Fear, Loathing and Gumbo on the Campaign Trail '72

[Drew]

Great lists Thande - thanks for contributing them; just a couple of minor corrections as noted below:


Presidents of the United States
Jan 20 1969-Jan 20 1973 37) Richard Nixon (Republican)
Jan 20 1973-Sept 5 1973: Spiro T. Agnew (Republican) [1]
Sept 5 1973: John J. McKeithen (Democratic) [2]
Sept 5 1973 - Nov 7 1973: 38) Spiro T. Agnew (Republican) [3]
Nov 7 1973-Jan 20 1977: 39) James M. Gavin (Independent) [4]
Jan 20 1977-current timeline present: 40) George Wallace (Democratic)


[1] As Acting President.

[2] Elected President by contingent election in the House of Representatives, although already deceased at the time. Retroactively confirmed as President for one day and included in the official historical line, although never sworn in (and thus not numbered as either the 38th or 39th President).

[3] As President (succeeded from the Vice Presidency upon the death of the elected President under terms of the 25th Amendment). Impeached and removed by conviction in the Senate.

[4] Counted as an Independent, although he unsuccessfully attempted to gain the Republican nomination for the 1976 election.




Prime Ministers of Australia:
10 Mar 1971-5 Dec 1972: William McMahon (Coalition)
5 Dec 1972-11 Nov 1975: Gough Whitlam (Labor)
11 Nov 1975-Dec 19 1975: Malcolm Fraser (Coalition)
Dec 19 1975- Sept 12, 1976: Gough Whitlam (Labor)
Sept 12, 1976 - current timeline present: William ("Bill") Hayden (Labor)

"The country at large, according to polls taken over the next year, blamed Kerr, Whitlam and Fraser about equally: Kerr was seen as scheming and venal, Fraser as opportunistic and possibly a dupe of the United States, and Whitlam as a clueless bungler who nearly caused his own downfall. “Dumb as Gough” became a popular expression of the period to denote an oblivious fool.

Of the three Whitlam lasted the longest in public office, remaining Prime Minister until September 12, 1976, when the ALP turned on him and ousted him as leader. He was replaced by Bill Hayden as Labor leader, and Hayden succeeded Whitlam as Prime Minister."

 

[Drew]

Heh, I was just about to add that. One question: The election that brought Berlinguer to power was on Jun 20, but it took him "several weeks" to put a coalition together -- so do we date his term from Jun 20 or did Moro technically remain PM until August or whenever?

I expect that either Moro would continue as a caretaker, or if that was considered out of bounds because his party lost the election, the President of Italy would appoint some technocrat or other figure to act as Prime Minister and appoint an acting Cabinet until the new government was formed. Such a caretaker government would have no political authority beyond the day-to-day management of the nation's business.

 

[Drew]

Yeah, the way Wallace has been acting recently I can't tell if he's conservative or liberal...
As our friend Ted Agnew said, "Who is the REAL George Wallace?"

George Wallace was an opportunist, a populist and a man who felt himself a champion of the underclass against the ruling classes - in the latter he was influenced by his mentor "Big Jim" Folsom a previous, liberal-Democratic governor of Alabama (yeah, imagine that, a liberal Democrat as governor of Alabama - once upon a time).

He turned to racism not because he was himself overly racist (over and above what he grew-up with in Alabama) but because it was the way to win elections in Alabama. Wallace was never a member of the Klan and privately was had nothing but contempt for them.

To the extent he had foreign policy view he stated it like this:

in terms of Vietnam: "either win the damn thing or get out."
in terms of foreign aid: "a good shovel and the back of the boot is the best foreign aid I ever heard of."

His vision as a President domestically would have come from the FDR New Deal era in Southern politics, and was reflected by his own populist nature during all four of his terms as governor. Standards of living and education did improve in Alabama during his terms, for both whites and blacks. Nationally, I would expect his domestic Presidency to follow the same strain and it was why he was elected on a platform of throwing the money changers out of Washington (though like many an "idealistic" President it remains to be seen if he changes Washington or Washington changes him.).

Not having much of foreign policy background, I see him as being highly vulnerable to the forces that would present him with clear cut lines of good and evil, who would offer paths that promote American strength and avoid direct American entanglements in foreign problems by building-up strong proxies, and just generally making America secure by presenting it as the strongest nation around and one you don't want to mess with. That's why, in surrounding him with neo-cons, I see him falling under their spell because they have answers for things he never ever thought of before.

Another reason Wallace would reject Nixon-Kissinger detente and the liberal consensus of the Kennedy-Johnson years would be Wallace's innate rejection of left-wing liberal ideas, anything associated with Harvard and Yale (he had a gut aversion to the very names of the two Universities) and a latent antisemitism which was a part of Wallace's character.

If he had any referrants to the kind of President he would like to be, Wallace would hark back to Harry Truman and possibly Teddy Roosevelt, both of whom were tough and forward in their foreign policies.

And for some reason, I read the Elvis bit rather ominously...

He's a man gifted with a second chance and charged by God to bring His message to the world. Perhaps God meant him to become President....or...?

 

[Drew]

Agreed here.

This TL is getting more and more interesting.
How do you find out all the dates Drew? Is it just looking at a load of sources?

Wikipedia; History Orb - stuff comes up as I'm other reading material

 

[vultan]

Even if he is acting, there's also a possibility that Agnew, who had a weak personality to being with, could be absorbed by the part he is playing. One could well ask him - who is the real Spiro Agnew?

Someone, maybe some SWP representative, should challenge him to that on air.

 

[Unknown]

Could you explain the Berkowitz gaffe (if it is a gaffe; you have him being the Son of Sam when he was arrested a year earlier)?

Good timeline, Drew.

 

[Drew]

Whoo!

About the "Federal District of Hudson" -- I know the idea was floated a while back but I think we missed it's enactment. I'm not sure it would work, to be honest.

a) Carving off a piece of New York would require the consent of that state's legislature. While upstate may be persuaded to part with the City (then again, it's not like it isn't a good source of tax revenue, what ever its current woes), it would be difficult to persuade legislators from the city itself to vote to eliminate their jobs, and NYC is big enough that they're probably a majority of the legislature, or close to it. Plus the Governor is from Brooklyn -- I don't know if he gets a veto here or not, but it can't help.

b) Likewise, are the Congressmen from NYC voting to eliminate their jobs? (Given the current situation in the House, that might flip the chamber over to Republicans!) Or will NYC retain its federal representation despite being a federal district? (In which case, you pretty much have to do something for DC, which opens a fresh can of worms.) Granted, the Wallace Administration is probably looking to do something to bring the District back onsides anyway, but that'll be a potentially difficult haul and tying it with the New York issue won't do anybody any favors. Plus, there's still a).

I think, based on historical experience with bankrupt local governments, the likely path for NYC is that the state appoints an "emergency manager" who sidelines the elected government and proceeds to tear up labor contracts and any other inconvenient financial obligations until the city is solvent again. (Which will lead to all sorts of fun labor actions and other political consequences, especially if the blackout's happening on schedule.) Alternately, if the city throws in the towel altogether I suppose it's possible that it dissolves and reverts all functions to the five county/borough governments in the area, though a New Yorker will prolly know more than I about how likely that is.

It was created in reaction to the bankruptcy of New York during the Depression of the 1970's, and in part a move by the State of New York to pass responsibility on to the Federal books. It may also be seen as the Gavin Administration using the opportunity to exert greater direct political control over America's financial center. The FDH would be under new stern management and probably subject to federally mandated re-organization.

New York State would in return receive a series of payments that would offset the loss of tax revenue

Politically I saw it working on a federal level as a compromise; the Federal government under President Gavin took control of the FDH, but in return as a compromise to the Democratic Party (in return for their acquiescence) left the Congressional (House) representation in tact - although that will raise a Constitutional question.

And yes, it does serve as a rallying cry for DC, which in 1976 voted for Reagan only because the various political elements in DC were divided. DC representation would defintiely get a leg-up from the FDH precedent.

Democrats in turn would welcome this development, as they would see DC as a bastion for an additional Democratic vote in House should DC get its representative.

The FDH incidentally doesn't have Senators, as New York State retains its two (Buckley and Javits) , who would have the opportunity to change their residency to some part of New York state outside of New York City (FDH) boundaries if necessary so they would still qualify for their elected positions.

DC statehood advocates would continue to press of DC Statehood so their city could get its two Senators.

 

[Drew]

Could you explain the Berkowitz gaffe (if it is a gaffe; you have him being the Son of Sam when he was arrested a year earlier)?

Continuity error - removed. Must have happened in an alternate TL

Good timeline, Drew.

Thanks.

 

[Drew]

Here's the make-up of the U.S. Senate through much of 1977 - after Wallace Cabinet picks but before any special elections. I have corrected for the controversy over Thomas J. McIntyre who remains the senior Senator from New Hampshire.


Membership of the United States Senate – 95th United States Congress – Adjusted after Wallace Cabinet Picks

Democrat: 49
Republican: 47
Independent: 3
Libertarian: 1

President of the Senate: Vice President Nicholas Katzenbach (D) (from Jan 20, 1977)
Majority Leader: Robert Byrd (D-WV) 1
Minority Leader: Howard Baker (R-TN)

1 = Retains Majority when Independent Senators Harry Byrd (VA) and/or Orval Faubus (AR) vote with the Democrats, and can break a tie vote with the support of Vice President Katzenbach.

The Libertarian, Sen. Ronald Galtieri (Lib-MT) declined to support either party in Majority votes, arguing that the “Majority-Minority” system was flawed and unconstitutional.

Alabama
2. John Sparkman (D)
3. Albert Brewer (D)

Alaska
2. Ted Stevens (R)
3. Mike Gravel (D)

Arizona
3. Barry Goldwater (R)
1. John. B. Conlan (R)

Arkansas
2. Orval Faubus (I[D])
3. Dale Bumpers (D)

California
3. Alan Cranston (D)
1. G. Edmund (“Jerry”) Brown (D)

Colorado
2. Floyd K. Haskell (D)
3. Gary Hart (D)

Connecticut
3. Abraham A. Ribicoff (D)
1. Gloria Schaffer (D)

Delaware
2. J. Caleb Boggs (R)
1. William Roth (R)

Florida
3. Richard Stone (D)
1. John Grady (R)

Georgia
2. Sam Nunn (D)
3. James E. Carter (D)

Hawaii
3. Daniel Inouye (D)
1. William F. Quinn (R)

Idaho
3. Frank Church (D)
2. James A. McClure (R)

Illinois
2. Charles H. Percy (R)
3. Adlai Stevenson III (D)

Indiana
1. Richard Lugar (R)
3. Vance Hartke (D)

Iowa
2. Jack R. Miller (R)
3. Jack Culver (D)

Kansas
2. James B. Pearson (R)
3. William R. Roy (D)

Kentucky
2. Louie B. Nunn (R)
3. Wendell Ford (D)

Louisiana
3. Russell B. Long (D)
2. J. Bennett Johnston Jr. (D)

Maine
2. Margaret Chase-Smith (R)
1. Robert A.G. Monks (R)

Maryland
3. Charles Mathias, Jr. (R)
1. Paul Sarbanes (D)

Massachusetts
1. Edward M. Kennedy (D)
2. Thomas P. O’Neill (D)

Michigan
2. Robert P. Griffin (R)
1. Marvin L. Esch (R)

Minnesota
2. Walter Mondale (DFL)
1. Hubert Humphrey (DFL)

Mississippi
2. James Eastland (D)
1. John B. Williams ( I-R) – caucused with the Republican Party; became a Republican in 1978.

Missouri
3. Thomas Eagleton (D)
1. John Danforth (R)

Montana
2. Ronald C. Galtieri (Lib)
1. Stanley C. Burger (R)

Nebraska
2. Carl Curtis (R)
1. John Y. McCollister (R)

Nevada
3. Harry Reid (D)
1. Paul Laxalt (R)

New Hampshire
2. Thomas J. McIntyre (D)
3. John A. Durkin (D)


New Jersey
2. Clifford P. Case (R)
1. David A. Norcross (R)

New Mexico
2. Pete Domenici (R)
1. Harrison Schmidt (R)

New York
3. Jacob K. Javits (R)
1. James Buckley (R)

North Carolina
2. Jesse Helms (R)
3. Robert B. Morgan (D)

North Dakota
3. William L. Guy (D)
1. Robert Stroup (R)

Ohio
1. Robert Taft, Jr. (R)
3. John Glenn (D)

Oklahoma
2. Dewey F. Bartlett (R)
3. Ed Edmondson (D)

Oregon
2. Mark Hatfield (R)
3. Robert Packwood (R)

Pennsylvania
3. Richard S. Schweiker (R)
1. William D. Greene III (D)

Rhode Island
2. Claiborne Pell (D)
1. John Chaffee (R)

South Carolina
2. Strom Thurmond (R)
3. Ernest Hollings (D)

South Dakota
2. James Abourezk (D)
3. Joseph J. Foss (R)

Tennessee
2. Howard Baker (R)
1. William E. Brock III (R)

Texas
2. John Tower (R)
1. Lloyd Bentsen (D)

Utah
3. Jake Garn (R)
1. Orrin Hatch (R)

Vermont
3. Patrick Leahy (D)
1. Thomas P. Salmon (D)

Virginia
1. Harry F. Byrd, Jr. (I[D])
2. William L. Scott (R)

Washington
3. Warren G. Magnuson (D)
1. John Cherberg (D)

West Virginia
2. Jennings Randolph (D)
1. Robert Byrd (D)

Wisconsin
1. William Proxmire (D)
3. Gaylord Nelson (D)

Wyoming
2. Clifford Hansen (R)
1. Malcolm Wallop(R)

 

[Drew]

...or maybe a founder of an alt-Constitution Party deal. You never know...

BTW, it just occurred to me: the GOP by today are going to be even farther right than they are OTL. Think about it: they already have Spiro Agnew/Hughes Network acting like Glenn Beck/Fox News, which was in OTL a heavy impetus for the Tea Party movement.
In OTL, Ronald Reagan lost the '76 nomination in part because he said Richard Schweiker would be his running mate, an option too liberal for the conservatives such as Jesse Helms.
It's possible that by 1980, even if Reagan does run, he'll be considered a party moderate, like how Romney shifted between 2008 and 2012.
That might have some unfortunate implications.

Bill Brock is the junior Senator from Tennessee and there's fertile political ground for him to build momentum.

In TTL the Schweiker incident didn't occur, and to the extent that Reagan chose a more liberal running mate in Charles Percy, he at least has the argument that Percy was (like Bush OTL 1980) the second choice of primary voters in the Party.

Reagan nearly won ITTL 1976, which is both a positive and a negative for him. In OTL 1976 he had the advantage of losing to Ford, and then watching Ford lose, building an aura that the party had chosen the wrong candidate. ITTL he couldn't best Wallace though he came close, an argument that goes a long way to suggesting he could defeat a liberal, but many detractors may wonder whether it makes sense for him to run again against Wallace ITTL 1980. That's a fight that will go in the GOP over the next three years.

Meanwhile other conservatives, notably Rumsfeld, Barry Goldwater Jr. and Bill Brock, are building their profiles as the future of the conservative movement in the GOP (note the reference to the future - all these men are under 50, where Reagan will be 69 in 1980 - bearing in mind the only President elected at that age - William Henry Harrison - died in office one month after being inaugurated). OTL that argument was there, but there was no one for conservatives to turn to as an alternate to Reagan (there were other choices, but none had the popular profile that Reagan did) and it would still be there ITTL.

To an extent Rumsfeld, Goldwater Jr. and Brock might be auditioning to be Reagan's running mate in 1980, but along the way one might overtake him if he can draw support from other parts of the GOP as well and seems more likely to defeat Wallace.

Food for thought.

 

[area11]

Snip

Forgive my ignorance of US politics but what do the numbers before the Senators stand for?

 

[PaganMonarchist]

I would say they are, though there are likely to be some differences. Greece 1977 is not what it was IOTL, that's established.

I can see a possible way to avoid a retcon. For the Dutch to win ITTL's 1976 Eurovision, they would have to win by a squeaker over the UK's whose win IOTL was the largest ever seen (not the margin, but the sheer amount of points they got, 80% of the maximum possible). Now the Contest is established as taking place in May 1977 due to a strike. Well, there actually was a strike and delay IOTL, but only until April! Perhaps we can fudge it and have a strike in the Netherlands too (with a still depressed economy something like that is more likely ITTL), which forces a delay after that strike in Britain already delayed the contest until April (b/c they're on strike and refusing to broadcast the contest), and then the Dutch have problems hosting the contest in May, so the UK, as runner-up ITTL's 1976 Contest, gets to host. (This is not unusual, the UK had a reputation at the time as the host by default if the Contest couldn't be held by the previous year's winner.)

Or we can go ahead and retcon the location to Hilversum, host IOTL of ESC 1976 (and probably the date since if there's no strike in the Netherlands the contest would go ahead in March 1977 as originally planned).

And Corry Brokken would of course host as she did IOTL's 1976 Contest. Still not sure how Monaco and Norway take the top two positions over Britain's Rock Bottom, which to me fits the mood of this timeline better as a winner. And then there's the matter of the Belgian and West German entries, which were disco songs IOTL. Do they still get sent ITTL?

Um, I'm an idiot. The 1977 ESC IOTL did in fact take place in May 1977. So I guess we'll just have to do a retcon of the attempted bombing to take place in March 1977 and to be the work of Moluccan terrorists.

Given that Monaco got 4th IOTL, I can see it winning ITTL, Norway as runner-up is certainly possible given butterflies, but begs the question, isn't disco not supposed to be prominent ITTL? IOTL, Norway, Italy, Belgium, West Germany, and Luxembourg (I think) all had disco entries in the 1977 Contest. What becomes of them ITTL?


On an unrelated note, when is the coronation of George VII going to happen? It should happen in the summer of 1977 according to standard practice, but did it get delayed to summer 1978, Russian-style, ITTL?

 

[Nicomacheus]

Forgive my ignorance of US politics but what do the numbers before the Senators stand for?

They indicate which class the Senators belong to. This class determines when they are up for election: 1/3 of the Senate is elected to 6 year terms every two years. Hence, the composition of the body only changes slowly since the whole group is never up for election at once (unlike the House of Representatives).

 

[Thande]

Weren't some SWP senators elected in 1976, or am I thinking of Congressmen?

Thanks for the corrections on the lists of leaders.

In some ways Wallace is going to run into the same problems as Carter OTL: elected due to being a Washington outsider when the public were disgusted with Washington, then that status making him too inexperienced to properly manage US foreign policy at a critical time. Wallace does at least have more executive experience than Carter though.

 

[vultan]

Weren't some SWP senators elected in 1976, or am I thinking of Congressmen?

No, they were Congressmen, one from California, one from New York.

 

[Hyperbolus]

Excellent, thread, one of the few I really follow. Was Franz-Josef Strauss' leadership of the CDU/CSU butterflied? OTL he lead them as late as the 1980 federal election.
[/QUOTE]
Chancellors of West Germany:
22 Oct 1969-7 May 1974: Willy Brandt (Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands)
7 May 1974-16 May 1974: Walter Scheel (Freie Demokratische Partei) [1]
16 May 1974-3 October 1976: Helmut Schmidt (Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands)
3 October 1976-current timeline present: Helmut Kohl (Christlich Demokratische Union Deutschlands)

[1] Acting.[/QUOTE]

 

[Drew]

On an unrelated note, when is the coronation of George VII going to happen? It should happen in the summer of 1977 according to standard practice, but did it get delayed to summer 1978, Russian-style, ITTL?

I think they would have waited around a year out of respect for his late mother and to let some of the emotion from a royal assassination die down before he is crowned. Summer 1977 seemed a likely time, but was interrupted by the General Election. Let's say it will happen in October 1977.

 

[Drew]

They indicate which class the Senators belong to. This class determines when they are up for election: 1/3 of the Senate is elected to 6 year terms every two years. Hence, the composition of the body only changes slowly since the whole group is never up for election at once (unlike the House of Representatives).

Class 1: stand for election in 1970, 1976, 1982

Class 2: stand for election in 1972, 1978, 1984

Class 3 stand for election in 1974, 1980, 1986

Classes 1 and 2 have 33 Senators and Class 3 has 34 Senators. In some states special elections are called to fill unexpired terms, in other cases a Governor's appointee fills the rest of the unexpired term. It can also depend whether there is more than two years (election) or less than two years left in the unexpired term (no special election). Individual States make the laws that govern that process.

 

[Drew]

Excellent, thread, one of the few I really follow. Was Franz-Josef Strauss' leadership of the CDU/CSU butterflied? OTL he lead them as late as the 1980 federal election.

As in OTL 1976 Khol was the CDU/CSU candidate for Chancellor and his party won. The result is they form a government, so while Strauss remains as CSU chair, he is not likely to be the candidate for Chancellor unless the coalition decides to fire Kohl, not a good prospect unless his leadership is viewed as particularly bad for some reason. Strauss could be expected to have an important Cabinet portfolio though, and he would remain an important rival to Kohl (perhaps a future Chancellor).

For the same reason, now that they are the government, Strauss is less likely to split the coalition since it could mean the loss of their federal government and a return of an SPD lead one.

After Helmut Kohl's first run for chancellor in 1976 failed, Strauss cancelled the alliance between the CDU and CSU parties in the Bundestag, a decision which he only took back months later when the CDU threatened to extend their party to Bavaria (where the CSU holds a political monopoly for the conservatives). In the 1980 federal election, the CDU/CSU opted to put forward Strauss as their candidate for chancellor. Strauss had continued to be critical of Kohl's leadership, so providing Strauss a shot at the chancellery may have been seen as an endorsement of either Strauss' policies or style (or both) over Kohl's. But many, if not most, observers at the time believed that the CDU had concluded that Helmut Schmidt's SPD was likely unbeatable in 1980, and felt that they had nothing to lose in running Strauss. Schmidt's easy win was seen by Kohl's supporters as a vindication of their man, and though the rivalry between Kohl and Strauss persisted for years, once the CDU/CSU was able to take power in 1982, Kohl was again their leader, where he remained until well after Strauss's death.

 

[Hyperbolus]

D'oh
It never occurred to me that Kohl, a much younger man than Strauss could have run previously. But seeing as CDU/CSU are technically separate "sister parties" it makes sense. Certainly "interesting times" in China, but have there been any notable developments in the Soviet Union?