WI: President Nixon 1961-1963*

In our Nixon wins 1960 discussions, we have tended to do away with the inverted history narrative that Nixon wins and Lee Harvey Oswald shoots him in Dallas in November 1963. We have recognized it as easy and ignorant. We have recognized that so many factors would have fluttered those events away, and there is no reason for Nixon to visit the same city on the same date with the same route, with Oswald being of the same mood and with the same plan. That does not mention the other factors of the day, which were random as any day is.

However, it is nonetheless an interesting thought experiment. So I wish to dust off that old tome, and to try to gather a decent discussion from it. Handwaving the logistics into place, what if it had occurred? What if Nixon had been elected in 1960, and assassinated by Oswald in Dallas on November 22, 1963? What if Henry Cabot Lodge had been thrust into the presidency on that date, likely to win reelection on Nixon's body if nothing else? What if Lodge were to oversee the latter 1960s, from the potential of a Vietnam War to youth revolt and populist protest and movement?
 
In OTL, Nixon was in Dallas either the day of or the day before Kennedy got assassinated.

I can't remember where I read this, but reportedly, Oswald had somehow learned that Nixon was in Dallas, and may have even wanted to kill him.

Nixon was in New York when Kennedy was actually assassinated.
 
Nixon's name being a brand of trusted politicians

Nixon was never the brand of a trusted politician, going back to "Checkers" and going back before that to how he got into Congress. Not to say your average Midwest Republican wouldn't say the Democrats and Liberal eggheads were trying to besmirch a good man. But his brand was already impure. Harry Truman said Nixon thanked god he had two sides to his mouth so he could lie out both ends.

In OTL, Nixon was in Dallas either the day of or the day before Kennedy got assassinated.

I can't remember where I read this, but reportedly, Oswald had somehow learned that Nixon was in Dallas, and may have even wanted to kill him.

Nixon was in New York when Kennedy was actually assassinated.

Nixon, as a private citizen, was giving a speech to I believe a Coca-Cola distributor.
 
Having Nixon win in 1960 alters political history in some interesting ways. From a cultural standpoint-having Nixon win means there's less of a sense of the early 1960's diverging from the 1950's. You don't have the Kennedy's optimism and novelty effect-which could have all sorts of implications. Nixon represented continuity with the Eisenhower administration. I'm not saying the culture will not change, because no decade remains consistent with the previous one in American culture. But the early 1960's will have a different feel in a way that's hard to understand from our perspective. If Nixon/Lodge wins the Southern Strategy and subsequent realignment of American politics is at least delayed significantly if not aborted entirely. You can argue that Nixon or Lodge wouldn't have been able to pass Civil Rights. Perhaps only Lyndon Johnson-with the ghost of JFK behind him-had the capacity to achieve that accomplishment.

But-though Nixon himself expressed racist sentiment-the Nixon/Lodge campaign was arguably as open to the idea of Civil Rights as the Kennedy/Johnson ticket. Nixon had engaged in a quixotic effort to pass a comprehensive Civil Rights bill through the Senate in 1957 by altering the rules of that body. Nixon and Lodge may not be able to pass Civil Rights-but at the least they'll be seen as sympathetic to that cause-which means the Segregationists won't support either one. Civil Rights probably will not come to be seen as a "Republican" issue even if a bill passes under Lodge-but the Segregationists will feel no motivation to join the Republican Party here.

The Conservative Movement was in the process of gaining a structural advantage in the Republican Party by the 1960's. The Barry Goldwater nomination was no coincidence. Goldwater's campaign in some respects is the start of what became the Southern Strategy. Unintentionally, Goldwater's major appeal in the areas where his campaign did well in 1964 was the fact that he voted against the Civil Rights Act. However much influence the Goldwater supporters have-here they can't have their candidate nominated indeed he almost certainly wouldn't have contested the nomination here. The Republican Party wouldn't drop an incumbent President Nixon-and absolutely wouldn't drop an incumbent President Lodge under the circumstances of this thread. This delays the complete conservative takeover of the party at least until 1968-and that's if Lodge finds himself in the same trap Johnson did-otherwise he's at least nominated for reelection. Would a Lodge run convention in 1964 provide Ronald Reagan with a prominent speaking position-in the absence of the Goldwater campaign? Probably not-which in turn prevents the Reagan 1966 race for the Governorship in California-which in turn prevents his later efforts at the Presidency. I suppose that the Republicans could end up nominating Goldwater in 1968 somehow if Lodge collapses the way Johnson did. But I doubt he'd win. Indeed for many reasons the same circumstance where he could be nominated in 1968 here is one where'd he be certain to lose.

If a Civil Rights Bill does pass-that could have the effect of solidifying the South's aversion to the Republican Party even if the Conservatives still take over the Party from the Eisenhower/Nixon/Lodge wing in 1968. The enactment of Civil Rights Bills like the ones enacted under Lyndon Johnson would have an impact on the voting behavior of African Americans in the United States.

I'm not sure what kind of political party system evolves here-but the ideological makeup of the parties will be different in profound ways. I'd wonder how the Democratic Party would evolve-given there's no place for the two warring wings to go. The Republican Party won't appeal to the Segregationists-but the Republican Party also wouldn't be a natural home for the Liberal Wing of the Democratic Party for obvious reasons. I don't think the Democrats can continue to persist of being a party that includes Hubert Humphrey and Strom Thurmond at the same time-but if the Nixon and Lodge administration create a reputation for sympathy for Civil Rights in the Republican Party-hard to see where either of them goes.

This means no Johnson Presidency-which means all of his achievements aside from Civil Rights never happen. No Medicare or Medicaid for example.

I'm skeptical of the initial idea though-not because butterflies would keep familiar events from occurring-but because I have a hard time seeing President Nixon in Dallas in 1963. That was a political event designed in part to shore up support for the Kennedy reelection effort. For a Civil Rights friendly Republican administration-Southern States like Texas are unwinnable and Nixon would have known that. Obviously Nixon has no motivation to paper over divisions in the Texan Democratic Party. I'm not saying a similar tragedy couldn't occur-but I doubt that the event would happen in Dallas in 1963.

But since this is a thought experiment this is neither here nor there-I think the point isn't where this happens but what the aftermath is so having the event happen some place else wouldn't change much of how things developed from there.
 

Stolengood

Banned
Who would Lodge pick as his Vice President in 1964? Somebody close to his own political views, or a conservative to "balance the ticket"?
 
Who would Lodge pick as his Vice President in 1964? Somebody close to his own political views, or a conservative to "balance the ticket"?
Maybe Scranton, or Kentuckian Thruston B. Morton?

In Johnson's case, it was someone who shored up his support with a faction he was weak with, who distrusted him, and someone who legitimized him as a president. That was Humphrey. Hubert Humphrey was a play to the liberals, who viewed Johnson as the man who sold out the 1957 Civil Rights Act and a Southern Conservative. He was also a force of legitimacy. Perhaps Lodge would go for a similar thing. If not legitimizing himself, then shoring up support with the people who may not like or may distrust him.
 
I'd like to hope this was inspired by my comment on your election game. Lodge would certainly have beaten whoever the Democrats used, and I think he would've been hawkish in Vietnam. I think the youth would be his downfall even more than LBJ.
In my timeline Nixon had Rockefeller become his VP, who then lost to Kennedy in 1964 after his affair with the future Happy Rockefeller was discovered.
 
Who would Lodge pick as his Vice President in 1964? Somebody close to his own political views, or a conservative to "balance the ticket"?
Lodge would be best picking someone conservative but mainstream from the upper south or the west. Paul Fannin would be a good choice, or Milton Young.
 
Nixon was not and would not be as inspiring as JFK from 1960 to 1963, and even in death. I doubt he'd have things named after him in the same way/degree as Kennedy.
 
What would be different under a Nixon presidency ?

Paradoxal in beginn a more stabe relation to USSR under Khrushchev (in fact Khrushchev gamble on Nixon as POTUS, because he not understand and misjudged young JFK)
Although the Invasion of Cuba under CIA (This will be under Original plans of Nixon, not the mess JFK made out it) and Berlin Wall Crisis bring Mankind near nuclear War twice in 1961.
Also will Nixon run in same trap as JFK with South Vietnam.

On Space flight i think not that a Nixon will take "we shall go to the Moon" approach of JFK, more that USA take the Mercury Mark II (Gemini) while USAF goes for Dyna Soar glider.
Because there NO Robert McNamara as Secretary of Defense ! what let also to different Aircraft and weapon systems for US Forces (i say NO F-111)
and ALBM Skybold for Brtish RAF

On Civil right act, I have no idea if Nixon had in mind to end the racial segregation or keep the Status Quo.
Although Henry Cabot Lodge wanted a Afroamerican as Secretary in Nixon administration.
After Dallas 1963, could Lodge as president push a new Civil right act true Capitol Hill ?
 
Last edited:
Top