The Johnson Presidency without Vietnam?

Your Majesty, LBJ might bow out for health reasons. Lady Bird had always urged him to "follow the pattern of President Truman" in such a move. Thus, Humphrey gets the nomination in 1968 in all likelihood, and takes Sanford as his running mate.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think LBJ's health was always a mess (being a drinking, red meat eating Texan), and the man was perhaps the Dick Cheney of his day in the number of heart attacks he had. Similarly, he seemed willing to run in the OTL before everything got to him, so I think it's perfectly logical that he'd still go for it. Add that to the fact that I think it was the stress that really ended up killing him, and I think Johnson would be fine, at least for Johnson.
 
Johnson had told Lady Bird, Press Secretary George Christian and Connally in the summer of 1967 that he would not run again- before all the hoopla of '68. Of course, that was before the clincher, but the decision had been made nine months before the announcement. If he runs again, then 1972 will be the two '68 candidates at loggerheads. Poor HHH.
 
Last edited:
Assuming LBJ were not running in 1968 and no Vietnam when does he make he announcement.

I have to say that I rather assume that Bobby would look like a possible candidate- though he might be HHH's vp and think of a later election, he was rather young as Presidens go
 
He wouldn't take the VP slot (for the same reasons as Hillary), whether he ran or not. It's a waste of talent, and seeing that he'd be the second youngest POTUS in US history (43 on Inauguration Day) if elected in '68, Bobby has in theory until 1980 to run. Keep in mind the man is very polarizing (think H. Clinton doubled), and a second Senate term would allow some bills of his own to pass, being among the 20 most junior Senators IOTL. LBJ said it himself IOTL: "I don't object to Bobby becoming President of this country, but not in 1968". Remember, the political aspect of their hatefest was not only about 'Nam, but about the cities, civil rights and various domestic issues as well.

Humphrey and he have a decent personal/political relationship, so it won't be blockaded like Lyndon did IOTL. But yes, he could run in 1968 or 1972 and win. One aspect that might be interesting would be an overhaul of the Indian Act- I think the picture with Pretty Boy in Nebraska tells that story.
 
LBJ died on January 22, 1973, though the stress of a second term could have killed him, however without Vietnam he could have also lived longer.

If LBJ died any time near to when he did in OTL, it would probably butterfly away a Regan presidency. It would set up a stigma against age.
 
@Mark: Yes- that's most likely the case. If Johnson seeks a second term and dies before Jan. 20, 1971, then HHH is only allowed to run in 1972. Then Humphrey-Kennedy (most likely IMO) win in November. I don't need to elaborate further.
 
I think Johnson would live a few years more sans Vietnam. The Presidency in and of itself may be stressful, but Vietnam was a dozen times more so.

I've always pictured him making it to at least 1976.
 

Cook

Banned
He was overweight, drank, and was a heavy smoker.
Stress is often over rated but those puppies will kill you.

Would it be fair to say that he’s often not given the credit he should be because it’s not John Kennedy?
 
He was overweight, drank, and was a heavy smoker.
Stress is often over rated but those puppies will kill you.
So were many other people who went on to live into old age, and I do believe he had actually cut down on drinking and smoking (he may have even given up smoking) during the Presidency, and then went into them again after he left office which deteriorated his health. His father died at 60, his grandfather at I think 74, and his mother at 77 or so, and Johnson died at 64. He had genes for a few more years in him. And the stress of Vietnam and the second civil war that was the 1960's did a number of Johnson that cannot be overstated.

Would it be fair to say that he’s often not given the credit he should be because it’s not John Kennedy?
He's not given credit because he f**ked his legacy up with Vietnam, which overshadowed everything else. It's not fair, but that's the main reason. But scholars have reassessed him in a favorable light.

Kennedy is a part of it, but were it not for Vietnam and everything falling apart because of it, I don't think Kennedy's memory would have done what it did. Johnson would have had credit, albeit Kennedy would still be seen as some immaculate martyr or whatever you wanna call how he is viewed.
 
Last edited:
Cook: you're correct on all counts. Many tend to leave LBJ the "bad" parts of the JFK legacy, not just Vietnam but the cities as well. LBJ passed 90% or more of New Frontier legislation, and many forget that. One person who didn't was the AG, who was quite *vocal* about JFK being denied credit for the 1964 avalanche.
 

Cook

Banned
He had genes for a few more years in him.
Genes are one thing, skyrocketing cholesterol is another.
And the bugger is you can be a fit, non smoking light drinker within a couple of kilos of optimum weight and still have high cholesterol.
Good reason to get a blood test, as my Mrs finally forced me to.

But I digress…
 
Johnson was quite worried, because he said that his family had a history of heart disease and that 60 was old for the men in his family.
 
I'm not saying he'll live to 90. But 65, 66, 67, 68 seem reasonable, especially since stress (and Johnson faced stress which was perhaps comparable to that Lincoln felt during the Civil war) must have taken years off of him, and the nose dive into drinking and smoking after he left office probably did a number too.
 
So Johnson serves a second term, where he probably aims for UHC as the overarching theme. Also deals with bussing, likely similar to Nixon IOTL. By 1972, LBJ will likely keep to his OTL pledge of "non-interference, non-indifference" (as incredulous as it sounds) for the Democratic nomination.
 

Cook

Banned
I’ve taken us off track.
Sorry about that.

I have the strong impression that LBJ is under rated because he followed Kennedy and was the exact physical opposite. I’m betting we all know people who think that Johnson’s reforms were actually the work of Kennedy.
 
Top