John F'n Kerry: The Democrats’ Wendell Willkie

The John M. Ashbrook Center for Public Affairs ^ | April 2004 | John Moser

[quidnunc]

By the end of the 1930s the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt had lost a great deal of its luster. While the New Deal undeniably brought tangible benefits to millions of Americans, it had not delivered on its promise of economic recovery. Ten years after the Great Crash of 1929, nearly one worker in five was unemployed, despite the administration having racked up a series of budget deficits that were unprecedented in peacetime. Moreover, the president himself was caught in a dilemma — there was no up-and-coming Democrat whom he believed to be a worthy successor to the Oval Office. On the other hand, he knew that if he chose to run again he would have to face the stigma of being the first to go against the two-term tradition first established by none other than George Washington.

It was for this reason that the Republicans looked forward to 1940. Stung by a string of disastrous defeats in 1932 and 1934, culminating in the debacle of the Alf Landon candidacy in 1936, breaks were finally starting to appear in the electoral clouds. The 1938 congressional elections had led to the first gains for the GOP in ten years, thanks to the sluggish economy and Roosevelt’s ill-advised attempts to pack the Supreme Court and "purge" his own party of conservatives.

The only problem was that large parts of the Roosevelt agenda remained popular. The New Deal may not have succeeded in bringing about economic recovery, but this did not prevent most of its individual programs from winning support among key constituencies. More importantly, the president’s foreign policy, which had to cope with the challenge of a powerful Nazi Germany that appeared increasingly likely to win World War II, had broad popular appeal as well. The Roosevelt approach, which amounted to a moderate campaign of aid to the Allies while still proclaiming American neutrality, seemed to most a reasonable compromise between ostrich-like isolation and direct involvement in the European war.

This reality dictated that if the Republicans were going to have a shot at the White House in 1940, they would have to nominate a moderate. Unfortunately they had to do so at a time when many party regulars regarded Roosevelt with a degree of loathing that had rarely been seen in the history of American politics. They famously refused even to refer to the president by name, but simply as "that man. " These die-hard Roosevelt opponents flocked to the standard of Ohio Senator Robert A. Taft, whose reputation for opposing the president’s policies — both foreign and domestic — was second to none.

-snip-

[HOYA97]

Historically important article. Very interesting indeed!

[My2Cents]

The result of this is that Kerry will have to perform a political high wire act similar to that attempted by Willkie sixty-four years ago.

The trouble for Kerry is that he doesn't have the political dexterity to perform a high wire act. It's hard to walk a high wire with one foot in your mouth.

[skinkinthegrass]

It's hard to walk a high wire with one foot in your mouth.

HA!HA!..LOL! :)

[LS]

I think the problem with John Moser's analysis---only a small one---is that there is NO historical evidence that Robert Taft would have done a bit better against FDR. The Republicans had ONE chance in 1940---to begin sounding the claxons of interventionism in Europe, and thus they would have looked like wise men when war did come. But, of course, Taft wouldn't do that either. Thus, even if the GOP would have lost in 1940, it had a chance, by moving to the "right of FDR on the war, to win in 1944. Regrettably, they ceded that through isolationism.

[My2Cents]

by moving to the "right of FDR on the war, to win in 1944. Regrettably, they ceded that through isolationism.

One would conclude that the Democrats' formula for success...or formula for defeat...is the same this year.

[T. Buzzard Trueblood]

Kerry...finds himself attempting to straddle a serious divide between the views of the Democratic base and those of the general public.

[Verginius Rufus]

A curious detail about the 1940 Republican ticket (Willkie and McNary): both men died in 1944, so would have died in office if they had won the election.

Thomas Dewey was also a contender in 1940, but he was considered too young at 38.

[republicanwizard]

That's true. He really made a mistake running in 1944.

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks quidnunc.

Joshua Leinsdorf, "Winning With Wesley: Clark, the Wendell Willkie of the 2004 Campaign" -- [snip] The big domestic political issues in the United States as the 1940 election approached were: what position should the United States take with respect to the belligerents; and, would President Franklin Delano Roosevelt seek a third term? ...The mere thought of a third term sent Republicans, who already hated Roosevelt for the socialistic New Deal legislation, into a frenzy. Roosevelt was accused of wanting to become a dictator, much the same way that Democrats today cast aspersions on the legitimacy of the presidency of George W. Bush because of the way he won the electoral vote count in spite of a popular vote loss of over half a million votes... an erstwhile Democrat, a utility bond lawyer from Indiana who had never run before for public office, Wendell Willkie... was nominated by a draft movement, crafted in secret on Madison Avenue, and fueled with an avalanche of telegrams and letters from "ordinary Americans" which, in the end, turned out to have been substantially manufactured by a public relations organization. Willkie's slogan was, "Win With Willkie," and many Republicans, blinded by their hatred of Roosevelt, abandoned their political principles to embrace a candidate who could win. Willkie lost in the end because he was a conscientious person who basically supported Roosevelt's foreign policy of supporting the allies in Europe. [/snip]