"Fear, Loathing, and Gumbo" WI: No Gavin Administration?

As it says in the title, what if, in Fear, Loathing and Gumbo, James Gavin turned down the offer of becoming President after Agnew?

Presumably, the plotters try to find another non-partisian to sell to the House.

Or, given this is the Gumboverse, something horrible happens. Like the replacement non-partisian gets into office only to quickly resign, tossing the ball to President Pro Tempo James Eastland. Which should make civil rights activism fun for the next few years, in addition to making everyone who voted to install the non-partisian pissed at the plotters.
 

Japhy

Banned
Honestly I never found the deadlock over the Agnew removal to be all that realistic. Agnew's actions were so undeniably bad that there's no way the 1973 Republican Party was going to protect him just because Albert was a Democrat.
 
Honestly I never found the deadlock over the Agnew removal to be all that realistic. Agnew's actions were so undeniably bad that there's no way the 1973 Republican Party was going to protect him just because Albert was a Democrat.

Given the general unflattering portrayal of the right, it's not all that surprising.
 

Japhy

Banned
Given the general unflattering portrayal of the right, it's not all that surprising.

Given the fact that neither party was so ideologically partisan at the time its also not that realistic. There were still lots of Conservative Democrats and Liberal Republicans and people who were proud to campaign on working across the isle. Either they would have gotten rid of Agnew or Agnew would have been able to build up his support and be safe and that would have been the end of it.

But I mean its also ridiculous that the crisis even happened because if they'd finally settled that Agnew had to go away and that McKeithen was going to be President (A) The Republicans wouldn't have a basis to even argue that Albert was still unacceptable (B) There's no way that McKeithen would be operating with a "Oh, I'm finally President-elect? Well lets just take another week to get sworn in while I fly to Boston."
 

Japhy

Banned
I'll take both.

Logical Solution: Albert works to make a consensus-based government, with mixed effectiveness. South Vietnam falls because no, the American people are interested in going back, and while you can't appease the Far Left and Far Right, you can get a steady-as-she-goes government working with members of both parties, which would be necessary after the crisis.

There would be legal issues, over the Presidential Succession Act, since its on shaky constitutional grounds, that would define the domestic politics of the era. America would for practical purposes be listless in the era of collapsing expectations that the 1970's were, economically we're probably worse off come 1976, the malaise is even greater. Odds are Reagan wins in 1976. Though Carter is most certainly not the Democratic nominee, depending on who you have, the Democrats are not without any hope.

Theoretically we can argue the West Wing option would work, with an Election of 1974, depending on how the Succession Act arguments work. Reagan still probably the odds on winner in that case.

Long Term, the 1970's are worse for the West then they were IOTL, a Reagan hardliner government from 1977-1981 will IMO not be a good thing, but its not a world-collapsing thing. Theoretically the timeline can go with the "Kill all the Asian People" cliche that we so often see in China, we could see bad juju hit Europe or Russia, but at the end of the day I don't think the collapse of the New Deal Coalition will lead to Corporate-Fascism that we saw in the proper timeline.

Gumboverse Solution: Acting President Carl Albert is as IOTL an Alcoholic. Inevitably in the bad juju universe of the timeline he will kill someone, as he almost did on September 11th 1972 in a Drunk Driving accident. Or he'll be a Disney-in-AWOLAWOT, foggily leading the nation to ruin as he listens to the worst of his advisors and tries to avoid dealing with the crisises at hand. The CIA and FBI go out of control instead of being brought to heal, Leftist Terrorism and Rightist Militia movement shit starts up, Howard Hughes still magically decides to create Fox News early, the world goes to shit. Albert deploys tons of draftees to Vietnam, but poorly, the United states falls into its pit of warfare and horror.

In 1976 Albert stands down, and Lester Maddox is the Democratic Nominee and James H. Madole wins the Republican nomination and the White House.
 

ThePest179

Banned
I'm starting to see why people have trouble liking Fear and Loathing and Rumsfeldia:

Given the fact that neither party was so ideologically partisan at the time its also not that realistic. There were still lots of Conservative Democrats and Liberal Republicans and people who were proud to campaign on working across the isle. Either they would have gotten rid of Agnew or Agnew would have been able to build up his support and be safe and that would have been the end of it.

But I mean its also ridiculous that the crisis even happened because if they'd finally settled that Agnew had to go away and that McKeithen was going to be President (A) The Republicans wouldn't have a basis to even argue that Albert was still unacceptable (B) There's no way that McKeithen would be operating with a "Oh, I'm finally President-elect? Well lets just take another week to get sworn in while I fly to Boston."

Theoretically the timeline can go with the "Kill all the Asian People" cliche that we so often see in China, we could see bad juju hit Europe or Russia, but at the end of the day I don't think the collapse of the New Deal Coalition will lead to Corporate-Fascism that we saw in the proper timeline.

The implausibilities right from the get-go piled up, and far too quickly. Didn't even notice it until you pointed it out.
 
I'm starting to see why people have trouble liking Fear and Loathing and Rumsfeldia:

The implausibilities right from the get-go piled up, and far too quickly. Didn't even notice it until you pointed it out.

Gumbo is interesting as "Worst Case" what if of the 70's, and a crash course in the weirder aspects of constitutional law. It's plausible, but the dice are loaded to always come up snake eyes.

Rumsfeldia is much less plausible, and it's more of a satire on current Tea Party ideology/deification of Reagan, and it's point is to demonstrate what would really happen if the policies advocated by current members of the American far-right actually implemented their policies.
 

ThePest179

Banned
Gumbo is interesting as "Worst Case" what if of the 70's, and a crash course in the weirder aspects of constitutional law. It's plausible, but the dice are loaded to always come up snake eyes.

Rumsfeldia is much less plausible, and it's more of a satire on current Tea Party ideology/deification of Reagan, and it's point is to demonstrate what would really happen if the policies advocated by current members of the American far-right actually implemented their policies.

True, but I see why this makes it hard to read for some; the suspension of disbelief wore down, then killed itself.

In a more logical Gumbo-verse, what would happen to Syria or China?
 

Japhy

Banned
I'm starting to see why people have trouble liking Fear and Loathing and Rumsfeldia

The implausibilities right from the get-go piled up, and far too quickly. Didn't even notice it until you pointed it out.

You're right that its me having trouble with it.

I'd give it more of a pass if I found it literally compelling, like a re-read of AWOLAWOT is. (Nevermind the fact I was kind of negative on that project previously, to my annoyance.) But I can't, not only for its style, but also because Drew is trying to make a political point about Stephen Harper or something, which means he keeps trying to "modernize" the world to get his point across, with things like the ideologically pure parties, the partisanship, and silly stuff like the Hughes Network so he can have Fox News in the 1980's.

That said, I do commend him for creating something that was very interesting initially. And I do commend him for sticking though with it. I don't want to be like other members of the site who feel the need to personally attack Drew for what he's done. I'm just not able to really get into the work, or to find it particularly plausible.
 
Gumbo is interesting as "Worst Case" what if of the 70's, and a crash course in the weirder aspects of constitutional law. It's plausible, but the dice are loaded to always come up snake eyes.

Rumsfeldia is much less plausible, and it's more of a satire on current Tea Party ideology/deification of Reagan, and it's point is to demonstrate what would really happen if the policies advocated by current members of the American far-right actually implemented their policies.
To me FLG is as you said a worst case scenario. It is clearly steered so that the worst happens, but it is interesting and entertaining.

To me Rumsfeldia was "Republicans/Conservatives are Evil: The TL." It really bothered me because it stopped being alternate history and was more of a polemic.
True, but I see why this makes it hard to read for some; the suspension of disbelief wore down, then killed itself.

In a more logical Gumbo-verse, what would happen to Syria or China?
China: Basically a continuation of Maoism. The Gang of Four take over and continue to purge their rivals, particularly early on as they struggle to monopolize power. The Gang of Four ultimately breaks down and one of them purges the others and becomes the new Mao. China never goes through the Deng-era reforms and isn't an economic power like it is today. However it doesn't become a war-torn, Khmer Rouge hell hole.

Syria: A secularish civil war. In the early 1970s radical Islam was still a young movement, and was largely a collection of disaffected people who only got their spark in the late 1970s with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the Iranian Revolution. While the civil war that breaks out would have religious undertones it wouldn't have a Caliphate (the idea of bringing back the Caliphate while not controlling the whole Middle East is still pretty radical even today; even al-Qaeda thinks it's nuts) and would be a mixture of ethno-religious fighting and secular power struggles.
 
Gumbo is interesting as "Worst Case" what if of the 70's, and a crash course in the weirder aspects of constitutional law. It's plausible, but the dice are loaded to always come up snake eyes.

Rumsfeldia is much less plausible, and it's more of a satire on current Tea Party ideology/deification of Reagan, and it's point is to demonstrate what would really happen if the policies advocated by current members of the American far-right actually implemented their policies.

How can policies implement themselves?:confused:
 

ThePest179

Banned
China: Basically a continuation of Maoism. The Gang of Four take over and continue to purge their rivals, particularly early on as they struggle to monopolize power. The Gang of Four ultimately breaks down and one of them purges the others and becomes the new Mao. China never goes through the Deng-era reforms and isn't an economic power like it is today. However it doesn't become a war-torn, Khmer Rouge hell hole.

Syria: A secularish civil war. In the early 1970s radical Islam was still a young movement, and was largely a collection of disaffected people who only got their spark in the late 1970s with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the Iranian Revolution. While the civil war that breaks out would have religious undertones it wouldn't have a Caliphate (the idea of bringing back the Caliphate while not controlling the whole Middle East is still pretty radical even today; even al-Qaeda thinks it's nuts) and would be a mixture of ethno-religious fighting and secular power struggles.

You and Japhy are actually pretty good at this. Mind if I ask for a few more? :)
 

Japhy

Banned
Saudi Arabia, South Africa, the Warsaw Pact, Iran, and Israel, please.

With American allies, I'd think in my Albert/Reagan version of the 1970's what you'd see in Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Iran and Israel that the US doesn't have bumpy policy changes. We keep supporting the dictators, because its easier than trying to change things. The Shah probably gets to be brutal enough to stay in power. Israel probably gets a freer reign of things, which sets of Syria like Napoleon suggests.

In regards to the Warsaw Pact, I honestly couldn't say. Once you have Reagan in '76, I'd expect a lot more CIA shenanigans, especially if we're assuming there's no reigning in.
 
Top