If JFK Wasn't Assasinated, How Would He Be Looked Upon....

That's actually false. Kennedy had the most sucessful legislative agenda of any President since FDR in terms of the ratio of bills sent to Congress that were passed.

I would like you to cite your source on that one. IIRC, Obama is the most successful legislative president by those standards, and I remember Kennedy specifically was mentioned as being the least successful since FDR with Congress.

I've mentioned before my opinion that civil rights is doomed in 1965 after the Watts Riots, and since Lyndon Johnson of all presidents couldn't even get a rat extermination bill through Congress during the resulting backlash, I don't see JFK passing much of anything during his second term.
 
If Kennedy was wounded in Dallas instead of being killed, than you can expect a very different 1960s and therefore a very different America. In the immediate aftermath of the shooting, Kennedy's popularity would jump dramatically. So will Johnson's due to his handling of the situation, which will be portrayed as assertive and responsible. Privately, there may very well be a squabble between Kennedy's aides and Johnson's over control until the President returns to the White House. When he does, the public will be behind him. Congress will still be obstinant

Most of the New Frontier program will remain on hold until after the elections. His tax cut may get passed in 1964, but that's it. The election itself would be pretty interesting. George Wallace would probably run against Kennedy surrogates in the primaries, but would get less traction due to the lack of a tangible Civil Rights Act to criticize and the fact that he won many working-class Catholics (who would not be as quick to oppose Kennedy). Some historians speculate that Johnson would be dropped from the ticket. While there is little doubt that Robert Kennedy would have advocated for such a change, I find it unlikely that the President would make such a risky gamble. Despite Johnson's limited role in the Administration and the emerging Bobby Baker scandal, changing running-mates would risk losing the entire South. That's something Kennedy simply would not do. While he might want to swap Johnson for North Carolina Governor Terry Sanford, that would be far too much of a risk taken by a risk averse man. Barry Goldwater would probably win the Republican nomination, and would go on to lose to Kennedy. There would be a series of debates, in which Goldwater would get a good chance to defend his record. I also doubt Kennedy would go as negative as Johnson would, chosing instead to emphasize his record.

President Kennedy's second term would be interesting. I'm of the belief that he would make an aggressive push for Civil Rights legislation right off the bat. With a routed Republican Party, Everett Dirksen would read the tea leaves and work with the President to pass legislation. Southern Democrats and a few hard-core conservative Republicans would attempt a filibuster. But Dirksen would not want to be seen as standing in the way of popular legislation. Kennedy may also be able to get his other priorities passed: federal aid for public education, healthcare for the elderly, and a "war on poverty." Personally, I find the passage of Medicare and the OEO the most likely. Medicare will take longer, due to the opposition of Harry Byrd in the Senate. But following his passing in the fall of 1965, and the ascension of the pro-Medicare Russell Long to lead the Senate Finance Committee, I foresee the passage of this legislation. Passage of the Economic Oppurtunity Act will require the bill being watered down, but I also imagine it would pass. Education will be trickier due to federal funding for parochial schools. That really comes down to Kennedy's ability to work with Congress. Other legislation, such as Medicaid and the Voting Rights Act, have a decent chance of passing before the 1966 Midterm Elections.

On foreign policy, Kennedy will be defined by Vietnam. Magniac has an excellent thread on the topic, which I generally agree with. Vietnam will escalate and evolve into a difficult quagmire for the United States. It may significantly harm the President's legacy as he is in between a rock and a hard place. Other than that issue, Kennedy will attempt to expand detente with the Soviet Union through greater arms reduction, as well as greater engagement with Europe and the Developing World. This is one area in which Kennedy would rank significantly higher than Johnson.

If President Kennedy were not struck down in Dallas in 1963, his legacy would be mixed. On the one hand, the likely passage of long-lasting legislation such as the Civil Rights Act and Medicare would put Kennedy in the upper-echelon of progressive Presidents. Conversly, the escalation in Vietnam, urban violence that would sill plague the nation, and a growing budget deficit, would harm his record among many Americans. As far as his later life, claims that Kennedy would die soon after leaving office are not based on fact. His health was improving before Dallas and medical improvements would have allowed him to live into his 80s. The 1968 election will likely hinge on Vietnam and racial violence, favoring the Republican nominee (probably Richard Nixon). Long-term, the Kennedy family would probably not be seen in the same light of Camelot, but without JFK's death, you won't have the Kennedy curse either.

Love your opinions hcallega!
 
I would like you to cite your source on that one. IIRC, Obama is the most successful legislative president by those standards, and I remember Kennedy specifically was mentioned as being the least successful since FDR with Congress.

I've mentioned before my opinion that civil rights is doomed in 1965 after the Watts Riots, and since Lyndon Johnson of all presidents couldn't even get a rat extermination bill through Congress during the resulting backlash, I don't see JFK passing much of anything during his second term.

Sources: Theodore White's Making of the President: 1964 and Lawrence O'Brien. Both sources admired Kennedy, but both also cited statistics. In 1961, he was 33 for 53, in '62 he was 40 for 54, and '63 he was 35 out of 58.

As for Civil Rights, Watts occured in August. It's entirely plausible that Congress could pass Civil Rights and anti-poverty legislation well before then.
 
Here's what I think

If he doesn't get assassinated, he runs for reelection in 1964 on a promise to enact the Civil Rights Acts and voting rights act. He also considers dropping Lyndon Johnson from the ticket, but keeps him due to his Southern connections via Texas. Kennedy also states that he will start trying to bring military advisors home from Vietnam, yet doesn't go as far as to say he will end involvement. He does however, as in OTL authorize Diem's assassination, and does keep a small amount of advisors there, but his plan is to leave Vietnam with a more popular regime, and pull out at some point in the future

Anyway like Johnson in our Timeline, he defeats Goldwater handily, with Goldwater only winning the states of Arizona, LA, MS, AL, GA, and SC as in OTL, plus Utah, Idaho, Nebraska, Florida, and virginia (states that gave less that 55% of their vote to Johnson) the margin of victory is close in a lot of states though. However, Kennedy doesn't need daddy's mob connections to win since he's fairly popular, and Goldwater is more abrasive .

Anyway, after JFK is reelected he passes the two civil rights bills, both of which pass, though many southerners are outraged, and some worry about the party either splitting, or the South going over to the REpublicans. Also, Kennedy places a new leader in South Vietnam and keeps advisors there, but brings enough home to satisfy. By 66 and into 67 Kennedy realizes the situation in Vietnam and calls all troops home. While Republicans see this as a defeat. Kennedy ensures that he wanted, peace with honor, and thus tries to have damage control.

Another problem Kennedy faces is riots in Northern Cities. While he does enact some of what in OTL is the Great Society, not as much is passed. Also, riots still occur in Watts and Detroit and other cities in 65 and 66. By 1967 things slow down. However things heat up with MLK's assassination which results in riots in many cities. Some blacks even blame Kennedy for not being as a big enough advocate for civil rights, but there is little he can do to help the situation other than offer his condolences to MLK. In the end he goes out of office with middling approval ratings. While many like that he didn't get involved in a foreign war, many also feel he became weaker on communism. His civil rights record is good for the time, but many today would say he could have done more. Where he does get extremely high marks is in getting America to the moon. In a way it is his victory against the Soviets.

In the end I think historians would probably think he was a better than average president. Not Up there with a Lincoln or Washington, or even an OTL Reagan, but he is remembered fondly by most, though conservatives think he lost Vietnam. I think by now though he'd be seen as better than average
 
I would like you to cite your source on that one. IIRC, Obama is the most successful legislative president by those standards, and I remember Kennedy specifically was mentioned as being the least successful since FDR with Congress.

I've mentioned before my opinion that civil rights is doomed in 1965 after the Watts Riots, and since Lyndon Johnson of all presidents couldn't even get a rat extermination bill through Congress during the resulting backlash, I don't see JFK passing much of anything during his second term.

Is that an actual bill, or hyperbole? If real, that is bad backlash...

Edit: just googled, and it is true. Thanks Plumber!
 
Last edited:
I see him as being remembered as a Johnson/Reagan hybrid. His personality and popularity will sugarcoat many of the bad decisions. Civil Rights will be his most significant accomplishment, while Vietnam will be his worst. I also imagine that the Democratic Party will embrace Kennedy in a way Republicans did with Reagan.
 
It all depends on how he handles his issues. Vietnam is a big player here, but the Civil Rights Act (which he supported) and the moon landing (which he predicted). Like Lincoln, he's (most likely) more respected because he was assassinated, but if he played his cards right, he could keep the same rank in history books, possibly even a higher one.
SNIPPED

He did not Predict, he was not Jean Dixon, the moon landing he set it as a goal. There is a big difference.
 
He did not Predict, he was not Jean Dixon, the moon landing he set it as a goal. There is a big difference.

You're right.

But still, do you think he'd let America down, basically? He tells them "I'm gonna get a man on the moon for you, I tell ya, by the end of the decade". Do you think he'd want to be the "President who set a possible goal" (which would be realized by analysts ITTL) "to get a man on the moon by the end of the decade and failed to achieve it"?
 
civil rights was LBJ's accomplishments. JFK was no slouch, as he did lay some groundwork. Ultimately though, the stroke of the pen was wielded by LBJ. JFK kept putting off his promise out of political compromise.

He had a shine to him, and he was a breath of fresh air after the stodgy Eisenhower. It was unkind of me to speak of him so harshly, but at the end of the day, I really think he was more image than he was substance. Still, he did have his agenda. Typically, agendas are passed first term, while second term is more of a passing the time sort of thing, due to the lame duck status. So, he could have still accomplished stuff, but ultimately, he had already shot his load. His assassination was the perfect ending to it all, so far as his image goes. I think the luster falls off big time if he gets a second term. Regardless of whether he was a decent president or not, there isn't a chance in hades his historical perception is anywhere near OTL if he lives. I think the pent up frustration of the race riots still happen regardless of the Vietnam war or whether the civil rights act gets passed. a lot of it was due to JFK, who made promises that he put off. After getting hopes up, and then having them put off, the rage was going to come out. It wasn't all JFK's doing, as the pot was already boiling when he took office, but he made promises that didn't get kept til after he was dead. Plus, even if you do accept that he gets a lot of the stuff done that LBJ did, you then have to also give him the backlash that LBJ got. OTL, Kennedy got all the glory, LBJ got all the backlash. Kennedy lives, he gets both.
 
Sources: Theodore White's Making of the President: 1964 and Lawrence O'Brien. Both sources admired Kennedy, but both also cited statistics. In 1961, he was 33 for 53, in '62 he was 40 for 54, and '63 he was 35 out of 58.
Thanks, I'll look into that. Perhaps Caro was claiming that of major legislative programs, JFK had the worst track record: Civil Rights, Medicare, and the tax cuts were 0 for 3. I don't have The Passage of Power with me right now, though. It's kind of like how technically Obama is technically more legislatively successful as LBJ, but LBJ got more big bills than many little bills.

As for Civil Rights, Watts occured in August. It's entirely plausible that Congress could pass Civil Rights and anti-poverty legislation well before then.
If Kennedy can work as fast as Johnson, who did in seven months what JFK couldn't do in three years, he might be able to pass one of them (read: no, I don't think so).
 
The European Union might have happen faster (In the west anyway). I remember him saying something about the creation of the EU.
 
Thanks, I'll look into that. Perhaps Caro was claiming that of major legislative programs, JFK had the worst track record: Civil Rights, Medicare, and the tax cuts were 0 for 3. I don't have The Passage of Power with me right now, though. It's kind of like how technically Obama is technically more legislatively successful as LBJ, but LBJ got more big bills than many little bills.

"No president mathced Johnson's skills as chief legislator. Despite the far-reaching and controversial nature of his program, LBJ won congressional approval for 58 percent of his proposals in 1964, 69 percent in 1965, and 56 percent in 1966, compared, for example, with 37 percent for Eisenhower in 1957 and just 27 percent for JFK in 1963." -- Lyndon B. Johnson and American Liberalism, pg. 96.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Sources: Theodore White's Making of the President: 1964 and Lawrence O'Brien. Both sources admired Kennedy, but both also cited statistics. In 1961, he was 33 for 53, in '62 he was 40 for 54, and '63 he was 35 out of 58.

As for Civil Rights, Watts occured in August. It's entirely plausible that Congress could pass Civil Rights and anti-poverty legislation well before then.

Yes, but are they important bills? A high pass rate could mean he is just caving to whatever congress happened to want that week. Or signing lots of pork laden legislation. Or a bunch of small bills on small matters.


LBJ got ground breaking legislation through Congress. What is Kennedy's legislative accomplishment? I have seen people argue your position a lot, but as far as I can tell, Kennedy was a mediocre president based on what he actually accomplished. Basically what GW Bush would be if some assassin killed him between the successful initial invasion of Afghanistan and the invasion of Iraq. A leader who got not much done domestically (no child left behind) who we could say that all the bad things that happened in Iraq and Afghanistan were not his policies but the "Cheney messed it up".
 
I have doubts that Lyndon Johnson would have stayed on as vice president. A consummate used car salesman / wheeler-dealer / grifter in his own right, anecdotally he was less than thrilled at being Kennedy's water boy on the hill, doing the heavy work while Kennedy got the glory. He'd probably have issued a "what's in it for me?" ultimatum, which likely wouldn't have played well with Robert Kennedy and his faction. My sense is that Johnson would have been allowed to step down (read: got told to go pound sand as a result of his ultimatum) and the Texas electoral laws would have been modified creatively to allow a Senate run in '64--which of course he would have won handily.

Maybe Kennedy could have persuaded a border state/upper Southern Democrat to run with him in '64 (Sam Ervin?) to salvage what he could; however, he'd face a Senate led by Johnson trying to flex his own muscles. Thus, don't look for a world of success without some heavy modifications and compromises and a lot of infighting among the Democrats.

Viet Nam is going to be every bit as thorny and intractable as it was in OTL if not more so, given Kennedy's Cold Warrior stance. Assuming Lyndon Johnson lent the same relatively tepid support as he did in OTL, considering it a nuisance/distraction from the Great Society, Kennedy would have had to compromise significantly to get the military involvement he wanted to guard against appearing soft. And then once involved, it simply gets worse as it did in OTL. I can't see him trying to cut his losses: that wouldn't be consistent with the macho stance of his presidency otherwise.

In short, the Kennedy legacy would be mixed at best: good on civil rights; iffy on foreign policy. He'd probably rank somewhere close to Grover Cleveland when all is said and done: certainly there would be none of the assassination-imparted aura he now enjoys posthumously.
 
I have doubts that Lyndon Johnson would have stayed on as vice president. A consummate used car salesman / wheeler-dealer / grifter in his own right, anecdotally he was less than thrilled at being Kennedy's water boy on the hill, doing the heavy work while Kennedy got the glory. He'd probably have issued a "what's in it for me?" ultimatum, which likely wouldn't have played well with Robert Kennedy and his faction. My sense is that Johnson would have been allowed to step down (read: got told to go pound sand as a result of his ultimatum) and the Texas electoral laws would have been modified creatively to allow a Senate run in '64--which of course he would have won handily.

Maybe Kennedy could have persuaded a border state/upper Southern Democrat to run with him in '64 (Sam Ervin?) to salvage what he could; however, he'd face a Senate led by Johnson trying to flex his own muscles. Thus, don't look for a world of success without some heavy modifications and compromises and a lot of infighting among the Democrats.

Viet Nam is going to be every bit as thorny and intractable as it was in OTL if not more so, given Kennedy's Cold Warrior stance. Assuming Lyndon Johnson lent the same relatively tepid support as he did in OTL, considering it a nuisance/distraction from the Great Society, Kennedy would have had to compromise significantly to get the military involvement he wanted to guard against appearing soft. And then once involved, it simply gets worse as it did in OTL. I can't see him trying to cut his losses: that wouldn't be consistent with the macho stance of his presidency otherwise.

In short, the Kennedy legacy would be mixed at best: good on civil rights; iffy on foreign policy. He'd probably rank somewhere close to Grover Cleveland when all is said and done: certainly there would be none of the assassination-imparted aura he now enjoys posthumously.
I do not think who Johnson will back in the Senate after being Vice-President (and also if he will ever return to Senate being again his Leader or being again powerful as he was before), the most likely solution for make step down Johnson honorably (if Kennedy was interested in that) would be founding a Cabinet job or another important and prestigious governative job for Connally and freeing the place of Governor for Johnson in the next election
 
Top