Right-Wing Shift in the 60s

[asnys]

I am working on a story set in a timeline where the US shifted to the right in the 60s, detente with the Soviets never happened, and we end up getting into a nuclear war in 1990. The problem is that I am having trouble figuring out how to get where I want to go. My current POD is that Kennedy backs down in the Cuban Missile Crisis and agrees to pull the Jupiter IRBMs from Turkey. Butterfly effects cause Oswald to drop his rifle when he tries to shoot Gen. Walker, and his fingerprints are matched to it when he is picked up in New Orleans for his scuffle with anti-Castro activists (that last bit happened in OTL, by the way). Kennedy never commits significant numbers of US troops to Vietnam, and Saigon eventually falls, although just when I am not sure about. Between the foreign policy failures of the Missile Crisis and Vietnam, the absence of Kennedy as a left-wing martyr, and the absence of Vietnam as a polarizing factor, the left is much weaker than in OTL, and the right dominates politics from the mid-60s to 1988.
So, my two questions are:

Is this plausible? I am not very well-versed on Cold War history.

Any suggestions for filling in the details? In particular, the course of TTL's Vietnam War-the only things I know about Vietnam I got from Bright Shining Lie. I want to keep significant US troops out of Vietnam, so that the north can conquer the country and deal a further blow to the left's reputation on foreign affairs.

 

[Berra]

I dont see Kennedy as this left winger guy. In fact, i think he was a rightwinger since tat marxist Oswald killed him.

 

[The Ubbergeek]

Well, he seemed at least less rightist on somes issues than the people back then, perhaps. I remember complaints from teh right wing hardliners about him...

 

[DocOrlando]

If you want a more right-wing shift to the US during the 60s, why let JFK be elected at all? Let Nixon show up rested and ready to the infamous first TV debate, and willing to have makeup applied to compensate for the glare of the lights, and there's a strong likelihood he'd've won in 1960. This immediately puts a more conservative administration in office.

OTOH, Kennedy was a moderate in general, but US policy at the time was still one of containment. Eisenhower opened the door to US involvement in Vietnam as early as 1954, and sent Army advisors to help train the ARVN in 1956. American involvement there didn't really heat up until LBJ in 1964, with covert actions with the ARVN navy. The Gulf of Tonkin incident (Aug. 64, and it may or may not have actually happened, or may have been a contrivance of the CIA) opened the door to US Marines on the ground in 1965.

JFK's only lasting contribution to the fall of S. Vietnam was his tacit approval of the coup which overthrew Diem, on 2 Nov. 1963. Ironically, though, it is suggested that if Diem had NOT been overthrown (and murdered) he was prepared to accept Ho Chi Minh's takeover of the whole nation, which would have meant little to no US involvement there.

So if you're looking for a POD? The coup against Diem fails, US complicity is exposed, Diem orders all US advisors out of S. Vietnam and accepts peace (and reunification) under Communist rule. With two major losses to his credit (Bay of Pigs, Vietnam), Kennedy is deemed soft on Communism and loses the 1964 election, probably to Nixon/Goldwater.

 

[NapoleonXIV]

Without Johnson as Pres and other Dems to push them through the Civil Rights Bill fails in 1964 and the Dixiecrats stage a comeback in the Democratic party. When King is arrested and charged with treason in a obviously trumped up case in 1965 the Black Revolutionaries are given an early shot in the arm as non-violence is discredited. A sort of low level race war, based mainly on white paranoia and some real black conspiracies replaces the civil rights movement.

When King is assassinated, as in OTL, the riots are much worse and the Army has to be mobilized in what quickly develops into a second civil war. When it is over in 1969 millions are dead and George Wallace is the Military President for Life; commanding a right wing coalition and using dictatorial powers to enforce a draconian second class citizenship on those surviving blacks unable to flee the prison that the US has become for them, and anyone else opposing the government.

An international pariah, the US lurches into the 70's with a series of aggressive brushfire wars against the Soviets, using them in an increasingly desperate and futile attempt to keep the American populace from noticing that their living standards are declining as fast as the intellectuals and engineers can get away and the foreign sanctions are imposed.

Helpful?

 

[Grimm Reaper]

A few points:

1) The Jupiter missles were irrelevant to the Cuban Missle Crisis. I would call them a face saving gesture for the USSR but the removal of the last handful from Turkey didn't have anything to do with the USSR. The obsolete Jupiter-class was being retired from service in Turkey and elsewhere. In fact, out of an original 72 missles in Turkey only 12 remained and 3 were already being dismantled for return to the US.

The Jupiter had a truly pathetic range and was therefore stationed in Turkey only 90 miles from the USSR or, if you prefer, less than 10 minutes flight time from Soviet air bases by the 1960s. The range was too short, accuracy was doubtful, and the vulnerability in any crisis was massive so out they went.



2) If the US is never actually involved in Vietnam, the fall of South Vietnam would simply not be remotely as important.


3) It was JFK who got us into Vietnam as an active player by accepting or ordering the murder of South Vietnam's president, thinking this would improve the situation. When it didn't he had to choose between sending in the troops or being held responsible in 1964 election for effectively handing South Vietnam to North Vietnam. Now THERE might be a POD! We just elected Barry Goldwater!

Which could be very bad.

I remember the warning that if people voted for Goldwater in 1964 the result would be violence in the inner cities and campuses, a bloody war in SE Asia, and a massive arms race with the Soviets, just for starters. Sadly I did not listen and...

JFK? Leftist? Hmmm, let me see...biggest peacetime military expansion(both conventional and nuclear) in this nation's history, biggest tax cut on the rich, unprecedented freedom to act on the part of the CIA(before or since), no significant action on civil rights taken...

 

[Ghost 88]

Without Johnson as Pres and other Dems to push them through the Civil Rights Bill fails in 1964 and the Dixiecrats stage a comeback in the Democratic party. When King is arrested and charged with treason in a obviously trumped up case in 1965 the Black Revolutionaries are given an early shot in the arm as non-violence is discredited. A sort of low level race war, based mainly on white paranoia and some real black conspiracies replaces the civil rights movement.

When King is assassinated, as in OTL, the riots are much worse and the Army has to be mobilized in what quickly develops into a second civil war. When it is over in 1969 millions are dead and George Wallace is the Military President for Life; commanding a right wing coalition and using dictatorial powers to enforce a draconian second class citizenship on those surviving blacks unable to flee the prison that the US has become for them, and anyone else opposing the government.

An international pariah, the US lurches into the 70's with a series of aggressive brushfire wars against the Soviets, using them in an increasingly desperate and futile attempt to keep the American populace from noticing that their living standards are declining as fast as the intellectuals and engineers can get away and the foreign sanctions are imposed.

Helpful?

80% of the Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act as opposed to 61% of the Dems. This act would have passed regardless of who was President. The 3 most prominent no votes included Barry Goldwater, and Robert Byrd the then and present Senator from WV,the third was the father of Al Gore. In the 64 election 6 states went to Goldwater, Arizona and 5 Deep South states the other 54 including 6 states of the CSA and the other 3 "slave states" went with Johnson.
These facts lead me to believe and my memory of the election confirms that as much as you would love a distopian US your TL is not going to happen.
The vote was veto proof:

Vote totals

Totals are in "Yea-Nay" format:

• The Original House Version: 290-130 (69%-31%)
• The Senate Version: 73-27 (73%-27%)
• The Senate Version, as voted on by the House: 289-126 (70%-30%)

 

[DocOrlando]

Fortunately, this isn't NapoleonXIV's TL, but Asnys'. I don't know where he got the wacky stuff he came up with.

Anyway, it's beside the point. While race relations would certainly turn into the leading domestic issue of the Sixties, it wasn't really so until after the '64 elections. Whether Kennedy was president or LBJ was, the CRA of 1964 would pass one way or another. And, as history demonstrated, there was plenty of racial discord despite the Act's passage.

Any power shift within the government would have to revolve around foreign issues, not domestic ones, at least if the POD is going to come within JFK's first term and/or the '64 election.

 

[shane]

Why is it always the Right Wing ?

O.k if History shows anything it was a moderate to liberal President named Harry Truman who was the only leader to ever use nuclear weapons on another country. John F. Kennedy was another moderate to liberal president who helped bring the world the closest to nuclear war than any President before or since.
George W. Bush had more right to use nuclear weapons in responce to 9-11 than Kennedy did over Cuba. Yet this so called Right Wing president didn't.

Remember it was the Kennedy administration who first came up with the term Pre-Emptive Nuclear Responce during the Cuban Missle Crisis. Had the Soviets not began to pull the missles out within 2 days Kennedy would have attacked the missles in Cuba by air and followed it with an invasion which would have been destroyed by the tactical nukes on the beaches. Kennedy then would have not only nukes Cuba but the Soviet Union. So much for Containment!

 

[Melvin Loh]

Well, WI there'd been an even worse white backlash against civil rights, which had already started in the mid-1950s in midwestern towns like Cicero, Illinois, by whites not wanting blacks to move into their neighbourhoods, and culminated in the very hostile reception received by MLK and his followers while protesting for housing integration in Chicago in 1966/67 ? Could say a Goldwater or Wallace as a presidential elect have taken advantage of such widespread civil division, perhaps leading in turn to an even greater black militant movement ?

 

[asnys]

Well, WI there'd been an even worse white backlash against civil rights, which had already started in the mid-1950s in midwestern towns like Cicero, Illinois, by whites not wanting blacks to move into their neighbourhoods, and culminated in the very hostile reception received by MLK and his followers while protesting for housing integration in Chicago in 1966/67 ? Could say a Goldwater or Wallace as a presidential elect have taken advantage of such widespread civil division, perhaps leading in turn to an even greater black militant movement ?

I have a really hard time seeing Goldwater being elected under any circumstances short of Kennedy being found with the proverbial "dead girl or live boy." I did not live through the times and am not well-versed on them, so I am not in the best position to comment, but my limited reading makes a Goldwater victory seem very unlikely. Similarly, passage of the Civil Rights Act seems very likely without a significantly earlier POD, although not quite as certain.

That said, I can definitely see a greater opposition to racial equality building in the white middle class, and a corresponding militancy emerging among blacks.

 

[asnys]

If you want a more right-wing shift to the US during the 60s, why let JFK be elected at all? Let Nixon show up rested and ready to the infamous first TV debate, and willing to have makeup applied to compensate for the glare of the lights, and there's a strong likelihood he'd've won in 1960. This immediately puts a more conservative administration in office.

...

So if you're looking for a POD? The coup against Diem fails, US complicity is exposed, Diem orders all US advisors out of S. Vietnam and accepts peace (and reunification) under Communist rule. With two major losses to his credit (Bay of Pigs, Vietnam), Kennedy is deemed soft on Communism and loses the 1964 election, probably to Nixon/Goldwater.

I like both of these suggestions, particularly the second. I really know nothing about Vietnam, but is it likely that Diem would have accepted reunification, though? Just on the principle of "the boss wants to remain the boss."

Although, as I mentioned, I have trouble envisioning a Goldwater victory in '64, I can definitely see Nixon winning.

 

[asnys]

O.k if History shows anything it was a moderate to liberal President named Harry Truman who was the only leader to ever use nuclear weapons on another country. John F. Kennedy was another moderate to liberal president who helped bring the world the closest to nuclear war than any President before or since.
George W. Bush had more right to use nuclear weapons in responce to 9-11 than Kennedy did over Cuba. Yet this so called Right Wing president didn't.

Um, I really think you are missing the point here. And maybe I did not specify clearly enough, but while the US does start the war, the Russians are the first to use nuclear weapons-and the US had a very good reason to start the war, namely the apparent assassination of the president and the entire cabinet by the KGB. Which was not what really happened, but I digress...

 

[NapoleonXIV]

80% of the Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act as opposed to 61% of the Dems. This act would have passed regardless of who was President. The 3 most prominent no votes included Barry Goldwater, and Robert Byrd the then and present Senator from WV,the third was the father of Al Gore. In the 64 election 6 states went to Goldwater, Arizona and 5 Deep South states the other 54 including 6 states of the CSA and the other 3 "slave states" went with Johnson.
These facts lead me to believe and my memory of the election confirms that as much as you would love a distopian US your TL is not going to happen.
The vote was veto proof:

Vote totals

Totals are in "Yea-Nay" format:

• The Original House Version: 290-130 (69%-31%)
• The Senate Version: 73-27 (73%-27%)
• The Senate Version, as voted on by the House: 289-126 (70%-30%)

Fortunately, this isn't NapoleonXIV's TL, but Asnys'. I don't know where he got the wacky stuff he came up with.
Anyway, it's beside the point. While race relations would certainly turn into the leading domestic issue of the Sixties, it wasn't really so until after the '64 elections. Whether Kennedy was president or LBJ was, the CRA of 1964 would pass one way or another. And, as history demonstrated, there was plenty of racial discord despite the Act's passage.

Any power shift within the government would have to revolve around foreign issues, not domestic ones, at least if the POD is going to come within JFK's first term and/or the '64 election.

Hey, the guy asked, I tried to help. If it wouldn't work it wouldn't work and you said that and gave good reasons, so fine, that's how it's supposed to be done here, yes? but I wasn't trying to hijack Asny's idea and I resent people acting as if I was

 

[Wendell]

How about getting an earlier POD?