate more acceptable to Northerners > being able to get the nomination. If we are going to have a more-or-less conservative Texas Democrat succeed FDR as POTUS, how about Jesse H. Jones? As our POD we'll assume FDR doesn't run for a third term (maybe World War II is delayed, though obviously that has consequences well beyond US presidential elections...) and that James Farley was right in claiming that Garner was never really serious about winning the presidency--that his candidacy was just a protest against the third term, so that without the third term issue he is not a candidate. Presumably, Jones would not be FDR's favorite candidate--FDR is said to have privately referred to his able but arrogant RFC Chairman (and for a few years Secretary of Commerce) as "Jesus H. Jones"--but it is not clear to me how much power a lame-duck FDR would have in dictating the nominee in 1940. And of course one thing the Jones campaign will not have to worry about is lack of money... (Remember that the abolition of the two-thirds rule was a double-edged sword: yes, it made it harder for the South to veto a northern liberal, but it also in theory could make it harder for labor or liberal northerners to veto a southern conservative if he got sufficient support from northern and western businessmen and politcal machines.) SignatureDavid Tenner dtenner@ameritech.net > If we are going to have a more-or-less conservative Texas Democrat succeed > FDR as POTUS, how about Jesse H. Jones? What about Allred? Isn't he a modestly better 'fit' for a national run. > As our POD we'll assume FDR doesn't > run for a third term (maybe World War II is delayed, though obviously that > has consequences well beyond US presidential elections...) and that James > Farley was right in claiming that Garner was never really serious about > winning the presidency--that his candidacy was just a protest against the > third term, so that without the third term issue he is not a candidate. How about FDR dies early in 1939? Fun fun trouble, of course. What about Harold Ickes or Harry Hopkins? > Presumably, Jones would not be FDR's favorite candidate--FDR is said to have > privately referred to his able but arrogant RFC Chairman (and for a few years > Secretary of Commerce) as "Jesus H. Jones"--but it is not clear to me how > much power a lame-duck FDR would have in dictating the nominee in 1940. I assume it'd be a crowded field made up of New Dealing governors and maybe a few cabinet members (Wallace, Ickes, Hopkins, Murphy) > And of course one thing the Jones campaign will not have to worry about is lack > of money... [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > southern conservative if he got sufficient support from northern and western > businessmen and politcal machines.) I suppose; but less the RFC, Jesse Jones seems to lack much of a base in politics. Kleberg or Allred gets you a fairly conservative replacement to FDR, I'd think. How would the country/history think about FDR if he's only the Depression President, and not the President of Four Terms and the Good War? Best L Luke Schleusener <luke.schleusener@gmail.com> wrote in news:2eca520d-fa26- 4c14-9187-bd4923f7ae31@e21g2000yqb.googlegroups.com: >> If we are going to have a more-or-less conservative Texas Democrat succee > d >> FDR as POTUS, how about Jesse H. Jones? > > What about Allred? Isn't he a modestly better 'fit' for a national > run. Well, as I said, I was talking about conservative Texas Democrats, and Allred was considered a liberal. (Indeed, Robert Caro in *The Years of Lyndon Johnson: The Path to Power,* p. 405, describes Alred as "the only truly liberal Governor elected in Texas in the twentieth century.)" His problem would be that there might be many New Dealers--better known nationally-- running against him, whereas Jones might monopolize the support from the conservative/business interests. SignatureDavid Tenner dtenner@ameritech.net > Well, as I said, I was talking about conservative Texas Democrats, and Allred > was considered a liberal. (Indeed, Robert Caro in *The Years of Lyndon [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > running against him, whereas Jones might monopolize the support from the > conservative/business interests. Point; but it's not as if Texas lacks for conservatives. Wasn't FDR alienated from the Texas Senators? Best L >> Well, as I said, I was talking about conservative Texas Democrats, and Al > lred [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Point; but it's not as if Texas lacks for conservatives. Wasn't FDR > alienated from the Texas Senators? But the RFC gave Jones a *national* base other Texas conservatives didn't have (except Garner, and my premise is that without the third-term issue he won't run). Of course this could to some extent be a disadvantage too: Rivals would be sure to note any contributions Jones got from busineses which had been loaned money by the RFC. SignatureDavid Tenner dtenner@ameritech.net >Carter rebounded through charity work, trodding the same >path Herbert Hoover took to rehabilitate himself. I don't [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >displaced persons and refugees during and after >WW2). That's really not Lyndon. While I agree about LBJ, Hoover was primarily known for his role in organizing food relief to Europe in the aftermath of WW1. His good works domestically were small by comparison. Not to denigrate Hoover's work in Europe - it was significant and is today almost forgotten. I'd almost argue his work was at least as important as the Marshall plan a generation later. > Partially. LBJ had built up all his friends in Kleberg's district, and > never expected to run in Buchanan's. He had to create networks > from scratch. According to Robert Caro, Texas in the 1930s > tended to re-elect Representatives until they died or quit, > so LBJ was just waiting for an opening. (Who was the next > Texas Rep to die or quit after Buchanan? I don't know.) Maury Maverick, facing off against the San Antonio Machine. > > --Brown and Root, Inc, without the love of Lyndon, may not be able to > > build OTL's Buchanan Dam, and get on their way to becoming KBR, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Is it possible that the Browns wind up in debt, or even busted? They could plausibly wind up in court, given the dubious legal nature of the dam, as suggested by Caro. It's really a question of how dynamic Buchanan will be about that issue; on the one hand, it's a dam named after him. On the other, well, not so sure he'd have Lyndon's energy/drive that pushed Lyndon into the issue. > There's already the Tennessee Valley Authority; in theory > it could expand to any other rural area. IIRC, the reason > it didn't come to West Texas before LBJ is that the > region just didn't have a Congressman who both cared > and had the lobbying skills. Well, yeah. That'd be the REA, which FDR almost gave to Johnson on the eve of the Congressional race. > In theory, there will eventually > be a bright Texan rep who sees the pork and dollar signs, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the start-up. So that bright Texan rep needs to be > not just willing, but actively trying to get it. Not sure who else is on the scene that fits the bill. > > --The Corpus Christi Naval Station isn't built; without Lyndon, B&R > > doesn't get a bite at this big contract due to shenanigans revolving [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I really need to study this more, since it's probably the biggest > difference. Well, the most important. Again, returning to Caro, LBJ's participation in the DCCC of the era, and his wads of cash, probably saved the Democratic majority in the House in the election of 1940. > I don't think it was common to run for Senate > straight from an appointed position, especially > because the Senate in Texas was considered > the best position possible. There were 29 candidates OTL, some of them rather odd. > Much better than being a governor, who had term limits and > a lot of limits on his power. And LBJ was > awfully young in his OTL 1941 Senate run -- > without the Congressional position, he > probably can't run. Agreed; which means that O'Daniel probably defeats Gerald Mann, in all likelihood. > So he's probably still scheming for the > House. In OTL he became sick of > the House very quickly, but I don't > know if he always saw it as a > mere stepping-stone, or if he > only felt that way after being there. My impression is that he understood that it was a rung on the ladder to national power, a sort of box to be checked kind of thing. He was also a decidedly slippery congressman. One of the New Dealers quipped "You'll never find Lyndon on any barricade." Best L > On February 22, 1937, Congressman James P. Buchanan, chairman of the > House Appropriations Committee, suffered a fatal heart attack. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Buchanan will eventually die (he was born in 1867); say, in 1941, also > of a heart attack. There's actually another way of keeping LBJ out of Congress in 1937, which I suggested some years ago: "Congressman Buchanan's widow decides to run in 1937. It is generally agreed she would have been the odds-on favorite had she done so. But LBJ made it clear that he would run anyway, so that if she were to run she could not just coast on her late husband's name but would have to make a serious campaign. The elderly Mrs. Buchanan decided she did not want to do so. But suppose she had decided otherwise?" This would be slightly different from your scenario in that LBJ would have had the experience of habing been an unsuccessful congressional candidate, though I am not sure what difference that would make. SignatureDavid Tenner dtenner@ameritech.net > There's actually another way of keeping LBJ out of Congress in > 1937, which I suggested some years ago: "Congressman Buchanan's [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > congressional candidate, though I am not sure what difference that > would make. Wouldn't it make it very difficult for him to run in a different district? Carpet-bagger would not be a title of choice. SignatureRichard Gadsden "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" - Attributed to Voltaire > There's actually another way of keeping LBJ out of Congress in 1937, which I > suggested some years ago: "Congressman Buchanan's widow decides to run in [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > have to make a serious campaign. The elderly Mrs. Buchanan decided she did > not want to do so. But suppose she had decided otherwise?" I would agree to this, but, at least according to Caro, once Lyndon announced, she decided not to run. It gives an impression of how committed she was to doing so. Keeping her husband fresh was the rather easier choice. > This would be slightly different from your scenario in that LBJ would have > had the experience of having been an unsuccessful congressional candidate, > though I am not sure what difference that would make. Agreed; I assume that in either case Lyndon would ultimately grab power one way or the other, though. It's like Nixon that way; like the South, Vampires, Zombies, and the Clintons, he'll rise again. Best L |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.