What If? Bobby Kennedy Wins in 1968

Situation:

Robert Kennedy narrowly survives an assassination attempt in Los Angeles, pushing his popularity through the roof and surging him into the White House over Nixon.

How does this change history? Vietnam, Iran, the end of the Soviet Union?

I'd like to hear what some of our other amateur historians have to say on this, and especially those among us who remember Robert Kennedy.

Hard to tell in many areas, I think one of the big things that would be different though is the space program.

Robert Kennedy would have probably felt prouder of the moon landings and not immediately started trying to kneecap NASA after Apollo 11 landed.

Remember A Boy and His Dog? "Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Kennedy, Kennedy, Kennedy, Kennedy..."

I doubt it. While Nixon is widely (and justifiably) criticized for gutting NASA, the NASA budgets were already trending downward in 1969 and most of the Democratic Party had turned against the space program. Because they saw it as rooted in American imperialism and serving to benefit defense contractors and drain money from social programs.

A President RFK would probably have pulled the U.S. out of Vietnam sooner than Nixon though not as soon as some people think. Robert Kennedy was too tied to the antiwar movement to do otherwise. Think U.S. withdrawal in 1971 instead of 1973. That would've saved a few American lives.

But Kennedy would in all likelihood not have made Nixon's overtures to Red China and the U.S.S.R. With the 1972 elections looming and having pulled the U.S. out of Vietnam, he would need to keep his anticommunist credentials intact.

It is also hard to see how things would've been different domestically. Nixon was one of the most liberal modern presidents domestically. With emphasis on things like the environment (EPA) and busing to achieve school integration.

Reagan would probably have been elected president in 1976 as a reaction against the "Kennedy dynasty" and as a reaction by the western U.S. against "Eastern elites". Also, with no Nixon presidency, Reagan would've been the first "California president" and drawn some support from that.

Ironically, a relatively successful two term Robert Kennedy presidency would in many ways have overshadowed and marginalized the short presidency of his older brother.

I just wish my cousin had had the chance to make it to the White House, not shot down by some Palestinian trash.

Chris,

Pick up the book Brother's by David Talbot for a really interesting take on Bobby opening up another investagation into his brother's murder if he had won in 1968.

Oddly enough, I agree with this.

Now you have Reagan contending with the Iranian hostage crisis. Has he already began to rearm the military? Are they as dejected from a shorter war in Vietnam? We'd still own the Panama Canal, I know that much.

In 1984, Bush wins?

Assuming that it still occurs or occurs in the same way...

^Indeed. Without detente, who's to say that the US wouldn't rather toss the Shah under the bus to keep on good terms with Iran.

I see Reagan seeing the Iranian Revolution through the prism of the Cold War and propping up the Shah of Iran for another few years with military aid.

Perhaps during that time, the Shah gets smart and offs Khomenei before the Revolution takes hold.

If that happens, in all likelihood, no Iran/Iraq War. Saddam Hussein continues down the road of being an ambitious and brutal but by Middle Eastern standards, progressive and enlightened dictator whose Iraq remains one of the Soviet Unions annoying and uncooperative client states.

In all likelihood, Reagan would still be able to sell the Democrats as "soft on communism". Unless President RFK was willing to prop up the South Vietnamese govt. with heavy bombing (as Nixon promised and along with Ford was unable to deliver because of Democratic opposition), then the humiliating "fall of Saigon" would happen on President RFKs watch.

So instead of "hostages in Iran/Soviets in Afghanistan" images that Reagan used against Carter, you would've seen the "U.S. helicopters evacuating the U.S. embassy in Saigon" used by the Reagan campaign against the Democratic nominee in 1976.

No Nixon. No President Bush.

George H.W. Bush's career and reputation advanced considerably during the Nixon Admin. Most likely Bush would've remained a wealthy, somewhat frustrated West Texas politician.

He might've made it back to Congress or the Senate in time.

No Nixon. No President Clinton.

The Watergate mess helped launch the careers of both Bill Clinton and the future Hillary Clinton.

In 1974, Bill Clinton ran his first political race in Arkansas's 4th District. He lost.

But thanks to Watergate, Clinton came the closest any Democrat ever did to defeating long time Republican Congressman John Paul Hammerschmidt.

Even though he lost, this relatively close race marked Bill Clinton as a young up and comer in the Democratic Party and a force to be reckoned with. He would go on to become state Attorney General just two years later.

Hmm, wow. Been thinking about this one since Chris started the thread last night. If there's anywhere that the Domino Theory actually works, it's around the personalities of world leaders and who follows from whom, particularly in the U.S. two-party system, where most presidents seem to spend at least their first year in office undoing everything the previous guy did.

I agree with Dayton on Vietnam. In addition to getting us out sooner, RFK would likely not have expanded the theater into Cambodia. Would that government have destabilized and given up to the Khmer Rouge in that case? Hard to tell.

I'm also not sure what the progression post-RFK would have been if you simply plugged him in in place of Nixon. Need to think some more about that.

Nice to see an attempt to raise the RR's IQ again, though.

I'm not so sure that we'd still have the Panama Canal. It probably wouldn't have been given up entirely under Reagan, but there probably would have been more control given to Panama and subsequent presidents probably would have decided it was an imperialist symbol that would have been more trouble than it was worth. As it is, the canal treaty has worked out well. Panama seems to be doing a capable job of running with a massive expansion program in the works and the lefties have one less bloody shirt to wave in front of the great unwashed.

An earlier Reagan presidency does raise other interesting issues. Whether his more belligerent approach to foreign policy would have had the same effect when the Soviet Union wasn't quite as weak as it was when he took over in 1980 is hard to say. Gorbachev was willing to throw in the towel when he saw the jig was up while the left over hard liners like Brezhnev that bitch slapped Carter around might not have responded that way. (i.e. rationally)

As far as Iran is concerned, I don't think Reagan could have stopped the Shah's collapse. He might have handled it better and the hostage crisis might not have broken out the same way, but that was a mess left over from the British Empire and the Cold War and I don't think there is anything he could have done to stop the Islamic Revolution from reaching critical mass.

If Bobby Kennedy had won in 1968 then Chevy Chase would never have achieved the fame he won from his Gerald Ford SNL skits and we'd never have gotten the movie Fletch.

A generation that grew up without Chevy Chase... this would be a good thing methinks....

And then no Ambush Bug, and then no Harry Hembock!

See my post 15, you forget to take into account evolutionary branches.

I mean, sure, everyone wants to go back, and shoot Lucille Ball, but then, no Desilu, and then no Star Trek.

That part, by itself, would probably be a very good thing. The twin Johnson legacies of expanded American involvement in Vietnam and a runaway welfare society might never have happened. Wow. Just wow. That would be awesome.

Considering that Ronald Reagan left more originally written material than any president since Theodore Roosevelt I hardly think his IQ needs raising.

Quantity of written material is no indicator of intelligence, as evidenced by Garamet.

The quality of Reagan's written and spoken word are what speak to his intelligence.

Red Room, guys. RR. Red Room.

Sheesh...

Mary Jo Kopechne is probably a grandmother by now as Ted wouldn't have been in the same place at the same time, butterfly effect and all that.

Red Ranger? Nah! He's only at TNZ and you'll never raise his IQ.

If things transpired as suggested upthread (no Nixon, Ford, Carter, Bush and Reagan becoming President in 1976):

Would there have been enough of a "critical mass" of conservatives in 1976 to elect Reagan?
Would the Soviets have invaded Afghanistan in '79 (assuming Reagan wins in 1976)?
Would we have had a Reagan vs. Ted Kennedy election matchup in 1980?
Who would have been the big guns in Republican Presidential politics after Reagan?

To answer the questions:

1) Quite probably. Reagan benefited greatly from the so called "Sage Brush Rebellion" among western states chafing at orders and edicts from Washington.

Virtually every western state voted for Ford in 1976. They would've been even stronger for America's first Californian president (Reagan).

2) Depends on Reagans reaction to the Soviets airlifting Cuban troops to fight in Angola and Mozambique and how Reagan reacted to the sudden "discovery" of a brigade of Soviet combat troops in Cuba in 1979.

Soviet leaders said off the record years later that they felt free to send troops into Afghanistan because the Carter Admin. did nothing in those two incidents.

After all, if the U.S. wasn't going to do anything regarding Cuba which was next door, why would they get worked up about Afghanistan?

It is common knowledge now that Soviet leaders often used U.S. actions regarding Cuba as a meter to gauge probable U.S. reactions elsewhere.

3) I do see a possible Reagan/Kennedy battle in 1980. Much would've depended on the economy. If Reagan had managed his victory over inflation as he did in real life and the U.S. avoided the short recession of 1979-1980.

Chances are Reagan would've beated Edward Kennedy as the younger Kennedy was no where near the caliber of politician of his brothers.

Plus, I think voters might've been leery of a third Kennedy brother so soon.

Wild Card:

The godawfully hot summer of 1980 which caused major economic damage and in general simply left Americans pissed off that year.

The summer was so hot that an aging Barry Goldwater, speaking at the GOP national convention in Detroit interrupted his nationally televised speech to wipe his face and exclaim

"Hottest damn place I've been all day!"

I've always wondered what an RFK administration's reaction to LBJ's not so Great Society would have been.

Probably not good.

Funny that Barry would say that since he's from :arizona: .

Who would have run to succeed Reagan in '84?

^ There would be a few.

Senator Bob Dole, not tainted by his role as Ford's running mate where he acquired his "mean" reputation.

Congressman Jack Kemp, who might well have been Reagan's Vice President (he came close to being selected in 1980, Bush was an afterthought).

Governor Thompson of Illinois. An important state. With the Republicans still having a moderate wing at this point he might've been appealing. Thompsons long term political hopes were killed by his razor thin reelection in 1982 which may or may not have happened in our revised timeline.

Senator Charles Percy of Illinois who had been mentioned as a presidential possibility all the way back in 1966 and would later turn out to be one of Reagans most loyal Senate supporters.

I'm not so sure. The implementation might have been different, though.

RFK would have been in a bit of a political pickle with the Great Society programs. I gather that he and Johnson weren't on speaking terms and of course GS was LBJ's signature initiative. However, RFK would have had to be careful about alienating black voters if he was less than supportive. Of course, for all his talk of getting out of Vietnam, I wonder just how much more quickly he could moved than Nixon when push came to shove. As Obama has already found out, talking about getting out of a war is one thing, actually doing it, not so easy.

Tell that to Ike. Obama just doesn't actually want us out of Iraq, if you haven't figured that out yet.