WI: No Nixon in 1968

The story of Nixon after 1960 is the story of one of the many lives Nixon lead. He lost the election, his attempt to become governor of California failed, and he was forced to recognize he was politically dead. What followed was Nixon as a private, rather happy citizen. He became an in-name partner at a law firm in New York. His family enjoyed the city, and he was allowed to make a great deal of money doing very little, travel around the country, give speeches, and rub elbows. And he was perfectly positioned as an elder statesman in the Republican party who could write books, give his intellectual opinion, and attack the president without anything on the line himself. As Jeffrey Frank, author of "Ike and Dick", will argue, Nixon was happy in this life and had no intention of getting back into the fray.

What changed things was the assassination of Kennedy. 1964 had been a closed door. Now things were open. The wheels in Nixon's brain started to turn again, he started to get the itch, and things began to move. He started setting up the framework and started to get things into place so that he could run for the presidency. Thus ending one life for Richard Nixon, and beginning another. Frank argues that if Kennedy were not assassinated, Nixon would be less likely to have tried to get back into politics. Even with Kennedy assassinated, there remains the chance that Nixon could have stayed out of the arena.

What if Richard Nixon had not ran in 1968?
 
Nelson Rockefeller will run, certainly, and I know that our site's friends of 60's and 70's dystopia are fond of having a certain Hollywood actor claim the highest office in the land. Others might be our mutual favorite, George Romney, or James Rhodes. @Gonzo gave the win to George Murphy.
 
Rockefeller would still have the determined opposition of the conservatives. Romney would still make his brain washed gaffe. So it will probably be a lesser known Repulican like Rhodes.
 
Nelson Rockefeller will run, certainly, and I know that our site's friends of 60's and 70's dystopia are fond of having a certain Hollywood actor claim the highest office in the land. Others might be our mutual favorite, George Romney, or James Rhodes. @Gonzo gave the win to George Murphy.

I've started to fall for the idea of Reagan in 1968. I may do that instead of Rockefeller for my eventual JFK timeline. Rockefeller bores me at this point, and I have held the idea of George Romney being the nominee for years in my 1968. However, I do not know if that is plausible given he had the habit of making gaffes. It would not be dystopian if I did Reagan. Rather, it would be an exploration of mundanity, "political correctness", and watering down. Reagan has historically said some heinous things up to 1968, which the public and other politicians would have to disregard and explain away because he's president. He also cannot go as far as he may like because of the era he is in, so he has to personally water down his conservative plans and statements. Everything has to be palatable, and what is not is explained and excused away and doublethunk like putting salt on something that tastes terrible.
 
The conventional wisdom in late 1967 was that there would be a brokered Republican convention. Either Time or Newsweek had a cover story on a Rockefeller Reagan ticket. I think such a ticket would win in 1968. If we see the same spread of primaries as we did OTL, Reagan primaries Rockefeller in 1972. He wins the nomination but loses the election. Unless he is running against an incumbent president during a recession Reagan loses.
 
I've started to fall for the idea of Reagan in 1968. I may do that instead of Rockefeller for my eventual JFK timeline. Rockefeller bores me at this point, and I have held the idea of George Romney being the nominee for years in my 1968. However, I do not know if that is plausible given he had the habit of making gaffes. It would not be dystopian if I did Reagan. Rather, it would be an exploration of mundanity, "political correctness", and watering down. Reagan has historically said some heinous things up to 1968, which the public and other politicians would have to disregard and explain away because he's president. He also cannot go as far as he may like because of the era he is in, so he has to personally water down his conservative plans and statements. Everything has to be palatable, and what is not is explained and excused away and doublethunk like putting salt on something that tastes terrible.

Were his gaffes really that bad though, he was very popular by 1968 and he was still a very charismatic speaker so if he plays his cards right he could win the nomination fairly easily. This is also before supply-side economics and the rise of the religious right so this Reagan while being socially conservative, if his record as California is anything to go by, would not be averse to raising taxes to balance the budget. I don't know all the specifics but I doubt he would be so dystopic like many TLs have portrayed.

I like the potential foreign policy butterflies though like how he would handle the Middle East and Vietnam, relations with the Soviets, no Nixon going to China etc.
 
The conventional wisdom in late 1967 was that there would be a brokered Republican convention. Either Time or Newsweek had a cover story on a Rockefeller Reagan ticket. I think such a ticket would win in 1968. If we see the same spread of primaries as we did OTL, Reagan primaries Rockefeller in 1972. He wins the nomination but loses the election. Unless he is running against an incumbent president during a recession Reagan loses.
1968's Reagan strikes me as far more of a committed ideologue than the President we eventually got. Would he ever opt to share a ticket with Nelson Rockefeller, of all people? I can see his Goldwaterite supporters taking such a thing as heresy.
 
Top