• Hi Guest!

    The costs of running this forum are covered by Sea Lion Press. If you'd like to help support the company and the forum, visit patreon.com/sealionpress

Barry Goldwater runs in 1968, not in 1964.

J

Jackson Lennock

Well-known member
EDIT: What if Barry Goldwater decided not to run for President in 1964 and ran in 1968 instead?


Goldwater would remain in the Senate from 1965 to 1969 (OTL he didn't run for reelection in 1964 and ran in 1968). I imagine he'd likely vote for the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Fair Housing Act of 1968 (the 65 act is the same sort of thing directed at state action he approved of in the 57 bill he supported, and the 68 act had enough exceptions to satisfy his arch-libertarian impulses), which would soften his image a bit going into 1968. I'm not sure if he'd have supported or opposed the filibustering of Fortas, since Goldwater was fairly institution-minded. He'd probably have supported Loving v. Virginia.

Goldwater was gaffe-prone in 1964 (and before, and after) but there was also the matter that he knew he wasn't beating LBJ, so he ran as an ideological candidate hoping to expand the party to some new voters even at the expense of putting people off in the election in question. It's not dissimilar to how Buckley in the 65 Mayor's Race found a whole bunch of new Conservative voters. Goldwater in 1968, if he thinks he has a shot at winning, might tone it down a bit.

Goldwater 68 could run with Romney as running mate (cementing the unity image), Margaret Chase Smith (who called out the McCarthyists and Birchers), John Volpe (pursuing the white ethnic Italian-American vote), or Spiro Agnew (who, people forget, had the advantage of being a 'white ethnic' - Greek - and a Republican Governor from a sort of Southern State who was a moderate on racial issues but also tough on crime). I think Volpe makes the most sense.

I have no idea if Reagan still pops up in 1966. It's possible he campaigns for Romney [whoever the 1964 nominee is] and makes the same Time for Choosing speech as OTL, rocketing him into the 1966 governor nomination. But the speech OTL was written for Goldwater. Goldwater said it didn't sound like him, and said give it to Reagan.

Nixon probably gets the position of Secretary of State, hoping to be teed up for the 76 or 80 GOP nomination.


If it is Romney as GOP nominee in 1964, there will likely be a Dixiecrat candidacy that year like Wallace-68. I think Wallace still runs in 1968, because the goal was to force it into a house compromise and no matter who is nominee, throwing the election to the House is more advantageous to the Dixiecrats than not doing so.
 
Last edited:
Jackson Lennock said:
What if George Romney had avoided his 'brainwashing' commentary in 1964, secured the nomination, lost, and Goldwater had run in 1968?
Click to expand...
You are confused. George Romney made his brainwashing comment in 1968, not 1964. I also think Romney may have been too inexperienced to win the Republican nomination in 1964, having been Governor of Michigan for less than 2 years.
 
Ricardolindo said:
I think the best point of divergence is Goldwater simply not running in 1964. He was reluctant to run.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. I edited the thread title and the OP.


Now removed from the original post:

What if George Romney had avoided his 'brainwashing' commentary in 1964, secured the nomination, lost, and Goldwater had run in 1968? Goldwater was a party man, so I expect that he would support Romney in 1964 and try to unite the party. Maybe he gets made VP, but maybe not. I could see Goldwater asking Romney to make Miller (Goldwater's OTL VP pick, RNC chair from 1961 to 1964, and House Member from 1951 to 1965, and a Nuremberg Trial Prosecutor) as running mate. Goldwater's Extremism in the Defense of Liberty Speech maybe comes off a bit like Reagan 76's Speech at the Convention - more a stirring thing to whip up his side of the party before calling for unity and supporting Romney.
Click to expand...



Goldwater as President would be more fiscally and economically conservative than Nixon.
  • There might not be a creation of the EPA, although Nixon creating the EPA was more of a consolidation of several existing sub-departments into a single agency rather than a big new thing.
  • OSHA passed the Senate 83 to 3, and the House 310 to 58, so even if Goldwater vetoes it, he could get vetoed. But Goldwater voted for OSHA as a Senator.
  • There might not be the 1972 Amendments to the Social Security Act. This would mean no extending Medicare to those under 65 who have been severely disabled for over two years or have end stage renal disease (ESRD); no 20% increase in benefits for 27.8 million people, no cost of living adjustments (COLA), no Supplemental Security Income (SSI), and no increase in minimum monthly benefits for low-income workers and widows. But some of this stuff might still go through over Goldwater's veto. If not overrided, this probably helps the Social Security program remain more solvent. Withholding taxes probably remain lower, since they were first raised from 2% to 6.15% in 1977 under Carter, and in 1983 under Reagan up to half the value of social security benefits could be taxed.
  • Goldwater could perhaps push for means-testing some social security benefits. It'd be a fiscally conservative measure which would satisfy liberal democrats.
  • Goldwater wouldn't go for unilateral price controls the way Nixon did.
  • Goldwater would have a more conservative monetary policy than Nixon did. I also doubt he'd tell the Fed Chairman to print money going into the 1972 election the way Nixon did.

Goldwater would have a hawkish foreign policy, though I'm unsure if he'd unilaterally expand the war in secret to Cambodia and Laos.
Goldwater wouldn't be as ... uh ... creative or unethical as Nixon when it came to abuse of office.


Goldwater probably still puts Rehnquist on the Court, since Rehnquist was Goldwater's guy. Burger is still the easy choice for Chief Justice, since he's a strict constructionist who'd essentially been campaigning for the position since 1967 and would have been an easy promotion due to already having been confirmed for the DC Circuit. Goldwater might not be as intent on getting a Southerner on though (avoiding the Haynsworth/Carlswell headache). Maybe Henry Friendly gets nominated? He was one of the country's leading Conservative Judges OTL, but Nixon didn't want to nominate another Jew for the "Jewish seat" vacated by Fortas. He would not be as Conservative as Rehnquist - more similar to Harlan II, Kennedy, or O'Connor.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top