TLIACOH: Shuffling the Deck USA Edition (with apologies to Meadow and Roem)

[Meadow]

Hate to break it to you, Americans, but I don't think anyone outside the continental US knows that Missouri and Minnesota are different things.

Well done, Thande - we can tell this is a Thande-penned work because of all the SPAAAAAAAAAAAACE, but it's interesting stuff.

Bush gets Quayle's gaffe and the Chequers speech, and looks like he'll be seen as a bit of a buffoon. Will his son be a dry, glasses-wearing pillar of competence who nevertheless fails to inspire the nation?

I second the calls for a Democratic Reagan next. I note there was a reference to the '57 special election having big consequences for Californian politics in the future - I reckon that will affect the Gipper in some way.

 

[Thande]

James E. Carter†
(Democratic)
1973-1975​

A less likely choice than James Carter would have been barely conceivable in 1968. A Southerner, at a time when the Democrats had been tearing themselves apart over the South for years and had written off vast swathes of it to either the Republicans or useless segregationist third party bids? A man in his forties, with the spectre of LBJ’s inexperience hanging over the party and a 1968 campaign aimed at attacking George Bush’s own youth? Yet if a week is a long time in politics, what does that make four years?

Carter somewhat unexpectedly became the Governor of Georgia in 1970 in a hard-fought, three-way race. As Governor the former peanut farmer and state senator presided over an economic boom, the rise of ‘new shining cities from the dark depths of the past’ and generally made the state and region known for something more than political violence. He referred to the ‘Rise of the New South’ that would, rather than being ‘an issue to appease on a party platform’, instead act as an inspirational source of leadership to the country. He captured the imagination and hope of a part of the United States that had long since given it up, and his very novelty in the eyes of a dull-eyed, cynical northern populace—which had begun to dismiss the South as America’s answer to Northern Ireland, Cyprus or Algeria—made him a popular and well-known figure long before he was seriously tipped as a presidential contender. Of course, given what came later, we should remember that there has been a somewhat understandable tendency to exaggerate the positives in how he was viewed at the time and ignore the negatives.

Despite his media presence—being perhaps the first ‘modern’ president when it came to expertly handling the media—Carter was still a dark horse when he was nominated at the Democratic Party convention. The Republicans for their part re-nominated Bush despite his difficulties. Carter ran a campaign praised for its ‘Nixonian Honesty’ in some quarters, in which in debates he publicly sympathised with Bush and stated that few men could have made a better job than the President of the situation given the deck he had been handed. “However, if you will forgive my arrogance, I believe I am among those few men”.

Given the media adulation heaped upon Carter both then and especially since, it is easy to forget that he was not the all-uniting, universally adored figure that he is often as presented as. His decision to implement a new and stricter moral censorship authority in 1974 (which ultimately drove Playboy out of business) is commonly passed over, as are the rather underhanded means by which he obtained his much-praised peace settlement in Iran. Indeed, conspiracy theories continue to circulate that General Azhari had been willing to deal with Bush’s negotiators, but this offer had been intercepted by Carter’s men and held over until after the election. Few are willing to dent their hero’s image, the man who gave America its hope and confidence back, with such thoughts.

Inevitably no mention of Carter’s presidency can go long without mentioning his assassination. It was, as Martin Luther King Jr. later noted, the ‘final period to end the last page of the Civil Rights Struggle’. Carter was genuinely popular in the South, even among those who had often backed segregation in the past, and the outrage directed at his (never identified or caught) assassin served to complete the work that he had begun in forging a New South in which all races could work towards prosperity together. It is worth remembering that many of the things attributed to Carter towards that end were merely done in his name and in his memory by men such as George Wallace. And, of course, we should spare a thought for the man whose Carter’s death placed rudely in a place which he had hoped to avoid...

 

[Kung Fucious]

Hate to break it to you, Americans, but I don't think anyone outside the continental US knows that Missouri and Minnesota are different things.

Well done, Thande - we can tell this is a Thande-penned work because of all the SPAAAAAAAAAAAACE, but it's interesting stuff.

Bush gets Quayle's gaffe and the Chequers speech, and looks like he'll be seen as a bit of a buffoon. Will his son be a dry, glasses-wearing pillar of competence who nevertheless fails to inspire the nation?

I second the calls for a Democratic Reagan next. I note there was a reference to the '57 special election having big consequences for Californian politics in the future - I reckon that will affect the Gipper in some way.

I third the calls for a Democratic Reagan, especially one who takes JFK's place as the martyred hero of American Liberalism.

*EDIT*: Damn, ninja'd!

 

[Callan]

"Nixonian Honesty"... made my day.

 

[Thande]

John F. Kennedy
(Democratic)
1975-1977​

Following the defeat of Joe Kennedy Jr. by Nixon in 1960—and more importantly the exposure of several family scandals by Nixon’s ruthless campaign—many had expected the Massachusetts political dynasty to return quietly to the shadows. And indeed that was the case in many ways: with a focus on state politics instead, the man himself becoming Governor in 1962 and remaining in the post for years to come. His younger brothers entered Congress at different times but did not distinguish themselves, with Senator John F. Kennedy in particular being primarily known for his work on defence committees in which he had worked with William Proxmire to try to shut down Bush’s ambitious space programme. “Why find out if there is life on the moon when we know there are rats in Harlem?” he expounded.

For the man in the street, though, Kennedy would always be in the shadow of his brother and barely had any recognition to himself. In Washington soirees he was often overshadowed by his glamorous second wife Norma whom he had married after the still somewhat controversial accident in which his first wife Jacqueline had met her death. Furthermore, it was an open secret in Washington—though not in the somewhat more respectful media of those days—that he suffered from Addison’s disease and accordingly kept out of the spotlight.

However, all of this would change—to some extent—at the Democratic convention of 1972. Alarmed at the populist candidacy of Carter unexpectedly winning the nomination, party bosses were at least determined to put a leash on him in the form of a stuffy establishment northern vice-presidential nominee. Kennedy had little appetite for the role but ended up as a compromise choice. In the end however he rather enjoyed his time as vice-president, glorying in the very uselessness that John Nance Garner had complained wasn’t worth a bucket of warm piss. The stories that circulate of his parties must surely be fabrications begun by his opponents later on, however.

Carter’s assassination in 1975 brought all of this to an abrupt halt. A reluctant Kennedy, unwilling to pass the role onto Secretary of State Henry M. Jackson (as the latter clearly coveted) did his best to stay in the spotlight and not show his weaknesses. Nonetheless at times he was reduced to a coma, and despite the television cameras of the 1970s, the method adopted was on the one of six decades before: if Edith Bolling Wilson had been first female president in all but name, then Norma Mortenson Kennedy was the second.

But this could only go on so long. The US government was often paralysed with indecision, and everyone began to expect that someone was up. The Soviets, now under the relatively young and vigorous Nikolai Ryzhkov, painted the US as a ‘dead hand run by a corpse’ in their propaganda, and they weren’t too far from the truth. Kennedy would die in his sleep only days after he managed to shamble his way to the podium to hand over the presidency to his successor after the election of 1976, a man who could not be more unalike...

 

[Statesman]

I just realized Clinton could be a Republucan ITTL, considering it was Nixon who was POTUS when he was in Boy Nation. Plus, no Vietnam for him to protest in college.

 

[DTanza]

Dang, poor Kennedy. So Reagan next?

 

[LancyIain]

Dang, poor Kennedy. So Reagan next?

I would think so. ITTL Kennedy is clearly going to seen as the killer of the space programme rather than its architect. I doubt Reagan will be a Democrat though. A very different president to OTL, but still Republican I expect.

As with the earlier Lord Readow timeline, it is very interesting to see the deck shuffled and the office holders perceived very differently due to the different circumstances they find themselves in.

 

[Thande]

Ron W. Reagan
(Republican)
1977-1985​

“Why should the Republican Party nominate me to be its candidate for President? Well, uh...don’t you think I have enough experience by now?” Ron Reagan wisecracked at the ’76 convention to widespread laughter, even from his opponents. It was that self-deprecating humour that allowed that attempt to be more successful than Reagan’s three previous attempts in 1964, 1968 and 1972. After his election as Republican Senator for California in 1957 (succeeding Helen Gahagan Douglas) former actor and union organiser Reagan had rapidly been seen as a maverick in the party. Whereas Nixon had used Californian cross-filing as a means to an end and dropped the idea of cross-party appeal when it suited him, Reagan embraced the idea of being all things to all men, ‘for the many, not the few’, even if the resulting policy could be rather vague and soggy as a result. 1962 was the last time Reagan faced serious Democratic opposition as Senator. The rest of the time, like Hiram Johnson before him, he was able to obtain the nomination of the Democrats as well as the Republicans (and often third parties as well). “He is California to a lot of them,” was the complaint of Ed Brown, the Democratic Governor of the state who was regarded as competent and down-to-earth but never as loved as Reagan.

In 1976 the presidency was effectively an open seat: certainly nobody expected the dying Kennedy to seek another term. Reagan faced fellow Senator Frank Church in the general election, and in an age of increased partisanship and fiery talk radio (in part a reaction to the media’s reluctance to cover Kennedy’s troubles), some were frustrated that the two men got along like old friends. A question was asked in one debate about the Kennedy Administration (if that term can be used) which viciously attacked the Democrats. Reagan frowned and said “I am not willing to comment on that. Age is a very serious matter and should not be used to attack an opponent.” He then turned to Church and added “I hope you agree, Senator,” wryly commenting on how Church was a decade younger. The quote, which could easily have backfired, is attributed by many to securing his victory—though California’s ever-increasing number of electoral votes couldn’t have hurt, either.

After increased confrontations with the Soviets (due to both Carter’s domestic focus, Kennedy’s dead hand and the rise of Ryzhkov) Reagan was noted for a return to detente, with the re-establishment of closer cooperation with Mitterand’s France and Callaghan’s Britain and frustrating Ryzhkov by soft power rather than hard. Much to the horror of many true believers in his party, Reagan also ran on the idea of increased social intervention into northern cities to reduce racial inequality: “President Carter achieved much for the South. I say, why stop there?”

Needless to say, in 1976 the Republican Party was determined to strangle any such ambitions in the cradle, and were able to force Reagan to accept an ‘awkward elder statesman’ VP in the same mould as the Democrats had tried with Kennedy for Carter (“though hopefully one who’s still alive this time”, as MAD magazine commented). This was none other than Barry Goldwater, bitter about a repeated series of failures to win the nomination no shorter than Reagan’s. The resulting Administration was notorious for the unpleasant, charged atmosphere in the White House, but this was little known outside the Beltway and in 1980 Reagan was able to run on his personal popularity—some called it a personality cult—to drop Goldwater in favour of a more amenable character, one who would also help him get his policies through a somewhat reluctant Congress. And that would, of course, be the same man who would succeed the Reagan presidency. Overall, few would have expected that a former actor would oversee an Administration that would leave him regarded as ‘the last real statesman’ by many, and despised as the Antichrist by others. For better or for worse, there are many who regard his (constitutionally questionable) intervention into the Doe vs. Daniels as having tipped the balance in favour of greater abortion rights in the United States, and there are others who regard his ‘Third Bank of the United States’ (actually a social welfare programme to fund small businesses, but named in honour of his hero Alexander Hamilton) as the point at which America began to decline. Regardless, there seems to be no-one in the United States who lacks an opinion of Ron Reagan.

 

[cpip]

Reagan can't avoid being a polarizing figure, no matter what, eh?

 

[Gorrister]

Reagen/Goldwater sounds like a fun ticket.

Also, whoever is next has to be Gerry Ford.

 

[Statesman]

Reagen/Goldwater sounds like a fun ticket.

Also, whoever is next has to be Gerry Ford.

Agreed. On both accounts. But if this is to end with a 2008-2016 Presidency, I think everyone remaining must have eight years. I think I did that math right...

85-93
93-01
01-09
09-17

Ford, Clinton, Bush, Obama
But will that be the order?

 

[Fubart Solman]

Also, whoever is next has to be Gerry Ford.

That's my guess too.

I love the little tid bits like Marilyn Monroe essentially running the country and there being a CA governor named "Ed Brown."

 

[Gorrister]

Agreed. On both accounts. But if this is to end with a 2008-2016 Presidency, I think everyone remaining must have eight years. I think I did that math right...

85-93
93-01
01-09
09-17

Ford, Clinton, Bush, Obama
But will that be the order?

That doesn't make sense, considering the premise is that the Presidents are in different orders.

Also, that really reads like one of Paul V. McNutt's lists.

 

[Thande]

Jerry Ford
(Republican)
1985-1993​

Ron Reagan had hoped that the man who succeeded him would be his second vice-president, Jerry Ford: a man of like mind if less star power with a strong congressional background who had helped get his political agenda through Congress, and would continue to pursue it in his absence, if perhaps only for one term given his age. He got his wish—in a way. For the Jerry Ford who succeeded him was, in the long run, not the same man who had been his vice-president.

Precisely what happened during the Ford Administration remains a matter for some historical debate. Exactly when ‘the change’ happened, and what form it took, remains unclear, though it seems to be some point between the 1984 midterms and the 1988 election. The popular image is that Ford suffered a stroke, was rendered nigh insensible, and became a puppet along the lines of Kennedy. However, this does not fit the facts that Ford was able to dynamically debate in the 1988 campaign despite his advanced age—yet was debating in a cause quite contrary to the one which he had helped Reagan fight for. Other psychologists then and now have suggested that it was indeed a genuine stroke, but one which radically altered Ford’s personality rather than becoming a mere puppet, and that he was a genuine member of the troika with Rumsfeld and Cheney that passed so many controversial policies in the USA. The dismantling of the social welfare system of ‘Reagantopia’ (as Cheney disparagingly called it) broke the heart of the man himself and he retired to Canada, issuing the occasional diatribe against the Administration’s policies.

The Ford Administration—if it can truly be called that—was easily the most controversial in American history, and unlike others who played fast and loose with the constitution at times (such as Lincoln and FDR) it can find few defenders. It does have the dubious honour of being perhaps the best-known administration abroad: foreigners who struggle to name Nixon or Truman (much less Kennedy or George H.W. Bush) always know the name of Jerry Ford—though their pronunciation of it may be disguised by a spitting motion. The only modern President with comparable name recognition is Carter with his star power.

While the worst excesses of what is sometimes—perhaps misleadingly—called ‘Fordism’ took place in the second term, when Cheney had become vice-president and even Barry Goldwater was beginning to condemn moves such as the privatisation of national parks, there is no doubt that there was considerable controversy in the first term. The elderly Ford—compared to Kennedy by many sketch writers, at least before the censorship clampdown—might well have been defeated by Gary W. Hartpence in 1988 had it not been for the ultimate October Surprise. On October 16th 1988, seventy-one years after its birth, Communism collapsed in Russia. Under other circumstances (likely ones which involved less prodding from Rumsfeld’s cronies at the CIA behind the scenes) this might have been peaceful, but the confused reports of atomic detonations in the Ukraine (fortunately turning out to be exaggerated) and troop movements near the Great Wall of Germany meant that scared voters stuck with who they knew. In the end, the Ford Administration gained enough kudos for its handling of the breakup of the USSR that it remained secure in its second term, even when the White House lawn was symbolically sold off for advertising space and three of America’s aircraft carriers turned into independent privately operated entities.

The Ford Administration saw considerable attacks on the Democratic Party organisation by means of state security, using brutal tactics never before seen in American politics. Indeed, the tip of the iceberg visible at the time was sufficient for all living former Presidents of both parties to condemn the Administration. The death of Richard Nixon in 1987 after issuing one such condemnation – “I didn’t need dirty tricks to beat the other fellow” – remains an open case. The rest of the world looked on in alarm. Russia had gone from a totalitarian state to a somewhat shaky democracy; now it seemed as though America was slipping the other way.

With the Democrats in such a sorry state for 1992, it would instead be by a new figure wresting the Republican nomination from Cheney that America would be saved...

 

[Gorrister]

What have they done to you Jerry?!

By the way, called it.

 

[LancyIain]

That is one dark presidency there. Who would have thought Ford had it in him? Hyper-Reaganism (AKA Fordism)! Not the brightest hour at all. So, who succeeds Ford as the Republican to save the US? Is it Clinton or is it W?

Interesting indeed.

 

[Statesman]

Oh GOD

I think even my (very) conservative parents would find this a horrible turn of events.

Leave it to Bush Jr. to be America's Savior... I'll predict a one term for Bush followed by the country being turned over to the Democrats for a long 16+ years of Clinton, Obama, and... End the TLIACOH.

 

[Thande]

George W. Bush
(Republican)
1993-1997​

In 1992 it seemed that America lay in ruins. President Ford had not been seen for months (and would never be seen again) with orders issued in his name by Cheney and Rumsfeld. It was widely believed by overseas observers that Cheney would be unopposed for the Republican nomination, and all but unopposed for the general as well. It seemed as though every plausible Democrat had met with some scandal or unfortunate accident, save for those Governors who had enough personal power in their own state and its National Guard to resist the very federal intervention that the “Ford Administration” claimed to be trying to reduce. The world despaired for a hero that would save them from the darkness. And they found one.

After his father’s defeat in 1972, George W. Bush had taken the decision to avoid politics as a career. He would only be raking up history that his father had tried to move on from. Initially with a vague ambition to be a Gemini pilot, after the decline of the US space programme Bush the younger instead pursued his dream to be a great baseball player. He also had a less celebrated interest in tennis (notably playing an amateur charity match against the British great Anthony Parsons) and it is thought to be here that he developed his remarkably erudite (but often colourful) manner of yelling at opponents. Some said he could dispense with the bat altogether and shout the ball out of the park. Bush as a Texas Rangers player and then manager was a well-known celebrity in Ford’s America, where sports were considered to be a useful source of Orwellian prolefeed to stop the populace engaging in dangerously political pastimes. This proved to be a mistake.

After his wife Columba was harrassed by the FBI for no other reason than her Mexican ancestry, Bush decided that enough was enough. Scorning the idea of pursuing some lesser office, he declared his intention to seek the Republican nomination at the convention. Rumsfeld and Cheney regarded it as a pathetic attention-seeking ploy, perhaps a decoy for a real plan by another figure, for surely one such as Bush could only be a figurehead. It was this conviction that doomed them. Too late, just enough Republican delegates decided that the nightmare had to end, and that no fate at the cabal’s hands could be worse than living through another four years of its rule. After a brief attempt to launch a coup or have Bush arrested (which backfired, as there seemed no way of gaining presidential authorisation from the vanished Ford) the cabal members fled to Chile, where Rumsfeld continues to write self-edifying memoirs to this day despite attempts at extradition by the International Criminal Court. Ford’s fate remains unknown, and with no firm knowledge to allow the line of succession to take place, the solution was simply to have him declared legally dead at the moment of transition when Bush was inaugurated (he ran effectively unopposed, with a few Democratic governors on the ballots in their home states and a lot of spoilt ballots).

Bush announced policies of national healing, declaring himself ‘a uniter, not a divider’ and did his best to cover over the damage of the “Ford” years. But when the Democrats were once again allowed openly to organise, it was obvious the writing was on the wall. They won a two-thirds majority in the House in 1994, the most crushing Democratic victory since the Depression, and it was clear that though the charismatic Bush was somewhat popular and respected (especially overseas) not even he could save the Republican brand. It was too associated with the eight years of horror committed in Ford’s name. Bush declared he would step down after one term, leaving the sacrificial lamb of Bob Dole to barely hold onto a third of the vote against the man who would return the Democrats to the White House after a record twenty years of Republican victories...

 

[Gorrister]

Wow, never thought I'd say this, but fuck yeah Dubya!