Posted on 04/08/2018 2:00:53 PM PDT by Eagles Field
It’s November 1963, JFK survives the assassination attempt. After months of intense headlines worldwide speculating his recovery, he emerges on the world stage triumphant just days before the Spring of ’64. Kennedy snatches the sympathy vote from LBJ’s slimy clutches and handily wins a second term. Johnson is never to be President. Is there a Vietnam or another stage inevitable with a different outcome? And what becomes the intentions of The Great Society?
I’ve heard that JFK would not have escalated the Vietnam War the way LBJ did.
I’ve heard many of the great society programs were passed,based on honoring the memory of JFK. If JFK had not died, then who knows about those programs enacted.
Ditto with Ted Kennedy and the 1965 immigration law which was passed in JFKs memory.
LBJ probably gets elected in 1968 and nothing changes...it only gets pushed....
I was serving with the U.S. Army Special Forces at the time JFK was shot, and I don't think JFK planned on making a stand against the Communists in Vietnam, as the French had already "Pissed in that well." We were fighting a delaying action in Vietnam while we prepared Thailand as the place where the "Domino" wouldn't fall, but when JFK was shot in 1963 and LBJ took over, that all changed in 1965.
If Kennedy survived he’d have one hell of a headache...
Stephen King speculated about this a little in his time-travel novel “11/22/63”. From what I recall the USA went into a dramatic decline and became a 3rd world nation, although this wasn’t really the focus of the book.
Unfortunately I believe that if Kennedy had survived the first assassination attempt there would have been another one before long. The people who were trying to kill him would have succeeded eventually. Needless to say I don’t believe that JFK was killed by one lone crazy guy with a mail-order rifle, anymore than I believe that Jack Ruby killed Oswald in a fit of patriotic rage.
If you want more credible ‘what if history?’...about JFK - how about this:
“What if the corrupt DNC is discovered stuffing the ballot boxes in Texas (a few counties) - and in the Chicago area. JFK doesn’t succeed in stealing the election, and Richard Nixon becomes the nation’s 35th President.”
That ‘what if’ is more credible than some of the others....
In January, Barry Goldwater announces his candidacy for the presidency. As 1964 progresses, Kennedy's poll numbers continue the downward trend that began in the latter months of 1963, and Victor Lasky's book JFK: The Man and the Myth (New York: Macmillan, 1963) tops the bestseller list for several months. Investigative reporters start to dig into his past, and Democratic rivals, smelling blood, throw their hats into the ring. JFK soon finds himself competing for votes with George Wallace, Hubert Humphrey, Pat Brown and Stu Symington.
Goldwater and Kennedy overcome their challengers and become their respective parties' presidential candidates. Kennedy agrees to four televised debates with Goldwater, but Goldwater wins each one hands down. On Halloween, Ronald Reagan's speech "A Time for Choosing" is aired on nationwide TV. Four days later, Barry Goldwater wins the election and becomes America's 36th president.
Imagine ...
I enjoyed most of the book. However, it falls apart at the end. King's description of what happened in the years between Dallas and the present time is not very realistic or believable. I wound up only giving it three stars when I rated it for Goodreads.com.
Considering that JFK was the guy who sent the first troops there, yes.
JFK drugged up to the gills decides that he is suppose to start a monarchy and declares himself King John the First.
The issue is put to the vote and Papa Joe buys enough votes in Chicago that it passes.
The first thing they do is outlaw all guns.
The next thing they do is make Ted a General and put him in charge of the military.
Blacks would be more evenly represented in corporate America because of their merit, MLK would not have been assassinated, and would have overseen the accomplishment of racial equality without it having been hijacked to giving unfair advantage in the professional world and disadvantage via the welfare plantation to those with specific skin color.
IOW, no LBJ.
Interesting question.
I don’t think the Great Society programs would have been passed because Kennedy wasn’t that interested in domestic policy. Plus, LBJ knew how to work Congress to get his bills passed. Kennedy not so much.
What Kennedy would have done in Vietnam is a real question mark to me. If I had to guess, I would say that he wouldn’t have escalated the war like Johnson did but I don’t think he would have withdrawn U.S. military forces from the country either.
And I do think the 1964 election would have been a lot closer.
I think Vietnam would have been much more Special Forces and airpower and much less or no main line combat forces.
Johnson’s approach was “Step aside little yellow brother while we come in and roll back the Commie tide!”
The South always had the capacity to defend themselves. We pushed that to the very back burner in 1965.
Stephen King did nail one thing. LBJ was a ruthless deal maker and rammed the Civil Rights Act through Congress, something that Kennedy did not have enough political capital to succeed. That, in the book, started the decline.
Johnson was already Kennedy's running mate for Kennedy's second term, and most likely would have been the nominee in 68.
Any facts to back up Oswald was not acting alone?
He might have squeaked out a victory in 1964, but even that is doubtful.
JFK would have done a better job with Vietnam than did LBJ, but would have needed his expertise in managing the Senate vote.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1179981/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3645188/posts?page=5#5
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3023319/posts?page=81#81
Ooh, good one! No Pentagon Papers. No Ellsberg break-in or Watergate. Nixon wouldn't have had to spend time and political capital on ending US involvement in Vietnam, instead building a more Republican (and much cheaper) version of the War on Poverty, while increasing defense spending (while NOT fighting a war in Vietnam), and balancing the federal budget. In 1969 he'd have office in triumph and left the country in its best condition of the 20th century, receiving much of the credit for the successful Moon race outcome even if it happened under his successor.
Ronald Reagan won but one state (California) in the 1968 primaries -- but exceeded Nixon's vote totals from his ten wins. It's not unreasonable to see Ronald Reagan as Nixon's successor from 1969 to 1977.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.