Inquiring about George Smathers

[Cuāuhtemōc]

If he had somehow won the nomination and became the Democratic presidential candidate to run against VP Nixon for the 1960 election, how good would his chances be against him? And say that if he wins, what would his Presidency be like (assuming he gets two terms)? The man was an opponent for the advancement of civil rights for African Americans so it makes me wonder how things would proceed with him having to deal with the civil rights movement. Or would he moderate his positions when it comes to that? What about Vietnam? Or Cuba?

 

[Andrew T]

If he had somehow won the nomination and became the Democratic presidential candidate to run against VP Nixon for the 1960 election, how good would his chances be against him? And say that if he wins, what would his Presidency be like (assuming he gets two terms)? The man was an opponent for the advancement of civil rights for African Americans so it makes me wonder how things would proceed with him having to deal with the civil rights movement. Or would he moderate his positions when it comes to that? What about Vietnam? Or Cuba?

I'd be interested (seriously!) in a plausible POD where Smathers could get the nomination in 1960 but LBJ couldn't. The only real path I see to a Smathers presidency is that JFK isn't shot and replaces Johnson with Smathers in '64, which was rumored (but still strikes me as pretty implausible), and then JFK is shot sometime during his second term.

 

[Emperor Norton I]

I'm going to throw you a bone here since Smathers is going to be a key figure in "Strange Days"; he's VP then President, and things get interesting in the Chinese sense thereafter (not all his fault, but he's a mcguffin for a darker, more chaotic turn of events in my alternate world).

He was like JFK in being a Centrist, Cold War Liberal. More Conservative than that though. He was more hawkish, and was a supporter of the Vietnam war. He was very pro-Latin America. And of course, he was against/inactive on Civil Rights. For Christ sake, the man blamed the resurgence of the KKK and the rise of the American Nazi Party on the Civil Rights movement. While it is true that bigotry inflamed in reaction active opposition to it, the idea of "blaming" it on Civil Rights (which what I'm reading on the Smathers library video synopsis says) has a certain connotation. He also believed that the Civil Rights movement needed to kick out its militants.
I personally think that his stance on race relations was just exploitative to keep being elected, and that he wasn't really a racist, but whatever the case, he was willing to deny blacks civil rights and publicly not support it to keep office. Keep in mind, the 60s presidency will be an environment with people telling him Civil Rights will lose him support, anger the Dixiecrats, etc, and that it's a lost cause. That leads me to suspect he would have dragged his feet, if not outright opposed actions, possibly waiting until some later "right time" to go for it or going slowly for it. But I do suspect if people were running across the South protesting and using in like the OTL, he would lend protection potentially. That seems a neutral thing, and even if not, public outrage at violence seems like it'd push him to make sure people were protected, while declaring it neutral (with potentially the protection only going so far, with a lot of "well, sucks to be you" moments in Smather's action and protection).

Read this if interested. I copied it from a text in my college internet library (I had how academic articles are hidden from the public):
https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showpost.php?p=4470425&postcount=17
https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showpost.php?p=4470434&postcount=18

Here's some notes I wrote down from that passage:

Although I suggest reading the whole of that entry through if interested, I will summarize (as best I can recall):

• Before the 1950 campaign, Smathers was a pro-New Dealer or at least came off as such.
• During his campaign against Pepper, he showed either that he had changed from being a pro-New Dealer or his previous looking like a New Dealer was false.
• He believed in the private sector, and believed that the private sector should -as stated previous- be allowed to do what it can do, but that the government should regulate it.
• He supported existing New Deal legislation, but was weary of expanding that any further.
• Said the word Liberalism had ‘‘been adopted by the radical left-wingers, and they have twisted and disgraced its meaning. We must reawaken to the true meaning of liberalism. Liberalism comes from the word ‘ liberty ’ ... One is therefore not a reactionary merely because he is opposed to regulation, regimentation, red tape, and big government.’’
• Smathers attacked many left wing organizations as Communist fronts or sympathetic, attacked Pepper as Communist sympathetic, and said he opposed statism.
• Gained GOP backing in the 1950 campaign because they believed he supported a number things he similarly shared and would be the opponent to beat Pepper (the GOP still not having a shot in Florida).
• Smathers said he did not run a racist campaign, but he attacked as Communist front a number of Liberal organizations of which African Americans clearly had interests and were members, and group which supported Civil Rights.
• Nixon was told he could use the Florida campaign as a model for his own election for a senate seat in California in 1950.

So, perhaps Smathers could be said to be like JFK in being a post-New Deal Moderate Liberal, but more conservative, easily more race baiting, and perhaps agreeable with RFK on the private sector stuff. The dirtiness and ferocity of the 1950's campaign could also make him appear to be Nixonian in that area, playing factions off one another, attacking Left wingers and Red baiting, etc.

 

[Wolfpaw]

A good friend of Jack Kennedy and, like The Haircut, a notorious poonhound.

 

[Emperor Norton I]

A good friend of Jack Kennedy and, like The Haircut, a notorious poonhound.

True. This is why I always view him as the evil JFK (he wasn't evil; just like the Mirror Universe version).

"Gorgeous George" (as he was sometimes called) was amicable, loved by women and a womanizer. He was young (for a politician), and part of the same political generation as Kennedy and Nixon (both of whom he was friends with). He was roughly in the area of political beliefs as Kennedy, which is what I call a "pragmatic Liberal"; that being the Cold War Liberal, far more centrist than the New Dealers, given the post-war environment and the battle against Communism. The difference being his conservatism in many areas (voting conservatively on the divisive social issues of the 50s and 60s), his willingness to race bait, his support of the Vietnam war (which Kennedy was always weary of, but George supported when it came and I do believe would have supported and enacted if he were President), and so forth. He may actually even be closer to Nixon's big government conservatism.

 

[ColeMercury]

And of course, he was against/inactive on Civil Rights. For Christ sake, the man blamed the resurgence of the KKK and the rise of the American Nazi Party on the Civil Rights movement. While it is true that bigotry inflamed in reaction active opposition to it, the idea of "blaming" it on Civil Rights (which what I'm reading on the Smathers library video synopsis says) has a certain connotation. He also believed that the Civil Rights movement needed to kick out its militants.
I personally think that his stance on race relations was just exploitative to keep being elected, and that he wasn't really a racist, but whatever the case, he was willing to deny blacks civil rights and publicly not support it to keep office.

Even if he didn't outright hate black people, his actions show that he was contemptuous of them. Clearly he thought that their very lives were less important than his political career. He was racist, definitely.

Honestly, that kind of prejudice is the most common one in the world -- not driven by hate, but by contempt. Not every racist is a frothing-at-the-mouth noose-wielding Klan member. Not every misogynist is a physically-abusive rapist. Most homophobes and transphobes would never bash anybody. But what they do feel is contempt, and often disgust. A conviction that Those People are fundamentally of less worth than they are. Less human.

 

[Emperor Norton I]

Even if he didn't outright hate black people, his actions show that he was contemptuous of them. Clearly he thought that their very lives were less important than his political career. He was racist, definitely.

Honestly, that kind of prejudice is the most common one in the world -- not driven by hate, but by contempt. Not every racist is a frothing-at-the-mouth noose-wielding Klan member. Not every misogynist is a physically-abusive rapist. Most homophobes and transphobes would never bash anybody. But what they do feel is contempt, and often disgust. A conviction that Those People are fundamentally of less worth than they are. Less human.

While a bad position, especially in the light of our times where all the social struggles of that time have been won (at least legally), and obviously the wrong position, I have to say this: I don't believe he hated black people, nor do I believe he had contempt for them or believed they were an inferior race. What I do believe is that he was playing politics at a time when support for Civil Rights would have cost him support, at least in his mind, and would have lost him his political office.

EDIT:
I found this quote of what Smathers said of Kennedy and Civil Rights,
“I was telling him to go slow,” Smathers remembers. “He didn’t need to be told to do it. . . I was just saying, go slow; don’t run off all your votes in the South.”
That, along with other things I have run across leads me to believe he wasn't against civil rights for blacks, but was fearful of the issue from a political standpoint of how much it could cost him in support and voters, and for that reason if there were to be civil rights, it should be more slow and gradual so as not to upset political support, and that locally he couldn't make it an issue he could support even a little (well, maybe a little, given he voted for the CRA of 1957). In that way, he was the opposite of LBJ, and would probably be so as president. LBJ thought he'd lose the south for the Democratic party for generations, but that Civil Rights was too important a cause to ignore. Smathers in that same position of fearing losing the South would, at least in my opinion, have taken that seriously as a reason to be oppositional to civil rights and slow and gradual on civil rights. And the idea of losing the south over civil rights proved right, since it hastened the Southern Democrats out of the Democratic party, and made their presidential votes go elsewhere, first to the American Independents, then to Republicans. And on a local level of Senators and Congressmen and mayors and so forth in the South, that as well turned from Democrats to Republicans, though the process was much, much more gradual (finally completed, if I recall, only with the Republican Revolution of '94). Johnson was willing to have that since Civil Rights was such an important things and a humane things. Someone like Smathers may not have agreed. On a side note, I've often wondered how things would have gone had civil rights through legislation in the 60s been slower and more gradual; a turtle in the race rather than the rabbit.

 

[vultan]

While a bad position, especially in the light of our times where all the social struggles of that time have been won (at least legally), and obviously the wrong position, I have to say this: I don't believe he hated black people, nor do I believe he had contempt for them or believed they were an inferior race. What I do believe is that he was playing politics at a time when support for Civil Rights would have cost him support, at least in his mind, and would have lost him his political office.

To be fair, wasn't this Lyndon Johnson's attitude prior to 1960 or so, when he was still Senator from Texas? So isn't it possible that Smathers could have changed his opinion as well upon ascending to the presidency, if he thought it would be politically beneficial to him?

 

[Ariosto]

To be fair, wasn't this Lyndon Johnson's attitude prior to 1960 or so, when he was still Senator from Texas? So isn't it possible that Smathers could have changed his opinion as well upon ascending to the presidency, if he thought it would be politically beneficial to him?

No, he actually quietly pushed for Civil Rights, and was instrumental for that legislation which got passed in the fifties. It was his one major difference with his mentor.
​

 

[Emperor Norton I]

We should discuss managing to get him the nomination in '60 and a victory against Nixon.

 

[Rich Rostrom]

LBJ thought he'd lose the south for the Democratic party for generations, but that Civil Rights was too important a cause to ignore... Johnson was willing to have that since Civil Rights was such an important things and a humane things.

I have real doubts that Johnson embraced the Civil Rights movement out of sheer principle.

I think it is just as likely that Johnson saw the "Solid South" already starting to slip away from the Democrats. The process had started in the 1920s - then was reversed by the Great Depression and landslides for FDR.

But the process restarted in the 1950s. By the 1960s... Note that Johnson's old Senate seat had fallen to a Republican - the first Republican Senator elected from a "Confederate" state since Reconstruction. There was a Texas Republican in the House (the second since Reconstruction - the first had served in the 1920s). Similar changes were happening elsewhere in the South.

Meanwhile, Johnson saw the possibility of cementing total black support for Democrats. As he himself put it, "I'll have those ------s voting Democratic for the next 200 years."

 

[Plumber]

I have real doubts that Johnson embraced the Civil Rights movement out of sheer principle.

That's where I stopped reading.

 

[Wolfpaw]

As he himself put it, "I'll have those ------s voting Democratic for the next 200 years."

That's a completely false quote that emerged from Kessler's hatchet-job and people want to believe because "Johnson was from Texas, which means he must be a Wicked Racist" and it seeks to deny Democrats a claim to higher principles by portraying their embrace of civil rights a racist, cynical political maneuver. It's slander.

The truth is that Lyndon B. Johnson needed wretched people to love him.

 

[Andrew T]

I have real doubts that Johnson embraced the Civil Rights movement out of sheer principle.

Read Caro.

 

[Emperor Norton I]

We should discuss how well Smathers can fare in '60 against Nixon.

The problem here for me, and I suppose many others, is that this is a blindspot. I don't know Smathers support nationally or regionally in the South, or his potential in that area. I don't know anyone who does. Finding information on Smathers is not always the easiest, and I've never found anything that especially in depth. I don't know anyone who would really have the knowledge here. Roguebeaver did say once some time back that Smathers wasn't taken seriously enough on the national stage, but I don't know where he got that from the verify it.

 

[Rich Rostrom]

That's a completely false quote that emerged from Kessler's hatchet-job and people want to believe because "Johnson was from Texas, which means he must be a Wicked Racist"

Johnson was a Deep South white; if he wasn't fairly racist it would be a miracle. He spent decades in the House and Senate without giving anyone a hint that he was in any way opposed on principle to white supremacy or Jim Crow. The old-bull Dixiecrats in the Senate all considered him "one of us."

His conversion to civil rights champion in 1964 was shocking because it was unexpected.

and it seeks to deny Democrats a claim to higher principles by portraying their embrace of civil rights a racist, cynical political maneuver.

Don't squeal till you're bit.

It questions one Democrat's embrace of civil rights as an act of idealism. That particular Democrat was notorious for cynical political maneuvering.

I don't think there's any doubt that northern liberal Democrats like Humphrey took up the civil rights cause on principle.

 

[Plumber]

That's a completely false quote that emerged from Kessler's hatchet-job and people want to believe because "Johnson was from Texas, which means he must be a Wicked Racist" and it seeks to deny Democrats a claim to higher principles by portraying their embrace of civil rights a racist, cynical political maneuver. It's slander.

The truth is that Lyndon B. Johnson needed wretched people to love him.

Don't bother.

He also identified as a wretched person himself due to being ostracized from the community due to poverty. He could read a Senator like a book and see their point of view, and exploit it. He could also do the same to minorities, and empathize with it.

 

[Andrew T]

We should discuss how well Smathers can fare in '60 against Nixon.

The problem here for me, and I suppose many others, is that this is a blindspot. I don't know Smathers support nationally or regionally in the South, or his potential in that area. I don't know anyone who does. Finding information on Smathers is not always the easiest, and I've never found anything that especially in depth. I don't know anyone who would really have the knowledge here. Roguebeaver did say once some time back that Smathers wasn't taken seriously enough on the national stage, but I don't know where he got that from the verify it.

As I asked earlier: if Lyndon Johnson couldn't get the nomination in 1960, I fail to see how George Smathers -- who has all of Johnson's weaknesses and none of his strengths -- could get it.

 

[DanMcCollum]

Johnson was a Deep South white; if he wasn't fairly racist it would be a miracle. He spent decades in the House and Senate without giving anyone a hint that he was in any way opposed on principle to white supremacy or Jim Crow. The old-bull Dixiecrats in the Senate all considered him "one of us."

His conversion to civil rights champion in 1964 was shocking because it was unexpected.

Johnson's 'conversion' to Civil Right crusader in 1964 came as a shock because many Northerners assumed that LBJ was a racist, due to his being from Texas. Prior to 1964, Johnson had managed to get the only major civil rights legislation since Reconstruction through the United States Senate, and had done so at risk to his own political base.

LBJ's stance on civil rights legislation isn't without some ambiguity; he did take a turn to the Right in his political stances upon reaching the Senate, and he went along with the Southern bloc on many issues. But, on a personal level, he appears to have always been a supporter of equal rights. This is the same man who, upon finding out that a local veteran would not be buried in a cemetary because of his race, lobbied to have him buried in Arlington National Cemetary, instead. Stories like that are not few and far between.

However, being a consumate politician, he often acted only when he could minimize the danger to his own aspirations, and if he saw some greater reward down the line. In many ways, Johnson was always a deeply conflicted man; torn between a desire to be viewed as hardnosed and practical, on one hand, yet possessing a strong romantic streak as well. When he could manage to fuse both of those two together, the man could move mountains.

 

[Emperor Norton I]

Who would Smathers pick for appointed positions (cabinet and other) as president?