JFK



This is from Monsieur Z about if JFK survived. To sum it up tensions between the US and USSR would rise until it is discovered that Oswald was not working with the USSR and was just trying to focus attention from them. The US withdraws from Vietnam. The Hart Cellar act is never signed and the McCarran Walter act stays in force. McCarthyism appears again. Segregation takes longer to abolish. The counterculture never takes place. And the biggest change is that the space race is increased and the US lands on the moon three years early and manages to establish a base however it not inhabited after JFK's presidency finishes yet is ready to be. The 1968 election is between Robert Kennedy and Richard Nixon. Monsieur Z does not say who he thinks wins. He does say that social conservatism is popular yet there is lot of support for the Kennedys although presidential dynasties are not popular. I am wondering what would the rest of the twentieth century and twenty first be like if either won. What you think?
 
RFK isn't going to be elected immediately after his brother. That would be ASB.

1965-68 was a bad hand for any president to have to play. You'll still have the rise in crime and you'll still have the urban riots, so voters will be nervous about society appearing to fall apart. The Pill has already been invented and Griswold happens on schedule so even without the antiwar movement there's still some degree of a counterculture. Staying out of the Vietnam quagmire allows Nixon (or even Wallace, or notorious hawk Scoop Jackson) to blame JFK for losing Vietnam to the Communists. And with out involvement being a counterfactual the argument can easily be "it wouldn't have taken much to defend South Vietnam". We know better but people ITTL don't.

JFK is remembered for a solid first term and the wheels coming off in the second term. Nixon wins in 1968.
 
RFK isn't going to be elected immediately after his brother. That would be ASB.

1965-68 was a bad hand for any president to have to play. You'll still have the rise in crime and you'll still have the urban riots, so voters will be nervous about society appearing to fall apart. The Pill has already been invented and Griswold happens on schedule so even without the antiwar movement there's still some degree of a counterculture. Staying out of the Vietnam quagmire allows Nixon (or even Wallace, or notorious hawk Scoop Jackson) to blame JFK for losing Vietnam to the Communists. And with out involvement being a counterfactual the argument can easily be "it wouldn't have taken much to defend South Vietnam". We know better but people ITTL don't.

JFK is remembered for a solid first term and the wheels coming off in the second term. Nixon wins in 1968.

I disagree with the idea that it'd be ASB for Bobby to immediately follow his brother. It would be difficult for sure, and assuming he stays in his brother's Administration due to no assassination that might make it even more difficult, but I wouldn't call it ASB. Overall though, I'm agreed with this. The terrible irony for JFK is that, had he lived and served the rest of his term (and presumably a second, come 1964), he quite probably would not be remembered as fondly as he is today.
 

Deleted member 94680

The terrible irony for JFK is that, had he lived and served the rest of his term (and presumably a second, come 1964), he quite probably would not be remembered as fondly as he is today.

There’s also the chance some of his philandering would come to light, either in his second term or after he leaves the White House. That would damage his reputation.

RFK isn't going to be elected immediately after his brother. That would be ASB.

I always thought the American distrust/dislike for ‘dynasty’ would scupper a RFK run if JFK survived. OTL, he was ‘carrying the torch’ for a brother cut down before his time. ITTL it would be portrayed as the Kennedy's attempting to make the White House a personal fiefdom.
 

SsgtC

Banned
I always thought the American distrust/dislike for ‘dynasty’ would scupper a RFK run if JFK survived. OTL, he was ‘carrying the torch’ for a brother cut down before his time. ITTL it would be portrayed as the Kennedy's attempting to make the White House a personal fiefdom.
If he tried for the White House to immediately succeed his brother, yeah, it wouldn't work. Give it 8 years though he'd have a shot (See George W Bush becoming President 8 years after his father and John Quincy Adams succeeding his father as President).
 

Deleted member 94680

If he tried for the White House to immediately succeed his brother, yeah, it wouldn't work. Give it 8 years though he'd have a shot (See George W Bush becoming President 8 years after his father and John Quincy Adams succeeding his father as President).

Fair point. You’d need a period of “not Kennedy” so RFK could run on a “return to the good times” ticket
 

DougM

Donor
I think the idea of a landing on the moon in 65 is ASB. We tossed huge money to get a 69 landing and it takes time to invent the technology.
You are also never going to build a base and not use it. You may use it for only a year or something but if you build it it will be used. If anything I think the space race is slowed down. We spent a huge amount of money because JFK committed us to it and no one wanted to say no to a dead presidents “dream”. So I would expect money to be cut sooner. So I doubt you EVER get a base.

And the JFK living he won’t get the dead President is alwas a great president boost in his reputation. So you won’t see RFK being anywhere near as popular. And personal I still think we will be pretty heavily involved in Vietnam. Not as bad as OTL maybe but it is not like we were not heading in that direction before Dallas.

Basically I think a lot of things happen but at a slower pace

The biggest problem with this timeline that we will lose a lot of really good music.
 
Top