Deleted member 140587
WI if JFK survived assassination and served two terms before being succeeded by Richard Nixon in 1968. What would the Seventies look like after a calmer Sixties?
MBR, your implied point is well taken: "everyone" (quotes intentional) assumes a Camelot-like Sixties had Kennedy lived, but I tend to doubt that. Nobody should delude themselves that there wouldn't be a Viet Nam engagement: Kennedy was too staunch a Cold Warrior for that. And he'd face the same difficulties that Lyndon Johnson faced: perhaps not the same course of events, but similar, with attendant difficulties with corruption in the South Viet Nam regimes, the frustration of fighting a war against guerillas with conventional troops, etc. It's not out of the question that by 1967 or so, the chants would be "Hey, hey, JFK, how many boys did you kill today?", and Kennedy would be rather unpopular on campuses--maybe not to the extent that Johnson was, but I could see his own Harvard would come down on him like a ton of bricks.
He'd leave office in January 1969 very much an embittered man. Not sure of the identity of his successor, but I'm not convinced it would be Nixon. I don't think it would be Goldwater, either. Yes, I realize Rockefeller would have been something of a long shot with his baggage, but if he came out with an Ike-like "I shall go to Viet Nam" statement to pave the way for ending the war, it seems to me he could probably carry it off.
He'd leave office in January 1969 very much an embittered man. Not sure of the identity of his successor, but I'm not convinced it would be Nixon. I don't think it would be Goldwater, either. Yes, I realize Rockefeller would have been something of a long shot with his baggage, but if he came out with an Ike-like "I shall go to Viet Nam" statement to pave the way for ending the war, it seems to me he could probably carry it off.
A mess. No CRA/VRA to sort of defuse tensions, a bigger escalation in vietnam and no medicare/medicaid...
Deleted member 140587
Just to clarify I still think the Sixties would still be turbulent: Kennedy would've gotten involved in Vietnam (it would be smaller; I think around 180,000 troops would be in Vietnam by 1968 compared to the over 500,000 in OTL) and race riots would still happen because the CRA (it was unavoidable by 1964) wouldn't bring all of the changes that many in the Black Community thought it would. That being said, Kennedy's assassination and the rise in draft calls ups that happened under Johnson were what set off the counterculture. I think with a smaller Vietnam and a not-dead Kennedy, the Hippies wouldn't rise as high as they did in OTL (Maybe the counterculture is more similar to the Mods in England, with youth still wearing suits but rejecting postwar conformity and taking non-psychedelic drugs?)
As for your comments about Kennedy's successor: I agree with you about Goldwater but I disagree with you about Rockefeller. People underestimate how much Conservatives HATED Rocky. I think the Republican nominee would be Nixon purely because the Republicans didn't have anyone else (JFK would safely beat Goldwater in 1964, Rockefeller would still cheat on his wife and it would still be publicized, and Reagan was too conservative for 1968). I agree with your "I will go to Vietnam approach", I just think it would Nixon not Rocky. However, what either of them would do in Vietnam once elected is anyone's guess.
Lets go through this one by one
- The CRA was inevitable by this point, Kennedy would probably have gotten it through. The VRA, however, is less likely to get passed so we might see race riots in the South where Blacks resent still being denied the vote.
- I highly doubt Kennedy would've escalated more than OTL. LBJ was reluctant to escalate in OTL and JFK was even more reluctant to escalate than him. I just don't see JFK presiding over a half a million troops in Vietnam like Johnson did.
- I agree that the Great Society would be neutered by a two-term Kennedy but Medicare-Medicaid would likely have been passed. There would be no War on Poverty but there would be food stamps and a moderate increase in funding for existing anti-poverty programs.
Last edited by a moderator:
Is it really? We've had national healthcare seem like an inevitability at multiple points IRL so why couldn't other reforms be seen as "inevitable" at points but never get done. There's no reason why the 1950s-1960s civil rights movement couldn't have ended up mostly a failed dream like reconstruction or the activism of the late 1910s.
JFK was more hawkish than LBJ. Imo a live JFK escalates further and faster than LBJ. LBJ was just rolling with the course of events, while JFK actually Believed in the hawkishness.
Healthcare reforms are imo the most likely bits of the great society to pass wth JFK but imo not the other stuff.
JFK was more hawkish than LBJ. Imo a live JFK escalates further and faster than LBJ. LBJ was just rolling with the course of events, while JFK actually Believed in the hawkishness.
Healthcare reforms are imo the most likely bits of the great society to pass wth JFK but imo not the other stuff.
Dull. Blissfully, happily, Me-Generation perpetual "That 70s Show" till 1981 dull. Think of the sort of libertine vibe of the 70s without the malaise.
Well the President not getting assassinated is a decent start. There are certainly many many other problems, but the young POTUS surviving and serving out his entire two terms would be a very stable force in national politics.
Deleted member 140587
I like your idea! But I'm hoping that maybe with the hippie's march to prominence in TTL stalled (a smaller Vietnam might not fuel their fire as much), maybe certain cultural norms from the 50s or 60s (more formal dress for ex.) might stay in place while the great stuff from the later Sixties (the British Invasion, Elvis Comeback) would also come about.
With a tempered 60s, you will end up with the Flower Children but it will remain more "peace and love" than "by any means necessary"; peaceful revolution rather than militancy; "the system is flawed and needs to be fixed" rather than "the system is inherently broken and needs to be overthrown". It was like that early on, but a rot set in as the 60s turned into the 70s. You will end up with the Generation Gap and all that, but the OTL was everything turned up to 11 with the knob ripped off. The AM Gold nostalgia for the 1970s a lot of Boomers have now ignores how bad things really did get in the soul of the country. You literally had domestic left wing terrorist groups setting off pipe bombs, New York was in economic tailspin and there were neighborhoods that looked like they were hit by the blitz, crime was on the rise, and you had riots over busing not to mention all the post-Vietnam economic swings. You would have the same social back and forth because the issues would be there, but it wouldn't be as vicious. It cannot be overstated that when you had as much blood and assassination as came in the 1960s, that it was traumatizing and changed the rules of what was conceivable in those dynamics.
I'm going to question the other part of the original post: does Kennedy actually get a second term? As the 1964 contest escalates, does the President's multiple affairs and medical issues begin to arise? If things really go sideways, he might not even get the 64 Democrat nomination, but I think that highly unlikely. I think the most probable course is that he gets the nomination (he IS the President after all), but then gets hammered by Goldwater all the way to the election. If Kennedy doesn't lose, he could be very damaged and face a hostile Congress - a lame duck from Inauguration Day until he leaves in 1968.
If Kennedy does lose in 1964, then I think LBJ's political career is finished, nationally at least - he is too tied to Kennedy. Of course, this also butterflies away Nixon in 1968. I see the '68 election as Goldwater vs. Humphrey.
I tend not to wade into these discussions because I repeat the same ground I always repeat. But here goes:
Kennedy easily wins 1964. Kennedy is only the adulterer president in the popular imagination because he was the first one people found out about in the biography circa 1969. Lyndon Johnson was as prolific a womanizer. Nelson Rockefeller divorced his wife for his mistress, and died in 1979 during coitus with another mistress. An investigation into an East German spy ring in Washington being run out of a brothel stalled because everyone in a suit and tie in the city had used its services. Men in power in that era screwed around, very, very prolifically. And Kennedy is nothing unique in that regard. This was also an era where the media did not report on that (for reasons of common decency and for access).
Goldwater was a dead duck in 1964 regardless; he is Mr. Conservative in the era of the Liberal Consensus. Kennedy may lose some points compared to Johnson in 1964, but honestly not much. That election is going to be a landslide. Congress will also bring in a liberal wave, as it did for Johnson, which will make things post-1964 easier. Up to conceivably 1966, but 1966 is a wild card because if you temper things, while the Republicans may make gains, it may not be as much as the OTL. 1966 is what ended up stalling LBJ. The Republican resurgence was another part of that "everything turning up to 11" thing I mentioned; there was a lot it was in reaction to. Dial that environment to a 6, metaphorically speaking, and the resurgence is dialed back too.
Vietnam ... we're about to talk about that. And I am going to leave it at what I say here because I don't like dealing with the discussions on Vietnam and Kennedy. I will hop out of the details of that discussion briefly to talk about how this discussion is psychologically talked about. There are people that think Kennedy was a completely prophetic pure hearted person who would have avoided Vietnam, taken out the troops with a broadcast on CBS, etc just because they like Kennedy. Fair enough. God help us if its for conspiracy theory reasons. But, if I am admitting those people exist, I must also point out the people who go for the idea that Vietnam would have become the same war under JFK as LBJ react to that, construe anything disagreeing with their position as that pie-in-the-sky nostalgic ignoramus, and it makes these discussions very irksome for me. It also largely bugs me that there is a position where history must happen the way it did happen. "Of course Vietnam was an inevitable war. If not in the 1950s, then definitely in 1963". There is not enough nuance to that view, it is too limited, and it does not expand its view to the fact that there were options outside of an American war.
I cannot honestly believe Kennedy would take direct American military action in Vietnam. Kennedy avoided war in Berlin, Laos and Cuba. Kennedy was annoyed by the situation in Vietnam. He knew that it was a situation where the South Vietnamese government would make assurances they had everything under control, yet did not, and the Diem regime was very corrupt and alienating its own population. Kennedy was above all a pragmatist, and behind that telegenic personality, he was also a very cold, analytical historian. This is part of the reason he was slow to move on Civil Rights legislation until shortly before he was killed (when the pressure and injustice became too great to ignore). To think of Vietnam as an inevitable war is to think that Vietnam could only be dealt with by war, and also to think of Vietnam in the terms that we do now because it became a war. In reality, Vietnam was a small third world country - one of many across the world - that most Americans barely paid attention to and did not factor into the consciousness of the normal American. LBJ made it a topic by making it a war, and by making it a war America was fighting, made it a topic that could not be avoided nor controlled. Vietnam is an easy enough matter to sideline in American history; just as much as you do not particularly consider the state of, say, Angola in the 1960s. Yet in some alternate dimension, this discussion could be how Angola was an unavoidable conflict JFK would have surely gotten into had he lived.
I do not think Kennedy was set on an exact plan for dealing with Vietnam as a subject when he died. I do, however, fully believe his dealing with Vietnam would have reflected how he dealt with previous flashpoints across the world in his presidency. And that is with diplomacy and realpolitik. Factors I'll give you: There was a proposal to neutralize Vietnam as had been done with Laos. There was also a separate proposal to neutralize Cuba. Castro had been discussing rapprochment with the United States through back channels, because for his part he was a bit agitated with the Soviets. And for their part, the Soviets were a bit agitated with Castro. And Kennedy for his part is annoyed with the South Vietnamese government. The Post-Diem situation would not alter that, given what that government became anyway. It is easy to see a scenario where Vietnam and Cuba are neutralized in a sort of exchange of one neutralization for the other, with Cuba reestablishing diplomatic relations with the United States. All against a backdrop of another goal of Kennedy's, which was detente and thawing relations with the USSR (which we later saw in the 1970s).
https://tubitv.com/movies/154336/virtual_jfk
Watch that documentary.
Also, I will provide this.
https://www.jfklibrary.org/archives...eches/united-states-senate-indochina-19540406
I cannot honestly believe Kennedy would take direct American military action in Vietnam. Kennedy avoided war in Berlin, Laos and Cuba. Kennedy was annoyed by the situation in Vietnam. He knew that it was a situation where the South Vietnamese government would make assurances they had everything under control, yet did not, and the Diem regime was very corrupt and alienating its own population. Kennedy was above all a pragmatist, and behind that telegenic personality, he was also a very cold, analytical historian. This is part of the reason he was slow to move on Civil Rights legislation until shortly before he was killed (when the pressure and injustice became too great to ignore). To think of Vietnam as an inevitable war is to think that Vietnam could only be dealt with by war, and also to think of Vietnam in the terms that we do now because it became a war. In reality, Vietnam was a small third world country - one of many across the world - that most Americans barely paid attention to and did not factor into the consciousness of the normal American. LBJ made it a topic by making it a war, and by making it a war America was fighting, made it a topic that could not be avoided nor controlled. Vietnam is an easy enough matter to sideline in American history; just as much as you do not particularly consider the state of, say, Angola in the 1960s. Yet in some alternate dimension, this discussion could be how Angola was an unavoidable conflict JFK would have surely gotten into had he lived.
I do not think Kennedy was set on an exact plan for dealing with Vietnam as a subject when he died. I do, however, fully believe his dealing with Vietnam would have reflected how he dealt with previous flashpoints across the world in his presidency. And that is with diplomacy and realpolitik. Factors I'll give you: There was a proposal to neutralize Vietnam as had been done with Laos. There was also a separate proposal to neutralize Cuba. Castro had been discussing rapprochment with the United States through back channels, because for his part he was a bit agitated with the Soviets. And for their part, the Soviets were a bit agitated with Castro. And Kennedy for his part is annoyed with the South Vietnamese government. The Post-Diem situation would not alter that, given what that government became anyway. It is easy to see a scenario where Vietnam and Cuba are neutralized in a sort of exchange of one neutralization for the other, with Cuba reestablishing diplomatic relations with the United States. All against a backdrop of another goal of Kennedy's, which was detente and thawing relations with the USSR (which we later saw in the 1970s).
https://tubitv.com/movies/154336/virtual_jfk
Watch that documentary.
Also, I will provide this.
https://www.jfklibrary.org/archives...eches/united-states-senate-indochina-19540406
Last edited:
Deleted member 140587
In domestic politics, I think it's important to remember that JFK's assassination (and Watergate) kneecapped liberal dreams in America. With JFK alive and well, I think that maybe the youth would follow his call to public service and help reform the system from within rather than overthrow it. There wouldn't be any Weathermen-like terrorism. (I only hope that Kennedy can teach the bloody hippies how to dress, now THAT was a man with style!)
In terms of JFK's foreign policy, I agree that his main focus would be detente and arms reduction with the Soviet Union. We might see an earlier and more sweeping form of SALT ITTL. Also I agree that Kennedy would probably have normalized relations with Cuba. In fact, I believe Castro even told RFK Jr. that him and JFK had something in the works. As for Vietnam, I think Norton has won me over to the theory of Kennedy neutralizing Vietnam. Although this is a minor point, I will point out the fact that Kennedy was also an Anglophile and would probably be more than willing to keep the Pound afloat in exchange for Britain staying East of Suez. Britain might be in Aden for the long haul.
As for 1968, I think Nixon could probably campaign on restoring law and order to America's cities (the race riots were unavoidable and Nixon would exploit it) and on his expertise in foreign affairs. He would probably still go to China (even with a neutral Vietnam) and hopefully he'll avoid the stupid mistake of Watergate. With that in mind, maybe he'll be able to get more of his second term goals accomplished: broker peace in the Middle East, fully normalize relations with China, work with Ted Kennedy to get CHIP through Congress, and get America energy independent (Project Independence).
In terms of JFK's foreign policy, I agree that his main focus would be detente and arms reduction with the Soviet Union. We might see an earlier and more sweeping form of SALT ITTL. Also I agree that Kennedy would probably have normalized relations with Cuba. In fact, I believe Castro even told RFK Jr. that him and JFK had something in the works. As for Vietnam, I think Norton has won me over to the theory of Kennedy neutralizing Vietnam. Although this is a minor point, I will point out the fact that Kennedy was also an Anglophile and would probably be more than willing to keep the Pound afloat in exchange for Britain staying East of Suez. Britain might be in Aden for the long haul.
As for 1968, I think Nixon could probably campaign on restoring law and order to America's cities (the race riots were unavoidable and Nixon would exploit it) and on his expertise in foreign affairs. He would probably still go to China (even with a neutral Vietnam) and hopefully he'll avoid the stupid mistake of Watergate. With that in mind, maybe he'll be able to get more of his second term goals accomplished: broker peace in the Middle East, fully normalize relations with China, work with Ted Kennedy to get CHIP through Congress, and get America energy independent (Project Independence).
Last edited by a moderator:
Kennedy wins decisively in 1964 against Goldwater, but not in a landslide. There are coattails down ticket for Kennedy but they aren't as strong as Johnson's. A weaker Civil Rights bill gets passed in early 1965 but Voting Rights doesn't happen as Kennedy spends all of his capitol on the Civil Rights Act. Food Stamps and a watered down versions of Medicare and/or Medicaid happen sometime before 1967 as well.
As for Vietnam, I think there is some sort of limited intervention as I think there would be enough political pressure on Kennedy to do so as there was with Johnson. With that said, I don't see Troop numbers exceeding 200K (I'd be surprised if they even surpassed 150K). All and all, it's still a debacle and it tarnishes Kennedy's legacy as President almost as much as it did Johnson OTL or as much as Iraq did to Bush 43.
Due to this and a Civil Rights Act in TTL not going far enough as well as backlash to Civil Rights from white dixicrats and conservatives, there is still going social unrest and this to hurts the Democrats.
With weaker Kennedy coatails in 1964, the 66 midterms see the Democratic majorities get really slim, rendering Kennedy a lame duck through 67 and 68, and speaking of 68, the race is LBJ vs. Nixon or Romney, with a possible third party run from Wallace as in OTL. I think the GOP wins the election narrowly and win 1972 decisively. The senate could plausibly flip in 1970 (dems riding coattails in 1964 are still gonna be up that year) only to lose it by 1974. The House stays in Democratic hands until at least 1978 and that's only if a Democrat is still elected President in 1976, though it's more likely that the GOP wins that back later on like OTL (though probably earlier than 1994 IMHO)
As for Vietnam, I think there is some sort of limited intervention as I think there would be enough political pressure on Kennedy to do so as there was with Johnson. With that said, I don't see Troop numbers exceeding 200K (I'd be surprised if they even surpassed 150K). All and all, it's still a debacle and it tarnishes Kennedy's legacy as President almost as much as it did Johnson OTL or as much as Iraq did to Bush 43.
Due to this and a Civil Rights Act in TTL not going far enough as well as backlash to Civil Rights from white dixicrats and conservatives, there is still going social unrest and this to hurts the Democrats.
With weaker Kennedy coatails in 1964, the 66 midterms see the Democratic majorities get really slim, rendering Kennedy a lame duck through 67 and 68, and speaking of 68, the race is LBJ vs. Nixon or Romney, with a possible third party run from Wallace as in OTL. I think the GOP wins the election narrowly and win 1972 decisively. The senate could plausibly flip in 1970 (dems riding coattails in 1964 are still gonna be up that year) only to lose it by 1974. The House stays in Democratic hands until at least 1978 and that's only if a Democrat is still elected President in 1976, though it's more likely that the GOP wins that back later on like OTL (though probably earlier than 1994 IMHO)
Deleted member 140587
I agree with you 110%. Kennedy would be re-elected comfortably (more of a Clinton in 1996 than a Reagan in 1984). I think maybe the race riots in the North and West would be coupled with protests for voting rights and fair housing (Open Housing Act wouldn't pass in TTL). As for Medicare/Medicaid, I think Kennedy might be able to get Medicaid through due to it being Republican in nature. Medicare might be a bridge too far.
This I also agree with 110%. George Wallace would probably still run as in independent. As for the Democrats, I think it would be LBJ simply for lack of anyone else (Humphrey wouldn't be VP, RFK wouldn't run so shortly after a JFK presidency). If the Republican nominee is Romney, Johnson might win. If it's Nixon, then yeah, I'd chalk it to the Republicans.
In 1972, Nixon would probably face off with either McGovern, Humphrey, or Muskie. They might pick up a few Northern states but it would still be a landslide for Nixon.
I'm also going to assume there's no Watergate (with a smaller or no Vietnam, Nixon might not make that stupid mistake) so Nixon serves out his full two terms. As for 1976, there are several Democrats who could plausibly take it: Robert F. Kennedy, Ted Kennedy, Birch Bayh, Mo Udall, Scoop Jackson, George McGovern, Jimmy Carter. As for the Republicans, Reagan is really the only one I could see clinching the Presidency that year (Romney would be too old, Rockefeller would be too liberal, and Ford didn't want the Presidency).
Last edited by a moderator:
Suppose, in 1966, President JFK is so encumbered by back pain and Addison's that he spends much time in the hospital, and eventually resigns because he feels he can no longer do an adequate job. Congress proceeds to draft the 25th Amendment and it is ratified in 1967. President LBJ names Humphrey as VP and the House and Senate approve. LBJ runs and wins a full term in 1968. As we know, LBJ died in January, 1973. With the stress of the job, he might go in 1972, so Humphrey is running as an incumbent president. HHH wins in 1972 (VP?). The oil embargo and inflation prompt a GOP presidency after 1976. Reagan is out because the age factor will be emphasized as LBJ died at 64.
Not unreasonable. But I don't see how Kennedy's presence in 1964 would butterfly away the documented Gulf of Tonkin incident, which (ultimately) led to a step change in US involvement in Vietnam.
With American involvement as it was through 1963 and much of 1964, it doesn't seem unreasonable to suppose that ships like the USS Maddox would make intelligence patrols as IOTL. In turn, unless I'm overlooking something, I don't see anything to prevent a Tonkin-like incident in this situation. Assuming that happens, there is going to be a vociferous outcry to do something significant. Couple that with Kennedy's self-confidence and his known cold warrior proclivities, and I could easily see involvement in Vietnam echoing (although perhaps attenuated) what we knew.
On another topic, I like the possibility for a still-communist-but-not-Soviet-bloc Cuba: perhaps a Spanish-speaking western hemisphere rough equivalent to contemporary Yugoslavia under Tito? That has fairly significant butterflies attached.
Kennedy likely wins 1964 by dropping LBJ for being too focused on civil rights and not focused on anti-communism plus a much more aggressive vietnam policy. Instead of Gulf of Tonkin making the news, north vietnam bbeing hit by linebacker II-style bombings miht be the news.