Pro I.R.A. U.S. President

What would have been the result of a President in the early 70's who was not only pro I.R.A. but was willing to publicaly praise them.
 

Thande

Donor
Yikes. Talk about political fall-out. What would London do?

Depends on the government. It would certainly strain the special relationship to breaking point, but then we've had governments in the past who have put up with any amount of crap from Washington to preserve it.
 

maverick

Banned
Ted Kennedy in 1972 if probably the best you could do without one of those Dystopic Pods, and even he's not pro-IRA, just really pro-Irish at this time of his political career...
 
I can't see anybody with such views being elected president. Admitting support for the IRA, a terrorist organization, is political suicide. Someone who is pro-IRA could get elected if they keep their views private until they enter the White House, or if their campaign downplays it.

The president's views would likely not influence foreign policy, as even his own partisan comrades would shun him. Upon seeking re-election, he would be harpooned by his opponent. The electoral map would be nearly one color.
 
There was a lot of Irish-American support for the IRA in the 20s/30s (my Grandmother-in-law as a child unwittingly raised money for the IRA from her neighborhood in Boston), but public support for the IRA post-war when they're more along the lines of terrorist cells than the earlier revolutionary army is another matter. I could see a Kennedy being an under-the-table IRA sympathizer, but overtly pro-IRA is borderline ASB baring some major unrelated fallout with Britain.

The most I see is a US president offering to broker Camp David style peace talks over Northern Ireland.
 
I can't see anybody with such views being elected president. Admitting support for the IRA, a terrorist organization, is political suicide. Someone who is pro-IRA could get elected if they keep their views private until they enter the White House, or if their campaign downplays it.

The president's views would likely not influence foreign policy, as even his own partisan comrades would shun him. Upon seeking re-election, he would be harpooned by his opponent. The electoral map would be nearly one color.


From this side of the Atlantic it can seem that the US. gov has a tradition of tolerating Irish extremests. Feenians Invading Canada, Building Warships (Hollands Subs), granting asylam to wanted terrorists, granting asylam to escaped murderers from ulster, open fund raising for the I.R.A. (Noraid) welcoming their representatives to the Whitehouse. I also seem to remember reading that New York schools were teaching that the potato famine was an act of deleberate genocide, though I don't know if it's true.

As for the initial question what I thought was Ted Kenedy in the aftermath of a Bloody Sunday type event.

There are really two parts to the question of what happens next.

The reaction of in the US.

The reaction on H.M's government, do they tell him to mind his own business or lower their trousers and bend over as Britain is shafted again?
 

boredatwork

Banned
Well, depending on how your bloody sunday POD runs, the US populace might take a rather different opinion of the IRA. In which case, having a presidential offer them moral support (I don't see much else realistically on the table unless the RUC/Loyalists go totally bonkers) might win them extra irish catholic votes while costing them very little if anything.

So, electoral impact - minimal or fractionally positive.

As for policy impact - again, moral support and offering to broker camp david style accords might win some votes at home, but will have zero real-world impact on the situation in the 6 counties, so apart from a (probably) temporary strain on the bilateral relationship, I wouldn't foresee any appreciable impact there.

Where you might see a big electoral impact is within the UK and Ireland, as various politicians react to the POD and to the US response in varying fashions, which are received in various ways by their electorates.

Making guesses there would require far more detailed knowledge of the political leaders and potential candidates in the isles during the 70s than I could lay claim to.
 
Last edited:
Well, perhaps if Ted Kennedy is elected POTUS in 1976. He called the Troubles "the British Vietnam" and went on about the Protestant "dictatorship" in NI. Combine that with the rabidly anti-American Ted Heath in No 10 and you have a deep freeze in Anglo-American relations.
 
I still can't quite square the weeping crowds over Ted Kennedy with the fact that this man helped to fund an organisation that bombed innocent people. Is this something that his friends tend to forget?

And what sort of support does he send? In a post Nixon (i.e. "more transparent", less "Imperial Presidency") environment, I imagine that people would start to find out a bit more about where their taxpayer dollars are going, and would be concerned to learn that they are heading towards a terrorist organisation. Unless, of course, the Royal Ulster Constabulary/ British Army goes mad one day and starts gunning down altogether too many innocent civillians.
 
I myself am Pro-Irish Unification, preferably peaceful, but if necessary and only necessary would use violence. If the IRA were more peaceful, I would support them entirely, I like their ideals, but not their ways of enacting them.

If they were to "Come Out" of the IRA Closet:p, say it the day after you win re-election.
 
From this side of the Atlantic it can seem that the US. gov has a tradition of tolerating Irish extremests. Feenians Invading Canada, Building Warships (Hollands Subs), granting asylam to wanted terrorists, granting asylam to escaped murderers from ulster, open fund raising for the I.R.A. (Noraid) welcoming their representatives to the Whitehouse. I also seem to remember reading that New York schools were teaching that the potato famine was an act of deleberate genocide, though I don't know if it's true.

As for the initial question what I thought was Ted Kenedy in the aftermath of a Bloody Sunday type event.

There are really two parts to the question of what happens next.

The reaction of in the US.

The reaction on H.M's government, do they tell him to mind his own business or lower their trousers and bend over as Britain is shafted again?

Well, I live in New York, and according to my school district, it was a Genocidal Act against the glorious people of Ireland (I am part Irish and damn proud of it!). I am also ironically part British as well (I am dominantly Italian, then Irish, German, French, and Native American), but I prefer to not mention my British side.
 
Other than the sorrow of the US when forced to choose between the collapse of the US's alliance system or a humiliating surrender by the this president, who will be lucky to finish his one term?


nickcvader, you're part what?:eek:
 
Other than the sorrow of the US when forced to choose between the collapse of the US's alliance system or a humiliating surrender by the this president, who will be lucky to finish his one term?:eek:

Especially when the Soviet ambasedor to the U.N. praises the idiot er president for supporting the oppressed socialist workers in Ireland against the evil British Imperialists.
 
Well, I live in New York, and according to my school district, it was a Genocidal Act against the glorious people of Ireland (I am part Irish and damn proud of it!). I am also ironically part British as well (I am dominantly Italian, then Irish, German, French, and Native American), but I prefer to not mention my British side.

Would the highlighted bit be because of the dishonesty of the environment you were brought up with? Fed a diet of lies like that many people would probably have similar views.

Incidentally how old are you? Hopefully this sort of fascist propaganda was something that only existed several decades back.

Steve
 
Top