WI: Nixon Elected in 1960

[RogueBeaver]

Re RFK: IOTL he considered running for Governor of Massachusetts or a return to civilian life (which he never participated in post-uni IOTL) by means of a college presidency. Ironically, he placed dead last in nominations for the Harvard Board of Trustees while a Senator, in 1966. Problem with the governorship is that MA is a small state dealing with "sewer contracts" (JFK) and wouldn't be enough experience for a presidential run. So, if you want him to be POTUS, the governorship until the next Senate vacancy, and then wait for 1972, '76 or even '80 if you want to push it. If you want him to be a civilian, he can do what Nixon did post-presidency make a name for himself in the corporate world and stay there.

EDIT: So Your Majesty, it depends whether you want a POTUS RFK or a Mr. Kennedy.

 

[Emperor Norton I]

We've discussed around Democratic candidates for 1968 (at least limitedly), but what about the GOP? The Vice President, whether Lodge or a successor in the 1964 ticket, could win but that is not assured in this time period if I recall correctly, and Lodge would be perhaps too old (aged 66). The Conservatives could run either Goldwater or Reagan (Goldwater would be about 59 and thus not too old, and without the 1964 loss could remain the leader of the Conservatives, thus delaying Reagan's assumption of that position), Rockefeller or Romney could run for the nomination representing for the Liberal-Moderate alliance, or someone more centrist could win. Nixon could also be in a unique position to pick a successor.

 

[Wolfpaw]

I think Nixon would probably have gone with George Romney or Jim Rhodes over Nelson Rockefeller if he decided to replace Lodge (again, maybe SecState?) in '64. IIRC, Nixon didn't always care for Rocky on a personal level (felt like Rocky was always talking down to him or something) and Rockefeller was also a bit too liberal, i.e. too much a part of the Republicans' "Eastern Establishment" for Nixon's liking.

Romney and Rhodes, on the other hand, are vastly popular moderate governors from the ever-important and contentious Mid West. They'd be more willing to tow Nixon's line and not have as strong personal political agendas as Rocky does, esp. with regards to the presidency.

And again, someone like Clement for the Dem's VP slot in '64, probably not Connally.

 

[Emperor Norton I]

Was he all too fond of Romney, though? As I recall, he posted him a Secretary following his victory in 1968, but didn't listen to him and generally thwarted his ideas much to Romney's frustration.

***

Btw, anyone have a bigger version of this photo?

EDIT: Nevermind. Getty and Photoshoping out the watermark.
http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/7325/richardnixon.png

 

[RogueBeaver]

No, he thought Romney wasn't "capable of major-league pitching" and George had the same problems his son had IOTL. Namely the anointed media frontrunner, Bidenesque gaffes, Mormonism, etc. The only cabinet members Nixon ever listened to were Bob Finch and Henry Kissinger.

What Nixon really disliked was Romney's tendency to turn Cabinet meetings into debating sessions rather than an ExComm-style policymaking body.

 

[Wolfpaw]

Then if Romney and Rocky don't work with Dick, how about Jim Rhodes or Bill Scranton for VP in '64?

And what are we gonna do about Lodge? Would he accept being booted off the ticket or would he make a fuss out of it? Would SecState be a job he wanted or would he have held out for something else like SecDef?

 

[RogueBeaver]

I think either Rhodes or Scranton for Veep would be acceptable, and Lodge was not a very energetic man. Rare was the day in the 1960 campaign when he would be out of bed before 10 A.M., and he lost an easy race to JFK in '52.

 

[Emperor Norton I]

Then if Romney and Rocky don't work with Dick, how about Jim Rhodes or Bill Scranton for VP in '64?

Both would have only achieved their respective governorships by 1963, not to mention campaigning for 1964 would begin in 1963 to begin with, so I harbor doubts. Perhaps they have a better shot at the 1968 ticket though.

 

[RogueBeaver]

If Nixon wanted to go all-out Rovian, he could pick former Democratic TX Gov. Allan Shivers. He delivered TX for Ike in '52 and '56 and could be the man to lead the Dixiecrats into the GOP, which was Strom's role IOTL.

 

[Emperor Norton I]

If Nixon wanted to go all-out Rovian, he could pick former Democratic TX Gov. Allan Shivers. He delivered TX for Ike in '52 and '56 and could be the man to lead the Dixiecrats into the GOP, which was Strom's role IOTL.

It depends on which direction Nixon wants to go for himself and his party's future, and which voters he wants to play to. The Southern strategy is not something I necessarily see Nixon doing in 1964 in the ATL. He could very well let it remain the Solid Democratic domain it was (albeit Conservative Democrat). Similarly, Shivers could probably alienate a lot of people; the more moderate-liberal wing of the GOP due to his Conservatism and perhaps Dixiecratism; blacks because of his opposition to Brown; and many others because of scandal surrounding his Governorship.

You also have the prospect of any Dixiecrat diaspora that VP Shivers may otherwise cause being stifled as the Nixon administration could herald the Civil Rights legislation of the OTL (or at least take ample credit for it or whatever did come).

 

[RogueBeaver]

So it depends which direction Nixon wants to go. If the Dems keep the Dixiecrats, they will have to go eventually, because Dixiecrats are not just social conservatives, but some are also economic ones who have more in common with Richard Nixon or Barry Goldwater than they do with Hubert Humphrey or the Kennedy brothers.

 

[Emperor Norton I]

So it depends which direction Nixon wants to go. If the Dems keep the Dixiecrats, they will have to go eventually, because Dixiecrats are not just social conservatives, but some are also economic ones who have more in common with Richard Nixon or Barry Goldwater than they do with Hubert Humphrey or the Kennedy brothers.

I think the Dixiecrat diaspora (I'll just keep labeling it that) will occur whenever a Liberal or even a moderate Democrat is elected. If one were to have Kennedy win in 1968 or 1972 for example (maybe there's a single term Nixon successor who could win in 1968 for a bit a flair to whatever TL may come out of this since I think that's what we're working towards by this point) then I think you'll see the Dixiecrats gradually shift away, and perhaps there'll have been some minor trickles throughout the 1960's as well. But I think it'd happen mostly the same; just delayed.

The issue is whether they join the GOP, become swing voters between the two parties, or form the legendary "Conservative party" that was toted around as a possibility out of a Conservative Republican-Dixiecrat alliance.

 

[RogueBeaver]

That's quite possible IMO. IOTL FDR thought that postwar, and if Willkie lived, they could formally merge the Northern Dems with the Dewey/Rocky GOP and leave the Taftites and Dixiecrats in a new party. The effects would be basically the same as OTL, but different party names.

 

[Emperor Norton I]

The issue is the longevity of that party were it to come; whether it'd be a sort of half-hearted protest like the Dixiecrat ticket of 1968 or (to some degree) Wallace's American Independents (albeit perhaps the biggest protest party in some time) before fading into the woodwork of American politics, or last a few years before eventually dying off (with each of those two aforementioned scenarios having the Conservatives returning to one or both of the major parties and/or just plain dying off as a movement), or last even up to present day, and things of that nature.

Keep in mind, the 1950's and 1960's political consensus was Liberal. To quote Lionel Trilling for the time "liberalism is not only the dominant but even the sole intellectual tradition... there are no conservative or reactionary ideas in circulation...". So Conservatives wouldn't likely be too much more than a populist fringe. Similarly, Southern Democratic politics weren't always Conservative or at least totally Conservative. You had Liberals such as Ralph Yarborough and Johnson, Southern Democrats who supported New Deal style Liberalism but were opposed to matters of desegregation and racial equality (this being the basis under which the Dixiecrats were generally in the New Deal Coalition), and other stripes not wholly Conservative, and whom would therefore either not join such a Conservative party or cause mass division within it. You also had the issue that Republican Conservatives weren't necessarily against black equality or desegregation; they just didn't view it as right for the government to actively do things to bring either to fruition, which would grant unity on the issue of State's Rights, but not on the morality of what was behind it.

 

[RogueBeaver]

I agree: the Dixiecrats were only united on the racial question. LBJ perfectly explained the "deal" between the Southern aristocrats (Eastland, Russell) and the middle class dating to pre-ACW when he said the following: "If you can convince the poorest white man that he's higher up than the poorest black man, he won't notice you picking his pocket, and he'll turn them out for you." Men like Jim Eastland or Richard Russell would normally look down their nose at white-trash populists like George Wallace or Ross Barnett, but race brought them together.

 

[RogueBeaver]

So we've basically sketched out most of how this proposed TL would run during Nixon's ATL Presidency. Another interesting possible butterfly is the nomination reform process (OTL McGovern-Fraser) for both parties. Pre-'72 methods worked well until OTL '68, so I don't see the incentive to change that.

 

[Wolfpaw]

Scranton still might work, even if he was only sworn in in January of 1963. IOTL he expressed a willingness to be VP in '64 and, after he threw his hat into the ring, came in second to Goldwater at the convention (214 ballots to Goldwater's 883 and a full 100 more ballots than Rockefeller got). And we shouldn't discount the fact that Scranton had been in the House since '61 and had served (albeit briefly) in the Eisenhower Administration.

All that, his own popular moderate centrism, along with his string of victories in a populous East Coast state that was leaning more and more Democratic, would, in my opinion, make him a viable contender for the vice presidency in 1964.

 

[Emperor Norton I]

So we've basically sketched out most of how this proposed TL would run during Nixon's ATL Presidency. Another interesting possible butterfly is the nomination reform process (OTL McGovern-Fraser) for both parties. Pre-'72 methods worked well until OTL '68, so I don't see the incentive to change that.

I agree. I would also like to point out a number of Campaign finance reforms that came from Watergate which would likely not come into being. I believe among the reforms was limited spending, monitoring and regulating where money went, and replacing a ban on Union and Corporate contributions (which was admittedly a broken and usually unmonitored law) with the allowance of PACs, and so forth. The lack of these reforms would also lead to the parties being stronger.
***

I think we've missed one biggie, though. The Space race. How does that go under Nixon's direction?

Scranton still might work, even if he was only sworn in in January of 1963. IOTL he expressed a willingness to be VP in '64 and, after he threw his hat into the ring, came in second to Goldwater at the convention (214 ballots to Goldwater's 883). And we shouldn't discount the fact that Scranton had been in the House since '61 and had served (albeit briefly) in the Eisenhower Administration.

All that, his own popular moderate centrism, along with his string of victories in a populous East Coast state that was leaning more and more Democratic, would, in my opinion, make him a viable contender for the vice presidency in 1964.

Alright, it's a possibility. But I still question it. Scranton would be lacking on experience as his tenure in all political areas would be limited with the longest being about two years as a Congressman. You also wouldn't have a big factor for support which was for being the Goldwater alternative since that wouldn't exist for obvious reasons.

 

[RogueBeaver]

Well, there's no "New Frontier" (and might never be), and Ike didn't have or want a moon program IOTL. Considering Nixon's OTL slashing of NASA's budget, he might still go for it if only to keep up with the Soviets. Definitely not the joint US-USSR landing JFK proposed IOTL or the space wanking under both Bushes.

 

[Abdul Alhazred]

Might John F Kennedy's private life be exposed between 1960 and 1968 thus destroying his political career? Or could there be a Watergate equivalent where an early Seventies Kennedy (now more mellow and cynical) tries to cover up his private life and gets caught-a mix of actual Watergate and Monicagate?