Republican Party without Watergate

In 1972 the GOP was at a dominant position winning the biggest landslide election in American History up to that point with no end in sight. With a massive electoral landslide how does Nixon’s 2nd term play out? It certainly started with a bang with the Vietnam War finally coming to an end with a peace treaty. With a massive mandate for a 2nd term, do we know what Nixon’s platform would have been? Would he have had the ego to take on the 3rd rail of politics and taken a crack at S.S and Medicare? And does a Nixon win who was considered relatively moderate forestall the rise of Reaganism or was that always an inevitability?
 
Moderate wing survives and we see earlier merger of wallacites with GOP to create a populist wing. Dixie+rustbelt OTL "reagan dems" moving GOP early prevents there being an opening for *Reaganism to take over. Basically, you get a GOP that's "center-right", with movement cons as a wing instead of being 2/3 of the party.
 
In 1972 the GOP was at a dominant position winning the biggest landslide election in American History up to that point with no end in sight. With a massive electoral landslide how does Nixon’s 2nd term play out? It certainly started with a bang with the Vietnam War finally coming to an end with a peace treaty. With a massive mandate for a 2nd term, do we know what Nixon’s platform would have been? Would he have had the ego to take on the 3rd rail of politics and taken a crack at S.S and Medicare? And does a Nixon win who was considered relatively moderate forestall the rise of Reaganism or was that always an inevitability?

While Nixon crushed McGovern, the Democrats still had comfortable majorities in both Houses of Congress. In fact the Democrats actually gained Senate seats that year. The 1972 landslide was neither an enthusiastic endorsement of either Nixon or the GOP, but rather a popular rejection of McGovern. In addition to being unabashedly liberal, McGovern was also an incompetent politician who owed his unlikely nomination to Nixon's interference in the 1972 Democratic primaries. (Nixon deliberately sabotaged McGovern's primary opponents with the intent of getting McGovern nominated).

That aside, had Watergate not happened Nixon's second term wouldn't have played out that much differently. The economy would still tank and Nixon would still continue wage and price controls. But perhaps more Congressional attention would be placed on energy policy. His healthcare plan still fails when Ted Kennedy opposes it, and the Democrats (probably lead by Mo Udall) still win in 1976. The difference is that Nixon finishes his term. Instead of being considered one of the worst Presidents of all time, Nixon would be considered a below average President responsible for some accomplishments (China, EPA) but who also bungled Vietnam, assimilated Southern segregationists into the GOP, waged a dangerous war on the freedom of the press, and oversaw the worst economy at that point since the Great Depression.
 
Ford almost won otl under worse conditions than Conally, Bush or even (with better luck this time) Ford would be facing in ttl's 1976, though.
 
I remember by mid-1974, I saw bumper stickers reading "Don't blame me. I voted for McGovern!" or " I should have voted Democrat!"
 
There likely isn't a conservative revival in the party in the late 1970s. Nixon infamously used to say that the "Buckleyites were worse than the Birchers", and without his fall, he likely prevents movement conservatism from making any sort of march through the institutions that it did OTL.

Without Watergate, it is also likely that the South does not keep voting in Democrats to Congress until 1994 as it did in OTL. Watergate killed Republican gains in the South at the Congressional level.

It is likely, however, that the Republicans remain essentially without firm ideology, as had been the case since Eisenhower, and that would open up some weird political factors in the late 1970s as the New Deal Consensus collapsed with the economy. You might even see a third party start to form as the Democrats likely without Watergate would remain on their course of institutionalizing elements of the New Left while at the same time continuing to be held in thrall of established factions like organized labor.
 
How exactly did Watergate hurt the moderates?

Would Haldeman, Erlichman, etc., be in subsequent Republican administrations?
Hard to see how it didn't hurt more centre leaning Republicans. They, after all, took the brunt of the losses in 1974 in the Congressional Races in the Northeast and Midwest. The Western and more Conservative wing of the party ended up being more predominant afterwards, even though losses there happened as well.

I'm not sure about which Nixon guys go forward. In OTL, Buchanan served in the Reagan White House, and Rumsfeld was SecDef under W., while Kissinger was sort of a lame duck under Ford but has always been kicking around at the periphery. The issue with Haldemann and Erlichman is that they were more tied to Nixon as a person without much in constituencies of their own, as well as being involved in the scandal. Nixon had an ideologically diverse group working for him in the White House. He had Connally, a longtime Texas Democrat big under LBJ, a paleoconservative Old Right type in Buchanan, basically liberal to centrist Republicans in Haldemann and Erlichman, largely nonideological Cold Warriors like Kissinger, Haig, and Rumsfeld; what is notable is that he didn't have anyone who was really a true fusionist Conservative (remember, the most notable publication for Fusionist Conservatism, National Review, endorsed John M. Ashbrook for President in 1972).
 
... His healthcare plan still fails when Ted Kennedy opposes it, ...

Ted Kennedy was expecting to get a better HC deal the following year. Watergate was a factor in derailing that strategy. Absent the scandal were there good odds of a HC bill passing before 1976?
 
My understanding is, before Watergate the GOP was seen as the more trustworthy party (if not necessarily the party people always preferred policy-wise).
 
Ted Kennedy was expecting to get a better HC deal the following year. Watergate was a factor in derailing that strategy. Absent the scandal were there good odds of a HC bill passing before 1976?
Ted expected massive dem win in 1976 bc of watergate and scuttled the deal. Absent watergate and the weak dems you likely see a deal of some sort for hc passing.
 
The right had been ascendant since 1964, Nixon was merely a bridge between the declining Rockefeller wing and the ascendant movement Conservatives. The right would've taken over eventually, if not in the 1980s, sometime in the 90s or 2000s. My question is, if 1976 goes Republican without Watergate, or a better Democratic politician than Carter gets elected, how do the Democrats fair?
 
The right had been ascendant since 1964, Nixon was merely a bridge between the declining Rockefeller wing and the ascendant movement Conservatives. The right would've taken over eventually, if not in the 1980s, sometime in the 90s or 2000s. My question is, if 1976 goes Republican without Watergate, or a better Democratic politician than Carter gets elected, how do the Democrats fair?
Those are two vastly different scenarios, but the problems in the late 1970s were more structural than anything.

The US Economy's boom times from 1945 to 1972 were largely based off of the fact that the rest of the world was either postcolonial and nonindustrial, a bombed out husk of its former industrial self, or were inefficient Marxist states. The upsurge in Germany and Japan exposed how noncompetitive American industry was, and how much industrial subsidies were propping up sectors of the economy that needed reform. There wasn't enough true growth happening and incumbents were slacking off in R&D expenditure. The New Deal Consensus relied on the notion that the economy was just going to keep growing and that a troika of government, labor, and established industries could largely direct the US economy towards sustainable and equal growth.

The OPEC crisis in 1973 and the global crop failure of 1972 showed this to be hollow. Whoever was in government in the mid to late 1970s was going to have to deal with the fact that while inflation was sort of baked in to most economic models, growth from industrial policy was starting to bring back diminishing returns. If it wasn't for the Vietnam War and the growth in defense spending and business for military adjacent companies (a big sector of the US economy, particularly in the Sunbelt), this would have been clear a lot earlier.

Carter was absolutely horrible at working with Congress and I think that was his biggest issue. Now, if Carter doesn't enter,George Wallace does a lot better and might be able to almost win the South as a bloc in the primaries. He was far more popular than he is given credit for, and in his campaigns in 1972 and 1976, he went far beyond the Bircher constituency. There is no way the Democratic Party lets Wallace win, but in this case, I think Scoop Jackson makes some inroads and wins because Mo Udall had issues that were not resolvable with labor and other big Democratic constituencies.

I think a President Scoop Jackson alienates the left big time because unlike Carter, he wouldn't abandon American allies like the Shah of Iran, or President Somoza in Nicaragua, nor do I think he would give up the Panama Canal. He might be a bit more amenable to SALT, though. I think his Presidency would in many ways be defined by foreign policy; keep in mind that Carter was operating from a position of weakness, which helped him to shepherd along his ideas on foreign policy; Jackson would fight against that.

He however would be an explicitly labor focused President and would do things that they wanted, which might make the economic crisis developing worsen with government bailouts and the like.
 
Last edited:
My question is, if 1976 goes Republican without Watergate, or a better Democratic politician than Carter gets elected, how do the Democrats fair?

There's a misconception that the Republicans would've won in 1976 without Watergate. 1976 wasn't close by virtue of the fact that Watergate brought down the party's popularity. It was close because Carter was an awful politician who almost entirely blew a 33% over Ford despite the terrible economy and the fall of Saigon the year before. Carter was a poor campaigner, an even worse debater, and he crucially lost support after a controversial 1976 Playboy interview in which he spoke of lusting after women and committing adultery in his heart. Any other Democrat would've crushed Ford.

Without Watergate, I imagine that the 1976 Republican nominee is either Ford or Connally (Nixon's preferred successor). On the Democratic side, the nominee is probably Congressman Mo Udall of Arizona. Udall was known for his classic wit, imposing height (six foot five), as well as his honesty that made him appealing even to conservatives in the largely Republican state of Arizona. I imagine that Udall would beat Ford or Connally due to the state of the economy, which is almost always the most important issue to voters.
 
There's a misconception that the Republicans would've won in 1976 without Watergate. 1976 wasn't close by virtue of the fact that Watergate brought down the party's popularity. It was close because Carter was an awful politician who almost entirely blew a 33% over Ford despite the terrible economy and the fall of Saigon the year before. Carter was a poor campaigner, an even worse debater, and he crucially lost support after a controversial 1976 Playboy interview in which he spoke of lusting after women and committing adultery in his heart. Any other Democrat would've crushed Ford.

Without Watergate, I imagine that the 1976 Republican nominee is either Ford or Connally (Nixon's preferred successor). On the Democratic side, the nominee is probably Congressman Mo Udall of Arizona. Udall was known for his classic wit, imposing height (six foot five), as well as his honesty that made him appealing even to conservatives in the largely Republican state of Arizona. I imagine that Udall would beat Ford or Connally due to the state of the economy, which is almost always the most important issue to voters.

It'll be Reagan vs. Rockefeller on the Republican side IMHO. Ford never had Presidential ambitions until he ascended to the Presidency and Connally is too damaged (a turncoat with scandal) and even a Watergateless Nixon isn't going to get him the nomination. Nixon begrudgingly backs Rocky in the primary and the end result of the primary is a close as OTL that goes either way. The Democrats would be favored to win due to the economic situation of '73-'75, but keep in mind the economy was technically in recovery by '76 and if the Democratic party is as chaotic as it was in '68 and '72, the GOP could eek out a win only to get slaughtered in 1980.
 
It'll be Reagan vs. Rockefeller on the Republican side IMHO. Ford never had Presidential ambitions until he ascended to the Presidency and Connally is too damaged (a turncoat with scandal) and even a Watergateless Nixon isn't going to get him the nomination. Nixon begrudgingly backs Rocky in the primary and the end result of the primary is a close as OTL that goes either way. The Democrats would be favored to win due to the economic situation of '73-'75, but keep in mind the economy was technically in recovery by '76 and if the Democratic party is as chaotic as it was in '68 and '72, the GOP could eek out a win only to get slaughtered in 1980.

I would argue that Nixon might push Ford to run in order to represent the middle ground between the liberal Rockefeller and the conservative Reagan. However, it's quite plausible that Reagan wins the primaries over a divided opposition and he goes on to be defeated by Udall. As I've noted in another thread, in June 1976 Carter lead Reagan 55% to 32% according to Gallup. Even in 1980 Reagan was behind in the polls until the last weeks of the campaign. I really don't see how he could win in 1976 unless the Democrats nominated George Wallace, which wasn't going to happen.
 
I would argue that Nixon might push Ford to run in order to represent the middle ground between the liberal Rockefeller and the conservative Reagan. However, it's quite plausible that Reagan wins the primaries over a divided opposition and he goes on to be defeated by Udall. As I've noted in another thread, in June 1976 Carter lead Reagan 55% to 32% according to Gallup. Even in 1980 Reagan was behind in the polls until the last weeks of the campaign. I really don't see how he could win in 1976 unless the Democrats nominated George Wallace, which wasn't going to happen.
I agree Reagan would be more likely to go down to defeat than Rocky or some other Republican (Ford if he still were to run, Howard Baker, even Bob Dole) that said I don't think it would be a landslide loss, as I think even if peeved about Reagan as the nominee, Nixon would still likely go all out for him in the general, abet with concessions from the Reagan campaign (ex: a moderate VP).
 
I agree Reagan would be more likely to go down to defeat than Rocky or some other Republican (Ford if he still were to run, Howard Baker, even Bob Dole) that said I don't think it would be a landslide loss, as I think even if peeved about Reagan as the nominee, Nixon would still likely go all out for him in the general, abet with concessions from the Reagan campaign (ex: a moderate VP).

I imagine that Richard Schweiker of Pennsylvania, Reagan's OTL choice at the '76 convention, would've been picked as VP. That would be a smart choice in order to unite the party and appeal to the blue collar Northerners who in OTL became Reagan Democrats. However that wouldn't be enough to put the Gipper over the top, and even with a moderate VP there still would be bad blood between Reagan and party liberals - as there was in 1980 when Anderson ran as an independent.

IMO Reagan loses in 1976 and is remembered as a second Goldwater. Come 1980 the Republicans would track back to the center and instead pick a moderate like Chuck Percy (who might run without Reagan in the race), George Bush, or Howard Baker. But whether or not he wins in 1980 depends on who the Democrats nominate in '76 (again, I'm thinking Udall) and how good a job he does handling the events that befuddled Carter.
 

Zwinglian

Banned
I don't think the GOP would change much on social issues, but I could see them being more left wing on economics
 
There's a misconception that the Republicans would've won in 1976 without Watergate. 1976 wasn't close by virtue of the fact that Watergate brought down the party's popularity. It was close because Carter was an awful politician who almost entirely blew a 33% over Ford despite the terrible economy and the fall of Saigon the year before. Carter was a poor campaigner, an even worse debater, and he crucially lost support after a controversial 1976 Playboy interview in which he spoke of lusting after women and committing adultery in his heart. Any other Democrat would've crushed Ford.

Without Watergate, I imagine that the 1976 Republican nominee is either Ford or Connally (Nixon's preferred successor). On the Democratic side, the nominee is probably Congressman Mo Udall of Arizona. Udall was known for his classic wit, imposing height (six foot five), as well as his honesty that made him appealing even to conservatives in the largely Republican state of Arizona. I imagine that Udall would beat Ford or Connally due to the state of the economy, which is almost always the most important issue to voters.
An interesting counterfactual to consider: would Saigon have fallen if Nixon hadn't been gone?

Watergate, remember, invigorated the Democrats to not only win big in 1974 but to win with a lot of New Left types in Congress, many of which openly had sympathy for the North Vietnamese, as evidenced by the hard line taken during the evacuation period regarding political refugees (Congressional testimonies from this time reveal folks like Bella Abzug, John Conyers, and George McGovern talking about how the 'Provisional NLF's justice should not be thwarted by covert action' and other pretty sickening stuff when one considers the re-education camps and all of that).

But that is not really the point here. The point is that Congress vociferously went out of its way in 1975 to make sure that the South Vietnamese had virtually no support. The Spring Offensive was actually quite lucky to make as much progress as it did, and largely relied on some horrible deployment strategy by ARVN Command in the Central Highlands that created an unnecessary panic; but had American Airpower been employed, those large formations of North Vietnamese troops would have been unable to concentrate and exploit their initial breakthroughs, and it would have been a replay of 1972. I don't know why it gets ignored, but basically everything that could have gone wrong for ARVN in 1975 did, with the refugees clogging the roads to the stupid decision to redeploy in the middle of an enemy offensive to "core national areas", as if that wouldn't make things worse, and the total lack of US support.

I think there is a real chance that the South Vietnamese could have held on if Nixon did. And Nixon had no compunctions regarding deploying concentrated and overwhelming air power against North Vietnam.

I largely agree on Carter, for what its worth. The whole "Washington Outsider" shtick was much overplayed by those in the media who liked him. As a retail politician, he was just awful, and had a great ability to just piss off everyone who tried to help him.
 
Top