WI: William Lyon Mackenzie King stays with the Rockefellers

[CanadianTory]

Interestingly enough future Canadian Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King was employed by the Rockefeller family in the 1910s, where he served as John D. Rockefeller Jr’s unofficial Minister of Labour. In 1915 King helped Junior navigate and resolve a dispute by offering workers what was essentially employee representation minus full unionization.

Let’s say King opts to stay in the employ of the Rockefeller family and make some real money. How would King’s removal from the Canadian political scene impact Canadian politics, specifically the 1921 federal election?

 

[True Grit]

Ooh, good POD.

Without King the Liberals probably elect Fielding, which probably doesn't do them any favours. Really, given how shrewd a politician King was the Liberals are going to be worse off than OTL either way, but Fielding wasn't liked by the left and his support for conscription meant he wasn't trusted in Quebec. The Liberals probably still win 1921, though likely only a minority. Fielding's age (he was 72 in 1921) probably means he retires by the mid 20s.

The Progressives probably do better, but given how much they resisted becoming an actual political movement IOTL I'm not sure how they fare during the rest of the decade - if they stay united and organized, though, I can see a two-party system eventually developing with the Liberals on the right and the Progressives on the left.

 

[CanadianTory]

Ooh, good POD.

Without King the Liberals probably elect Fielding, which probably doesn't do them any favours. Really, given how shrewd a politician King was the Liberals are going to be worse off than OTL either way, but Fielding wasn't liked by the left and his support for conscription meant he wasn't trusted in Quebec. The Liberals probably still win 1921, though likely only a minority. Fielding's age (he was 72 in 1921) probably means he retires by the mid 20s.

The Progressives probably do better, but given how much they resisted becoming an actual political movement IOTL I'm not sure how they fare during the rest of the decade - if they stay united and organized, though, I can see a two-party system eventually developing with the Liberals on the right and the Progressives on the left.

Fielding was much more on the right than King. A former Unionist-Liberal, you could see a much closer three way result, perhaps a grand coalition between the Liberals and the Progressives if the Grits are willing to dump Fielding as leader.

 

[Kermode]

I'm not sure Fielding is a lock for the position. To be sure, he was a leading contender IOTL, was supported by the business community, counted on support in Ontario and the West, and placed a close second to King… but he was also a Unionist (not even in caucus at the time of Laurier's death!), which gave him a poor relationship with caucus and party stalwarts, was particularly poorly regarded in Quebec and the Atlantic, and he lost to a man who was regarded as Laurier's protégé (and who actively embraced his mentor's legacy). King's victory owed a lot to his status as Laurier's preferred successor, such as by getting Ernest Lapointe (a close Laurier ally in his last years) on his side, who ensured the Quebec delegates would back him. In a situation where King is out of the picture, then, I think someone else is going to emerge as the Laurier Liberal in the race.

So here's a real hipster choice for you: Edward Mortimer Macdonald.

Macdonald’s decision not to reoffer in 1917 was not just an assertion of judicious neutrality in the great national issue of the day but also, and more importantly, a central tactic in his strategy to succeed Laurier. The scheme miscarried when Laurier died unexpectedly in February 1919. This setback goes some distance towards explaining why Macdonald played no role in the ensuing party convention, which saw William Lyon Mackenzie King emerge as leader over Fielding. Macdonald’s well-laid plan had depended on Laurier’s surviving long enough to anoint him as heir, for his not-so-secret aspirations had alienated many while Laurier was still alive.

So, yes, Laurier was put off by his ambition IOTL. But ITTL, where his would-be protégé is in New York (and declined an opportunity to return to politics), perhaps Laurier does anoint Macdonald. Macdonald would probably be a stronger leadership candidate than King, too, since he was an "insider" and would likely have an easier job bringing delegates to his side.

Regardless of who becomes leader instead, I don't know enough about the figures or the time period to say what this would change in the immediate term. I can, however, think of a few knock-on effects for the longer term:

1. If Fielding or Macdonald or whoever else is not succeeded by a francophone— and that seems likely— then the party never establishes its traditions of alternating between anlgo and franco leaders. In truth, the alternation started more by chance than intent IOTL, but certainly became accepted as a truth by 1968 and it's informed every leadership election since; so without it being established, TTL's Liberal leadership politics almost certainly look different.
2. Canada is almost certainly going to have a tougher time with the Conscription Question in WWII. King's conscription policy (which is to say: avoid it at all costs, then soften the blow as much as possible) was informed by his experience of what happened with conscription in WWI. Now I don't want to say that King was the only person who could have handled conscription without escalating it into a full-blown national unity crisis (I mean, Robert Manion agreed with King's policy)… but I do think that King's age, experience and authority helped a lot. A younger anglo leader might be swayed earlier, for example.
3. More broadly, I would argue that King's general style really set the template for the Liberal Party from then on out: straddle the centre, shift left or right according to the national mood, undertake reforms cautiously. Absent King, does the Liberal Party continue in a more obviously "ideological" direction?

 

[CanadianTory]

I’m curious how the Tories would respond to a no King scenario. Do they fall to third? Does Meighen win his majority against Macdonald in 1925/26?

 

[CanadianTory]

First pass at a list.

Prime Ministers of Canada
Sir Robert Borden (Conservative, later Unionist) 1911 - 1920
-11: Wilfred Laurier (Liberal)
-17: Wilfred Laurier (Laurier Liberals)
Arthur Meighen (Conservative) 1920 - 1921
Edward M. Macdonald (Liberal) 1921 - 1928
-21 (min.): Thomas Crerar (Progressive), Arthur Meighen (Conservative)
-23: Arthur Meighen (Conservative), Robert Forke (Progressive)
-27 (min.): Arthur Meighen (Conservative), John E. Brownlee (United Farmers), N/A (Progressives)
Thomas Crerar (Progressive Liberal) 1928 - 1934
-29: Arthur Meighen (Conservative), John E. Brownlee (United Farmers)
Hugh Guthrie (Conservative) 1934 - 1939
-34: Thomas Crerar (Progressive Liberal), J.S. Woodsworth (Co-Operative Commonwealth Federation), John E. Brownlee (United Farmers)
-39: Thomas Crerar (Progressive Liberal), J.S. Woodsworth (Co-Operative Commonwealth Federation), H.H. Stevens (Reconstructionist)
Robert Manion (Conservative; later National Government) 1939 - 1943
Richard Hanson (National Government) 1943
Donald Sutherland (National Government; later Conservative) 1943 - 1949
-45: Thomas Crerar (Progressive Liberal), Maxime Raymond (Bloc populaire), Solon Earl Low (Social Credit), M.J. Coldwell (Co-Operative Commonwealth Federation)