Fear, Loathing and Gumbo on the Campaign Trail '72

[Thande]

Cool update. Looks like there'll be a lot of shakeups in Asia: Suslov's dying, the PLA seems fed up enough with the Lesser Mao to attempt a military coup sooner or later, a shared enemy has normalised relations between the two Vietnams (maybe there could be a unification on equal terms a couple of decades down the line). India getting involved with the Vietnamese, however peripherally, is interesting; possibly they could create another front of a leftist but anti-Soviet bloc, as with the Italians in Europe.

Also the stuff about the 1980 presidential election is interesting. While Reagan came sufficiently close to victory in '76 that it'd be harder than usual to tar him as 'a loser', his age is enough I think to give people pause. With Rumsfeld (and Williams?) as strong challengers for conservative standard bearer, it could split the right-wing vote enough to let a more moderate Republican like Bush grab the nomination. If the campaign is particularly bitter the Republican right-wingers might then drift over to the Libertarian campaign, so we could have a four-way contest what with Dellums and Nader forming a left-wing ticket as well. And then there's Kennedy: I wonder if he can keep his big mouth shut about the Troubles or not; if not, I could easily see the Healey government helping Wallace sabotage his campaign (especially since it's previously been mentioned that Wallace hit it off well with Healey).

 

[Constantinople]

Well it looks very much like all the independent runs could easily push *another* election in to the contested area.... I mean we have at least, what, three third party campaigns which are certainly viable?

 

[Thande]

Well it looks very much like all the independent runs could easily push *another* election in to the contested area.... I mean we have at least, what, three third party campaigns which are certainly viable?

I wonder how many contested elections it will take before there starts to be a significant clamour for reforming the electoral college? One of the proposals suggested earlier in the TL by the 1972 election enquiry was to switch the US over to a French-style system (where you have one round, and if no-one gets more than 50% of the popular vote, you have another round with only the top two candidates from the first round to ensure the eventual winner was voted for by more than 50% of voters). Obviously at the time this was the most controversial and unviable of all the proposals, but in TTL I suspect people could eventually come around to it.

On the other hand, I remember in Decades of Darkness Jared had the Republic of New England (which also used the US electoral system) be in the ridiculous situation of having every single presidential election thrown to the House, because there were three equally powerful parties; and yet somehow it does seem worryingly plausible that Americans would sooner put up with that kind of absurdity than change the Holy Writ of the Constitution.

 

[Fleetlord]

I wonder how many contested elections it will take before there starts to be a significant clamour for reforming the electoral college? One of the proposals suggested earlier in the TL by the 1972 election enquiry was to switch the US over to a French-style system (where you have one round, and if no-one gets more than 50% of the popular vote, you have another round with only the top two candidates from the first round to ensure the eventual winner was voted for by more than 50% of voters). Obviously at the time this was the most controversial and unviable of all the proposals, but in TTL I suspect people could eventually come around to it.

On the other hand, I remember in Decades of Darkness Jared had the Republic of New England (which also used the US electoral system) be in the ridiculous situation of having every single presidential election thrown to the House, because there were three equally powerful parties; and yet somehow it does seem worryingly plausible that Americans would sooner put up with that kind of absurdity than change the Holy Writ of the Constitution.

IIRC, the 27th Amendment did pass, so at least we'd be spared another months-long gridlock.

The problem with getting the EC repealed altogther isn't so much overall popular attachment to the concept as it is the Catch-22 that the only way to kill the EC is with the approval of at least some of the states that would lose influence without it, or think they would. (Midwesterners in particular seem convinced that without the EC, candidates would set up shop in New York and LA and never leave.)

 

[Fleetlord]

Hey, while we're playing WATN?, what's Dennis Kucinich up to? OTL he rose to and then fell from power over a fight with a private company which wanted to buy Cleveland's public electric utility -- it got to the point where the local bank basically tried to blackmail Cleveland into the sale by threatening to call in all public debts and force the city into default. Dennis took the default.

I ask because ITTL, this seems like the kind of fight that the Wallace Administration would want to get involved in, if only for appearance's sake -- not sure what he'd do (Federal bailout for Cleveland? Sic the IRS or FTC on Cleveland Trust?), but it's possible that things might end better for Kucinich...

 

[Fleetlord]

Another thought on the Constitution -- might this timeline see a successful call for an Article V convention? We've come close a few times OTL, but always held back due to the fact that nobody actually knows who would comprise such a convention or how far it could go once convened. But with the growing dis-satisfaction with the political process TTL, well...

 

[Hyperbolus]

Is there

Any chance the Republicans and Libertarians could evolve into sibling parties á la the CDU and CSU?
Something along the lines of the Libertarians running unopposed in a few Rocky Mountain States in exchange for supporting the Republican presidential nominee.
Electoral fusion might be another option.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_fusion

 

[vultan]

Any chance the Republicans and Libertarians could evolve into sibling parties á la the CDU and CSU?
Something along the lines of the Libertarians running unopposed in a few Rocky Mountain States in exchange for supporting the Republican presidential nominee.
Electoral fusion might be another option.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_fusion

Maybe eventually, but something tells me the Libs would want to push how far they can go in 1980, since they can probably get a real candidate (Williams, a Goldwater, et al).

 

[Electric Monk]

I haven't finished the timeline (or even close: page 4 of 42, at the moment) but you mentioned there was no biographer of Agnew and then brought up a Witcover book, A Heartbeat Away.

Witcover has in fact written two other books related to Agnew:

Very Strange Bedfellows: The Short and Unhappy Marriage of Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew
White Knight: The Rise of Spiro Agnew

There's also Agnew's own book, Go Quietly… or Else, a combination Agnew defence/speech collection, and this book written before Agnew's downfall.

I figure you've read them all but I thought I'd mention them if you ever revisit/revise the earlier parts of the timeline.

As for comments besides good job, I figure I'll have a big long post in the next week or so. I apologize for missing this timeline when it began, it's right up my alley.

 

[Antipater]

Another thought on the Constitution -- might this timeline see a successful call for an Article V convention? We've come close a few times OTL, but always held back due to the fact that nobody actually knows who would comprise such a convention or how far it could go once convened. But with the growing dis-satisfaction with the political process TTL, well...

The experience of the last Constitutional Convention in 1787 would have to give any politician with the barest grasp of history pause before supporting an Article V Convention.

We touched on Article V Conventions briefly when I took Constitutional Law. The consensus is that neither the states nor the Congress would be able to limit the scope of any Constitutional Convention once called. This means that such a convention could entirely remake the American government, nothing would be sacrosanct. Career Politicians and those with vested interest in the status quo would fight tooth and nail against the mere possibility of such an outcome.

For a more recent example of the difficulty of holding a Constitutional Convention, look at New York state. For decades there has been a rather strong consensus that the state constitution needs to revise its constitution. However, in spite of nearly non-stop calls for a convention from some quarters, there have been only two since 1938, and in the event, the proposed constitutions that came out of both conventions were rejected by the voters after furious campaigning by vested interests, with the strongest opposition coming from organized labor.

For a US constitutional convention to be be held, 34 states would need to support it. For it to be ratified, 38 states would have support the convention. I am not saying that such an outcome would be impossible, but I can easily imagine a "No" campaign featuring both the AFL-CIO and the Libertarians opposing a "radical attempt to tear up the sacred text of our founding fathers."

 

[Fleetlord]

The experience of the last Constitutional Convention in 1787 would have to give any politician with the barest grasp of history pause before supporting an Article V Convention.

We touched on Article V Conventions briefly when I took Constitutional Law. The consensus is that neither the states nor the Congress would be able to limit the scope of any Constitutional Convention once called. This means that such a convention could entirely remake the American government, nothing would be sacrosanct. Career Politicians and those with vested interest in the status quo would fight tooth and nail against the mere possibility of such an outcome.

For a more recent example of the difficulty of holding a Constitutional Convention, look at New York state. For decades there has been a rather strong consensus that the state constitution needs to revise its constitution. However, in spite of nearly non-stop calls for a convention from some quarters, there have been only two since 1938, and in the event, the proposed constitutions that came out of both conventions were rejected by the voters after furious campaigning by vested interests, with the strongest opposition coming from organized labor.

For a US constitutional convention to be be held, 34 states would need to support it. For it to be ratified, 38 states would have support the convention. I am not saying that such an outcome would be impossible, but I can easily imagine a "No" campaign featuring both the AFL-CIO and the Libertarians opposing a "radical attempt to tear up the sacred text of our founding fathers."

Oh, it would be a clustermug, allright -- I only brought it up because we were apparently only two states away from calling one in 1983 OTL (over the defecit, of all things).

 

[vultan]

Hmmm... seeing as I looked at the Libertarians, I'll touch on two of the other third parties/eclectic political movements going on ITTL.

Christian Values Movement

Coming out of the left field, the CVM has become arguably the second most powerful minor party in America, after the Libertarians (one Senator and one Representative, both from Louisiana, and they were a skip and a hop away from replacing Strom Thurmond with Bob Jones 3.0).

Ideologically, I see them as heavily resembling our timeline's Christian Right... just more so. Another good place to look would be our world's Constitution Party (in fact, I wonder if Howard Phillips is involved in this movement in some way). Economically, I see them straddling the line between fiscal conservatism and Mike Huckabee-style populism. In foreign policy, I can see a split between a paleoconservative isolationist faction and a hardcore neocon faction, trying to increase United States aid for Israel and protecting the US from "godless" communists. In social policy, they are obviously going to take their cues from Biblical teaching (though racially, I can see them being mostly colorblind, even though they mostly come from the South).

In 1980, I see them trying to nominate a prominent Evangelical minister. Pat Robertson is a possibility, though personally I would think Jerry Fallwell is more likely. He is, after all, the man who founded the Moral Majority in 1979, in our timeline. For VP, perhaps they nominate a conservative Catholic, trying to bridge the communities and get a few votes in the North? I'm pretty sure anti-Catholicism is a spent force by this point in American history (even with this timeline's Spiro Agnew giving a speech with anti-Catholic content in 1973). Maybe Ellen McCormack, she of the one-issue, pro-life Democratic primary campaign in 1976.

As for as cross-overs go... maybe Marvin Horan, the preacher who became prominent in West Virginia textbook controversy, then got elected to the House as a Republican in 1974? I doubt Pat Buchanan would go for it (even though it'll be a while ITTL before he's prominent, if he ever is). He'd be more of a conservative-leaning Libertarian.

Ron Dellum's Erstwhile-Unnamed Progressive party/movement

We already know that Dellums and Chisholm are in on it, as well as Ralph Nader on a peripheral level. As far as other potential high-profile supporters go, they have a plethora they can draw from. Benjamin Spock, Howard Zinn, Gore Vidal, Utah Phillips, Noam Chomsky... and those are just the ones off the top of my head! Not to mention, any of them would make a great running mate for Dellums. In our world, these kinds of liberals have seen themselves as at best only mildly in agreement with the Democrats, but they could and probably would certainly support Dellums.

As far as elected and formerly elected officials go, the first that comes to mind is Bernie Sanders, who was elected Governor of Vermont as an independent in 1976, and is therefore the highest-ranking socialist-leaning politician in America right now. He could be a supporter. Also, I can see the SWP go into a tentative coalition with Dellums (as far as the AAFP, though, it probably depends on whether Bobby Seale wants to run again or not). Eugene McCarthy is probably in, as well as what remains of the Peace and Freedom Party.

I'm going to go off into a tangent now, but I find it interesting that the SWP is hogging the far-left vote for the most part. It'd be funny to see the Socialist Labor Party, the Worker's World Party, or hell, even the Communist Party of the United States of America winning a seat in Congress and starting a huge rivalry with the SWP.

----

Oh, one more thing Drew, you had independent Charles Mahoney win the Montana gubernatorial race in 1976. There is no wiki article on him, so I must ask how is he governing? Far-right? Libertarian-leaning? Progressive?

 

[Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy]

As far as other potential high-profile supporters go, they have a plethora they can draw from. Benjamin Spock, Howard Zinn, Gore Vidal, Utah Phillips, Noam Chomsky... and those are just the ones off the top of my head! Not to mention, any of them would make a great running mate for Dellums. In our world, these kinds of liberals have seen themselves as at best only mildly in agreement with the Democrats, but they could and probably would certainly support Dellums.

Dellums is trying to win the Democratic Party back from Wallace, not form (yet another) 3rd party with no effect on national politics beside siphoning off votes from its ideological relations and maybe winning a few seats in Congress. The job's hard enough without associating themselves with people who go quite beyond merely being liberal.

 

[vultan]

Dellums is trying to win the Democratic Party back from Wallace, not form (yet another) 3rd party with no effect on national politics beside siphoning off votes from its ideological relations and maybe winning a few seats in Congress. The job's hard enough without associating themselves with people who go quite beyond merely being liberal.

He is strongly considering a progressive independent run, right? Best to make himself heard as loudly as possible in 1980, so the Democrats come back to the table with him by 1984.

 

[Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy]

The Dems wouldn't need him back unless he manages to take enough of the party's left with him. He needs people who are disappointed with the party, not people who never supported it in the first place and are more interested in the SWP and AAFP. Going by his comments on the McKeithen strategy, he must've figured that associating with such people can only weaken his hand against Wallace.

 

[vultan]

The Dems wouldn't need him back unless he manages to take enough of the party's left with him. He needs people who are disappointed with the party, not people who never supported it in the first place and are more interested in the SWP and AAFP. Going by his comments on the McKeithen strategy, he must've figured that associating with such people can only weaken his hand against Wallace.

Was Nader ever really associated with the Dems?

 

[Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy]

Was Nader ever really associated with the Dems?

No, but there's still more overlap between him and the Democratic Party than between Zinn or Chomsky and the party. Dellums needs someone who would wax nostalgically about JFK, not someone who'd attack JFK for blockading Cuba. My intuition tells me that Dellums going too far to the left would benefit Wallace in the next election the same way McGovern helped McKeithen in '72. But now I see that the comments about the McKeithen strategy belong to McCloskey, not Dellums, so the latter may be fooled into becoming another McGovern.

Damn all these Scottish names!

 

[vultan]

No, but there's still more overlap between him and the Democratic Party than between Zinn or Chomsky and the party. Dellums needs someone who would wax nostalgically about JFK, not someone who'd attack JFK for blockading Cuba. My intuition tells me that Dellums going too far to the left would benefit Wallace in the next election the same way McGovern helped McKeithen in '72. But now I see that the comments about the McKeithen strategy belong to McCloskey, not Dellums, so the latter may be fooled into becoming another McGovern.

Damn all these Scottish names!

You mean Irish.

 

[Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy]

You mean Irish.

2 Methodists and one Presbyterian.

 

[Plumber]

2 Methodists and one Presbyterian.

Scots-Irish