Could a Kennedy that survived assassination win reelection realistically?

So.....if we look at Vietnam.....what would Kennedy had plausibly done? :/
This is a hotly contested topic, which is exactly why I avoided touching it in the first post.

There's entire Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories claiming he was shot because he wouldn't have authorized a build-up in Vietnam. Popular legend often tries to tell us that Kennedy was too intelligent to get us wrapped in some crazy war halfway across the country, for one reason or another, but historical fact is tricky on this. It's known Eisenhower warned Kennedy about Indochina, but Kennedy did authorize military advisors. Vietnam OTL was a colossal fuck-up no matter whether you blame McNamara, Westmoreland or LBJ.

Some theorize Kennedy would have fallen prey to the same problems that plagued Johnson - paranoia about America's reputation abroad, being fed distortions of the truth by advisors and supporters, and his own fervent anti-communism. History could have re-aligned similarly, possibly without the added benefits of the valuable Great Society legislation passed in the wake of his death. That's one theory.

There is also, of course, a viewpoint Kennedy would have kept the United States involvement in Vietnam partially, but would not have escalated the conflict to OTL levels, which seems to be the favored viewpoint on these boards, but I'm not sure if that extends academically. Keep around military advisors but let the Vietnamese handle it on their own. This is especially tricky because Diem, the leader of South Vietnam, died shortly before Kennedy, so he never worked with the post-Diem Vietnam extensively enough to study.

It's important to remember that while hindsight tells us Vietnam was bad, pretty much anyone 'important' at the time was at least initially for the war, until they came out against it - even the earliest detracters said when the Gulf of Tokin resolution passed, none of them expected Johnson to get stuck over there.
 
This is a hotly contested topic, which is exactly why I avoided touching it in the first post.

There's entire Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories claiming he was shot because he wouldn't have authorized a build-up in Vietnam. Popular legend often tries to tell us that Kennedy was too intelligent to get us wrapped in some crazy war halfway across the country, for one reason or another, but historical fact is tricky on this. It's known Eisenhower warned Kennedy about Indochina, but Kennedy did authorize military advisors. Vietnam OTL was a colossal fuck-up no matter whether you blame McNamara, Westmoreland or LBJ.

Some theorize Kennedy would have fallen prey to the same problems that plagued Johnson - paranoia about America's reputation abroad, being fed distortions of the truth by advisors and supporters, and his own fervent anti-communism. History could have re-aligned similarly, possibly without the added benefits of the valuable Great Society legislation passed in the wake of his death. That's one theory.

There is also, of course, a viewpoint Kennedy would have kept the United States involvement in Vietnam partially, but would not have escalated the conflict to OTL levels, which seems to be the favored viewpoint on these boards, but I'm not sure if that extends academically. Keep around military advisors but let the Vietnamese handle it on their own. This is especially tricky because Diem, the leader of South Vietnam, died shortly before Kennedy, so he never worked with the post-Diem Vietnam extensively enough to study.

It's important to remember that while hindsight tells us Vietnam was bad, pretty much anyone 'important' at the time was at least initially for the war, until they came out against it - even the earliest detracters said when the Gulf of Tokin resolution passed, none of them expected Johnson to get stuck over there.

My theory is that Kennedy would've done something similar to Johnson. Not completely the same, but given Kennedy's fervent cold warrior attitude, I'd have to imagine that he'd go all in at some point. My view on this matter is not helped by the back and forths of Kennedy family and the "honorary Kennedys". For example, Bobby said around '64 that JFK had no intention of getting out. A few years later and he says the opposite. Why the sudden about face? Well, could it have anything to do with the war being unpopular and easy to blame on LBJ? As a result all of this, I don't trust their judgment. I have to believe Kennedy could've gotten mired in a land war all the same as Johnson.
 
My theory is that Kennedy would've done something similar to Johnson. Not completely the same, but given Kennedy's fervent cold warrior attitude, I'd have to imagine that he'd go all in at some point. My view on this matter is not helped by the back and forths of Kennedy family and the "honorary Kennedys". For example, Bobby said around '64 that JFK had no intention of getting out. A few years later and he says the opposite. Why the sudden about face? Well, could it have anything to do with the war being unpopular and easy to blame on LBJ? As a result all of this, I don't trust their judgment. I have to believe Kennedy could've gotten mired in a land war all the same as Johnson.

How bad is it for your case, though? As in: how bad could Vietnam had gotten in your theory of JFK still living?
 
How bad is it for your case, though? As in: how bad could Vietnam had gotten in your theory of JFK still living?

Difficult to say. Since the war only truly became a clusterfuck well after Kennedy was assassinated, I don't know how he would've handled it. Maybe he wouldn't have used the Gulf of Tonkin as the impetus to go all in, but he may have found another way.

Let's keep in mind that Kennedy was no peacenik, nothing like how the conspiracy theories make him out to be. He was as icy a cold warrior as they come. He believed in containment, and was working with the CIA on ways to get rid of Castro right up to Dallas. If he thought Vietnam would be a major turning point in the Cold War, he would've done everything he could've to win and carry on the good fight against communism. Maybe he would've tried for a different tact, though. Maybe something like brinksmanship, as he displayed during the Cuban Missile Crisis. That was dangerous, but it paid off for him. I can't say how he'd apply that to Vietnam, but he was clever and crafty. He wasn't the great parliamentarian like Johnson, but he was no dummy. He did, after all, have a better foreign policy record than a domestic one.

I would fully expect the possibility of "JFK, JFK, how many kids have you killed today?" as public opinion on the war soured. And then today, we all might look back and wonder if Johnson could've kept us out of it. "WI: Kennedy was killed in Dallas?" would be all the rage, as we look back on a past that never came to be.
 
Difficult to say. Since the war only truly became a clusterfuck well after Kennedy was assassinated, I don't know how he would've handled it. Maybe he wouldn't have used the Gulf of Tonkin as the impetus to go all in, but he may have found another way.

Let's keep in mind that Kennedy was no peacenik, nothing like how the conspiracy theories make him out to be. He was as icy a cold warrior as they come. He believed in containment, and was working with the CIA on ways to get rid of Castro right up to Dallas. If he thought Vietnam would be a major turning point in the Cold War, he would've done everything he could've to win and carry on the good fight against communism. Maybe he would've tried for a different tact, though. Maybe something like brinksmanship, as he displayed during the Cuban Missile Crisis. That was dangerous, but it paid off for him. I can't say how he'd apply that to Vietnam, but he was clever and crafty. He wasn't the great parliamentarian like Johnson, but he was no dummy. He did, after all, have a better foreign policy record than a domestic one.

I would fully expect the possibility of "JFK, JFK, how many kids have you killed today?" as public opinion on the war soured. And then today, we all might look back and wonder if Johnson could've kept us out of it. "WI: Kennedy was killed in Dallas?" would be all the rage, as we look back on a past that never came to be.

So, at least not OTL bad, correct? :D
 
So, at least not OTL bad, correct? :D

Who knows? It could've been just as bad, except in a different way. I'd really like to have a DeLorean to be able to go back in time and alter history so that I could see how it plays out, because otherwise I'm just speculating.

Extremely ASB. The whole book is a wank.

Haven't read it, but it doesn't look pretty from what I've seen. It appears like an author tract against Johnson and everyone else with whom the conspiracy theorists have an axe to grind. It even embraces the claims of the loonies wholesale. And this is supposed to be a serious look on alternate history?
 
Kennedy could have survived the assassination attempt, had circumstances be different
like the order to put Roof on Car or had driver give full throttle after first shot or clint Hint react faster get on car and is hit by second or third bullet.

JFK could have won the election even with bigger margin as OTL
but could JFK be President again ?
We got here a President already with health issue, who now got injuries of assassination attempt
He need hospitalization and Johnson would be President during that time
But in end America face a President Kennedy who health deteriorate during his presidency, analog to LBJ health problems, only worst even that Kennedy step down from Office or even die in White House.

Political his second term would be not glorious, far away from Camelot myth that came after his murder. Why ?
During his presidency JFK hab problems to win out over Congress or Senat, allot of his Political goals were realized BECAUSE he was killed !

Like the Civili Right Acts of 1964 that outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
The powerful Souther Democrats refused in begin to sign Acts, but after his death and LBJ appeal it was sign and ratified in record time.
So the racial segregation could be in effect longer as OTL, maybe a program point for Nixon election campaign in 1968 ?

His Apollo program was also left untouched unlit 1967 it budget went on maximum, because it was Kennedy legacy.
with JFK alive the program could quite different
Even shutdown during 1966. see who the Bush Jr. Constellation space Program died after 4 years.
For lack of Soviet response (CIA knew state of there program) and rising cost of Vietnam War

On Vietnam there allot of illusion and hope that under Kennedy the Vietnam War not escalate or be even averted
Let me ask could have Kennedy be better as Johnson ?
it was JFK who gave his OK to assassinate south vietnamese president Ngo Dinh Diem in 1963, what let situation in South Vietnam to worst and finally to Combat troops in Vietnam
How would react Kennedy on Tonkin incident ? same as Johnson ! that's my opinion

So the Kennedy Second Term would give the USA
Longer racial segregation, now with dead of Martin Luther King and Malcolm X, it on edged of Civil uprise/war
Apollo program that could be shutdown middle of 1960s do the Bloody Vietnam War cost who escalate like OTL
Here Kennedy would be consider as a weak President, in political and in health, leaving behind a turmoil USA society on edge of uprise.
 

Coulsdon Eagle

Monthly Donor
There was one fictional book I read years back which changed the names (why???) but kept all the history. Essentially JFK survives but takes years to recover from his wounds; LBJ takes over as POTUS and wins the '64 election; RFK is killed on a trip to'Nam; JFK is elected (re-elected?) in 1968.

From this the question that no-one has put so far is: what is "survival". Most of the posts so far appear to be based on his suffering little more than a scratch and retaining all his faculties. What is the situation if his wounds are more serious, from merely physical incapacitation, ranging to serious head trauma (as per the fictional version)? At what state does a President "Have" to step down? Is any transfer of power notionally temporary or permanent? Would a severely wounded JFK be allowed to limp into the '64 election?
 
There was one fictional book I read years back which changed the names (why???) but kept all the history. Essentially JFK survives but takes years to recover from his wounds; LBJ takes over as POTUS and wins the '64 election; RFK is killed on a trip to'Nam; JFK is elected (re-elected?) in 1968.

From this the question that no-one has put so far is: what is "survival". Most of the posts so far appear to be based on his suffering little more than a scratch and retaining all his faculties. What is the situation if his wounds are more serious, from merely physical incapacitation, ranging to serious head trauma (as per the fictional version)? At what state does a President "Have" to step down? Is any transfer of power notionally temporary or permanent? Would a severely wounded JFK be allowed to limp into the '64 election?

Meh. As long as "survival" refers to "still alive", I am fine. :p
 
So something like this?

genusmap.php


John F. Kennedy (D-MA) / Lyndon B. Johnson (D-TX): 440 EV, 58.4% PV
Barry Goldwater (R-AZ) / Thurston Morton (R-KY): 98 EV, 41.2% PV


Yeah, pretty much.


Myself, I don't see Goldwater picking Scranton when the latter had such reservations. I've heard Morton suggested, and he seems like he'd be a good pick for Goldwater. I also don't believe that Kennedy would dump LBJ. I doubt the scandals would be so bad that it would mean replacing him with someone like say, Sanford.

Morton sounds good. Scranton was a moderate, I believe, and LBJ gave moderates the middle finger with the whole "Extremism is no vice" thing.
 
Difficult to say. Since the war only truly became a clusterfuck well after Kennedy was assassinated, I don't know how he would've handled it. Maybe he wouldn't have used the Gulf of Tonkin as the impetus to go all in, but he may have found another way.

Let's keep in mind that Kennedy was no peacenik, nothing like how the conspiracy theories make him out to be. He was as icy a cold warrior as they come. He believed in containment, and was working with the CIA on ways to get rid of Castro right up to Dallas. If he thought Vietnam would be a major turning point in the Cold War, he would've done everything he could've to win and carry on the good fight against communism. Maybe he would've tried for a different tact, though. Maybe something like brinksmanship, as he displayed during the Cuban Missile Crisis. That was dangerous, but it paid off for him. I can't say how he'd apply that to Vietnam, but he was clever and crafty. He wasn't the great parliamentarian like Johnson, but he was no dummy. He did, after all, have a better foreign policy record than a domestic one.

I would fully expect the possibility of "JFK, JFK, how many kids have you killed today?" as public opinion on the war soured. And then today, we all might look back and wonder if Johnson could've kept us out of it. "WI: Kennedy was killed in Dallas?" would be all the rage, as we look back on a past that never came to be.

I disagree. Yes, Kennedy was a cold warrior, but he had no intention of fighting a war in a third-world country. I do think that he would send advisors and arms and stuff to Vietnam in an effort to keep South Vietnam from falling, but I also believe he'd pursue a policy of Vietnamization, before the initial Americanization. This may mean that the Tet Offensive leads to the fall of South Vietnam, and that may be - ironically - the thing that sours his presidency.
 
I disagree. Yes, Kennedy was a cold warrior, but he had no intention of fighting a war in a third-world country. I do think that he would send advisors and arms and stuff to Vietnam in an effort to keep South Vietnam from falling, but I also believe he'd pursue a policy of Vietnamization, before the initial Americanization. This may mean that the Tet Offensive leads to the fall of South Vietnam, and that may be - ironically - the thing that sours his presidency.

Oh my.......
 

departue

Gone Fishin'
yes hcallega wrote a good timeline I like to see someone else write a Kennedy
Hcallega wrote an excellent timeline in which JFK survived the assassination and went on to win the 1964 election by a comfortable margin (you should read it). With that said, to answer your question, JFK could have certainly won reelection in 1964, although it would not be the landslide that LBJ enjoyed OTL.

Link to the TL: https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/the-presidency-of-john-f-kennedy.299739/
lives timeline. in my rough draft Kennedy lives story I have Johnson facing off against Charles Percy I dot know how realistic that is.
 
The conventional argument that it was the great man of Lyndon Johnson that passed civil rights and he alone that could is arguable. Johnson supported civil rights and may have smoothed the process. However, Johnson had tried to pass the civil rights act earlier in 1964. It failed because he ran into the same roadblocks as Kennedy had. When civil rights began to move is when the election changed the face of the Congress; when it brought it people who believed in these reforms. And it was not a top-down effort; the fight for civil rights was done by Senators and Congressmen. And this new Congress is what let all the sweeping Liberal legislation flow. When the Vietnam conflict dragged on, when the 1966 election brought in Republicans and people in opposition to LBJ, he was neutered and you begin to see his policies stifle and stagnate and fail to come to pass. Johnson was asked himself why he didn't just twist arms and enforce his will, and he admitted he could not do it because he needed a friendly Congress.

http://www.c-span.org/video/?323710-1/book-discussion-fierce-urgency-now

From a conceptual standpoint, arguing that Kennedy would have failed on civil rights because the act had failed to pass up till his assassination is like cutting off the history at Johnson's own failure to pass the act prior to it beginning to move and being passed, and arguing on that basis Johnson could not pass the civil rights act.
 

jahenders

Banned
So......recently I was wondering about something (prior to reading the email that I was unbanned, which is understandable noting that it was a total accident on account of Ian (oops) and a story for another time), and I was thinking: if Kennedy actually survived, what would come of him? Would subsequent investigations lead to the end of his political career and thus a "Surrounded by Enemies" scenario or will he survive 1964 and continue with a second term in office?

It depends, in part, on the implication of "survives." Does that imply 1) he's wounded but lives, 2) it's a failed attempt (they miss), or 3) that it's foiled ahead of time.

If 2) It's foiled, then it doesn't have a huge impact on Kennedy right away except to tighten security. He will suffer politically on several issues, including Vietnam

If 1) he's wounded, it depends on the wound. If he's shot in the head and disabled, then he may found to be unfit or may decide so himself. If he's mentally fine, but physically limited (parapalygic, etc), then he gets a huge sympathy effect. If it's minor, there's some sympathy effect, but less so.

If 3) then his term continues largely unchained and he suffers from failures on multiple issues
 

Bulldoggus

Banned
Honestly, I think the one way that Vietnam could have not been a train wreck for the US is if Ho Chi Minh was offed by the CIA. The Vietnamese people were not very idealogical (according treports from the early 60's, there were tons of portraits of JFK next to those of Uncle Ho in Vietnamese huts). All they wanted was to be one nation, free of meddling from outside powers, and Ho was a charismatic guy who promised them that. So if Ho were out of the way, and the US funded a western-friendly nationalist (preferably one with more charisma or magnetism than Diem), it *might* have done the trick. I honestly think the US government over-thought the whole situation in that country. That said, JFK didn't realize that either, and likely, Nam either would have fallen or been what it was IOTL.
 
Top