So perhaps Turtledove is just making a popular alternate history argument that history has an inherent inertia and destiny so much larger than any individual or small group as to be independent of particular humans, instead dictated by HUMANITY, mostly in acts predating any contemporary actors. In short, history written by the ancestors, not the victors, whose most significant victory was in a genetic lottery over which they had no influence. From that perspective, replacing FDR with Joe Stalin, Joe Blow or anyone else could not have changed history more than superficially.
Needless to say, I have not READ the book, so am only "speculating." Despite a strong general interest in both history and "speculative fiction" (as distinct from fiction restricted to concrete observed fact 
) I have read very little alternate history, none of which includes Turtledove. But I have read enough to recognize signs of one of the genres popular tropes, and the description of this book exhibits many of them.
Having read little of the genre and none of the book, I can only guess as to the nature of that "something."
The wealth of strong evidence for both views argues against wholly dismissing either; they are polar opposites, but not necessarily mutually exclusive.
Yeah, come to think of it, that is EXACTLY his M.O. He usually reserves those things for less critical plot points, however, rather than as a major motivation for a significant character.
I imagine that temptation irresistable for anyone with sufficient knowledge of and interest in history to write alternate versions. Many Worlds advocates could even seriously justify it as "bleed through" from parallel versions of people ultimately one person. If Many Worlds is valid, there may be a few alternate timelines where Burr and Hamilton were the fiercest friends and allies, but those must surely be overwhelmed by countless others where their circustances and natures caused implacable mutual hatred till the day one killed the other.
Sure it is crony capitalism, an antonym rather than synonym of socialism. But it is also privatization because government by We the People does not simply cede private indivuals our POWER to mint our own money, but formal AUTHORITY to do so INSTEAD of our representative government. That places one of societys most vital fundamental powers in hands unaccountable to society for use of it, the grave danger of which is self-evident. Nothing short of privatizing the military could be more liable to and thus certain of broad, tyrannical, draconian abuse. Merging corporate power with state was Mussolinis definition of fascism; while he used "corporate" less literally than we, the difference is largely semantic.
As to whether crony capitalism is a candidate for the Department of Redundancy Dept., I would not go that far. Socialism absent degrees and kinds of capitalism is mere communism, as much a Bad Idea as laissez-faire capitalism, for a reason only nominally distinct. Modern society works best (i.e. only) when consumer-worker-voters force Big Business and Big Brother to compete for our favor rather than diminishing one and empowering the other until the latter can make We the People compete with the former for ITS favor. There are many free prosperous socialist states, but all have robust private capitalist components; the one remaining communist state is among the Earths least prosperous and arguably its least free.
One might (as this one DOES) call the market made flesh antithetical to the Word Made Flesh, but that ultimate moral dimension is, sadly, usually viewed separately from consequent ones of "liberty, equality and fraternity" whether one worships God or mammon (though the current Pope is encouraging.)
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
