4nhDUwN.png


The President Lay Dying
A Short Story in Alternate History by Vidal


Introduction

First, you needn’t worry. This is not some long-term project that will in any way jeopardize Jimmy Two. We’ll be back at the peanut farm in no time.

I have loved writing Jimmy Two, but one of the few downsides of the project is that I do not get to write about the period of 1977-1979, two of the most formative years in American history, in my opinion, that set us on the course for a new national politics. Those have been left — as far as Jimmy Two is concerned — per our timeline. I also did not have a chance to explore the 1976 Presidential election in some kind of alternative manner. That, too, was left per our timeline.

So, there’s a lot of interesting events that I did not get to tinker with, and this is my chance to do so.

I had actually envisioned this being my next major timeline, getting written some years down the road after Jimmy Two reaches its inevitable end, but the more I thought about it, the more I realized there was really only one particular aspect of the story that stood out to me, and beyond that the ground would be too similar to Jimmy Two to really merit its own full-length exploration. So, instead, I am writing this as a short story in alternate history.

This TLIAW (though, because I am actually attempting to write it within the week, it is more likely to turn into a timeline in awhile) will focus on the alternate presidency of Hubert H. Humphrey, elected not in 1968 but in 1976. It will be a brief presidency — a presidency so short it makes Kennedy’s reign look interminable — but there will be plenty of intrigue for all of us as we look at what might have been.

Hubert Humphrey died on this day 45 years ago. He is, perhaps, one of the greatest presidents we never had. In the 1940s, he was an early and vociferous voice in the advocacy for civil rights. In many ways, he is responsible for the creation of the modern Democratic Party. He was unafraid of a Dixiecrat walkout. Unafraid of the political costs. As his career progressed, his politics became more complex. His tenure as Vice President was marred by the Vietnam War, and the 1968 Democratic National Convention is a blight on our past that is hard to disassociate from the eventual nominee himself. But when you look at the Nixon presidency — the Chennault Affair, the Pentagon Papers, Watergate — it is hard to not look back on Humphrey with a certain sense that it should have been him in that chair.

I do not quite tell the tale of that presidency because, in this timeline, Humphrey is elected in 1976. But I do hope to paint an interesting tale of what might have been. It may dip a little too far into House of Cards for some readers, and I respect that criticism, but, again, all we can try to do on this site is balance the interesting with the plausible.

More than a story about Humphrey, it is a story about — you guessed it — Jimmy Carter. The man Washington would do anything to keep from the presidency. So, I present to you: The President Lay Dying. I hope you’ll come on this journey with me and enjoy it for the exercise that it is.


Vidal
January 13, 2023



tFdGddL.jpg

“It is not what they take away from you that counts. It’s what you do with what you have left.”
-Hubert H. Humphrey

“I am not crying now. I am not anything.”
-William Faulkner,
As I Lay Dying
 
Really interested in how you’ll tackle this. Also agree with you on 77-79 as well as Humphrey, who in my eyes is more than anyone representative of the Democratic Party in the era from FDR’s death to the Reagan presidency. Humphrey’s style of ADA New Deal Liberalism came to define the third quarter of the 20th century.
 
I wouldn’t say he really ran in ‘76. People supported him but he discouraged running. Looks like that’s not the case here.
60, 68, 72, 76... Poor Humph
Seems like he was prone to bad luck. In ‘60 he lost to JFK charisma, in ‘68 he became to closely identified with Johnson’s unpopular policies, and in ’72 the echoes of Johnson’s Presidency haunted him.
 
I wouldn’t say he really ran in ‘76. People supported him but he discouraged running. Looks like that’s not the case here.

oh yeah I meant ITTL it’s his fourth!

Seems like he was prone to bad luck. In ‘60 he lost to JFK charisma, in ‘68 he became to closely identified with Johnson’s unpopular policies, and in ’72 the echoes of Johnson’s Presidency haunted him.

Yep…. And also in 72 there was a misunderstanding of how the primaries had changed the game
 
oh yeah I meant ITTL it’s his fourth!



Yep…. And also in 72 there was a misunderstanding of how the primaries had changed the game
I've always wondered if Humphrey managed to elbow past McGovern in 1972, would that set up McGovern up for 1976? The most of the country by '76 was more anti-establishment, anti-corruption, fresh start. It's conceivable that McGovern could've tapped into that energy, especially if he kept his grassroots outreach.
 
I've always wondered if Humphrey managed to elbow past McGovern in 1972, would that set up McGovern up for 1976? The most of the country by '76 was more anti-establishment, anti-corruption, fresh start. It's conceivable that McGovern could've tapped into that energy, especially if he kept his grassroots outreach.
It's extremely difficult to figure out because you have two competing factors at work here. On one hand, as badly as he lost in 1972, McGovern's candidacy was the first time that people hoping for an anti-establishment/fresh start candidate really had someone to rally around and support. If Nixon beats a more traditional Democrat, even by a lesser margin, it's entirely possible that the anti-establishment just simmers and isn't able to manifest itself like it did IOTL 1974, making it harder for McGovern to win the nomination because those vibes don't exist to the same degree. Alternatively, McGovern's losses in 1972 and 1980 undersell the fact that he was an extremely talented politician and organizer who singlehandedly made the Democrats viable in South Dakota after a period where they had two total seats in the state legislature, and who won his 1968 election in a landslide despite running as an extremely liberal candidate with national headwinds.

Or, in short: while I don't think that McGovern has the same factors going his way IOTL for the nomination in 1976, he's mentally and organizationally in a better place to further his political career without losing the general in 1972.
 
Last edited:
It's extremely difficult to figure out because you have two competing factors at work here. On one hand, as badly as he lost in 1972, McGovern's candidacy was the first time that people hoping for an anti-establishment/fresh start candidate really had someone to rally around and support. If Nixon beats a more traditional Democrat, even by a lesser margin, it's entirely possible that the anti-establishment just simmers and isn't able to manifest itself like it did IOTL 1974, making it harder for McGovern to win the nomination because those vibes don't exist to the same degree. Alternatively, McGovern's losses in 1972 and 1980 undersell the fact that he was an extremely talented politician and organizer who singlehandedly made the Democrats viable in South Dakota after a period where they had two total seats in the state legislature, and who won his 1968 election in a landslide despite running as an extremely liberal candidate with national tailwinds.

Or, in short: while I don't think that McGovern has the same factors going his way IOTL for the nomination in 1976, he's mentally and organizationally in a better place to further his political career without losing the general in 1972.

This is really good insight! Much appreciated.
 
Top