WI: Roles Reversed: Martyred Nixon, Scandalous JFK

Cathcon1

I sort of already know how to get there and maybe this isn't the most creative "what-if", but here goes:

Nixon wins in 1960. During his short tenure as President he frees Cuba and successfully installs a democratic government, winning him popularity across the nation and with the Right especially. However, he is killed while on vacation in Florida in the winter of 1962-63 by a Cuban radical, putting Lodge in charge. In 1964, Lodge is re-elected by a large margin against a hapless Hubert H. Humphrey. By 1968, with race riots (despite Lodge passing several Civil Rights acts), American involvement in Vietnam, outrage of Lodge's practice of detente, and inflation, John F. Kennedy marches back onto the scene. With charm reminiscent of eight years ago and very much in contrast with the boring Lodge (Who bows out of the running), JFK curbstomps Vice-President Nelson Rockefeller and a right-wing third party. Over the course of Kennedy's Presidency, Vietnam winds down, there is a "return to normalcy", etc. In 1972 he soars to re-election over Barry Goldwater. However, in 1973 and 1974, the "Dark Side of Camelot" is revealed. Black ops missions into other countries, strange connections with the mob in order to help beat out Communism in Latin America, and of course numerous affairs. These eventually lead to Kennedy's resignation and the assumption of the duties of office by his Vice-President.

Is this possible? And how might these two men be viewed differently (by both the Left and Right), and how might the country/world be different?
 

usertron2020

Donor
The affairs would never come to light. Ben Bradlee would put Woodward and Bernstein at the bottom of the Potomac River (with Kennedy's help:eek:) if they came to him with proof of Kennedy's womanizing. Also, there is the story that Jackie would have left JFK before 1968 had he lost in 1960. A woman can only take so much, and as a husband JFK was worse than any other Kennedy, even his father (who tended more to steady mistresses rather than taking on every skank in sight. Pre-penicillin, you know). Even worse than TEDDY in terms of numbers of conquests. Teddy's biggest problem wasn't women (tho there was that), it was the booze.
 
Emperor Norton I

Emperor Norton I

This wasn't the 90s. In short, what the President did with his penis, no one worried about. It was a secret, ensured by the media of the time which did not pry (for one, the less negative you say, the more access you get), and that which was known was treated as an open secret you didn't say around polite company. Now, that was starting to deteriorate by the 70s, but I still don't feel like it would have been exposed even then.

And I have to say, JFK was not alone. I know the story is sexy, but academically, he was among a big company. LBJ humped as much as Kennedy, and Rockefeller died mid-coitus with his secretary whom he was having an affair with.

And really, the "Dark Side of Camelot" is overrated. JFK didn't, contrary to myth, have any connection to the mafia. Any connection his OTL administration had in utilizing the mafia to battle communism in Cuba came from the Eisenhower administration. And nothing, if heinous, is uniquely heinous to just him.

Actually, I think the more interesting scenario is, what if Kennedy went the Nixon route. Nixon went absolutely insane, hyper paranoid, and so on after losing in 60, and losing the governorship in 62, which lead to his administration doing all the nefarious things it did. Maybe something similar could happen to JFK. He's not a paranoid like Nixon, but maybe 1960 (and perhaps a subsequent defeat) could make him a harder, darker man. Likewise, if he doesn't win 60, if I remember my JFK history correctly, his one doctor would never have been kicked to the sideline, meaning Kennedy would have ended up in a wheelchair. So that could color him as well, and he'd also be forced to pull an FDR and hide that affliction.
 

usertron2020

Donor
I wonder what a JFK defeat would do to his relationship with his father, who was still hale and hearty until the stroke. Whether his stroke was triggered by the rumors coming out about him (or Sinatra in his place) making a deal with Sam Giancana to rig the Illinois votes (at least in Northern Illionois) is highly debatable to say the least. But a healthy Joe Kennedy could throw in all kinds of butterflies. Or perhaps a Kennedy defeat would have killed him in mid-stride, who knows?

But in those days, indeed, the media simply didn't pry. Look at the ridiculous response to Chapaquiddick. He claims the next morning at a press conference that he spent the night swimming in muddy water trying to rescue Mary Jo, and no reporters ask how he is still wearing the same clothes he had on the night before, with his clothes still looking pressed and dry-cleaned?:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

Cathcon1

I really like Emperor Norton's idea of a bitter, wheelchair-bound JFK. What other race could he lose? Re-election to the Senate in '64? That's only four years away from the next election. Nixon had six whole tears to let people forget & emerge anew.
 

John Fredrick Parker

Donor
Regarding Vietnam -- might a Nixon election in 1960 butterfly out the escalation of "advisers", making a full intervention TTL unlikely? If so, that would make for a very different context when JFK seeks to rise again?
 

usertron2020

Donor
Cathcon1 said:
I really like Emperor Norton's idea of a bitter, wheelchair-bound JFK. What other race could he lose? Re-election to the Senate in '64? That's only four years away from the next election. Nixon had six whole tears to let people forget & emerge anew.
Click to expand...

Plus his California gubernatorial run wasn't the death knell to his career the media liked to pretend it was. The media hated Nixon just as much as they loved the Kennedy Family. As to Nixon's paranoia, remember what Freud said: "Even paranoids can have real enemies!" or "Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you!":D With Nixon, this really was the case. His explosion post-California 1962 Election Night? "Aren't you sorry you won't have Dick Nixon to kick around any more?"

Well, in Howard K. Smith's (ABC) case, that was nothing more than the truth. There is a little known detail in Nixon's political biography. Little known because it was one of journalism's biggest black eyes in American history, third only to the Uber-Republican (at that time) Chicago Tribune (1) "Dewey Defeats Truman" and George W. Bush's first cousin at Fox News ordering that FNC issue the first national declaration of Bush's victory in 2000 (based on Florida).

The press doesn't like to talk about their monumental screwups. Dan Rather's war with the Bushes was bad enough, but at least the Bushes always came out ahead and it was Rather who was destroyed in the end.

The attack on Nixon that restored him in the public's eyes after California? Veterans Day, 1962. An ABC News Special on "The American Soldier". So, fifteen million American veterans tuned in to watch a half-hour news program dedicated to honoring them, and their sacrifices for their country. That is NOT what they saw. What they GOT was a last minute insertion done by Howard K. Smith entitled "The Political Obituary of Richard Milhous Nixon":mad: Bad enough to disappoint the veterans with this, and for Smith (read, the media that Nixon charged with hating him and being out to get him) to be seen doing precisely that! That is, kicking a man when he is down, and vindicating Nixon's claims at the same time.

But was this enough? No-o-o-o. To put the cherry on this shit sundae, Smith put on two speakers, one Pro-Nixon, one Anti-Nixon. The Pro-Nixon guy? Jerry Ford!:D I always wondered why Nixon picked Jerry as his replacement VP. Not anymore.;) The Anti-Nixon guy? *drumroll* ALGER HISS!:mad::eek: Yes, my friends, that's right. A convicted perjurer who could not be convicted of treason because of the release of secrets that would cause. A man who gave Stalin our secrets at Yalta so that he was basically playing poker with FDR and Churchill using marked cards. Not ALL of this was known by 1962, but enough.

And it was a matter of faith among the entrenched Left that Alger Hiss, as an Old Time New Dealer, was nothing more than another poor innocent victim of McCarthyism.:rolleyes: Except it wasn't the drunken fool McCarthy, his stooge Roy Cohn, or the fanatical Dies in the House who caught Hiss. It was Whittaker Chambers and Richard Nixon.

So, all these veterans got to see a known traitor (if not convicted) expound on the man who nailed him. "He really only seemed interested in headlines, not the truth..." said the former NKVD agent.:mad: Smith's career would not recover for many years. Not in terms of his prestige. And he would always be considered "damaged goods" from then on. At least compared to the anchors at CBS and NBC. Although he had a long and successful career (and eventually made his peace with Nixon, as Smith turned hawkish on the Vietnam War) it wasn't until the start of Roone Arledge's control of ABC News that Smith was shown the door (age) and ABC News took off.

Nixon himself, buoyed by all this, went into private business (promoting Studebaker) before working hard for Goldwater's campaign (collecting political chits all the way). So when 1968 rolled along...

As to JFK? Losing an election in Massachusetts? I just can't imagine that. Unless his health REALLY deteriorates. Then how could he win a national campaign?

Has anyone considered a family turnover to Bobby? Not in 1968. Not with no JFK martyrdom, and a weaker resume' compared to OTL. But any other scenarios in which JFK loses, doesn't/can't run again, and Bobby steps forward? I know about RogueBeaver's RFK TL, but that is about one in which JFK's presidency is OTL.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
1) The Chicago Tribune of today has slipped free of the family (who made the Koch Brothers look just Left-of-Center) who controlled it in those days. Today the Trib is an honest newspaper.:)
 

lanem

John Fredrick Parker said:
Regarding Vietnam -- might a Nixon election in 1960 butterfly out the escalation of "advisers", making a full intervention TTL unlikely? If so, that would make for a very different context when JFK seeks to rise again?
Click to expand...

Why would Nixon's, a staunch anti-communist Republican's, election make a full intervention less likely?
 

John Fredrick Parker

Donor
lanem said:
Why would Nixon's, a staunch anti-communist Republican's, election make a full intervention less likely?
Click to expand...

Yes, Nixon is anti-communist, but he's also a realist -- a Republican in the foreign policy mold of Eisenhower; not likely to go on offering to "bear any burden". Remember, both he and Ike cut defense spending...
 
Plumber

Plumber

Has anyone considered a family turnover to Bobby? Not in 1968. Not with no JFK martyrdom, and a weaker resume' compared to OTL. But any other scenarios in which JFK loses, doesn't/can't run again, and Bobby steps forward? I know about RogueBeaver's RFK TL, but that is about one in which JFK's presidency is OTL
Click to expand...

The plan is for RFK to become Attorney General and then Governor or Senator of NY.

I could see JFK having a similar transformation as FDR did in a wheelchair in terms of moving to the left.
 

usertron2020

Donor
Plumber said:
The plan is for RFK to become Attorney General and then Governor or Senator of NY.

I could see JFK having a similar transformation as FDR did in a wheelchair in terms of moving to the left.
Click to expand...

IDK. JFK had an awful lot more things wrong with him than polio. RFK would need not only elective office (more difficult w/o the martyrdom factor) but he'd also need to spend more time working his way up the ladder. I admit Obama's career was meteoric, but RFK faces the "dynastic issue".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top