TLIAW: Fall Not By Scandal; But By Chaos

carl-albert-u-s-administration-vintage-photo_392236682896.jpg

Carl Albert/Vacant (Democratic) February 22, 1974-October 7, 1974
Carl Albert/
Thomas Moorer (Democratic/Nonpartisan) October 7, 1974-September 5, 1975

Def. Never Officially Elected
Former Positions: Speaker of the House [1971-1974] (along with other high-ranking positions within the Democratic house caucus), Representative from Oklahoma's 3rd District [1947-1974]


Despite his short term and general lack of major legislation passed, Carl Albert's presidency is seen as one of the most defining during the 1970s, and for good reason. In Feburary of 1974, the Watergate Scandal, which was expected to take down president Nixon was in full swing, and it was beginning to create a cynical view of government that would last for long after. However, Nixon was not taken down by Watergate like many expected, instead, a political radical named Samuel Byck would do that. In the morning of February 22, 1974, Byck hijacked a plane in Maryland and crashed it into the White House, killing himself, President Nixon, Vice-President Ford, and hundreds of other cabinet members, tourists, and aides. Byck's audio tapes that he recorded have become a morbid part of American history, as they detailed how Byck planned such an operation and how he did so expecting to be seen as a hero, who was protecting America's poor from Richard Nixon, who he felt was attacking the poor. President Albert's lasting achievement was creating the "Baker Commission", lead by Tennessee Senator Howard Baker, which was quite similar to the Warren Commission, albeit with even more focus on a potential conspiracy, as few believed such a horrendous act could've been committed by one man. The Commission did not find evidence of a conspiracy, but they found several "intriguing" things about Byck's past. The most famous of these was the fact that Byck had attempted to join the Black Panther Party, which would later be used to crackdown on radical groups like the BPP during the "Pink Scare" of the 1980s.

Albert's calls for unity following the assassination of Nixon have become repeated by many politicians attempting to call for bipartisanship. His "National Unity" address delivered on March 4, 1974 is often called one of the greatest speeches in American history, simply for its attempts to "rally around the flag", particularly when Albert said "We as a nation must unify in this time of need, if we collapse, if we spend this time attacking each other over petty reasons and for political gain, our nation could fall into chaos, and if our nation falls into chaos, the people who want to see our nation fall- people like Nixon's assassin- will get their wish." Albert himself never wanted to be a controversial president, and reached far across the isle, even so much as appointing conservative Republicans Paul Laxalt and Jack Kemp to cabinet positions, along with keeping several surviving Nixon appointees. He also chose Thomas Moorer, the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to become Vice-President. Moorer was respected by both Republicans and Democrats, and since Albert wanted to avoid a long and decisive confirmation process, Moorer seemed perfect for the position. He was approved by congress almost unanimously, with only Senator Mike Gravel voting against his nomination. Gravel would later say that while he respected Moorer, he voted against him due to his coldness towards Israel[1] (that would later become much more controversial in the following years) and to uphold a "democratic prescient" of "letting no man be appointed unopposed". Despite Gravel's opposition, Moorer was popular enough that his appointment was supported by people from Jesse Helms to Ron Dellums, which certainly helped him as a vice-president.

However, while Carl Albert was famously much more of a unifying figure than his predecessor Richard Nixon, the two men had similar presidencies. Both Albert and Nixon had scandals before their presidency- for Nixon it was his controversial use of funds given to him by political backers that lead to the famous "Checkers Speech" and for Albert it was his famous drunk driving scandal that would be described as a "moral failing" by some conservative Republicans in early 1975. Both had scandals that affected them in death- for Nixon it was the obvious Watergate Scandal, while Albert had "Koreagate" where it turned out that several Democratic politicians had taken bribes from South Korean political figures. This was only found out about month before Albert's death, and the general reaction from the populace was a massive growth in cynicism. However, Albert, like Nixon before him, was killed before he could face a full reaction to his scandal. On September 4, 1975, Albert was shot and killed by Lynette "Squeaky" Fromme, who was a member of the radical Manson family. The deaths of two presidents in the midst of scandal lead to a uprising of political anger, exhaustion, conspiracy theories, and previously mentioned cynicism. Of course these conspiracy theories could've been a lot more credible if Charlie Manson didn't proudly celebrate Albert's assassination and Byck hadn't already tried to kill Nixon and send tapes to people such as Abraham Ribcoff and Jack Anderson. As for Moorer, his presidency would be a lot more controversial than his appointment to the position of Vice-President, particularly when it came to foreign policy...

[1] Yes, Mike Gravel is enough of a crazy person that he could've voted against Moorer because he was afraid of a military coup or some dumb bullshit like that. However, Moorer was very anti-Israel, even saying "[Did] our government put Israel's interests ahead of our own? If so, Why? Does our government continue to subordinate American interests to Israeli interests?" about the attack on the USS Liberty and even more controversially "I've never seen a President . . . stand up to them [Zionists]. If the American people understood what a grip those people have got on our government, they would rise up in arms.” (in 1983, before his ITTL appointment), which would definitely ignite controversy if people weren't screening him as liberally as McGovern screened Eagleton due to the President dying in a terrorist attack. I would've had John Rarick vote against him instead of Gravel due to general lunacy, but he lost re-election in 1974 so we don't get that experience. Also please don't take this footnote as showing any of my opinions on Israel, I'm much too dumb to deal with an issue as complicated as that and would rather not deal with it here. As usual, if anything I put here is an issue with anyone, I will gladly remove it.
 
moorer_th_nh104887.jpg

Thomas Moorer/VACANT (Nonpartisan) September 5, 1975-January 17, 1976
Thomas Moorer/Dallin Oaks (Nonpartisan) January 17, 1976-January 20, 1977

Def. Never Officially Elected
Former Positions: Vice President of the United States [1974-1975], Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff [1970-1974], Chief of Naval Operations [1967-1970]


Despite the obvious issues that plagued Moorer's short time in office, with the obvious effects of the assassinations of two presidents, if you asked the people who lived under his presidency, that was not the biggest issue of his term. No, the economy was. After economic shocks caused by the deaths of Nixon and Albert, the economy was certainly uneasy, and Moorer would have to do his best to right the ship in a very short time. That did not happen. Instead, what seemed like the beginning of conflict between Israel against Egypt and Iraq began in early 1976. This significantly hurt the oil market, and fears of war were certainly real. These fears were not helped when Moorer was interviewed about what he would do about a potential conflict between the two nations, and Moorer responded by saying "Well, I think we should stay out of the conflict, and if we are forced to the table with the Israeli government, I would heavily advise them to not fight and cause problems for the oil market at home. After all, it's time for an American president to stand up to the Zionists in Israel." He went on to bring up the USS Liberty and national economy. This comment not only infuriated the Israeli government and American Jews, but also caused much fear within American foreign policy makers, as many felt that such a stance could cause Iraq/Egypt to feel like an attack on Israel would be ignored by America. This speech tanked Moorer's popularity, as it definitely seemed to be anti-Semitic, especially with the "Zionists" remark. This actually may have boosted Henry M. Jackson's campaign for president, as his neoconservative policies were generally popular among American Jews, and after strongly responding to Moorer's comments, it seemed as if the Jewish vote, which was a key factor in several primaries.

While Moorer's comments certainly did not help his presidency, vacancies in the Supreme Court and at the position of Vice-President helped partially solidify his legacy. At Vice-President, Moorer originally wanted to pick another nonpartisan military figure as his replacement. However, Moorer’s advisers opposed such an idea, as it would seem like he was giving too much power to the military. Instead, Moorer chose Dallin Oaks, the president of BYU. Oaks was known for being nonpartisan and standing up to both far-left and far-right within the administration of BYU and was famously nonpartisan. Oaks was also chosen because he was a moderately unknown figure, and that could help the administration shut down any doubts about his potential partisanship. Despite this, Oaks did suffer from some anti-Mormon bias, but was still confirmed quickly. Moorer also reportedly considered making Associate Justice of the Supreme Court Lewis Powell his running mate, but he realized that would require a second supreme court nomination process, and he feared that that could become partisan quickly. Moorer also had to fill the vacancy left by William O. Douglas on the Supreme Court, and was persuaded by the majority-Democratic congress to replace him with another liberal. He also wanted to appease more moderate Republicans, and decided to nominate liberal Republican congresswoman Margaret Heckler. The ensuing congressional circus was exactly the opposite of what Moorer wanted. Heckler was attacked for supporting the Equal Rights Amendment, asked many questions relating to her "qualifications" despite being an editor of the Annual Summary of Massachusetts Law and being a three-term congresswoman who had reportedly been considered by Nixon for a position on the Supreme Court. She was confirmed narrowly by a 54-46 margin, thanks in part due to defections by conservative Democrats and liberal/moderate Republicans. In all, Moorer is generally regarded as a "poor" president by historians. While he did make attempts to unite the nation after the assassinations of two presidents, he failed to improve the economy, not insult an American ally with consequences on the domestic front, and appoint a Supreme Court Justice that wouldn't cause a massive controversy. Despite all that, his failures have been generally overshadowed by his successors...

Sorry if this was a little bit short, there wouldn't really be much that would happen under a "national unity" president who only had about a year in office. The next one will be much longer.
 
cDd79p3.png

Henry M. Jackson/Gaylord Nelson (Democratic) 1977-1981
Def. John Connally/John Conlan (Republican)
Former Positions: Senator from Washington [1953-1977], Chair of the Democratic National Committee [1960-1961], Representative from Washington's 2nd District [1941-1953]

The 1976 election was expected to be much more competitive than 1972. Due to scandals in both parties, it was expected that voters would choose an "outsider" candidate. Instead, both the Republican and Democratic parties went hard against that idea. In the Republican party, the only real candidates were John Connally and Howard Baker. Connally himself was very popular due to a "rally around the flag" effect. He had been one of the surviving members of Nixon's cabinet and cashed in on his political points in 1976. Connally won conservative support, mainly due to Baker being generally detested by the conservative wing of the party. Meanwhile, two more minor opponents, Ronald Reagan and Charles Mathais ran as well. Reagan was originally expected to be a major competitor, but due to Connally victories in New Hampshire, Illinois, Florida, and North Carolina, he began to overshadow Reagan among conservative voters. Still, Reagan stayed in the race in California in the hopes of becoming a "compromise candidate" if the Republican convention was deadlocked. He won his home state and Nevada, but neither would have a real effect, and he would just endorse Connally. As for Baker, he simply failed to win any real support. While Republican establishment figures praised him for his "compromise", many of them were also joining Connally's campaign simply because of his original lead in the polls. It was expected he could win liberal support, but that was taken from him by Mathais, who arguably split the vote for Baker in New Hampshire, and took the more moderate states of Massachusetts and Vermont. Instead, Baker just failed to catch up to Connally, even with a surprise Iowa win.

In the Democratic Party, no one knew what they were doing. Former Vice-President Hubert Humphrey officially announced that he would not be seeking the nomination, and the dominant party system from years past seemed broken. Instead, the primaries just felt like a constant war between wings of the party that were just being formed. In Iowa, the first primary state, Fred Harris of Oklahoma managed to take a shocking second-place spot, polling just over governor Jimmy Carter of Georgia and Senator Birch Bayh of Indiana. Meanwhile, the South returned to its natural state, voting for George Wallace in every state except for Georgia, where the previously mentioned Carter managed a narrow win. In the Northeast, Morris Udall and Henry M. Jackson largely fought over states and in the West, that battle was between Jackson and Frank Church. Jackson's campaign was bolstered by large support from labour unions and more moderate voters, which helped him significantly in the midwest and upper south, while his support for environmentalist policies won him the support of many westerners. Meanwhile, Fred Harris waged a stronger-than-expected campaign, picking up left-wing voters in Hawaii, Oregon, and Vermont, while shocking Jackson in the Dakotas due to his strong support from Native American voters. At the convention, a battle was expected, but due to Jackson's environmentalist views and more moderate-conservative policies, he was able to gain support from Udall, Church, and Wallace delegates and eventually the men themselves. Fred Harris was expected to split from the party due to this supposed deal that stood against him, but he instead promised not to run third-party if a plank that promised to fight for Native American rights and picked an environmentalist running mate. Jackson did both, and in fact the whole Democratic platform was a strange mix between many candidates platforms in the hopes of pushing for unity. Jackson chose Gaylord Nelson, a fellow environmentalist and more liberal midwestern senator in the hopes of appealing to more liberal voters.

The general election, however, was much different. While Connally was expected to make the election close, especially due to his more charismatic delivery and the sympathy vote from a political career defined by tragedy, he ended up faltering under pressure. In the Republican primary, he was generally expected to win most states and didn't campaign as hard as he was arguably supposed to. While this was a bit of a problem, he won the nomination anyways, if only because the party machine and conservatives pushed for him hard, often "making him more conservative than he really was". In the general, he failed to gain as much support, and is generally seen as having run a bad campaign. Jackson, on the other hand, generally had to make up to the left-wing of the party, and got many enthusiastic left-wing speakers to help him. Jackson managed a clean win despite 3.4% of the vote going to a left-wing splitoff in Eugene McCarthy, and ended up being inaugurated with expectations of an improvement to the economy and strong environmental legislation. These expectations would be wrong.

If anything defined the Jackson presidency, it was the Middle East. Largely due to foreign policy mismanagement, Egypt and Iraq went to war with Israel in 1977. Jackson, a strong supporter of Israel, joined to assist the nation and managed a victory. However, Israel would not be the United State's biggest problem in the Middle East. Instead, the Arab, Iraqi and Iranian uprisings would be. After decades of dictatorial control supported by the West, Iranian Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi faced massive amounts of civil resistance. However, this would not be ignored by the United States and President Jackson, who sent in troops to defend the Shah's rule. The rebellion was crushed, largely due to American support and would later be helped by the death of the Shah, as his successor, Reza Pahlavi, was only nineteen when he assumed power in late 1979, and was "coached" by president Jackson after taking power, and told to create a legitimate Democracy, which he did. The Iranian Reform of 1980 began a shift from a totalitarian monarchy to a constitutional one. This reform ended up being one of Jackson's proudest moments as president, although many Iranians still despise him for keeping the Shah in power with a military invasion. However, the Iranian Uprising would not die as quietly as many hoped. In early 1980, Shia Islamists, along with many left-wing allies began to rise up in Saudi Arabia, a noted American ally due to decades of government discrimination against them. These Islamists were inspired by the Iranian uprising, and the United States returned to assist them. They crushed the rebellion, largely due to fears of a "far-left" government arising out of such a revolt. However, this became much more controversial at home, as many protested a third American intervention in four years and because some argued against crushing a group protesting government discrimination for pretty obvious reasons. Finally, in Iran, a rebellion also began. However, this one was much different than the revolts in Iran or Saudi Arabia. After a defeat in 1977 to the Israelis, the nation's populace began to resent the government, and due to a significant, you guessed it, Shia population inspired by the Iranian uprising truly began the revolt. However, this one was certainly not opposed by the West, who were generally opposed to Saddam Hussein's rule, and supported the rebellion. Iraq was four-fifths Shia and due to help from Kurds and more moderate Sunnis. This would be handled by his successor, but the aftermath of such a revolt would be handled by Jackson's successor, which would later cause issues in Iraq...

On the domestic front, little was actually done by the Jackson presidency. While he did manage to pass many environmental protections, which helped with Jackson's support among environmentalist left-wing Democrats. Jackson attempted to push forward a more left-wing economic policy, particularly when he attempted to push forward the controversial "Domestic Marshall Plan", which was originally proposed by Whitney Young in the 1960s as way to truly win the "War on Poverty". It would provide federal aid for cities and push for things like affirmative action and greater social programs. This was fought for within the administration by Vernon Jordan, the successor to Whitney Young as President of the National Urban League. However, this plan was blocked by not just Republicans, but conservative Southern Democrats and more fiscally conservative ones like Paul Tsongas and William Proxmire. A large-scale rebellion within the Democratic party began to shake partisan confidence and did not give many people hope for Jackson's re-election chances. Not only that, but the economy was hurting even more after Jackson's presidency. Even more conflicts in the Middle East had caused a massive oil shock just during a period that was crucial for Jackson's potential re-election.

1980 would be a terrible year for the Democratic party as a whole. For one, Jackson faced two different and mildly successful primary challenges. The first seemed obvious ever since Jackson had been elected. Fred Harris, despite his enthusiastic endorsement of Jackson in 1976, had grown to be a left-wing critic for his foreign policy decisions. He had returned to politics in 1978, winning a senate election off the back of a very strong David Boren gubernatorial campaign that gained 70% of the vote. Harris had returned to his 1976 form, criticizing hawkish foreign policy, calling for bigger economic reforms than the one that almost split the Democratic Party in two, and attacking Jackson for not living up to his reputation on Civil Rights. On the right, representative Phil Gramm of Texas ran in the hopes of riling up conservative Democratic voters. The Harris campaign did have some pretty major successes, winning many key states, but failing to take the nomination from Jackson. Gramm on the other hand, only won Arkansas, and decided to support Jackson. Harris, however, decided to split from the party. Harris decided to form the Freedom Party, and was joined by representative Ronald Dellums of California. In the Republican Party, governor Richard Lugar won his party's nomination as an "anti-establishment" conservative. He swept conservative voters after presumptive candidate Ronald Reagan decided against running due to health issues. However, Lugar's nomination caused a split lead by more liberal Republican members, even after he chose the socially-moderate Jack Kemp as his running mate. This split was lead by John B. Anderson, a liberal congressman from Illinois who ran a moderately successful Republican primary campaign. Anderson chose former Senator Edward Brooke as his running mate, and hoped to bring back the power of the liberal Republican "Eastern Establishment". A fifth campaign, lead by 37-year-old Libertarian nominee David Nolan hoped that with many people leaving both major parties, they could stand out and win a solid bloc of voters. His running mate, David Koch, was extremely wealthy and pledged a portion of his fortune to the campaign. It seemed as if the United States was finally leaving the two-party system....
 
Honestly Heckler may be quite good for conservatives in the long run. I'd hazard a guess and say she may end up like Byron White :)love:) on the SCOTUS, generally moderate-liberalish but having some notably conservative positions, mainly on issues like abortion...

@Gentleman Biaggi how dare you not go with Jackson/Bayh, that's like the only acceptable Jackson led ticket possible! :p
 
Honestly Heckler may be quite good for conservatives in the long run. I'd hazard a guess and say she may end up like Byron White :)love:) on the SCOTUS, generally moderate-liberalish but having some notably conservative positions, mainly on issues like abortion...

@Gentleman Biaggi how dare you not go with Jackson/Bayh, that's like the only acceptable Jackson led ticket possible! :p
No
Henry and Gaylord are the only acceptable people to run our great nation!
 
No
Henry and Gaylord are the only acceptable people to run our great nation!

Scoop and Gaylord sounds like some sort of sitcom that lasted for a season in the seventies and likely had a recurring cast character who was acted by someone who would get their big break on another more popular sitcom years later.
 
Scoop and Gaylord sounds like some sort of sitcom that lasted for a season in the seventies and likely had a recurring cast character who was acted by someone who would get their big break on another more popular sitcom years later.
I’m gonna make a minor member of Jackson’s administration president now
 
5be1b4363ca91.image.jpg

Richard Lugar/Jack Kemp (Republican) January 20 1981-April 5, 1981
Def. Henry M. Jackson/Gaylord Nelson (Democratic) John B. Anderson/Edward Brooke (Independent) Fred Harris/Ron Dellums (Freedom) David Nolan/David Koch (Libertarian)
Former Positions: Governor of Indiana [1977-1981], Mayor of Indianapolis [1968-1976]

Richard Lugar was elected in 1980 as the voice of a growing conservative movement. Angered by seemingly everything, from rural conservatives furious at the "Domestic Marshall Plan" to urban conservatives who wanted more "tough on crime policies". Lugar was of course assisted by a bad economy and an incredibly divided opposition. However, due to his youth and enthusiasm, he was often compared to former President Kennedy, a comparison that hit close to home quickly. Despite Lugar's popularity and landslide victory, his election is largely seen as the beginning of the end for the Republican Party. With moderate members splitting to join Anderson's very successful campaign and some rural Republicans voting for David Nolan for any number of reasons, causing a shock Libertarian win in Alaska. Lugar was inaugurated with a struggling economy, a divided and cynical American political scene, and a crisis in Iraq that required immediate attention. Lugar appointed foreign policy experts and former military officials such as Al Haig, George H.W Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, and William Westmoreland to his cabinet. Even with this careful attention being put on foreign policy, the situation in Iraq quickly became a mess, with Kurdish leaders demanding an independent state and fears of aggression between Shiite and Sunni Iraqis rising. Lugar's team heavily considered pushing Humam Hamoudi into the position of president after the conflict, but with his ties to Shia Islamism, which obviously angered the Saudis and Iranians. In the end, Lugar was never able to "fix" the situation in Iraq, and much like Jackson before him, would leave behind a mess.

Despite his early attention to foreign policy and attempts at "reforming" economic policy, Lugar would only be remembered for one thing, and that was his own assassination. On April 5, 1981, another madman in the street got his hands on a weapon, and killed Lugar. Not for political reasons like Oswald, Booth, or Byck had. No, the man in question was John Hinckley, who didn't do it for any reason other than a futile attempt to impress actress Jodie Foster. Americans had seemingly had enough after that. Lugar was supposed to be the face of the future, and like so many other faces of the future, men who could've brought success for the nation, his hopes of changing America were ended before they were implemented. The following weeks were simply political chaos. Vice-President Kemp was inaugurated with a horrid economy and an even worse foreign policy situation. Shortly after his figuration was the epitome of "welp, it can't get much worse", it got decidedly worse when a Sino-Vietnamese border conflict broke out into war. President Kemp had a lot in his hands, and he knew it.

Again, apologies for the shortness of this update, the next two will certainly get much longer
 
Three assassinated presidents in the last twenty years? There's really gonna be a strong outcry for more VIP security after all of this.
 
Top