RFK A New Democrat?

[THE OBSERVER]

Why is everyone assuming that RFK would've been a New Democrat like Clinton if he won in '68? I don't see what the big deal about RFK and Democrats of the DLC Mode. I just don't. Perhaps he is center-left, like hcallega said he was. But I don't believe in the pure-Centrist Democrat that others believe he is.

[Charles James Fox]

I agree, describing him as a New Democrat just seems like ideological wish fufillment to me. It's grossly anachronistic to compare him to Clinton and severs RFK out of his proper historical context.

[THE OBSERVER]

Thing is about alternate history, is that it's impossible to predict. So many scenarios. I thought he would be like how he was portrayed in the book "A Disturbance of Fate," but I was mistaken. However, I don't think RFK is like Clinton and I don't think he would've done the same things that Clinton had done (Like Welfare Reform).

[DanMcCollum]

I think that one of the problems is that it's pretty well understood that RFK was not a standard 1960s liberal. He was a centrist, but believed in some of the same cultural causes which were so important to later liberals. As a result, it becomes easy for people to bade him off of the New Democrats who emerged in the 1980s and 1990s.

In other words, since he was no member of the New Left, they have to base him off of the other branch of the Democrats which has emerged since then.

Also, I believe that some of it might be a blowback against those who have come to see RFK as _THE_ member of the New Left (all reality aside).

[StevenAttewell]

Originally Posted by THE OBSERVER

Why is everyone assuming that RFK would've been a New Democrat like Clinton if he won in '68? I don't see what the big deal about RFK and Democrats of the DLC Mode. I just don't. Perhaps he is center-left, like hcallega said he was. But I don't believe in the pure-Centrist Democrat that others believe he is.

There's a couple of reasons.

One was that RFK was highly ideologically heterodox and changed tremendously over his career. As everyone said who knew him, the RFK of 1956 and the RFK of 1968 were virtually two different people when it came to politics. This means that it's harder to pin down RFK than it is for a Barry Goldwater or Henry Wallace.

The other is that people have tried to claim RFK thereafter as a historical icon. Bill Clinton and the DLC explicitly have tried to claim that RFK was a proto-New Democrat based on certain of his statements about welfare and the balance between public and private sectors, while downplaying his arguments in favor of direct government job creation and other, more expansive social policies. Those on the left have tried to claim that RFK would have prevented the rightwards lurch in the Democratic Party by pointing to other statements of his.

In the end, the best thing to do is read his writings and speeches and policy documents in detail and try to parse where this fits in historical context.

Domestic Policy:
- RFK backed government incentives for the private sector to invest in poor communities (a rather centrist position), but also believed in the government becoming the Employer of Last Resort (a very left position).
- RFK wanted to abolish welfare, which he viewed as a degrading and dehumanizing policy (a rather conservative position), but also believed in creating a guaranteed minimum income for working families (a very left position).
- RFK both wanted to invest heavily in rebuilding the ghetto and in open housing, straddling both "gild the ghetto" and "assimilation" models.
- and so on. You can read directly from his book here.

Foreign Policy:
- calls for a Marshall Plan for Latin America (mainstream liberal)
- criticizes support for dictatorships and calls for decrease in military aid. (left position)
- calls for engagement with student radicals, thinks that military interventions a la Dominican Republic have been counter productive. Essentially tries to combine a "confront Castro" with "Our determination to stop Communist revolution in the hemisphere must not be misconstrued as opposition to popular uprisings against injustice and oppression just because the targets of such popular uprisings say they are Communist-inspired or Communist-led, or even because known Communists take part in them." (leaning quite left)
- direct talks with the USSR on global nonproliferation treaty. (fairly mainstream)
- downplays China as domino theory re: Vietnam, emphasizes the need for realism and historicism in relations with China, recognizes that a two-China policy is stupid. (pretty left-wing, and ironically close to Nixon)
- emphasizes that Vietnam is a guerilla civil war, not a conventional war, and the U.S has repeatedly lost on the political front. "There are three possible routes before us: the pursuit of military victory, a negotiated settlement, or withdrawal. Withdrawal is now impossible...But these arguments [against withdrawal] do not in any way support a policy of continuing the present course of conflict...Still less do they support a search for nonexistent ways to military victory." Argues that continuation/escalation will only weaken U.S position. "Military victory would require that we crush both our adversaries strength and his will to continue the battle...that much of Vietnam be destroyed and its people killed." Victory isn't happening without destroying Vietnam at huge loss to America. "The third alternative is a negotiated settlement - as we have known for more than two years, the only satisfactory solution to the war...Both sides must come to any discussion with at lest one basic condition...for the United States it must be that we will not abandon South Vietnam to forcible takeover by a minority. For our adversaries it must be that they will not accept a settlement that leaves in the South a hostile government." During ceasefire, negotiate both with North, South, NLF, Buddhists, etc. towards a free election that would be open to the NLF (very left position).

Calling him a centrist doesn't make much more sense than calling him a leftist or a 1960s liberal. Instead, I'd call him a left of center heterodox who was moving from right to left in his own personal development, yet who arrived at his own idiosyncratic worldview.

[THE OBSERVER]

Why doesn't somebody here write a TL that is like that? Why do they immediately assume that RFK would be like Bill Clinton, 24 years earlier?

[Æsir]

I don't mean to say this in a negative way, but I think that Roguebeaver's analysis of RFK weighs on perceptions here.

[THE OBSERVER]

Originally Posted by Æsir

I don't mean to say this in a negative way, but I think that Roguebeaver's analysis of RFK weighs on perceptions here.

Perhaps for future TL'S, an alternative analysis of RFK should be used instead of RogueBeaver's.

[StevenAttewell]

Originally Posted by THE OBSERVER

Why doesn't somebody here write a TL that is like that? Why do they immediately assume that RFK would be like Bill Clinton, 24 years earlier?

Two things:

1. This would require a lot of research to get right. You'd need to know RFK's policy positions, as well as the policy positions of the Democratic Caucus in Congress very well. And this is complex stuff; Congress in the late 60s and early 70s could be both really liberal or really conservative on any given issue at any given time.
2. OTL is hugely influential. There's a reason why many if not most ATLs tend to default back to OTL events - it's hard to track every last butterfly effect, and it's easy just to take the OTL and vary from there. We know what the New Democrats did, so it's easier to adjust those policies than come up with new ones.

And the butterflies here are potentially massive - under Nixon, we got Vietnamization, Watergate and a host of domestic dirty tricks, the abandonment of the gold standard, rapprochement with China and realpolitik, and so on and so on. So with an RFK presidency, you have to grapple with these things not happening; the American loss of faith in government post-Watergate might not happen, which dramatically changes U.S politics (hence why a lot of timelines try to pull in some Watergate like scandal to keep political attitudes on track); the careers of a whole bunch of Democrats are going to change without a presidential nomination to run for in 1972, and the 1976 primary will look very different if the Democratic Party has held the reins of power for 16 solid years than having been out of power for 8. Likewise, geopolitics are very different if the U.S leaves Vietnam in 1969.

[MrHuman]

StevenAttewell, I disagree with your statement that supporting a GMI is "very left". Dick Nixon supported it, and so did Milton Friedman.

[THE OBSERVER]

Originally Posted by StevenAttewell

Two things:

1. This would require a lot of research to get right. You'd need to know RFK's policy positions, as well as the policy positions of the Democratic Caucus in Congress very well. And this is complex stuff; Congress in the late 60s and early 70s could be both really liberal or really conservative on any given issue at any given time.
2. OTL is hugely influential. There's a reason why many if not most ATLs tend to default back to OTL events - it's hard to track every last butterfly effect, and it's easy just to take the OTL and vary from there. We know what the New Democrats did, so it's easier to adjust those policies than come up with new ones.

And the butterflies here are potentially massive - under Nixon, we got Vietnamization, Watergate and a host of domestic dirty tricks, the abandonment of the gold standard, rapprochement with China and realpolitik, and so on and so on. So with an RFK presidency, you have to grapple with these things not happening; the American loss of faith in government post-Watergate might not happen, which dramatically changes U.S politics (hence why a lot of timelines try to pull in some Watergate like scandal to keep political attitudes on track); the careers of a whole bunch of Democrats are going to change without a presidential nomination to run for in 1972, and the 1976 primary will look very different if the Democratic Party has held the reins of power for 16 solid years than having been out of power for 8. Likewise, geopolitics are very different if the U.S leaves Vietnam in 1969.

I suppose you are right. Mitchell Friedman did have a lot of butterflies in when he was writing "A Disturbance of Fate." He also did a lot of research as well. And it seems like the policy positions outlined above correspond to the RFK of that book. If we're to do an epic, and accurate RFK TL here, it must be a group effort.

[The]

I think people assume that RFK would have been an earlier Clinton because New Democrats are ideologically centrist. RFK, an early prominent progressive, is often ballyhooed as the first New Democrat because of this. I don't quite understand it either, actually. Look at this quote from Bill Clinton's book:

"In the 1968 Indiana primary, Bobby Kennedy became the first New Democrat. He believed in civil rights for all and special privileges for none, in giving poor people a hand up rather than a handout: work was better than welfare. He understood in a visceral way that progressive politics requires the advocacy of both new policies and fundamental values, both far-reaching change and social stability. If he had become President, America's journey through the rest of the twentieth century would have been very different."

Also, this timeline will take a lot of research if it is to work out.

[THE OBSERVER]

Yeah. I was doing another thread about potential cabinet members for the TL.

[StevenAttewell]

Originally Posted by MrHuman

StevenAttewell, I disagree with your statement that supporting a GMI is "very left". Dick Nixon supported it, and so did Milton Friedman.

Yes, and it was the most left-wing either of them ever did. And even then, it was a highly tenuous support. Nixon supported the FAP plan right up until the 1972 election, and then dumped it and ran vicious ads against the very idea of a GMI when McGovern came up with the "demogrant" idea. Friedman liked the GMI as a way to shrink welfare state bureaucracy, but he never urged its adoption in the places (Thatcherite Britain, Pinochet's Chile) where he had the most influence in the same way he did monetarism and privatization.

[StevenAttewell]

Originally Posted by THE OBSERVER

I suppose you are right. Mitchell Friedman did have a lot of butterflies in when he was writing "A Disturbance of Fate." He also did a lot of research as well. And it seems like the policy positions outlined above correspond to the RFK of that book. If we're to do an epic, and accurate RFK TL here, it must be a group effort.

Yes - although a lot of ADoF comes from Friedman's own personal interests; I found his dislike of some of the more fun stuff about the 60s and 70s (rock music, hippie culture, etc.) irritating.

In any case, I'd be happy to provide what help I can.

[THE OBSERVER]

Originally Posted by StevenAttewell

Yes - although a lot of ADoF comes from Friedman's own personal interests; I found his dislike of some of the more fun stuff about the 60s and 70s (rock music, hippie culture, etc.) irritating.

In any case, I'd be happy to provide what help I can.

Please do, what can you give?

[MrHuman]

Originally Posted by The

I think people assume that RFK would have been an earlier Clinton because New Democrats are ideologically centrist. RFK, an early prominent progressive, is often ballyhooed as the first New Democrat because of this. I don't quite understand it either, actually. Look at this quote from Bill Clinton's book:

"In the 1968 Indiana primary, Bobby Kennedy became the first New Democrat. He believed in civil rights for all and special privileges for none, in giving poor people a hand up rather than a handout: work was better than welfare. He understood in a visceral way that progressive politics requires the advocacy of both new policies and fundamental values, both far-reaching change and social stability. If he had become President, America's journey through the rest of the twentieth century would have been very different."

Also, this timeline will take a lot of research if it is to work out.

First off, welcome to the board! And I totally understand -- I actually think RogueBeaver, though he exaggerated this, was pretty much right about RFK. And your Bill Clinton quote (which is, of course, what's on Wikipedia when you look at the "New Democrat" page) doesn't really help your case. Clinton was the defining New Dem. He and RFK were both proponents of welfare "reform", both were staunchly for unfettered free trade, etc.

[Charles James Fox]

Of course Bill Clinton is going to claim RFK as a New Democrat, it's in the interest of all politicians to re-interpret the politicians of the past as forerunners of their own policies. The point is, it's anachronistic to claim that RFK = Bill Clinton/DLC, simply because the DLC originated in a very particular post-Reagan political and social context. It's like claiming that a thinker like Thomas More is some kind of proto-Marxist or that Hugh Gaitskell is proto-New Labour, you can't judge people's political ideas by modern standards which are irrelevant to circumstances in the past. StevenAttewell is right to actually look at RFK's statements and provide a more nuanced view.

[MrHuman]

Originally Posted by WhigMagnate

Of course Bill Clinton is going to claim RFK as a New Democrat, it's in the interest of all politicians to re-interpret the politicians of the past as forerunners of their own policies. The point is, it's anachronistic to claim that RFK = Bill Clinton/DLC, simply because the DLC originated in a very particular post-Reagan political and social context. It's like claiming that a thinker like Thomas More is some kind of proto-Marxist or that Hugh Gaitskell is proto-New Labour, you can't judge people's political ideas by modern standards which are irrelevant to circumstances in the past. StevenAttewell is right to actually look at RFK's statements and provide a more nuanced view.

You're right, of course, and I don't see RFK as "Bill Clinton but in the '60s". His policies were centrist, and they were similar to what I think Clinton would have done had he through some ASB thing been President or Senator at the time. And StevenAttewell is right, his positions were themselves nuanced and hard to classify.

[THE OBSERVER]

Originally Posted by MrHuman

First off, welcome to the board! And I totally understand -- I actually think RogueBeaver, though he exaggerated this, was pretty much right about RFK. And your Bill Clinton quote (which is, of course, what's on Wikipedia when you look at the "New Democrat" page) doesn't really help your case. Clinton was the defining New Dem. He and RFK were both proponents of welfare "reform", both were staunchly for unfettered free trade, etc.

But I think RFK's ideas for welfare reform differed from what Clinton thought of and what he signed!