DBWI: conspiracy theory confirmed to be true?

Ooooooh boy, I'm going to get a warning for posting about conspiracy theories, aren't I?

But please hear me out! What would happen if a conspiracy theory ended up being true? Now, I won't even start about the most idiotic theories like lizard-people secretly running the government, or the Flat Earth theory. But let's say, what about one of the minor conspiracy theories?

Here's what I came up with: in 1972, president Richard Nixon was riding a wave of popularity considering his great success in foreign affairs as well as a strong U.S. economy. Naturally, anyone on the Democratic side going up against him in 1972 was on a fool's quest. and sure enough Nixon was re-elected in one of the biggest landslides in the history of American politics.

Now, a little known fact that has been pretty much lost in history is that there was a burglary in June 1972, at the Watergate complex in Washington, home of the Democratic National Committee. Months later, a couple of reporters from the Washington Post claimed that this break-in was not just some random crime like the hundreds of murders and burglaries happening in the USA on a daily basis, but in fact an act of political spying or sabotage orchestrated by Nixon's re-election campaign. With no actual evidence, the accusations eventually fizzled out, however much like people claiming that the moon landing was staged in a TV studio, or that the CIA was involved with the JFK assassination, or that the attack on the USS Maine in 1898 and the Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964 were all hoaxes, there will always be people who continue to claim to this day that Richard Nixon indeed covered up his administration's involvement with the Watergate break-in.

So several questions here. What would happen if it would turn out that this conspiracy theory was, in fact, true? What would Nixon have to gain from all this? What would the break-in be trying to achieve considering that Nixon was already on track to a massive victory in the 1972 election? And if uncovered, would Nixon have been impeached (or go to jail even??) and Spiro Agnew become president? Would the results of the 1972 be tainted, possibly with calls to hold another election immediately?

And if one day it would turn our that the government does in fact involve itself with conspiracies like this Watergate break-in, would other conspiracy theories gain more credibility? Would there be more investigations into things like the JFK assassination or the Gulf of Tonkin incident, or would these other conspiracy theories still be dismissed as idiotic and ASB?

In fact, would confirmed conspiracy theories change the policy here on alternatehistory.com that conspiracy theories are frowned upon and don't belong in the discussion on this forum?
 
OOC:

For the record, I don't think the Watergate crimes really fit the definition of a "conspiracy" as commonly used in the phrase "conspiracy theory".

I think the basic idea is that the powers-that-be who are actually making the plans and carrying out the actions are radically different than what is commonly assumed to be the case. So, eg. "You sheeple all think it was Osama bin laden and Al Qaeda who carried out 9/11, but it was actually George W. Bush himself!!" That fits, because most people do assume, and basic logic would seem to indicate, that 9/11 was indeed orchestrated by Osama bin laden, not by someone on the American side.

With Watergate, it's generally accepted that Nixon didn't like Democrats, and was actively working against them. So saying he might have had a hand in covering up anti-Democratic crimes by his underlings is really just extending the already known-facts to the level of illegality, rather than radically re-arraning the power dynamics behind the scenes.

Now, if after all the exposes and the hearings and the convictions of Republican operatives over the crimes and the cover-ups, you were to argue that it was actually McGoven and the Democrats who carried out the break-ins in order to frame Nixon, that would be closer to what I think is usually meant by a conspiracy theory. (And yeah, stuff like that DOES happen from time to time.)
 
OOC:

I think Watergate doesn’t fit in the conspiracy theory category irl because the theory was proven to be true. But in a time-line where Mark Felt decides not to say anything to Woodward and Bernstein, any claims that Nixon covered up his involvement with the break-in would be frowned upon and dismissed with arguments like the theory not making any sense due to Nixon being so far ahead of any of the Democratic candidates that he wouldn’t even need Watergate to win. So the people claiming that the Watergate break-in was orchestrated by Nixon’s re-election campaign and that the sheeple need to stop believing that this was just a regular burglary like the hundreds of other burglaries happening in the USA every day, would surely be dismissed as conspiracy nuts.

irl People who claim that Oswald was acting on LBJ’s orders when shooting Kennedy, or that FDR had advance warning about the attack on Pearl Harbor but allowed it to happen, or indeed that 9/11 was an inside job orchestrated by the Bush administration, are rightfully dismissed and ridiculed. Until some actual solid evidence for these theories is presented (which will obviously never happen) they remain the idiotic fantasies of conspiracy theorists.

Yes, it’s generally accepted that Nixon didn’t like the Democrats and was working against them. It is also accepted that LBJ was not exactly fond of JFK and that there were questions about him being replaced as Kennedy’s running mate in the next election. Also FDR was very much opposed to Hitler and wanted a more active role for the USA in the 2nd World War. In a world where Mark Felt doesn’t give any information to Woodward and Bernstein, I would think any suggestions that Nixon was involved with Watergate would fall in the same category as the more outlandish conspiracy theories like the ones mentioned about LBJ and FDR, and would perhaps even fuel a mindset that the U.S. government getting involved in such a thing would be inconceivable, because there would be no proven case of it ever happening before.
 
Oh god, what's next, people are going to believe that crazy theory where the CIA gave people LSD to try and "mind control" them? Or that President Clinton has sex with an intern?

Some people just want to rock the boat for no good reason

(OOC: obviously with no Watergate trust in govt remains higher and we know less than OTL)
 
Oh god, what's next, people are going to believe that crazy theory where the CIA gave people LSD to try and "mind control" them? Or that President Clinton has sex with an intern?

Some people just want to rock the boat for no good reason

ikr? I was just reading some article this morning written by one of those idiots who claim that the attack on the USS Maine in 1898 (which started the Spanish-American War) and the Second Gulf of Tonkin incident on August 4 1964 (which got the USA into the Vietnam War) were hoaxes, and also that the 2003 Iraq War was started on faulty or outright wrong information as well. I mean, some people truly have nothing better to do than making absurd claims that the USA would rush off to war for questionable reasons driven by some sort of military-industrial complex and a desire to police the world or whatever.

I guess if it becomes perceived to be true then its no longer a conspiracy theory. It accepted as factual history.

All right, and then what? Could that possibly give a little bit more credibility to some of the other crazy theories, like perhaps historians taking another look at the sinking of the USS Maine and some deeper investigations into the Gulf of Tonkin incident to definitively disprove those conspiracy theories?

And what about this forum? Would a conspiracy theory becoming factual history change the policy that discussions about conspiracy theories are frowned upon, or would people posting them still get insta-banned with a one-way ticket to Coventry courtesy of CalBear?
 
I don't find the accusations that Nixon messed with the Democratic nomination process so he could face the weakest possible Democratic nominee implausible at all. He wasn't known as "Tricky Dick" for nothing, and having narrowly lost in 1960 and only narrowly won in 1968, he probably wasn't taking any chances.

However, you get these accusations by the Democrats in every election, and I think its sour grapes. After Nixon's election in 1968, you have had only one single term Democratic administration, and the Republicans have held both houses of Congress continuously since 1980. At the federal level and in most states, the USA is effectively a one party state, but attempts to organize a more effective opposition party have failed so far. Among dissidents, there is just an unwillingness to accept that most Americans are pretty happy with GOP rule.
 
I don't find the accusations that Nixon messed with the Democratic nomination process so he could face the weakest possible Democratic nominee implausible at all. He wasn't known as "Tricky Dick" for nothing, and having narrowly lost in 1960 and only narrowly won in 1968, he probably wasn't taking any chances.

However, you get these accusations by the Democrats in every election, and I think its sour grapes. After Nixon's election in 1968, you have had only one single term Democratic administration, and the Republicans have held both houses of Congress continuously since 1980. At the federal level and in most states, the USA is effectively a one party state, but attempts to organize a more effective opposition party have failed so far. Among dissidents, there is just an unwillingness to accept that most Americans are pretty happy with GOP rule.

But weren’t all the Democratic candidates pretty weak, with Nixon on track to easily defeat all of them no matter which candidate would get the nomination? Or was there one of the Democratic candidates that Nixon still feared for some reason?

And what would have been the goal of the burglary anyway? How could it possibly have influenced the Democratic primaries? And especially considering the risk/reward ratio, I don’t see Nixon being that stupid to risk getting caught and having to give up the presidency to Spiro Agnew, just to gain an advantage in an election that he was already going to win regardless.
 
Well, trust in government would tumble down for a few decades, which might stall the 'Right to Life' Healthcare Bill in the early 80s, same with the college reform a few years later. Who knows, maybe Reagan becomes president- the actor was incredibly anti-government, though only a fringe group in the religious right agreed with him
 
I don't find the accusations that Nixon messed with the Democratic nomination process so he could face the weakest possible Democratic nominee implausible at all. He wasn't known as "Tricky Dick" for nothing, and having narrowly lost in 1960 and only narrowly won in 1968, he probably wasn't taking any chances.

However, you get these accusations by the Democrats in every election, and I think its sour grapes. After Nixon's election in 1968, you have had only one single term Democratic administration, and the Republicans have held both houses of Congress continuously since 1980. At the federal level and in most states, the USA is effectively a one party state, but attempts to organize a more effective opposition party have failed so far. Among dissidents, there is just an unwillingness to accept that most Americans are pretty happy with GOP rule.

Probably is that, it seem statistically very strange that in 20 years a single party had took control of a nation goverment basically without real opposition; honestly from an european pow the USA are democratic more or less like Mexico or Russia, just a little more nuanced about it and with the occasional loss by the GOP.
It seem strange that any promising leader that seem to be a strong challengers, well it had suddenly some scandal or revelation or other things...one or two is possible but more it's a pattern. Regarding the happyness of the population, well it's probable but there also the factor that except the CNN the rest of the fourth estate is pretty much aligned to the GOP
 
I don't find the accusations that Nixon messed with the Democratic nomination process so he could face the weakest possible Democratic nominee implausible at all. He wasn't known as "Tricky Dick" for nothing, and having narrowly lost in 1960 and only narrowly won in 1968, he probably wasn't taking any chances.

However, you get these accusations by the Democrats in every election, and I think its sour grapes. After Nixon's election in 1968, you have had only one single term Democratic administration, and the Republicans have held both houses of Congress continuously since 1980. At the federal level and in most states, the USA is effectively a one party state, but attempts to organize a more effective opposition party have failed so far. Among dissidents, there is just an unwillingness to accept that most Americans are pretty happy with GOP rule.
It is worth noting the GOP in of itself is hardly a single party, it's a coalition of sorts. the PNW's GOP is secular and wants most things legalized, contrast the southern GOP which is... well it appeals to southern conservatives. That's why the DNC can't win, the GOP is an alliance of multiple parties, many of whom are rather liberal, and unseating one is a hydra's head. two more to counteract.
 
It’s frankly difficult to imagine a United States with a functional centre right electoral party garnering working class votes. The years of political violence since the late sixties have cemented the US political system as one of extraparliamentary violence and in-party factionalism.

Sure you could blame the southern strategy for this party configuration, but the imaginary liberal or progressive era of the democrats was actually one of racist repression: just look at how many Panther chapters are liquidated in great society housing.
 
Top