A Kennedy Dynasty and the Counterculture of the 60's/70's

[Geon]

Here is an interesting idea I had this morning.

Assume the following scenario.

1. In 1963 John F. Kennedy has a successful campaign swing through Dallas. There is no assassination attempt.
2. Kennedy handily wins reelection in 1964.
3. Kennedy orders a draw down of U.S. troops in Vietnam. He continues to supply the South Vietnamese with military hardware and humanitarian aid.
4. Kennedy, not Johnson, proposes and signs the Civil Rights Act.
5. In 1968 RFK runs for president. Again, there is no assassination attempt in Los Angeles. We have Kennedy vs. Nixon part II.
6. RFK serves two successful terms as president. By successful I mean no scandals and he gets most of what he wants from Congress.

The counterculture of the 60's and 70's had one of its basis being the War on Vietnam. True that was not the only thing that contributed to it but it became one of the main reasons for it. Now, assuming the war doesn't happen and with a Kennedy dynasty governing until the mid 70's how are things in the counterculture different?

Note-I don't include Edward Kennedy in the mix because I honestly don't know what the political situation would be in 1976 without a recession brought on by the war and without a Watergate scandal.

 

[Aisha Clan-Clan]

Probably actively repressing the counterculture instead of OTL's mostly ignoring it.

 

[Geon]

Probably actively repressing the counterculture instead of OTL's mostly ignoring it.

As far as repressing it or ignoring it I don't think either is an accurate summation. Consider, whatever side of the political fence you are on a number of issues that are today part of the mainstream emerged in the 60's and fermented and grew in the 70's; movements such as the civil rights, women's rights, and gay rights all can trace their lineage back to the 60's. Also I will add this note, without Watergate, unless their is a major scandal in the Presidency you do not have the growing distrust of government that you had among young people during the late 60's and early 70's.

 

[joho6411]

Once had the pleasure or working/knowing a gentleman who was involved in the anti-war movement/hippie fringe/Left-wing and I had asked him if there had been no draft/no US involvement in Vietnam, what would they have protested and or agitated against. After about 5 seconds of thought, he replied with one definite answer. "Corporatism". In his opinion and recollection, that the growth of corporate power structure was something that many in his peer group had studied and thought negatively about in the years between 1961-64. He graduated from college in 1960 so was a young adult before the Vietnam situation came about. He stated that many of his like-minded colleagues were in support of the "little-guy", the mom & pop businesses and against the big corporations and what would eventually grow into huge commercial franchises ie., McDonalds vs. the local hamburger stand, large grocery chains vs. the local corner market, small down towns vs. the construction of suburban shopping malls etc.

Cheers, joho

 

[Geon]

Once had the pleasure or working/knowing a gentleman who was involved in the anti-war movement/hippie fringe/Left-wing and I had asked him if there had been no draft/no US involvement in Vietnam, what would they have protested and or agitated against. After about 5 seconds of thought, he replied with one definite answer. "Corporatism". In his opinion and recollection, that the growth of corporate power structure was something that many in his peer group had studied and thought negatively about in the years between 1961-64. He graduated from college in 1960 so was a young adult before the Vietnam situation came about. He stated that many of his like-minded colleagues were in support of the "little-guy", the mom & pop businesses and against the big corporations and what would eventually grow into huge commercial franchises ie., McDonalds vs. the local hamburger stand, large grocery chains vs. the local corner market, small down towns vs. the construction of suburban shopping malls etc.

Cheers, joho

I'm not certain how well corporatism will "play in Peoria" as they used to say. It was one thing to have nightly news of the casualties in Vietnam be brought to us in our living room with a press that at times was clearly on the side of the anti-war demonstrators. It was one thing to still have the draft in place and the drama of seeing students burn their draft cards. But as far as capitalism this was the 60's and capitalism and the idea that someone could take a small "mom and pop" business (like MacDonalds) and turn it into a worldwide franchise appealed to the idea behind the American dream. "Down with corporatism" in the period following the 50's I just don't think would ring a bell with most young people. Especially with many who while they might have protested Vietnam and attended Woodstock would have very much wanted to become part of the American dream at the time.

 

[Nazi Space Spy]

I'm not certain how well corporatism will "play in Peoria" as they used to say. It was one thing to have nightly news of the casualties in Vietnam be brought to us in our living room with a press that at times was clearly on the side of the anti-war demonstrators. It was one thing to still have the draft in place and the drama of seeing students burn their draft cards. But as far as capitalism this was the 60's and capitalism and the idea that someone could take a small "mom and pop" business (like MacDonalds) and turn it into a worldwide franchise appealed to the idea behind the American dream. "Down with corporatism" in the period following the 50's I just don't think would ring a bell with most young people. Especially with many who while they might have protested Vietnam and attended Woodstock would have very much wanted to become part of the American dream at the time.

More emphasis on Civil Rights than in OTL perhaps?

 

[Geon]

More emphasis on Civil Rights than in OTL perhaps?

That's a distinct possibility. Note what I said above that many of the issues we are still struggling with today had their genesis in the 60's civil rights movement.

 

[Deleted member 140587]

There are a few schools of thought and tons of nuance within them on how Kennedy's survival would effect the counterculture. Here are, essentially, the main three :
- JFK not getting shot leads to a continuation of the Fifties-early Sixties cultural era and butterflies away the Hippies and all the nonsense that came with them. Fallout-ish.
- JFK's survival at Dallas doesn't avert the rise of the Hippies but it does mollify their anger and calls for revolution that we saw in the late Sixties and early Seventies. We still see flower children but we don't see Yippies and all of the revolution nonsense.
- Similar progression to OTL. Vietnam can't be avoided, Kennedy gives into his advisors and sends in troops to prop up S. Vietnam (he wouldn't go to the extent Johnson did but I'd estimate there'd be around 180,000 U.S. troops in Vietnam by the end of Jack's term). Even within the "Vietnam Will Happen" group there is nuance. People could argue that a smaller war wouldn't upset the Hippies that much (smaller war, less draft call ups), to others it would still be a debacle and we'd hear calls of "Hey Hey JFK, how many boys did you kill today?" JFK leaves office an ambitious domestic policy president but is remembered for blundering into Vietnam. If you take the view that Vietnam could be avoided, you could also make arguments that radical Hippy-ism would come to prominence through other means: the Civil Rights struggles and race riots that happened and which were frankly unavoidable even if JFK got the CRA through. (There are also a lot of variables in this: Does MLK still get shot? Does JFK pass the VRA, the 1968 CRA, the INA of 1966? )

Personally, I think there'd be some mix of the three. Societal changes were bound to happen in the Sixties. Just one look at the celebrities of the era shows you the aura of youth that embodied the decade. The pill had made sex much more easier to obtain for the youth and Elvis and the Beatles had radically changed the musical scene. That said, I think if Kennedy lived, l don't think the Hippies would've had the ammo to start radically changing society as much as they did in OTL. There'd be less of a "peace and love" vibe to music and movies of the decade and dress, while it would evolve, would be closer to that of the early Sixties and Fifties then that of the late Sixties and Seventies. I think it would evolve to something like the Teddy Girls in England, guys in suits and ties and girls in miniskirts. The drug culture of the Sixties would also probably be different. More of a focus on amphetamines than shrooms and weed which gets rid of psychedelia. So the Sexual Revolution would happen and there would be drugs and there would be rock but the attitude of the youth would be less of a revolt against the system and more of a reform of the system from the inside.

Also in terms of politics, I doubt Bobby would be the candidate in 1968. It just reeks of nepotism and I think many Dems would Bobby to run for some elected office before he ran for the highest one in the land. I'm not saying Bobby wouldn't become President in a JFK Lives TL, it's highly plausible he does. Just not in 1968. 1976? 1980? Definitely probable.

For 1968, I'd say Richard Nixon still becomes President. If there's a Vietnam, Nixon makes an Eisenhower-like statement about "going to Vietnam" and ending the war with honour for the United States. If there's no Vietnam, Nixon can still ride the resentment of Southern whites and promise law and order due to the race riots of the Sixties. LBJ is also a strong contender for the Presidency, probably my #2 pick. I could also see him promising to: "win the war against communism abroad and win the war against poverty at home." However, he won't be serving two terms. It'd be 1969-1973 and then he'd be out.

 

[Geon]

There are a few schools of thought and tons of nuance within them on how Kennedy's survival would effect the counterculture. Here are, essentially, the main three :
- JFK not getting shot leads to a continuation of the Fifties-early Sixties cultural era and butterflies away the Hippies and all the nonsense that came with them. Fallout-ish.
- JFK's survival at Dallas doesn't avert the rise of the Hippies but it does mollify their anger and calls for revolution that we saw in the late Sixties and early Seventies. We still see flower children but we don't see Yippies and all of the revolution nonsense.
- Similar progression to OTL. Vietnam can't be avoided, Kennedy gives into his advisors and sends in troops to prop up S. Vietnam (he wouldn't go to the extent Johnson did but I'd estimate there'd be around 180,000 U.S. troops in Vietnam by the end of Jack's term). Even within the "Vietnam Will Happen" group there is nuance. People could argue that a smaller war wouldn't upset the Hippies that much (smaller war, less draft call ups), to others it would still be a debacle and we'd hear calls of "Hey Hey JFK, how many boys did you kill today?" JFK leaves office an ambitious domestic policy president but is remembered for blundering into Vietnam. If you take the view that Vietnam could be avoided, you could also make arguments that radical Hippy-ism would come to prominence through other means: the Civil Rights struggles and race riots that happened and which were frankly unavoidable even if JFK got the CRA through. (There are also a lot of variables in this: Does MLK still get shot? Does JFK pass the VRA, the 1968 CRA, the INA of 1966? )

Personally, I think there'd be some mix of the three. Societal changes were bound to happen in the Sixties. Just one look at the celebrities of the era shows you the aura of youth that embodied the decade. The pill had made sex much more easier to obtain for the youth and Elvis and the Beatles had radically changed the musical scene. That said, I think if Kennedy lived, l don't think the Hippies would've had the ammo to start radically changing society as much as they did in OTL. There'd be less of a "peace and love" vibe to music and movies of the decade and dress, while it would evolve, would be closer to that of the early Sixties and Fifties then that of the late Sixties and Seventies. I think it would evolve to something like the Teddy Girls in England, guys in suits and ties and girls in miniskirts. The drug culture of the Sixties would also probably be different. More of a focus on amphetamines than shrooms and weed which gets rid of psychedelia. So the Sexual Revolution would happen and there would be drugs and there would be rock but the attitude of the youth would be less of a revolt against the system and more of a reform of the system from the inside.

Also in terms of politics, I doubt Bobby would be the candidate in 1968. It just reeks of nepotism and I think many Dems would Bobby to run for some elected office before he ran for the highest one in the land. I'm not saying Bobby wouldn't become President in a JFK Lives TL, it's highly plausible he does. Just not in 1968. 1976? 1980? Definitely probable.

For 1968, I'd say Richard Nixon still becomes President. If there's a Vietnam, Nixon makes an Eisenhower-like statement about "going to Vietnam" and ending the war with honour for the United States. If there's no Vietnam, Nixon can still ride the resentment of Southern whites and promise law and order due to the race riots of the Sixties. LBJ is also a strong contender for the Presidency, probably my #2 pick. I could also see him promising to: "win the war against communism abroad and win the war against poverty at home." However, he won't be serving two terms. It'd be 1969-1973 and then he'd be out.

Having grown up in the fifties and early sixties I would personally hope for option #1 a continuation of the fifties with no real counterculture.

Realistically? I believe it would be a blend of the three options you mention. The music was a major factor. Although...one historian in an article published in the American Heritage magazine some years ago stated that the reason music like the Beatles had such an impact was that young Americans were still mourning the death of their president. As the author put it: "when we went to bed on New Year's Night on January 1, 1964 we were still firmly in the fifties, when we woke up on New Year's Day 1965 we were solidly in the 60's. The death of Kennedy made a BIG difference as far as the young people were concerned. This is just a suspicion but I think we would see music styles less adventurous and clinging to the old "bubble gum" formula and Doo-wop for the future.

As to RFK not winning in 1968. I wonder...consider, that you would have the younger brother of a popular charismatic president running for president. There is no Vietnam to burden his administration. He has successfully fought for several pieces of important civil rights legislation. Let's add to the exercise that MLK, Jr. does not die in Memphis in 1968. There are still incidents of racial violence but nothing like the summer of '68. Comparing an old warhorse like Nixon and the young buck Kennedy, I can't help but think Kennedy could actually pull it off. The counterculture might decide to "stick it" to the establishment as they would see RFK, rightly or wrongly as the young outsider come to clean up Washington.

 

[overoceans]

I'm not certain how well corporatism will "play in Peoria" as they used to say. It was one thing to have nightly news of the casualties in Vietnam be brought to us in our living room with a press that at times was clearly on the side of the anti-war demonstrators. It was one thing to still have the draft in place and the drama of seeing students burn their draft cards. But as far as capitalism this was the 60's and capitalism and the idea that someone could take a small "mom and pop" business (like MacDonalds) and turn it into a worldwide franchise appealed to the idea behind the American dream. "Down with corporatism" in the period following the 50's I just don't think would ring a bell with most young people. Especially with many who while they might have protested Vietnam and attended Woodstock would have very much wanted to become part of the American dream at the time.

Yeah, opinions vary, but I would say that the anti-globalization movement of the late 90s, which largely targeted corporatism, never really got much of a mass followng. Because most people would just think "Okay, so you don't like seeing Starbucks and McDonalds everywhere, but how does that justify smashing windows? Just stop going to those places!"

So I wouldn't see an even earlier anti-corpoatist movement having more success. You'd need to focus on something more tangible, like a particular corporation is making chemical weapons, or trashing the environment etc.

 

[Geon]

Yeah, opinions vary, but I would say that the anti-globalization movement of the late 90s, which largely targeted corporatism, never really got much of a mass followng. Because most people would just think "Okay, so you don't like seeing Starbucks and McDonalds everywhere, but how does that justify smashing windows? Just stop going to those places!"

So I wouldn't see an even earlier anti-corpoatist movement having more success. You'd need to focus on something more tangible, like a particular corporation is making chemical weapons, or trashing the environment etc.

An earlier environmental movement is a possibility for the counter culture. It really didn't catch on until the 70's but, it is possible that some might decide to protest air and water pollution. Again, however, that doesn't really attract all that many followers at this point. Showing dead seagulls washed up on shore from pollution is not as jarring as watching coffins arrive back from Vietnam to restate an earlier point. You'd get a small cadre of environmentalists but not the large numbers of the hippies in the late 60's and early 70's. And I agree that any anti-corporatist movement at this point would tread very lightly for fear of being labelled communist/socialist.

 

[Deleted member 140587]

Having grown up in the fifties and early sixties I would personally hope for option #1 a continuation of the fifties with no real counterculture.

Realistically? I believe it would be a blend of the three options you mention. The music was a major factor. Although...one historian in an article published in the American Heritage magazine some years ago stated that the reason music like the Beatles had such an impact was that young Americans were still mourning the death of their president. As the author put it: "when we went to bed on New Year's Night on January 1, 1964 we were still firmly in the fifties, when we woke up on New Year's Day 1965 we were solidly in the 60's. The death of Kennedy made a BIG difference as far as the young people were concerned. This is just a suspicion but I think we would see music styles less adventurous and clinging to the old "bubble gum" formula and Doo-wop for the future.

As to RFK not winning in 1968. I wonder...consider, that you would have the younger brother of a popular charismatic president running for president. There is no Vietnam to burden his administration. He has successfully fought for several pieces of important civil rights legislation. Let's add to the exercise that MLK, Jr. does not die in Memphis in 1968. There are still incidents of racial violence but nothing like the summer of '68. Comparing an old warhorse like Nixon and the young buck Kennedy, I can't help but think Kennedy could actually pull it off. The counterculture might decide to "stick it" to the establishment as they would see RFK, rightly or wrongly as the young outsider come to clean up Washington.

I agree with you for the most part.

On music I agree, it might be a little less adventurous. The female singers of the early Sixties (Leslie Gore, Connie Francis, i.e.) might hold on to their places in the boards for a little longer. That said, I don't think the rise of British Invasion is entirely attributable JFK's death. America was not a musical wasteland in the early 60s by any means but the youth wanted something new to listen to, and singers from Liverpool and Manchester were able to give it to them.

As for 1968, Bobby would be well positioned to get the Presidency (I believe JFK had plans to make him SecDef with SecState as a fallback), he's still young and he has the Kennedy charm, wit, and money and with a successful JFK Administration (let's just say JFK and Brezhnev neutralize Vietnam and Cuba tit-for-tat and so America doesn't have to go through a decade of an ego-bruising war in Southeast Asia), it's definitely plausible that Secretary of State RFK is the Democratic nominee and he goes on to win in the general over Dick Nixon, youth dislike of the old Californian paving the way to a Kennedy II White House. However, I wouldn't write Nixon off too soon. JFK was not universally popular (my grandfather never forgave him for investigating Jimmy Hoffa) and I could see Nixon riding southern resentment over forced desegregation and older White voters scared of repeats of the Watts and Newark riots into the White House. That said, regardless of who wins I can say the following: firstly, it would be a helluva matchup and secondly, whoever wins is going to have a turbulent eight years (Vietnam may mean the economy is in better shape but the Oil Crisis was still gonna happen and the economy would probably still slow down in the Seventies. That said no Vietnam also means NASA is affordable to we might see a permanent manned Moon Base by the end of the Century.)

 

[Geon]

I agree with you for the most part.

On music I agree, it might be a little less adventurous. The female singers of the early Sixties (Leslie Gore, Connie Francis, i.e.) might hold on to their places in the boards for a little longer. That said, I don't think the rise of British Invasion is entirely attributable JFK's death. America was not a musical wasteland in the early 60s by any means but the youth wanted something new to listen to, and singers from Liverpool and Manchester were able to give it to them.

As for 1968, Bobby would be well positioned to get the Presidency (I believe JFK had plans to make him SecDef with SecState as a fallback), he's still young and he has the Kennedy charm, wit, and money and with a successful JFK Administration (let's just say JFK and Brezhnev neutralize Vietnam and Cuba tit-for-tat and so America doesn't have to go through a decade of an ego-bruising war in Southeast Asia), it's definitely plausible that Secretary of State RFK is the Democratic nominee and he goes on to win in the general over Dick Nixon, youth dislike of the old Californian paving the way to a Kennedy II White House. However, I wouldn't write Nixon off too soon. JFK was not universally popular (my grandfather never forgave him for investigating Jimmy Hoffa) and I could see Nixon riding southern resentment over forced desegregation and older White voters scared of repeats of the Watts and Newark riots into the White House. That said, regardless of who wins I can say the following: firstly, it would be a helluva matchup and secondly, whoever wins is going to have a turbulent eight years (Vietnam may mean the economy is in better shape but the Oil Crisis was still gonna happen and the economy would probably still slow down in the Seventies. That said no Vietnam also means NASA is affordable to we might see a permanent manned Moon Base by the end of the Century.)

First, because for some reason my computer won't let me like a post let me say I very much like your point of view.

As you pointed out the British Invasion probably still occurs but it is much milder. What I mean by that is that likely you have tastes running more toward groups like Herman's Hermits and Chad and Jeremy and less toward the Rolling Stones. The Beatles would likely fall somewhere in the middle with the same amount of total insanity....errr....I mean enthusiasm shown by young people.

There's no question Nixon vs. Kennedy part II would be a major election slug fest. If MLK, Jr. is still alive it is likely he rallies the African-American vote, so it becomes the matter of the Black vote versus the Union vote. There may even be some pre-election day clashes in heavily union controlled precincts between the two factions that could prove bloody. That could ironically become another flashpoint for the counterculture - big unions.

As to the economy, remember you have thousands of young Americans in the work force whom otherwise would have died in Vietnam. That might alleviate the economic slowdown. And no Vietnam also helps here.

One other thought. The hippies and yippies of the 60's and early 70's later become the yuppies of the 70's and 80's. But, they are not as radical. It's very possible you have a fifty-ish type of culture pervading through the 80's.

 

[C. McKay]

This is a very interesting thread, Geon. Thanks for starting it.

I'd like to put in my two cents worth about music, style, and mindsets. Demographics will surely have an impact on music. One of the factors in the Beatles' incredible popularity was the Baby Boom. It wasn't the only factor, but if their audience had been smaller, their impact would have been smaller. Conversely, any group beloved by the Boomers would have been consequential. If there is no Vietnam to protest, I think we might see an emphasis on more "authentic" music: initially folk but also country or blues. Jazz won't be popular, and people, especially guys, will look down on pop. While the girls listen to Leslie Gore, Dusty Springfield, and Motown, the guys will be listening to Dylan, the Paul Butterfield Blues Band (an interracial group from Chicago), and Johnny Cash. Not sure where the Beatles will fit in among this. The Stones might still have a place. Ironically, the youth movement might be more about style than substance even though they desire "authentic" music. Perhaps the 80s will be the time for the jazz revival.

OK, as for mindset, the absence of Vietnam will certainly help the economy, the absence of Watergate will maintain our trust in government, and the absence of assassinations will make people less fatalistic. But there will have to be some kind of obstacle...whether it is an oil shock, a war in another country, or pushback against civil rights. The latter could be interesting, especially if country and blues are popular.

 

[Geon]

Thanks for joining in @C McKay!

Again, you make some good points. However as to Dylan, I suspect he will have a niche. But without the war and the hippie counterculture I suspect his impact will be more long term, possibly less appreciated by most. Consider such songs as "The Times They Are A-Changin'" won't be written or will be written with different lyrics.

There may well be a push-back in the South, particularly the Deep South. Given that the civil rights legislation will be seen to be coming out of a predominately "yankee" dominated presidency you may well have an explosion of country music. Some of it would be written lamenting a seemingly vanishing way of life. Conversely you would have another group out of Motown and elsewhere singing of the "new day" that is dawning.

As to what could be an obstacle here, what do the rest of you think? We would not have the onus of the Vietnam War facing us. And both JFK and more so RFK were considered very anti-communist. You might actually have the counterculture speaking/singing out against such things as the Prague Spring.

 

[C. McKay]

you're very welcome, Geon. yes, Dylan's songs will probably be more satirical or narrative. 'Subterranean Homesick Blues" is just crazy. "The Lonesome Death of Hattie Carroll" will still be relevant. Phil Ochs is probably the one who'll be out of luck whereas John Prine will be more the direction of authentic country/folk.

I'm looking forward to seeing what everyone has to say!

 

[Workable Goblin]

That said no Vietnam also means NASA is affordable to we might see a permanent manned Moon Base by the end of the Century.

Doubtful. The forces pushing NASA away from the expansive dreams of Paine et. al. were there even without Vietnam sucking up blood and treasure. Fundamentally the issue was that the United States decided to send people to the Moon because the Soviet Union was outmatching us; once Neil and Buzz walked around, that was done with, and there was no compelling reason, from the Congressional point of view, to keep sending people to the Moon indefinitely when they could slash the budget and spend it on more bread-and-butter (or guns-and-missiles) projects at home. They won't shut down NASA, of course, and they'll surely find some kind of program that promises to keep human spaceflight alive (like a Shuttle to make spaceflight cheaper...), but the chances of setting up a moonbase are pretty low unless the Soviets are doing way better than likely or astronauts find a crashed alien spaceship on the Moon or the like.

In fact, if JFK isn't shot it's entirely possible that the United States never sends astronauts to the Moon. JFK was never a big enthusiast for the space program, and was actively looking at ways to get out of actually doing the moon mission in the months leading up to his assassination. The favored plan of his was to try to get the United States into a joint mission with the Soviet Union, which was unpopular in Congress and with the Soviets, too, but that could have changed over the course of the decade. Even if such a proposal never amounts to anything, he might scale back ambitions as intelligence reveals that the Soviets are not really competing successfully with the United States--setting the "victory" at sending the first astronauts around the Moon, for instance, ergo not needing the lunar module or any missions past Apollo 8. To a great extent, the fact that they were doing it for Kennedy helped set in stone the lunar landing goal. If Kennedy isn't martyred, practically, things will be more flexible.

 

[Geon]

Kennedy's original enthusiasm for the space program may have been as a way to show up the Russians. However, according to the 5 remaining Mercury astronauts in the 90's documentary Moonshot, Kennedy quickly became quite a fan of the space program. And these men don't strike me as the kind to accept any bull that is slung their way.

I believe the Apollo project would have pretty much occurred as it did in our timeline. RFK struck me as being equally enthusiastic about the space program at least. With a workable team in place I think we might not have seen a permanent lunar base but maybe a permanent space station more like unto what we have now. It would have been harder to push the benefits of a lunar base at the time but a permanent space station would have all sorts of advantages in several different areas for all concerned.

In fact, that might be another point where the counter culture would be changed. Perhaps looking for a cause and without an expensive war, maybe some of the hippies become "space cadets" (okay maybe a bad bit of slang but still..) agitating for the U.S. to truly reach for the stars in order to save humanity. Individuals like Arthur C. Clarke and Gene Rodenberry might just become the gurus of this movement. Thoughts?

 

[Workable Goblin]

Kennedy's original enthusiasm for the space program may have been as a way to show up the Russians. However, according to the 5 remaining Mercury astronauts in the 90's documentary Moonshot, Kennedy quickly became quite a fan of the space program. And these men don't strike me as the kind to accept any bull that is slung their way.

With all due respect to the Mercury 7, you could say that about a lot of the Presidents, most of whom were not noted (political) supporters of the space program. Nixon in particular is said to have really liked being around astronauts. But as far as space was concerned, his Presidency was an outright massacre. The documentary evidence shows a man who was greatly ambivalent about the Apollo program, and thought it was at best a secondary concern that he had been forced into by the Soviets.

I believe the Apollo project would have pretty much occurred as it did in our timeline.

Most likely something more or less comparable to the Apollo program happens, yes (the details may greatly differ, however; JFK in office may mean less "go fever" in '66 and so an avoidance of the Apollo 1 fire, or it may lead by-and-by to Apollo missions being canceled after 11 and 12 prove the point, or so on and so forth). What I was drawing attention to was the fact that it is plausible that the Apollo program gets entirely derailed by détente kicking in and JFK making some kind of agreement on a joint mission with Brezhnev, say, or redefining the goal he set to just be about flying around the Moon, or similar scenarios.

With a workable team in place I think we might not have seen a permanent lunar base but maybe a permanent space station more like unto what we have now. It would have been harder to push the benefits of a lunar base at the time but a permanent space station would have all sorts of advantages in several different areas for all concerned.

A space station program was a plausible path forward for NASA after the Apollo program, yes (you might have noticed I helped write a little thing about what such a program might look like). However, it wasn't the most likely program. See, the thing is that a lot of folks in NASA, by 1968 or so, really wanted a space shuttle. Like really really wanted a space shuttle. They figured that if they could get that into place then costs would drop a lot and they could get the space station and the moonbase and even a Mars mission down the line. Conversely, on Capitol Hill and in the White House folks were amenable to this argument because they wanted to cut costs a lot. They didn't want to give up the human program entirely, of course, but they definitely did not want to keep spending huge sums of money--and they were huge, at the time--on sending people into space. Plus NASA argued that cutting costs so much would spur lots of private interest and would help save money all across the government, like with launching Department of Defense satellites. So here they had a program that would cost a reasonable amount of money, promised to save money in the future, and didn't commit them to indefinite high expenditures the way a moonbase or Mars program would.

The space station, by contrast, had a number of issues. First of all, it was a little more explicitly aligned with NASA's eternal ambition to go past LEO, which wasn't popular on the Hill. No one wanted to do that. Second, it just wasn't as...promising. Sure, you could do research there, have some diplomatic benefits, and so on and so forth, but the Space Shuttle offered to cut costs dramatically and create entire new industries. That's way more enticing. Third, it didn't offer much new to people. That is, new contracts that could be used for electoral advantage. Sure, there were the contracts for the station itself, but any realistic station program would mostly be launched on existing rockets using existing capsules. At most you might swing McDonnell Douglas to having a Big Gemini contract or perhaps a new minishuttle. Small potatoes, really.

So the upshot is that you're just a lot more likely to get a space shuttle than a space station, even if you get the right people in place who realize that the fun times are over and they need to be thinking austerity and rational planning now, not dreaming of a red desert. This doesn't necessarily have to be our space shuttle--there were still lots of ways to fiddle with that--but it's going to be a space shuttle of some kind, probably.

 

[Thomas Jefferson]

There are a few schools of thought and tons of nuance within them on how Kennedy's survival would effect the counterculture. Here are, essentially, the main three :
- JFK not getting shot leads to a continuation of the Fifties-early Sixties cultural era and butterflies away the Hippies and all the nonsense that came with them. Fallout-ish.
- JFK's survival at Dallas doesn't avert the rise of the Hippies but it does mollify their anger and calls for revolution that we saw in the late Sixties and early Seventies. We still see flower children but we don't see Yippies and all of the revolution nonsense.

- Similar progression to OTL. Vietnam can't be avoided, Kennedy gives into his advisors and sends in troops to prop up S. Vietnam (he wouldn't go to the extent Johnson did but I'd estimate there'd be around 180,000 U.S. troops in Vietnam by the end of Jack's term). Even within the "Vietnam Will Happen" group there is nuance. People could argue that a smaller war wouldn't upset the Hippies that much (smaller war, less draft call ups), to others it would still be a debacle and we'd hear calls of "Hey Hey JFK, how many boys did you kill today?" JFK leaves office an ambitious domestic policy president but is remembered for blundering into Vietnam. If you take the view that Vietnam could be avoided, you could also make arguments that radical Hippy-ism would come to prominence through other means: the Civil Rights struggles and race riots that happened and which were frankly unavoidable even if JFK got the CRA through. (There are also a lot of variables in this: Does MLK still get shot? Does JFK pass the VRA, the 1968 CRA, the INA of 1966? )

Personally, I think there'd be some mix of the three. Societal changes were bound to happen in the Sixties. Just one look at the celebrities of the era shows you the aura of youth that embodied the decade. The pill had made sex much more easier to obtain for the youth and Elvis and the Beatles had radically changed the musical scene. That said, I think if Kennedy lived, l don't think the Hippies would've had the ammo to start radically changing society as much as they did in OTL. There'd be less of a "peace and love" vibe to music and movies of the decade and dress, while it would evolve, would be closer to that of the early Sixties and Fifties then that of the late Sixties and Seventies. I think it would evolve to something like the Teddy Girls in England, guys in suits and ties and girls in miniskirts. The drug culture of the Sixties would also probably be different. More of a focus on amphetamines than shrooms and weed which gets rid of psychedelia. So the Sexual Revolution would happen and there would be drugs and there would be rock but the attitude of the youth would be less of a revolt against the system and more of a reform of the system from the inside.

I think scenario two is most likely. Assuming Vietnam is butterflied away or continues as a low-grade conflict, the average American teenager-young adult of the late 1960s doesn't have a personal reason to embrace radical politics, but you're still going to see a youth culture fueled by The Pill and a strong economy (which could last well into the 1970s without Vietnam's pressure on budgets) combined with anxieties about the threat of nuclear war and the anomie of urban/suburban living. This movement would probably be much less attracted to radical/Communist-affiliated politics than OTL. Although you'd still see more liberal attitudes towards sex and drug use, it would probably be less overt than IOTL (i.e., acceptance of casual sex in dating relationships and marijuana at parties rather than interviews with Time magazine about free love and acid), so the backlash would have been much less severe. Most politicians could probably safely ignore youth culture as a series of silly fads and focus on economics and foreign policy, and politics overall would have remained pretty sedate compared to OTL.

To the extent this youth culture is political, it's probably going to focus on Civil Rights issues, and later, environmentalism. This would actually make the youth movement a good match for Bobby Kennedy, although he's unlikely to run in 1968. Lyndon Johnson would be the 'natural' candidate as the incumbent Vice President, but his health problems and the potential for corruption scandals to emerge in 1963-1964 create alot of potential to play around with alternatives.