No Watergate

MrHola

Banned
What if there was no Watergate Affair? The POD could be either that Nixon has an attack of common sense and realises that the DNC was crippled in that era and that there is no need for breaking into the Watergate Hotel or that the plumbers are never caught. So, how would a less distracted Nixon Administration tackle the problems of the 1970s?

Who would be President in 1977? My guess is Ronald Reagan. I assume that he’s an two-termer and any suggestions who would in 1984? How would Reagan handle Iran and Afghanistan?
 

MrHola

Banned
This could lead to South Vietnam's survival. A less distracted Nixon Administration would still monitor North Vietnam's actions closely and Nixon himself believed that North Vietnam would go south one day. And what would Nixon do about the Yom Kippur War in 1973? He could pressure both sides to back off.
 
Last edited:
It gives South Vietnam an additional lease on life, but for how long is unknown.


I suppose the key point is that people's faith in their elected officials remains quite a lot higher and hence the anti-government conservatives don't takeover the Republican Party (as they did when Watergate blew out the establishment).

They'll still be quite conservative and in favour of less government and so forth—but it won't have quite the tinge that government can't do anything and therefore it doesn't matter who runs it.


This also sets up an entirely different 1976 nomination fight. I assume Ford is still VP so it'll be him versus Reagan, but without the power of the Presidency I think Reagan wins the nomination in '76.

On the Democratic side…*no idea. Without Watergate there won't be new FEC rules and so the government will not match funds. Without that, which encouraged a half dozen people into the '76 race, I'm not sure who is running.

Carter, probably, but it'll be harder to gather steam as the anti-Washington reformer without Watergate. Scoop Jackson might do better. Butterflies may lead Kennedy to run.


Remember that '76 Reagan is quite different. He inherits the same tough underlying conditions that Carter had, he doesn't believe in supply-side economics, and he is quite a bit younger with a different staff.

However unlike Carter he should be able to manage the government and (especially) Congress which means I'd guess that he wins a very tough 1980 re-election fight based on his competence with dealing with problems. If he doesn't deal with them well, he goes in '80 to… whoever.
 
I actually think Ford beats Reagan in 1976. Ford had dealt with the whole Watergate affar and associated dogfights and bureacuracy and yet still beat Reagan. I am totally a fan of Reagan but with Ford having any even clearer path I tend to think he still wins the nomination second there wasnt much love loss between Nixon and Reagan. Nixon didnt like anybody.
 
I actually think Ford beats Reagan in 1976. Ford had dealt with the whole Watergate affar and associated dogfights and bureacuracy and yet still beat Reagan. I am totally a fan of Reagan but with Ford having any even clearer path I tend to think he still wins the nomination second there wasnt much love loss between Nixon and Reagan. Nixon didnt like anybody.

I don't know. It's pretty different running as VP versus running as an incumbent President against a challenge.

Ford hammered Reagan with the advantages of being President: free money to key cities and states, Rose Garden approach, and so forth. As VP he'll just be another candidate, and the Republican base loved Reagan.

It's certainly possible and entirely reasonable to see a Ford victory (and I quite like Ford), but I still think Reagan has the edge.
 
A Different VP?

I'm not sure that Ford is nominated for VP (Agnew still goes down over corruption). I think Ford's main qualification for the job was that he did not offend too many Senators to prevent confirmation. Without the pressure of his own impending impeachment, Nixon might have nominated a successor rather than a caretaker.
 
I'm not sure that Ford is nominated for VP (Agnew still goes down over corruption). I think Ford's main qualification for the job was that he did not offend too many Senators to prevent confirmation. Without the pressure of his own impending impeachment, Nixon might have nominated a successor rather than a caretaker.

Even so, unless Nixon out and out nominates Reagan, I can't see any of the potential VPs besting Reagan for the '76 nomination. Also, while Nixon had other choices (I'm sure EM knows them), the ease of getting Ford confirmed may be compelling.
 
Nixon wanted John Connally, but was told by the Democratic leaders in Congress that he wouldn't get confirmed. Given that he was a turncoat in the Dem's eyes, I doubt that he'd be confirmed in a Watergateless TL. Reagan probably would have been unacceptable to the Dems as well.
 
Even so, unless Nixon out and out nominates Reagan, I can't see any of the potential VPs besting Reagan for the '76 nomination. Also, while Nixon had other choices (I'm sure EM knows them), the ease of getting Ford confirmed may be compelling.

Nixon won't/can't nominate Reagan, and as Lord Grattan mentions Nixon's preferred VP, John Connally, wouldn't pass through Congress Watergate or no Watergate

Ford himself, actually, was set to retire because he never thought he'd be Speaker of the House. There are a few outside possibilities, but really Ford was top the of the list for all kinds of reasons.


Nixon has very tight parameters: can't nominate a liberal for fear of losing in 1976 (so no Rockefeller, as Ford found out IOTL), can't nominate a conservative because he wouldn't pass through Congress (no Reagan, no Connally for this as well as his switching parties), might not nominate a Senator up for re-election in 1974, won't nominate a Governor (Nixon didn't care much about domestic policy), and so forth.

Of the narrow options around the well liked Ford, Minority Leader of the House (i.e. not vital), midwest conservative (i.e. fairly acceptable to the base, acceptable to Congress), and so forth tops the list.


Potentials, that I don't know if Nixon considered:

Senator Mark Hatfield of Oregon. Loosely considered in 1968[1] for Nixon's VP, he is probably too liberal.

Senator Howard Baker of Tennessee has to be considered. He's a moderate, insanely popular in the Senate, and from the South.

Senator Robert P. Griffin of Michigan should be considered, but picking him over Ford (as they're both from the same state) would probably be considered a snub.

Senator Robert Taft, Jr, of Ohio. No particular reason besides a reasonable moderate conservative from Ohio, with a famous name.

Senator John Tower of Texas would be considered, but it might be a snub against Connally and he's probably too conservative (despite high profile disagreements with conservatives) to get through Congress.


The crazy choice? Senator Edward Brooke, Massachusetts. He's kinda too liberal and kinda… black. I mean it's nuts, on the face of it, as the Deep South would never vote for a black man in '76 and maybe not the Border South either. But, Nixon was building a long term majority. The South can't stay with the Democratic Party in the long-term and post-Brooke the Republican Party is their only real choice.

Further, black turn-out in the South should help the Congressional elections, and smashing the Northern Black Democratic support is worth quite a lot. So concede the South for one more election, maybe two, screw the Democrats in the urban areas of the North and by the 1980s the Republican Party still gets the South + possibly way better than 9% black support.



At the end of the day if we're not going with Ford I'd suggest Baker, though he'd have to put somebody conservative from the West or North on the '76 ticket.

Would Reagan challenge and win in 1976? Probably, but you never know.



[1] In the sense that a number of candidates were mentioned, but Nixon picked Agnew quite early and passed on the various alternatives mentioned.
 
Top