Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We've had a number of stimulating alternate scenarios in this forum, but I couldn't find one on this topic.
It needs to be remembered that both Nixon and his running mate Henry Cabot Lodge were moderates and maintained ties to the Eastern Establishment, and that at the time, the agrarian and small-community, small-business coalition that influenced Republican politics in the Midwest was on its last legs. Election of another centrist Republican ticket, combined with a continued, but moderated push on the civil rights issues (Eisenhower sent troops to Little Rock and I have no doubt that Nixon would have pursued similar policies) would have forestalled the emergence of a polarized conservative coalition. But with Nelson Rockefeller being groomed as a successor in 1968, it seems likely that the Democrats would have returned to power, possibly with less dominance in Congress.
There are many other possible side issues ;
A prolongation of the Cold War, since the agressive stance taken by Ronald Regan would not have emerged
A smaller wave of immigrants, since Lyndon Johnson's "reforms" of the 1960's would not have taken place
Less cultural polarization of the type that emerged in the mid-Sixties (although the "baby boom" generation would still have made itself felt, by the weight of numbers.
And all the issues arising from the civil right movement and shrinkage of the former white majority.
Finally, it would seem likely that the reconstruction of Europe and Japan would still have eroded the previous North American monopoly on intact industrial plant, leading to some of the same economic frustrations we are trying to deal with at present.
We've had a number of stimulating alternate scenarios in this forum, but I couldn't find one on this topic.
It needs to be remembered that both Nixon and his running mate Henry Cabot Lodge were moderates and maintained ties to the Eastern Establishment, and that at the time, the agrarian and small-community, small-business coalition that influenced Republican politics in the Midwest was on its last legs. Election of another centrist Republican ticket, combined with a continued, but moderated push on the civil rights issues (Eisenhower sent troops to Little Rock and I have no doubt that Nixon would have pursued similar policies) would have forestalled the emergence of a polarized conservative coalition. But with Nelson Rockefeller being groomed as a successor in 1968, it seems likely that the Democrats would have returned to power, possibly with less dominance in Congress.
There are many other possible side issues ;
A prolongation of the Cold War, since the agressive stance taken by Ronald Regan would not have emerged
A smaller wave of immigrants, since Lyndon Johnson's "reforms" of the 1960's would not have taken place
Less cultural polarization of the type that emerged in the mid-Sixties (although the "baby boom" generation would still have made itself felt, by the weight of numbers.
And all the issues arising from the civil right movement and shrinkage of the former white majority.
Finally, it would seem likely that the reconstruction of Europe and Japan would still have eroded the previous North American monopoly on intact industrial plant, leading to some of the same economic frustrations we are trying to deal with at present.
Ladies and gentlemen, please lead on.
There are two threads that run through Richard Nixon's character: One positive; and one negative.
The positive thread was that he was hardworking, intelligent, and pragmatic individual who got things accomplished when he was elected to office. The negative thread is that he possessed an abundance of paranoia and felt an inner need to harshly punish his opponents.
Some of Nixon's darker qualities probably worsened because of the 1960 election. He never directly said so, but I think he believed the election was largely stolen from him by the money the Kennedy family had and by political figures like Mayor Daley in Chicago.
If Nixon had been elected in 1960, he would have confronted issues like the Bay of Pigs Invasion, the Berlin Crisis, and probably the Cuban Missile Crisis. I frankly don't know how he would responded to these. Perhaps, he would have been more of a hawk than Kennedy was?
What I do believe is that the seeds of Nixon's self-destruction were deeply sewn in his character. Towards the end of his presidency, he was afraid of everyone and everything. He thought of life in terms of power and holding on to power at all costs. I do not compare Richard Nixon with Joseph Stalin. I will point out though that Stalin is an example of what can happen when an overly paranoid man is placed in a non-democratic system with no established limits on power. There are enough constraints within the American system that a politician who misuses his power because of paranoia will ultimately be dealt with.
I see that you may have been inspired by my comment about Nixon losing the 1968 election to Humphrey. :-)
At any rate, I think the military community would have felt more comfortable presenting Nixon with options for invading Cuba. The resources and coordination for the Bay of Pigs mission would have been more robust, leading to a successful overthrow of the Castro regime.
I'm not even sure Castro would have needed to be removed. Nixon knew how to use back channels to communicate with all the players before the game started. Nixon was in communication with Castro while he was VP under Eisenhower. He may have been able to broker a deal with Castro, one that may have forced United Fruit to give concessions and start paying taxes and higher wages in Cuba. He may have been able to coax Castro from going into the Soviet camp, and Castro may have been able to play both sides to his benefit like Tito did for Yugoslavia. Cuba may have prospered.
Civil rights legislation under Nixon would have been much more modest, LBJ was not going to strong arm congress to get all that stuff passed so Nixon could take credit for it. Voting rights may have been passed, perhaps some job discrimination bill might have passed, but not the immigration bill of 1965, or fair housing. Nixon was more interested in legislation that benefited a broader range of people, not targeted legislation.
The Vietnam War may have still been fought, but with Nixon I think he goes after Hanoi early on and with blitzkrieg action, forcing Ho Chi Mihn to the table much faster. South Vietnam becomes an independent country and the outcome is similar to the Korean War.
Nixon keeps a lid on Berkley and student protest by better management of the war than LBJ. If we had a north/south Vietnam peace agreement before 1968, the war would not be seen as lives wasted and protests would be much more mild.
Nixon would not have to campaign nearly as much as Kennedy, to win Texas. Oswald was after Kennedy for being Kennedy, but was he after any president that just happened to be passing by? I doubt that, Nixon would be safe in Dallas. I really have a hard time imagining anybody wanting to assassinate Richard Nixon, one of our greatest presidents.
Nixon & LBJ had different skill sets. Which was more important in the 60's, legislative or foreign policy? I would think foreign policy was more important at that time, not that Nixon was incapable of getting legislation passed. Not sure if Kissinger would have been far enough along in his career to do his thing for Nixon, I would hope so, at least we know John Dean would be too young to be counsel to the president, and no Gordon Liddy, big plus there. I don't think the country would be quite ready for OSHA, the EPA, and I'm not sure any welfare bills would have been signed under Nixon in the form that welfare was set up under LBJ.
My biggest fear is McNamara getting the presidents ear, seems like so much went wrong in Vietnam from his input, I think Nixon was smart enough to have done something different, by either avoiding it thru diplomacy or go in hard and fast, hitting all military and political targets and safe havens in Cambodia. I bet Mao, Khrushchev, and Ho Chi Mihn would have played it differently with Nixon and had more respect for him than Kennedy or LBJ.
If Nixon had been elected in 1960, he would have confronted issues like the Bay of Pigs Invasion, the Berlin Crisis, and probably the Cuban Missile Crisis. I frankly don't know how he would responded to these. Perhaps, he would have been more of a hawk than Kennedy was?
That was an excellent and insightful post, but I have to nitpick this part of it.
The Bay of Pigs was probably going to go off no matter who was elected; it was just a couple of months after the inauguration, and I don't see Nixon alienating the CIA and the Pentagon right from the get-go by pulling the plug on it. I think he may have handled it much differently and more decisively than Kennedy, though. Kennedy was somewhat timid in foreign relations at the beginning of his administration, and Nixon would probably have been more confident and acted more boldly. So the Bay of Pigs may indeed have gone quite differently under President Nixon.
But, if Nixon had won in 60, I doubt there would have even been a Berlin Crisis - and almost certainly no Cuban Missile Crisis. Kennedy's tepid handling of the Bay of Pigs fiasco suggested to Khrushchev that he was a weak and indecisive leader, and emboldened him to test that impression by forcing the Berlin Crisis on the young president.
Kennedy was somewhat more decisive in his handling of Berlin, but still confirmed Khrushchev's overall impression of an inexperienced leader who'd rather make a deal than take a stand. Khrushchev came away from that one feeling confident that Kennedy was a man who would puff his chest, wave a stern finger, and bluster a bit, but who would ultimately let him get away with placing missiles in Cuba. Even if Khrushchev had tried to pull Berlin on Nixon, I think it's unlikely Nixon would have handled it in a way that would have given Khrushchev the confidence to try Cuba. The bottom line of Khrushchev's thinking in 62 was that if push came to shove, Kennedy would not have the guts to go to war. I don't think he would have thought that about Nixon.
But, it's still interesting to speculate, of course. Nixon's combination of diplomacy skills and toughness might have forced (and/or allowed) Khrushchev to work closely with him rather than test and confront him. Ol' Nikita was quite progressive for his time (genuinely committed to improving the lives of the common Soviet citizen), and an experienced statesman like Nixon would certainly have recognized the opportunity to work with such a man to help him facilitate domestic reforms that might have brought about some version of glasnost and perestroika 20 years earlier. The Cold War of the 60s and 70s might have looked very different, and there might have been no President Reagan at all - or if there was, he'd more likely be remembered for the economic disaster of the mid to late-80s than the fall of the Berlin Wall.
Last edited by Mr. In-Between; 01-20-2015 at 10:31 PM..
When Nixon was president, he was able to deal with the Chilean communist Allende, without engaging in anything like the Bay of Pigs.
He may have been able to do the same in Cuba.
The reason the US was able to dispose of President Salvador Allende was it had someone in Chile to do it for them , the head of the Chilean Army General August Pinochet. This followed the playbook used in Brazil in 1964 when the Brazilian Army deposed of another Socialist President. In fact the USA did this quite often in the Western Hemisphere. In fact, its hard to find a nation in Latin America that has not had an American approved "Generals" Election.
In another timeline a young Richard Nixon fresh out of the Duke University Law School sent his successful application to The FBI and became a G-man in the new FBI being crafted by J. Edgar Hoover. After a distinguished career Mr Nixon finds himself head of the FBI Counter Intelligence Branch. This "alternate " Nixon is explored in "The Orthogonian" by Sam Kepfield in Altered America edited by Martin T Ingham. The story has Mr Nixon on a covert mission to Moscow in 1970 to secretly exchange spies with the Soviets and to an unexpected secret meeting with Yuri Andropov Head of the KGB. In this timeline US-USSR relations are poor and Andropov tells Mr Nixon that the KGB wants a back channel to the USA to prevent misunderstandings and prevent a holocaust that his people say is increasingly likely unless relations with the USA can be improved. Andropov also tells Mr Nixon he knows The FBI director Hoover is in declining health and thinks Nixon will succeed him. The two men each feel they are sincere and patriotic men and Yuri says that if he needs to contact Nixon on a clandestine channel in the future the communication will be from Plowshare. The story ends with Mr Nixon being appointed FBI Director after Mr Hoovers passing in 1972 and after Hoovers long time right had man and (significant other) Tolson is pushed into retirement and over FBI #3 man Mark Felt (Deep Throat in our reality) who becomes Nixon's Deputy. On Mr Nixon's first day in his new job, he is surprised to receive a message from plowshare. "Congratulations on your promotion, More to follow. Your Fellow Orthogonian. YVA ".
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What if Nixon had Won in 1960?
