JFK Lives: Effects on RFK.

Just finished Jeff Greenfield's Then Everything Changed, his possibility of three alternate histories, and it got me thinking about the relationship between the Kennedy brothers.

Robert Kennedy was his brother's second-in-command, lieutenant, alter ego, and Jack's death affected Bobby enormously, perhaps moreso than it did Jackie or Jack's kids. It's been widely written upon that this is the period where Bobby is transformed from hardass Communist-hating Cold Warrior (Bobby had a lot of respect for McCarthy and worked for the guy, went to his funeral), to the liberal, societally-concerned man who could calm a city from rioting (his speech in Indianapolis upon the death of MLK).

Now, what if John Kennedy doesn't die? Say that the roof is up, and Oswald doesn't take the shot; or Jack is severely wounded instead of dead? Does Bobby go through the same metamorphosis? Is it more a matter of degrees of transformation, or does his persona stay more or less the same? Harden even?
For the record, I don't doubt that RFK was the type of man we saw post-JFK as he was pre-, he just had to conceal it more as Jack's enforcer and the so-called 'runt' of the Kennedy brothers.
 
I could see him making a run for president in the 1960s or 70s. On the one hand, he does survive, but on the other hand, he still probably wouldn't accomplish much.


Here's what I think would happen:

1968: Nixon defeats Johnson
1972: Nixon defeats McGovern-type liberal - RFK or Ted comes in second
1976: RFK defeats Ford post-Watergate
1980: Dole defeats RFK

But Ted would be a more likely president
 
If John F. Kennedy had lived I think the Kennedy brand would have inevitably been tarnished-which would have kept Robert Kennedy from being in a position to compete for the Presidency for some time. I'm not even sure if Civil and Voting Rights would have passed under Kennedy-let alone the other great liberal accomplishments of the Johnson era. And then there's Vietnam which would have presumably had the same impact on John Kennedy's administration's public reputation as the war had on Johnson's. Robert Kennedy would have remained a key advisor of the administration-and a cabinet level officer. He may even be Defense Secretary. I could see a siege mentality developing within the Kennedy administration as a consequence of Vietnam even if the worst doesn't happen. (Worst here being defined as Civil Rights and Voting Rights not passing at all without LBJ and the martyrdom effect.) That siege mentality could have led RFK to lean more heavily on his "SOB" persona than he did even as Attorney General. Even if the Kennedy administration does pass through the entirety of the New frontier in 1965 the period from 1966 on is going to be rough in a way that would have encouraged RFK's worst instincts.

As Defense Secretary he'd be more personally associated with the Vietnam war than any other member of the administration save for the President himself. That alone would have a tremendous impact on RFK's personal behavior and attitude and how he would have been perceived by the public as the war becomes unpopular.
 
You're concerned about the personality angle, and how, as a person in his soul, he would be different. As am I, but I do not know the answer. No offense, but I think the rest of you are going off topic in immediately delving into how or how not RFK becomes president. That is not the issue at hand, and is not as interesting.
 
RFK was only elected Senator a became a presidential candidate due to the assassination of his brother. If JFK lives he is out of office in 1969. RFK might get a House or Senate seat, with effort. But all he is an ex-president's brother.

That just does not get you far in politics.
 
You're concerned about the personality angle, and how, as a person in his soul, he would be different. As am I, but I do not know the answer. No offense, but I think the rest of you are going off topic in immediately delving into how or how not RFK becomes president. That is not the issue at hand, and is not as interesting.

True. My point was broader than the question of whether or not Robert Kennedy would have been President or not. I think that the broad trends of the late Kennedy era-assuming Vietnam-would have had an impact on Robert Kennedy's personality and public reputation that would have exacerbated the personality traits he had prior to his brother's murder. If you want to know what kind of a person RFK would have been in the late 1960's without his brother's assassination-I think you have to consider what pressures he would have faced in the second term and their impact on him. I may be wrong about a siege mentality developing in the late Kennedy period-but that's more a question of whether or not RFK is Secretary of Defense and whether Vietnam happens or not. I think that kind of mentality would have encouraged Robert Kennedy's crueler instincts. Not only would the transformation from 1963 on not happen-but there'd be significant pressures in the opposite direction.
 
You're concerned about the personality angle, and how, as a person in his soul, he would be different. As am I, but I do not know the answer. No offense, but I think the rest of you are going off topic in immediately delving into how or how not RFK becomes president. That is not the issue at hand, and is not as interesting.
Exactly. I think that RFK's personality is the more interesting angle. A lot of the social justice aspect of his career, against racism, poverty, inequality, that sort of thing, only truly emerges as a facet in the aftermath of the loss of his brother (and Ted's accident, which is underrated in that regard), and Bobby's assuming the role of "patriarch" of the family clan. Given that, and the mantle of "heir to Camelot" that was deposited on his shoulders, it affected a great deal of his actions later in life. I have to wonder if that would be the case if Bobby never had to step into Jack's shoes-to mix metaphors, would Bobby ever step out of Jack's shadow?
Also, given how much the two loathed each other, I think it's kind of funny how LBJ and RFK somewhat reflect each other in certain regards to that sort of social justice aspect.

True. My point was broader than the question of whether or not Robert Kennedy would have been President or not. I think that the broad trends of the late Kennedy era-assuming Vietnam-would have had an impact on Robert Kennedy's personality and public reputation that would have exacerbated the personality traits he had prior to his brother's murder. If you want to know what kind of a person RFK would have been in the late 1960's without his brother's assassination-I think you have to consider what pressures he would have faced in the second term and their impact on him. I may be wrong about a siege mentality developing in the late Kennedy period-but that's more a question of whether or not RFK is Secretary of Defense and whether Vietnam happens or not. I think that kind of mentality would have encouraged Robert Kennedy's crueler instincts. Not only would the transformation from 1963 on not happen-but there'd be significant pressures in the opposite direction.
That's a really good point. Now, personally, from what I've read, Kennedy had a complete different rationale for Vietnam than Johnson did, and would have been working to extract troops earlier or be less tied down in country. Jack's stances and status at the time (Kennedy had a international and domestic reputation as a foreign policy leader that Johnson lacked which I think would have given him a lot more leeway), indicated that the direction he was leaning in was on the idea of a graceful exit.
I do have some concerns with RFK as SecDef. While I think that Jack could have pushed for him to take over at the Pentagon, Bobby doesn't have active military experience, which could ruffle some feathers in Congress in getting him confirmed. Personally, my view is that a second-term Kennedy would have sent Bobby up to New York as UN Ambassador, or over to Foggy Bottom as SecState, which I don't think would have encouraged the same type of siege mentality that you mentioned. Bobby Kennedy, America's spokesman to the world or representative of the USA to the United Nations, has a very different outlook that Bobby Kennedy, guy who has to take on the defense bureaucracies, extract us from an unpopular war, and work with people who probably don't like or trust him.
 
The argument that Kennedy would have escalated in Vietnam has been persuasively argued elsewhere on this site. His plan for leaving i 1965 depended on improved conditions in South Vietnam that would not have manifested and did not occur in reality. Obviously, Jack Kennedy was a different person than Lyndon Johnson and would therefore have made different decisions on a micro-level but there remains a strong case to be made that the basic pattern of escalation to unpopular quagmire would still have happened. RFK was such a key adviser that I can't see him being sent off to New York. He arguably had more of an influence over foreign policy than the actual Secretary of State. Hard to see Jack Kennedy reducing his brother's access that way.

I could see the period from 1966 on being bad for the administration. I think that inevitability that would have triggered RFK's grudge holding trait. Robert Kennedy would also face a fair amount of public criticism over Vietnam if he has any sort of formal foreign policy role. And he's the one member of the administration with the least ability to distance himself from an increasingly unpopular President or at least increasingly unpopular policies. Indeed at worst Kennedy's administration could have been like LBJ's without the good parts. (Civil Rights, Medicare and Medicaid, and the rest of the Great Society). In that scenario the chaos of the late 1960's would have been even worse and perhaps dramatically so. That would have an impact on RFK.
 
The argument that Kennedy would have escalated in Vietnam has been persuasively argued elsewhere on this site. His plan for leaving i 1965 depended on improved conditions in South Vietnam that would not have manifested and did not occur in reality. Obviously, Jack Kennedy was a different person than Lyndon Johnson and would therefore have made different decisions on a micro-level but there remains a strong case to be made that the basic pattern of escalation to unpopular quagmire would still have happened. RFK was such a key adviser that I can't see him being sent off to New York. He arguably had more of an influence over foreign policy than the actual Secretary of State. Hard to see Jack Kennedy reducing his brother's access that way.

I could see the period from 1966 on being bad for the administration. I think that inevitability that would have triggered RFK's grudge holding trait. Robert Kennedy would also face a fair amount of public criticism over Vietnam if he has any sort of formal foreign policy role. And he's the one member of the administration with the least ability to distance himself from an increasingly unpopular President or at least increasingly unpopular policies. Indeed at worst Kennedy's administration could have been like LBJ's without the good parts. (Civil Rights, Medicare and Medicaid, and the rest of the Great Society). In that scenario the chaos of the late 1960's would have been even worse and perhaps dramatically so. That would have an impact on RFK.

I honestly think that Kennedy would have done his best to deescalate. Whether he would have been able to, either from domestic/internal pressure and politics, or foreign events forcing his hand, up to debate.

UN Ambassador only struck me because that's where Goldberg ended up, and without Abe Fortas on the Court, someone would need to fill that position. Plus, if Kennedy runs in New York following his brother's Presidency, it might help him there.

So you view a two-term JFK as being a Presidency of more style over substance?
 
I could see him making a run for president in the 1960s or 70s. On the one hand, he does survive, but on the other hand, he still probably wouldn't accomplish much.


Here's what I think would happen:

1968: Nixon defeats Johnson
1972: Nixon defeats McGovern-type liberal - RFK or Ted comes in second
1976: RFK defeats Ford post-Watergate
1980: Dole defeats RFK

But Ted would be a more likely president
I'd be interested to see how Robert would handle the crisis in Iran as well as the economic issues Carter bungled. One thing is for certain: no Camp David Accords in this ATL.
 
I'm not sure what I view a two term Kennedy administration as being like. There are a lot of variables.

For what the assumption is worth Robert Dallek thought that Kennedy would have had the coatails to obtain cloture on Civil and Voting rights in 1965 along with much of the New Frontier.

Dallek argued that his opponent would have been Barry Goldwater who would not have been much more successful against a living Kennedy than against Johnson and Kennedy's ghost. Hence hefty Democratic and particularly liberal margins from 1965 through 1967.

Still passing Civil Rights is difficult. Even when liberals arguably had the numbers they were considerably less organized and knew less about procedure than their Southern counterparts. That's one of the places having LBJ around to direct the effort really helped.

Then again even Senator Russell seems not to have been 100 percent certain. He said he thought he "could" have beaten Kennedy on Civil Rights-not that he "would" have beaten Kennedy's effort.

The scenario I described is a worst case scenario and may not reflect what actually would have happened. I think Vietnam probably still happens but is different on the margins. I could see Vietnam being the Kennedy administration's second term curse.

If Dallek is right then Kennedy's will be an odd case where all the really important legislation passes in his second term.


It's therefore possible that JFK is like Johnson with a marginally better reputation in the long term because of what he was able to do in his first term-namely the peaceful resolution of the missile crisis.
 
I will give you my take on the RFK situation outside of the baseball statistics everyone is discussing, and in terms of the personality and temperament issues that the OP intended. This is my personal take on the matter from personal experience (do not get mushy on me and do not hug me you communists) and the psychological profile of Robert Kennedy from what I know of him. When you lose someone very close in a sudden and unexpected tragedy, it changes you. It breaks you apart into a million pieces, and it's up to you to slowly glue yourself together again. And like a broken vase you glued together, it looks the same but is never the same, and there may be pieces missing and pieces put in the wrong/a different way. But you carry forward as best you can. Tragedies like that have the effect of not necessarily changing you, but making what you are deeper and more self reflective, as there is a tinge of melancholy that was not there before to everything. You don't necessarily wallow in sadness, but you become more open to it like some kind of wise monk that accepts it, takes it in and reflects on it. You're more open to the importance of things and how fragile things are. Robert Kennedy was not a different person after the assassination, but he was someone who was more poetic, more reflective, and more introspective, both of himself and the world, and in that way he changed. He's the same person, but he's exploring more avenues of his soul; the paths are all there, but he's taking them further. It's maturity. So in a world where Kennedy were not assassinated, it would not be bad. Robert Kennedy would not be as poetic, but that poetry of thought and spirit came at the expense of a sadness that existed just under the surface and colored everything he did. It requires that sadness, because it's like a test of fire for the soul, and it slows you down and makes you observe existence truly and without the biases you may have had. Robert Kennedy would be happier instead. And he would not be shallow, and I have to reiterate that. It's simply like you're going full speed in your life with everything being fine, and then a tragedy hits and the things that seemed up and down and bad and good before seem superficial afterward, and you get a better sense of what really matters and the value of things.

EDIT:
There's also a period where a tragedy like that knocks everything out of you. It's like a shock, but not necessarily. It is more like you've done all your explosive emotions, and can only cry so much and can only feel sadness in your brain so much that you've over worked the muscle, and you exist as this calm in the middle of the storm. That's the transformative period, because whatever you were before has come to an end, but you don't know what the next phase of you as a person is. You have to continue on, and you do, but you do not know how to go forward. And you become lucid in the tragedy and sadness. That's what 1964 was for all these people, and you can hear it in private tapes like the Jackie Kennedy interviews. I'm sure she still burst out in fits of crying in her private moments when the thoughts came, but she could talk for long periods and even laugh. There is a nicety to the world that people who go through bad things may not recognize at first, and that is that it continues on and does not stop, and therefore you can keep going too, even if you don't want to at the moment. It still takes a while to get back to a decent place, nonetheless. Even in those interviews, I'm sure the emotions were more surface level than what they would have been before, because there is a sense of shock and you're trying to be normal and distracted, and you go a bit on autopilot as well.

EDIT Deux:
An addendum to my statement on RFK not being as poetic: that poetic quality and that quality of the wise monk does come at the cost of apathy. There is a zen acceptance of things and reflection on the world, but you also don't experience emotions as vividly, as easily, or in as simple of terms. That's not to say sad. That is to say apathy, or perhaps acceptance is a better word. You're ok or mildly positive, and you don't get as easily mad, or sad, but also it may take more to make you happy.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps another important statement and summary on RFK as a human being and his psychology:
After the assassination, everything that Robert Kennedy was or would be was defined by and in terms of the assassination of John Kennedy. As Stephen Colbert puts it in regards to his own tragedy of losing his brothers and father in a plane crash, it's his "secret name". It is what he thinks he'll see when he looks in the mirror. It is as much him and his definition as his own face and name and thoughts. You emotionally develop from that, but it will always define you to some degree, and it is your story.
 
Wasn't there a plan for him to replace Johnson as VP in '64 ?
There were plans to replace Johnson as VP, with Terry Sanford of North Carolina as the name I've heard mentioned the most. But I don't think you could get away with having JFK as Prez and Bobby as the Veep-politically, it would smell, and Bobby would have to change his residence ala Cheney (I think? I don't know if RFK was a Massachusetts residence during his tenure as AG).

I'm not sure what I view a two term Kennedy administration as being like. There are a lot of variables.

For what the assumption is worth Robert Dallek thought that Kennedy would have had the coatails to obtain cloture on Civil and Voting rights in 1965 along with much of the New Frontier.

Dallek argued that his opponent would have been Barry Goldwater who would not have been much more successful against a living Kennedy than against Johnson and Kennedy's ghost. Hence hefty Democratic and particularly liberal margins from 1965 through 1967.

Still passing Civil Rights is difficult. Even when liberals arguably had the numbers they were considerably less organized and knew less about procedure than their Southern counterparts. That's one of the places having LBJ around to direct the effort really helped.

Then again even Senator Russell seems not to have been 100 percent certain. He said he thought he "could" have beaten Kennedy on Civil Rights-not that he "would" have beaten Kennedy's effort.

The scenario I described is a worst case scenario and may not reflect what actually would have happened. I think Vietnam probably still happens but is different on the margins. I could see Vietnam being the Kennedy administration's second term curse.

If Dallek is right then Kennedy's will be an odd case where all the really important legislation passes in his second term.


It's therefore possible that JFK is like Johnson with a marginally better reputation in the long term because of what he was able to do in his first term-namely the peaceful resolution of the missile crisis.

Goldwater v. Kennedy in '64 is always an interesting matchup, as they were close personal friends, and had ideas of a contest of ideas. I think Kennedy would have won this, but it would have been somewhat closer than Johnson-Goldwater (I hardly can think of a way for it to be any farther away!), but maybe a more respectful tone would have emerged from it. Potentially somewhat less of a coattail effect in '64, though probably only by a few seats.

Civil Rights is something I can see Kennedy tackling, but with a slower aspect, maybe less of a focus on desegregation, and more on voting? Different tactics, maybe, I'm not sure on that line. You mentioned the Southern aspect, and they would throw a lot of roadblocks in the way, but I can see Kennedy trading votes on his other legislation in exchange for a slower approach to civil rights.

I can see Dallek being correct in that regard, where Kennedy is more emboldened to pass legislation for his "legacy" (not to mention potentially setting up Bobby or Ted for the Presidency in a few years). And foreign policy is somewhere where the power of the President is almost unhindered by Congress, so JFK could absolutely have better accomplishments there as well.

I will give you my take on the RFK situation outside of the baseball statistics everyone is discussing, and in terms of the personality and temperament issues that the OP intended. This is my personal take on the matter from personal experience (do not get mushy on me and do not hug me you communists) and the psychological profile of Robert Kennedy from what I know of him. When you lose someone very close in a sudden and unexpected tragedy, it changes you. It breaks you apart into a million pieces, and it's up to you to slowly glue yourself together again. And like a broken vase you glued together, it looks the same but is never the same, and there may be pieces missing and pieces put in the wrong/a different way. But you carry forward as best you can. Tragedies like that have the effect of not necessarily changing you, but making what you are deeper and more self reflective, as there is a tinge of melancholy that was not there before to everything. You don't necessarily wallow in sadness, but you become more open to it like some kind of wise monk that accepts it, takes it in and reflects on it. You're more open to the importance of things and how fragile things are. Robert Kennedy was not a different person after the assassination, but he was someone who was more poetic, more reflective, and more introspective, both of himself and the world, and in that way he changed. He's the same person, but he's exploring more avenues of his soul; the paths are all there, but he's taking them further. It's maturity. So in a world where Kennedy were not assassinated, it would not be bad. Robert Kennedy would not be as poetic, but that poetry of thought and spirit came at the expense of a sadness that existed just under the surface and colored everything he did. It requires that sadness, because it's like a test of fire for the soul, and it slows you down and makes you observe existence truly and without the biases you may have had. Robert Kennedy would be happier instead. And he would not be shallow, and I have to reiterate that. It's simply like you're going full speed in your life with everything being fine, and then a tragedy hits and the things that seemed up and down and bad and good before seem superficial afterward, and you get a better sense of what really matters and the value of things.

EDIT:
There's also a period where a tragedy like that knocks everything out of you. It's like a shock, but not necessarily. It is more like you've done all your explosive emotions, and can only cry so much and can only feel sadness in your brain so much that you've over worked the muscle, and you exist as this calm in the middle of the storm. That's the transformative period, because whatever you were before has come to an end, but you don't know what the next phase of you as a person is. You have to continue on, and you do, but you do not know how to go forward. And you become lucid in the tragedy and sadness. That's what 1964 was for all these people, and you can hear it in private tapes like the Jackie Kennedy interviews. I'm sure she still burst out in fits of crying in her private moments when the thoughts came, but she could talk for long periods and even laugh. There is a nicety to the world that people who go through bad things may not recognize at first, and that is that it continues on and does not stop, and therefore you can keep going too, even if you don't want to at the moment. It still takes a while to get back to a decent place, nonetheless. Even in those interviews, I'm sure the emotions were more surface level than what they would have been before, because there is a sense of shock and you're trying to be normal and distracted, and you go a bit on autopilot as well.

EDIT Deux:
An addendum to my statement on RFK not being as poetic: that poetic quality and that quality of the wise monk does come at the cost of apathy. There is a zen acceptance of things and reflection on the world, but you also don't experience emotions as vividly, as easily, or in as simple of terms. That's not to say sad. That is to say apathy. You're ok, and you don't get as easily mad, or sad, but also it may take more to make you happy.

I don't care if it makes me a Communist, Norton, I'll give you a hug if you want! *open arms*

This is one of the best statements I've ever read on a major and how it affects your life and what happens afterwards.

Bobby Kennedy had that poet's soul that derived from his brother's murder, and the expectation of the family legacy, and his own fatalism (Bobby said he thought that he would be "they one they would get"), and that all obviously deeply affected him, and more than making him, I think, revealed him as the figure that he truly was-the ruthless opportunist and enforcer, and the deeply moral, compassionate man, both in one.
 
Top