WI: No Richard Nixon

[modelcitizen]

World War Three by 1980.

To my knowledge, Nixon played diplomacy quite well. He even "triangulated" the cold-war by reaching out to Red China versus seeing China and the USSR inaccurately as a monolithic bloc. By playing on the Sino-Soviet "rivalry" (see Sino-Soviet War, etc.) and Detente and summits, Nixon kept us a little further away from midnight than other presidents might have been able to do.

 

[JRScott]

Its interesting how history often repeats itself. The 1952 Republican Convention was one of the nastiest in recorded history. I suppose you know that Robert Taft may have had the most delegates initially. However there was a lot of accusations of delegate tampering and putting his own guys in there over others, and in time the Convention censored him and removed many of his delegates from the South, as a result Eisenhower wins the nomination.

Nixon wasn't involved in those allegations so that's going to play out as it did. Nixon was chosen for his political experience and his strong anti communist views.

Given the allegations there's no way Taft is the VP in 1952 election. My guess Sen. William F. Knowland, he has many of the same characteristics Nixon did at the time. Especially about being against China and communism. He has the experience in politics that Eisenhower lacks and a working knowledge of the Congress. He however doesn't really have the fire of Nixon and would never have made something like the Checkers tape. He was reportedly Taft's number one pick for the VP and Eisenhower's second choice as well.

Knowland being in the VP in 1952 could have serious consequences, he was very much against the People's Republic of China getting the UN Seat that was once held by the Republic of China. What you could see is the potential that the Republic of China gets the seat and the People's Republic of China is expelled instead of OTL (Meaning Taiwan has the permanent seat and China has no standing in the UN).

I still believe Eisenhower/Knowland wins the election. It will not be by the landslide Eisenhower/Nixon got in the OTL, but it will still be more than sufficient for them to win election. I also believe they'd win reelection in 1956 making inroads to the south and winning by more than they did in 1952.

Without Knowland in the Senate in 1957 it brings to doubt whether the Civil Act of 1957 could even pass. Bill hated the bill and wept because it was so weak, but without his influence I'm not seven sure that bill would pass the Senate. VP has a lot less influence on his fellow Senators than being one of them.

In 1960 Knowland if all else is equal still loses to John F. Kennedy. What's going to kill Knowland is the Unions, he espouses Right To Work as a national right probably. That'll swing the election big time. Combine this with the failure of the Eisenhower/Knowland administration to pass a Civil Rights Act and well its just gonna tailspin.

In 1964 he'd support Barry Goldwater, Johnson much like in the OTL will win by a landslide due to JFK passing a Civil Rights Act and the mood of the times.

In 1968 his marriage is starting to suffer some strain so he probably doesn't run. He probably would not campaign for them but he'd probably support either Ronald Reagan or George Romney. Since there is no Nixon, I believe Ronald Reagan would be the Republican Nominee in 1968. I believe he would beat Hubert Humphrey and George Wallace much like Nixon did.

Bill unfortunately would commit suicide in 1972 with massive debts hanging over his head and his second wife leaving him finally.

Ronald Wilson Reagan, president in 1968 is going to change a lot. First off my guess is George Romney is Vice President in this scenario. There's not going to be a Watergate scandal.

Reagan's not the type to half do a war, Vietnam is probably going to end much differently than it did. Does it lead to a WWIII? Possibly, remember the strong feelings about denying People's Republic of China the UN Security Seat back in the Eisenhower/Knowland administration? They've not forgot......at the same time they also probably want to avoid all out war with the United States. What I see is where PRC gets the security council seat that RC once had and that hostilities end with far less damage to Vietnam overall than the OTL. As a result of the Reagan influence relations will improve over time I believe and it is possible just like Nixon did that Reagan will open up China to trade, but under far better circumstances.

Another thing the US doesn't go off the gold standard. Yep that's right the money is still backed by gold. (That's mostly because Nixon isn't president and Connally isn't treasury secretary as a result. Note that George H. W. Bush is still appointed in my TL here as Envoy to China).

Reagan/Romney most likely win reelection in 1972.

1976 Romney obviously is top seed, but whose his main opponents. I don't think any of the remaining possibilities are strong enough to beat his nomination. There is something odd though, I believe Romney would choose a moderate Vice President, as a way of promoting party unity. The most visible moderate, Gerald R. Ford, Jr. Odd isn't it.

Democrat ticket, there was no Watergate, therefore no rule change in how delegates are assigned, an unknown like Jimmy Carter will never become president. I believe Ted Kennedy would refuse to run in 76 for much the same reasons he did in the OTL (He will be looking to 1980 though). This is just a guess but with Ted sitting it out and no rule change, Robert Byrd of WV I believe would be the most likely candidate.

Romney/Ford win the 76 election. With not moving off the gold standard we do not have the rapid deflation then stagnation that the Carter administration knew. Iranian Revolution does occur, but they do not hold the Americans that long mainly because Romney/Ford is much more overt about their response.

1980 Ted Kennedy is ready to run, to reclaim the throne and to right many wrongs. He runs on a platform of health reform, civic reforms. etc. Without his war with Carter the previous years he has a more cohesive campaign message and a better ground game. He is able to secure the nomination. Unfortunately his past catches up with him, and while his message strikes many hearts chants of "Where's Mary Jo?" ultimately doom his candidacy. Romney/Ford win in 1980.

Oops I better get to sleep , I try to work on this later , this is just my ideas so far. Yes I know you democrats are probably pulling your hair out, 8 years of Reagan/Romney followed by 8 years of Romney/Ford. The good news is almost no party holds onto the seat more than 20 years historically at a time.

 

[Whanztastic]

1. Romney and Ford can't run on the same ticket.

2. The domestic situation is going to implode on President R. "If it takes a bloodbath, let's get it over with. No more appeasement" Reagan. (He said this about white college students)

3. Reagan is going to make no overtures to the PRC. This was something Nixon and his camp alone had been planning for months/years.

4. Without Nixonian contacts with Beijing convincing the Chinese that Washington and Moscow aren't collaborating against them, the Sino-Soviet border conflict may go hotter.

5. Vietnam is going to be getting better by default, still going to hurt people in '72. Reagan abroad is going not do well in '68. A Democratic FP-wonk may pull off an upset. '76 even more likely for a Dem win, just how things swing.

6. Inflation is likely screw any candidate over in '80, maybe even '76 with the oil shocks and gold standard problems.

7. 16 years of Republican presidency and Democratic Congress houses will create problems.

8. Jerry Ford wouldn't leave the House unless he was needed in a GOP crisis. He wanted to be Speaker, not President.

 

[Wolfpaw]

Cabot Lodge jr ?

His idea of a workday started after he got out of bed at 10:00 a.m. and couldn't be bothered to show up to half his committees. He was picked as a giant "Fuck You" to JFK, and an awkward appeal to the Eastern Establishment.

Knowland being in the VP in 1952 could have serious consequences, he was very much against the People's Republic of China getting the UN Seat that was once held by the Republic of China. What you could see is the potential that the Republic of China gets the seat and the People's Republic of China is expelled instead of OTL (Meaning Taiwan has the permanent seat and China has no standing in the UN).

I dunno; this didn't really become an issue until the '60s. The ROC kept its seat until '71, and exercised its SC veto in '55 to deny Mongolia entry to the UN (the ROC claimed all of Mongolia). Still, the Senator from Formosa is going to be one of those hootin' and hollerin' for war against the Red Chinese when the straits crises break out.

Ronald Wilson Reagan, president in 1968 is going to change a lot. First off my guess is George Romney is Vice President in this scenario. There's not going to be a Watergate scandal.

If there is no Watergate, it's because they aren't caught. Reagan--like every other politician back then--tolerated spying on the opposition, including B&E. Hell, the Reagan campaign had stolen Carter's briefing books before the 1980 debates (that's stealing Presidential property, btw). But the Gipper shrugged if off with a wishy-washy, "Maybe we did, maybe we didn't" and grinned.

Reagan's not the type to half do a war, Vietnam is probably going to end much differently than it did. Does it lead to a WWIII?

If Sino-Soviet relations deteriorate apace, I don't see Reagan pledging full support to the Chinese when the Soviets inform the US of its planned war with the PRC in '69.

So we see a nuclear Sino-Soviet War in the late sixties, with Ronnie sitting back and rubbing his hands in glee as the two Commie behemoths slug it out. And now that nukes are out the the can on the Yalu, maybe Ronnie thinks it's about time to pour one one Hanoi and wind up this crazy Vietnam business?

 

[Whanztastic]

If Sino-Soviet relations deteriorate apace, I don't see Reagan pledging full support to the Chinese when the Soviets inform the US of its planned war with the PRC in '69.

So we see a nuclear Sino-Soviet War in the late sixties, with Ronnie sitting back and rubbing his hands in glee as the two Commie behemoths slug it out. And now that nukes are out the the can on the Yalu, maybe Ronnie thinks it's about time to pour one one Hanoi and wind up this crazy Vietnam business?

Reagan could draw the line at nukes but let them slog 'n gas each other, unless China manages to somehow get one off. But yeah, Reagan in '68 means things get nasty.

 

[Wolfpaw]

Reagan could draw the line at nukes but let them slog 'n gas each other, unless China manages to somehow get one off.

The Soviets are going to use nukes or they're not going to war. Unless Reagan flat out says, "Don't, or we will." like Nixon did, millions of Chinese are going to get glassed.

 

[Whanztastic]

The Soviets are going to use nukes. Unless Reagan flat out says, "Don't, or we will." like Nixon did, Beijing (and a bunch of other cities) are gonna get glassed.

I see Reagan having to say that, but China is going to be desperate sooner or later and won't care and will likely launch one if they can. Then it is hard for Reagan to say 'NO!' at that point, or it won't matter and the Soviets will anyway. Reagan, after seeing a Soviet army go up in a mushroom cloud, is probably willing to agree to a tactical nuclear response.

 

[Wolfpaw]

I see Reagan having to say that, but China is going to be desperate sooner or later and won't care and will likely launch one if they can.

Wha? The Chinese aren't going to be starting anything. The war was planned by the Soviets to eliminate it's primary security threat which commanded the attention of most of its military resources; no, not NATO, but the boundless frontier with China. The Soviets would use nukes first to tactically eliminate any and all Chinese warmaking capability.

It's the Soviets who were the open and honest aggressors in their plan; they were just running it by the USA. If Reagan is approached by the Soviets with their unilateral plan to knock out Red China, is he going to pass it up?

 

[JRScott]

1. Romney and Ford can't run on the same ticket.

2. The domestic situation is going to implode on President R. "If it takes a bloodbath, let's get it over with. No more appeasement" Reagan. (He said this about white college students)

3. Reagan is going to make no overtures to the PRC. This was something Nixon and his camp alone had been planning for months/years.

4. Without Nixonian contacts with Beijing convincing the Chinese that Washington and Moscow aren't collaborating against them, the Sino-Soviet border conflict may go hotter.

5. Vietnam is going to be getting better by default, still going to hurt people in '72. Reagan abroad is going not do well in '68. A Democratic FP-wonk may pull off an upset. '76 even more likely for a Dem win, just how things swing.

6. Inflation is likely screw any candidate over in '80, maybe even '76 with the oil shocks and gold standard problems.

7. 16 years of Republican presidency and Democratic Congress houses will create problems.

8. Jerry Ford wouldn't leave the House unless he was needed in a GOP crisis. He wanted to be Speaker, not President.

1. Politicians move all the time so that they can run, Bush/Cheney for example. So being both from MI is not a major issue, just one has to establish residence elsewhere before the election. Romney also had homes in Utah and Massachusetts at the time so he could easily change his state of residence and he's no longer Governor.

2. While at the same time it might make the whites dislike the Republican party it would on the other hand endear more blacks and minorities to the party.

3 I largely agree that's why I said WWIII could start....

4. It is a possibility, however Bush would be part of that contact and I see him still appointed Envoy because frankly there aren't many others that would be willing to go to China then.

5. In times of war the incumbent party generally keeps the White House.

6. Reagan/Romney would push and fast track more domestic production I believe in the crisis, meaning that their would be relief coming towards the 80 election. Only reason it didn't get done in OTL was largely the Carter-Kennedy war. What probably happens is that the gold standard remains but is further lowered, inflation is more a result of the fiat money we have today and in the late 70s where they printed no money backed up. Inflation is a result of fiat money not commodity backed money.

7. Actually if you look at the History of the United States generally the better bills come when one party has the White House and the other has the Congress, if they are willing to work with one another, and Reagan, a former Democrat would have no problem reaching out and working out deals with the Democrats. Romney would as well. The worst bills come when the same party controls both.

8. It is possible, but he's the most visible as Speaker of the House. Many men do refuse. If he did it would be Howard Baker as VP, and that actually would draw many Baker democrats to vote for the ticket.

 

[Whanztastic]

All good points, I just find 16 years of a Republican presidency dubious. Party fatigue will weigh very heavy. This is, of course, if nuclear war is averted, but we both seem to agree that it is more likely with Reagan '68.

 

[modelcitizen]

Wha? The Chinese aren't going to be starting anything.........

I read at least once about Mao talking about how if five hundred million Chinese people were killed, there would still be a few hundred million remaining, what with China's nice big population being a big asset for China in the case of nuclear war.


I was trying to find a source for this online, and in the interim found this and thought it was neat, about the "Underground City" of Beijing built to house half of Beijing's population in the case of nukes flying,

http://travel.nytimes.com/travel/guides/asia/china/beijing/33180/dixia-cheng/attraction-detail.html

A sign near the entrance proclaims this seldom-visited attraction a HUMAN FAIRYLAND AND UNDERGROUND PARADISE. Far from it. Aside from odd recent additions, such as a silk factory, these tunnels are dark, damp, and genuinely eerie. A portrait of Mao stands amid murals of ordinary folk "volunteering" to dig tunnels, and fading but catchy slogans (DIG THE TUNNELS DEEP, ACCUMULATE GRAIN, OPPOSE HEGEMONY, and FOR THE PEOPLE: PREPARE FOR WAR, PREPARE FOR FAMINE). Unintentional humor is provided by propaganda posters from the era, which advise citizens to cover their mouths in the event of nuclear, chemical, or biological attack. Built during the 1960s, with border skirmishes with the USSR as the pretext, the tunnels could accommodate all of Beijing's six million inhabitants upon completion -- or so it was boasted. Army engineers were said to have built a secret network of tunnels connecting the residences of Party leaders at Zhong Nan Hai to the Great Hall of the People and the numerous military bases near Ba Da Chu to the west of town. Suspicions were confirmed in 1976 and 1989 when large numbers of troops emerged from the Great Hall of the People to keep the people in check. The construction boom means that this is the only remaining entrance to the nonsecret tunnels; it may disappear soon.

 

[Wolfpaw]

I read at least once about Mao talking about how if five hundred million Chinese people were killed, there would still be a few hundred million remaining, what with China's nice big population being a big asset for China in the case of nuclear war.


I was trying to find a source for this online, and in the interim found this and thought it was neat, about the "Underground City" of Beijing built to house half of Beijing's population in the case of nukes flying,

http://travel.nytimes.com/travel/guides/asia/china/beijing/33180/dixia-cheng/attraction-detail.html

That's not them planning a war, that's them planning to get nuked and pummeled and hopefully have enough people survive to reclaim the aftermath. That's a contingency plan in case of expected disaster.

 

[M. Adolphe Thiers]

That's not them planning a war, that's them planning to get nuked and pummeled and hopefully have enough people survive to reclaim the aftermath. That's a contingency plan in case of expected disaster.

Well, it depends on how large scale such planning is. The ABM Treaty was signed because the US and USSR realized that hardening missile silos and missile shield technology could trigger an arms race in of itself.

 

[Whanztastic]

I'm starting to convince myself that no Nixon would mean a successful Paris Peace for Vietnam in late '68/early '69, since the only candidate who would have enough pull to sabotage the talks would be Rocky (via Kissinger) and I just don't see him doing that.

 

[Killer300]

It seems the consensus I'm getting is that the party won't let the Rockefellers types take over, no matter how much the Establishment wants them to.

Interesting.

 

[Whanztastic]

It seems the consensus I'm getting is that the party won't let the Rockefellers types take over, no matter how much the Establishment wants them to.

Interesting.

Well he can't in '68 if Goldwater has his moment in '64 like he did IOTL. The Conservative really stacked the deck with their people that year, setting up a strong conservative voice for '68, especially with the southern voting bloc being solidified by Thurmond.

Problem is - Rockefeller winning in '64 somehow will likely see him beat by JFK/LBJ. So either the establishment will be firmer in '68 (but it is hard to see this with a genuine liberal alternative in a Dem candidate) or the liberal wing will be seen as a failure and the conservative wing wins out still.

It is hard to imagine a good compromise candidate in '68, all their moderate talent (Baker, Bush, Dole) are too young/inexperienced for the POTUS nomination. Maybe Rhodes, but who can say no to this as President?

 

[Killer300]

Well he can't in '68 if Goldwater has his moment in '64 like he did IOTL. The Conservative really stacked the deck with their people that year, setting up a strong conservative voice for '68, especially with the southern voting bloc being solidified by Thurmond.

Problem is - Rockefeller winning in '64 somehow will likely see him beat by JFK/LBJ. So either the establishment will be firmer in '68 (but it is hard to see this with a genuine liberal alternative in a Dem candidate) or the liberal wing will be seen as a failure and the conservative wing wins out still.

It is hard to imagine a good compromise candidate in '68, all their moderate talent (Baker, Bush, Dole) are too young/inexperienced for the POTUS nomination. Maybe Rhodes, but who can say no to this as President?

Well, I'm trying to find a way to heavily weaken the conservative wing of the GOP, or get it to go in a different direction than Reagan.

So perhaps Reagan is the one who needs to not exist for this to happen?

 

[Whanztastic]

Well, I'm trying to find a way to heavily weaken the conservative wing of the GOP, or get it to go in a different direction than Reagan.

So perhaps Reagan is the one who needs to not exist for this to happen?

There might be a 'Draft Berry Movement' it that case . But yeah that is possible. Reagan loosing his close election to Pat Brown in '66 accomplishes that. Also, it makes Gov. Brown a powerful compromise candidate in '68 for the Dems.

 

[Killer300]

There might be a 'Draft Berry Movement' it that case . But yeah that is possible. Reagan loosing his close election to Pat Brown in '66 accomplishes that. Also, it makes Gov. Brown a powerful compromise candidate in '68.

Well, I did say a different direction is possible too. A more populist, statist version, ala like the Gaullist movement in France, is what I'm looking for. However, that may not be very possible, all things considered.

 

[Whanztastic]

Well, I did say a different direction is possible too. A more populist, statist version, ala like the Gaullist movement in France, is what I'm looking for. However, that may not be very possible, all things considered.

Reagan was rather reationary and statist in '68 when it came to the protest movements, just look at what he did to the People's Park. He may be deGalle with a smile or a George Wallace with a "shucks" instead of "horsesh*t".

Maybe Rhodes of Ohio, but there are plenty of 'law and order' folks around.