Twists and Turns: An Alternate 1952 and Beyond

[Gentleman Biaggi]

In 1956, the French people went to the polls to elect a new Prime Minister. The years after the 1951 election had been chaotic. The nation lost power in Indochina, gave Independence to Morocco and Tunisia, declared war on Iran with several of France’s allies, and most importantly the Algerian conflict began. All the conflicts France was in had a negative effect on the economy and that helped the Communist Party of France rise in the polls. The Communists actually managed to win 178 seats largely due to the economic situation of France and hopes of peace between Algeria and France. A bigger part of the election was the right-wing nationalist Poujadist movement (the movement was represented by the Union of French Fraternity or the UFF) winning a higher percentage of the vote than all parties except the Communists with 15.12%. The Poujadist Movement’s victories were largely based off a perceived need for economic change and anti-Communist sentiments. In the following days and weeks, chaos reigned in France. Two parties opposed to the centrist ruling Third Force Coalition held most of the power in the legislature, and few parties wanted to form coalitions with the Communists or the Poujadistes. Politicians feared that a civil war or coup could occur without a coalition. However, the right-wing of France lead by the UFF, the National Centre of Independents and Peasants, and the Rally of Republican Lefts (an ironic name as the party was quite right-wing) formed a coalition government. The chaos that occurred after the 1956 election would cause Republicans and Gaullists to rise.


In 1961, the nation of France was even more worse-off than in 1956. The right-wing coalition that lead France had been dysfunctional and depleted the nation’s resources in the Iranian and Algerian wars while also funding a South Vietnamese coup that started a civil war. That mixed with the oil and gas shortages that occurred as a result of the Iranian war hurt the French Economy severely and lead to a rise in popularity for the Communists and the Republicans, as both capitalized on the chaos of the Right Coalition. Most Republicans were either a part of the big-tent Front Républicain Populaire (Popular Republican Front or FRP), or they were in the Gaullist Centre National des Républicains Sociaux (National Centre of Social Republicans, or CNRS) that had almost collapsed in 1956. Both parties saw a rise in support as the chaos of the French Fourth Republic. The FRP was lead by former Radical PM Edgar Faure, who had narrowly won the FRP leadership election against Liberal Nationalist JacquesSoustelle. The CNRS and FRP’s gains could not come close to the gains of the Communists and the SFIO. As the economy worsened and Peace movements grew in popularity, the two left-wing parties rose. Much of the Nationalization that had occurred due to the Communists and SFIO was reversed by the Right-Wing government, and as the economy worsened[1], Nationalization grew in popularity. Surprisingly, many members of the Communists began to support Republican ideals or at least a turn towards First-Past-The-Post as the Communists had won pluralities in all but one election so far but had never formed a government due to the proportional representation of France basically demanding that coalitions be formed. The members of the Government Coalition collapsed, especially the UFF, which collapsed as their populist rhetoric fell flat when looking at all the problems that plagued their government. The party fell from 15% of the vote to 9%. Meanwhile, the Radical-UDSR and MRP parties had minor drops in popularity as the Republicans and Gaullists took some of their support.

In the end, the Communists gained the highest amount of single-party seats in the French Fourth Republic’s history while the FRP, MRP, and CNRS formed a “grand coalition” of sorts, as FRP leader Edgar Faure was known for his sympathy towards Gaullists and hoped to use them to pass Republican legislation. The three parties began to push for a stronger presidential position that would be elected by a two-round popular vote system, as to avoid all the chaos of the Fourth Republic. The plan was supported in the legislature, as several members of the Communist Party, SFIO, and other parties supported a presidential system, and it lead to a national referendum, where the presidential system was approved with 62% of the popular vote. The presidential era of France had begun.​

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry about the lack of a wikibox, I'm still on vacation (and I'm slightly lazy), but when I get back I'll make one

 

[Gentleman Biaggi]

Going into 1962, Massachusetts governor John Volpe was very unpopular. In 1960 he only beat Joseph D. Ward by 0.9%, and many claimed voter fraud. This controversial start was a bad start, but it only got worse from there. The Massachusetts economy wasn’t improving as much as the nation’s, and, the issue of segregated schools in Massachusetts that would dominate the state’s politics for the next few decades exploded on the scene with protests, petitions, and even violence. An infamous example of this was when a Nation of Islam protest occurred in Boston in 1961, several white Bostonians attacked the group, causing a fight between the two groups that even featured guns used by both sides that had to be calmed by police and made national headlines, hurting Boston’s reputation. This only made Volpe more unpopular, and his defeat was ensured.


In the lead-up to the election, many began to wonder if John Volpe would be primaried. The name that was most thrown around was popular Secretary of State Edward Brooke, who had become a critic of Volpe and during the Dirksen administration had sided with Stassen as a state senator in 1956 and even considered switching parties. However, Brooke feared his race would become more of an issue in such a polarizing election, and even if it wasn’t, he feared that the Republicans would still get smashed in the general election, so gaining the nomination would be useless. Instead, Brooke ran for the House of Representatives and managed to defeat Tip O'Neill for his seat. With that, Volpe had little opposition in the Republican primary and easily won re-nomination despite his unpopularity. Meanwhile, the Democrats also had a quick nomination. Joe Kennedy’s seventh child, Robert Kennedy, a clean attorney with charisma and name recognition. He was an easy choice for the Democrats and faced no opposition for the Democratic nomination. The craziest part of the election was the Constitution Party nominee, Richard Pavlick. The Massachusetts Constitution Party had little power in the state, and they had to nominate Pavlick, a Far-Righter who was known for his crazed rants at town hall meetings. Pavlick’s outdated political positions actually had the Constitution Party poll behind the Socialist Workers nominee, Henning A. Blomen, an avid DeLonist.


As the campaign wore on, it became clearer and clearer that Kennedy was going to crush Volpe. Kennedy’s campaign had the weight of the national party swinging behind him while Volpe struggled to get anyone to campaign for him. Not only that, but Pavlick’s anti-Catholic campaign that was opposed by many members of Northeastern Constitution Parties like William Buckley helped Kennedy. Kennedy announced he would take a hard line on the Nation of Islam and was quite pro-gun control, two positions many Northeastern Constitution Party members supported. In the end, Kennedy had swept Volpe into political irrelevance and would spend the next two years building a complex political legacy in Massachusetts.

By 1963, Thomas D'Alesandro Jr. was an institution in Baltimore. He had been representing Baltimore in some way or another since the late 1920s and had been mayor of the city since 1947. However, in that time he had been accused of corruption, and was generally a controversial mayor. After 16 years in office, many people were looking for a change of pace, and there were even predictions that he would lose in the primaries. Instead, he lost to a man who would become one of the most controversial politicians in Maryland history (a very high bar)[1].

As D'Alesandro was increasingly controversial, he received a primary challenge from former FBI agent J. Harold Grady. Grady had run against the mayor in 1959, but his 1963 campaign recived more support. Baltimore had been suffering through racial conflicts throughout the early 60s, and Grady attacked D'Alesandro for allowing them to happen. In the end, D'Alesandro won re-nomination, albiet narrowly. However, Grady announced a Independent Campaign to oppose D'Alesandro, and billed himself as a "Reform Democrat". He originally had large amounts of support but lost it as the general election went on. The Republican Party had not held the position of Mayor in 16 years, so the nomination was wide open. With this, Ted Agnew, a 45-year-old state senator elected in 1958 was easily nominated. Agnew became a rabid populist on the campaign trail, attacking D'Alesandro for potential corruption, and declaring that "Baltimore needs a clean mayor". The Constitution Party saw a chance to take power in the city, as Maryland was quite Conservative. With this, they nominated segregationist George P. Mahoney quite easily, hoping that he could turn Baltimore into a Constitution state. However, Baltimore had a very large African-American population, and much of it despised the Constitution Party and Mahoney.

At the start of the campaign, many were expecting D'Alesandro and Grady to be the real competitors with Agnew in a close third and Mahoney far behind. However, Agnew's campaign was very active, and Agnew's firey populism helped his campaign rise in the polls. Much like senator George Wallace of Alabama, Agnew tried to walk the thin line of gaining both African-American and White Working Class supporters. He gained White Working Class supporters by attacking D'Alesandro's corruption and failure to help them in his 16-year tenure, while he played to African-American voters by handing out flyers in African-American areas that attacked D'Alesandro's support of Confederate Statues and the poor living conditions for Baltimore African-Americans. His firey campaigning and ability to appeal to Minorities and White voters hurt Grady's campaign. In fact, Grady's campaign completely collapsed because of Agnew's increasing support taking support away from him. Many polls actually had him behind Mahoney, as Mahoney had a dedicated base. As the campaign wore on, Agnew kept rising in support, but in the days before the election, no one was sure if he would win or not.

In the end, Ted Agnew narrowly won the election. D'Alesandro graciously admitted defeat, but his political legacy would grow due to his children's political asperations. Agnew's victory began his national prominence, and would be seen as a stepping stone to his future career as a national politican.


[1] Sorry @Oppo

 

[Gentleman Biaggi]

Meanwhile In the Soviet Union[1]

To many, the greatest event of the 1950s[2] was the death of one of the worst men in history, Joseph Stalin. The man responsible for the deaths of as many as 60 million people. However, many in the Soviet Union mourned his death and in the Soviet Union he is still often seen as a great leader and politician. Either way, Stalin’s October 8, 1952[3] death is very influential in the history of the United States and the Soviet Union.

In the years following Stalin’s death, the Soviet Union became chaotic and the leadership of the Soviet Union was heavily split. For nine days in 1953, the government was lead by Georgy Malenkov, however Nikita Khrushchev took power instead, and he managed to hold on for four years. However, he was unpopular with the Conservatives in the Communist Party of the Soviet Union for his opposition to some of Stalin’s policies and was forced to resign. Khrushchev was replaced by Vyacheslav Molotov, a longtime conservative and former Minister of Foreign Affairs. Molotov was infamous for the Molotov-Ribbentrop Act and is the namesake of the Finnish Molotov Cocktails. However, his time as Soviet Leader was much less controversial than his namesakes would have you believe. He began by quietly funneling money to the Iranian government. His rationale here was that they could embarrass the United States by defeating them and then winning favor with the Iranian government. This rationale proved correct, as the Iranians defeated the United States (along with their western allies) and after the war, Iranian-Soviet relations would improve substantially.

After the war ended, the Soviets decided to meat with the Iranians and form an alliance of sorts.While this was controversial with some conservatives in both nations, as Iran wasn’t truly Communist and the USSR was, many people saw the benefits of the alliance. Iran’s victory over the “colonialist invaders” of the UK, the US, a broken France, and Saudi Arabia (only after Iran began accepting Soviet support) had inspired many anti-Colonialist groups in the Middle East and Africa. These groups saw America (or Israel, or France, or Spain, or Britain, or Portugal) as the enemy, and the Soviets wanted to use that to their advantage. Not only that, but Iran was in a difficult spot. Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Israel all generally hated Iran, and they were growing in strength, not to mention the United States and a stronger France. Iran might not have been the biggest supporter of Communism, but their rivals were growing in power, and they needed support from someone. With this, negotiations between the two nations began on October 23rd, 1963. After two weeks of negotiations, the two nations agreed to a pact. Iran would officially enter an alliancewith all Warsaw Pact nations, Red China, Mongolia, North Vietnam, North Korea, and Haiti. It would also provide assistance to the Congolese Troops in the Congolese Revolutionary War, and to the Communists in South Africa[5]. Meanwhile, the Soviets would provide millitary assistance. The negotiations were important to the future of Iran, as Mosaddegh noticed Foreign Minister Hossein Fatemi‘s ability to negotiate and work for Iran, and he became his de facto replacement when he resigned in 1964. The Iranian-Soviet relationship grew under Fatemi, as he had great respect for the Soviets after the pact was signed. It was clear the Soviet Union began a new era in the Middle East.

[1] This update is long overdue, so if anything I wrote previously contradicts this, it’s because Imight’ve had different ideas for this TL was before I wrote this
[2] Not a high bar. The 50s for Americans is remembered for a massive economic recession, a terrible war, losses to the Soviets, political turmoil, etc. Because of this, Paleoconservatives don’t exist ITTL
[3] POD’s too late for me to change
[4] this will be quite important in, oh I’d say... two updates...
[5] I wrote this on my phone because I’m away from my computer right now, if any words are combined, it’s a random glitch.

 

[Gentleman Biaggi]

Going into the 1962 midterm elections, many people thought the election would be continued gains for the Democrats, as most of the seats were held by Republicans and the Democrats were quite popular. However, special elections for cabinet members in the Conservative states of Montana and Iowa turned into Republican victories. To the Democrats credit, they did manage to hold on to Louisiana, a state expected to go to the Constitution Party, and defeated Senate minority leader Richard Nixon with popular Californian Representative Pat Brown. Nixon’s "shady" tactics were seen as causing Republican victories in the close states of Oklahoma and Illinois. Not only that, but two of their losses were in states that were expected to go to the Republicans/Constitution Party, South Carolina and Florida, so that made the pain hurt less. The election was also noteable for the leadership changes in both the Constitution and Republican parties. James Eastland had suffered a heart attack, and while he lived, had stepped down from his position as party leader, and was replaced by South Carolinian senator Strom Thurmond, who would serve as the party's leader until his defeat in (RETRACTED). Meanwhile, the Republicans lost their leader, Richard Nixon and replaced him with long-time southern moderate John S. Cooper after his defeat. All in all, the 1962 senate elections proved that the Republicans were not going to collapse, like some predicted after their shellshockings in 1958 and 1960.

In the house, the election did not fair well for the Democrats, if anything their past successes seemed to have been the reason for their failure, as the Democrats sweeping wins in 1958 and 1960 had given them a verity of seats that were Republican strongholds before 1958. Now, they were turning back to the Republicans. Not only that, but the presence of the New York Liberal party proved to be quite annoying, as the party split the left-wing vote in several key New York districts. The Liberals were actually an interesting case as they managed to win 2 more seats due to the defection of Gore Vidal to the Liberals, and a shocking victory from former American Labor Representative Vito Marcantonio, who had moved to the right after his defeat in 1954, and was now no longer seen as a communist-supporting radical. In the end, the Democrats lost 27 seats[1] and were forced to form a coalition with the Liberals of New York to continue John McCormack's soon to be very important speakership. The election was also a win for the Constitution Party, who picked up 14 seats, and began to make an impact out west despite the party's predominantly southern base.

[1] Yes, I know the wikibox says they lost 25 seats, but that box also apparently had 437 seats

 

[Gentleman Biaggi]

South Africa II

By July of 1963, relations between South Africa and most Western nations had completely collapsed. Prime Minister Swart declared that “The United States is the enemy of the South African people” and president John F. Kennedy responded in kind. The continued oppression of many people in South Africa had infuriated American activists, and in July a group of 12 activists lead by future representative Ron Dellums went to Johannesburg and supported a labour strike. Unfortunately, the strike turned violent (as many had in the past few years) and it turned into a firefight between the Union and the government. The 12 activists joined in and 11 were killed. The battle between the union and the government turned into a massive riot and near war until it was stopped. 392 people were killed (most being members of the union, not the government) in one of the worst riots in history. The death of 11 Americans infuriated the United States, and many were opposed to its oppression before the massacre/riot[1].

While the United State’s response was mostly furious, there was some opposition to a potential war in South Africa. Most of it was concentrated in the Constitution party, but some said it wouldn’t be financially smart as the US was undergoing a economic change. However, Ron Dellums, the sole survivor was brought forward and testified in front of congress in support of the war. He answered questions about how he got to South Africa in the first place (the group flew to France, drove to Spain, and then flew to South Africa as Spain and South Africa were allies), their potential affiliation with the heavily hated (by whites) Nation of Islam (Dellums answered no, and emphasized that even if they were, it didn’t matter because 11 Americans and 381 South Africans were dead because of this incident, not only that but two of the men killed were whites and one was from Arkansas). In the end, the senate voted 94-2 to go to war. After the Senate resolution, several other nations declared war too, including, the United Kingdom (although PM Robert Gascoyne-Cecil was originally opposed to war) Canada, France, West Germany, East Germany, Poland, the Soviet Union, Greece, Italy, Turkey, Iran, Indochina, Japan, Haiti, the Republic of the Congo, and others. It was time to end the decades of oppression that had hurt the nation of South Africa.

The beginning of the war would effect two European Empires as well. The first was the United Kingdom and its colony of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland. The federation was a minority-white ruled area and was influenced by South Africa. The white government decided to ally with South Africa, which infuriated the United Kingdom and the colony’s black population. The only problem was the two anti-Federation groups opposed each other too, as the black population generally supported independence and the UK’s government was heavily opposed to losing anymore colonies. Instead, the Federation basically collapsed into a three-way Civil War between Unionists, Nationalists, and the federation’s government. The Rhodesian War was a major part of the South African war and probably dragged the war on for longer as British troops and money was spent in the war.

The second European Empire to be effected by the war was Spain. Spain (along with Portugal) was an ally of South Africa, as there was a heavy Spanish fear of losing their colonies and they hoped South Africa would help them retain those colonies. After the death of 11 Americans, Portugal feared a coup of its government and declared its neutrality in the South African-Rhodesian War[2], Spain on the other hand continued to support South Africa and it infuriated the nation’s African colonies and many European nations along with America. As the war began, the few Spanish African colonies rebelled and a revolution supported by the US, Canada, France, West Germany, Ireland, Mexico, Cuba, and Haiti began, and it outlasted the war in Africa but ended in a rebel victory shortly after and the establishment of a presidential republic.

Back in the United States, the revolution in South Africa had inspired many members of the Nation of Islam. To many, the 94-2 senate vote was incredibly hypocritical as many of the pro-war voters had been pro-segregation. One such example of this was Evan Mecham. Mecham had been a supporter of segregation and was generally known for his racist comments however, he supported the war, stating in a surprisingly eloquent speech that “we need to look at this like Britain should’ve looked at Germany in the 30’s. Instead, they looked away and millions of people suffered. With more and more African nations and South Africa’s former standing as a reigonal power, they may gain more power in Africa, and we cannot allow that to happen.” This was obviously noted, and was brought up in a speech by NoI leader Malcom X who expressed his anger by stating “Every day I see a new congressman- one who had supported the destruction of the Negro race now supporting the war in South Africa because the government there is ‘tyrannical’. They don’t care about that, they’re happy supporting tyrannical regimes in Portugal and Saudi Arabia[3], they don’t care that eleven Americans were killed, no, they only care that two white Americans were killed...”

While many whites, even some members of the Constitution party had supported the war in South Africa, there was some opposition. Most notably, congressman Kent Courtney of Louisiana was opposed to the war and he rallied 22 representatives (all Constitutionists) to oppose the war on the grounds that it would “hand South Africa, and in fact all of Africa to the Communists. Their opposition was unsuccessful, as only they opposed the war (although several abstained or did not show) and the war went on. As the war went on, opposition to the war in SA died out, but opposition to the Second Spanish Civil War was relevant, and left-wing opposition to the United Kingdom’s acts in Rhodesia also grew, but was rarley mentioned in American politics.

[1] Most ITTL scholars (and the Apartheid government) consider the Johannesburg “incident” (an attempted non controversial name) a riot, however, many Pan-African movements (and Haiti’s government) consider the incident a massacre.
[2] Name given to the War in the UK and [NAME OF ITTL MODERN RHODESIA], much like how the Fourth Intercolonial War[4] is called the French-Indian war in the US, as a contrast, some Spainards consider the war to be the “South African-Spanish War” but it is rarley used.
[3] Ironique, Saudi-American relations would collapse in the following years
[4] I’m calling it that, fight me

 

[Gentleman Biaggi]

As November turned to December, President Kennedy was quite popular. Americans were clearly winning the war against South Africa and Rhodesia, and the pro-American forces in Spain were succeeding. On the economic end, the United States was steadily improving, and domestically, a Moderate Republican-Democratic coalition was pushing forward with increases in Civil Rights and D.C being able to vote in presidential elections. With this, Kennedy was very popular and his re-election campaign was expected to go strong. Everything seemed to be coming up Kennedy.

On December 12, 1963, John F. Kennedy was on a motorcade in Austin. The motorcade was full of powerful Texan Democrats, such as Lyndon B. Johnson, senate majority leader, Ralph and Don Yarborough, Senator and governor respectively, John Connally, Lt. Governor of Texas, and a few representatives, along with his brother Robert. The motorcade was quite public and was meant to startup Kennedy’s re-election campaign. Instead, it plays a much more sinister role in our history.

Charles Whitman was a 22-year-old college student known by his friends for his humor, but also his occasionally morbid statements. Leading up to the Kennedy motorcade in Austin, Whitman reportedly said morbid things about Kennedy. Shortly before his death, President Kefauver began loosening divorce laws, which caused Witman’s parents to go through a painful divorce that caused much pain for Whitman, as his father abused his mother for the divorce. This lead to Whitman using drugs and blaming Kefauver (and later Kennedy, despite Kennedy’s anti-divorce views due to his Catholicism and... other factors) for his parents divorce and the abuse his mother faced because of it. So, after hearing of the motorcade, he sought “revenge” on Kennedy. An autopsy after his death found that Whitman had a brain tumor, a possible second explanation for his actions

At exactly 11:47 Am, three minutes before the motorcade was supposed to pass his area, Whitman got on top of a tower overlooking the motorcade, and at 11:51 am, he fired 11 shots at Kennedy. Three missed entirely, two hit and killed two bystanders, one injured a bystander, one hit and injured Johnson, one hit Connally in the back, putting him in a wheelchair for life. Three hit Don Yarborough in the neck, and Kennedy in the head and chest, killing him. The assassin was shot at by a secret Service agent and killed. Just like that, America changed forever.

As Kennedy had no Vice President, Speaker of the House John McCormack entered the presidency, a position he never wanted, but as two presidents died in the past year, he took the position for national unity and promised to not run for re-election. He was replaced as Speaker by Charles Melvin Price, the House Majority leader. The assassination pushed the gun-control movement ahead further, as people were horrified by the killings in Austin. The assassination is seen as the “end of innocence” for a whole generation, and still affects us to this day. The shooting also helped improve the gun control movement's standing, as such an assassination was so shocking, gun control became a major issue again.

 

[Gentleman Biaggi]

By 1963, the United Kingdom’s politics hard fallen into complete chaos. Notably, the Labour Party split in 1956 between right wingers and left wingers after the left took control of the party. The 1958 election was a slaughter of the Labour and its split-off, the Democratic Labour Party. This only boosted the Conservatives, who had won 384 seats in 1955 and now increased their majority with 390.

While the late 50s were a time of Conservative dominance, the 60s certainly didn’t. It started off with PM Anthony Eden’s resignation in 1960 and the 5th Marquis of Salisbury’s takeover of the Conservatives. The new PM, often known by his birth name, Robert Gascoyne-Cecil was known for his right-wing politics and pro-colonialist views which were almost the direct opposite of Eden’s. Cecil was originally a major supporter of South Africa, however, when the United States wanted to overthrow Prime Minister Swart in a coup d'état, he faced pressure from the Conservative party to assist the Americans in a failed coup. This pressure was also used to push through a multi-partisan supported act that would place sanctions on South Africa and declare war on them after the massacre of ANC members following the coup and the Johannesburg riots, respectively. The 5th Marquis’s pro-South African views was a point of many protests around the UK, and made him unpopular with some in the UK.

While the Marquis’s racism, colonialism, right wing views, and probably other things I’d be mentioning if I wasn’t running off high-quality Portland drugs from under ALL our bridges and a Wikipedia page were important, they weren’t the main issues in the campaign. The main issues were the economy and South Vietnam. Like most other Western US-aligned countries at the time, the UK was suffering through an economic recession. However the UK was hurting through much of the early 60s, something that was becoming quite rare as many nations were beginning new economic programs and electing reformist governments. Many people in the UK saw the successes of those nations and began opposing the conservative government because of it. By 1962 though, the economy began to improve and it became less of an issue.

The major issue was South Vietnam. Following a French-lead coup d’état in 1959, a rebellion occurred in the nation, centered around a large anti-French sentiment in the nation. The UK assisted France in the war, and as it slogged on, it became clear to the British public that they were losing the war and that it was losing money that could go to helping the UK and the war in Iran. With this, a group of anti-war activists, united against the war for several different reasons. Some were conservatives, like Enoch Powell, who opposed the war because they feared it would weaken South Vietnam with North Vietnam potentially rising in power and Communism becoming more popular in Southern Asia. Others opposed the war because they thought is was wasteful or pointless. These people created the Freedom party, a group that would fight to end the war in South Vietnam. The Freedom party chose H. Montgomery Hyde, a moderate from Ulster to lead the party.

The election would also have new Labour and Liberal Party leaders, as Aneurin Bevan and Roderic Bowen retired. The Liberals easily chose Jo Grimond to lead the party, while Labour chose John Freeman, a known Bevanite and far-leftist. The choice of Freeman angered many moderates who remained in the party and pushed them to the DLP.

In the lead-up to the election, the Conservatives still had a steady lead. The economic situation, Cecil's controversies, and South Vietnam were major issues, but the party held 377 seats going into election, and the two Labour parties were fighting for second as the DLP began to surge with both major parties moving further away from the Center. The push away from the center seemed to help the big-tent Freedom party and the liberals, as both parties increased their seat totals.However, the Conservatives retained a plurality and formed a coalition with the DLP to provide stability with Rhodesia’s rebellion and the war in South Africa. Despite this, the DLP was so close yet so far away from ending Conservative rule. Meanwhile, Labour leader John Freeman lost his seat and resigned from his position as leader, causing a leadership election that fellow Bevanite Harold Wilson would win narrowly.

 

[Gentleman Biaggi]

School Prayer

“After this ruling it is clear that the US Supreme Court supports taking the god out of our schools and our homes. The Supreme Court has decided to replace the teachings of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ with the Satanic teachings of Communism and Homosexuality! We as Americans cannot let our children fall to these evil devices. Yet despite this- a small group of Americans, likely influenced by the Kremlin and the homosexuals in Western Europe has decided to hand our children to the devil. I ask all the parents of the United States, from California[1] to Maine to protest this horrific and satanic decision! And I ask all of you Congressmen to help them fight this decision by voting for the School Prayer Amendment of 1962!”

-Representative Phyllis Schlafly (C-IL) announcing her support for a School prayer amendment that would overturn the Supreme Court’s 8-0 decision in Engel v. Vitale. The Constitution party would generally oppose the Engel ruling and it’s still a major part of their party today. Schlafly’s opposition to the decision made her a national figure and helped her rise to the powerful position of [RETRACTED BUT STILL HORRIFYING]. Robert Byrd, the senator who made a speech opposing Engel would not have the same fate as he was a [RETRACTED] and was [RETRACCCCTTTTTTEEEED]. The amendment would end up being pushed to the 88th Congress, due to the scope of the Civil Rights Act and Abe Ribicoff’s nomination to the Supreme Court.



“I’m gonna say it right now- Phyllis Schlafly has more spine than anyone on the planet, because it takes a lot to call the French gays who conspired with every Justice except Frankfurter to make it so that Muslim children don’t hear about Jesus all the time. What’s next? She calls Wayne Morse a Satanist? Maybe Massu will bring some Algeria-style war crimes to Illinois’s 24th!”

-Gore Vidal in response to Schlafly’s speech

[1] I’d say Hawaii or Alaska here but I’m pretty sure Hawaii’s too commie and Alaska’s too close to the commies for Schlafly

 

[gap80]

--- Hi! Gentleman Biaggi's out of town this week without his phone, and asked me to post today's update in his place. Enjoy! ---​

Iberia

While the Spanish Civil War (a.k.a. the Iberian War in Portugal, the War of Independence in several areas, and the French-Portuguese war in some Franco apologist circles) is often seen as a war contained within the South African conflict, it is actually a much different beast. The war began in 1963 after Franco refused to drop support to South Africa following the Johannesburg Massacre/Riots. With this, the United States and France began funding anti-Francoist rebels in Spain and Spain’s African colonies. France’s President François Mitterrand also decided to bring Portugal into the war in late 1963. France promised Portugal that if Spain was defeated, they would get the area of Greater Portugal[1] from Spain along with aid from France to fight rebels both in their colonies and any that were in mainland Portugal. Portugal agreed and hoped that the increase in territory would help their nation grow in power and hold on to its colonies.

Another major part of the war was nationalists in Catalonia, Andalusia, and the Basque rising up against the Francoist regime that had been restricting their rights since it rose to power. Most nationalistic movements were armed by the French and in some cases, the Haitians, who were known for mass manufacturing many weapons to be used in Africa and by Soviets, such as the powerful Soviet AK-47 that has become such a staple in Haitian industry that many joke it should be on the Haitian flag. These nationalist groups often resorted to violent tactics, such as bombings and attacks on civilians who refused to ally with them. These tactics received much criticism internationally, however the Francoist regime had also used bloody tactics to stay in power in the past almost 30 years and they used them during the war more than ever. The war’s bloodiness shocked many, but as the main conflict in South Africa was grabbing more attention, it rarely came up. With this, Spain was clearly in for an interesting 1960s.

--- And here's something I made for this: The Joke Flag of TTL's Haiti (hope ya like it, GB!) ---

 

[Gentleman Biaggi]

While many states in the South began a two-party system or in a few cases a one-party system after the formation of the Constitution Party, Kentucky actually shifted to a three-party system like many Western states. With this, the Democrats, hopeful for a win after nearly losing in 1959 decided to nominate Happy Chandler, the former governor, senator, and MLB commissioner. Chandler's past efforts to integrate baseball and general support of integration gave him major popularity among African-American voters in the state. Also, Chandler's fiscally conservative views attracted cross-over Constitution and Republican voters to his campaign. Despite Chandler's dominance in the polls, the Republicans wanted a win and nominated veteran representative Thruston Morton, hoping his Stassen-ite views would help win over liberals unsatisfied with Chandler's campaign. Unfortunately, Morton was more moderate than many thought and publicly endorsed a right-wing Republican-Constitution unity ticket for the house, which hurt him with liberals and had many of them returning to Chandler's campaign or staying home. Meanwhile, the state's Constitution Party had been growing, winning 3 of Kentucky's 7 house districts in 1962. They decided to nominate Eugene Snyder, a more moderate force in the state's party but still a conservative through and through. With Happy leading in virtually all polls, the race for who could be the opposition in Kentucky was seen as more important. In the end, Morton and Snyder were only .3% apart from each other, but Morton took second place. While that happened in the governor's race, in the state house, the Constitution party got second place in total seats, proving that they could become the opposition too. While that was important, the major news coming out of the race was that after 25 years, Happy Chandler would be returning to the governor's mansion, just as popular as ever.

 

[Gentleman Biaggi]

“Former New York Mayoral candidate and McCarthy attorney Roy Cohn has been jailed following a raid on a homosexual nightclub”
-New York Times, 12/14/1963

“Homosexuality, heroin, and Hoover, the Second Red Scare”
-Gore Vidal to an advisor

“Who would’ve thought a major part of the ‘Lavender Scare’ would be a homosexual?”
“Open your eyes, McCarthy and Hoover were gay too”
“What?”
“Gayer than 10 Christmases at once”
-Conversation between state Senator Mo Udall and Barry Goldwater [1]

“I don’t understand why [homosexuality] is such a big deal? After all we’re all born bisexual”
“Care to elaborate on that?”
“No”
-Conversation between Gore Vidal and some reporters

“After his controversial interview on the Roy Cohn scandal it has become clear that because of his sympathy to Homosexuals and their “lifestyle”, Gore Vidal is a hidden Homosexual...”
“What the fuck?”
“...And should therefore be removed from the House of Representatives”
“What the fuck?”
-Interaction between Gore Vidal and Ken Courtney on the House floor

“Effort to recall Gore Vidal from the House begins”
-New York Times, 12/29/1964

“While Mr. Cohn has been an opponent of our people since he began to work with McCarthy; I feel that we in the gay community should forgive him and use his jailing as a symbol. A symbol that no matter how powerful you are, no matter how famous you are, if you love someone society says you’re not supposed to, you will be hated. So I ask all of us to rise up and fight for our rights in the streets just like Negros and women did!”
-Frank Kameny, 1/5/1964

“Northern Irish politician and Freedom Party leader H. Montgomery Hyde announces support for Frank Kameny’s homosexual rights movement”
-New York Times, 1/7/1964[2]

“Civil Rights activist Baynard Rustin announces his homosexuality and begins to work with other homosexuals towards starting protests for their rights”
-Washington Post, 1/11/1964[3]

“Homosexual Rights protest in New York City turns violent following an attempt from police to arrest several protesters.”
-New York Times, 1/24/1964

“Hear that Jim? Your city’s under attack from homosexuals”
“Shut the fuck up Phyllis”
-Conversation between Constitution party representatives Phyllis Schlafly and Jim Buckley

The arrest of Roy Cohn under anti-sodomy laws was a major turning point for the GLBTI[4] community. To them, Cohn’s arrest showed that no matter who you are you could suffer for your homosexuality. The recall campaign of Gore Vidal after he showed slight support towards their cause only angered them more and that anger culminated in the January protest of 1964. On January 24, 1964, a group of GLBTI protesters and their allies began to protest the discrimination they faced every day. The police, under strict orders to arrest protesters due to the fact that many of them had obviously broken anti-sodomy laws and were also “disturbing the peace” attempted to arrest protesters. Many protesters resisted arrest and were thus attacked with police dogs or batons. The news of this brutality shocked the world, much like the brutality on African-Americans in the South has shocked Americans into rethinking their opinions. Days after the protests, many pro-GLBTI organizations were formed and with that, the gay rights movement was kicked off.

[1] Apologies to @Kovalenko as I got that quote from one of his later Losing the Peace (a great TL!) updates

[2] @Gonzo

[3] OTL, Rustin was outed by Storm Thurmond, the most liberal South Carolinian until Lindsay Graham

[4] GLBT is an acronym often used instead of LGBT by some in OTL, ITTL it’s the main acronym, I added the “I” for intersex, just like the acronym LGBT did IOTL

 

[Gentleman Biaggi]

Chaos in Asia[1]

“Tensions rise between the Red Chinese government and the Indian government over the 3,225-kilometre Himalayan bordér between the two nations”
-BBC, 3/4/1964

“In the event of a war between Red China and India, we must protect our Indian allies”
-Fmr. Vice-President and current “Some Guy”[2] Walter Judd on the situation in the Himalayas

“The Republic of China announces that if India recognizes it as the true Chinese government, it will support India in a potential war with Red China”
-Washington Post, 3/7/1964

“In the same nature as the Republic of China, the Soviet Union, Mongolia, and North Korea announce that if a war between India and the PRC occurs, they will ally with the PRC”
-New York Times, 3/9/1964

“FUCK”
-Presidents John McCormack and François Mitterrand at the same time

“If a war between India and the People’s Republic of China were to occur, we would stay neutral, as we have no real grounds to attack, but if the People’s Republic and their allies were to attack our allies in the Republic of China, Japan, or Republic of Korea, they can expect swift and painful action”
-John McCormack in an address to the nation, 3/10/1964

“What he said”
-François Mitterrand during McCormack’s speech

“During this period of tension between India and the People’s Republic of China, the South Korean government began purging many left-wingers due to 88-year-old South Korean leader Syngman Rhee‘s fear of a Second Korean War starting as a result of a potential PRC-India war.”
-Some Internet Video, the future

“Several capitalist nations come to India’s aid with tensions growing. The United Kingdom, Cuba, Japan, Portugal, the Republic of Korea, the Dominican Republic, Malaysia, and South Vietnam have all agreed to support India in the event of a war with the PRC”
-The Oregonian[3], 3/13/1964

<very nervous laughter>
-Probably a lot of people from 3/7/1964-TBD

The rampant escalation of the PRC-Indian border tension was to be expected if you knew the contex around the time. At the time, the ROC’s government and people were getting quite nationalist due to the assassination of Chaing Kai-shek and had fears of being replaced by the PRC as the “official” Chinese government, so it made sense why they would attempt to ally with India against the PRC. The ROC’s Roc-solid (see what I did there?) alliance with the US threatened the PRC’s government and plans in the war and they went to get help from their allies, thus causing the massive mess. However, the United States, battered from the war in South Africa/Iberia, two presidental deaths in 1 year, fears of a Civil War in Chile, fears of a war in Hispaniola, fears of a war in the Middle East, again, fears of a Civil war in Portugal, and a recovering economy tried it’s hardest to be neutral while not giving in to the Communists. Wether or not they succeeded... is for me to know, but as the weather warmed, there was a lot of fear that more than the weather would go hot...

[1] Alternative names: include Chile and call it straight-up “Chaos”, or just “Guys pls call this a dystopia already”
[2] @GrayCatbird42
[3] Yeah that’s right we can report on international news TOO

 

[Gentleman Biaggi]

Oh yeah @Gonzo and @Bulldoggus have wanted this since forever, so I half-assed it like the Roger from American Dad I am:

Class 1 Senate Seats (up for election in 1964; last elected in 1958):

Arizona: Evan Mecham (C)
California: John J.K (the “K” is for Korea) McFall (D)
Connecticut: Thomas J. Dodd (D)
Delaware: Elbert Carvel (D)
Florida: Spessard Holland (C, because the Florida Democratic party’s a pit)
Hawaii: William S. Richardson (D)
Indiana: Vance Hartke (D)
Maine: EDMUND MOTHERFUCKING MUSKIE (D)
Maryland; Samuel Friedel (D)
Massachusetts: Tip O’Neil (D)
Michigan: Blair Moody (D)
Minnesota (the non-cool seat[1]): John Blatnik (DFL)
Mississippi: John Stennis (C)
Missouri: Stuart Symington (D)
Montana: Donald Nutter (His real name I swear) (R)
Nebraska: Roman Huskra (R)
Nevada: Howard Cannon (D)
New Jersey: Harrison Williams (D)
New Mexico: Edwin Meachem (C)
New York: Averell Harriman (D)
North Dakota: Quintin Burdick (D-NPL)
Ohio: Stephen M. Young (D)
Pennsylvania: George Leader (D)
Rhode Island: John O. Pastore (D)
Tennessee: Al Gore Sr. (D)
Texas: Ralph Yarborough (D)
Utah: Frank Moss (D)
Vermont: Winston Prowey (D)
Virginia: Harry Byrd Sr. (C)
Washington: Henry M. Jackson (D)
West Virginia: Robert Byrd (C)
Wisconsin: William Proxmire (D)
Wyoming: Gale McGee

 

[Gentleman Biaggi]

Up until the early 70s the Constitution Party was largely lead by Orval Faubus, its founder and general leader. If he had run in 1964, he would've been almost completely unopposed in the primary, but Faubus wanted to focus on being a senator (he won Arkansas's senate seat in 1962) and he saw that the Democrats would have a massive advantage due to the sympathy vote and the records of presidents Kefauver, Kennedy, and McCormack. With this, powerful Utah governor J. Bracken Lee, known for his immense power within the Constitution Party's "Committee". Lee was seen as a candidate who could help the Constitution Party out west, and with the endorsement of Faubus, he was almost guaranteed the nomination. This didn't mean he didn't have opposition though. Robert Byrd, a senator from West Virginia and leader among the Constitution party's "Christian Right" who supported Phyllis Schlafly's school prayer amendment. While Byrd would gain more power in the future, he had almost no chance against Lee.

In the first primary, the Arkansas primary, Lee only faced opposition from a write-in campaign for Faubus that got 37% of the vote to Lee’s 56%. Faubus would later admit he was surprised he only got 37% and if he had actually won he would’ve considered a campaign. The next two primaries in Utah and Ohio were completely dominated by Lee. But in Mississippi where Lee was considered “too Left-wing”, a draft campaign for Mississippi’s white supremacist former governor, Carroll Gartin succeded, and Gartin decided to run in South Carolina, Alabama, and Louisiana too. Gartin was endorsed by people like Representatives Kent Courtney of Louisiana and Thomas Jefferson Anderson of Tennessee. Still, the campaign only managed to win Alabama and Gartin later said he only ran to raise his profile so he could challenge James Eastland in 1966. Byrd’s campaign only won his home state of West Virginia, and even there he only won 48% of the vote against Lee. At the 1964 CPC, Lee was nominated easily by the party and chose Georgia Governor Marvin Griffin as his running mate. Just like that, the Constitution party could extend its reach to the west with Lee as its nominee.

 

[Gentleman Biaggi]

Going into the 1964 Republican Primaries, the liberal wing of the Republican party had an advantage. After 3 straight elections where they were forced to vote for conservatives they had their chance. Liberal Republicans all fell in line behind former Massachusetts senator Henry Cabot Lodge, who had quite a bit of popularity within the party. To many it was pointless to challenge Lodge, but two men did. The first was Joe Foss. Foss was a famed WWII major and senator from South Dakota. Foss only began his campaign due to a key issue to him; gun control. Following president Kennedy's infamous assassination, people began to support gun control out of fear. Foss heavily opposed gun control despite it being a non-partisan issue. In many rural states, gun control was unpopular and Foss began to play to that in the campaign. The second man was Francis Grevemberg, Grevemberg wasn't really a Republican, as he lived in Louisiana, which was a state controlled by the Democrats and the Constitution party. Grevemberg only joined the Republicans to protest the Democrats one-party rule over the state in the 1950s. However, he stayed in the party and even became a state senator. A major part of Grevemberg's campaign was the South. The South was basically controlled by Democrats and the Constitution Party. Without the play to working-class and black voters the Democrats had and the play to conservatives the Constituion Party had, the Republicans had little Southern support. So Grevemberg decided he could attempt a campaign, use the south to gain enough delegates to deadlock the convention and then use that power to become Lodge's running mate. Time would tell if that plan was successful.

The first Republican primary was in Vermont, a state that had been Republican for quite some time. However, Vermont didn't give many delegates and everyone knew Lodge would win it, so it was ignored. The second primary was in Texas. In retrospect this makes basically no sense. Why the FUCK would the Republicans have a primary in Texas be so important when like 5% of the voters in Texas go Republican. Whatever, it doesn't matter. What does matter is the fact that Texas was a very competitive state. It had many voters that supported all three candidates, and as Republicans had a "winner-take-all" system, that was important. The Lodge campaign, knowing it was losing spent a lot of time campaigning in Texas, yet they still lost to Foss due to Texas's famous gun culture. Foss's upset made major news and proved he was a major candidate.

The rest of the primaries were very competitive. While Lodge locked up the Northeast and Grevemberg had the deep south, there was competition in the West and Midwest that was complete with upsets. For instance, Lodge took Utah, a state originally expected to go to Foss. However, Grevemberg failed to win anything North of Kentucky despite some high %'s in Midwestern states. Foss did well in the midwest and west, taking many rural states that opposed gun control. However, the fact that many saw his campaign as single-issue hurt him in other areas and he lost many states he arguably should've won. Lodge on the other hand swept the Northeast and even took some states out of his main area, such as Missouri. While Lodge did quite well, he was just short on delegates and was forced to give the running mate position to Grevemberg[1], who was basically unheard of before the race and was considered unqualified. In fact, he was the first running mate since 1900 who's highest position at that time was member of a state legislature. Foss called the Lodge-Grevemberg deal "corrupt" and after the Republicans openly supported gun control in their platform, he split off to run as an independent.

[1] That's right fuckers, this is the most original AH idea of all time... oh wait this causes Foss to be in a third party? Nevermind.

[2] Also this is the 50th update! Yayyyyyyyyyy

 

[Gentleman Biaggi]

South Africa III
By 1964, the war in South Africa was going quite well for the "Allies". While the United Kingdom was caught up in the Rhodesian war and failing to move troops to South Africa (this might've been intentional, considering the 5th Marquis's opinion on South Africa), most other nations were succeeding. In fact, by October, only the providence of the Transvaal was still under National Party control. This success made the American Democrats very popular, so their candidate <RETRACTED>, naturally preformed quite well. While American forces were a major factor, they were not the deciding factor. For many, the well-trained Communist Army, now under the command of 20-year-old Chris Hani was the deciding factor, as they were able to convince many of the South African working class to join them. The status of Southwest Africa was also important, as there was a heavy pro-Independence sentiment in the area, which assisted the anti-Apartheid forces on the promise that they would gain independence. While this might not have been an entirely truthful promise, it gave the anti-Apartheid forces a boost in said area. Soon, South Africa's resistance would gain control...

That day was surprisingly closer than most thought. On July 4, 1965 (this was slightly intentional), the allied armies would attack and raid the National Party's bunker on the outskirts of Johannesburg. With this, Prime Minister Swart, Defence Minister Jacobus Fouché, President Lucas Cornelius Steyn, Health Minister Albert Hertzog, National Party MP Jaap Marais, Military officials B.G Viljoen, and P.H Grobbelaar along with others were all taken by opposition forces. The fact that Soviet, Red Chinese, and Iranian forces were not present became a major P.R win for president <RETRACTED> (this is despite the fact that many Haitian forces were present and that Hani's Communists were there too). General Rudolph C. Hiemstra attempted to keep the National Party government alive in exile, but it failed quickly. With this, Apartheid was finally dead, and the South African people could get down to work in building a new nation. Their old oppressive leaders would face international scrutiny and most would die. Despite this, Swart would go down in history as one of the most hated men on the planet, and would be executed. The execution of Swart was so popular, Chris Hani jokingly considered making it a "public event". Despite this, Swart would be executed by gunshot exactly four months after his capture, on October 4, 1965. The old South African flag was raised during his death per his final wishes, but it was then burned and the ashes were thrown to protesters. Soon, South Africa would have another major problem, but at this point they were only celebrating.

Yes this was my favorite update to write. Ever.

 

[Gentleman Biaggi]

1960 Democratic Primaries
Going into the 1960 Democratic Primaries, the party was largely united. While the Democrats had their disagreements, none were willing to split off and run as a third party like Joe Foss. The main candidate was obviously Lyndon B. Johnson, or LBJ- as some would call him. Johnson didn't run in 1960 due to fears of an anti-establishment sentiment and didn't give support to any one candidate. However, in 1964, he was ready to return, and much of the party was willing to support him. In the south, George Wallace, the anti-establishment senator decided that he couldn't really run due to his lack of qualifications. His former attorney general and current governor John Patterson also heavily considering a run but decided against it due to his past segregationist views. Both men would support Johnson.

While Johnson was originally expected to win, and win easily, there were other candidates. The most obvious opponent was Hubert Humphrey, the senator from Minnesota, who was the only Democratic candidate from 1960 that hadn't lost a senate election, died, switched parties, or had a corruption scandal. Basically, he was the only viable 1964 candidate from 1960. However, Humphrey was happy as senate minority whip and if anything wanted to become leader, so he cheered Johnson's campaign on, as he hoped his victory would cause Johnson's resignation from the senate. However, a different Midwesterner, governor George McGovern of South Dakota would wage a campaign. McGovern wasn't well-known outside of the Dakotas. However, McGovern's left-populist agrarian policies made a lot of former Humphrey fans happy. Soon he would gain endorsements from such Midwestern power players as Quentin N. Burdick, Frank Church, Glen Taylor, and William L. Guy. Happy Chandler, the newly elected governor of Kentucky also ran as a "Kefauverite" only in the upper south states of Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee, West Virginia, and Kentucky. The fact that Chandler only filed for ballot access in 5 states hurt his campaign in all but Kentucky. Meanwhile another "favorite son" from Alaska, Ed Bartlett ran. With this, the 1964 Democratic campaign could get underway.

The first two primaries, North Dakota and Wisconsin went to McGovern, shocking the world. In retrospect, McGovern had an upper leg in both primaries due to his support in the midwest, but his victories caused Johnson to take notice. Soon, he went all out in the next few primaries and built up a lead. While McGovern would surprise Johnson in a few states (D.C, Nebraska, and Iowa), and Chandler took Kentucky, Johnson's campaign didn't let up, and he easily won. However, with the Republicans growing out west and Humphrey rejecting his offer to become V.P, Johnson chose McGovern. Strangely this would cause the Foss and Johnson campaigns to have candidates from South Dakota and Texas, as Foss would choose Independent (formerly Democratic)representative Harlan Carter from Texas as his running mate. The 1964 election was on.

 

[Gentleman Biaggi]

Just substitute their images with people you would want to play them in the movie version of this timeline.

My gay ass really wants to have Andy Samberg play both characters at once, but wHATEVER

the most liberal South Carolinian until Lindsay Graham

I regret saying this
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The 1964 US election is often seen as a turning point for the US and for the world. In the United States, McCormack's controversy-free presidency had been the calmest since Coolidge's, and the only major legislation he passed were the 24th and 25th amendments, which gave D.C three electoral votes that would soon be dark blue and allow the president to appoint a vice-president if one dies, resigns, becomes president, or some other such reason. McCormack used this to appoint moderate (and powerful) house Republican Thomas Kuchel to the Vice-Presidental position. Kuchel would return to the house in 1965. McCormack's only foreign policy "incident" was the coup attempt on Liberian president William Tubman Jr., due to Tubman's increasing populism and support for and from Brazil, Yugoslavia, and Iran (all except Iran(which ironically had the most conservative government) had refused to take a side in the Cold War), causing the U.S to fear that such a historically supportive nation might indirectly help the Soviets, thus causing a CIA-supported coup. The coup failed and with that, Liberia's Civil War began[1]. Other than that, McCormack didn't directly cause any overseas problems ("Chile was already a war waiting to happen"[2] screamed many a McCormack fan), and he even stopped a potential world-ending war between Red China and India.[3]

Coming into the 1964 election, the Democrats obviously had a massive advantage, their past three presidents were very popular (McCormack said he was an "independent" but we all know he was lying[4]), and when Joe Foss ran as an independent, they had an even bigger edge, as Foss was either leading or splitting the vote in several key states for Republicans. Then, it was found by the press that Foss's running mate, Harlon Carter had shot and killed a 15-year-old Mexican named Ramón Casiano in 1931 after he felt he had stolen the Carter car and attempted to force him into the house for "questioning". When Casiano refused Carter shot him with a shotgun.[5] Carter was convicted of the murder but it was overturned because Casiano was brandishing a knife at the time, so it could be argued that Carter did it out of self defense.[6] Carter denied everything, but he was removed from the ticket in most states and replaced by Morton C. Mumma, a WWII veteran who served in the Navy and supported Foss's campaign from the start. Amazingly, Carter still won re-election to his house seat as an independent because he was endorsed by the Texan Democrats before he jumped ship to join Foss and become an independent. The Texan Republicans endorsed him because they had no good candidates to run against. He narrowly beat a Constitution candidate that was so crazy an accused murderer could win. However, Carter would lose 2 years later anyway, so justice as kinda served. Obviously, Foss's campaign dropped from it's early high, and would end up only winning one state.

While the Carter scandal is the most oft-remembered part of the 1964 campaign, the Constitution Party had its moments too. Lee's campaign was... really really boring. Most of the populist speeches that brought out, just so much racism from Southerners were made by gubernatorial and congressional candidates. Lee mainly campaigned in the west to build a coalition that would rally behind the Constitution party. The Republicans weren't much better. While Grevemberg's nomination was shocking, he was largely shelved by Lodge, who feared Grevemberg would commit gaffes. This turned out to be a negative, as when Lodge finally let Grevemberg speak, he made populist anti-corruption speeches that would make George Wallace and John M. Patterson blush, but he did it to push many western farmers to the Republicans. Soon Grevemberg became a likely candidate for the 1968 nomination, if he got a job in Washington. Still, without Grevemberg, Lodge's candidacy was about as exciting as Taft's in 1952, and was doomed to lose.

With all this talk of the other three candidates, you might be wondering what's up with the Democrats and Lyndon B. Johnson. Honestly, not much happened. Johnson refused to debate and only rarely made public appearances, as the Democrats felt they had the election in the bag and wanted to use little of Johnson's resources to help. Instead, McGovern was the one who campaigned the most. McGovern made speeches across the nation and quickly became the face of the Johnson campaign with Johnson working behind the scenes to win the campaign and ready his potential successor (Hubert Humphrey) for the senate Democratic leader job. Still, Johnson did make campaign speeches and maintained popularity in the upper south + Texas while McGovern had popularity in traditional progressive areas. With that, they formed quite a coalition and were able to easily win the election.

The election was interesting due to the insane amounts of vote-splitting involved. Foss's campaign took the vote away from Lodge in many western areas, causing the Constitution or Democratic tickets to win some states they wouldn't have in a "normal election". Also, 1964 was the election with the lowest black vote for the Democrats (65%) post-CRA and pre-{REDACTED}.that was largely due to Foss's campaign. The NRA and many organizations of that manner were popular with blacks who used guns to defend themselves from groups like the KKK or to put justice into their own hands when police couldn't. Still, blacks voted overwhelmingly Democratic, as they would for the next decade. The election ended just like everyone expected. With a massive Democratic victory.

[1] I will get into this in a future update
[2] See above
[3] I might write this if y'all really beg me
[4] I listed him as an Indepedent/Democrat in the box. I also listed Harlon Carter as Harlan Carter sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
[5] This actually happened. Also: I took much of this from Carter's wikipedia page sooo0o
[6] He didn't.

 

[Gentleman Biaggi]

"What the Fuck"
-Everyone, 11/3/1964 (or 3/11/1964)

The 1964 Senate Elections were complete chaos. The fallout from Foss's run as an independent and general tripartisan support for gun control pushed the Midwest towards so-called "Fossites" and with recall elections being allowed because everyone was cool with McCarthy and Vidal's recalls, elections there quickly became chaotic. When Foss announced his independent run, the South Dakota Republicans said they would primary him, and because Foss was a stone cold bad ass, he resigned his seat and ran for it as an independent just to challenge the South Dakota Republicans[1] and then easily won. Meanwhile, the opposite happened to Karl Mundt, who voted for the Firearm Safety Act of 1964 out of fear of being primaried. Mundt was then recalled within weeks and was replaced by a Democrat after Mundt and a "Fossite Independent" split the vote. In Wyoming, the state that notably gave Foss 60% of the vote and the state's Republican nomination, a "Fossite" Republican won, and Democratic senator John Hickey was recalled and replaced by Independent Richard H. Cheney[2], who's son was a notable anti-Iran War protester[3] and Yale drop-out who was currently attending Wyoming University. Both Cheney and Foss would caucus as Republicans but stay Independents for the rest of their senate careers. Meanwhile, the Constitution Party had a very successful election, as despite losing the increasingly Republican state of Florida, they picked up Utah, Nevada, Tennessee, and Missouri, and arguably could've won in Texas if not for Johnson's coattails. The Democrats on the other hand lost 7 seats, but that wasn't much of a loss anyway, as the 1958 blowout had given the Democrats many venerable seats in states where they were increasingly unpopular for gun control, not having enough northeasterners, or turning towards Civil Rights. However, a major surprise for the Democrats was that they could not retake Arizona. Despite a massive economic downturn, a split in the party due to Goldwater's support for gay and black civil rights (and a smaller split due to Mecham's hawkishness on South Africa), and a strong campaign from the former attorney general of the United States, they couldn't beat Evan Mecham. Mecham's populism and fiery speeches[4] made his supporters turn out in droves, and Mecham narrowly won by 512 votes. The Republicans on the other hand faced interparty divisions between their midwestern wing and their northeastern wing (that was supported by their upper southern wing but whatever), but still gained 5 seats and a new caucus member and came this close to uprooting Democratic rule.

[5][6]
If you thought the senate was insane[7] the house was something else entirely. Both the Republicans and Democrats lost seats as the Constitution Party began expanding west, and four independents were elected, all of them Fossites in the midwest (or Texas). Despite losing their leader to an anti-gay recall and a mildly unpopular coalition with the Democrats, the Liberal Party of New York still gained a seat. A candidate running in the "Gun Rights Party" won in Alaska. Now while this might've been all par for the course insanity that we all saw in the late 1950s, the Democrats lost 17 seats and no party could win a majority and the Liberals didn't have enough seats to help. This lead to several days of chaos in Capital Hill that finally ended when the Democrats and Republicans decided to vote to make the Speaker elected by a plurality instead of a majority, which angered every non-Democratic/Republican party and had many midwestern and southerners to vote against it with the fear that they'd lose re-election. In the end, it was voted on 324-98-13 by a lame duck congress, which only angered Constitution and Fossite voters.

[1] Foss would totally do this btw.
[2] There isn't much info on Dick Cheney's pappy but from what I hear, Cheney's family was Democratic (thanks NSS!) and if the apple doesn't fall far from the tree, I could see him becoming an independent to win over voters, who like him switched parties after the FSA[8] of 1964
[3] IRONY (also Cheney got kicked out of Yale and arrested for a DUI before going through a "political" awakening that moved him left)
[4] And selling his soul to Wayne Morse
[5] I've decided to remove all popular vote totals because I'm very lazy and don't wanna calculate all this chaos
[6] T&T inside joke: Joe Foss's picture changing and getting aggressively worse with every wikibox
[7] It was.
[8] FSA will soon have a different (and arguably better) meaning ITTL so I'll be referring to it as "The Gun Control Bill" or whatever from now on to not cause future confusion

 

[Gentleman Biaggi]

Fear, Chaos, and War in Massu's world

France's transition from unstable parliament to unstable presidency is largely blamed on one man; François Mitterrand. In 1961, he was elected on a "Left Unity" ticket that aligned most non-communist center-left forces. Unfortunately, Mitterrand was elected before the war in Iberia, where he was forced to align with Portugal's right-wing dictatorship and promise them land and protection. He also funneled money to several separatist groups in Catalonia, the Basque, and Andalusia that committed war crimes and attacked civilians that refused to join them, and when he helped give Portugal and these separatist movements land, he angered so many in the new Republic of France that a former Francoist, Manuel Fraga ran a nationalist campaign calling for the land lost to be regained by Spain got 15% of the vote. Not only that, but Catalan and the Basque's independence caused many in the French Basque and North Catalan to want unification with these states. So foreign-policy wise, he had obviously not done a good job. Not only that, but the economy was still bad, as the Left attempted to rebuild the post-Poujade economy during a war on their border.

All this makes sense for why the French right could regain power, but the candidate who gained the support of most of the right was a surprise. That candidate was Jacques Massu. Massu was a famous general who fought for Free France in WWII, and for the French government in Algeria and Indochina. He was also a major supporter of France turning into a presidential republic and of Gaullism itself. Massu had also fought in Spain and after the war he was made military general of Vanuatu, which was given to him out of fear that he might take on the Mitterland administration. This fear was correct, as in 1967 Massu announced a candidacy to challenge Mitterland. However, Mitterland would be assassinated two weeks later, by a former member of the Organisation Armée Secrète (Secret Army Organization) who apparently forgot that Algeria gained full independence four years prior. With this, Communist Prime Minister Waldeck Rochet became president, and all of Europe began to fear that Communism could finally take over in France. This fear was particularly relevant in Britain, as the former Prime Minister, the 5th Marquis of Salisbury (I say "former" because he was killed by a Northern Irish terrorist) had feared of Communism spreading to France, Spain, and the formerly Spanish states, and now supporters of him were using France to extend such fear. This was despite the Communist Party of France's relatively moderate stances and inability to make inroads and coalitions within the populace and in the legislature (a major reason why it could never succeed in the Fourth Republic). Still, there was rumors that foreign states (the US, UK, and Portugal) would attempt to influence the French election for their needs.

In the first round, Massu's "Republican Alliance" of several right-wing and center-right parties gained 22.34% of the vote to Rochet's 20.86%, which meant the match-up everyone had predicted was going to occur. Going into the second round Massu had another advantage (along with the poor economy, poor foreign policy decisions, and foreign nations potentially interfering) and it was that the moderates who had voted for others instead of Massu would turn out for Massu over the Communist Rochet. Also, the left had fractured under Mitterand and some left-wingers would either stay home or vote Massu instead of Rochet. In the end, Massu won the election by a large margin, and the next six years would be very interesting for France and the world.