How much would a RFK Administration differ from Nixon's?

Title pretty much gives it away, but I'll say it anyways. For whatever reason, whether it be Humphrey being assassinated instead or Daley somehow endorsing Kennedy. Bobby makes his way to the White House, but how different is his own cabinet compared to Nixon's? What does the absence of Kissinger mean for US foreign policy? Do we get a "Only Bobby could go to China" etc.

Speak amongst yourselves.
 
Very disillusioning for the boomers since you'd have a Kennedy doing nixon style efforts to keep sotuh vietnam/maybe cambodia red-free and getting away with it due to the media's partisan lean. Nevermind general "moderation"/triangulation on policy.
 

marktaha

Banned
Not a great amount of difference in practice- except Bobby probably for busing and against abolishing the draft. Must admit to not liking him.
 
Domestically not that different. Nixon didn't really care about domestic policy so he let the Democratic congress basically do whatever they wanted. So odds are we'd still get stuff like the EPA, Clean Water Act, etc
 
I suspect that the infamous Kennedy libido would cause a scandal at some point. Also being British the thought of a Kennedy in the Whitehouse during the troubles disturbs me.
 
There's so much "yeah, no" reaction I have to a few of the comments so far, based on creating a Boogeyman strawman of cynical presumptions, that I have no idea where to even begin to unpack them. Also, I will mention RFK wrote a book himself on his view of the issues of the times, called "To Seek a Newer World".
 
I mean I'm surprised, I thought RFK was liked on this site.
Anyway it would have been very different, not lest of wich was that he had become more to the left the most of the democratic congress by then and wanted to focus on domestic madders. He is going to have to find a way to end the vetnam war or he is defiantly losing the next election, he isn't going to effect space even if he is more pro space then nixon was (and he probably would be if nothing else then to further tie him to his brothers legacy) simply because congress would never go for it, especially if he's also trying for great society 2.0. And the China thaw probably dosnt happen sense he is already going to be hit hard by conservatives as is and a trip and normalization of relations with communist China would kill him dead politically. I'm unsure how he would handle the oil shock but I doubt anybetter ot worse the nixon (there gust isn't a lot anybody can do about it except thoe isreal under the bus and that would destroy RFK's reelection chances more then continuing the war would).
 

dcharles

Banned
I suspect that the infamous Kennedy libido would cause a scandal at some point. Also being British the thought of a Kennedy in the Whitehouse during the troubles disturbs me.

He had like, fifty kids with his wife. Generally regarded as an excellent father and a devoted husband.

Jack was a rake and Teddy was a lout. (And they also had many good qualities. You'll see where I'm going with this in a second.)

Bobby was righteous and ruthless.

There's so much "yeah, no" reaction I have to a few of the comments so far, based on creating a Boogeyman strawman of cynical presumptions, that I have no idea where to even begin to unpack them. Also, I will mention RFK wrote a book himself on his view of the issues of the times, called "To Seek a Newer World".

Glad you said it before I did. I think an RFK administration would have had a very similar feel to Obama's, in that rhetorically, they would be in a spot much further to the left than Congress would allow for. But I think you're going to see major healthcare reform under an RFK administration. From 1970-71 OTL, there were three major competing healthcare bills in Congress. TTL, one of them gets passed.
 
So basically Nixon?
No, Nixon cared about america. We'd have RFK being all about himself and nothing else, well ok nothing else besides seeing other people get hurt. IMO the smiler from transmetropolitan is a reasonable analogue to what a full 8 years of jfk or an RFK/ted kennedy president would have been like. absolutely terrible.

The whole "Camelot" meme being discredited due to RFK's presidency from 1969-73 or 1969-77 would probably do funny things to the boomers' worldview/politics.
 

dcharles

Banned
Title pretty much gives it away, but I'll say it anyways. For whatever reason, whether it be Humphrey being assassinated instead or Daley somehow endorsing Kennedy. Bobby makes his way to the White House, but how different is his own cabinet compared to Nixon's? What does the absence of Kissinger mean for US foreign policy? Do we get a "Only Bobby could go to China" etc.

Speak amongst yourselves.

I think RFK '72 is a really interesting scenario.

In '68, even if he hadn't been assassinated, the convention math was not good for Kennedy. Every good, nitty gritty, whip count analysis I've ever seen--though I've never done one of those whip counts myself--says that Bobby was probably screwed either way in '68.

Now--God--what kind of utter chaos that creates at the convention in Chicago is anyone's guess. But I mean, imagine if RFK *survived* the attempt, won the primaries, and he still doesn't get the nom. Category 5, IBS induced shitstorm.

If Nixon's meddling in the peace talks is revealed TTL (and Bobby doesn't seem like the type who would sit on it), then I could easily see him go on to lose in 72. Especially if it's up against RFK.

No, Nixon cared about america.

Ooooh. You're one of those.

::backs away slowly::
 
From your screenname and the WI, he can probably infer you're a fan. He might just be trolling you.
well no, i just honestly consider the election of him in 1960 to be something bad. imo the way things have gone since 1963 is a good chunk of what I see as likely results of a surviving kennedy, with OTL being _less_ bad since you know, we didn't have segregation lasting significantly longer or an even stronger religious right like we would have imo seen with a kennedy surviving dallas.
 
Top