Domestic Legislation in a 2nd JFK Term

The PoD is pretty rote -- Oswald misses on the second shot, so that President Kennedy is seriously wounded, but not killed; in the very short term, this leads to the legislation of late 1963 moving as OTL (eg the House still passes the Civil Rights Bill). Kennedy recovers through December, and his first major speech post-attempt is the 1964 State of the Union.

What I'd like this thread to be about are: (1) the major pieces of legislation that passed 1964-68 OTL, which ones would still happen TTL, and whether they would be any different; (2) if JFK would sign any major laws not passed under Johnson OTL?

Remember -- this thread is about specific laws, not so much general "What would a JFK Presidency be like?"

(I was going to post a list of major LBJ laws here -- found in his Wikipedia page under "legacy" -- but my I-phone's holding me up at the moment. Forthcoming.)
 
Civil Rights is probably going to be put on hold for a few years. Kennedy is not Johnson. Most of the Great Society is going to be gone too.
 
Civil Rights is probably going to be put on hold for a few years. Kennedy is not Johnson.

Why put on hold if it's already passed in the House (remember the OP)? Would LBJ have that much a harder time of it helping to shepard the CRA through the Senate if he was still VP?
 
Why put on hold if it's already passed in the House (remember the OP)? Would LBJ have that much a harder time of it helping to shepard the CRA through the Senate if he was still VP?

Yes, because the Kenneys purposely didn't let him do anything. Hell, on November 22, they were dropping the bombshell of his involvement in the Bobby Baker scandal to dump him as VP.

Civil rights passing the House means nothing. Richard Russell's Senate is where the segregationist wall had been standing for decades.

So, not much. JFK isn't even going to get his tax cuts in his first term, a second term will likely be summed up in one phrase as far as domestic politics go: Hey, hey, JFK, how many kids did you kill today?

Basically, not very much domestic legislation is going to happen at all. Eisenhower got more of what he wanted than JFK did, and JFK's party controlled Congress solidly, while Ike had two years with a slim margin. Of course, Ike had more assistance from LBJ than JFK would ever allow. He made LBJ his VP to isolate him from his power base. JFK didn't want to deal with a powerful Majority Leader, and didn't take LBJ's advice IOTL. Nor did he show the smallest interest in asking for it.
 
So, not much. JFK isn't even going to get his tax cuts in his first term, a second term will likely be summed up in one phrase as far as domestic politics go: Hey, hey, JFK, how many kids did you kill today?

Yup. Aside from what the revisionists will tell you about JFK, he had far fewer personal doubts about using American military force in Vietnam than did Lyndon Johnson. Kennedy sticking around in the White House probably means an even more bombing intensive, worse over all Vietnam War. Johnson might look bad for his Vietnam policies in retrospect, but even he wasn't about to let the military bomb Vietnam into the stone age and frequently cut off the bombing campaigns or minimized them. I'm not so sure Kennedy would do the same.
 
Absent the Kennedy martyrdom it is going to be very tough for CRA or VRA to pass, even with LBJ helping (and the degree to which he would help as VP is debatable)
 
It's the revisionists who are the ones that say JFK would go into Vietnam as an American military conflict regardless of any unforeseen circumstances. And I'm personally tired of it. And I generally do the politically correct thing of saying that along with JFK, Nixon would likely not have gone into Vietnam, or Rockefeller, or any other possible President for the 60s, which is quite true. But I shouldn't have to.

The revisionism is born out of a reaction which is one of cynicism, and I believe interrelates to how we killed all of our heroes in the 60s and post-60s generations. What it reacts to is Kennedy as popular, Kennedy as our slain leader, Kennedy as some one who was gunned down just on the brink of so many great things. And he was on the brink of many great things. A lot of that legislation that you hear only Johnson could have done would have gotten through the Congress due to the inner mechanisms of the Congress and the Congressmen and Senators themselves. But there was this school of thought when things started to go wrong in the Johnson years that if only Kennedy had been there and Johnson had not, it wouldn't have happened. The counter reaction to that was the Kennedy would have been bad if not worse, would have done the sins, would have perhaps done them greater (not greater as in better, but as in more extreme), and would have far fewer achievements. And it is cynical, and part of that psychology of kill all the gods whereby the Modernist idea of perfect, do good heroes to look up to was not replaced with an idea that these people were human-beings and while not perfect they were not terrible people, but instead with the idea that they were bad destined to cause ruination. And I think the counterreaction to Kennedy has been worse than the original thoughts, because while previous generations did look at Kennedy with eyes wider than deserving, he was more good than bad.

Kennedy had grave, grave worries about Vietnam. This is why time and again, when he was pressed to militarize the situation more for America, he refused it. This is why, though he increased the number of advisers in Vietnam, he did not involve combat troops. Kennedy did not like the situation in Vietnam. He believed it was a clusterfuck. Diem was an embarrassment (I've related previously he said his nation needed 6 Hitlers, which embarrassed the US), who was hated by his own people, who was corrupt and tyrannical with no modicum of effectiveness save for being able to play factions off of one another to keep balance, he appointed people to high positions based not on merit but on being family or loyal which was not helping his nation, and he was not winning the war his nation was fighting against Communism; he was a bad leader, and though those who followed were not any better, he still remains a bad leader who was not winning the war anymore than his successors. He was aware historically, being a smart man, of how insurgencies had cost nations gravely and had been effective in winning against larger forces. In more recent history, he was aware of Korea and how close the United States had come to losing that and how much that had ruined Truman's administration and Truman's popularity. He had frequently butted heads with the military, especially LeMay, when they pressed him for militarist solutions of issues during his administration, such as the missile crisis, and when they asked him and pressured him to let them bomb people into the stone age. And so on and so on. Kennedy was a Cold Warrior, but he was not a Hawk. And he did mention his trepidation on Vietnam (I recall a quote where he said that if he sent in more people, the bands would cheer and there'd by a parade, and then everyone would forget and ask for more, and then the same thing would happen and they'd ask for more, and more, and more), and he did discuss disengagement. He asked McNamara to draw up plans to withdraw advisers by 1965. McNamara thought phased withdrawal by 1968 was more realistic (and there is documentation like this; about 1:08 in). And keep in mind, I understand many of Kennedy's public statements on Vietnam said to not withdraw and so forth, but you must always in history understand what's part of the news cycle which is presented and what is part of the real situation and the real thoughts and what was really going on. Likewise, the situation was not one of a war at that time on America's part; it was aiding a foreign nation, through training and supply, to fight a war. So Kennedy had more personal doubts on Vietnam than LBJ did. LBJ did have doubts, but Kennedy had more trepidation. Kennedy had watched Vietnam closer for longer than LBJ had when Johnson Americanized the war. Kennedy was a foreign policy knowledgeable President, whereas Johnson was focused on domestic policy.

Vietnam is problematic for our American psyche, because we can't imagine avoiding it short of altering centuries of history to the point where we avoid a reality where nothing is the same. When we think of Vietnam, we always look at it as a slope that we were always going to slide down, finding ourselves landing in some god forsaken jungle. But that's not true. Vietnam is quite easy to avoid as a war. When polls were first taken in 1964 on public opinion of Vietnam, I believe only something like 37% of people paid any attention to it. And of that, most expected a ceasefire or the fall of Saigon. So no one really cared about Vietnam. It's not China. It's not Russia. It's not any of these major countries which had become Communist. It was this country, who the hell knows where on the map, with a name people weren't sure how to pronounce. So if it were to fall to Communism, no one will really notice. The Republicans could try to make it an issue, but I doubt it would be one, and should it have fallen, we'd probably be talking on here today, bringing it up as a nitpick point to explain how horrible LBJ or JFK was for letting this little known place fall. And the issue was never abandoning South Vietnam; it was withdrawing advisers. The US would still support South Vietnam with supplies and aid, and maybe even spy work via the CIA and maybe even some Special Ops missions in cooperation with the Republic of Vietnam government and ARVN. But the US would not get into Vietnam as an American military action.

The idea of legislation failing to pass is a reasonable argument. I disagree in many ways and feel that while the New Frontier perhaps would have been paler than the Great Society, much of the stuff still would have gotten through, especially after 1964 when JFK will get all these Liberals coming in. But, I do think that's a reasonable argument. Vietnam I wholeheartedly disagree on.
 
Last edited:
OK, here's a link to this list I was talking about earlier. The specific laws LBJ passed after 1963:

1964: Revenue Act of 1964
1964: Civil Rights Act of 1964
1964: Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964
1964: Wilderness Act
1964: Nurse Training Act of 1964
1964: Food Stamp Act of 1964
1964: Economic Opportunity Act
1964: Housing Act of 1964
1965: Higher Education Act of 1965
1965: Older Americans Act
1965: Social Security Act of 1965 (Medicare and Medicaid)
1965: Voting Rights Act
1965: Immigration and Nationality Services Act of 1965
1966: Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
1967: Age Discrimination in Employment Act
1967: Public Broadcasting Act of 1967
1968: Architectural Barriers Act of 1968
1968: Bilingual Education Act
1968: Civil Rights Act of 1968
1968: Gun Control Act of 1968

The idea of legislation failing to pass is a reasonable argument. I disagree in many ways and feel that while the New Frontier perhaps would have been paler than the Great Society, much of the stuff still would have gotten through, especially after 1964 when JFK will get all these Liberals coming in. But, I do think that's a reasonable argument. Vietnam I wholeheartedly disagree on.

Good, because I was actually hoping for this thread to focus on domestic legislation anyway -- in particular, which laws and accomplishments would stand the best chances of happening anyway vs not happening.
 
No War on Poverty. That eliminates a huge chunk of these laws. The New Frontier didn't call for that. No Medicare or Medicaid, most significantly.

It did call for Civil Rights, which won't pass. So poverty-helping programs won't even pass since JFK didn't even try IOTL. What he did try, the tax cuts and the civil rights, we're stonewalled. And they will stay stonewalled his second term, because Byrd won't budge no matter how many liberals there are. He rules the Finance Committee. And without that, the New Frontier is really just a few token legislation. The most significant piece of legislation that stays would probably be maybe the Immigration and Nationality Act, and the Public Broadcasting Act.

Ultimately, JFK will get very little legislation passed. Look at Nixon IOTL. He got some legislation that was nice, like the EPA, but they were led by Congress. JFK isn't going to get much of his centerpiece legislation through, but standard liberal stuff (NOT War on Poverty or Great Society stuff, stuff Rockefeller would support) like immigration reform and PBS. Even immigration reform can be defeated by the Southerners though, and it's chance of passing is around 40% or less, IMO.


Absent the Kennedy martyrdom it is going to be very tough for CRA or VRA to pass, even with LBJ helping (and the degree to which he would help as VP is debatable)
JFK never asked LBJ for help, and ignored LBJ's advice on Congress. JFK made LBJ his VP because it was the only way to win and because it deprived him of a powerful rival in the party with a powerbase independent of JFK.
 
Yes, because the Kenneys purposely didn't let him do anything. Hell, on November 22, they were dropping the bombshell of his involvement in the Bobby Baker scandal to dump him as VP.

Civil rights passing the House means nothing. Richard Russell's Senate is where the segregationist wall had been standing for decades.

So, not much. JFK isn't even going to get his tax cuts in his first term, a second term will likely be summed up in one phrase as far as domestic politics go: Hey, hey, JFK, how many kids did you kill today?

Basically, not very much domestic legislation is going to happen at all. Eisenhower got more of what he wanted than JFK did, and JFK's party controlled Congress solidly, while Ike had two years with a slim margin. Of course, Ike had more assistance from LBJ than JFK would ever allow. He made LBJ his VP to isolate him from his power base. JFK didn't want to deal with a powerful Majority Leader, and didn't take LBJ's advice IOTL. Nor did he show the smallest interest in asking for it.
This is dead-on the money, JFK was so much more conservative than anyone even his detractors realize.

He was hawkish against communism Hawkish on space and very concervative vis a vie civil rights.

He was an old school democrat. That is to say the man was a borderline dixiecrat.

The illusion of him as the great progressive was created ex post mortem by the Baby Boomers and conspiracy nuts.
 
This is dead-on the money, JFK was so much more conservative than anyone even his detractors realize.

He was hawkish against communism Hawkish on space and very concervative vis a vie civil rights.

He was an old school democrat. That is to say the man was a borderline dixiecrat.

The illusion of him as the great progressive was created ex post mortem by the Baby Boomers and conspiracy nuts.

Goodness no. JFK was not hawkish against Communism on space anymore than anyone of his time would be, and this is the man whose solution to the Moon Race was either go alone and beat Communism there, or work in conjunction with the USSR in order to foster international cooperation and cooling of tensions. He was not conservative on civil rights, or at least not in the form I think you are intending to mean. Kennedy's position was largely a normal white one for the day. Firstly, pre-civil rights I think it was the opinion that the issues like segregation and inequality were not good but that's just the way things were. Secondly, during the Civil Rights era, I think it was the opinion that the nation will get to it, but there's other things to do, and it needs to take time. And then shortly before his death was when he really got on the ball with Civil Rights and came to view it as something that needed to be addressed then and not pushed off until later. This was in 1963, and unfortunately he would be killed later in the year.
He wasn't an Old School Democrat, and to call him a borderline Dixiecrat is silly. What he was is a Cold War Democrat; that is to say politically Liberal, but much more Moderate than say FDR, though I wouldn't say as far towards the right/away from the left (however you'd like to phrase it) as Harry Truman, though celebrating both men.
 
He wasn't an Old School Democrat, and to call him a borderline Dixiecrat is silly. What he was is a Cold War Democrat; that is to say politically Liberal, but much more Moderate than say FDR, though I wouldn't say as far towards the right/away from the left (however you'd like to phrase it) as Harry Truman, though celebrating both men.

Kennedy was the most conservative of the New Deal coalition Presidents, by far. Johnson was the most liberal of the bunch, with FDR in second and Truman in third. To say that Kennedy was to the left of Harry "Let's Nationalize Natural Resources" Truman is somewhat laughable.
 
JFK was a hell of a lot more liberal than FDR on PEUs*- his EO turned them from Cheesehead experiment to national trend. Apart from that he governed as a centrist by period standards IMO. There was some talk of "Medicare for all" during the '62 midterms but getting anything like that through is ASB. Hell, even LBJ had to steer Medicare/aid through the AMA IOTL.

*Fairly liberal on unions generally- dates back to his 1947 vote for sustaining Truman's veto of Taft-Hartley.
 
JFK was a hell of a lot more liberal than FDR on PEUs*- his EO turned them from Cheesehead experiment to national trend... There was some talk of "Medicare for all" during the '62 midterms but getting anything like that through is ASB. Hell, even LBJ had to steer Medicare/aid through the AMA IOTL.

*Fairly liberal on unions generally- dates back to his 1947 vote for sustaining Truman's veto of Taft-Hartley.

Now we're moving back to the thread's intent -- specifics. Since JFK certainly isn't going to manage Universal Medicare if he survives, would he try healthcare -- any kind of HCR -- again in his second term? Could he manage, for example, OTL's Medicare? Or is everyone in agreement that he'd invariably fail?

And this isn't the only issue JFK supported on before his sucessor got real legislation -- he had called pre-1965 immigration "disgraceful"; he wanted Tax Cuts; and I think he was talking about something like the Job Corps.

Yes he's not Lyndon Johnson, and I've already been told here that JFK was never going to make use of him -- but if Kennedy had so decided, his VP was there as an asset. (This last point is something I was curious to hear from RB and ENI about -- could, for example, they patch things up in the assassination attempt aftermath?)
 
He might not get Medicare/aid either, though maybe Norton disagrees with me on that.

Tax cuts: Not unless something happens to Harry Byrd, who required the full LBJ Treatment before letting those out of Finance IOTL. After 1965 Byrd retires but I don't know who replaces him at Finance. If another conservative Democrat then they won't get out.

LBJ: No. Especially after the midterms there's going to be loads of '68 buzz which will inevitably be unkind to LBJ. I doubt RFK runs either but DC CW wouldn't catch on to that till late IMO.
 
Goodness no. JFK was not hawkish against Communism on space anymore than anyone of his time would be, and this is the man whose solution to the Moon Race was either go alone and beat Communism there, or work in conjunction with the USSR in order to foster international cooperation and cooling of tensions. He was not conservative on civil rights, or at least not in the form I think you are intending to mean. Kennedy's position was largely a normal white one for the day. Firstly, pre-civil rights I think it was the opinion that the issues like segregation and inequality were not good but that's just the way things were. Secondly, during the Civil Rights era, I think it was the opinion that the nation will get to it, but there's other things to do, and it needs to take time. And then shortly before his death was when he really got on the ball with Civil Rights and came to view it as something that needed to be addressed then and not pushed off until later. This was in 1963, and unfortunately he would be killed later in the year.
He wasn't an Old School Democrat, and to call him a borderline Dixiecrat is silly. What he was is a Cold War Democrat; that is to say politically Liberal, but much more Moderate than say FDR, though I wouldn't say as far towards the right/away from the left (however you'd like to phrase it) as Harry Truman, though celebrating both men.
I stqand corrected, your points are well taken sir.
 
Looking this over, and looking into Kennedy's positions on the Great Society issues in his day, I think I can offer how Kennedy living would affect the legislation that passed under Johnson OTL. Everything bolded in the lists is something I could find Kennedy having publicly promoted before their time:

1964 Legislation said:
1964: Revenue Act of 1964
1964: Civil Rights Act of 1964
1964: Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964
1964: Wilderness Act
1964: Nurse Training Act of 1964
1964: Food Stamp Act of 1964
1964: Economic Opportunity Act (Head Start and Job Corps)
1964: Housing Act of 1964

Food Stamps were an experimental program re-started by Kennedy in 1961, and he seemed inclined to stand by it, so I can see him fighting for extensions at least (maybe leaving it to his successors to make the program permanent). He'd also been talking up something like Job Corps, so TTL stands a good chance of seeing them some time later as well. And JFK has been talking up Federal Assistance to transit since 1962, which considering the money involved, doesn't seem like much of a stretch to see pass TTL as well.

CRA's been discussed, as have the Tax Cuts -- I'll grant the latter won't pass while Byrd is still chairman, though that doesn't rule out passage post-re-election. Civil Rights, whatever it's prospects, will, even in the best of scenarios, be an immense challenge.

1965 Legislation said:
1965: Higher Education Act of 1965
1965: Older Americans Act
1965: Social Security Act of 1965 (Medicare and Medicaid)
1965: Voting Rights Act
1965: Immigration and Nationality Services Act of 1965

If Kennedy successfully gets Civil Rights passed in 1964, and is re-elected said year, Voting Rights is likely to follow in 65. Immigration is something Kennedy had been criticizing the policies of the time harshly for years, and would likely keep the fight up on it -- though then, as now, it's a tricky area to reform. Health Care Reform, as with Civil Rights, is going to be a harsh struggle in the best case scenario.

1966-68 Legislation said:

Yeah, this stuff was pretty much Johnson OTL -- doesn't really tell us much of anything about what a second Kennedy term would look like. Now, the above shouldn't be taken to be a full account of the likely success of these initiatives, just which ones I think JFK cared about, and some very rough feel of the terrain.
 
Last edited:
Top