Replies

Yeah that sounds more likely, its extremely difficult to oust a sitting President of the same party.

I think Long's plan was to bloody up FDR with a third party run in '36 (where Long himself wouldn't run, but someone who promoted Long's policies would) so FDR then either lost the general to a Republican or retired after a 2nd term. Then Long, having captured nationwide attention in 1936, would be the RAT party "front runner" for an open nomination in 1940.

I'm confused about the role Fr. Charles Coughlin played in all the politics of the era. Historians tag him as "far right" and he was outspoken against communism, marxism, atheism, the federal reserve, and everything New Deal related, vehemently attacking FDR's Socialist policies on the radio.

BUT, its also stated that he was a "close ally" and supporter of Huey Long, and Long was an insane Socialist DemonRat who argued FDR's New Deal didn't go FAR ENOUGH -- Long wanted a nationwide "Share The Wealth" income redistribution program ala modern day Bernie Bros. Furthermore, Fr. Coughlin routinely trashed capitalism and blamed corporations, and had some nationwide "Social Justice" organization (not sure if "Social Justice" in 1936 had the same odious meaning it has now with the thought police fascists)... he was also supposedly a NAZI sympathizer and an anti-Semite, though he vehemently denied both and said he wanted the "good Jews" on his side and his movement was open to all religious views and creeds.

Hard to pin that guy down politically.

In any case, William Lemke ended up being the "third party candidate" against FDR in 1936, and had Coughlin's backing. Aside from bashing Jewish bankers, it sounded fairly good compared to FDR's New Deal and Landon's worthless New Deal Lite. It was weird for the "Union Party" to be anti-Jewish anyway, given that it was a coalition of Catholics and blacks. Given that they opposed the KKK and the New Deal, it seems "wealthy Jewish capitalist voters" would be a natural ally, not an enemy. On the other hand, Jewish voters were probably voting 95% in favor of FDR's socialist policies, so there was little reason to try and woo them away.

I'm reminded a bit of the Le Pen "National Front" loons in France, whom the media tagged as "Far Right" even though they were in fact on the left end of the spectrum and holocast denying wackjobs to boot. Apparently Marine Le Pen has now purged the party of all its former neo-NAZI elements and even go far to rename the party to divorce it of its odious past, but I doubt there is still anything remotely mainstream "conservative" in France. Some FReepers just thought Jean Le Pen was "Conservative" because the media said he was.

In any case, Charles Coughlin and Huey Long seemed to make strange bedfellows. Most likely their whole "alliance" was "we both agree FDR sucks and needs to be taken out".

However “historians” label someone is often dubious, since so many are leftist, they tend to just throw all ones labeled un-P.C. in the right-wing barrel.

Coughlin was certainly NOT far-right playing footsie with far-left tyrants like Long. He obviously wanted strong interventionism in the country if he agreed with Long, so that makes him a Socialist, too. He just wasn’t an FDR type of Socialist. He also tried marrying populism, religiosity, and nationalism. A lot of that was almost like an Americanized version of National Socialism (minus the attempt to impose a new religion). If Long had gotten into power in 1940, I think Hitler could’ve easily seen him as a potential ally with similar goals (except the Jewish thing, though so many in America were anti-Semitic then, partly as a result of so many Eastern European Jewish coming into the cities and bringing radical Marxist politics with them).

I think ultimately Coughlin was just another prong on the leftist fork fighting for which would be the most dominant (FDR Socialism or Long Socialism).

WW2 would’ve unfolded in a different manner under President Long. It’s quite possible Long would’ve remained neutral or not unfriendly to Germany. The U.K. would’ve been defeated early on with no Lend-Lease and Hitler might’ve appealed to Long to help wipe out the Soviets. As Japan would not have been able to ally with Germany on good terms with Long, they would’ve had to find another way to deal with their own personal issues and animosity against the U.S. (perhaps Hitler would’ve brokered an arrangement to smooth over any hard feelings). With Japan occupying a good chunk of China (Manchuria) and the Germans and perhaps Americans leaning on the Soviets would’ve lead to the Communist capitulation.

Then, of course, we’d have to contend with the outcome of that situation. An Imperial Japan dominating the bulk of Asia, a new German Empire with Mohammadan constituent states in the Middle East in between and a National-Socialist America under Long.