If Al Smith won in 1928

[darklordoftech]

Would he get a second term or would the depression doom him to one term?

[The Mikado]

Al Smith winning in 1928 borders on "putting the Democratic Party out of its misery" territory. The South was already starting to crack in the 1920s before the Depression dragged it back into solidly Dem territory for another generation. A Republican running against Smith all "We put this wet Catholic Democrat in charge and 8 years of GOP prosperity turn into breadlines and poverty" could easily smash the Democratic Party North and South alike so bad that the long term viability of the Democratic Party would be thrown into question. Remember, the Democratic Party would have only won 5 presidential elections of the last 18 Presidential elections at this point! (1884, 1892, 1912, 1916, and 1928 in this scenario) If the wedge between Southern Dems and Northern Dems becomes fatal over recriminations over the Depression and Democrats become associated with war and economic woe, that's pretty much "Why keep the party going" territory, especially given the party would now be forever stamped with Roman Catholicism.

[brucejoel99]

A Business Plot possibly comes along?

[TheElectoralBoobyPrize]

Do Republicans become the party of more government involvement in the economy in this scenario?

I just don't see how Smith wins.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Do Republicans become the party of more government involvement in the economy in this scenario?

I just don't see how Smith wins.

Probably see a redux of what transpired in the 1890's, with a reversal of the shift towards hard money and and eventual small gov't positions that McKinley acted as a bridge to.

For one thing protectionism remains the dominant glue in the GOP coalition and under this umbrella, you can certainly have some kind of big gov't Republicanism of the likes seen with Harrison and the "billion" dollar Congress.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Henry Ford wins in 1932 on a nativist, isolationist, and economically interventionist (though not “left-wing”) platform. Darkness devours the decade.

[Fuzzy Bear]

http://pressbooks-dev.oer.hawaii.edu/ushistory/chapter/president-hoovers-response/

Smith was, tempermentally, quite the opposite of Hoover.  He was NOT an idealist, and he would likely have resorted to a number of Government intervention Hoover found repugnant.  He would have been an activist leader.  He would have gone as far as he could to promote Federal solutions wherever possible.  He would have been proposing specific programs and taking on the tut-tutters who clung to Free Enterprise, Rugged Individualism, etc.  He would have forcibly suggested that those who relied on "local cooperation" and "volunteerism" (as Hoover did) were choosing solutions insufficient to meet the challenge.

In doing so, he would have been setting himself up for re-election.  Smith, according to James David Barber's model in The Presidential Character, would have been an Active-Positive President, the sort of President needed for crises.  Smith would have been seen as an Active President, promoting solutions, but he would have also projected that he enjoyed leading, that he enjoyed politics, and that he enjoyed doing the business of the people, including meeting them and communicating with them directly in a positive way.  He would have generated hope in the midst of difficult times, and his narrative would have helped people make the most out of difficult times because he would have been conveying real empathy to those hardest hit.  He would have been FDR without a wheelchair.

Herbert Hoover, on the other hand, was a Passive-Negative President in the Barber Model.  He was someone who viewed government activism as "not his job"; he viewed his job as to sign legislation, use the bully pulpit to promote virtue (and Hoover WAS a virtuous man), and otherwise promote Free Enterprise.  Hoover believed strongly in volunteerism and civic involvement, which were fine virtues in normal crises, but he did not grasp the magnitude of the Depression until it was too late.  He cared for people in general, but was distant from individuals and specific groups.  He did not want to see the Hooverville residents up close and personal.  His reaction to the WWI Bonus Marchers (who NEEDED their bonus then):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_Army

Many of the war veterans had been out of work since the beginning of the Great Depression. The World War Adjusted Compensation Act of 1924 had awarded them bonuses in the form of certificates they could not redeem until 1948. Each certificate, issued to a qualified veteran soldier, bore a face value equal to the soldier's promised payment with compound interest. The principal demand of the Bonus Army was the immediate cash payment of their certificates.

On July 28, U.S. Attorney General William D. Mitchell ordered the veterans removed from all government property. Washington police met with resistance, shots were fired, and two veterans were wounded and later died. President Herbert Hoover then ordered the U.S. Army to clear the marchers' campsite. Army Chief of Staff General Douglas MacArthur commanded a contingent of infantry and cavalry, supported by six tanks. The Bonus Army marchers with their wives and children were driven out, and their shelters and belongings burned.

This action, more than anything else, sealed Hoover's fate.  He wasn't going to merely lose; he was going to lose in a massive landslide.  Had Al Smith been President, he'd have handled the situation much like FDR did when a second Bonus Army came to Washington:

A second, smaller Bonus March in 1933 at the start of the Roosevelt administration was defused in May with an offer of jobs with the Civilian Conservation Corps at Fort Hunt, Virginia, which most of the group accepted. Those who chose not to work for the CCC by the May 22 deadline were given transportation home.[1] In 1936, Congress overrode President Roosevelt's veto and paid the veterans their bonus nine years early.

Al Smith's later estrangement from FDR was probably more from hurt feelings than anything else.  Smith, though a Landon and Willkie supporter in 1936 and 1940, reconciled with FDR during WWII and always had a good relationship with Eleanor Roosevelt.  He was more conservative than FDR, but he was not "a conservative", and he would likely have implemented his own brand of New Deal.  Smith could conceivably have run for re-election in 1932 as the man cleaning up Coolidge's mess, and that he was DOING something would have resonated.   

[darklordoftech]

Would Smith have vetoed Smoot-Hawley?

[brucejoel99]

Would Smith have vetoed Smoot-Hawley?

I can't see him going along with it, yeah.

[Skill and Chance]

Do Republicans become the party of more government involvement in the economy in this scenario?

I just don't see how Smith wins.

Probably see a redux of what transpired in the 1890's, with a reversal of the shift towards hard money and and eventual small gov't positions that McKinley acted as a bridge to.

For one thing protectionism remains the dominant glue in the GOP coalition and under this umbrella, you can certainly have some kind of big gov't Republicanism of the likes seen with Harrison and the "billion" dollar Congress.

This.  You get the Republicans moving left enough on economics to become something resembling the Bill Clinton era Dems, but not going as far as FDR went.  I would expect a lot of GOP campaigns blaming targeting greedy/ignorant Southern planters selling as the villains in the crisis selling out US industry in the name of free trade (assuming Smith vetoes any tariffs), instead of FDR's focus on Wall Street/Northern big business as the problem.  They would even win a large enough majority to do the Civil Rights Act at some point in the 1930's.     

[Wazza [INACTIVE]]

Do Republicans become the party of more government involvement in the economy in this scenario?

I just don't see how Smith wins.

Probably see a redux of what transpired in the 1890's, with a reversal of the shift towards hard money and and eventual small gov't positions that McKinley acted as a bridge to.

For one thing protectionism remains the dominant glue in the GOP coalition and under this umbrella, you can certainly have some kind of big gov't Republicanism of the likes seen with Harrison and the "billion" dollar Congress.

This.  You get the Republicans moving left enough on economics to become something resembling the Bill Clinton era Dems, but not going as far as FDR went.  I would expect a lot of GOP campaigns blaming targeting greedy/ignorant Southern planters selling as the villains in the crisis selling out US industry in the name of free trade (assuming Smith vetoes any tariffs), instead of FDR's focus on Wall Street/Northern big business as the problem.  They would even win a large enough majority to do the Civil Rights Act at some point in the 1930's.     

Making any sort of comparison of the hypothetical Republican administration, one that would have been quite nationalistic and isolationist,  to third way 90s Democrats is laughable. The philosophy of governance and political environment is in no way the same. Additionally, I don’t see why they’d put emphasis on the South when Smith has little connection to the region and with him and the Southern elite being on very shaky grounds.

[Wazza [INACTIVE]]

The GOP would have won 1932 blaming Smith’s liberal trade policies and overall handling of the crisis (His religious background will likely also remain a source of discussion). This may permanently cripple the Democratic Party considering it’s poor electoral performance so far in the 20th century and the fact that the Democratic bulwark in the South had began rapidly declining and would likely continue to do so. If so then you’d naturally see a new 2nd party taking the place of the Democrats, and a transformation similar to the UK in which the Liberals decline and are replaced  by a party advocating a more left wing philosophy. This party would likely build upon the ex-Democratic support in the Northeast amongst working class ethnics, western farmers and miners and upland parts of the South whilst chipping away at GOP urban machines and peeling off progressive Republican support in the West. Southern Planters would find themselves alienated by both the populist and progressive-left new party and the economic nationalism of the Republicans and may keep the Democratic Party alive as a rump organisation in states like Mississippi and South Carolina, not as a genuine advocate of Liberalism but rather a machine for their economic interests and to act as a bloc in congress and the EC.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

The only way we didnt get Watergate was to prevent Coolidge from becoming Prez since he appointed Jay Edgar Hoover as FBI director and had ties to the KGB; consequently,  Kennedys wouldnt have been shot.  Baring that same, without a new FBI director same events would have occured