WI: Republicans wreak further havoc with the Democrats in 1972

The Nixon White House discussed a few ways to split the Democrats in the 1972 election. One was to secretly pump 5 million dollars into the campaign of the anti-war candidate, Eugene McCarthy. Another was to secretly finance a black candidate for President. Names included Jesse Jackson, Shirley Crisholm, Carl Stokes and Julian Bond*. There are also likely other things they thought of but never carried out, but I'm unaware of them specifically, so if you know anything else, feel free to bring it up.

So what if the Republicans did either of these, or both, to sew dissent within the Democrats, and to divide them?
 
Last edited:
Is this a DBWI? :confused:

I know Nixon played the dirty card to the nth degree (that nth degree leading to Watergate). But I'm talking about these two specifically (the black candidate and the funding of McCarthy, since it was feared Muskie was going to be a formidable opponent) and anything else that were never carried out, or at least are not sure to have been carried out.
 
I know Nixon played the dirty card to the nth degree (that nth degree leading to Watergate). But I'm talking about these two specifically (the black candidate and the funding of McCarthy, since it was feared Muskie was going to be a formidable opponent) and anything else that were never carried out, or at least are not sure to have been carried out.
Well I had a blueprint of a TL where Nixon faces against Ron Dellums in '72.

Ultimately I think McGovern was a far greater boon to Nixon and the Republicans than the other plans.
 

Flubber

Banned
So what if the Republicans did either of these, or both, to sew dissent within the Democrats, and to divide them?


Nixon can't get a much bigger beat down of McGovern than the OTL election so I doubt all those dirty tricks would have had much of a direct electoral result. Nixon doesn't need anymore help with the presidential race, something he'd never believe, and no number of dirty tricks will effect the Congressional races, so the results are still going to be roughly the same. I do think that the revelations of those dirty tricks as part of the many post-Watergate investigations would have some effects though.

The current dysfunctional state of US national politics is a direct result of Watergate and the various post-Watergate revelations. With moderates and anyone who might be slightly "centrist" sickened by the political process, that process has been all but abandoned to extremists of all stripes. Then with the extremists further skewing the process, the revulsion grows deeper driving more people out.

While the revelation of more dirty tricks will disgust more people much sooner, I wonder if that revulsion will spark real reforms to financing and other campaign practices? There's still some progressive inertia left by the early 70s. Nixon, for example, proposed a negative income tax and a health care program similar to those seen three decades later before partisan politics killed both ideas. Would we see real spending caps, free air time, state funding, or any of the other ideas usually floated about?
 
I know Nixon played the dirty card to the nth degree (that nth degree leading to Watergate). But I'm talking about these two specifically (the black candidate and the funding of McCarthy, since it was feared Muskie was going to be a formidable opponent) and anything else that were never carried out, or at least are not sure to have been carried out.

The irony is that Nixon would probably have beaten any Democrat that year so there was no need to resort to the range of dirty tricks that ultimately destroyed him.
 
The Nixon White House discussed a few ways to split the Democrats in the 1972 election. One was to secretly pump 5 million dollars into the campaign of the anti-war candidate, Eugene McCarthy. Another was to secretly finance a black candidate for President. Names included Jesse Jackson, Shirley Crisholm, Carl Stokes and Julian Bond*. There are also likely other things they thought of but never carried out, but I'm unaware of them specifically, so if you know anything else, feel free to bring it up.

So what if the Republicans did either of these, or both, to sew dissent within the Democrats, and to divide them?

McCarthy ran in '68, not '72. I think you mean McGovern...

In any case, it wouldn't have mattered. The Democrats in '72 were hopelessly divided as it was. As The Oncoming Storm notes, none of what actually was done was really necessary. The only thing I can think of that might have happened from dumping money into the McGovern campaign is wonderfully ironic; McGovern wraps up the nomination earlier and avoids the Eagleton fiasco and, more importantly, looks more like a winner such that some of the establishment Democrats like Daley who bailed on McGovern decide to actually back him in a meaningful way resulting in a closer election.
 
...The current dysfunctional state of US national politics is a direct result of Watergate and the various post-Watergate revelations. With moderates and anyone who might be slightly "centrist" sickened by the political process, that process has been all but abandoned to extremists of all stripes. Then with the extremists further skewing the process, the revulsion grows deeper driving more people out...

A very interesting and insightful observation.
 
McCarthy ran in '68, not '72. I think you mean McGovern...

In any case, it wouldn't have mattered. The Democrats in '72 were hopelessly divided as it was. As The Oncoming Storm notes, none of what actually was done was really necessary. The only thing I can think of that might have happened from dumping money into the McGovern campaign is wonderfully ironic; McGovern wraps up the nomination earlier and avoids the Eagleton fiasco and, more importantly, looks more like a winner such that some of the establishment Democrats like Daley who bailed on McGovern decide to actually back him in a meaningful way resulting in a closer election.

Nope, McCarthy.

President Nixon: Alone in the White House said:
The President also kept coming back with ideas he had for 1972, beginning once again with finding proof that President Kennedy had ordered the assassination of Diem. Another was to persuade Eugene McCarthy to run again for president in 1972-the idea was to secretly pump $5 million of Republican money into a McCarthy campaign-as a way to split Democratic votes. Kissinger was his man there, coming in to say he was talking up the idea among antiwar Democratic contributors he knew. The President also wanted to split the democrats by secretly financing a presidential campaign by a black Democrat. The figure used was again S5 million; the names mentioned were Carl Stokes, the mayor of Cleveland, New York Congresswoman Shirley Chrisholm, and a Georgia state legislator, Julian Bond. Reading the news summary on September 28, Nixon circled the name "Rev. Jesse Jackson and wrote: "What happened to the financing plan?"

And there's another one. Nixon trying to destroy Kennedy's legacy, and show he ordered Diem's assassination (he didn't, by the way)

Nixon himself brought up the killing of Diem in a press conference on September 16. Peter Lisagor of the Chigao Daily News, quoting Senator Henry Jackson, asked what "leverage" the United States had in the elections held in South Vietnam. "If what the Senator is suggesting is that the United States should use its leverage now to overthrow Thieu, I would remind all concerned that the way we got into Vietnam was through overthrowing Diem and the complicity in the murder of Diem; and the way to get out of Vietnam, in my opinion, is not to overthrow Thieu with the inevitable consequence or the greatly increased danger, in my opinion, of that being followed by coup after coup....: The President thought he had raised the question and could sit back and let the press do the investigating. But nothing happened outside the White House. Inside, Hunt, on orders of Colson, had collected 240 cables between Washington and Saigon in October and November of 1963-Diem and his brother, Ngo Dinh Nhu, were killed by officers of their own army on November 1, 1963-but was unable to find one showing any kind of direct order from Kennedy. So, using a razor blade to cut out words, and some paste, then photocopying his handiwork, he fabricated a cable, dated October 29, 1963, to the American embassy in Saigon. The phony cable read: "At the highest level meeting today, decision reluctantly made that neither you nor Harkin should intervene on behalf of Diem or Nhu in event they seek asylum."
 
Last edited:
Top