Kennedy Lives: How is the Counterculture affected?

As you are perhaps aware, one of the Skies Above Earth PoDs is Kennedy's survival. But ignoring that and the Flores Incident (along with subsequent conspiracies which would turn out to be half-true 14 years after the Incident), how would the Counterculture be affected realistically, in a general sense (aka: no specific setting), considering the American Civil Rights movement stagnated and Vietnam still happens (although to a lesser intensity than OTL)?
 
Last edited:
Let's assume that JFK *doesn't* escalate in Vietnam--will even that have as much effect on the counterculture as many people assume? "CULTURAL BACKLASH: Would the counterculture have produced a socially conservative backlash even without the flag burning and the rhetorical (and at times actual) violence of the antiwar movement? Perlstein's *Nixonland* suggests that the rising crime and cultural upheaval at Berkeley and other California campuses was a huge asset to Ronald Reagan's campaign for governor in 1966; and the first major disruptions at Berkeley, in late 1964, occurred *before* the Vietnam escalation, and had nothing to do with the war at all. It's reasonable to assume that long hair, drug use, open sexuality, and other signs of the cultural apocalypse would have led to a strong reaction from those embracing more traditional social values..."--Jeff Greenfield, *If Kennedy Lived.* (I have quite a few quarrels with that book, but I think it is plausible enough on this point.)

Not quite sure what you mean by the civil rights movement "stagnated." It may be true that JFK would have had to settle for a somewhat watered-down civil rights law in 1964; but it would probably be strengthened once he defeated Goldwater. And even if it wouldn't be, the Supreme Court would within a few years use the civil rights act of 1866 to strike down private discrimination. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jones_v._Alfred_H._Mayer_Co._
 
Let's assume that JFK *doesn't* escalate in Vietnam--will even that have as much effect on the counterculture as many people assume? "CULTURAL BACKLASH: Would the counterculture have produced a socially conservative backlash even without the flag burning and the rhetorical (and at times actual) violence of the antiwar movement? Perlstein's *Nixonland* suggests that the rising crime and cultural upheaval at Berkeley and other California campuses was a huge asset to Ronald Reagan's campaign for governor in 1966; and the first major disruptions at Berkeley, in late 1964, occurred *before* the Vietnam escalation, and had nothing to do with the war at all. It's reasonable to assume that long hair, drug use, open sexuality, and other signs of the cultural apocalypse would have led to a strong reaction from those embracing more traditional social values..."--Jeff Greenfield, *If Kennedy Lived.* (I have quite a few quarrels with that book, but I think it is plausible enough on this point.)

Not quite sure what you mean by the civil rights movement "stagnated." It may be true that JFK would have had to settle for a somewhat watered-down civil rights law in 1964; but it would probably be strengthened once he defeated Goldwater. And even if it wouldn't be, the Supreme Court would within a few years use the civil rights act of 1866 to strike down private discrimination. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jones_v._Alfred_H._Mayer_Co._

To be honest, LBJ only passed that act BECAUSE Kennedy died. Otherwise, that would become a different story. So, to be honest, not even a watered-down version would work. And he still escalates Vietnam in ATL, just not to OTL levels. And honestly, the death of JFK also provided a basis for that case to occur in the first place, meaning that it would have gone the other way in the event Kennedy survived. Hence why the American Civil Rights movement will either take longer to achieve its goals or fall apart after a period of time.
 
My understanding is that LBJ grew up poor in West Texas and that made him a committed New Deal Democrat. While not forgivable, his racism was understandable given he is a product of his time, but it is arguable that his racism may have made him a far more sincere civil rights proponent as proven by the 1964 legislation he both championed and enforced. It may just be the politics but I have heard that when confronting and cajoling Southern Senators he often argued that if they did not like this bill they would hate the next one if they did not vote with him. Now that said I believe a more nuanced examination of LBJ as Vice President in a second Term JFK Presidency might be how far LBJ pushes and how much JFK drags his feet on this legislation and the possibility that the 1964 legislation is not submitted until later in the second Term and maybe far less reaching with less commitment by JFK to put teeth to it. It was by no means that JFK was against it but my read is that he hoped to push off this very tough issue and defer, deflect and compromise his way past it.
 
My understanding is that LBJ grew up poor in West Texas and that made him a committed New Deal Democrat. While not forgivable, his racism was understandable given he is a product of his time, but it is arguable that his racism may have made him a far more sincere civil rights proponent as proven by the 1964 legislation he both championed and enforced. It may just be the politics but I have heard that when confronting and cajoling Southern Senators he often argued that if they did not like this bill they would hate the next one if they did not vote with him. Now that said I believe a more nuanced examination of LBJ as Vice President in a second Term JFK Presidency might be how far LBJ pushes and how much JFK drags his feet on this legislation and the possibility that the 1964 legislation is not submitted until later in the second Term and maybe far less reaching with less commitment by JFK to put teeth to it. It was by no means that JFK was against it but my read is that he hoped to push off this very tough issue and defer, deflect and compromise his way past it.

Either way, that is not what the Republicans wanted, neither back then nor now. They wanted to get their way. And compromise is just not a viable way of handling the situation in your terms. This applies to the Republicans, specifically the ones in favour of the Apartheid system already established (and it is a proper reference, since America's "Jim Crow Laws" are actually the prototype for Apartheid).
 
To be honest, LBJ only passed that act BECAUSE Kennedy died. Otherwise, that would become a different story. So, to be honest, not even a watered-down version would work. And he still escalates Vietnam in ATL, just not to OTL levels. And honestly, the death of JFK also provided a basis for that case to occur in the first place, meaning that it would have gone the other way in the event Kennedy survived. Hence why the American Civil Rights movement will either take longer to achieve its goals or fall apart after a period of time.

(1) I was deliberately trying to avoid the endless controversy on whether JFK would have escalated the war in Vietnam; my point (or rather the point of Greenfield with whom I agree on this) is that *even if he didn't* this would not necessarily stop the development of the counterculture and the backlash to it.

(2) I don't see how some people jump to the conclusion that JFK could not have gotten *any* civil rights legislation passed in 1964 (I agree that it might not have been as strong as that passed in OTL--but if, as I think, he would have easily defeated Goldwater, it could have been strengthened in the more liberal 89th Congress). As Jeff Shesol pointed out in *Mutual Contempt: Lyndon Johnson, Robert Kennedy, and the Feud That Defined a Decade*:

"Robert Kennedy's blood boiled at comments like this. And he was right to protest: JFK had not been destined for defeat, and LBJ was not the first president to woo members of Congress. In late November 1963, after weeks of lobbying and only days before the assassination, President Kennedy persuaded House Minority Leader Charlie Halleck to support the bil. This was the crucial advance. The Senate would remain an obstacle, but with Halleck's sanction would sail smootherly through the House. And since the brutality of Birmingham and other Southern cities had imbued the issue with motal urgency, it was safe to assume that, if John Kennedy had lived, months of struggle and compromise woukld have produced some sort of civil rights act.

"Johnson's singular achievement was to pass a bill, as he pledged in January, without compromise. He refused to trade away the equal employment clause (which JFK might well have bewn forced to abandon), and it was more than Bobby's 'fuss' that saved it. Whatever the recommendations of Humphrey and Mansfield, Johnson would cut no deals. As a Southerner, he could not afford to; lacking his predeecessor's credibility as a civil rights president, LBJ knew he had to out-Kennedy Kennedy..." https://books.google.com/books?id=bVrRvYV7i78C&pg=PA164

The really hard-core anti-civil-rights senators (almosr all from the South except for a handful of ultraconservative Republicans) would not have been enough to prevent cloture as long as Dirksen (who, one should remember, rather liked Kennedy) was amenable to compromise. And there is no reason to think that JFK and Dirksen could not have reached *some* kind of deal on civil rights. Dirksen was neither a doctirnaire conservative (he was no more conservative than Halleck, who backed the bill) nor a block-anything-JFK-wants-to-pass partisan (he supported JFK on the atmospheric test-ban treaty for example). One should also remember that almost every northern state had a public accomodations law, so a federal law would hardly be seen as revolutionary there. Fair employment laws were rather more controversial and fair housing laws (which the 1964 Act did not contain) the most controverisal of all. But as I noted even if Congress *never* passed legislation on such subjects (and I think it would have, especially after JFK deferated Goldwater) the Suprme Court as in OTL would have used the civil rights act of 1866 as a weapon against private discrimination.
 
(2) I don't see how some people jump to the conclusion that JFK could not have gotten *any* civil rights legislation passed in 1964 (I agree that it might not have been as strong as that passed in OTL--but if, as I think, he would have easily defeated Goldwater, it could have been strengthened in the more liberal 89th Congress). As Jeff Shesol pointed out in *Mutual Contempt: Lyndon Johnson, Robert Kennedy, and the Feud That Defined a Decade*

The issue seems to be the notion that JFK would have been everything that LBJ was not, or perhaps that he would have both accomplished more and averted more, with his death he became the font of endless what ifs for an entire generation. And LBJ gets a very bad rap for Vietnam, he becomes the fall guy for everything that is believed wrong with America at that point. I believe JFK would have gotten a civil rights bill passed, whether it was as much as LBJ got, especially in light of the great outpouring the LBJ Presidency rode on the wave of that tragedy, is wide open to debate. I simply offer that LBJ was a committed New Deal Democrat who earnestly pursued his vision we call the "Great Society", it was the last firm gasp of the New Deal era and progressive vision as the culture was shifting towards the conservative future that Goldwater opened, Nixon began and ultimately Reagan cinched. Perhaps the counter-culture was inevitable and the death of JFK merely cemented a place for it as the eternal well of lost dreams, lost possibilities and lost alternatives. Liberal Democrats can go to that well as the reason their new world did not come to be. I suppose that a second Term JFK would be far less accomplished than often dreamed, times were changing, both good and bad, the reality would be the way he realistically would have enacted legislation, enforced it, carried on with his vision and affected policy, all things very much under pressures that we know how LBJ reacted, successfully and unsuccessfully. LBJ remains part of the equation in a JFK Presidency and as VP he might have far less impact, but we know what directions he might have pushed for.
 
The issue seems to be the notion that JFK would have been everything that LBJ was not, or perhaps that he would have both accomplished more and averted more, with his death he became the font of endless what ifs for an entire generation. And LBJ gets a very bad rap for Vietnam, he becomes the fall guy for everything that is believed wrong with America at that point. I believe JFK would have gotten a civil rights bill passed, whether it was as much as LBJ got, especially in light of the great outpouring the LBJ Presidency rode on the wave of that tragedy, is wide open to debate. I simply offer that LBJ was a committed New Deal Democrat who earnestly pursued his vision we call the "Great Society", it was the last firm gasp of the New Deal era and progressive vision as the culture was shifting towards the conservative future that Goldwater opened, Nixon began and ultimately Reagan cinched. Perhaps the counter-culture was inevitable and the death of JFK merely cemented a place for it as the eternal well of lost dreams, lost possibilities and lost alternatives. Liberal Democrats can go to that well as the reason their new world did not come to be. I suppose that a second Term JFK would be far less accomplished than often dreamed, times were changing, both good and bad, the reality would be the way he realistically would have enacted legislation, enforced it, carried on with his vision and affected policy, all things very much under pressures that we know how LBJ reacted, successfully and unsuccessfully. LBJ remains part of the equation in a JFK Presidency and as VP he might have far less impact, but we know what directions he might have pushed for.

To be honest, I am not saying the American Civil Rights Movement would fall apart, despite it being a possibility. I am saying that it would take longer for it to accomplish its goals, and the chances are, that it might either get its way by the mid-1970s in a best case scenario, the late 1970s - early 1980s in a moderate case scenario, and worst case at some point later in the 1980s, and I am using worst case in a generous fashion, since by comparison to the collapse of the movement, that is still a best case scenario.
 
To be honest, I am not saying the American Civil Rights Movement would fall apart, despite it being a possibility. I am saying that it would take longer for it to accomplish its goals, and the chances are, that it might either get its way by the mid-1970s in a best case scenario, the late 1970s - early 1980s in a moderate case scenario, and worst case at some point later in the 1980s, and I am using worst case in a generous fashion, since by comparison to the collapse of the movement, that is still a best case scenario.

On that I think we agree. My issue is with how JFK gets spun into a saint and LBJ a villain, the real world is far less black and white and I honestly think JFK would be like most second term Presidents, mediocre in many regards, better in others, failed in some places yet seeking a place in history before his time fades. If he had not pursued Civil Rights as LBJ seems to have I might argue that the agitation for change would be more intense, perhaps that pushes him to be yet bolder than LBJ was, or gives the issue to Nixon. I think the death of JFK makes it too easy to simply assume he would have been the greatest President ever, that is myth, we can argue the way he may or may not have acted, it is why we are here, to debate the possibilities.
 
On that I think we agree. My issue is with how JFK gets spun into a saint and LBJ a villain, the real world is far less black and white and I honestly think JFK would be like most second term Presidents, mediocre in many regards, better in others, failed in some places yet seeking a place in history before his time fades. If he had not pursued Civil Rights as LBJ seems to have I might argue that the agitation for change would be more intense, perhaps that pushes him to be yet bolder than LBJ was, or gives the issue to Nixon. I think the death of JFK makes it too easy to simply assume he would have been the greatest President ever, that is myth, we can argue the way he may or may not have acted, it is why we are here, to debate the possibilities.

Agreed. And honestly, I am not sure how this affects the Counterculture at all. :/
 
Top