What if no Watergate and no Agnew kickback scandal?

What if there had been no breakin at the Democratic National Headquarters at the Watergate, what if none of that ever happened? President Richard M. Nixon and his entire staff are completely honest, clean, and above board.

What if Spiro T. Agnew had never accepted any kickbacks when he was Governor of Maryland or when he was in state or local politics in Maryland? Agnew is completely honest, clean, and above board.

As a result, Nixon serves two full terms as President (January 20, 1969 to January 20, 1977) without the stain and problems of Watergate, he leaves office in 1977 at the end of his second term well respected. Agnew also serves both full terms as Vive-President without any scandals or controversies. Agnew also leaves office in January, 1977 well respected.

What would a two full term Nixon Presidency in the 1970's been like without the stain and problems of things like Watergate and the Agnew scandal? How would that have changed history and would that have changed things even today? Also, who would have been elected President in 1976? Would Agnew have ever run for or been elected President? If so, when and what kind of President would Agnew have made?
 
The trust in the US establishment would be bigger (but we would still have the distrust assosiated with the Vietnam war). It would change a lot, I bet no Carter or Reagan.
 
What if there had been no break in at the Democratic National Headquarters at the Watergate, what if none of that ever happened? President Richard M. Nixon and his entire staff are completely honest, clean, and above board.

What if Spiro T. Agnew had never accepted any kickbacks when he was Governor of Maryland or when he was in state or local politics in Maryland? Agnew is completely honest, clean, and above board.

As a result, Nixon serves two full terms as President (January 20, 1969 to January 20, 1977) without the stain and problems of Watergate, he leaves office in 1977 at the end of his second term well respected. Agnew also serves both full terms as Vice-President without any scandals or controversies. Agnew also leaves office in January, 1977 well respected.

What would a two full term Nixon Presidency in the 1970's been like without the stain and problems of things like Watergate and the Agnew scandal? How would that have changed history and would that have changed things even today? Also, who would have been elected President in 1976? Would Agnew have ever run for or been elected President? If so, when and what kind of President would Agnew have made?


It might be more plausible to suggest that neither President Nixon nor Vice President Agnew were caught, rather than to suggest that they were both completely above board.

Apparently Nixon didn't like Agnew very much, so he probably wouldn't have backed Spiro to succeed him. Also, Agnew had no major base in the Republican Party IIRC, which would have been another reason for it to be unlikely that he'd succeed RN.
 
It might be more plausible to suggest that neither President Nixon nor Vice President Agnew were caught, rather than to suggest that they were both completely above board.

With regard to Agnew, definitely, just to much history, and complete lack of vetting on Nixon's part in 68... It's possible to not have the specific Watergate Incident, a POD of one of his inter circle making the case that the risk wasn't worth gain. Well maybe, remember in 72 Nixon was going for a Johnson 64 level victory, who knows what else they would have come up with ....

Apparently Nixon didn't like Agnew very much, so he probably wouldn't have backed Spiro to succeed him. Also, Agnew had no major base in the Republican Party IIRC, which would have been another reason for it to be unlikely that he'd succeed RN.

Definitely on both counts, Nixon quickly discovered Agnew was pretty much useless (a pre-Nixon/ Johnson VP type). And when given a job, couldn't /wouldn't stay within the Adminstrations guidelines, example the post Apollo space vision/plan.

As for Nixon successors, depends on the preceptions in 1976, economy, Soviet/ world relations, also what other late 60s issues would hang over him.

If, things are seen as good (within reason) Rockfeller or Rommey (the elder) with a minor Reagan challenge (same issues w/o the "anti-Nixon" element). For Democrats, a much tougher race, the left wing would have been discredited as a ticket lead back to back loses (one of historical proportions, party would try to get to the middle maybe even right of the Repubilcan candidate (at least on the Soviets). Carter still is a player, remember it was a Gov named Carter who led the "reform/ place my guys in key places" of the Democrats selection process in 1974, but he is weakened by a less anti-Washington enviroment. Scoop Jackson much stronger with his defense views one big DEM who could get to the right of the Republicans. Finally, with someone from the left maybe Humprey ("I would have beat him except for Wallace!") T. Kennedy. And of course Wallace.

If things are seen as bad; a very strong Reagan effort with more possible Republicans. And the Deomcratic race, goes left, Humphrey, Kennedy, Wallace.
 
If, things are seen as good (within reason) Rockfeller or Rommey (the elder) with a minor Reagan challenge (same issues w/o the "anti-Nixon" element).

If Reagan wants the nomination in 1976 it's his. No ifs, ands, or buts.

For Democrats, a much tougher race, the left wing would have been discredited as a ticket lead back to back loses (one of historical proportions, party would try to get to the middle maybe even right of the Repubilcan candidate (at least on the Soviets). Carter still is a player, remember it was a Gov named Carter who led the "reform/ place my guys in key places" of the Democrats selection process in 1974, but he is weakened by a less anti-Washington enviroment. Scoop Jackson much stronger with his defense views one big DEM who could get to the right of the Republicans. Finally, with someone from the left maybe Humprey ("I would have beat him except for Wallace!") T. Kennedy. And of course Wallace.

There are a couple potential Governors ("New South") besides Carter that didn't make it, but perhaps could with butterflies.

Ted Kennedy probably wouldn't run, for the same reasons he didn't IOTL.

If Jerry Brown goes a little earlier/harder, I think he could go all the way but he is still quite new on the scene.


Overall I'd say it's likely still Carter, probably vs. Reagan. Since Reagan is just as much an outsider as Carter is, and given that Nixon's two terms are pretty good (note that with Nixon in power South Vietnam will continue to receive money, guns, and perhaps air support; it may in fact still exist) and his truly negative moves won't be realized as such for some time (notably his creation of entitlements).

Whoever wins will face pretty much the same challenge as Carter of OTL, with the caveat that the Republican Congressional element is much stronger and that South Vietnam is probably still there.

I imagine Reagan would tamp down spending and liberalize the economy somewhat more than Carter, modernize the military a bit faster than Carter, keep the Panama Canal, and probably support South Vietnam.

Carter would be Carter, in all likelihood.



The further out effects, which I assume The Mists Of Time was driving at, are pretty large. The trust in government thing will be pretty huge, and may in fact butterfly to some extent the anti-tax revolt kicked in California which spread across the country.

A different line-up of Presidents (Ted Kennedy can probably take the nomination in 1980 perhaps even with Carter as President simply given butterflies) will change things. Earlier Reagan, other post-Reagan Presidents, and a radically different Congress will further alter the course of the United States.

Reagan, if he realizes it and beats Carter, will have a golden opportunity to reverse the Nixon created entitlement programs and perhaps the USA will be able to run on a balanced budget (with the knock-on effects visible only in ATL '00s).

No entitlements means universal healthcare will have quite a bit higher chance of success… in fact with either Ted Kennedy as President, or Kennedy accepting a second Nixon offer in '74-75 the US might gain universal healthcare earlier—which will provide a very large cushion to blue collar workers.

Furthermore universal healthcare should allow the manufacturing base to ease their debt and compete globally for as much as a decade longer, depending on what happens, which gives the US economy a longer and softer transition to non-manufacturing jobs.

The Iran Hostage crisis certainly would occur differently if Reagan was President with possible consequent effects on modern day terrorism. Likewise if Afghanistan occurs, it may also turn out differently.


Higher American trust in government could result in anything—but at the very least means the Democratic Party will be better able to compete with the Republican Party and the red-blue (somewhat false) division will be weaker (also, maybe the Democrats end up "red" as they usually were until 1992, and sometimes were until the news networks standardized in 2000 :).

And so on…*there are quite a few things that could result from this.
 
Top