jfk lives,what happens in america?

the kennedys would have owned the 60s.jfk dumps lbj and bobby runs with him as vp,then is elected two terms as
president with martin luther king as vp.what happens in vietnam and does the civil rights issue get solved sooner?


Oh, ye gods...another Kennedy cultist with stars in the eyes. Spare us.

Let's get a few things in order, kid: I was there when he was president; clearly you weren't. He was a man; no more and no less. What he did have that most other presidents didn't or won't was a mystique generated by his own cultists and self-appointed PR machine. He didn't even begin to approach greatness within three or four time zones, particularly in not quite three full years of office. (I will concede that quite likely he got Marilyn Monroe to spread her legs at least once, but while that might qualify for immortality in the locker room, it sure as hell doesn't get you Mt. Rushmore except as a tourist.)

There would have been a bill due for the Bay of Pigs sooner or later had he survived; that much is sure. Kennedy was a cold warrior, so you can pretty much bet that involvement in Viet Nam would have climbed: perhaps not at the same precipitous rate as it did with Lyndon Johnson but climb it would nonetheless. By the late '60s, chance are the chants would have been "Hey, hey, JFK--how many boys did you kill today?" And all the glamor and glitz count for squat when your sons are coming home in body bags.

Further: this isn't Argentina, kid. Bobby won't run with him for VP; neither the party nor the nation would stand for that. He'd still need Johnson to arm-twist and carry water for whatever his version of a civil rights bill might be (much as I dislike Lyndon Johnson, I will have to give him his due as far as a civil rights bill goes: in that, the wheeler/dealer/snake oil salesman was truly subordinated to a worthwhile cause). Humphrey or Symington couldn't begin to do that for him in the Senate especially with more recalcitrant southerners.

Sooner or later, no matter how flashy a new act is, it becomes yesterday's news. And the same would have held for Kennedy. By 1968, the time would have been right for Richard Nixon to step up and ask voters if they hadn't had enough with jet-setting, glitz, and display--all the while kids are dying in some hellhole in southeast Asia--and if it isn't time to restore more mainstream values to the White House? Chances are in a base display of ingratitude, Johnson gets sent packing without much consideration for the top job, with likely Humphrey being anointed the successor as in OTL. But this time around, there's no mythos around Kennedy; rather, just the aftermath of eight years that have left voters with something of a hangover.

Richard Nixon becomes the 36th president comfortably, and Kennedy spins out his life elsewhere, more likely in the company of Hollywood rather than Hyannis Port. Chances are he (Kennedy) sees opportunity for fresh young tail that wouldn't mind doing it with a former president, and Jackie's abilities to serve his purposes have come and gone. The totally disapproving Rose nothwithstanding, the Kennedys divorce in the early '70s. His next appearance after the divorce with some toothsome, curvy blonde on his arm comes at Harry Truman's funeral in 1972 (he and Jackie attended Ike's funeral in '69).

Today, Kennedy is remembered as a feel-good, more-style-than-substance president that left a lot of stuff for his immediate GOP successors, starting with Richard Nixon, to clean up.
 
Last edited:
To achieve recognition of the PRC by JFK means no Vietnam War and no Cultural Revolution in China. Even in the early 60s, the US was beginning to have second thoughts on supporting Taiwan. LBJ himself went to Taiwan in 1961 and personally concluded that Chiang Kai-shek was an anachronism while publicly praising him at the same time.
 
If JFK had lived would the space program been bigger? Man still goes to the moon. But would JFK pushed for flights to Mars, etc? Also does the republican party go super right starting in 68? With the south starting their push to the GOP in anti civil rights. This ends up with Reagan getting the nomination and saying his famous (racists ) speech in Mississippi in 1980. . Or would the moderates and liberals be able to save the GOP? Nixon vs Rockfeller in 68 while Humphrey vs LBJ . Winner ?? I say Rockfeller over Humphrey.
 
Oh, ye gods...another Kennedy cultist with stars in the eyes. Spare us.

Let's get a few things in order, kid: I was there when he was president; clearly you weren't. He was a man; no more and no less. What he did have that most other presidents didn't or won't was a mystique generated by his own cultists and self-appointed PR machine. He didn't even begin to approach greatness within three or four time zones, particularly in not quite three full years of office. (I will concede that quite likely he got Marilyn Monroe to spread her legs at least once, but while that might qualify for immortality in the locker room, it sure as hell doesn't get you Mt. Rushmore except as a tourist.)

There would have been a bill due for the Bay of Pigs sooner or later had he survived; that much is sure. Kennedy was a cold warrior, so you can pretty much bet that involvement in Viet Nam would have climbed: perhaps not at the same precipitous rate as it did with Lyndon Johnson but climb it would nonetheless. By the late '60s, chance are the chants would have been "Hey, hey, JFK--how many boys did you kill today?" And all the glamor and glitz count for squat when your sons are coming home in body bags.

Further: this isn't Argentina, kid. Bobby won't run with him for VP; neither the party nor the nation would stand for that. He'd still need Johnson to arm-twist and carry water for whatever his version of a civil rights bill might be (much as I dislike Lyndon Johnson, I will have to give him his due as far as a civil rights bill goes: in that, the wheeler/dealer/snake oil salesman was truly subordinated to a worthwhile cause). Humphrey or Symington couldn't begin to do that for him in the Senate especially with more recalcitrant southerners.

Sooner or later, no matter how flashy a new act is, it becomes yesterday's news. And the same would have held for Kennedy. By 1968, the time would have been right for Richard Nixon to step up and ask voters if they hadn't had enough with jet-setting, glitz, and display--all the while kids are dying in some hellhole in southeast Asia--and if it isn't time to restore more mainstream values to the White House? Chances are in a base display of ingratitude, Johnson gets sent packing without much consideration for the top job, with likely Humphrey being anointed the successor as in OTL. But this time around, there's no mythos around Kennedy; rather, just the aftermath of eight years that have left voters with something of a hangover.

Richard Nixon becomes the 36th president comfortably, and Kennedy spins out his life elsewhere, more likely in the company of Hollywood rather than Hyannis Port. Chances are he (Kennedy) sees opportunity for fresh young tail that wouldn't mind doing it with a former president, and Jackie's abilities to serve his purposes have come and gone. The totally disapproving Rose nothwithstanding, the Kennedys divorce in the early '70s. His next appearance after the divorce with some toothsome, curvy blonde on his arm comes at Harry Truman's funeral in 1972 (he and Jackie attended Ike's funeral in '69).

Today, Kennedy is remembered as a feel-good, more-style-than-substance president that left a lot of stuff for his immediate GOP successors, starting with Richard Nixon, to clean up.

The OP is very inaccurate, but I think you're overreacting.

JFK was a Cold warrior perhaps, but not a hawk; in fact, he was very much against and frequently upset by the hawks in his administration. He was a pragmatist, fully aware that Vietnam could become another Korea (Korea being the great, presidency destroying quagmire of the day), and aware of historical insurrections where great powers were beaten down by small national movements. And please don't bring up that "Hey, Hey, JFK!" thing; its inaccurate, and I'm tired of hearing it.
Kennedy wanted to withdrawal advisers from Vietnam, and revert to a policy of aid and supply because he did not view Vietnam as a war worth sending US troops to fight, and thought the Vietnamese should fight for themselves, and that if the US did get involved, it would be stuck. LBJ was also afraid of possible quagmire, but less foreign policy savvy to either get out of the situation, see that he could get out of major commitment, or that getting involved wouldn't likely assure victory.

Kennedy had within him the possibilities of a great president, and 1963 was on the threshold of many things that were to come but never did under Kennedy due to an assassin's bullet: a detente with the Soviets, rapprochement with Cuba, scaling back Vietnam to a small involvement, Civil rights, New Frontier social legislation, etc.

I also find your view of Jackie and him divorcing both rather incorrect and a bit offensive; Jack genuinely loved Jackie, and though Jackie did not like his running around, she'd come to accept it. And as a church going man, Kennedy would not divorce. Leave that for "Superman: Red Son", not serious alternate history.

Roguebeaver can deal with what I didn't touch.

If JFK had lived he would probably have been blamed for Vietnam. Yes, there would still be a Vietnam.
No, there wouldn't have been, for numerous reasons I've said previous.

If JFK had lived would the space program been bigger? Man still goes to the moon. But would JFK pushed for flights to Mars, etc? Also does the republican party go super right starting in 68? With the south starting their push to the GOP in anti civil rights. This ends up with Reagan getting the nomination and saying his famous (racists ) speech in Mississippi in 1980. . Or would the moderates and liberals be able to save the GOP? Nixon vs Rockfeller in 68 while Humphrey vs LBJ . Winner ?? I say Rockfeller over Humphrey.
JFK didn't care about space beyond politics; either beating the Soviets or joining them to usher in peace. Granted, that doesn't mean space can't be a bigger area; there'll be a lot of money left over without a Vietnam conflict and the New Frontier being more limited than the GS.
The GOP's shift towards the right is dependent on both it's own core dynamic and outside influences in the way the culture and society is changing.
 
Last edited:
Wasn't his health becoming increasingly worse by the time of his death? Wouldnt this have an effect on his second term?
 
Norton dealt with everything, so I don't have much to add here. His health had stabilized in '62-'63 once Kraus and Burkley took over medical duties in place of Travell, who Jackie called a "Mme Nhu." (Though Travell wasn't evil, just incompetent) The reason she wasn't dumped outright were fears that she'd leak over a decade's worth of files and her knowledge of JFK's medical history to the press. However Addison's does take its toll over time, just like diabetes: progressive deterioration even with proper medical "regulation." This would not kick in until after he left office, at least not the worst effects of it.

The GOP had already begun its turn to the right in the 1950s, usually 1944 and the TX Regulars are cited as the POD. By 1962 Bush has unlocked the future by allowing Dixiecrats into the Harris County GOP, and after Rocky's self-nuking due to his divorce in early 1963 Goldwater was the prohibitive frontrunner by the time of JFK's death. Governing in a more centrist manner than LBJ gives the GOP less to criticize but not stop their rightward march. When Bobby takes over the party in the later 1970s, probably aiming for 1976 or 1980, he'll realign them along DLC principles, so you have a conservative party and one that's at least centrist on the presidential level as per OTL in the 1990s.
 
The OP is very inaccurate, but I think you're overreacting.

JFK was a Cold warrior perhaps, but not a hawk; in fact, he was very much against and frequently upset by the hawks in his administration. He was a pragmatist, fully aware that Vietnam could become another Korea (Korea being the great, presidency destroying quagmire of the day), and aware of historical insurrections where great powers were beaten down by small national movements. And please don't bring up that "Hey, Hey, JFK!" thing; its inaccurate, and I'm tired of hearing it.
Kennedy wanted to withdrawal advisers from Vietnam, and revert to a policy of aid and supply because he did not view Vietnam as a war worth sending US troops to fight, and thought the Vietnamese should fight for themselves, and that if the US did get involved, it would be stuck. LBJ was also afraid of possible quagmire, but less foreign policy savvy to either get out of the situation, see that he could get out of major commitment, or that getting involved wouldn't likely assure victory.

Perhaps. I'll tender the benefit of the doubt, but I reiterate: I grew up during his presidency so he wasn't then and properly ought not to be anywhere within several time zones of the demigod some would have him be. Oh, by the way: he and his cohorts gave us The Best and the Brightest, who were certain a US victory in Viet Nam was feasible.

Kennedy had within him the possibilities of a great president, and 1963 was on the threshold of many things that were to come but never did under Kennedy due to an assassin's bullet: a detente with the Soviets, rapprochement with Cuba, scaling back Vietnam to a small involvement, Civil rights, New Frontier social legislation, etc.

Stars are in your eyes also. Kennedy had potential, yes, but so have a lot of presidents. Example: Nixon's time was cut short by his own appalling lack of judgment but he was around long enough to open China, a nation of more than a billion, to the US. He actually delivered on some of his potential. Civil rights? Johnson cared more for that issue than did Kennedy and as noted before, he needed Johnson to carry trainloads of water for him with southern senators. He could have done good things, but save "great" for Lincon, Washington, and TR--the ones who really deserve it.

I also find your view of Jackie and him divorcing both rather incorrect and a bit offensive; Jack genuinely loved Jackie, and though Jackie did not like his running around, she'd come to accept it. And as a church going man, Kennedy would not divorce. Leave that for "Superman: Red Son", not serious alternate history.

That's a riot...oh, wait, you were serious? Give me a break. Kennedy chased damn near anything in garters and hose since pantyhose weren't on the market yet, pretty much as did his old man (he came within yelling distance of a split back when Hoover was in the White House, but only political considerations kept them together; he had an eye on the White House even then). Sure, he kept up appearances but he made damn sure he got plenty of horizontal exercise, Jackie or not.

As noted, I saw too much of his administration as a kid growing up to ever think of Kennedy as much more than a not-bad-but-decidedly-not-great president, and nothing will ever change that. True, he was better than Carter, but my granddaughter at age four and a half would have been better.
 
With JFK, RFK and Teddy K all alive and well, that's the probably advent of a Kennedy "reigning dynasty" that would dwarf the present-day achievements of the Bush.
 
I've often described a theoretical RFK presidency as "Clinton without the tawdriness", both in policy and aura, with a pinch of glamour thrown in. That's how I see JFK's historical judgment playing out if he serves 8 years: a good, popular and politically successful presidency, but not a great one. B or B+, but not in the A range.
 
Perhaps. I'll tender the benefit of the doubt, but I reiterate: I grew up during his presidency so he wasn't then and properly ought not to be anywhere within several time zones of the demigod some would have him be. Oh, by the way: he and his cohorts gave us The Best and the Brightest, who were certain a US victory in Viet Nam was feasible.
You may have grown up during his presidency, but I think you have a bias which conflicts with the benefit of your being of a generation.
Kennedy was thought of well, and quite well in fact; a 60%+ approval rating at the time.

And even the political scene of the time itself was unsure of Vietnam; there was certainly more of a view that we could win it (a optimism to later be dashed in blood soaked jungles and cities in Southeast Asia), but also many saying it was not any of our business. And the key man who stood up against the hawks in the Kennedy administration was JFK himself. When the hawks wanted to bombard Cuba to the stone age, Kennedy was pragmatic and against it; when they proposed Americanizing the war in any way, he consistently turned it down, saying at one point something to the effect of "Parades will march down the streets, and people will cheer, but after a while, they'll forget about it and want more and more. It's like an alcohol." Kennedy was agitated especially by LeMay, and the man infuriated him to no end.


Stars are in your eyes also. Kennedy had potential, yes, but so have a lot of presidents. Example: Nixon's time was cut short by his own appalling lack of judgment but he was around long enough to open China, a nation of more than a billion, to the US. He actually delivered on some of his potential. Civil rights? Johnson cared more for that issue than did Kennedy and as noted before, he needed Johnson to carry trainloads of water for him with southern senators. He could have done good things, but save "great" for Lincon, Washington, and TR--the ones who really deserve it.
No stars in my eyes. My heroes are my heroes, but I recognize their flaws. However, I also recognize their strengths and glories. Everything I stated were things Kennedy was actively working toward, and which he had a receptive audience to: He wanted a detente with the USSR, and even proposed to Khrushchev in '63 the possibility of a joint moon landing (albeit that could have been simply a political stunt to make the Soviets look bad for turning it down). He was communicating with Castro himself about rapprochement, and Castro was open to it because (if I recall) he was weary of the Soviets as an ally. On Vietnam, he was weary of it, wished to avoid getting the US actively involved as a combatant in the war, and frequently talked about getting out of Vietnam, asking McNamara to draw up a plan for full withdrawal of advisers by 1965 (again, McNamara thought this infeasible and started work on on with a deadline of 1968). Kennedy had come in 1963 to see Civil Rights as a deadly serious issue, and the legislation key, which is why he proposed what would become the Civil Rights act of 1964. He also wanted to open up China, but that would have proven an impossible dream for the time, and one I believe he gave up himself.

And why are you criticizing Kennedy for not fulfilling his potential in comparison to Nixon? Nixon had 5 or so years; Kennedy had 2 years, 10 months. The whole being shot in the head deal kinda put a stopper on a lot of his career.
Johnson did care about blacks more than Kennedy, and even when Kennedy came to be a real Civil Rights supporter in 1963 rather than the previous (and common) stance of "It's bad, but that's just the way things are", Johnson still likely cared more about Civil Rights and blacks. But JFK still cared, so why does that matter? And he was still working towards getting legislation passed, so what does that matter?


That's a riot...oh, wait, you were serious? Give me a break. Kennedy chased damn near anything in garters and hose since pantyhose weren't on the market yet, pretty much as did his old man (he came within yelling distance of a split back when Hoover was in the White House, but only political considerations kept them together; he had an eye on the White House even then). Sure, he kept up appearances but he made damn sure he got plenty of horizontal exercise, Jackie or not.

As noted, I saw too much of his administration as a kid growing up to ever think of Kennedy as much more than a not-bad-but-decidedly-not-great president, and nothing will ever change that. True, he was better than Carter, but my granddaughter at age four and a half would have been better.
Of course JFK had affairs, which I never denied (and my post was based on that fact). But he and Jackie did genuinely love each other, and much as Bobby and Jackie didn't like his philandering, they had learned to accept it. It's not a proud fact about the Kennedy presidency, and it's not one I deny or attempt to deny.
But it's silly to think that he and Jackie would have divorced. He was a Catholic, she had learned to live with it, and they genuinely loved one another.
 
Further: this isn't Argentina, kid. Bobby won't run with him for VP; neither the party nor the nation would stand for that.

Not to mention the twelfth amendment forces the Massachussetts electoral college to vote for a different VP, although that would be interesting...
 
Top