What Would a George McGovern Presidency Look Like?

Rogov

Banned
I'm more interested in a McCarthy presidency, because that's a case of being as right on economics to the New Dealers as he was left on social issues and the war of them; so he could potentially rebuild lack of labor and white working class support with professionals, small business - essentially turn the middle class liberal by being a moderate progressive rather than being a full on California New Left liberal.

Being from the old prairie hotbed of progressivism should also help in that respect.
 
McCarthy was not "right" on economics- where on earth do you get that idea? Being a hawk on inflation and deficits (which he wasn't) does not make one necessarily a fiscal conservative, after all Keynes himself endorsed deficit spending during recessions- not as a regular policy course. The 1968 primaries thoroughly disprove the idea of McCarthy having working-class appeal, he related decently to farm voters because he had a thorough command of agricultural policy- not that it helped when he lost by 21 and 30 points respectively in the farm states to a Northeastern multimillionaire from New York.

Professionals, small business? Those are archetypal Republican constituencies, especially small business. It would not be enough to win without working-class support, you need them to win. Nixon and Reagan did it in the US, Thatcher with the C2s (skilled workers).
 
Last edited:

Rogov

Banned
McCarthy was economically a little to the right of a New Dealer, and socially a little to the left of them, which is what I said. He was pals with small business people and didn't have much union support.
 
A little, but paling in comparison to the Republicans. Nixon could easily outbid any Democrat for small business support and small business would not be enough in 1972, not when those elections were decided by the working-class vote, particularly 1968 and 1980. Soccer moms did not figure large on psephologists' radars at the time, as they have since the 1990s, for good reason. Why vote for a Democrat when you can get a Republican who has no hesitation in being pro-business rather than pro-labor?
 

Rogov

Banned
Certainly the social dynamics of the time created the New Deal Coalition versus Conservative Coalition across the parties for a reason, but in the context of this thread the point stands that McCarthy at least tried to make up for a lack of socially conservative blue collar support, something I don't think McGovern did quite as well.

Neither of them probably ever had much of a chance, with social conservatives on one side and war hawk liberals on another - the AFL being such an anti-communist tool in terms of militantly hawkish and helping right wing dictatorships suppress their trade unions kind of sealed that deal. In the UK, for instance, I imagine most of the time being anti-war can get you union support.

But, since we are discussing what the presidency of McGovern would look like, it is relevant to the discussion to mention that if one of the dove Democrat candidates would have to find some base of support to make up for the lack of the New Deal machinery.

Looking to McCarthy's economic centrism in combination with his dovishness might be a plausible way to think about the things McGovern could have done to theoretically engineer this unlikely successful bid for presidency - or to try to remain in office or simply have popular support after winning in a fluke like some have suggested with Watergate and a Nixon death.
 
I always wondered about two other possibilities of his becoming Presdient. Senate seat not up in 1968 and he unites the dove wing and somehow gets nominated

Also a more main stream Democrat get smashed (possibly by slightly less thatn McGovern did in OTL)

There is a mood in 1976 to break with all Nixon represented
 
The leadership wasn't centrist-dominated then, though.
However he was despised by the party bigwigs, so he could be shunned even with the similar views.

A McGovern Presidency means Watergate happened during the election, so I assume there will be lots of liberals in Congress like what happened in '74.

Potentially. but I think a conservative coalition in Congress might be in the cards too like what emerged for a time across party lines during FDR's presidency.
 
My big issue with McGovern in the WH would be foreign policy rather than domestic. Even he admitted in the 90's that his view of the Soviets was, at best naive and I do wonder how he would have dealt with things in the 70's.
 
Does anyone ahve a link to this? I'd be real interested in having a read :)

Unfortunately there is no online sources for "Suppose They Gave A Peace", though I have the book it is in "Best Alternate History Stories of the 20th Century, Harry Turtledove". I can give you the rundown if you like, though I can't do it justice.
 
I feel like I am going to write a short Timeline on the McGovern Presidency. Course I will try my best to make it Non-ASB for him to be elected, meaning there are changes elsewhere.

As it is, I still haven't been able to get access to the resources required for my other timeline (President Wallace), and it may be better that I at least make a practice run.
 
Unfortunately there is no online sources for "Suppose They Gave A Peace", though I have the book it is in "Best Alternate History Stories of the 20th Century, Harry Turtledove". I can give you the rundown if you like, though I can't do it justice.

Rundown will have to do since I can't find it in my local library :(

Please and thank you :)
 
A McGovern Presidency probably would have been as much of a trainwreck as Jimmy Carter's Presidency. One term and then we've got President Reagan. :(
 
Rundown will have to do since I can't find it in my local library :(

Please and thank you :)

Okay.

Unfortunately, there is no good POD placed into "Suppose They Gave a Peace" that realistically would have given McGovern a chance to win; the election seems to occur much as it did in OTL, with Eagleton among other things. However, Nixon apparently kept a significant number of troops in South Vietnam rather than withdrawing them all over a period of time (I imagine maybe ~200,000) and having them deployed into active combat positions.

Growing Casualties in Vietnam is also combined with a growing reluctance in Hanoi to go forward with the Paris Peace Accords as McGovern edges closer and closer to Nixon in the polls, despite Kissinger saying that "Peace is at Hand". Eventually it comes down to a squeaker and an extended recount that Nixon narrowly loses to McGovern.

With McGovern now being confirmed as the next President of the United States, the North Vietnamese begin to view the United States as a "Paper Tiger"; basically, since the United States is withdrawing from Vietnam no matter what they do, they have no reason to hold back any longer. While the United States is withdrawing from the country, the North Vietnamese begin an invasion over the DMZ and take control of much of the countryside. Efforts to contain them are made even more difficult when McGovern basically forbids the military from using Napalm or DDT. South Vietnam as a nation disintegrates while refugees try their best to follow the Americans out of the country, jumping onto the backs of cargo planes, wading out into the oceans to meet waiting offshore vessels, complete and total chaos.

The "Withdrawal with Honor" fails miserably as it was initially envisaged, being called the "Long Retreat".

The story itself takes place in Ohio among a politically splintered family. The father is a Nixon men who is a Korean War Vet, deeming the Vietnam War a necessary conflict. His daughter meanwhile is the opposite, a well-mannered (no drugs) Hippie, who supports McGovern and is against the War. His son meanwhile is a Marine who has been deployed to Saigon as a member of the Embassy Guard. As the story develops, we see the effects of the war and the toll they take on the psyche of the family, especially when the son placed his 'secret' Vietnamese wife on the last helicopter out of the embassy during the 'Liberation' of Saigon.

Again, I can't really do it justice.
 
A McGovern Presidency probably would have been as much of a trainwreck as Jimmy Carter's Presidency. One term and then we've got President Reagan. :(

Also one termed, or would there be butterflies with the economy and Iran?
 
There'd be butterflies in Iran; nothing that would stop the revolution, but we might actually see a decent government emerge. McGovern (assuming he chooses a SecState and ambassador who share his views) is going to recognize the Shah as a waste of skin, but rather than stand up to him directly and force him to reform, he'll just cut off the funds to the Shah and try to support (financially and with propaganda) dissident groups. Said dissident groups may remember who supported them when 1979 comes around, and create something like a democracy instead of a theocracy - there are a million ways things might have gone wrong for Khomeini, and McGovern will make it a million and ten.
 
There'd be butterflies in Iran; nothing that would stop the revolution, but we might actually see a decent government emerge. McGovern (assuming he chooses a SecState and ambassador who share his views) is going to recognize the Shah as a waste of skin, but rather than stand up to him directly and force him to reform, he'll just cut off the funds to the Shah and try to support (financially and with propaganda) dissident groups. Said dissident groups may remember who supported them when 1979 comes around, and create something like a democracy instead of a theocracy - there are a million ways things might have gone wrong for Khomeini, and McGovern will make it a million and ten.

I think a better thing to speculate on is McGovern's response to the Yom Kippur War. Many ranking members in the Nixon Administration wanted the United States to sit on the sidelines during the conflict (Kissinger being the only one pushing aid). Not knowing who is or isn't in McGovern's Administration, I cannot say with any certainty what the opinion might be there, but McGovern himself may decide to be neutral.

From there, we have two major difference:

- How would Israel do in the Yom Kippur War WITHOUT American aid?
- How would the United States Economy look without the 1973 Oil Shock?
 
Top