The single best outcome of no Watergate has to be the suffix '-gate' not coming into use and clunkily bolted onto the name of, seemingly practically every, later scandal.
If there's no Watergate then I would suggest that Nixon has a real shot at getting his healthcare legislation passed. Rough outline was employers required to provide full-time employees with healthcare, employees having to contribute up to a cap, and federal subsidies to aid employers in certain situations; replace Medicaid for those who don't work full-time, not eligible for Medicare, or who can't afford the premiums with cost-sharing rushing with income levels. In our timeline the Democrats didn't think it went far enough, IIRC a fair number of them were still agitating for a single-payer system, so folks like Ted Kennedy blocked it under intense pressure from the unions and then because they felt that after the scandal had broken that they'd have a stronger hand to get what they wanted but which blew up in their faces.
If this has been passed does it change people's attitudes towards government? You might not have such major distrust of the government without Watergate but people are still going to be less likely to blindly trust it, that had been slowly occurring during the period anyway. Bureaucratically there seems to have been fairly broad support for deregulation as the 1970s went on, even Carter was a supporter and signed legislation on it. Reagan's statement that "In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem" is still fairly applicable in reference to stagflation and the economic crisis as he used it, personally I think it would have still found fertile ground but that's open to debate.
If the US can withdraw and the local government survive for some time then technically that's a win. It'll still likely be viewed as poorly run and a horrible mess but if people can point to a victory, keeping South Vietnam independent being the goal of the original intervention, then I do have to wonder if it might not take a fair amount of the sting out of it. You'd avoid images like the evacuation of the US embassy that became if not iconic then at least highly representative. Opponents of the war and those on the left are unlikely to be moved but Nixon's silent majority and those on the right might well grab onto the idea of a victory, or at least a Pyrrhic one, which could have some major cultural effects.
If there's no Watergate then I would suggest that Nixon has a real shot at getting his healthcare legislation passed. Rough outline was employers required to provide full-time employees with healthcare, employees having to contribute up to a cap, and federal subsidies to aid employers in certain situations; replace Medicaid for those who don't work full-time, not eligible for Medicare, or who can't afford the premiums with cost-sharing rushing with income levels. In our timeline the Democrats didn't think it went far enough, IIRC a fair number of them were still agitating for a single-payer system, so folks like Ted Kennedy blocked it under intense pressure from the unions and then because they felt that after the scandal had broken that they'd have a stronger hand to get what they wanted but which blew up in their faces.
If this has been passed does it change people's attitudes towards government? You might not have such major distrust of the government without Watergate but people are still going to be less likely to blindly trust it, that had been slowly occurring during the period anyway. Bureaucratically there seems to have been fairly broad support for deregulation as the 1970s went on, even Carter was a supporter and signed legislation on it. Reagan's statement that "In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem" is still fairly applicable in reference to stagflation and the economic crisis as he used it, personally I think it would have still found fertile ground but that's open to debate.
IIRC he was serious enough about their survival at least during his terms of office. I could quite easily see him authorising large scale bombing attacks if North Vietnam made major attacks south of the demilitarised zone, combined with ongoing civil and military aid, consistent with his doctrine, to help keep South Vietnam ticking over.
If the US can withdraw and the local government survive for some time then technically that's a win. It'll still likely be viewed as poorly run and a horrible mess but if people can point to a victory, keeping South Vietnam independent being the goal of the original intervention, then I do have to wonder if it might not take a fair amount of the sting out of it. You'd avoid images like the evacuation of the US embassy that became if not iconic then at least highly representative. Opponents of the war and those on the left are unlikely to be moved but Nixon's silent majority and those on the right might well grab onto the idea of a victory, or at least a Pyrrhic one, which could have some major cultural effects.
Last edited: