WI: President Nixon (1961-???)

[AndrewH]

IIRC there has been a thread discussing how the Bay of Pigs would play out under a Nixon Administration, but there hasn’t been one discussing the actual policies of a Nixon Administration.

I’ve been re-reading Rick Perlstein’s wonderful Nixonland for the past couple of days and the first few chapters give some intriguing insight to Nixon’s 1960 campaign - Nixon tacked hard to the center that year in a bid to shake off the almost thuggish reputation he got over his years in Congress and in Eisenhower’s Administration to make himself more “electable.” While he made some half-hearted sops to the civil rights movement during this period, Nixon openly reversed his anti-union positions from a few years prior and worked to make himself more palatable to organized labor. He openly tried to distance himself from conservatives within the GOP (itself culminating in the YAF attempting to draft Barry Goldwater at the 1960 RNF), and I’m sure most people here are familiar with how Nelson Rockefeller basically wrote the Republican platform that year.

What would Nixon do once in the White House - follow the points laid out in the Treaty of Fifth Avenue and alienate the increasingly influential conservatives, turn hard to the right at the risk of whiplash, or (what I think is the most likely) try and find the Nixonian middle-ground? I’d imagine Nixon would start playing the demagogue come 1964 assuming Dr. King and other major civil rights leaders begin agitating for an end to segregation, and that’s not even addressing how Nixon’s foreign policy would play into that.

 

[CountZingo]

I'd agree with the notion that Nixon would try to find a middle-ground in the interest of party unity. However, I think that Nixon was genuinely in favor of Civil Rights (keep in mind that at this point, most of the segregationalists were southern Democrats, a Republican president enforced desegregation, and Earl Warren, who was a prominent advocate of desegregation, was a Republican), and he may or may not have been able to pass some version of a Civil Rights Act.

In foreign affairs, Nixon would have probably handled the Bay of Pigs better, because he would have much more communication with Eisenhower - either the Bay of Pigs would have never happened, or Nixon would have sent US troops in. If that happened, the Cuban Missile Crisis would be butterflied away. That would change a lot of things in foriegn policy, potentially Vietnam included. If the Vietnam crisis did still happen, I'm honestly not sure how Nixon would react - he might stick with the Eisenhower position of staying out of it, he may follow LBJ's OTL approach, or he may bow to the Goldwater wing of the party and consider using tactical nuclear weapons, which is more plausible given no Cuban Missile Crisis.

One big consequence of a Nixon administration would be the space program. While John Glenn probably still would have made his flight, the trajectory of the space program would have probably been utterly changed.

One very important note is that Lee Harvey Oswald initially wanted to kill Nixon, although his target shifted to Kennedy. If Nixon was President, that means that he might remain Oswald's target, and Oswald may have been able to kill Nixon somehow, leaving Henry Cabot Lodge Jr. as President.

 

[AndrewH]

I'd agree with the notion that Nixon would try to find a middle-ground in the interest of party unity. However, I think that Nixon was genuinely in favor of Civil Rights (keep in mind that at this point, most of the segregationalists were southern Democrats, a Republican president enforced desegregation, and Earl Warren, who was a prominent advocate of desegregation, was a Republican), and he may or may not have been able to pass some version of a Civil Rights Act.

I sincerely doubt that Nixon, a man who privately believed black people were genetically inferior to white people and someone who spent most of his career trying to ingratiate himself with conservative voters, would pursue anything more than the bare minimum when it comes to civil rights.

Most Republicans actively despised Earl Warren, Eisenhower wasn’t some racial progressive, and Dick Nixon didn’t care about civil rights.

 

[Charles EP M.]

If Nixon does go for a full intervention in Cuba, and that seems plausible, would that make America go into Vietnam whole-hog earlier? America would have just beaten a communist state by force of arms, it could be felt that this proves they need to hit hard and fast and be committed.

I sincerely doubt that Nixon, a man who privately believed black people were genetically inferior to white people and someone who spent most of his career trying to ingratiate himself with conservative voters, would pursue anything more than the bare minimum when it comes to civil rights.

I can see the riots and seething tension from the later 60s happening in the early 60s as a result, as activists go "is this IT, we've gone from the changes in the 50s to THIS slowdown?" at Nixon's reforms.

 

[Creekmench]

If Nixon does go for a full intervention in Cuba, and that seems plausible, would that make America go into Vietnam whole-hog earlier? America would have just beaten a communist state by force of arms, it could be felt that this proves they need to hit hard and fast and be committed.



I can see the riots and seething tension from the later 60s happening in the early 60s as a result, as activists go "is this IT, we've gone from the changes in the 50s to THIS slowdown?" at Nixon's reforms.

I can see Nixon's Civil Rights Act to be both half-baked and pleasing no one. I can also see this scenario being a great backdrop for a story.

 

[AndrewH]

I can see the riots and seething tension from the later 60s happening in the early 60s as a result, as activists go "is this IT, we've gone from the changes in the 50s to THIS slowdown?" at Nixon's reforms.

It would be interesting to see the changing dynamic of the civil rights movement, seeing how militant people like Carmichael and organizations like SNCC have not risen to prominence yet, but people like King and organizations like the SCLC won’t play nice.

King will be even more hated than in OTL, and that’s not even mentioning how Nixon might go after him.

 

[Charles EP M.]

Something something allohistorical for Mandela something.

 

[AndrewH]

Something something allohistorical for Mandela something.

Speaking of South Africa, there were liberal papers in OTL that, during the height of racial unrest in 1966, predicted that a “President Verwoerd” would get elected in ‘68 or ‘72. If that unrest hits America in the optimistic days of the early 60’s, things could get real nasty.

So what I’m saying is that George Wallace could get even more dangerous ITTL.

 

[Charles EP M.]

I clicked Like but only cos there's no Oh No option

 

[Francisco Cojuanco]

IIRC there were polls showing that there were a majority of white Americans willing to support a civil rights bill (the demos, of course were much different if one was in the South and some other areas, like Oregon or Nevada). What they didn't support was the Civil Rights Movement.

I think with Nixon, he would probably try to get some form of Civil Rights Act beyond the OTL Eisenhower policies through. It won't be nearly as extensive as the OTL Act though, and something more similar to the Kennedy-Johnson original proposal. While that was, of course, nowhere near what King et. al. were looking for, the key provision would be Title III, which would allow the AG to sue segregationists for violating the CRA, instead of making it incumbent on the aggrieved parties to initiate suits.

I think, though, that a Nixon Administration, for that very reason, might not succeed in civil rights. From what he at least publically advocated as part of the Eisenhower Administration (borne out of rather pragmatic political concerns as opposed to actually caring about the issue), the problem it it would be simply not radical enough to please the CRM, and too radical for the conservatives and segregationists.

 

[Francisco Cojuanco]

I sincerely doubt that Nixon, a man who privately believed black people were genetically inferior to white people and someone who spent most of his career trying to ingratiate himself with conservative voters, would pursue anything more than the bare minimum when it comes to civil rights.

Most Republicans actively despised Earl Warren, Eisenhower wasn’t some racial progressive, and Dick Nixon didn’t care about civil rights.

The problem is that even what Nixon publically called for (as opposed to his well-known private racism) was still too radical for the segregationists.) He would probably try a watered down version (as was the original proposal for the 1964 Act OTL), but the problem is that it would please absolutely no-one outside Washington.

 

[AndrewH]

IIRC there were polls showing that there were a majority of white Americans willing to support a civil rights bill (the demos, of course were much different if one was in the South and some other areas, like Oregon or Nevada). What they didn't support was the Civil Rights Movement.

Assuming this is true, even if a majority of whites supported a civil rights bill, that in no way means Nixon supports a civil rights bill. Nixon was a savvy enough operator to recognize that the short-term (and arguably long-term) future of American conservatism was based around white racism, so while he might have toed the Rockefeller line for a bit and talk about liberal reform, Nixon will only do the absolute minimum once in the thick of it.

Power reveals, and in OTL power revealed that Nixon was a virulent racist who only supported piecemeal civil rights reform when it benefited him. I don’t think Nixon would go down the Kennedy-Johnson route, as his closest ally in getting Title III through Congress would be Manny Celler, a Democrat he personally hated. The most I see Nixon doing on civil rights is expanding the protections against discrimination to those discriminated on the basis of national origin and ending racial discrimination of organizations that get federal funding.

I agree with your point that it won’t please anybody outside of D.C., but since Nixon is only integrating “with all deliberate speed,” I’d think some Southerners would warm to him soon enough.

 

[Charles EP M.]

"Good ol' Dickie, doing what they forced him to do but not an inch further!"

 

[Francisco Cojuanco]

agree with your point that it won’t please anybody outside of D.C., but since Nixon is only integrating “with all deliberate speed,” I’d think some Southerners would warm to him soon enough.

I honestly doubt he'd satisfy the segs either way. Not with a 1960 POD. That he even broached the subject at all (which he is likely to do, if only for extremely pragmatic political reasons, similar but different to JFK) would be enough to set them off. Nixon had more room with them OTL, but that was in 1968 with people asking way more than even Johnson or Humphrey could ask for. In 1960? He's still the Vice-President of the man who sent paratroopers into Little Rock.

I think Nixon and civil rights will be seen as a missed opportunity by the liberal wing, yes - but too far for the average white Southerner or Goldwaterite. So in essence, Nixon would occupy that well-worn space reserved for him OTL as the figure that absolutely no-one liked but somehow managed to be President. Too much a Republican for the segs, too much of a conservative for the liberals.

 

[Francisco Cojuanco]

"Good ol' Dickie, doing what they forced him to do but not an inch further!"

And yet everyone would still detest him, yay.

 

[Archibald]

Apollo was indeed a unique byproduct of JFK blunders and mistakes related to Gagarin and Bay of pigs. Under Nixon,less blunders would happen and he would not go for the entire enchillada. The way Nixon spinned the post-Apollo program OTL (his 7 march 1970 declaration) it would be
- Mercury keeps going
- a space station
- Block I and Block II Apollo
- Block I replaces Gemini even if there is a post-Mercury gap
- Block II Apollo would eventually turn a loop around the Moon "somewhere in the 70's" starting from the space station.

The Centaur LH2 stage would be developed even without Apollo, it was needed for Atlas and Titan III. Saturn IB and its J2 might be developed, too, from the existing Saturn I.
In this case a circumlunar mission would happen the following way
- Launch a Block II Apollo to space station on a Saturn IB
- Launch a Centaur on a Saturn IB to the space station orbit
- dock the two and fire, go to the Moon.

The Saturn IB centaur could also launch science probes like Voyager.

 

[Jane Waterbury]

how would Vietnam go under the Republicans?

 

[Francisco Cojuanco]

how would Vietnam go under the Republicans?

They might be less wedded to Diem and the Ngo family.

 

[Jane Waterbury]

But what if the Republicans decide to use tactical nukes in Vietnam and etc.?

 

[napoleon IV]

But what if the Republicans decide to use tactical nukes in Vietnam and etc.?

I'm skeptical that nukes would be used on Vietnam. The Pentagon actually did a study of using that option. They found that a tactical nuclear bombing campaign would require 3000 nuclear weapons a year, well beyond the production capabilities of the US. They also found that such attacks would be of limited value. Given that the NVA/Viet Cong operated in small, dispersed groups nuclear weapons would be ineffective at killing them, and while it would temporarily destroy the infastructure of the Ho Chi Minh Trail, the North Vietnamese would quickly build new paths. The final problem they found was that using nuclear weapons might cause the Soviet Union or China to intervene, and even if they didn't other states would build their own nuclear weapons as protection against the US. Short of someone like Barry Goldwater getting into office, I suspect that the Republicans would be too sane to launch nukes.