As any history buff knows, Robert F. Kennedy was one of only two U.S. Presidents to have been the brother of another President. His older brother John F. Kennedy was elected in 1960, while RFK was elected in 1976. What POD would it take to prevent Bobby Kennedy from becoming President? And what impact would this have on American history?
DBWI: No RFK Presidency
- Thread starter Amadeus
- Start date
Well for one thing maybe it would have prevented Reagan from becoming president in the 80s
This is actually very easy - have the Ohio recount go in favor of Bush in 1976. The 1976 election was a close one, as Kennedy couldn't really hammer Bush on his pardon of Nixon seeing as how he had a lot of other skeletons in his closet and couldn't do so without being seen as a hypocrite.
So, what if Kennedy had lost in 1976, leading to a second term for Bush? Well, for one the electoral college would be intact, as Bush winning the popular vote yet still losing made it a target of the GOP, and it being abolished with the 27th amendment was a defining moment of the Reagan administration. Bush would probably have the same foreign policy as Kennedy, though perhaps a bit more hawkish towards the Shariati government in Iran, but overall no change too major. Bush would have also tried to bring forth the initiative to make America a nuclear nation, leading to a better economy and giving whoever the Democrats nominated in 1980 a much harder time (much as how Kennedy's initiative to make America a country powered on nuclear made the 1980 election a lot closer, though thankfully not as close as 1976).
Perhaps we might even see a more left-leaning America. The dubious circumstances in which Kennedy was elected led to a right-wing backlash against not just him but the ideas he represented, that of New Deal liberalism which ever since the 1960s have been leading to a growing conservative movement, one which had its heyday in the 1980s and early to mid 1990s. While a Democrat elected in 1980 following Bush wouldn't have had as much of an impact on his party as Reagan did if said Democrat could be re-elected after 1984 it could demoralize the conservative movement enough to have it either a. moderate or b. whither away following years of failure.
Overall America was in a crossroads in the 1960s and 1970s and changing an entire election result could lead to an America perhaps unrecognizable today.
So, what if Kennedy had lost in 1976, leading to a second term for Bush? Well, for one the electoral college would be intact, as Bush winning the popular vote yet still losing made it a target of the GOP, and it being abolished with the 27th amendment was a defining moment of the Reagan administration. Bush would probably have the same foreign policy as Kennedy, though perhaps a bit more hawkish towards the Shariati government in Iran, but overall no change too major. Bush would have also tried to bring forth the initiative to make America a nuclear nation, leading to a better economy and giving whoever the Democrats nominated in 1980 a much harder time (much as how Kennedy's initiative to make America a country powered on nuclear made the 1980 election a lot closer, though thankfully not as close as 1976).
Perhaps we might even see a more left-leaning America. The dubious circumstances in which Kennedy was elected led to a right-wing backlash against not just him but the ideas he represented, that of New Deal liberalism which ever since the 1960s have been leading to a growing conservative movement, one which had its heyday in the 1980s and early to mid 1990s. While a Democrat elected in 1980 following Bush wouldn't have had as much of an impact on his party as Reagan did if said Democrat could be re-elected after 1984 it could demoralize the conservative movement enough to have it either a. moderate or b. whither away following years of failure.
Overall America was in a crossroads in the 1960s and 1970s and changing an entire election result could lead to an America perhaps unrecognizable today.
IIRC, Reagan was elected in 1984 but resigned in 1987 over the Iran-Contra scandal. The new President, Howard Baker, went on to win the 1988 election against Gary Hart. Baker could have run again in 1992, but he declined.
Does anyone remember who was President after Baker? I know that Presidents from Nixon to Baker are as follows:
37. Richard Nixon (1969-1974), R-CA
38. George H.W. Bush (1974-1977), R-TX
39. Robert F. Kennedy (1977-1985), D-NY
40. Ronald Reagan (1985-1987), R-CA
41. Howard Baker (1987-1993), R-TN
But once you get into the 1990's my political memory is fuzzy.
42. Mario Cuomo (1993-2001), D-NY
43. Sam Nunn (2001-2005), D-GA
44. Mitt Romney (2005-2013), R-MA
45. Barack Obama (2013-2021), D-IL
46. Marco Rubio (2021-Incumbent), R-FL
Right. Cuomo narrowly defeated Vice-President Jack Kemp in 1992, won again in 1996, and Vice-President Nunn narrowly beat Jeb Bush in 2000. Cuomo, a New Yorker like RFK, was inspired by Kennedy's Presidency to become the leader we know from history. If RFK had never become President, it's possible that Cuomo's presidency would be butterflied away. Or Nunn's, Romney's, and Obama's for that matter.
Very much so. If Bush wins in '76 a Democrat certainly wins in 1980 as Bush would be term limited and I think (If he's still the GOP nominee ITTL) that Reagan would have an even harder time against a non incumbent Democrat that doesn't have the weight of the shit show that was the late '70s around their neck. Said Democrat (I think Reubin Askew, Jerry Brown, Dale Bumpers, Lloyd Bentsen, or even John Glenn would be likely contenders for '80 if Bush wins 76) would be re elected in 1984 as Reagan only narrowly beat Vice President Carter in 1984, as the economy was noticeably on the rebound by then and things were stable abroad. '88 and beyond in this scenario is anyone's guess, but 1976 was the start of an era of close Presidential elections. Only twice since then (1996 and 2004) did a candidate win the Presidency (or in Cuomo's case re election) by a decisive margin. I wonder if that would still be the case if Bush beats Kennedy.
Had RFK lost, liberalism might have been discredited after three straight electoral defeats. Instead you might see more moderate to conservative Democrats like Brown and/or Bentsen take over the party in 1980.
38. George H.W. Bush (1974-1981), R-TX
39. Jerry Brown (1981-1989), D-CA
40. Lloyd Bentsen (1989-1993), D-TX
After that is anyone's guess, though I imagine the Republicans would be back in power by 1993.
The Republicans realistically could be back in as early as 1988 in this scenario, depending on how things go (I think the dems would win in '84 unless a Watergate or Iran Contra Scandal broke close to the election). Even with a good economy, it was Hart's affair as well as his empty "New Ideas" that allowed Baker to eek out a win in '88. A stronger, less damaged Democrat could've beaten him as his ascendance to the Presidency was the same as Bush's and like Bush did with Nixon, Baker pardoned Reagan. Agreed that the Democrats would take a more Conservative turn (be it on social policy, economic policy, foreign policy, or a combination of the three) after three consecutive GOP wins. The question is, would the Republicans do the same after three or four consecutive Democratic wins? Even after the Cuomo/Nunn years, Romney governed to the right of Baker and in some respects economically, even to the right of Reagan and 8 years of Obama afterward hasn't stopped Rubio from governing very Conservatively thus far. Heck, the only reason Cuomo was able to govern pretty liberally for most of his two terms was because Hart and his "New Ideas" losing at the polls despite Iran Contra discredited the "Atari" and "New Democrats."
Let's also consider what RFK accomplished during his presidency. Under him, the ERA was ratified and the 1979 Health Act established universal health care coverage for every American. While Kennedy was narrowly re-elected in 1980, the right wing backlash against his policies helped elect Reagan in 1984. But if RFK had never been elected, would the ERA and universal health care have ever passed?
OOC: In OTL no two siblings have served as President. But in this DBWI RFK is elected President, making him and JFK the only two siblings to occupy the White House.
I think in 1988 (or in 1992) Republicans would emphasize fiscal responsibility and national defense over their opposition to the Democrat's domestic policies. On this platform they could win with a strong candidate.
One interesting thing about RFK is that although he's usually known as a beacon of progressive politics, it was he who started America's turn to neoliberalism when he deregulated industries - even though this was expanded by Reagan, who is more often associated with deregulation. Had Bush won in 1976, and a different Democrat had won in 1980, I imagine that neoliberalism would've still been implemented albiet later than OTL. Was deregulation inevitable? Could the long term negative impacts of neoliberalism be avoided?