ATL No Watergate

AHFan

AHFan

In February 1972, Nixon's Committee to Reelect the President, Jeb Stuart Magruder met with G. Gordon Liddy to discuss intelligence gathering activities against the Democratic Party in the 1972 election. Magruder felt that rather than risk the exposure of a spying scandal that their resources would be better used obtaining negative information on Democratic candidates.

Magruder felt that Nixon would be announcing a planned end to US involvement in the Vietnam war and would announce new economic stimulus plan was beginning to reduce unemployment. Magruder was also made aware that internal Republican polls showed that Nixon polled well against the potential Democratic opponents. In short, illegal intelligence activities had little reward and much risk.

At a later meeting with President Nixon, Magruder described spying on the Democrats akin to "Your Redskins forfeiting a game by spying on the Oilers". Nixon laughed and agreed. G. Gordon Liddy would begin "gathering dirt" on Democratic rivals. No spying needed.

What would the future impact be of no Watergate Crisis in the 1970's?
 
The Byronic Hero

The Byronic Hero

Good question...

Possibility of National Healthcare, maybe even a more liberal war on drugs (originally Nixon wanted to put money into rehab programs; he went militant to redirect attention from Watergate). Best of all, no more -gates in the media.
 
Emperor Norton I

Emperor Norton I

Nixon was into all kinds of nasty stuff though. Trying to kill Jack Anderson comes to mind. The administration was gambling every time it did that sort of thing. Watergate was one amongst a list of other dangerous behaviors.
 

Napoleon IV

Emperor Norton I said:
Nixon was into all kinds of nasty stuff though. Trying to kill Jack Anderson comes to mind. The administration was gambling every time it did that sort of thing. Watergate was one amongst a list of other dangerous behaviors.
Click to expand...

True, but let's assume that this doesn't come to light/they decide against doing it (otherwise we would just be trading on scandal for another and nothing really changes).

The good:

We might get a healthcare bill.

Nixon would continue supporting South Vietnam during what in OTL would be the final North Vietnamese offensive. This would mean that the offensive would be another stalemate and the North Vietnamese, who were considering changing their military policy before Nixon's fall, might even agree to at least a ceasefire like in Korea.

Nixon supported the Equal Rights Amendment, and I doubt he'd let Phyllis Schafly do what she did IOTL. So we might see the ERA passed.

The Reagan Revolution wouldn't happen, or at least wouldn't be as big. The Republicans probably win in 1976, and Reagan would not be their nominee. They would then probably lose in 1980, but even if they didn't he wouldn't be the nominee, the President would be. By 1984 Reagan would be 73 years old in 1984; too old to run and win. Without Reagan to electrify and unify them, along with a country not torn apart by Watergate and causing mass disillusionment with the system, the radical right won't take over, at least for another decade.

The suffix -gate isn't put behind every scandal.

the bad:

The Imperial Presidency stays on. Without Watergate there won't be the political will to rollback the President's powers. Eventually someone is going to abuse it like Nixon did IOTL, and there will be many smaller abuses as time goes on.

The Soviet Union would probably last longer. Reagan probably sped the fall of the Soviet Union up by a few years. While it would still fall apart in the 1990s it would be around for a few more years.

We continue to support dictators for a long time. This happened after Nixon, but without Watergate the President would have more leeway to do things like Iran-Contra.
 

Paul V McNutt

Banned
Derek Jackson said:
Republicans win in 1976 and that was a good election to LOSE
Click to expand...

Thier candidate would have been Ronald Reagan. Not only is of thr president's party in bad economic times, but his Democratic opponent does not have to play defense. He can attack Reagan or his unpoplar views like his opposition to Medicare.
 

Corbell Mark IV

Paul V McNutt said:
Thier candidate would have been Ronald Reagan. Not only is of thr president's party in bad economic times, but his Democratic opponent does not have to play defense. He can attack Reagan or his unpoplar views like his opposition to Medicare.
Click to expand...

On the other hand, Reagan is NOT a member of the previous administration, and can credible claim to be an outsider.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top