LBJ's 2nd Term

kernals12

Banned
I'm a big of our 36th President. He did more for racial equality than any President besides obviously Abe Lincoln. He also created Medicare and Medicaid among many other important welfare programs. Sadly, he also chose to take America into a quagmire of a war based on false pretenses and the unpopularity of it led him to not seek reelection in 1968, thereby paving the way for Richard Nixon to disgrace the Presidency with Watergate.

So what if LBJ didn't take us to Vietnam and therefore ran and won reelection? What would his 2nd term be like?
 
As strange as it may sound, LBJ keeping the US out of Vietnam might have cost him a second term.
Middle America only really turned on the War when the Tet Offensive began. Until that point, the only people to oppose it were general isolationists (who were small in number thanks to the whole Cold War thing) and pacifists (who only really gained support amongst the youth when the idea of being sent to die sank in), and in fact, the vast majority (65% by some estimates) supported the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. As a result, we'd likely see a massive backlash against LBJ for daring to let Vietnam (and by extension all of south-east Asia) fall to Communism. This backlash alone., coupled with the lack of a window to OTL that would exonerate the man would cast suspicion that he was a closet Communist, something not helped by his "Great Society" policies being redistributive and government interventionist in nature.

This alone would probably grant whomever wins the '68 Republican primaries an OTL '84-esque landslide victory, coupled with massive Congressional majorites which proceed to drive headlong into whichever 3rd World Nation is currently in the process of being overrun by Reds at that point (my guess is Cambodia), and see it turn into a quagmire probably on a larger scale than OTL Vietnam ever was, while simultaneously scaling back all of Johnson's achievements (outside of the Civil and Voting Rights Acts) if not scrapping them outright.

That said, on the off-chance he wins a 2 1/2th term, I can see him embarking on an attempt to pass a standardised welfare framework (think something akin to a Universal Basic Income) and a system of Universal Health Care, coupled with Health and Safety legislation, and possibly something like the Equal Rights Amendment, depending on how many chambers of Congress are under Democratic control by 1970.
 

kernals12

Banned
As strange as it may sound, LBJ keeping the US out of Vietnam might have cost him a second term.
Middle America only really turned on the War when the Tet Offensive began. Until that point, the only people to oppose it were general isolationists (who were small in number thanks to the whole Cold War thing) and pacifists (who only really gained support amongst the youth when the idea of being sent to die sank in), and in fact, the vast majority (65% by some estimates) supported the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. As a result, we'd likely see a massive backlash against LBJ for daring to let Vietnam (and by extension all of south-east Asia) fall to Communism. This backlash alone., coupled with the lack of a window to OTL that would exonerate the man would cast suspicion that he was a closet Communist, something not helped by his "Great Society" policies being redistributive and government interventionist in nature.

This alone would probably grant whomever wins the '68 Republican primaries an OTL '84-esque landslide victory, coupled with massive Congressional majorites which proceed to drive headlong into whichever 3rd World Nation is currently in the process of being overrun by Reds at that point (my guess is Cambodia), and see it turn into a quagmire probably on a larger scale than OTL Vietnam ever was, while simultaneously scaling back all of Johnson's achievements (outside of the Civil and Voting Rights Acts) if not scrapping them outright.

That said, on the off-chance he wins a 2 1/2th term, I can see him embarking on an attempt to pass a standardised welfare framework (think something akin to a Universal Basic Income) and a system of Universal Health Care, coupled with Health and Safety legislation, and possibly something like the Equal Rights Amendment, depending on how many chambers of Congress are under Democratic control by 1970.
Most Americans then, as now, were not very preoccupied with what happened overseas. The idea that they'd care about Vietnam going communist is absurd. There was no backlash to Eisenhower when Cuba went communist.
 
Most Americans then, as now, were not very preoccupied with what happened overseas. The idea that they'd care about Vietnam going communist is absurd. There was no backlash to Eisenhower when Cuba went communist.
It let Kennedy run as more hawkish than Nixon in 1960.
 
There was no backlash to Eisenhower when Cuba went communist.

You seem to conveniently forget about the fact that Eisenhower did respond to Cuba turning Communist. The embargo started under Ike, and as the US was Batista Cuba's main (if not sole significant) trading partner, it was thought that this, coupled with a more hardline stance taken by new ambassador Bonsal would be enough to convince Castro to moderate himself.

When that failed, the Eisenhower administration planned the Bay Of Pigs fiasco, even though Kennedy (who approved of it entirely) took the blame for its failure. On that note, when JFK ran for office, his Cold Warrior stance was a big part of his winning office in an incredibly close election. as noted by Snowstalker, while his pre-election stance on Cuba was more along the lines of "Look, I know why you did it, but stop." in that he was more opposed to the fact that Ike let it get this far, and that he would be willing to try killing Castro with kindness if it worked, he changed his tune the moment he learnt of BOP.

Furthermore, Ike, unlike LBJ had the benefit of being a war hero whose anti-Communism was never really in question, which would give him a long enough leash to adopt a more patient response, one which LBJ wouldn't ever get, especially given his policies.

So, the notion that LBJ isn't killed by the Vietnam backlash is laughable in and of itself, but the idea that such a backlash wouldn't happen, taking into account the fact that non-intervention would essentially be the USA standing back as their military advisors (put there by none other than JFK) get slaughtered by the Viet Cong is even more so.

Of course, given the fact that LBJ was pro-Vietnam war even before the Gulf of Tonkin incident means that LBJ would've likely sent in troops even if everyone else wanted to negotiate back in '65. It just wouldn't be a war, but an "armed intervention". Congress can't veto it that way.
 
Given that Johnson died on 22nd January 1973 OTL, what are the odds that he passes away in the middle of his second term? I’ve read that one of the first things he did after his Presidency ended OTL was start smoking again. Perhaps he would not start smoking but I wonder if the burdens of a second term would be too much for him physically.
 
. . . when JFK ran for office, his Cold Warrior stance was a big part of his winning office in an incredibly close election. . .
And American voters, like most people in general, admire toughness. Actually, more so than its track record of working.

Now, a way out of this is if Vietnam gets characterized as “foreign aid” and propping up a dictatorship.
 
Last edited:

kernals12

Banned
You seem to conveniently forget about the fact that Eisenhower did respond to Cuba turning Communist. The embargo started under Ike, and as the US was Batista Cuba's main (if not sole significant) trading partner, it was thought that this, coupled with a more hardline stance taken by new ambassador Bonsal would be enough to convince Castro to moderate himself.

When that failed, the Eisenhower administration planned the Bay Of Pigs fiasco, even though Kennedy (who approved of it entirely) took the blame for its failure. On that note, when JFK ran for office, his Cold Warrior stance was a big part of his winning office in an incredibly close election. as noted by Snowstalker, while his pre-election stance on Cuba was more along the lines of "Look, I know why you did it, but stop." in that he was more opposed to the fact that Ike let it get this far, and that he would be willing to try killing Castro with kindness if it worked, he changed his tune the moment he learnt of BOP.

Furthermore, Ike, unlike LBJ had the benefit of being a war hero whose anti-Communism was never really in question, which would give him a long enough leash to adopt a more patient response, one which LBJ wouldn't ever get, especially given his policies.

So, the notion that LBJ isn't killed by the Vietnam backlash is laughable in and of itself, but the idea that such a backlash wouldn't happen, taking into account the fact that non-intervention would essentially be the USA standing back as their military advisors (put there by none other than JFK) get slaughtered by the Viet Cong is even more so.

Of course, given the fact that LBJ was pro-Vietnam war even before the Gulf of Tonkin incident means that LBJ would've likely sent in troops even if everyone else wanted to negotiate back in '65. It just wouldn't be a war, but an "armed intervention". Congress can't veto it that way.
Ok, let's imagine that LBJ does a "not-war" like the interventions IOTL in Yugoslavia and against ISIS, limited to just bombing.
 
Ok, let's imagine that LBJ does a "not-war" like the interventions IOTL in Yugoslavia and against ISIS, limited to just bombing.
Wouldn't that just make him look ineffective? You have advisors on the ground in the South, you're carrying out bombing missions in the North, and the US still ends up losing. The Republicans would use it as a stick to beat him with by arguing that his lack of support was the reason that the communists won when obviously greater support would have seen a victory for South Vietnam.
 
Without Vietnam, LBJ is probably re-elected in 1968 - but by a substantially reduced majority from four years earlier. The Great Society continues until violent crime and the economic recession become larger concerns in his second term. The GOP has a good shot at winning in 1972.
 

kernals12

Banned
Without Vietnam, LBJ is probably re-elected in 1968 - but by a substantially reduced majority from four years earlier. The Great Society continues until violent crime and the economic recession become larger concerns in his second term. The GOP has a good shot at winning in 1972.
There's not much of a debate about whether the GOP will win in 1972. After 12 years of Democratic control, voters will be in the mood for a change.
 
Ironically, I think you guys are seriously overestimating the negative effects of the Vietnam Non-War on an alternate Lyndon Johnson. Let's look at the four options available to Johnson once he became President:

1. Official intervention into North Vietnam in a conventional war. This was discarded IOTL as being too instigatory against the PRC, as it would put Americans right on the Chinese border. The Chinese had already set a precedent in Korea with what would happen if Americans were on the border, except this time the PRC was successfully testing nuclear weapons.

2. What happened IOTL with Operation Rolling Thunder and the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution: Expand American military involvement in South Vietnam, both on the ground and through bombing campaigns, but don't invade the North. Continue to operate under the (false) assumption that the Viet Cong were completely propped up by the North, rather than being largely domestic to the South, and therefore, as the assumption goes, eventually the North will give up and the Viet Cong will fold. This was supported by the vast majority of Johnson's advisors and military staff, and was, in other words, escalation from the status quo.

3. Keep it to the status quo, with American "advisors" acting as auxiliaries and supplemental forces for the South Vietnamese, but keep commitment to a minimum. This was George Ball's position, with his much more accurate memorandum of the situation in Vietnam than the information Johnson was operating from, and ran contrary to the 'common sense' of the time that escalation was needed to maintain American 'prestige' and the support of its allies.

4. Immediate withdrawal of advisors from South Vietnam. This option is so completely alien to Johnson's personality and American military/geopolitical philosophy at the time that we can discard it as akin to ASB.

Now, let's say the Ball Memorandum gets to Lyndon Johnson in time before he escalates the bombing campaign, and Johnson picks option #3, instead of option #2. The South Vietnamese inevitably lose, and Johnson can withdraw the "advisors" without much hassle. Johnson can write off the fall of South Vietnam by claiming that the only alternative was option #1, a full commitment and likely nuclear war with China, and that the former French Indochina was not a "vital interest" of United States geopolitical security. He can wheel out George F. Kennan, the intellectual godfather of the Containment policy, to back up his position. Since nobody at the time thought that a quagmire war was possible, the public at large would likely except Johnson's conclusion. Of course, he'll still take a hit in the polls, and the Republicans will go ham on the notion that the Viet Cong 'won without a fight,' but Johnson's savvy enough to minimize the damage without it resulting in the total and utter collapse of his Administration as some of you seem to imply. I think Johnson would likely win in 1968, whoever the challenger may be, but the main issue of the campaign would be domestic 'law and order' and desegregation, not how Johnson could have hypothetically saved a country 'most Americans couldn't have placed on a map.'
 
There's not much of a debate about whether the GOP will win in 1972. After 12 years of Democratic control, voters will be in the mood for a change.

On the Democratic side, the race would probably Humphrey vs Kennedy. As the sitting VP (who is still popular with liberals sans Vietnam), Humphrey probably takes the nomination. As for the Republican side, it really depends on who the GOP nominates in 1968.
 

kernals12

Banned
My prediction for the 1970 Senate Elections (OTL Result if Different):
Arizona: Republican Hold
California: Republican Hold (Democratic Gain)
Connecticut: Republican Gain
Delaware: Republican Hold
Florida: Republican Gain (Democratic Hold)
Hawaii: Republican Hold
Indiana: Republican Gain (Democratic Hold)
Maine: Democratic Hold
Maryland: Republican Gain
Massachusetts: Democratic Hold
Michigan: Democratic Hold
Minnesota: Republican Gain (Democratic Hold) (1)
Mississippi: Democratic Hold
Missouri: Republican Gain (Democratic Hold)
Montana: Democratic Hold
Nebraska: Republican Hold
Nevada: Democratic Hold
New Jersey: Democratic Hold
New Mexico: Republican Gain (Democratic Hold)
New York: Conservative Gain (2)
North Dakota: Democratic Hold
Ohio: Republican Gain
Pennsylvania: Republican Hold
Rhode Island: Democratic Hold
Tennessee: Republican Gain
Texas: Republican Gain (Democratic Hold) (3)
Utah: Democratic Hold
Vermont: Republican Hold
Virginia: Independent Gain (4)
Washington: Democratic Hold
West Virginia: Democratic Hold
Wisconsin: Democratic Hold
Wyoming: Democratic Hold

Results:
Republicans: 52
Democrats: 46
Independents: 1
Conservatives: 1
First Republican senate majority since 1952.

(1) IOTL this seat was kept in Democratic hands by Hubert Humphrey. Without his clout, I think this seat will go to the GOP
(2) IOTL this seat was won by James L Buckley, brother of National Review founder William F Buckley, running on the Conservative Party Ticket
(3) IOTL this seat had been held by the very liberal Ralph Yarborough who was then primaried by the more moderate Lloyd Bentsen who then kept the seat in Democratic hands after defeating George HW Bush. I think this seat will fall given a more Republican atmosphere ITTL.
(4) IOTL Harry Byrd Jr. became an independent who caucused with the Democrats but was more conservative than many Republicans.
 
Last edited:

kernals12

Banned
On the Democratic side, the race would probably Humphrey vs Kennedy. As the sitting VP (who is still popular with liberals sans Vietnam), Humphrey probably takes the nomination. As for the Republican side, it really depends on who the GOP nominates in 1968.
I'm guessing Nixon would still be the nominee in 1968 and he therefore wouldn't run again in 1972.
Washington Governor Daniel J Evans seems like a good nominee.
 
I'm guessing Nixon would still be the nominee in 1968 and he therefore wouldn't run again in 1972.
Washington Governor Daniel J Evans seems like a good nominee.

Without the war, LBJ remains (mostly) popular and I doubt that Nixon would want to challenge him in 1968. Even if Nixon did run, it's entirely possible that Romney would be the nominee without his brainwashing gaffe. Either man would lose to Johnson.
 

kernals12

Banned
And here's my assumption of the 1968 Presidential Election Results
Screen Shot 2019-04-28 at 2.04.25 PM.png

Alaska, Oregon, California, Nevada, Missouri, Illinois, Wisconsin, Deleware, Kentucky and New Jersey, which had voted for Nixon IOTL, go to Johnson. Tennessee, which had voted for Nixon, goes to George Wallace.
Johnson loses every state in the former Confederacy, besides his home state of Texas.
 
Given that Johnson died on 22nd January 1973 OTL, what are the odds that he passes away in the middle of his second term? I’ve read that one of the first things he did after his Presidency ended OTL was start smoking again. Perhaps he would not start smoking but I wonder if the burdens of a second term would be too much for him physically.

I think he would hold up without smoking and all the bad habits he picked up post presidency depending on how stressful his second term is.
 
Top