WI: Electoral Effects of a Stable 1960s

After WW2, it looked like the remainder of the century would be rather stable electorally. The 22nd Amendment was in effect, Eisenhower had overwhelming won election and reelection, and Kennedy had been elected and was most likely to be reelected. In the aftermath of the Kennedy assassination, the Vietnam war, and the related social upheaval, that fell by the wayside.

Until Ronald Reagan, no president had successfully completed two terms in office. Kennedy was assassinated, Johnson did not run for reelection, Nixon resigned, Ford failed to win election, and Carter was not reelected. For roughly a generation, America was electorally unstable.

Assuming Kennedy were not assassinated, and that we avoid an Americanized war in Vietnam, as well as the series of political assassinations, there is still the issue of the social changes and upheavals of the 1960s. However, it can be argued they'd be much softer and much more stable. Less militancy, more peace and love -- Woodstock without Altamont. Assuming that scenario, what would be the effect on American electoral politics? My assumption would be a ping ponging of presidential administrations between the two parties, each getting two terms. I'm not sure how accurate that assumption is.
 
First of all, Kennedy would not avoid Vietnam. He was as much a product of the Cold War as everyone else of his era and he believed in the domino effect. If he was alive, protestors may very well have said, "Hey, hey, hey, JFK, how many boys did you kill today?" In addition, if - or when - his affairs come out, he will be forced to resign.

However, let's say he avoids Vietnam and that his many affairs are not revealed to the public. In 1968, I think LBJ (whom JFK had no intention of dumping as vice president) would be the Democratic candidate and Nixon would still be the Republican candidate. Nixon probably wins the election while Congress remains Democratic. He is reelected and he will not do Watergate because he will not be afraid that if the Democratic candidate wins, efforts in a war will not be wasted and he leaves office as a fairly popular president. Beyond Nixon, I don't know who's going to be elected.

The New Deal coalition is still going to lose power in Congress. It was inevitable and strains were already being put upon it. It may collapse or shrink after the oil crises of the 1970s. However, as IOTL, Democrats are going to remain in power in Congress.
 
First of all, Kennedy would not avoid Vietnam. He was as much a product of the Cold War as everyone else of his era and he believed in the domino effect. If he was alive, protestors may very well have said, "Hey, hey, hey, JFK, how many boys did you kill today?" In addition, if - or when - his affairs come out, he will be forced to resign.

Oh stop. Vietnam was an easily avoidable war for the same reason we could have and did avoid wars in any of the many post-colonial nations. Prior to Johnson, the war had been a very different matter. It was a distant country, among many, and the United States had advisers there to express its support to the Communist world, but did not have a combat mission. Americanization of the war was easily avoidable, and to say everyone was a hawk who wanted to get combat troops involved everywhere because of Marxism is a vast oversimplification and is not true. It was not avoided because of Johnson's belief that you could beat someone into submission. And Kennedy's affairs would not come out within his presidency for the same reason Johnson's never did. The American press did not operate like that during the period.

However, let's say he avoids Vietnam and that his many affairs are not revealed to the public. In 1968, I think LBJ (whom JFK had no intention of dumping as vice president) would be the Democratic candidate and Nixon would still be the Republican candidate. Nixon probably wins the election while Congress remains Democratic. He is reelected and he will not do Watergate because he will not be afraid that if the Democratic candidate wins, efforts in a war will not be wasted and he leaves office as a fairly popular president. Beyond Nixon, I don't know who's going to be elected.

Nixon could win, but it's not assured. There's the matter that Nixon in an alternate 1968 would not have the same message or strengths. Nixon campaigned as "law and order" when the white middle class felt threatened, and he campaigned on and expanded the divisions in American society in the late 1960s. A Nixon with a calmer America is a Nixon that needs a different message. It also may not be Johnson in 1968. I think it would be Johnson if there were no one else to run. Certainly I don't think RFK is in a position to run, and I'd argue he is unlikely to ever do so if JFK is alive. However, you do have the unknown possibilities and people like Hubert Humphrey. Johnson's old, southern, and would be relatively sidelined for a decade. And Kennedy didn't want him to ever be president.

The New Deal coalition is still going to lose power in Congress. It was inevitable and strains were already being put upon it. It may collapse or shrink after the oil crises of the 1970s. However, as IOTL, Democrats are going to remain in power in Congress.

It was inevitable that it would be forced to deal with social changes and reevaluations. It was not inevitable that it would have collapsed totally. A calmer 1960s would make all the difference. The largest issue is the generation gap plain and simple. You had the traditional Left who were sounding rather Conservative when talking about their children, and you had the New Left which was not necessarily playing nice with the older generation and were focused on a multicultural Democratic party which may have (and did) alienated the working class base of the Democrats.
 
With Infallible 20-20-Hindsight...

:D Criswell Predicts...
(Perhaps that should be "postdicts".)

After Kennedy got his fingers burned at the Bay of Pigs, he was less inclined to listen to the "experts". He would have gone much slower in Vietnam, as Johnson was a control freak who thought he could manage everything (and had marvelous enablers like Mac.) A less heavy Vietnam war means a less active New Left, and probably the Hippies remain as marginal as the Beatniks were in the previous decade. (Culturally important, but not so sweeping as OTL.)

Pre-Watergate, the news reporters had not brought down a President, and had not succumbed to the hubris of "Investigate Journalism", therefore were more inclined to play ball with whoever was in power. Without a Watergate, they remain obedient little lap dogs. No Presidential sex scandals.

Without Vietnam and Watergate producing massive distrust of government and without the prominence of the New Left and the Hippies, no "siege of Chicago", no Chicago Seven Conspiracy trials, no white college kids rioting.

To be sure, the ghettos probably still burn, which would lead to higher police vs minority tensions. With no LBJ pushing the Civil Rights Act, black-white relations simmer, occasionally boiling over.

Without much of the social disruption, the "sexual revolution", the Democratic Party doesn't get made over and McGovern never gets the nomination. Similarly, Reagan never gets to be Governor of California running against the students protesting. (And never makes it to the White House, either.)

In general, more dull, less excitement, less disruption through the Seventies. By the Eighties, however, social tensions will be probably ready to flare up, since they had not been discharged earlier.

Beyond that, my crystal ball fades.
 
If Kennedy isn't assassinated then wave goodbye to the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act. It took all of Johnson's legislative powers to get those passed; Kennedy's civil rights agenda was a big goose egg. He meant well, but he didn't have the arm twisting skill to get it done.

A stalled civil rights movement does not bode well for any kind of stability. It could also lead to a heightened cold war as more and more of Africa fell under Soviet dominion. There are some really sickening stories about racism directed towards African diplomats during the 60's - one guy couldn't get water for his son during an asthma attack, that are going to really, really hurt America in the Third World.

Electorally, this may mean that the Dixiecrats stay around a while longer still holding the line (as they see it anyway) and a close election getting thrown into the house giving them some dangerous leverage. It also has a good chance of preventing the realignment into Democrat-left, Republican-right. And it would probably even put the African-American vote (what little of it is allowed) in play as neither party has a particularly good (or particularly bad) game on civil rights. And with Communism stronger in the third world, foreign policy remains a bigger voting issue.
 
Last edited:
LBJ greased things and he deserves credit, but the Civil Rights act and assorted legislation owes a lot to a general undercurrent and trend in society, the work of various politicians in Congress, as well as the massive influx of Liberals into Congress in 1964. Even Johnson failed to pass Civil Rights prior to the latter.
 
Last edited:
LBJ greased things and he deserves credit, but the Civil Rights act and assorted legislation owes a lot to a general undercurrent and trend in society, the work of various politicians in Congress, as well as the massive influx of Liberals into Congress in 1964.

True, but Kennedy was a cautious pragmatist. He voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1957 don't forget. And he sent exactly zero civil rights bills to congress during his three years. Add to that the fact that the liberal influx was partly because the GOP went hard right in '64 which would not be a guarantee if Kennedy is running, and the fact that it's rare for presidents to put through major legislation in their second term, and the chances of Kennedy putting through such legislation and getting it passed are very, very small.

As to the general undercurrent in society, civil rights was at the bottom of most people's priority list in polls at the time. In 1963, a Gallup poll found that 78% of white people would leave their neighborhood if many black families moved in. And even the famous march on Washington had a 60% unfavorable view among whites. Contrary to what America has let itself believe, civil rights was not an inevitability. (That's one of the things you learn growing up in the south.)
 
If we are looking at internal stability, a Kennedy re-election may lead to a continued push towards space, possibly expediting the Apollo program even after the disaster of Apollo I. We may not see as rapid progress on civil rights as we did under Johnson simply because the tragedy that shocked the system into thinking that change was needed hasn't occured. It will still be taking down one obstical at a time rather than bulldozing a new path and not paying attention to the systemic issues that were brushed aside IOTL.

Foreign policy will be somewhat different simply because you have a different head of state who, after a successful re-election can be a little more forward thinking. Is there possible intervention in the Prague Spring? Kennedy would be able to focus on this rather than an election campaign or events in Vietnam, assuming that there has not been the same troop buildup as there was after the Gulf of Tonkin. Does Kennedy become more engaged in Latin America or Africa than Johnson because of the Peace Corp and trying to use that to build American influence?

Politically for the Republicans, do they try and go full bore with a Conservative in 64 against a sitting President who doesn't have the halo effect in play? Do you see a run from Rockefeller in 64 against Kennedy? 62 had seen some gains for Republicans in Governors races, but little traction had been made in Congress. And with little to try and pull white Southerners across because of social/societal changes, do you see the Republicans try and be more pro-civil rights as an economic tool?
 
Goldwater would still run against Kennedy, even more enthusiastically probably because he wouldn't be sad about Kennedy's death. Rockefeller still has his marriage scandal so he probably loses against Goldwater as OTL. Kennedy will beat Goldwater by a big margin, though not as big as LBJ.
 
My intent is really to just ignore the debate over Vietnam and the rest, because -ironically like Vietnam- these things always get bogged down into the quagmire of that, and it's not the discussion I care about. I'm stating that as the fact of the scenario, and then asking about the aftermath of that.

However, I want to (potentially) violate that for a moment to ask this question:
How assured is Nixon both getting the nomination of 1968, and winning in 1968? It's always knee jerked that he's coming back at least to win the nomination no matter what. For reasons which may be personal bias, I don't know if that is true. On the other hand, I don't know who can stand up to win the nomination other than Nixon. I like Romney, but he seems set to self implode over misstatements. It wasn't just "brainwashing". Romney constantly made gaffes he had to clarify or backtrack on, and I don't know how well he'd survive in any iteration of the 1968 media or socio-political landscape. Rockefeller is another prospect, but he stands to alienate Conservative Republicans. And even at that, it also becomes a problem of Rockefeller in 1968 being a cliche that may need criticism and/or review. And it becomes an issue of how well he would do in an alternate 1968.

EDIT:
28:30
http://www.zocalopublicsquare.org/category/events/video-archive/?postId=44980
 
Last edited:
Top