History Buffs: A Q. about Charles Evans Hughes

[liberalpragmatist]

Charles Evans Hughes was the longtime Progressive Republican governor of NY and served as an associate Justice of the SC then the Chief Justice, where he became an adversary of FDR and the New Deal.

In 1916, an election in which there are a number of parallels with 2004, Hughes just barely lost to Woodrow Wilson.

Nevertheless, based on all I know about Hughes and Wilson it doesn't seem like history would've been all that different had Hughes won and Wilson lost. In other words, a President Hughes would have likely pursued similar policies in foreign affairs, similarly joined WWI and similarly put in place some nascent business regulations. The main difference I can foresee is that potentially the Democrats would have become the party of big business during the '20s and the Republicans would have remained the progressives. Hence, FDR may have stayed with the Republicans (he joined the Democrats in college but supported TR in 1912 I think - could be wrong, however - he was appointed assistant secretary of the Navy under Wilson).

Any thoughts?

[David Dunham]

1. Hughes was more pro-business than Wilson

Wilson let Brandeis and others "trust bust" in his administration. Hughes was more pro-business than Wilson. I think the Repugs still would have been the more pro-business party, as they always have been.