David Tenner
2009-03-18 05:11:34 UTC
Suppose Robert A. Taft never had cancer, or that it was detected and
removed in time. He was 63 years old when he died on July 31, 1953.
Theoretically, he could still have been around in the US Senate until the
1980s if he lived as long as Strom Thurmond. More realistically, he could
certainly have served well into the 1960's. Whether he would in fact do
so depends in part on whether Frank Lausche, the very popular conservative
Democratic governor of Ohio, would chalenge him in 1956 or 1962; I think
that against any other Ohio Democrat Taft would have a better than 50-50
chance of re-election, at least in 1956. (By 1968, if Taft was still in
the Senate, he would probably decide it was time to retire and make way
for Bob, Jr.)
So what would be the possible effects of Taft staying on the political
scene much longer?
(1) What would his attitude be toward Joe McCarthy? He had taken a fairly
friendly attitude toward McCarthy as long as Truman was in office. He
said that "Whether Senator McCarthy has legal evidence, whether he has
overstated or understated his case is of lesser importance. The question
is whether the Communist influence in the State Department still exists."
He was also quoted as saying that McCarthy "should keep talking and if one
case doesn't work out, he should proceed with another." (On that last
quote, Taft later claimed, dubiously, that he had been misunderstood and
misquoted.) Once Ike was in office, Taft no doubt hoped that McCarthy
would show more restraint, but I don't believe that Taft or anyone else
could restrain McCarthy, and once the latter started attacking the Army
and the Eisenhower White House, I think Taft, as Senate Majority Leader,
just has to take Ike's side against McCarthy.
(2) With Taft still around, conservatives might take a more skeptical
stance toward US military involvement abroad--including Vietnam. The
death of Taft (and the defeat of numerous other conservatives, especially
in the 1958 elections) led to Barry Goldwater becoming the symbol of
American conservatism. Goldwater was much more hawkish and less
"isolationist" (or as Taft would prefer to put it, "non-interventionist")
than Taft and the Old Right in general had been. Indeed, the late Murray
Rothbard, an admirer of the Old Right, while acknowledging that Taft
"although both a free-market man and a noninterventionist...partly due to
his addiction to compromise as a way of life, faltered on both counts
throughout his career" (Rothbard prefers the greater purity of
"secondary" Taftite figures like Senator Kenneth Wherry and Congressman
Howard Buffett, [1] both of Nebraska) nevertheless says that
"Taft's death in 1953 was an irreparable blow, and one by one the other
Taft Republicans disappeared from the scene. In fact, Taft's defeat in the
bitterly fought 1952 convention was to signal the end of the Old Right as
a political force. It is typical of Michael Miles's myopia that the only
difference he sees between Barry Goldwater, the leader of the New Right,
and the Taftites is that Goldwater was more 'optimistic' than they. In
fact, Goldwater was--and is--an all-out interventionist in foreign
affairs; it is both symbolic and significant that Goldwater was an
Eisenhower, not a Taft delegate to the 1952 Republican convention."
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard46.html
Of course even if Taft lives, he will be getting on in years, and the
conservative movement will still need younger heroes. (And if, as I have
said, Taft will take Eisenhower's side against McCarthy, this will cool
the ardor of some conservatives for Taft in any event.) But with Taft
still around, it will at least have to pay greater attention to the non-
interventionist case in foreign policy than it did in OTL.
Thoughts?
[1] Warren Buffett's father.
removed in time. He was 63 years old when he died on July 31, 1953.
Theoretically, he could still have been around in the US Senate until the
1980s if he lived as long as Strom Thurmond. More realistically, he could
certainly have served well into the 1960's. Whether he would in fact do
so depends in part on whether Frank Lausche, the very popular conservative
Democratic governor of Ohio, would chalenge him in 1956 or 1962; I think
that against any other Ohio Democrat Taft would have a better than 50-50
chance of re-election, at least in 1956. (By 1968, if Taft was still in
the Senate, he would probably decide it was time to retire and make way
for Bob, Jr.)
So what would be the possible effects of Taft staying on the political
scene much longer?
(1) What would his attitude be toward Joe McCarthy? He had taken a fairly
friendly attitude toward McCarthy as long as Truman was in office. He
said that "Whether Senator McCarthy has legal evidence, whether he has
overstated or understated his case is of lesser importance. The question
is whether the Communist influence in the State Department still exists."
He was also quoted as saying that McCarthy "should keep talking and if one
case doesn't work out, he should proceed with another." (On that last
quote, Taft later claimed, dubiously, that he had been misunderstood and
misquoted.) Once Ike was in office, Taft no doubt hoped that McCarthy
would show more restraint, but I don't believe that Taft or anyone else
could restrain McCarthy, and once the latter started attacking the Army
and the Eisenhower White House, I think Taft, as Senate Majority Leader,
just has to take Ike's side against McCarthy.
(2) With Taft still around, conservatives might take a more skeptical
stance toward US military involvement abroad--including Vietnam. The
death of Taft (and the defeat of numerous other conservatives, especially
in the 1958 elections) led to Barry Goldwater becoming the symbol of
American conservatism. Goldwater was much more hawkish and less
"isolationist" (or as Taft would prefer to put it, "non-interventionist")
than Taft and the Old Right in general had been. Indeed, the late Murray
Rothbard, an admirer of the Old Right, while acknowledging that Taft
"although both a free-market man and a noninterventionist...partly due to
his addiction to compromise as a way of life, faltered on both counts
throughout his career" (Rothbard prefers the greater purity of
"secondary" Taftite figures like Senator Kenneth Wherry and Congressman
Howard Buffett, [1] both of Nebraska) nevertheless says that
"Taft's death in 1953 was an irreparable blow, and one by one the other
Taft Republicans disappeared from the scene. In fact, Taft's defeat in the
bitterly fought 1952 convention was to signal the end of the Old Right as
a political force. It is typical of Michael Miles's myopia that the only
difference he sees between Barry Goldwater, the leader of the New Right,
and the Taftites is that Goldwater was more 'optimistic' than they. In
fact, Goldwater was--and is--an all-out interventionist in foreign
affairs; it is both symbolic and significant that Goldwater was an
Eisenhower, not a Taft delegate to the 1952 Republican convention."
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard46.html
Of course even if Taft lives, he will be getting on in years, and the
conservative movement will still need younger heroes. (And if, as I have
said, Taft will take Eisenhower's side against McCarthy, this will cool
the ardor of some conservatives for Taft in any event.) But with Taft
still around, it will at least have to pay greater attention to the non-
interventionist case in foreign policy than it did in OTL.
Thoughts?
[1] Warren Buffett's father.
--
David Tenner
***@ameritech.net
David Tenner
***@ameritech.net