Rockefeller 1960 -- consequences?

[sciscisciortino]

Let's say Nixon is not able to run in 1960 -- perhaps his phlebitis emerges a decade earlier (or he is killed in Caracas for a more dramatic POD) -- would Rockefeller win the GOP nomination fairly easily? Who would his running mate be? How would he fare against, presumably, Kennedy? And what would a Rockefeller Presidency look like? I tend to suspect very much like a JFK/LBJ analogue myself (the electoral maps would look very interesting -- he was very close ideologically to the Kennedies for one...) -- and what long-term consequences does that have on the GOP or emergence of the New Right?

 

[GeographyDude]

. . . And what would a Rockefeller Presidency look like? I tend to suspect very much like a JFK/LBJ analogue myself . . .

I tend to think a middle-of-the-roader is good for the country.

And Kennedy himself was larger a middle-of-the-roader, since he was a conservative Democrat. Although Kennedy raised expectations too much, and maybe Rockefeller avoids this.

 

[Deleted member 109224]

Rockefeller was a foreign policy hawk wasn't he?

In the 70s VP Rockefeller thought the US should acquire Greenland and mine the heck out of it. Maybe he brings the idea up to the Danish.

Who is his VP? Does he pick a more conservative running mate than Nixon did?
Eisenhower wanted Henry Cabot Lodge Jr, but the party conservatives didn't like Lodge.
Nixon considered picking Minnesota Representative Walter Judd or Kentucky Senator Thruston Morton (who was more moderate than Judd, but had more respect since he was RNC chair). Morton considered Rockefeller in 1968, so he seems like a probable choice.

We'd probably still get Medicare, though perhaps not Medicaid.

 

[X_X]

Probably a one-termer, loses to Hubert Humphrey, Edmund Muskie, or Henry M. Jackson in 1964.

 

[marktaha]

What makes you say that? He'd have been a consensus President and Barry Goldwater liked him.

 

[sciscisciortino]

I feel like there's a diet-Great Society possible -- how would he handle Congress?

 

[Amadeus]

Let's say Nixon is not able to run in 1960 -- perhaps his phlebitis emerges a decade earlier (or he is killed in Caracas for a more dramatic POD) -- would Rockefeller win the GOP nomination fairly easily? Who would his running mate be? How would he fare against, presumably, Kennedy? And what would a Rockefeller Presidency look like? I tend to suspect very much like a JFK/LBJ analogue myself (the electoral maps would look very interesting -- he was very close ideologically to the Kennedies for one...) -- and what long-term consequences does that have on the GOP or emergence of the New Right?

JFK at one point said he would've lost to Rockefeller. Supposing Rockefeller wins, he might follow up the Bay of Pigs with air support and ground troops. In his biography of Rocky, Richard Norton Smith describes how Rockefeller and Rumsfeld were united in being stalwart anti-communists during the Ford years. Not only that, but Rockefeller was more anti-communist than Goldwater or Reagan.

However, Rockefeller was a social liberal so maybe there'd be a Republican version of Medicare and/or civil rights.

 

[Derek Jackson]

If there were a serious attempt to use US forces in Cuba I think it would likely be something like Vietnam, certainly deeply unpopular

 

[bguy]

If there were a serious attempt to use US forces in Cuba I think it would likely be something like Vietnam, certainly deeply unpopular

Cuba wouldn't be nearly the quagmire that Vietnam was. It doesn't border any major communist nations like Vietnam does, it's an island that can be easily quarantined by the US Navy and Coast Guard (cutting the communist rebels off from any outside supplies), it has a much, much smaller population than Vietnam (less than 1/4 the people that Vietnam has) so the US will need a lot less troops to pacify it then were needed in Vietnam, and given how close Cuba is to the United States it will be a lot easier to sell the public on the war than Vietnam was since a communist government just 90 miles off the US coast will seem a lot more threatening to the American people than the prospect of a communist government on the other side of the world.

As for Rockefeller's domestic policy agenda, Rockefeller was the one that forced the Compact of Fifth Avenue on Nixon, so that gives us a pretty good idea of what Rocky's domestic priorities were. On domestic policy the Compact called for civil rights legislation to end segregation and discrimination in voting, housing, schools, and employment, a government health insurance program for the elderly that would include an option to purchase private insurance, federal funding for school construction (to be matched by the states) and expanded student loan programs.

 

[sciscisciortino]

I think this sounds right -- lot of ideological overlaps with JFK. Other good questions: how much does Rocky lose in the Upper South vis-a-vis Nixon? How much does he gain in the Midwest/Northeast?

 

[sciscisciortino]

Personally, I can imagine it mirroring the 1976 map a lot:

 

[Electric Monk]

Theodore H. White in his 1960 campaign book said the only person who got bigger crowds than JFK was Rockefeller in 1959. For that matter the brain trust running the Kennedy campaign figured if somehow Rockefeller got the nomination JFK would lose. Nixon 1960 really didn’t have a patch on Nixon later in terms of staff and planning. Not to mention Eisenhower would properly support Rockefeller versus his OTL “support” of Nixon.

So I’m quite confident in Rockefeller’s victory 1960 myself.

(Not that I ever got to that point but my Democratic Reagan TL would have had Rockefeller win—spoilers!)

 

[Amadeus]

Theodore H. White in his 1960 campaign book said the only person who got bigger crowds than JFK was Rockefeller in 1959. For that matter the brain trust running the Kennedy campaign figured if somehow Rockefeller got the nomination JFK would lose. Nixon 1960 really didn’t have a patch on Nixon later in terms of staff and planning. Not to mention Eisenhower would properly support Rockefeller versus his OTL “support” of Nixon.

So I’m quite confident in Rockefeller’s victory 1960 myself.

Also by 1960 Rockefeller wasn't the archenemy of the conservative movement, so he would probably carry a united Republican vote to victory on election day.

 

[Comte de Geneve]

A key point is that this was before his divorce and relatively quick re-marriage, which was a Big Deal for many Republicans by 1964. That did not make many GOP'ers Happy, and not just the Goldwaterites. In 1960 he would have had an united Republican party and just enough moderate appeal to independents to tip the scales in his favor.

 

[Vidal]

You'd see a pretty divisive convention battle between Rocky and Goldwater that would ultimately go to Rockefeller. The Goldwater '64 movement was born out of Taft's defeat in 1952. They tried to convince Goldwater run in 1960, but everyone passed in favor of Nixon. By 1964, the right had a strong grip on the party mechanics and stacked the convention. The future of the right depends on the Rockefeller presidency. I do think he'd push pretty aggressively for Civil Rights, and I think by unifying the Republicans and having Humphrey and Emanuel Celler on his side, he can do it in time for re-election. Maybe it's more watered-down, but it can largely resemble OTL.

Does this motivate Goldwaterites to leave the GOP en masse? If so, do they form a third party or go to the Democrats? It's hard to see them going to FDR's party within 20 years of him dying. The Party retained a focus on social programs even if they weren't always racially inclusive.

 

[Electric Monk]

I feel like there's a diet-Great Society possible -- how would he handle Congress?

Now that is a deeply interesting question.

LBJ is Majority Leader but with his failed bid to be President, and failure as VP candidate, the South (or to be more precise: Russell) does not look at him as their best Southern chance for a President anymore. Coupled with North Dems eagerly on board any additional civil rights passed by Rockefeller that leaves Johnson in a truly tough position.

Given his personality I think he’d dump the South. If he can’t be President there’s no point anymore to finessing civil rights, he can act on his beliefs instead of ambition.

Could do wild things to the party system of the day and as @Vidal mentions above from the GOP perspective as well.

 

[bguy]

Does this motivate Goldwaterites to leave the GOP en masse? If so, do they form a third party or go to the Democrats? It's hard to see them going to FDR's party within 20 years of him dying. The Party retained a focus on social programs even if they weren't always racially inclusive.

I would think the Goldwaterites would stay onboard as they would still like Rockefeller's anti-communism and commitment to a military buildup even if they disliked much of his domestic policy agenda.

 

[Vidal]

I would think the Goldwaterites would stay onboard as they would still like Rockefeller's anti-communism and commitment to a military buildup even if they disliked much of his domestic policy agenda.

Fair. And it's pre-divorce.

 

[Hcira1]

I would think the Goldwaterites would stay onboard as they would still like Rockefeller's anti-communism and commitment to a military buildup even if they disliked much of his domestic policy agenda.

I think they would as well. As long as he wasn't too far to the left in terms of economics, I don't really think you'd have any reason for the GOP's right wing to split off. Its important to keep in mind that this isn't the 1980 GOP conservatives with Helms and Thurmond and that bunch. Instead its guys like Goldwater and Dirksen who were actually pretty supportive of civil rights. Although Goldwater did disagree with aspects of the 1964 civil rights act, lets not forget he was a founding member of the Arizona NAACP and voted in favor of the 1957 civil rights act and the 24th amendment.

What I can see happening here is that the Rockefeller Republicans and the right wing of the party both broadly agree on civil rights issues, making the main points of contention more about the implementation as well as the economic issues. How this could play out is that instead of the strong civil rights act we got in 1964, I think we could instead switch it where the voting rights act actually happens first (Goldwater and his ilk wouldn't have problems with the VRA in my opinion), and then a stronger civil rights act possibly happens later, maybe in a Rockefeller 2nd term. I'm far from an expert on the civil rights movement though, so let me know if im forgetting something that could change all of this.

The more long term effects this could have is that it could kill the GOP in the south (outside of maybe the African-american majority areas) for several decades longer. I do believe the south would still turn to the GOP eventually though because of other factors such as the suburbanization and other issues like abortion and the hard core anti-communism. This could see a much different and weirder coalition in these areas though, where the GOP runs fairly strong among African Americans, suburban folks, and the more mainline religions that are still fairly conservative socially, but remains weak with the rural farmers in particular.

 

[sciscisciortino]

Now that is a deeply interesting question.

LBJ is Majority Leader but with his failed bid to be President, and failure as VP candidate, the South (or to be more precise: Russell) does not look at him as their best Southern chance for a President anymore. Coupled with North Dems eagerly on board any additional civil rights passed by Rockefeller that leaves Johnson in a truly tough position.

Given his personality I think he’d dump the South. If he can’t be President there’s no point anymore to finessing civil rights, he can act on his beliefs instead of ambition.

Could do wild things to the party system of the day and as @Vidal mentions above from the GOP perspective as well.

Could LBJ retain his power remaining in the Senate? It's been floated before his power would have waned if he did not ascend to VP and the Presidency. Getting squeezed between the new crop of liberal Senators who distrusted him and segregationists + not having the power of the executive...