What would have made Adlai Stevenson a good president?

[liberalitch]

In your opinion....

[Arkham House]

1. I'm not sure he would have been...

...and my parents are turning over in their graves at my saying that...my family got their first TV set just so Mom and Dad could see Stevenson in the '52 campaign...but with relish or without, the fact is, his opponent's caricature of him as a dithering egghead had some substance to it. He's been described as FDR without the polio, and this hits the mark more than I wish it did...at the '52 convention, during his acceptance speech, he said something to the effect of, "take this cup away from me", referring to his well-known "reluctance" to become President. When Eisenhower saw that, he said, "this guy is an even bigger BSer than I thought he was"...and that comment hit home, in my opinion. On a more practical level, it was probably good for the country that he lost in 1952. He could never have gotten the military and the country to accept the armistice terms in Korea that Eisenhower was able to achieve. And another GOP loss in 1952, after 20 years of Dem victories, would have radicalized the GOP, and emboldened McCarthy--and he might well have become the major figure in the party. God knows what would have happened then to the country...getting some responsibility kept the GOP relatively moderate, except for a brief time in '64, for another generation...

[1932]

6. Stevenson was the opposite of FDR. His problem was that he was not

committed to progressive issues on a personal level.

I'm sure Democrats could smell his lack of conviction. He wasn't going to win Republicans and Democrats could tell that they were getting farther and farther from FDR.

I recommend Richard Parker's book for anyone who wants to understand what was going in American politics during this time.

[Arkham House]

7. Good point. Adlai has been described as a "Tory"--

---the Dems recognized his basic detachment from his concerns...while the rightwingers regarded him as an "egghead"...the people who were really pro-Stevenson were fervent, but not enough to come close to a majority...

[papau]

2. Extremely smart while being very witty - but given fear of commies

at the time, he would have acted much the same as Ike..

Only on Domestic issues - working person wages/health etc - would have there have been progress - but even on that it would have be minimal given the RW control of Congress -

Even when the Dem's controlled a part of Congress the RW really controlled since the Southern Dems were Dems in name only so as to get home state spending. The Southern Dems voted with the GOP and gave effective control to the RW in those years.

I thought him a good governor of Illinois and in the underage persons mock vote at the time voted for him - but the era as a whole sucked (perhaps a young age person's view that is and was a bit biased - but that is my view)

[1932]

5. See below: he opposed Truman's "socialized med" and liked Taft-Hartley

and he would have endured strikes in his effort to stabilize the economy.

[papau]

10. Thanks for the info -I knew little of his positions except for his speechs

and there it was obvious he was afraid of being called a socialist.

[demosincebirth]

3. Smart and very articulate.

[1932]

4. He was very conservative for a Democrat and cared about rich & corps

more than he cared about the way most Americans struggled and lived their lives.

Richard Parker's book John Kenneth Galbraith: His Life, His Politics, His Economics has some interesting things to say about Stevenson.

On page 256 he writes about James Loeb and George Ball having dinner with Stevenson in an effort to recruit the popular governor to run for president. At the dinner they discovered that Stevenson didn't believe in Truman's Fair Deal (he outlined his objections point by point), opposed federal funding for public housing, opposed repeal of (anti-union legislation) Taft-Hartley, that he would risk strikes to stabilize the economy, that federal funding for education should be used only as a last resort, opposed Truman's health care reform (calling them "socialized medicine"), and he though civil rights was a matter for states to address, and not the federal government -- all of which disturbed Ball and Loeb.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0226646777/ref=sib_dp_srch_pop/002-7593254-8792836?v=search-inside&keywords=adlai&go.x=0&go.y=0&go=Go%21#

Revealing the source of Stevenson's lack of committment to progressive princinples, on page 316 Parker writes about Stevenson's anger at a Kennedy speach attacking French colonialism in Algeria. Stevenson was more content to advance his clients' interests in Ghana, the Belgian Congo, and South Africa (he was a corporate lawyer at that point representing the interests of the multinational corps that made so much money exploiting cheap labor and resources in Africa) than he was in social justice.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0226646777/ref=sib_dp_srch_pop/002-7593254-8792836?v=search-inside&keywords=adlai&go.x=0&go.y=0&go=Go%21#

So, the answer to your question, I believe, is that it would have been very difficult for Stevenson to have been a good president in the eyes of anyone who liked the New Deal, progress and justice.

[WinkyDink]

8. Brilliance. But I was a 6th-grader for Ike, though my parents were for

Adlai.

[WI_DEM]

9. Stevenson would have been moderate for a Democrat at that time

He himself believed that the biggest thing against him in '52 (other than being up against Ike a glamourous war hero)was that people did believe that after twenty years it was time for a change (though he probably would have beaten Taft). In many ways he was like John F. Kennedy--extremely intelligent, a remarkable speaker (though he didn't affect the masses the way JFK or FDR did--many felt his speeches went "over people's heads" and that only "eggheads" understood what he was saying) but a very cautious politician. He would have been like Ike in not trusting the military establishment--you'll recall that during the Cuban Missle Crisis it was Stevenson who advocated restraint while nearly everybody else wanted a war-like response. I think, given his statements of the time, that he might have been slightly better than Ike on civil rights and been more vocally supportive of the Brown decision. On the other hand, if Ike had not been president--we probably wouldn't have gotten Earl Warren as CJ. But he would certainly have moderated the New Deal/Fair Deal (not scale back) programs because he believed the country had had enough "social experimenting" and needed a break. He also seemed to have a hard time making up his mind on matters--he was often described as "indecisive". He may have made a good president, but I'm not sure. I probably (had I been living in the 50's) would have been a reluctant Stevenson voter.

[WI_DEM]

11. kick

I think this is an interesting question.