• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
((Can I just say about the AAR in general, I do think it's better when we don't follow our history with different names, I think the best moments of the AAR are those that have been unique to it.))

((I agree, and will admit that this update was probably too reminiscent of OTL. I've managed to find a few places where I think I can really get my foot in the door with divergence in the 50s though)).
 
I, Christina J. Blancharde-Fredrick hereby drop out of the race, and support President Emerson.

~ Christina J. Blancharde-Fredrick, Congresswomen
 
Holy smokes! I thought this thing ended in 1936. I had no idea it was going beyond the set end date. I'm going to get back involved in politics. Can anyone give me a brief rundown of the parties, the current state of the world, and the major issues facing the US? I'll try to get caught up on the last few decades and get a character started soon in time for the 1952 election. Huzzah!
 
We can give all the financial and military aid we can to struggling countries and it will have no power. Not that aid is itself bad - the world has gone through a long and destructive war. The countries in which the lines were drawn between the free and fascist armies - where the titanic struggle we fought was in the backyards and kitchens of ordinary citizens - are free but devastated and impoverished by the fight. Rebel forces and would be tyrants seek to benefit from the weakness of these states, funded by other powers which desire influence over peace. We should give aid, when needed and reasonable, but it is nothing more than a bandage for a wound.

We can send our troops in - again - to kill and be killed on foreign battlefields. We can prop up every nation with marines around their gates and tanks ready to roll into their elections, as some nations do, but it would be futile. The battlefield now is not with governments or even with radical armed movements. It is with the common man of every nation under the sun.

We do not need to counter the Soviets, but to provide an alternative for the world - one so compelling that even they may join with us in promoting it.

We have a great network of influence and authority in the world. So do the Soviets. We must show that this can be used to empower people, rather than to crack down on their elections and harass their speech.

We have the power of mass cooperation of our citizens - the mighty engine of industry, science, and community that won the war against the fascists. So do the Soviets. We must show that this can be used to give men freedom and opportunity - that men can live together with laws to make them safe but not to entangle them.

We have the knowledge and infrastructure for economic development and industry. So do the Soviets. We must show that this can be used to lift people - and whole nations - out of poverty and hunger, without radicalism or dominion. We must lead nations in development that encourages education, freedom, and increased democracy rather than indoctrination, control, and plunder.

We have the awful and mighty power of the atom. So do the Soviets. We must show that it can be used for peace and progress. Let us understand the use of the atom in war, but seek its uses for peace. Let us share with the world how the atom can be harnessed for good and humanitarian causes, rather than the devastation of cities or the brinksmanship of mutually assured destruction.
 
Primaries are over.

Calvin Emerson will be the Liberal Candidate.
Joseph Jarvis will be the Republican Candidate.

Riccardo, your platform and choice for VP.
 
The Presidential Election of 1949

1949 lacked the air of opposition that had permeated the previous election. With the war-time alliance of parties well and truly over, the divergences in the policy of the two main parties were allowed to breathe free of the feeling of betrayal present in 1945. Most important however, was the Republican Party’s attitude to the race, moderated by the gains made in the mid-term elections of 1946.
With a slight edge over the Liberal Party in the House and parity in the Senate, the Republican Convention lacked the edge of desperation and fear of irrelevance that had seen General Bradley gain a surprise victory over party stalwarts. Now, for at least one more time, Richard Jarvis and William Gallatin faced off in a friendly tussle between the party’s two guiding lights over the nomination. In the end, it was Jarvis, now almost 60, who captured the party base with a more hopeful message of reconciliation with the USSR.

richardjarvisiii.jpg

1. Richard Jarvis III; photographed in honor of his nomination in 1949.​

In the Liberal Convention, President Emerson provided a stark contrast with Jarvis’ plea for an end to the escalation of tensions. He promised that the United States would “do whatever it takes to preserve peace and liberty at home and abroad.” His policy was hostility toward Soviet ambitions in all but name, and everyone could see it. The USA was definitively taking up the mantle of Great Power that it had been almost schizophrenically embracing and rejecting since Jamous’ monetary intervention in Europe nearly a century earlier.


The Candidates/Tickets of 1949

Election Manifesto of the Liberal Party

Presidential Candidate: Calvin Emerson
Vice-Presidential Candidate: Christina Blancharde-Fredrick


My fellow Americans,
Four years ago, we won the greatest and most horrible war in the history of mankind. In those four years, we have come to realize that we did not emerge from this conflict to an idyllic peace among nations. We now face the reality that we must not only win the war, but also win the peace. For there is a great contest now being held across the globe for the very soul of humanity.
It is a contest between the oppression and liberty, totalitarianism and democracy. It is a contest that we cannot afford to lose. I promise that, as President, I will do my utmost to preserve liberty and democracy, and to oppose those who would undermine it.

Foreign Policy

I have said it once, twice, thrice and I will say it again. Under a continued Emerson administration, we will continue to do whatever it takes to preserve peace and liberty at home and abroad. We will continue to support our allies in Europe and Asia. We shall support them with words in the UN and in our embassies. We shall support them with money for their coffers. We shall support them with guns for their hands. We shall support them with the full muscle of the United States on air, land and sea. Until Germany is reunited as the peaceful, sovereign nation it was meant to be. Until the wounds of the World Wars are healed. Until the Poles are allowed to declare their own government without being murdered for it. Until the Greeks and Chinese can live without fear of their governments falling to oppression and tyranny. Until the Iron Curtain comes crashing down and even Russia breathes free.

Domestic Policy

I will continue the dismantlement of the final war-time regulations on industry, and continue the sound economic policies of my predecessors. In the USA, no one should be in need.

Election Manifesto of the Republican Party

Presidential Candidate: Richard Jarvis
Vice-Presidential Candidate: William Gallatin​

Foreign Policy:
-Support for Democracy: Under a Jarvis Administration, the United States will maintain its commitment to democracy and capitalism; however, we should neither engage in wars or conflicts that will do nothing but sow chaos and resentment with foreign nations, nor should we continue to isolate the Soviet Union. American aid to nations left destitute and in ruins from the War shall continue, though more in the form as investment to private enterprises (which will be done in cooperation with their respective governments to prevent fraud and produce the best results); furthermore, the United States will support technological, industrial, and economic cooperation with these nations.

-Cooperation: Despite the cooling between the Soviet Union and the United States, Soviet-American relations can still be salvage; with the aid of one of the finest diplomats and politicians of this generation, the esteemed William Gallatin, at the helm of these negotiations, we will use everything in our power to promote American interests and make peace a reality. Furthermore, tactical use of the United Nations will be employed to further protect our interests and create a means of discourse and cooperation across the world. Lastly, should the Soviets refuse to work alongside the West and bring peace, the American people can rest assured that a general, and the former Secretary of Defence during the War, will be in office to protect this nation.

-Military Budget: In light of this new nuclear warfare, it is only sensible to invest more fully to ensure that these weapons can be used optimally; whilst I hope sincerely that these weapons need never be used, we must ensure that we can resist any attack on our country fully and without any handicap or disadvantage. To ensure these expenses are offset, the ground forces will be reduced significantly. The navy and air force will be maintained at present strength, and, should the budget permit it, possibly expanded slightly.

Economic Policy:
-Regulation: Under a Jarvis administration, the economy will undergo a period of deregulation to promote growth and reduce government expenditure; this policy will promote private innovation and growth, and will ensure the fiscal stability of this nation after the spendthrift years of the Depression Presidents.

-Taxes: Under a Jarvis Administration, taxes will in the short term be maintained at current levels to help balance the budget; once the debt has been reduced to acceptable levels, begin cutting taxes across the board, with an emphasis on the middle class. This policy will, combined with the deregulation, promote growth and innovation and keep the United States ahead of any competition.

-Reform: Despite this general deregulation, renewed efforts to improve the standards of safety across the country shall be made; no worker will be compelled to work in a needlessly dangerous environment. Whilst the Federal Government has no inclination to make any further reforms, state efforts will be supported and encouraged.

Social Policy:
-Civil Rights: Like my father, I am a proponent of civil rights, and, given the opportunity I will push for pragmatic social reforms to promote equality. As a nation, conceived with the notion of freedom as the cornerstone of society, we must ensure that all citizens of this great country are given the best opportunity to succeed.

-Education: I support further investment in education and public schools, as well as support for vouchers and grants to poorer children across this great nation. This pragmatic policy, a flexible approach combining private and public education, will give the children of America better choices and better quality, and to all Americans a stronger and more competitive society.

-Innovation: Under a Jarvis Administration, the United States will continue to be the leading innovator on Earth! With strong federal funding, a public-private policy similar to our proposed education programme, and our healthy funding of centres of learning, our nation will lead the path in science, medicine, and engineering.

VOTE JARVIS - GALLATIN FOR SECURITY, PEACE, AND GROWTH

-------------------------

Exceptional Situation(s):

Vote please.
 
In spite of his aggressive stance, I believe his opponents domestic policies would be very damaging and destabilising to the economy and the country and as such I vote for Emerson.
 
In spite of his aggressive stance, I believe his opponents domestic policies would be very damaging and destabilising to the economy and the country and as such I vote for Emerson.
And why would that be?

Is it deregulation? Do not be mistaken. We are still leaving an era of war regulations - and the needs of peace are different. We cannot be dogmatic about regulations picked up due to necessity - we must examine which are truly necessary and relax those which no longer serve a purpose - while experimenting with new ones which might be more adapted to the present times. Mr. Jarvis does not intend to destabilize the economy by forgetting regulation entirely, but simply to allow the regulations we have to be focused and modernized for the open cooperation of a peacetime state. We no longer need the abilities to seize land for munitions factories or to tightly monitor the labor relations and strike possibilities in shipyards - and the government should not waste its time restricting people's actions when it does not need these things any more. The government should infringe on the citizen only where and when it is fitting and important, and an important part of good governance is knowing when to safely let go.

Is it our push for Civil Rights? I believe, after fighting and dying together in these wars, now is the best time for social change. I think there is a readiness in the American people to end barriers to opportunity and equality now, and the transition can be both just and without malice.

Is it our desire for innovation and education? Education is the most important part of America's future - and if we neglect it, we will not be an example worth emulating in the growing number of third world nations around the world. Why embrace a free populace if they cannot develop the technology of centralized controlled states? We must provide an example that shows how a free and cooperative populace can innovate and develop better - perhaps not in the same way, but in a way bent toward compassion and human prosperity - than controlled societies. By investing in education and technological innovation, we can make this message shine like a city on a hill. But it is not just investment that we plan - for too long, education has been only a dream for the poor and less fortunate. We hope to provide reforms that give them the flexibility to get the education that they need, in the ways that they need it. We want poor and rich alike to be able to go to learn in convenient and well funded local schools, and to be able to study hard and go into college.
 
I believe my running mate makes a good challenge to your logic, sir; if you look at the Emerson platform, their economic plank is, in full, "I will continue the dismantlement of the final war-time regulations on industry, and continue the sound economic policies of my predecessors. In the USA, no one should be in need." While that sounds nice, it neither says how he will do so, nor does he say to what extent his regulations will reach. Comparatively, I have lined out several points and tried to be as specific as possible whilst maintaining some legroom for unexpected eventualities. Mr Emerson has made no statement on Civil Rights or Education; indeed, he is quite possibly the most foreign-policy oriented president in our history, certainly amongst peacetime leaders.

Whereas Emerson is now this nation's staunchest Cold Warrior, as I believe they're now called, I endorse a cautious policy or rational discourse and cooperation with the Soviets; is it really wiser to endorse a man bent on exacerbating problems and expanding American military operations around the globe? Such a policy is ruinous and will only lead to more conflict!

I fear that under his presidency, any notion of thrift and pragmatism will deteriorate into more spending, ideological warfare with the Soviets, and the general decline of the spirit that made the United States so strong and free.
 
A vote for the ballot of the Liberal Party, is a vote to preserve American values. To preserve peace, and to maintain our presence in the international community. The Soviet Union's actions cannot be taken lightly, they must be dealt with, with serious actions. We must stop the spread of Communism, which is violently being spread across the Globe. America, along with Great Britain should stand up against the USSR, and their aggressive actions.


Vote Emerson/Blancharde-Fredrick
 
Name: Logan Berg
Date of Birth: August 21st, 1918 [31]
Position: Governor of North Carolina
Affiliation: Independent
History: Coming from a rural lower-class family, Berg has deep concerns regarding issues on national unity and "The People." Winning the governorship of North Carolina with vague remarks on patriotism, Berg's affiliation is largely unknown.

(( I hope my bio is sufficient, and if not, I will gladly alter it. ))

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Although neither candidate fully satisfies my complete wishes, in terms of policy, I must choose one. I cast my vote for Jarvis. It is my hope he shall come to his senses over the Soviets though.

- Governor Logan Berg
 
Last edited:
A vote for the ballot of the Liberal Party, is a vote to preserve American values. To preserve peace, and to maintain our presence in the international community. The Soviet Union's actions cannot be taken lightly, they must be dealt with, with serious actions. We must stop the spread of Communism, which is violently being spread across the Globe. America, along with Great Britain should stand up against the USSR, and their aggressive actions.
Do not mistake our desire for peace and cooperation for naivety. Six years ago, bright with unified purpose and victory as the troops of the Western Allies met Soviet forces at Tangermünde, there were hopes for a long and just peace. Since those years, that hope has withered in most men, or at least become tempered by the cautions of experience. Poland. Czechoslovakia. We see that the world has two paths before them.

We, and the other free nations of the world, have chosen one path. A path of honor and of peace. To end conflict, support the liberties of all people, end domination and threats around the world. A path where all nations can work together to relieve hunger and poverty, to achieve more perfect unions, to collaborate on enforcing the liberty and full expression of their citizens.

The Soviet Union has chosen another path. We do not dispute this - we do not have our heads buried in the ground, unable to see what is sadly clear. The path of military conquest and control and domination is not new and is not hard. It is an enticing path to take.

Now we are faced with a growing shadow creeping over the world. It is enticing, I admit, to follow the Soviet's path. To push back at every provocation, to amass a terrifying army and hold an iron fist of democracy in opposition to Soviet influences around the world. To stand in the halls of the world, guns pointed vigilantly at the forehead of our opponent, waiting to see who blinks first.

But we cannot take this path. We are second rate at controlling and propagandizing our people to stand in a current state of War First, People Later. We can influence many nations, but we are rubbish - thank God! - at rolling tanks through their capitals or pouring in spies to topple governments. We can shout and gesture all we want, but our heart would not be in it. We would be a mere shadow, an imitation of the Soviet Union's power. Nations would look to us - as the new nations of this world are all now looking - and see nothing better than the other side. Nothing that inspires them to freedom, to peace, and to hope - because we would not have freedom, peace, or hope to give them.

That is the best case. The worst, we all know, is war on a scale unfathomable even to us who have seen the devastation of the last world war.

But even the best... a life of perpetual fear and tension; a burden of arms draining the wealth and the labor of all peoples; a wasting of strength that defies the American system to achieve happiness or peace or prosperity. The world locked in a battle of fear and arms is not wasting just its money. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.

The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities.

It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population.

It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals.

It is some 50 miles of concrete highway.

We pay for a single fighter with a half million bushels of wheat.

We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people.

This, I repeat, is the best way of life to be found on that path. It is enticing, but it is not worth it. It is not a path for life and peace. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity once again hanging on a cross of iron. ((thanks, Eisenhower, for the statistics. I had to say "once again" on the cross of iron, though, as Gallatin actually used the phrase before in reference to the Fascist model))

There is still another way. If we hold firm to our path, we will succeed - not by the metrics of the Soviets, but in the eyes of all peoples of the world. We will succeed in peace, in prosperity, and in liberty.

We must stand firm. We must build up enough military might to ensure the defense of free nations, but no more. We shall spend our money, our time, and our children on better things than a grim amassing of unnecessary arms, a futile buildup of cannon fodder for the other side's bombs, or policemen for far away cities.
The American people can show that the atom can be used for peace - for man's benefit and prosperity rather than for his destruction. The American people can show that nations can develop their economies without totalitarian control, through innovation, agricultural reforms, and open - clean - elections. The American people can be an example which defies the Soviet model and brings nations into agreement and cooperation not by brinksmanship and arm wrenching, but by hope and desire for peace. This is the Republican model for facing the Soviets - aid, defense, protection matched with ideals, freedom, and development. This is true progress. This is a way for life and peace.

Even in adversarial roles, the U.S. and the USSR must cooperate on some things - or at least discuss them - to avoid unnecessary misunderstandings and tensions. Through the great hall of world discussion, we will continue to work with free nations on the path of freedom, and with the Soviets on places where our paths hold mutual goals. If not peace, they still cannot desire the annihilation of war. If not prosperity and freedom, they still cannot desire starvation. Perhaps even, when Soviet leadership eventually changes and shifts over time, they too will see the benefits of our path. Until then we will work on defending ourselves, but not burdening ourselves constantly with the chains of war. By working out arms reductions, by balancing defense and human prosperity, by making rational decisions - we will keep ourselves safe both from external threats and from our own fears.

Vote Jarvis/Gallatin for Security, Peace, and Hope
 
Jarvis