Bobby Kennedy Lives!!!! What about Teddy?

[GreatScottMarty]

There you have it. RFK is either not assinated or Sirhan Sirhan misses. Booby goes on to 8 successful years as POTUS. We leave Vietnam, Cats and Dogs live together, Pigs fly, my Vikings win the Superbowl . The Point of this thread is to discuss Ted. As RB likes to point RFK was DLC before DLC existed; while that is debatable; we seem to agree that EMK was pretty New Deal. So what does he do? Were his New Deal policies a reaction to the failure of his brothers?

So if RFK goes towards the Center and EMK goes towards the middle what happens? Is there a family rift? What is EMK's future career? Does he stay off the booze and women (or at least it stays quieter)? What about RFK? What does he do in retirement? Do we see President Edward Moore Kennedy?

 

[DSS]

He would most definitely stay a supporter of his brother's presidency, and may even drift to the center. If this happens, this may give him even more of a chance at winning the presidency. Let's say that, in 1976, Reagan is elected president, and RFK's successor; EMK, under the advice of his brother, would not run against the popular incumbent in 1980, but would probably wait until 1984. Then, he has a chance at winning the Democratic nomination and possibly defeating the Republicans, who will probably nominate Reagan's vice president. Still, if Reagan is popular enough, his VP would have a good chance at winning, so really, this hypothetical 1984 is a tossup (keep in mind that EMK would likely drift more to the center, making him more electable). If he wins, it really depends on what happens in his first term to see whether he would be re-elected in '88 or not. If he loses, he may just stick with being in the Senate, though he may become Senate Majority Leader at some point.

RB's timeline Flight of Fate actually has EMK elected POTUS in 1988, though he dies eleven months into his presidency of alcohol poisoning. I'm guessing that, because his brother did not die ITTL, this would most likely not happen.

Also, as far as Chappaquiddick is concerned: Either it doesn't happen, or if it still does, President Robert Kennedy would probably cover it up, like in FoF.

 

[RogueBeaver]

One thing you must understand about the Kennedy brothers: they often played complementary roles. Jack as good cop, Bobby as Ruthless Bobby (itself a myth), Ted as the happy-go-lucky one. Ted could conceivably become Majority Leader in his brother's administration. RFK, unlike his Dynasticrat successor Hillary, never wanted to become a Senate insider because his personality was totally at odds with that of a Senate Club member. Ted was significantly to his brother's left on Vietnam (RFK was much closer to Nixon than McGovern on Vietnam IOTL), but Ted based his opposition around the refugee crisis. That gave RFK political cover that he badly need in 1965-7. If they're apart, it's by design, not accident.

RFK is the moral guardian of the family, the paterfamilias after his father's stroke in 1961. There will be no booze and certainly no Chappaquiddick. RFK disapproved of his brothers' licentiousness (only he and Sarge Shriver were 'clean' among the brothers and brothers-in-law), but did not try to prevent it.

RFK would not return to the Senate because he had little love for it. The problem is that he's never worked outside government ever since graduating from Virginia in 1950. So first he writes his memoirs (Pursuit of Justice anyone?) and then either seeks the Govenorship of New York in 1978, serves until 1991, or joins a prestigious law firm, much as Nixon did IOTL, or simply devotes himself to raising his family. Remember, his youngest child will only be 8 in 1977, while going by family standards, he'll be a grandfather by the age of 55, guaranteed. Another option is that a Republican successor appoints him to SCOTUS: RFK will be a swing Justice Kennedy: generally conservative on sociocultural questions (excepting civil rights) and an economic moderate.

Ted would never become President, it would fall to the next generation. Most likely RFK Jr, who before his dalliances with petty crime and far-left politics, was the presidentiable-designate of the family.

 

[usertron2020]

One thing you must understand about the Kennedy brothers: they often played complementary roles. Jack as good cop, Bobby as Ruthless Bobby (itself a myth), Ted as the happy-go-lucky one. Ted could conceivably become Majority Leader in his brother's administration. RFK, unlike his Dynasticrat successor Hillary, never wanted to become a Senate insider because his personality was totally at odds with that of a Senate Club member. Ted was significantly to his brother's left on Vietnam (RFK was much closer to Nixon than McGovern on Vietnam IOTL), but Ted based his opposition around the refugee crisis. That gave RFK political cover that he badly need in 1965-7. If they're apart, it's by design, not accident.

RFK is the moral guardian of the family, the paterfamilias after his father's stroke in 1961. There will be no booze and certainly no Chappaquiddick. RFK disapproved of his brothers' licentiousness (only he and Sarge Shriver were 'clean' among the brothers and brothers-in-law), but did not try to prevent it.

RFK would not return to the Senate because he had little love for it. The problem is that he's never worked outside government ever since graduating from Virginia in 1950. So first he writes his memoirs (Pursuit of Justice anyone?) and then either seeks the Govenorship of New York in 1978, serves until 1991, or joins a prestigious law firm, much as Nixon did IOTL, or simply devotes himself to raising his family. Remember, his youngest child will only be 8 in 1977, while going by family standards, he'll be a grandfather by the age of 55, guaranteed. Another option is that a Republican successor appoints him to SCOTUS: RFK will be a swing Justice Kennedy: generally conservative on sociocultural questions (excepting civil rights) and an economic moderate.

Ted would never become President, it would fall to the next generation. Most likely RFK Jr, who before his dalliances with organized crime and far-left politics, was the presidentiable-designate of the family.

I consider you the master in this forum in terms of latter-half 20th Century American Presidential politics. So tell me what you think of this: Didn't Teddy really establish himself in his own eyes as the "left wing" of the Kennedy brothers? I remember a statement made during the 1980 Democratic primaries. Someone (the press secretary, I think) in Ted's campaign made a statement that Ted was a "born-again moderate". You got a sense that the whole country choked trying to swallow that.

About Chappaquidik. I never like dealing with Handwavium. Not because I don't think THAT particular incident couldn't have been prevented, but his lifestyle made such an event inevitable, somewhere, sometime. I have gone over with you that very good theory that Kennedy wasn't in the car when it went over the bridge. That it was all just a tragedy resulting from an unnecessary attempt to coverup an affair. Usually it's the coverup itself that ruins you.

Your opinions?

 

[RogueBeaver]

Jimmy Carter was a DLC Democrat like Bobby was. Excepting trucking and airline deregulation, there's very little that RFK would disagree with on Carter's domestic policy had he become President from 1977-85, in addition to his OTL '68 platform. To paraphrase Gene McCarthy's (mistaken) quote on Bobby: "Before Teddy (Bobby) was running against Carter (Lyndon), now he's running against Bobby (Jack). It's purely Greek." Whether it was conscious or not, and I suspect it was, Ted was by far the most leftist of the brothers. RFK was what we'd call today a fierce social conservative, almost a culture warrior, on matters outside civil rights: that's part of his appeal to the NDC's various components of Hispanics, blacks, farmers and WWC voters. Traditional Catholic morality on all sociocultural issues. That's why Ted, who was almost a parody of a social liberal, could not pick up Bobby's mantle, just as Bobby could not pick up Jack's. Their ideologies and personalities were just too different.

With regard to Chappaquiddick: it would not happen if RFK lived, guaranteed. If it did, let's just say Ted will deeply regret it once he sees Bobby face-to-face, privately. Coverup: you just quoted Nixon "it's the coverup that kills you."

 

[Glass Onion]

One thing you must understand about the Kennedy brothers: they often played complementary roles. Jack as good cop, Bobby as Ruthless Bobby (itself a myth), Ted as the happy-go-lucky one. Ted could conceivably become Majority Leader in his brother's administration. RFK, unlike his Dynasticrat successor Hillary, never wanted to become a Senate insider because his personality was totally at odds with that of a Senate Club member. Ted was significantly to his brother's left on Vietnam (RFK was much closer to Nixon than McGovern on Vietnam IOTL), but Ted based his opposition around the refugee crisis. That gave RFK political cover that he badly need in 1965-7. If they're apart, it's by design, not accident.

RFK is the moral guardian of the family, the paterfamilias after his father's stroke in 1961. There will be no booze and certainly no Chappaquiddick. RFK disapproved of his brothers' licentiousness (only he and Sarge Shriver were 'clean' among the brothers and brothers-in-law), but did not try to prevent it.

RFK would not return to the Senate because he had little love for it. The problem is that he's never worked outside government ever since graduating from Virginia in 1950. So first he writes his memoirs (Pursuit of Justice anyone?) and then either seeks the Govenorship of New York in 1978, serves until 1991, or joins a prestigious law firm, much as Nixon did IOTL, or simply devotes himself to raising his family. Remember, his youngest child will only be 8 in 1977, while going by family standards, he'll be a grandfather by the age of 55, guaranteed. Another option is that a Republican successor appoints him to SCOTUS: RFK will be a swing Justice Kennedy: generally conservative on sociocultural questions (excepting civil rights) and an economic moderate.

Ted would never become President, it would fall to the next generation. Most likely RFK Jr, who before his dalliances with petty crime and far-left politics, was the presidentiable-designate of the family .

Agreed where Teddy is concerned, but considering as far as Dynasties have gone in the American Presidency, I'd be surprised to see a third Kennedy in the White House. After all, there have only been two President Adams, two President Harrisons, and two President Bushes. I tend to think if he had been elected there would only have been two President Kennedys.

 

[RogueBeaver]

It honestly depends. If he enters the House before the age of 30 (1980/82/84) as Jack did, then RFK Jr. could be a potential candidate as early as 1996, but no later than 2008. He'd still be the third-youngest POTUS, behind his father and TR. If RFK Sr. stays out of active politics after 1977, which I suspect he will, then the path is clear. It will have been two decades or more between his father's departure and his inauguration. Dubya was inaugurated only 8 years after his father left office IOTL. But that's not the OP, back to the OP, people.

 

[RogueBeaver]

With regards to a cover-up, that was one of RFK's main roles as Brother Protector. John Seigenthaler once said, only slightly exaggerating, that "Bobby would've taken a lightning bolt for Jack". Somehow I don't find it surprising that one of RFK's last few words (which were 'be careful' when being loaded onto a stretcher, FYI) just before losing consciousness for the final time was "Jack, Jack".

UT2020: you are correct, for the reasons I outlined in my earlier post. The country isn't buying it and I'm ROFL. I ROFL when they talk about his devotion to UHC, yet killing a perfectly reasonable compromise negotiated with Nixon in 1974 known as CHIP. Today Paul Krugman prefers CHIP over Obama's plan, so that tells you something.

 

[ColeMercury]

There's also a very good chance that the car accident would be butterflied away if Robert Kennedy survived and became President. If nothing else, Teddy might be otherwise occupied and unable to attend reunion parties of RFK's campaign staff.

 

[RogueBeaver]

I don't think Ted would be doing much after the party. Unless he wants... what did Alistair Darling call it? "The forces of hell" unleashed upon him. If there is a reunion of the "boiler-room girls" at all. It was more of a commemorative event than anything else IOTL.

 

[StevenAttewell]

If RFK does become president, he's going to rely on Teddy in the Senate to help him get his policies through. Most likely, Teddy becomes Majority Leader as RogueBeaver points out, and will likely flourish there given his well-demonstrated legislative skills.

A major butterfly I think is the effect of RFK not dying - I think the drinking problem will be a lot less severe, and there will be more of a functioning family structure to get Teddy to get help before something happens. Here I agree with RogueBeaver.

However, I do want to once again note that RFK was not a DLC Democrat.
He wasn't a New Dealer per se, but he was significantly to the left of the DLC on key domestic and economic issues.

In terms of health care, keep in mind that CHIP was what looked like it might pass with a GOP president, and it got batted down in the hopes of something better from a Democratic president in 1976; with a Democratic president elected in 1968 and re-elected in 1972, the Congressional math is likely to be different. You're much more likely to see something based off the Medicare model - not single-payer, but probably gradual expansions of Medicare down the age range, Medicaid up the income ladder, some new program (Medishield?) for children and mothers, and a voluntary public-option for adults.

 

[RogueBeaver]

I agree with my fellow Bobbyologist on all but the obvious issue, and we'll agree to disagree there. But would RFK be able to get healthcare through Congress, even with Ted there? He is not going to be able pass things such as PRWOR without Republican support, and the GOP will demand healthcare concessions in exchange. If he passes it in 1973, after a Nixon-style landslide the previous year, then his Republican successor, likely Ronald Reagan, will seek to make drastic modifications before it becomes too imprinted in the public's imagination.

 

[StevenAttewell]

I agree with my fellow Bobbyologist on all but the obvious issue, and we'll agree to disagree there. But would RFK be able to get healthcare through Congress, even with Ted there? He is not going to be able pass things such as PRWOR without Republican support, and the GOP will demand healthcare concessions in exchange. If he passes it in 1973, after a Nixon-style landslide the previous year, then his Republican successor, likely Ronald Reagan, will seek to make drastic modifications before it becomes too imprinted in the public's imagination.

We'll agree to disagree indeed.

Looking at Congress, in OTL's 90th Congress (1967-9), you have 64 Democrats to 36 Republicans in the Senate, and 247-187 in the House, even after some really heavy losses in '66. In between then and 1975, the numbers dip to a low of 54 in the Senate and 242 in the House. In the 94th and 95th Congresses (1975-9), you have 61 Democrats in both Senates and 292 Democrats in the House, the so-called "Watergate babies." These were some historically pretty liberal Congresses.

Democratic victories in 1968 and 1972 are going to screw with the math here - in OTL, Democrats lost 6 Senate seats and 5 House seats in 1968, and had lost 4 Senate Seats and 47 House seats in 1966. With a more united party, you're likely to see something of a rebound in 1968 instead. Likewise, the 1970 and 1972 elections saw a combined loss of 10 Senate seats and a gain of 7 House seats for the Democrats. With a Democratic victory in 1972, that's unlikely to be the same.

Proportions make this trickier - you have to work out the proportions of Southern Democrats and subtract out liberal Republicans; but even then you get some weird cases where otherwise conservative legislators vote for liberal legislation. A good proxy for the likeliness of liberal social/econ legislation in this period would probably be the Humphrey-Hawkins Act (full employment) in 1978, which got 257-152 in the House and 70-19 in the Senate.

With some more liberal Democrats in the House and Senate, you're likely to see passage of health care if not in the first term, certainly by the second term. Keep in mind that Medicare and Medicaid pass in a Senate with 68 Democrats and a House with 295 Democrats. You only need to pick up the 4 seats lost in '66 to get back to where you were in the Senate, and pick up House seats at a faster pace than OTL (Democrats got back up to the 290s by 1975).

 

[RogueBeaver]

The GOP will make gains in 1970, but not enough to win the House most likely. When healthcare passes, that will be one of RFK's signature domestic legacies. He'll be "the man who gave us UHC", doing something that LBJ and FDR couldn't. If I mentioned the other legacies, it would be giving away very imminent plans of mine. But this thread isn't so much about RFK as it is his brother.

 

[StevenAttewell]

The GOP will make gains in 1970, but not enough to win the House most likely. When healthcare passes, that will be one of RFK's signature domestic legacies. He'll be "the man who gave us UHC", doing something that LBJ and FDR couldn't. If I mentioned the other legacies, it would be giving away very imminent plans of mine. But this thread isn't so much about RFK as it is his brother.

Right, they'll make gains, but the question is how much and from what level, and then what happens in 1972. If 1968 is better for the Democrats, let's say they pick up 2 instead of losing 6, and they pick up some House seats, let's say getting them up to the 260s (the rough level they were at in 1960, another close election), then GOP clawbacks in the midterms are likely to bring the Democrats to a much higher low point then in OTL. Let's say they fall to 64-62 in the Senate and somewhere in the 250s in the House. 1972 is going to be a big year - a chance to regain the 4 seats lost in '66, and a solid pickup of 30-40 seats (not the giant 50 seat swing we see in '74) gets you back to Great Society territory.

The interesting question is whether LBJ lives long enough to see RFK pass universal health care, and whether RFK rubs it in his face at the bill signing the way that LBJ did in '64.

But I think we have consensus regarding Teddy Kennedy - most likely path is he becomes Majority Leader for the next 12 years, serves a spell as minority leader under Reagan, returns to power in the late 80s-90s, and steps down while still remaining an eminence grise within the Senate until the late 00s.

Interesting sidenote - if we get a long spell with EMK as Majority Leader after 8 years with LBJ as "Master of the Senate," does the U.S Senate shift towards being more like the House in terms of strong leadership? (Leaving aside the filibuster, which would likely be greatly curtailed if not killed off similar to OTL in '75 and '79)

 

[ColeMercury]

If there is a reunion of the "boiler-room girls" at all. It was more of a commemorative event than anything else IOTL.

Well, there you go. The entire party could be butterflied away. No party, no Chappaquiddick scandal.

 

[RogueBeaver]

Yes, LBJ thought Ted had excellent legislative skills, much better than his brothers. With regards to a healthcare bill: there will be no reconciliation. Bobby rarely forgave and never forgot a slight. Once an enemy, always an enemy, but the same applied for friends. In that '64 ceremony, he's faintly smiling, but looking into RFK's eyes tell a different story. Hardly warm and fuzzy.

 

[GreatScottMarty]

Basically, Teddy is a successful legislator and Senator. RB, if I may suggest that the next TL you do (not Margin of Safety, but IIRC is based on a successful Kennedy admin) give Teddy some face time. While I tend to lean away from the RFK is a conservative in Liberal clothes, but is just RFK and sort of is unexplainable because he was unable to explain himself adequately due to Sirhan Sirhan. I think he is a figure like Washington who effects everything around him. I mean if Warren Harding hadn't been president would we have noticed? No probably not but RFK wasn't and I think we definitely did.

 

[RogueBeaver]

I will be giving Ted a fair bit of face time. More than one Ted actually. But by June 4 RFK had established himself as indisputably the best-qualified candidate to beat Nixon in November. Take the primaries held on that day itself: California, 46-42-12, helped by a GOTV operation not unlike Rove's Ohio '04 one, and South Dakota, where he beat HHH 2-1 in Hubert's home state. What's telling about Daley is that he respected HHH's loyalty, but thought RFK was too brash. Given that Daley is old enough to be Bobby's father, that should hardly be a surprise. Much dislike of RFK focused on his public personality.

This is a checklist of mine, that a Democrat must satisfy to beat Nixon. Bobby aces it, Hubert doesn't meet a single requirement.

Independence of the administration: check.
Ability to hold the New Deal Coalition: proven in Indiana, Nebraska and California. Check.
New ideological direction for the party, post-New Deal: Check.
Fundraising ability: Check.
Fully independent grassroots organization (like Obama): Check.
Youth, charisma, energy to run 18-hour campaign days: Check.

 

[GreatScottMarty]

It is worth noting that HHH was from Minnesota. I mean he was elected to the governorship and the Senate from Minnesota he may have been born in SD (I don't know) but I know he is from Minnesota and Minnesota and SD while bordering each other are very different electorally.