Rumsfeldia: Fear and Loathing in the Decade of Tears

Status
Not open for further replies.
As a Catholic, I can say that the defenders of Rome would be seen as schismatics, and not accepted. The vast majority of the faithful, even if they disagree with the Pope, would stay behind him.
So then what? The DoR won't accept a pinko socialist for a Pope, and his remaining will be problematic. A continued siege to try and wear the guy down into resigning? Might cause trouble if it's revealed to be a clandestine attempt by the Cardinals to gain power.

And then what? A return to conservatism? An attempt to fortify the traditional power of the Roman Catholic Church? Going a more militant route in response to a more aggressive Protestant Evangelism in the USA and Jihadist Islam in Africa and the Middle East?
 
So then what? The DoR won't accept a pinko socialist for a Pope, and his remaining will be problematic. A continued siege to try and wear the guy down into resigning? Might cause trouble if it's revealed to be a clandestine attempt by the Cardinals to gain power.

And then what? A return to conservatism? An attempt to fortify the traditional power of the Roman Catholic Church? Going a more militant route in response to a more aggressive Protestant Evangelism in the USA and Jihadist Islam in Africa and the Middle East?
The DoR don't represent the Church (nor the Faithful) and very quickly there would be overwhelming pressure to remove them from their quite heretical siege. The siege might be ground for the excommunication of the DoR members, which would make their actions null (they would be outside the Church and their actions would be deemed an attack on the Church).
The Church is made of people, and so it may err, but the most likely at this point in time, and given the effects of unrestrained neo-liberalism, would be for the Church to reinforce the importance of social and economic justice.
 
Could you possibly DM that to me? Thanks.
Luckily for you I have it right here:
Hey all, I'm a big fan of this TL and its predecessor FLaG
Because I like FLaG so much I've decided to compile all of its updates into three google docs that are 600+ pages long (I know)
WARNING: if you have all three opened at once your computer will probably crash.

Here are the update-only docs:
FLaG FLaG 2 FLaG 3

Because I'm an idiot and probably forgot some things, I'm allowing y'all to edit it because yall wont destroy something so awesome and so you can post it in. Oh and all the fonts are the ones @Drew posted with. I'll make one for Rumsfeldia if y'all complement me enough
(I posted this like 20 pages ago)
 
So then what? The DoR won't accept a pinko socialist for a Pope, and his remaining will be problematic. A continued siege to try and wear the guy down into resigning?

More like Swiss Guard and local police remove them by force, the Pope excommunicates the lot of them, and the rest of the Catholic world nods in agreement.
 
But the big issue here is that the Pope is being rather quiet about if not outright approving of a socialist heresy within the Roman Catholic realm. Cuerdans are still a major political and religious movement, and represent a rather dangerous moment in the Church's history where faith returns to political control in a big way. Yes, you have the Islamic radicals in the MidEast and the CVs in the CSA, but the Catholic Church for the most part have tried to veer away from politics after the disastrous Reformation and the horrendous Sack of Rome. Yes, some Cardinals would probably love a return to power, but their concern is that these street preachers are a) stealing the faithful away from the traditional Church structure, and the Pope is doing nothing about it, and b) worried that the Cuerdan movement is going to take the Catholic faith someplace dangerous. You also underestimate the persistence of men in power, even if they're wrong - especially if they're wrong about what they want to do.

On a tangent, it makes me wonder about the Catholic Church sexual abuse issues. Reveal of many cases of priests and nuns abusing their charges and their powers badly hurt the Church's reputation in the late 20th and early 21st century, causing a widespread backlash against the priesthood. One wonders if the whole mess with the new cracks in the Church will cause these reveals to come sooner, or if the Cardinals will work overtime to quash these stories to avoid hurting their reputation.
 
But the big issue here is that the Pope is being rather quiet about if not outright approving of a socialist heresy within the Roman Catholic realm. Cuerdans are still a major political and religious movement, and represent a rather dangerous moment in the Church's history where faith returns to political control in a big way. Yes, you have the Islamic radicals in the MidEast and the CVs in the CSA, but the Catholic Church for the most part have tried to veer away from politics after the disastrous Reformation and the horrendous Sack of Rome. Yes, some Cardinals would probably love a return to power, but their concern is that these street preachers are a) stealing the faithful away from the traditional Church structure, and the Pope is doing nothing about it, and b) worried that the Cuerdan movement is going to take the Catholic faith someplace dangerous. You also underestimate the persistence of men in power, even if they're wrong - especially if they're wrong about what they want to do.

On a tangent, it makes me wonder about the Catholic Church sexual abuse issues. Reveal of many cases of priests and nuns abusing their charges and their powers badly hurt the Church's reputation in the late 20th and early 21st century, causing a widespread backlash against the priesthood. One wonders if the whole mess with the new cracks in the Church will cause these reveals to come sooner, or if the Cardinals will work overtime to quash these stories to avoid hurting their reputation.
He's also remaining quite silent about being beseiged in the Vatican, which is not exactly winning over any liberals.
 
I thought of several interesting in-universe PODs for this TL, which could have led to many different directions for the world:

1. Birch Bayh becoming acting President in 1973.

TTL, during the 1973 election, James Eastland, James Allen, and other Republicans swallow their pride, and vote for Birch Bayh. How would 1973 have gone if Bayh had been the acting President, and how would the Constitutional Crisis have been resolved without Agnew creating an economic and international crisis?

2. McKeithen not dying in a plane crash.

Nixon through in the towel, and allowed the election of McKeithen, who then had the misfortune to die in a plane crash? What kind of President would McKeithen have been?

3. Reagan becoming President in 1976.

How does the Teflon President handle the even worse economy, the more chaotic international situation, the two party system slowly breaking down underneath him, the growing partisanship, and the painful legacy of Nixon-Agnew?

4. TTL Wallace perishing in 1978, and Katzenbach winning the Presidency.

Wallace nearly kicked the bucket in 1978, partly due to the strains of his assassination. What if the very liberal Nicholas Katzenbach had become President? How would he have handled the challenges of the late 1970s, despite having no executive level experience in his life? Would he unite the Democratic Party around him in 1980?

5. Reagan winning the Presidency in 1980

I've already discussed my take on this before, but I want to know someone else's opinion on how Reagan deals with the now fractured political system

6. McCloskey winning the Presidency in 1984.

Some people ITTL might see this as the last chance to avoid Rumsfeldia, but how would McCloskey govern as President? Would he be a Rockefeller Republican, or would he face extreme resistance from Trent Lott's GOP that would resent him as a turncoat.

7. Alexander Haig's coup succeeding against Donald Rumsfeld.

Let's say Haig manages to topple Rummy in 1986, and Jack Edwards manages to be elected President? How does Edwards go about cleaning the mess left behind by Rummy? Could he convince Republican lawmakers to be genuinely conciliatory, or would he be faced with an impossible situation like Jeremiah Denton did?

Each of these would be very juicy stories to tell. ITTL, I imagine people wondering whether any of these paths could have prevented the apocalyptic civil war.
 
7. Alexander Haig's coup succeeding against Donald Rumsfeld.

Let's say Haig manages to topple Rummy in 1986, and Jack Edwards manages to be elected President? How does Edwards go about cleaning the mess left behind by Rummy? Could he convince Republican lawmakers to be genuinely conciliatory, or would he be faced with an impossible situation like Jeremiah Denton did?
At very least, I personally doubt that being put through a military coup, even as a mean to put an end to all of Rumsfeld's own megalomania, would leave a great lasting legacy for Edwards, especially among the Republicans.
 
At very least, I personally doubt that being put through a military coup, even as a mean to put an end to all of Rumsfeld's own megalomania, would leave a great lasting legacy for Edwards, especially among the Republicans.

Yeah. As discussed, while Haig's coup was justified, it will still have set a very dangerous precedent for another future general to decide that he can also overthrow the government if he feels like it.

Of course, Haig can point out that the GOP and court system were at fault for failing to do its job and check Rummy's unhinged behavior, pushing Haig and his followers toward this dangerous step.

So even if Edwards did build a successful and honest "reconciliation" movement, and repaired America's relationship with the rest of the world, he would likely be the last Republican President.
 
2. McKeithen not dying in a plane crash.

Nixon through in the towel, and allowed the election of McKeithen, who then had the misfortune to die in a plane crash? What kind of President would McKeithen have been?

IIRC Drew said way back in FLaG that he envisioned a McKeithen Presidency ending up having a Democratic version of Watergate right as actual Watergate is at the fore front.
 
But what would've been the long term consequences of that?

Presumably an even worse distrust of the government since now both parties are revealed to be corrupt. Interestingly I think Wallace would still be able to benefit from the situation as he would be able to paint himself as an outsider that is untainted from the controversies of either party.
 
Presumably an even worse distrust of the government since now both parties are revealed to be corrupt. Interestingly I think Wallace would still be able to benefit from the situation as he would be able to paint himself as an outsider that is untainted from the controversies of either party.

But more importantly, with Agnew being yanked out of office early, would we avoid the conditions that led to the Decade of Tears, namely the crumbling of the two party system?
 
But more importantly, with Agnew being yanked out of office early, would we avoid the conditions that led to the Decade of Tears, namely the crumbling of the two party system?

The Decade of Tears is definitely gone, but I think this would seriously destroy any trust in the system beyond OTL. Lots of fracturing and people leaving the mainstream parties.
 
The Decade of Tears is definitely gone, but I think this would seriously destroy any trust in the system beyond OTL. Lots of fracturing and people leaving the mainstream parties.

So you think the combined scandals of Nixon, Agnew, and McKeithen could be like a sledgehammer to the American political system?
 
Here's another WI (inspired by @wolverinethad): Spiro Agnew picks John Connally instead of Ashbrook as his VP?

Most likely, Connally isn't considered nuts like Ashbrook, so he might be voted into office. And thus, it will be a lot easier for the rest of Congress to impeach Agnew, since a Republican

But Connally would still face the very tumultuous international situation left behind by Agnew, the even more addled economy, and the distrust engendered by both Spiro and Nixon's combined. Unless he can resolve these problems, he is facing a very rocky road to re-election come 1976.
 
A random question; will there be any attempt by the CSA forces to utilize suicide bombers? One would think that even though such tactics are infamously tied to PJO insurgents ITTL, the CV forces might consider them a useful example. While the leadership is obviously full of hot air or believe their own lies about their own importance, I can see quite a few neophyte zealots being used as living delivery systems for ordinance, especially in attempts to weaken and demoralize the "Satanists". Think about it; a poorly-trained, unskilled soldier who can barely use a gun can instead be trained to go to a spot and pull a wire/trigger, and take out way more people than he might by spraying his rifle about.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top