Rethink the 1970's

[onejayhawk 3]

In 1968 Sirhan Sirhan shot and killed Robery F Kennedy, just after he won the California primary. Common wisdom would have that he would have gone on to be the next President. That I take with seasoning, since he was far behind at the time in the delegate count, and the primaries were winding down. Suffice to say I consider it possible, but less than 50%.

 

The historical Democrat Convention was a landmark for its devisiveness and violence. I doubt things would change much. The rancor gave Nixon the leg up he needed to defeat a sitting Vice President. Kennedy would not have that advantage, plus he would not appeal to a lot of the moderates of neiither party. Still he had the looks, the name and youth. Who knows. If he gained the nomination, it would almost certainly have been on an anti-Vietnam platform, so that would have been a top priority in 1969.

 

Then what happens? Nixon opened relations with China, and proved very adept at dealing with the Soviets. RFK is unlikely to match the first, and I have doubts about the second. On the domestic side, it would be hard to be worse than history. Nixon was a disaster in the economic area, and the whole Watergate fiasco would be gone. Even if Nixon won in 1968, the string of events tha became Watergate would likely butterfly away. Likely to be replaced by another scandal of course, but that is true of Kennedy as well.

 

In any event, the 1972 campaign would pit a sitting President against a reformed opposition party. If Kennedy was sitting, the Ronald Reagan revolution may have started earlier. Certainly, RR was ready and able to run strongly in 1976. If Nixon had won, then the Democrats would likely have gone in a similar direction to history. Humphrey would be out, but there were other old liners to carry that torch. McCarthy was a one issue candidate. Kennedy is likely the only one of the three that would be a factor in 1972, provided he was not beaten badly in 1968. Almost cerrtainly the Old South wing of the party would have drifted further away, as it did.

 

Two things that happened at that point in history would likely have repeated: the Olympic Hostage Crisis, and the OPEC Embargo. Nixon would likely have fallen afoul of his bad press relations, even if he did win reelection. Historically, by 1973, there was little the country cared about but Watergate and Vietnam. Unlessthere was a scandal of similar magnitude to Watergate, vietnam would be the big story. Nixon would likely pull out of Vietnam as he did. Kennedy would be out of Vietnam prior to 1972. Events like the Olympic terrorist attack would be much more center stage. The stagnant economy, and oil price shocks would plague his second term.

 

Carter would probably be facing McGovern, if he chose to run at all. Reagan pancakes either in the election. Given the historically difficult 6th year congressional elections, RR might actually have Congress behind him. If not, he would not face a veto proof House as he did in part of his term. The huge deficits would have been much smaller, because he would have had much lower interest rates on the debt. Iran is an interesting question. I have no idea how Reagan would have dealt with the Shah, though turning his back like Carter did is near unthinkable. Iran may have fallen in his term, but I doubt the hostage crisis would have developed along similar lines, if at all. RR was much more willing to let advisors handle their area of expertise than Carter. Evacuation of nonessential personnel is likely, and a much bloodier assault, possibly a failed one is also likely.

 

In the end, while the faces change somewhat, I wonder if things would be much different. We would almost certainly not have the same President now, since GHW Bush would not have been the VP in 1976, though Dole might have been.

 

J