Consensus on major events of an 8-year JFK presidency

[VioletRiver]

I'm no stranger to the fact that there are dozens of threads already in this forum about what would have happened had JFK never been assassinated and served two full terms. But as far as I can tell no one's posted about this topic in *checks notes* several months, so I figured my addition would be acceptable. Basically what I'd like to do with this thread is try to gauge how much of a consensus exists in regards to the following major aspects of a "JFK lives" timeline:

1) What would happen with the Civil Rights Act? I've seen conflicting information on whether it would be a) delayed to 1965 or so due to being held up in the Senate; b) pass in a watered-down form (what happens with Title II?) or c) pass exactly as it did in OTL if stories of LBJ's arm-twisting really are exaggerated. I'm also curious about later civil rights legislation such as the Voting Rights Act and Fair Housing Act, I understand those may be delayed too.

2) Would LBJ remain on the Democratic ticket in November 1964? There's been much back-and-forth on this. Basically I'm curious as to whether the board thinks the Bobby Baker scandal would really force LBJ to resign or whether the administration would be able to "ride it out" as JFK posited. (Otherwise I assume Terry Sanford would be the likely replacement.)

3) How exactly would Goldwater perform in the fall? I imagine like many others do that he'd lose by a pretty decent margin to JFK, probably 55-45 or something like that. One thing that would alter the dynamic is if JFK and Goldwater debated on TV, and I assume the tone of JFK's ads against Goldwater would be different given the two were friends. If Goldwater votes for a watered-down CRA (particularly one that lacks a Title II, the portion Goldwater took the most issue with), would Wallace run a third-party campaign and win some southern states?

4) Would Vietnam unfold more or less the way it did in OTL? Obviously JFK and LBJ's respective strategies as Commander-in-Chief would be somewhat different, but as much as it pains me to say I think the idea of a total withdrawal is wishful thinking and that some escalation was, if not inevitable, the most likely trajectory for the conflict.

5) What would the fate of the Space Race be? As an admirer of NASA my hope of course is that spaceflight technology would advance at the same--if not a greater--pace under JFK compared to OTL. I know he waffled a bit, especially in private, about his commitment to the Moon shot, although I think it's fair to say Apollo would likely progress similarly (possibly with *MORE* funding in the absence of the Great Society, which would be replaced with the more muted New Frontier initiatives).

6) What does the 1968 election look like? I've always been skeptical of the idea that the opposite party's primaries would be that greatly affected by having a different incumbent, which is why Goldwater 1964 still seems likely, and I think Nixon '68 is likely as well given how he was able to bridge the gap between the party's factions and take advantage of the Democratic split over Vietnam. In the general election, who does Nixon face? Is it LBJ? Humphrey (whose commitment to running for President was always iffy even though he was one of the strongest Northern candidates)? Someone else? If it's Humphrey does he campaign as an antiwar liberal? I would assume Nixon still has the edge in the election, even if Wallace performs well in the South.

 

[thekingsguard]

He dies early in his second term, of one of the half dozen diseases and conditions playing hell on his body. JFK was basically kept alive by nearly constant drug use. Remember part of the issue with the Cuban Missile Crisis is the man was catatonic for most of it.

 

[steamboy]

He dies early in his second term, of one of the half dozen diseases and conditions playing hell on his body. JFK was basically kept alive by nearly constant drug use. Remember part of the issue with the Cuban Missile Crisis is the man was catatonic for most of it.

I didn't know that, what was wrong with him?

 

[MorphyVSFischer]

I didn't know that, what was wrong with him?

JFK suffered from Addison's disease and had a bad back that caused him considerable pain

 

[SandroPertini98]

1) LBJ was a Southern and, as a former Senate Majority Leader, an expert of Senate tactics. His personal knowledge of many Senators, his mastery of procedures and his dominance among the Democratic Caucus (the legendary "Johnson Treatment"), plus the national shock after JFK's assassination, proved decisive to move the Civil Rights Act from the quicksand of the Congressional subcommittees. Without him and without the pressure to "approve last JFK's will" the CRA would have a hard life. At the end, with the South obstructionism, Kennedy would have rely on Republicans at least partially and could pass only a watered down Act, surely in his second term, but all this delicate negotiation could be smashed if one of his major scandal would be exposed.
2) It depends: surely JFK and LBJ relationship had soured and Bobby would advise to eject the hated Texan, but Kennedy was not stupid: he will eject Johnson only if he will be sure to be able to win without Texas (and the South in general). In 1964 the Democratic Convention was more then a month after the Republican one, so knowing that Goldwater will be his opponent I think Kennedy could take the risk to eject Johnson and replacing him with Sanford.
3) JFK would have smash Goldwater, at least some scandal happen: Goldwater would have performed better, without LBJ's moderate appeal and JFK's assassination boost, but he was too rightwing to take a majority,especially with Wallace splitting the conservative vote. Wallace would run against Kennedy in a strong challenge, taking South and some blue collar-unions orientated states, and then bolt to make a third party candidacy, as Goldwater expressed support for watered down Civil Rights Act and refused to cooperate with him as IOTL. At the end Wallace will take the Deep South and Goldwater some Midwestern states but the split will allow a easy JFK reelection (likely Goldwater will win more votes but less Great Electors, due being overshadowed by Wallace in the South).
4) JFK was not convinced that a Vietnam escalation would serve American interests, shortly before his death he signs a memo to put some limits to US involvement in Indochina. I think Saigon will continue to being supported with money, supply and militar assistance but a massive build up will be avoided: more intelligence, air missions and light troops deployed as militar counsellors and less tanks and trenches. Probably this will be insufficient and Saigon will fall in 1968, during an alternative Tet Offensive, causing a strong embarrassment for Kennedy administration.
5) It's not a case id Space Race and Kennedy's name are widely associated: JFK was a strong proponent of Space Program and I can see more funding for that. Maybe a Moon landing mission in 1968 instead 1969?
6) Democratic primaries would be divided among Sanford, Wallace and probably an asking-revenge Johnson. Humphrey too would run, with unions support. After Sanford proving weak, Bobby ruling out succeeding his brother and McGovern being simply to late to enter in the race under White House encouragement, the liberal wing will rally around Humphrey. Johnson will prove his strength destroying Wallace in the South and then will make his case as alternative if the incumbent administration, fatigued by scandals, infighting in civil rights and Vietnam apparent victory of communists. LBJ can count on a large Democratic establishment support and finish to win the nomination, choosing Eugene McCarthy,with his Catholic Midwestern appeal, as running mate (he considered him in 1964, rivaled with both Kennedy and Humphrey and in this TL of course never became an anti-war crusader).
In GOP field without a great Vietnam War George Romney could avoid "brainwashed" comments and his consequent poll collapse: Romney remains the main opposition to Nixon, Rockefeller doesn't run and Javits drops out almost immediatly. There is a chance Romney rallying Republican liberal-moderate wing arguing that a conservative platform led to a disaster in 1960 and 1964 and beating Nixon. John Tower, as olive branch to conservatives and Southern strategy attempt, or Mark Hatfield, as a moderate Western governor who opposed Goldwater, are the lonely VP picks. So it's a Johnson/McCarthy vs Romney/Tower match and probably the GOP will win over a divided Democratic Party.

PS Kennedy had Addison's disease but was not SO ill to be unable to perform his duties. He probably will retire in Kennedy Compound and will die sometime in early 1980s.

 

[GeographyDude]

4) Would Vietnam unfold more or less the way it did in OTL? Obviously JFK and LBJ's respective strategies as Commander-in-Chief would be somewhat different, but as much as it pains me to say I think the idea of a total withdrawal is wishful thinking and that some escalation was, if not inevitable, the most likely trajectory for the conflict.

I think escalation is the more likely trajectory, too. And I don’t like saying it either.

Maybe if Kennedy decides we’re neither going to feel married to a corrupt government nor get in the business of supporting coups. As it was, Kennedy supported the Nov. 1, 1963, coup against Diem. And as I understand, he spent a couple of days guilty and numbed out and largely by himself in the White House because it had led to the death of Diem.

Not near the same amount of guilt for nameless people killed by bombs dropped from above.

So, if we want to really go high road, the moral feeling of Picasso’s Guernica becomes more the norm, maybe a movie has a major sub-plot or scene about aerial bombing during the Greek Civil War, or the Korean War in which a hell of a lot of north Koreans died. Don’t know how much humans are capable of this broader outlook.

Or from business ethics, “The kind of thing which might come back and bite us in the ass,” this seems to be the thing which more convinces people. And leaves you at less risk of being accused of being a goody two-shoes. Mainly from what I’ve read and heard, not a lot of personal experience.

So, in an ATL, maybe we’re more concerned about our reputation in the third world in general.

 

[RanulfC]

4) Would Vietnam unfold more or less the way it did in OTL? Obviously JFK and LBJ's respective strategies as Commander-in-Chief would be somewhat different, but as much as it pains me to say I think the idea of a total withdrawal is wishful thinking and that some escalation was, if not inevitable, the most likely trajectory for the conflict.

Kennedy needed to show how committed he was to fighting Communism and Vietnam was one of those points he could afford to reinforce so he did. Whether it would have continued to it's OTL levels is the questionable part since Kennedy's health would likely be in decline by 1964 and it would be more of a question if the Administration would be willing to push the Gulf incident as hard as they did OTL.

5) What would the fate of the Space Race be?

As an admirer of NASA my hope of course is that spaceflight technology would advance at the same--if not a greater--pace under JFK compared to OTL. I know he waffled a bit, especially in private, about his commitment to the Moon shot, although I think it's fair to say Apollo would likely progress similarly (possibly with *MORE* funding in the absence of the Great Society, which would be replaced with the more muted New Frontier initiatives).

5) It's not a case id Space Race and Kennedy's name are widely associated: JFK was a strong proponent of Space Program and I can see more funding for that. Maybe a Moon landing mission in 1968 instead 1969?

Kennedy was NOT a fan of the Space Program and he looked rather long and hard for ANY possible 'counter' to the Soviet's PR and apparent technology lead that would NOT involve space. He couldn't find one and of the possible 'goals' of an American space program he was being told the only one that anyone could assure him of a possible US victory was going to the Moon. (Under the assumption that in essence the US and USSR would be starting out 'equal' in such a race. It should be note that several advisors, including McNamara, were unconvinced that going to the Moon first would be achievable and promoted an interplanetary mission instead. In the end the cost of the Moon program was going to be higher than Kennedy liked but anywhere else was going to be far too much to even consider)

Almost immediately after the Lunar goal was announced in 1961 Kennedy began to doubt the wisdom of the idea. By 1963 he was floating the idea of a cooperative mission with the USSR and asking the BoB to review and comment on the possible cutting back of the Apollo budget. The main problem was that Apollo was becoming more expensive and more resource intensive than it was initially thought and it was only going to keep going up with 'peak' funding expected sometime in 1965/66. By 1963 there was a LOT more domestic criticism of the program's costs and priority and Kennedy was quite obviously looking at this in light of the upcoming 1964 elections.

Now OTL the USSR ignored the offer of cooperation and frankly their program had so many faults and flaws that they KNEW would be highlighted in an cooperative effort it's pretty much assured they would not have given much if any consideration to further offers. But by 1965 the Gemini program was in full swing and it would lead to several US firsts and a general consensus that the US was even with if not ahead of the Soviets in space. Since this would be after the election though and around the time of peak-funding it's a question if slowing or reducing support for Apollo would do any plausible good.

However as 1967 arrives and Apollo is not performing as well as anticipated once you have the Apollo 1 fire it's quite plausible that Kennedy could use this and the subsequent aftermath to greatly cut back the program. Kennedy himself was likely the only person who could propose the landing be postponed but if we postulate a second term and all the problems that are then allowed to pop-up without his martyrdom to appeal to, his overall reluctance over the program in the first place makes it pretty likely he will cut back when and if he can.

We would still likely see a Lunar Landing in the early 70s even with cutbacks but I'd see the OTL NASA 'hard times' coming early with Kennedy pushing for more sustainable and less expensive 'follow-on' sooner as well.

PS Kennedy had Addison's disease but was not SO ill to be unable to perform his duties. He probably will retire in Kennedy Compound and will die sometime in early 1980s.

The problem was not just his Addison's as his back and general health were causing issues and his pace as President was not helping at all. The stress of another nation-wide campaign and through the elections would have aggravated those issues as well as his Addison's.

Randy