President Alexander Haig 1974 - 1977

I am reading a book on Watergate. It mentioned that there was disscussion of naming then White House Chief of Staff as Spiro Agnew's replacement.I think that he would have been confirmed. I think he wood have governed as Ford did. I also am confident that he would have lost in 1976. Not only is there a bad economy and ( I assume ) a Nixon pardon, there is his bad political skills. nNot was there the I am in control but that same book said it was his idea to have the FBI seal the Special Prosecutors office after Archibald Cox was fired. dDoes anyone say any changes?
 
Last edited:
ITTL we get the same lineup of presidents starting on January 20,1977, So we would have one Vietnam veteran president and two Vietnam War draft dodger presidents.
 
Well, there isn't a literal connection, dude...

:D:p:D:p

Paul is just constraining his butterflies, per usual, which is fine.

But there is a point - Haig isn't going to be reelected in '76, not once he starts opening his mouth on the campaign trail. There may also be no Reagan challenge against Haig the Hawk. That being said, Reagan is still the likely GOP candidate in '80. Ford never wanted to be President.

But would Haig pick Rockefeller as VPOTUS?
 
Last edited:

Robert

Banned
Haig might have ended up as Agnew's replacement had their been no Watergate.

Either him or John Connelly.
 
Haig might have ended up as Agnew's replacement had their been no Watergate.

Either him or John Connelly.


Haig would definitely have "kept it real" on foreign policy.

For example, it's possible that North Korea would be toast, whether the US military was (relatively) ready or not. (N Korea provocation, for example)
 
What are these 'things'? I think I'll be confused until all these pronouns are defined.

I meant that a different Vice President in 1973, make a different president in 1974 and ITTL the President is a member of a group that OTL never included a president. So that is a change.
 
Well yes, but in what way is that significant? Are you suggesting there'd be minor (or vast) cultural butterflies arising from a Vietnam veteran assuming the presidency?

Well Haig as President running in '76 would probably loose a challenge by Reagan, making the general election that year more interesting for sure. Reagan would have a good chance against Carter (or whomever) and then things spiral from there.
 
I think it was nigh impossible for ANY republican to win in '76 after the Watergate mess. Similar to the 2008 election where there was little chance of a republican after the financial meltdown.
 
Well yes, but in what way is that significant? Are you suggesting there'd be minor (or vast) cultural butterflies arising from a Vietnam veteran assuming the presidency?

I did not say it was significant or would change anything. I just thought it was interesting.
 
I think it was nigh impossible for ANY republican to win in '76 after the Watergate mess. Similar to the 2008 election where there was little chance of a republican after the financial meltdown.

Ford almost won. I will unconstrain some butterflies and say there could be different presidents. I think ITTL Reagan still runs in the 1976 Republican primaries. His big complaint was about the foreign policy that Haig would be sure to continue. I think Haig would make some political mistakes and Reagan would win the nomination. He came close OTL and Gerald Ford had run for office 12 times vs Haig's 0. Reagan would lose to Carter. Although unlike Ford he would mount a big effort in the South, but since the Democrats are, unlike OTL 1980, are not playing defense, they have more time to paint Reagan as an extremist. There would be significant moderate Republican stay at homes. Reagan is also from the president's party that also ties him to the bad economy and Watergate. Carter wins at least: Maine, Massachusettes, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, DC, West Virginia, Ohio, Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Washington, Oregon, Hawaii, Nevada, New Mexico, Missouri, Arkansas, and Georgia for 294 electoral votes. George HW Bush not Reagan would probably win the 1980 nomination.
 
Well yes, but in what way is that significant? Are you suggesting there'd be minor (or vast) cultural butterflies arising from a Vietnam veteran assuming the presidency?

I think it is an interesting sign of a generational difference. Haig was of the World War II generation. Military service was expected of that generation. Bill Clinton and George W Bush were of the Vietnam generation, when most college age men found a way out of serving.
 

Tom Collins

Banned
If the Nixon administration tries to appoint Haig, and they don't back down on it it simply means that Nixon will have wasted even more of his political capital than he did with his second term program attempts. In the end the result would be the same though, defeat. There is no way that the Democrats would allow a Nixon administration insider to become Vice President, and the Congressional Republicans weren't going to support someone that Nixon nominated without consulting them.

If Nixon does try to consult with the Congressional Leadership on getting them to back Haig, he will be rejected by them outright. The man at this time already was developing an unpleasant reputation.

In the aftermath of a Haig nomination and defeat, Ford will still be a viable option, but Nixon will have lost control of the process, and it is possible that the Congress would push for someone else.
 

katchen

Banned
Haig is an interesting character. He really is one of the first of the neo-cons. It was Alexander Haig who sped TOW and air to air missiles to Israel during the Yom Kippur War (October 1973) when Nixon and Kissinger dithered, intending that Israel be partially defeated and forced to give back all territory taken in 1967. Israel, however was in danger of being overrun by Syrian and Egyptian forces, according to Mark Aarons & John Loftus (The Secret War Against The Jews) and likely would have had to use it's nuclear weapons. Haig sent American weapons to Israel without authorization from Nixon and managed to keep his job after doing so.
This is an act that would not have been quickly forgotten by Israel's supporters, either amongst Jewish Democrats or conservative Christian Republicans, either had Nixon nominated him as Vice President or in either subsequent election (1976 or 1980).
Interestingly, Colodny (Silent Coup) claims that Haig was one of Bob Woodward's sources (though we know Haig was not "Deep Throat", Feist was). If so, Haig was not the Nixon man people thought he was, and Washington insiders would know this.
Between Haig's independence from Nixon and his exhibition of that independence exhibited by his action on Israel, I think, with help by Israel's supporters in Congress,
And South Vietnam and South Korea's supporters in Congress.
Haig would have gotten confirmed. I also think that Haig would have been re-elected.
At that point, the butterflies start to fly.
And that's where our ATL can get very interesting.

For one thing, Haig would not let South Vietnam go down without a fight. If Congress would not allow any US funds or US personnel for airstrikes against North Vietnam, I suspect that Haig would be perfectly capable of Iran-Contra type shenaigans to work around that prohibition. Perhaps by selling or leasing some aircraft to the Philippines, getting some right wing Japanese industrialists like Ryochoi Sasagawa to bankroll the airstrikes and bringing in Israeli pilots on loan to fly the missions. The kind of thing that we got used to in the 80s, 90s and 2000s but were unheard of in the 70s.
And when Congress hears about it, DARING them to impeach him--which would endear him to the people we call ITTL "Reagan Democrats" and we would call ATTL "Haigocrats".
So South Vietnam probably survives 1975 despite Congressional Democrats hoping that it dosen't. And as close as the 1976 election was ITTL with Ford, the more charismatic (and more ruthless) Haig probably wins it, perhaps with some of the kind of vote suppression we have become used to in our time ITTL.

I shouldn't spoil it any further, but I doubt if there will be a hostage crisis during a Haig Administration because I see Haig, for better or worse, backing the Shah to the hilt even over Saudi Arabia and even if US troops are necessary to keep him in power. There is sure to be a different crisis when the Shah finally dies of cancer, but not this kind of humiliation.
Haig would not be able to run for a second term in 1980 under the 22nd Amendment. Nixon resigned too soon. Only Vice Presidents who take over more than halfway into their President's term are permitted to run for a second term. So the 1980 nominaton would belong to whoever Haig made his VP most likely.
 
Top