WI: Nixon Elected in 1960

Emperor Norton I · Dec 21, 2009

I've never seen this properly done as a timeline, and have yet to find a discussion on the topic which concerns the whole thing rather than limited facets, or doesn't get bogged down in partisan self gratification.

So for someone like me ill-informed of old Dick, what if Richard Nixon had won the election of 1960?

RogueBeaver · Dec 21, 2009

Your Majesty, you forgot my very own Eastern Entrance and stevep's Mind the Door. Granted the POD is not what you wish...

Civil Rights: Some sort of CRA/VRA, and trying to make the GOP the Socially Liberal, Rocky Republican party pre-1980.

Economy: Quite similar to JFK's actions, with deeper tax cuts and looser money supply. No Steel Crisis that involves break-of-dawn FBI raids.

Vietnam: Arms and advisors, not a full-blown conventional war.

1964 Election: Humphrey/Johnson as the Dem nominees, Nixon wins again.

1968 Election: JFK might try again, depending on how the cities turn out. He might win over Lyndon Johnson and pick Carl Sanders as his running mate. GOP nominates Romney/Rocky, lose narrowly to JFK.

Wolfpaw · Dec 21, 2009

Would the Dems really go with Johnson again in 1964? I mean, I can't really see him settling for the Veep slot again, especially if he's backseat to somebody like Humphrey.

RogueBeaver · Dec 21, 2009

There was a vote ceiling against Southerners until Johnson was President. Even while he was POTUS there was much critique of his perceived regionalism amongst the chattering classes quite similar to that of GWB. Look up what happened at the '60 convention when JFK picked Johnson. Though JFK wouldn't have won without LBJ, Walter Reuther basically told RFK: "Have you gone off your fucking rocker! He's a conservative!"

Yellow Dog · Dec 22, 2009

It does seem that Nixon might have been an entirely different person and President had he been elected in 1960: No 1962 CA governor's race loss and meltdown, no eight years worth of building up his paranoia about the Kennedy's.

If elected in 1960, Nixon may have felt driven to "measure up" to Eisenhower, especially since he felt slighted by Eisenhower and his people. That desire might have made for a much more statesman-like Nixon. Also, at the time Nixon was a much more centerist Republican (despite the "Pink Lady" campaign) and, considering some of the things he did even in the post-Goldwater time of his actual Presidency (like China, creation of the EPA, consideration of a national health-care plan, etc.), he may have been a much more progressive President than one might initially think.

The only point I might debate is re Vietnam. It's nice to think that someone (anyone) may have seen the folly of sending in the troops, but Nixon in the early 1960's may have been so cognizant of the "who lost China" arguments of the previous decade that he may have felt forced to fight it out to "save" Vietnam from "going red".

One other thought: Rather than picking Johnson to run for Veep again in 1964, I wonder if Humphrey (or whoever) might have picked a Southerner who may have (in the context of Johnson not having become President and pushing for the CRA and VRA) seemed more progressive. Maybe an Albert Gore Sr. or William Fulbright?

Carl Sanders on a Kennedy ticket in 1968 is an inspired selection.

RogueBeaver · Dec 22, 2009

Re paranoia about the Kennedys: Nixon was actually quite cool with RFK as his '68 opponent IOTL. Two reasons: both were equally tanned

, and Nixon's personality was much better suited for TV. If you thought Hillary was too emotional...

Fulbright a progressive? WTF? He was eliminated from consideration for Foggy Bottom IOTL because he supported the Southern Manifesto and was an outspoken Arabist.

Wolfpaw · Dec 22, 2009

Can we also add a circumstance to this thread? Since I really want to see a realistic "Nixon Wins in 1960" TL get off the ground and develop, can we all please, please, please try to avoid the cliche of Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr., getting killed or something like that in order to get him off the ticket?

While I understand booting HCL off the ticket, I can't stand it when, in order to accomplish this, he needs to be killed. Maybe Nixon offers him SecState in 1964 like how Ike offered Nixon SecDef in 1956?

Or maybe he's just off the ticket and out of the Administration. Whatever, just avoid the cliche of "Lodge (or Nixon himself, for that matter) pulls a JFK ( maybe even in Dallas!)" or something like that.

RogueBeaver · Dec 22, 2009

Wolfpaw: That could be a good idea, as long as Nixon continues to run FP. To paraphrase Hillary's "red phone" ad: "Do you really want a Secretary of State who rarely wakes up before 10AM?"

Re TL: I'm up to my eyeballs with Flight of Fate, as is Norton with Camelot Revisited, but if someone wants to take on the "Nixon in '60" project on I'd be happy to profer assistance and advice.

Claudius · Dec 22, 2009

Yellow Dog said:
The only point I might debate is re Vietnam. It's nice to think that someone (anyone) may have seen the folly of sending in the troops, but Nixon in the early 1960's may have been so cognizant of the "who lost China" arguments of the previous decade that he may have felt forced to fight it out to "save" Vietnam from "going red".

.

Most likely any likely POTUS would have intervened in Viet Nam to some extent. However, Nixon might well have been more likely to listen to someone like Douglas MacArthur and resisted commiting large numbers of troops. Also, it seems likely that Nixon would not have arranged the death of Diem as did MacNamara et al. I agree that Nixon was a bit unhinged by the elections of 1960 and 1962 to his own harm.

RogueBeaver · Dec 22, 2009

Re 'Nam: Diem's the only bet, because he's the only one with genuine anti-Communist nationalist credentials. Even Ho acknowledged that: "I can't believe the Americans would be so stupid." Thieu was a pleasant mediocrity, Ky was a Chavez wannabe and the others were mere placeholders for the two three-stars.

Claudius · Dec 22, 2009

Wolfpaw said:
Can we also add a circumstance to this thread? Since I really want to see a realistic "Nixon Wins in 1960" TL get off the ground and develop, can we all please, please, please try to avoid the cliche of Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr., getting killed or something like that in order to get him off the ticket?

While I understand booting HCL off the ticket, I can't stand it when, in order to accomplish this, he needs to be killed. Maybe Nixon offers him SecState in 1964 like how Ike offered Nixon SecDef in 1956?

Or maybe he's just off the ticket and out of the Administration. Whatever, just avoid the cliche of "Lodge (or Nixon himself, for that matter) pulls a JFK ( maybe even in Dallas!)" or something like that.

How about RMN chooses William Stratton, the two-term Governor of Illinois as his running mate, in order to shore up support for the ticket in the heartland? (IOTL Stratton ran for an unprecedented third term in 1961 and lost.) Certainly no less likely than picking Spiro Agnew later on

RogueBeaver · Dec 22, 2009

Claudius: You mean William Scranton, the Pennsylvania Governor first inaugurated in 1963 who was billed by the hysterical MSM writing obituaries of the post-Goldwater GOP as the "first Kennedy Republican"? They did the same for the RINO John Lindsay, quite possibly the worst NYC mayor of the postwar era. Agnew helped Nixon in the South, and Muskie did nothing for HHH.

If you want a different Veep than Agnew in '68, have Bobby Kennedy live to be the Democratic nominee. Then the choice is between Wallace and Nixon, because the Southern Antichrist isn't getting any traction down there.

Claudius · Dec 22, 2009

Nope. William "Billy the Kid" Stratton, Gov. of Illinois 1953-1961. Scranton was a mediocrity (not that there's anything wrong with that)

Wolfpaw · Dec 22, 2009

Yellow Dog said:
One other thought: Rather than picking Johnson to run for Veep again in 1964, I wonder if Humphrey (or whoever) might have picked a Southerner who may have (in the context of Johnson not having become President and pushing for the CRA and VRA) seemed more progressive. Maybe an Albert Gore Sr. or William Fulbright?

Carl Sanders on a Kennedy ticket in 1968 is an inspired selection.

I'd say that the Southerner balancing out the ticket in 1964 will probably be Terry Sanford, who (according to JFK's personal secretary) was JFK's first choice for a running mate in 1964, and second choice in 1960 (Symington was probably first choice in 1960; I'm not counting Johnson since they didn't think he'd take the Veep slot).

Claudius · Dec 22, 2009

Nope. William "Billy the Kid" Stratton, Gov. of Illinois 1953-1961. Scranton was a mediocrity (not that there's anything wrong with that)

By picking Stratton, Boss Daley will be less able to work his election night magic in Cook County

Claudius · Dec 22, 2009

RogueBeaver said:
Claudius: You mean William Scranton, the Pennsylvania Governor first inaugurated in 1963 who was billed by the hysterical MSM writing obituaries of the post-Goldwater GOP as the "first Kennedy Republican"? They did the same for the RINO John Lindsay, quite possibly the worst NYC mayor of the postwar era. Agnew helped Nixon in the South, and Muskie did nothing for HHH.

QUOTE]

Tell me about it. I was living in NYC when Lindsey was Mayor. Possibly the worst NY Mayor since the 1920's

RogueBeaver · Dec 22, 2009

Wolfpaw: I'll go you two better: Robert Kennedy and JFK himself. RFK, who despised LBJ from 1960 onwards, dealt with this in Feb. 1968: "Can you ever imagine the President discussing a matter like this with Evelyn?". If the man who has zero objectivity says that's false, what does that tell you? JFK himself: "It seems preposterous on the face of it. We have to carry Texas in '64, and maybe Georgia." Even Arthur Schlesinger agrees.

None of these people are hardcore LBJ partisans, even though JFK had a fairly good relationship with Johnson. Keeping in mind that Johnson never understood that RFK played "Bad Jack" fairly often, but found RFK a more convenient scapegoat.

Emperor Norton I · Dec 22, 2009

Claudius said:
Most likely any likely POTUS would have intervened in Viet Nam to some extent. However, Nixon might well have been more likely to listen to someone like Douglas MacArthur and resisted commiting large numbers of troops. Also, it seems likely that Nixon would not have arranged the death of Diem as did MacNamara et al. I agree that Nixon was a bit unhinged by the elections of 1960 and 1962 to his own harm.

Sending advisers was something that was begun with Ike, so I can see that. And I can agree on Diem. The issue I see is how much Nixon would commit. Too often we use our own historical bigotries to skew these things as inevitable and unchangeable, but the fact is Vietnam as a war is not assured, even with American commitment in the form of aid and military advisers. But Nixon was a bit more hawkish, a Cold Warrior, and an ardent anti-Communist so the degree to intervention and what it would be and evolve into is debatable. Keep in mind too that whatever Nixon himself may have said of the subject, Nixon was notorious for revising his public sentiments to show him in a better light after the fact so it's a bit hard to meter anything he said which wasn't at a time when it was too close to the event and the results not shown for him to do that (for example, during the 1960 election he said he did not want to challenge Kennedy's victory because he didn't want to tear the nation apart and make it look bad on the world stage. The fact is, Ike had already disavowed a recount or challenge to Kennedy's claim of victory so Nixon lost backing, and Nixon's associates went after the issue with great fervor in his name, and demanded recounts and legal investigation into fraud. The result; recounts gave Nixon no victory and similar results, and no proof of fraud was found. However, Nixon did make a net gain: -3; he lost Hawaii in the recount which was previously counted for him, but which was found to actually have the majority vote for Kennedy. Nixon himself also always believe the hype of JFK stealing the election from him.)

Wolfpaw · Dec 22, 2009

Beevs: Oh, I agree. Kennedy probably would have kept LBJ; he was probably just musing about Sanford.

But what I'm saying is that if JFK loses in 1960, then LBJ will probably be tainted as well. So, whatever Northerner gets the nod (heck, maybe even Kennedy again [not that I'd bet that way]) they'll probably pick a progressive Southerner like Sanford as their running-mate.

Emperor Norton I · Dec 22, 2009

Wolfpaw said:
Beevs: Oh, I agree. Kennedy probably would have kept LBJ; he was probably just musing about Sanford.

But what I'm saying is that if JFK loses in 1960, then LBJ will probably be tainted as well. So, whatever Northerner gets the nod (heck, maybe even Kennedy again [not that I'd bet that way]) they'll probably pick a progressive Southerner like Sanford as their running-mate.

Kennedy can make a 1968 comeback, but I doubt 1964. 1964 would be too dangerous since Nixon likely would get elected, and another loss would destroy him politically (then again, you'd have 12 years of Republicans so party fatigue could well take over; we should take that into account before we get all misty eyed about a two term Dick Nixon). 1968, however, and even while being a bit of a cliche, is possible. The fact that he would have almost won the election would have in itself torn down the wall of a non-protestant having no chance and Kennedy'd be well establish and have a great deal of experience.