Kennedy lives, Nixon inherits a different Vietnam mess

Interesting idea, but I'd have thought they'd take more direct action against China to punish them rather than the USA. No idea how though.

Stir up trouble in Xinjiang? Although I'm not sure the Uighurs would be as stir-uppable as they would be today, before the mass migration of Han Chinese to the area.

Bruce
 
It's important not to conflate ecomomic & welfare policy with civil rights in assessing just what a surviving JFK might do.

Personally I don't see why JFK can't get the same Medicare, Medicaid and war on poverty legislation through as LBJ did. If need be he'll just have to wait until after a decisive reelection victory against Goldwater (LBJ was able to get the war on poverty going in the months after the assassination).

Civil rights is another matter altogether.
As I have posted in the Kennedyarchy deal, enough Senators had pledged support pre-JFK assassination that the bill was likely to pass regardless.


I think RFK gets the nomination if he makes a serious run in 1968. But he wouldn't get it because he was, like, totally awesome--no, he would be the winner as he has the White House and the party elite behind him, as (broadly speaking) Stevenson had in '52, Nixon in '60, and HHH did in OT's '68. Though the big problem for him is that the sitting president can't be as aloof from the nominating process as the POTUSES in those other cases were.

I think LBJ will be pretty rundown in this scenario, very demoralised. He's had his medical problems. I can't see him fighting his first hard electoral battle in twenty years as an old man.

Though there is one man he can put forward who can put a hurt on young Bobby--Governor John Connally.
I really have a problem with the idea of Bobby in 1968 in a JFK lives scenario (perhaps tipping my hat a bit for my own timeline), no matter how many times I may have seen it. I have yet to be convinced it'd work. Unless he had left the AG post and sought office by 1964 or so, I just can't see it, because he'd seriously lack experience.
I can see LBJ run, especially if he sees a chance Bobby would run (he hated him since he tried to keep him off the 1960 ticket), and if he thought he was Kennedy's true successor. But, as I said before, I don't think he'll get the nomination. But I don't see him as demoralized. He'd not have to go through 4 or so years of "Hey, Hey, LBJ, How many kids did you kill today?" nor the stressors he went through besides that. I'm also speaking beyond this scenario as I have issue with it, as I said previously. He could also live some years past 1973 because of that lack of stress, as a matter of fact.

Now, who'd be the Democratic nominee in 1968, I don't know. Could it be Humprey, a favored Democrat with ample experience; perhaps? Could it be Terry Sanford, a politician Kennedy liked and viewed as being in line with his views and perhaps even his most proper successor; perhaps, although the Southern Democrat issue mentioned before may doom him to a VP position as the highest he can achieve. Could it be a dozen other Democrats who aren't household names? Maybe.


Sorry, I don't understand this.

If you mean that a majority of people polled by Gallup in each of its polls would regularly say they supported the war because they supported their boys, then yes, regular Americans probably didn't pay as close attention to the war as GOP Senator Aiken, who had declared, "We should declare victory and go home."
No, I mean how many people paid attention to Vietnam and the American involvement in that nation. Less than a third of the population paid attention to Vietnam, and similarly many did not even know the name until escalation. We cannot put in our own modern perception prejudices here. Vietnam was not destined to be an area of focus nor was it an area of focus for the average American before 1964.
 
Last edited:
No, I mean how many people paid attention to Vietnam and the American involvement in that nation. Less than a third of the population paid attention to Vietnam, and similarly many did not even know the name until escalation. We cannot put in our own modern perception prejudices here. Vietnam was not destined to be an area of focus nor was it an area of focus for the average American before 1964.

Not very many Americans paid attention to Korea before 1950 and the US government had to some extent written off Chiang and Taiwan by that point, but things changed a wee bit after June 25th. If Kennedy drawn down US forces in Vietnam and the North Vietnamese army strolls in, say, in '68, Kennedy will suddenly find himself so deep in shit politically he'll need a snorkel. Nixon was able to pull out to the extent he did because by that time pretty much everyone, including much of the Right, was sick of the war.

Bruce
 
Not very many Americans paid attention to Korea before 1950 and the US government had to some extent written off Chiang and Taiwan by that point, but things changed a wee bit after June 25th. If Kennedy drawn down US forces in Vietnam and the North Vietnamese army strolls in, say, in '68, Kennedy will suddenly find himself so deep in shit politically he'll need a snorkel. Nixon was able to pull out to the extent he did because by that time pretty much everyone, including much of the Right, was sick of the war.

Bruce
Korea was an issue because the United States government had made it into an issue for the United States (albeit it can be said it was with pressure from the USSR).The foreign politics of proxy conflicts are fickle like that. Kennedy was doing everything he could to keep Vietnam off the radar. He muted public discussion, obscured America's role, and made it damn difficult for the American press in Saigon to get information, much to their frustration. Because of that, Vietnam will not be anything of major focus for the American public or media, and perhaps stay a talking point of the GOP candidate in 1968 to the same degree it was with Goldwater in 1964. If the North Vietnamese stroll in in 1968, it will be the South Vietnamese fighting them, with the American public rather ignorant of the affair. Combine that with a cooling of the Cold war between the Superpowers as Kennedy began seeking, and you remove the teeth from the conflict further.

Robert Dallek, who appears to be the preeminent JFK biographer, addressed Vietnam at rather great length in his portion of "What Ifs? Of American History".
 
I thought China's support for the Khmer Rouge was solely because the Vietnamese took a Pro-Soviet stance, while the Cambodians sought close relations with China.

Yes, yes, that was the strategic rationale behind it.

What I meant to write is that we should remember the PRC was perfectly capable of openly supporting the Khmer Rouge, they weren't bothered by moral considerations.

(The US and Britain indirectly gave succor to the KR after 1979 by supporting the non-communist portion of the anti-Vietnamese coalition on the Thai border. Some have questioned whether the Reagan & Thatcher administrations went further in directly aiding the Khmer Rouge at this time.)
 
As I have posted in the Kennedyarchy deal, enough Senators had pledged support pre-JFK assassination that the bill was likely to pass regardless.

Sorry, I haven't read any of your TLs.

Anyway, the issue of civil rights for JFK is complicated. He used the full extent of his executive power on this issue, so it's unfair to say he wasn't committed to reform. Yet I don't believe he had the numbers to overcome the obstructionists in the senate (and it's this legislative gridlock that is too often interpreted as 'compared to LBJ, JFK was weak on civil rights'. Plenty of revisionists go further, saying he didn't care about civil rights at all. Admittedly that is some pretty dumbed-down historiography.)

Emperor Norton I said:
I really have a problem with the idea of Bobby in 1968 in a JFK lives scenario (perhaps tipping my hat a bit for my own timeline), no matter how many times I may have seen it. I have yet to be convinced it'd work. Unless he had left the AG post and sought office by 1964 or so, I just can't see it, because he'd seriously lack experience.

I was probably hasty in saying that RFK can just run without first winning election somewhere. Maybe he would have to win a term as governor of Massachusetts first in 1966.

It's too easy to get bogged down in biographical detail without understanding the context one is meant to be looking at.

Emperor Norton I said:
I can see LBJ run, especially if he sees a chance Bobby would run (he hated him since he tried to keep him off the 1960 ticket), and if he thought he was Kennedy's true successor. But, as I said before, I don't think he'll get the nomination. But I don't see him as demoralized. He'd not have to go through 4 or so years of "Hey, Hey, LBJ, How many kids did you kill today?" nor the stressors he went through besides that. I'm also speaking beyond this scenario as I have issue with it, as I said previously. He could also live some years past 1973 because of that lack of stress, as a matter of fact.

I was thinking of the fact that LBJ felt the job of vice president to be an anti-climax after having been the Imperial Presidency's equivalent in the senate majority leader's chair. I wonder what his state of mind will be after he has his gall bladder surgery. (IOTL he had a famous attack of nerves before accepting the nomination against the easybeat Goldwater. Even if that was just dramatics, it doesn't bode well for him fighting for the nomination in an open 1968 election.)

Emperor Norton I said:
No, I mean how many people paid attention to Vietnam and the American involvement in that nation. Less than a third of the population paid attention to Vietnam, and similarly many did not even know the name until escalation. We cannot put in our own modern perception prejudices here. Vietnam was not destined to be an area of focus nor was it an area of focus for the average American before 1964.

I still don't understand. Which year are you talking about?

Do you mean the time between the Gulf of Tonkin incident and the deployment of the Marine and Air Cavalry divisions?
 
Sorry, I haven't read any of your TLs.

Anyway, the issue of civil rights for JFK is complicated. He used the full extent of his executive power on this issue, so it's unfair to say he wasn't committed to reform. Yet I don't believe he had the numbers to overcome the obstructionists in the senate (and it's this legislative gridlock that is too often interpreted as 'compared to LBJ, JFK was weak on civil rights'. Plenty of revisionists go further, saying he didn't care about civil rights at all. Admittedly that is some pretty dumbed-down historiography.)
I recall a Time article from the era which stated that enough senators had pledged their support that the bill was likely to pass. So it's not going to be an issue.


I was probably hasty in saying that RFK can just run without first winning election somewhere. Maybe he would have to win a term as governor of Massachusetts first in 1966.

It's too easy to get bogged down in biographical detail without understanding the context one is meant to be looking at.
RFK will need both an office and time. If he tries to pull a Reagan (holding office for two years and then deciding to take a crack at the White House), I still think it'd be an uphill battle.

I was thinking of the fact that LBJ felt the job of vice president to be an anti-climax after having been the Imperial Presidency's equivalent in the senate majority leader's chair. I wonder what his state of mind will be after he has his gall bladder surgery. (IOTL he had a famous attack of nerves before accepting the nomination against the easybeat Goldwater. Even if that was just dramatics, it doesn't bode well for him fighting for the nomination in an open 1968 election.)
I'm not doubting his health would get to him, but I do see him throwing his hat into the ring as conceivable.

I still don't understand. Which year are you talking about?

Do you mean the time between the Gulf of Tonkin incident and the deployment of the Marine and Air Cavalry divisions?
The years Kennedy was in office.
 
I recall a Time article from the era which stated that enough senators had pledged their support that the bill was likely to pass. So it's not going to be an issue.

A majority of senators, or a filibuster-proof majority of senators? There was a greater difference between these two types of majorities in the sixties than there is today.

Emperor Norton I said:
RFK will need both an office and time. If he tries to pull a Reagan (holding office for two years and then deciding to take a crack at the White House), I still think it'd be an uphill battle...
I'm not doubting his health would get to him, but I do see him throwing his hat into the ring as conceivable.

I dare not suggest that Ultimate Operator Bobby could possibly lose a race for the governor's mansion in '66, but it was the year IOTL when Ed Brooke rode into the senate with a landslide victory (wiki tells us Brooke is still alive! I was convinced I'd read his obit years ago.)

All this speculation about who would win in an AH 1968 is just that, speculation.

It's really more worthwhile addressing the OP's question by asking what issues generic candidates would be faced with in a world where Vietnam doesn't absorb so much heat in US politics.

Emperor Norton I said:
The years Kennedy was in office.

That makes sense, and it is relevant when considering what presidential politics would look like without an escalation before '68.

Though I'm surprised even 30% of Americans where interested in events over there during the early sixties...
 
Top