Goldwater Beats LBJ

bguy

Donor
I'm not sure of the likelihood, as I haven't read up on the 60s elections and all, but assuming Goldwater were to win, you get:

-no EPA.

Goldwater was actually an environmentalist (which makes sense given how much he loved the outdoors.) He was one of the co-sponsors for the Clean Air Act, and he spoke very passionately about environmental issues in his 1971 book, Conscience of a Majority. As such you almost certainly still get something like the EPA in a Goldwater Administration.

-no escalation of Vietnam, perhaps a drawdown earlier or some early 60's version of 'shock and awe' to draw the communist Vietnamese to a negotiation table.

I'm not really sure what Goldwater would do about Vietnam. Given that he called for Bay of Pigs 2.0 in his '64 campaign (this time with US air support if necessary) he might be too distracted with Cuba to get involved in Vietnam. If he does still intervene in Vietnam I agree that you get Linebacker II in 1965 (though without precision munitions that is going to create a lot of civilian casualities.)

Without these it is very likely that overall, the federal budget would be much smaller today than OTL, the national debt would be smaller, and according to some, certain societal problems would be either nonexistant or much less severe.

I agree that Goldwater will block all those other items. However, that's ultimately just a delaying action. Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, and federal aid for education all seem pretty much inevitable by this point. Even if Goldwater vetos them the next Democrat (or moderate Republican) president will pass them.

The question is, what would Goldwater do with the civil rights movement? He voted against it OTL, but if he were to be politically astute about it, he'd sponsor such legislation as a candidate and President, and make it some fulfillment of the Civil War Republicans' promises or something to that effect, and prevent the relatively monolithic voting blocs of OTL. This would be interesting to see the effect on the Democrat party of TTL and how they treat their constituents and seek their votes..

Goldwater will support voting rights legislation since he believes that is a proper responsibility of the federal government under the 15th Amendment. He will oppose any legislation that prohibits racial discrimination in employment, public accomodations or housing since he doesn't believe the federal government has the constitutional authority to prohibit racial discrimination committed by private individuals.

If you were to keep Goldwater, it's possible that TTL's Republicans go more along the libertarian road, and actually dismantle or reduce government rather than just slow its growth, and remove Marshall and Fortas as Supreme Court justices. Whom would Goldwater appoint? This might remove Roe vs. Wade from the national debate of both parties.

Goldburg never leaves the court if Goldwater wins in '64, and Clark may not retire either (since his son won't have been appointed Attorney General), so there's a good chance Goldwater doesn't get any Supreme Court appointments in his first term.

If Goldwater wins a second term (which seems unlikely), Earl Warren may not retire since he won't want Goldwater picking his replacement. If Warren stays on Goldwater still gets at least 2 and probably 3 Supreme Court picks (since Clark will most likely retire in Goldwater's 2nd term if he didn't retire earlier). Warren Burger still seems likely as one of the picks (prominent conservative justice on the D.C. Circuit). Richard Kleindienst, Robert Bork or James Buckley seem like strong possibilites for the other opening(s). Those picks would shift the court somewhat to the right, but there would still be a powerful liberal block (Warren, Douglas, Goldburg, and Brennan) with White and Stewart as swing votes.

The other big question about a Goldwater presidency is what does he do if the Prague Spring still occurs?
 
That would have been a terrifying Presidential pair to most Americans. LeMay's nuke-o-philia actually helped drag George Wallace down in the polls in 1968, even among Wallace's conservative supporters. Goldwater/LeMay would be seen as the "Dr. Strangelove ticket".

That would seem a terrifying pair in which the outcome of the Cuban Missile Crisis is similar to OTL and one of the results is increased fear of Nuclear War.

But I'm suggesting that if the outcome was the opposite, so that what was increased was fear of the Soviets conquering us, then a figure like LeMay, speaking on behalf of insiders resigning from the Kennedy administration due to its kowtowing to the Soviets, might be a lightening rod.
 
That would seem a terrifying pair in which the outcome of the Cuban Missile Crisis is similar to OTL and one of the results is increased fear of Nuclear War.

But I'm suggesting that if the outcome was the opposite, so that what was increased was fear of the Soviets conquering us, then a figure like LeMay, speaking on behalf of insiders resigning from the Kennedy administration due to its kowtowing to the Soviets, might be a lightening rod.

Maybe, but LeMay would have to play up that angle and play down his recommendations on the use of tactical nuclear weapons. While campaigning with Wallace he was completely oblivious to the fact that most Americans didn't share his enthusiasm, so he didn't bother to conceal or even tone down his eagerness to nuke Vietnam.

But yes, if Kennedy screwed up that badly, it's possible that conservative anger would be enough to get people to overlook that part of his foreign policy. However, in a scenario like that, Goldwater would stand a good chance of being elected no matter what his VP pick was, as the Democrats would be seen as entirely spineless.
 
I recalled seeing an old NY Times article from 1964 mentioning that in the event Goldwater won, he planned to meet with former President Eisenhower on how to proceed with Vietnam. Imagine his reaction when Ike tells him to stay out of Nam!
 
I recalled seeing an old NY Times article from 1964 mentioning that in the event Goldwater won, he planned to meet with former President Eisenhower on how to proceed with Vietnam. Imagine his reaction when Ike tells him to stay out of Nam!

He should have taken the hint from Ikes final speech.
 
Jack wasn't a lock to win the '64 election, which is part of the reason he was in Dallas in November of 1963.

This is more hearsay than fact, but, there was also a good chance that LBJ wouldn't be on the ticket in '64 and this would weaken Jack's value in the South at a crucial time in history. (I have read different things that both credit and discredit the LBJ thing. There is more stuff to discredit this, but from my assessment of what I've read, Jack was considering this.)
If he was worried about the south generally and Texas specifically, I really doubt he'd drop LBJ. That is one POD for a "JFK loses 1964" scenario, though.
 
If he was worried about the south generally and Texas specifically, I really doubt he'd drop LBJ. That is one POD for a "JFK loses 1964" scenario, though.

What if all the stuff I'd talked about above, making Jack a weak president who caved in on the Cuban Missile Crisis happened and one result of that was LBJ challenging him for the nomination and losing? Thus we have a weakened nominee, challenged by his own VP, resented in the south for trying civil rights, but no pick up from African Americans or liberals for achieving it, and no LBJ to help him carry Texas.

Meanwhile we have a Goldwater promising a moderate civil rights bill that will pass, promising to restore America's strength and having credibility in saying that JFK is a weak president.
 
Goldwater

It would have really divided both parties, especially the Republicans. The moderates and liberals did'nt support him, and therefore he would'nt want to work with them. The conservative Democrats who delivered their states to him would have demanded a strong say in his administration. Many I'm sure at this point would have switched parties. This election would have led to a much sooner realignment of both major parties.
 
Top