• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Kurt_Steiner: Pretty much.

volksmarschall: I don’t think so.

Except...Jackson’s own party is disunited in taking any action in Southeast Asia. Heck, Scoop is getting more support from the Republicans.

jeeshadow: You’re right. In terms of a political convention melting down, it’s hard to compete with the police beating the crap out of protestors in the streets and the Mayor of Chicago shouting obscenities at Abe Ribicoff.

You’re also right about McGovern and Wallace having a clearer base of support than Scoop does.

As for China being provoked, we will just have to wait and see.

Off the top of my head, Jackson’s predecessor John Sparkman had pushing through Congress a conservation agenda, establishing NASA, starting the national highway system, peacefully resolving the Suez Canal dispute between England and Egypt, and keeping Castro from going completely over to the Soviets as his major accomplishments. Scoop pales in comparison.

El Pip: How do you avenge the Maddox and defeat the Vietcong? The same way you solve all problems: throw plenty of young men at it.

Jackson has had a long-term plan. It’s stabilizing South Vietnam enough militarily that America doesn’t have to worry about her collapsing. He doesn’t want a single united Vietnam. The problem with his plan is that the other side does.

The plan for North Vietnam after US ground troops have invaded is to leave quickly and hope the Chinese don’t notice their presence the way they noticed America’s presence in North Korea during the Korean War.

A plan for the corrupt pit that is the South Vietnamese government? Whoa, whoa, whoa. Slow down there, El Pip. You are asking too much of Jackson. :eek:

SirNolan: Pound of flesh? I don’t think I have heard that phrase before.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 1964 Democratic National Convention
On Monday, August 24th, 1964, all eyes were on Atlantic City, New Jersey as the resort city hosted the 1964 Democratic National Convention. Incorporated in May 1854, Atlantic City was best known for her oceanfront boardwalk, inspiring the board game “Monopoly”, and hosting the annual Miss America Pageant. Now in late August, Democrats gathered at Convention Hall – which could seat 15,000 people – to quadrennially nominate their Presidential ticket. Elected President in 1960, Henry M. Jackson should have been a shoo-in for re-nomination in 1964. After all, no incumbent President had been dumped by his political party after one term in eighty years. Unfortunately for Scoop, he headed into Convention Hall from a position of weakness. He was an unpopular President whose three-and-a-half years in office had been troubled ones. Other than the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1963, Jackson didn’t have much legislative accomplishments to point to. His strong push for civil rights, while earning him praise and admiration from African-Americans, had shattered the Solid South which was the electoral bedrock for the Democratic Party. Liberals were angry at him over his hawkish handling of Vietnam, his eagerness to pour money into defense spending (symbolized by the infamous Dyna-Soar III flop), and his lack of action on negotiating a nuclear test ban treaty with the Soviet Union. Jackson had also been wounded politically by the 1962 steel strike and a huge scandal at the Department of Agriculture which managed to dwarf the Teapot Dome Scandal of the 1920s. Another scandal forced Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson to resign from the Administration in early 1964. Given all of Jackson’s problems, Democrats weren’t all that eager to re-nominate him for a second term.

(President Henry M. Jackson and First Lady Helen Jackson posing on the boardwalk with two pro-Jackson delegates)
With Jackson vulnerable, two major candidates emerged to challenge him for the nomination. One of them was Alabama Governor George Wallace. An outspoken segregationist, Wallace had positioned himself as the voice for those who were outraged that the President had favored blacks at their expense. As the results of the primaries showed, that outrage wasn’t limited just to the South. Although Wallace only won primaries in the South (three of them to be exact), he performed astonishingly well in the North. In the Wisconsin and Indiana primaries, the Governor got over 30% of the vote. He reached out to ethnic and blue-collar workers who deeply resented that they now had to compete with blacks for jobs, housing, and education. This so-called white backlash against civil rights enabled Wallace to rise above his native region and become a formidable national candidate. He went into Atlantic City certain to dominate Southern delegations and win support from Northern delegates who shared his view that he was fighting the good fight “for the rights of life, liberty, and property.”
While Wallace was challenging the President from the right, South Dakota Senator George McGovern came at him from the left. Although the two men had campaigned together in 1960, they were driven apart by their sharp disagreements over national defense and foreign policy. Alarmed by what he considered to be the President’s dangerously hawkish views, the dovish McGovern had thrown his hat into the ring on September 20th, 1963. He was the candidate of the Dump Jackson Movement, which had been formed by left-wing activists the month before McGovern’s announcement. The DJM sprang up over the belief that Jackson was a reckless President who would carelessly get the country into a nuclear war if he wasn’t stopped in Atlantic City. They saw him as the real-life President Hank Hacksaw, one of Peter Sellers’ characters in the 1963 Cold War satire “Dr. Strangelove” who was persuaded by his unhinged Air Force Chief (played by Sterling Hayden) to launch a nuclear attack against the Soviet Union over an alleged Soviet plot to pollute Americans’ “precious bodily fluids” using water fluoridation. Hacksaw’s wheelchair-bound scientific advisor Dr. Strangelove (also played by Sellers) eventually proved to the President that America’s water supply was indeed safe, making Hacksaw realize he had ordered an unnecessary attack. However, his belated realization came too late to stop the montage of nuclear explosions at the end of the film depicting the resulting nuclear war between the two superpowers. That Hacksaw looked, sounded, and had a name like Jackson’s fed the DJM’s impression that this would be the future unless they prevented Scoop’s re-nomination. Given his well-known opposition, McGovern was recruited to take on the real-life President and stop him from turning film fiction into stark reality. As he put it:
“Somebody has to stop this madness...and I will.”

Nor was the nomination the only source of drama at the convention. Civil rights deeply divided the Democratic Party, and that division was on full display both outside and inside Convention Hall. Outside on the opening day, civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. led a peaceful demonstration (shown above) against Wallace’s candidacy. The protestors demanded that the convention soundly reject the segregationist Alabama Governor who proudly stood against everything they believed in. Meanwhile on the convention floor, there was a fight over the seating of the Mississippi delegation. Mississippi, completely ignoring the fact that the country was becoming more integrated, chose to send to the convention an all-white delegation led by the unrepentant white supremacist Senator James Eastland. Instead of being seated right away as expected, Eastland’s delegation found itself being challenged for its’ spot on the floor by an ad hoc mixed-race delegation. Led by civil rights activist Fannie Lou Hamer, this delegation claimed Mississippi’s seats on the grounds that Eastland’s delegation had illegally excluded blacks. Despite the fact that African-Americans now fully enjoyed their right to take part in the country’s political process, Mississippi was continuing to discriminate against them. In light of the VRA, Hamer’s delegation insisted that it should be seated instead of Eastland’s.

Eastland was furious that his official delegation was being challenged by this ad hoc delegation. He defiantly declared:
“No Negro has ever sat in the Mississippi delegation and no Negro ever will!”
He received support in his opposition from Wallace, who publically called for the seating of Eastland’s delegation and for Hamer’s delegation to be dishonorably kicked out. “This convention,” he said privately, “Should not be held hostage by those black jigaboos!”
Scoop, who had spent his Presidency fighting for civil rights, came down on the side of Hamer’s delegation. He believed in forcing the South to change her ways, so he naturally supported the seating of the integrated delegation. McGovern agreed that there should be blacks in Mississippi’s delegation; but instead of seating Hamer’s delegation at the expense of Eastland’s delegation like the President wanted to do, he got behind a liberal proposal to evenly divide Mississippi’s allocated seats between the two delegations. He said it was “the fairest way we can settle this matter.”
Eastland didn’t see it that way. He rejected the compromise out of hand and insisted that only his all-white delegation could be seated since it was the official delegation chosen by his state. Unfortunately for him, he was overruled by unsympathetic liberals who pushed through the convention a resolution mandating that the Mississippi delegation include blacks. The convention then voted to approve a new rule: starting in 1968, no states would be allowed to send segregated delegations to Democratic National Conventions. Refusing to abide by the mandate, Eastland – in full view of television cameras – dramatically walked out of Convention Hall with his delegation in tow. Hamer’s delegation was then seated by default, its’ leader very much pleased by the outcome:
“We came all this way and we got all our seats.”

(Fannie Lou Hamer being interviewed during the convention)
With the Mississippi seating issue settled, the convention turned to the nomination process on Wednesday, August 26th. Speeches were given placing the names of the three major candidates into nomination. The President was nominated first by Texas Senator Ralph Yarborough, one of his most consistent supporters in Congress. Yarborough had voted for all the Fair Deal bills as well as the VRA (a record which gave his Republican opponent George Bush plenty of things to attack him on back home). In his nominating speech, “Smiling Ralph” as he was known praised Jackson as being FDR’s spiritual successor who for three-and-a-half years had been working tirelessly to – as he put it – “put the jam on the lower shelf so the little people can reach it!”
He called Scoop “a great leader of courage” who had stood up for blacks at home and had stood up for America abroad. “We have a President who has shown time and again that he cannot be pushed around. You can just ask Mr. Khrushchev that!”
Yarborough lavished the President with praise throughout his speech. Unfortunately for the incumbent, the praise ended with Yarborough. Speaking next for McGovern was Massachusetts Senator Robert F. Kennedy. To say that Bobby Kennedy wasn’t fond of Scoop Jackson is putting it rather mildly. Kennedy, who took slights to his family very seriously, made no secret of the fact that he hated Jackson. That hatred stemmed from the way Scoop had declined to reign in Chief of Naval Operations Hyman Rickover’s contempt of and disrespect for Bobby’s brother Secretary of the Navy John F. Kennedy. Rickover didn’t take JFK seriously, once dismissing him as a “stupid playboy who has only gotten anywhere in life because of his father’s money.”
This treatment, which eventually drove Jack Kennedy to resign and take a job as Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, infuriated the younger Kennedy who swore never to forgive the President. Now in his speech before the delegates, RFK got his revenge by trashing Scoop as a man who had let both the Democratic Party and the country down through his irresponsible leadership. Everyone deserved a better leader, “and that leader, ladies and gentlemen, is a man from the plains who epitomizes the great common sense the people of the Midwest are known for: Senator George McGovern.”
Throughout his speech, Bobby compared the two men and always put McGovern on top as being the better man. His disdain for the lesser man was palpable. Listening to the speech from his spot on the convention floor, Sander Vanocur of NBC News commented that “you can really feel the heat coming off of Senator Kennedy.”
Speaking last for Wallace was South Carolina Senator Strom Thurmond. The Dixiecrat candidate for Vice President in 1960, Thurmond represented the angry white segregationist Democrats who were appalled by the actions taken by the Jackson Administration. He claimed that the Party under Jackson “has willfully abandoned states’ rights, one of the proud cornerstones of what it means to be a Democrat.”
With the Party slipping away from its states’ rights roots to be more embracive of civil rights, Thurmond called on all “true” Democrats to rise up behind Wallace and take the Party back. He blamed the racial violence and racial tensions on Scoop, declaring that the only way to restore order in the streets was to make Wallace the next President. Appealing to Northerners who were alarmed by the encroachment of blacks on their turf, Thurmond promised that Wallace as President would roll back the gains made by blacks under Jackson. “Governor Wallace will see to it,” he said amid cheers and boos from the delegates, “That no American should have to compete with a Negro for a job, that no American should have to live next door to a Negro, that no American should have to fear for the safety of their daughters in a school attended by a Negro.”

(Massachusetts Senator Robert F. Kennedy during his McGovern nomination speech)
With the nominating speeches over, the Presidential roll-call vote began. No one was under more pressure going into the first ballot than the President. According to the convention rules, states which held primaries were bounded to support the winner on the first ballot. That meant Scoop could count on the four states he won to vote for him. The bad news though outweighed the good news:
  • McGovern had won twice the number of primaries
  • If the first ballot didn’t end with a winner declared, the states which held primaries would then be released to support whomever they wanted
Thus Jackson somehow had to win on the first ballot. If it went to the second ballot, then it would be all over for him as his states would be free to desert him for McGovern. Every vote counted. As each state delegation cast their votes, Scoop (who was watching on television in his hotel suite) reached over and grasped his wife’s hand. The First Lady later recalled feeling the tension in his grasp as her husband’s political fate was decided. At the end of the first ballot, there was no winner. McGovern held the lead but was 38 votes short of clinching the nomination. His votes came from those who either supported him outright or regarded the prairie history professor as being the only viable candidate in the field. Jackson was in second place, having failed to beat his archrival on the first ballot. Wallace sat in third place, having done quite well in his native South (except in Mississippi, which went solidly to the President) and having won quite a bit of votes in several Northern delegations. As the second ballot proceeded, it was clear to all that Scoop was finished. Delegates who had voted for him on the first ballot switched their votes to other candidates. McGovern surged ahead, easily finding the 38 votes he needed for victory. At the end of the second ballot, convention chairman John W. McCormack announced at the rostrum that George McGovern had won the Democratic Presidential nomination. Although the outcome wasn’t surprising, it was still a stunning moment in American politics. For the first time since 1884, a sitting President had been dumped by his political party after just one term. After three-and-a-half years, Democrats had voted to replace Jackson at the top of their ticket with McGovern.

Having been soundly rejected, Scoop released a carefully-worded statement to the press announcing that he accepted the decision of the convention. Nowhere in his statement did he congratulate the new Democratic standard-bearer. The President, feeling the sting of rejection, then left Atlantic City for a few days of quiet seclusion at Camp Ewing in Maryland. With five months left in office, Scoop was now a lame duck President unlikely to do anything more of consequence. As for the man who had replaced him at the top of the Democratic ticket, his first decision following the second ballot victory was choosing his running mate. For McGovern, that was an easy decision to make. Joining him on the ticket would be his first choice: Oregon Senator Wayne Morse. He was picked for two reasons:
  • Morse represented a West Coast state, which would balance the ticket geographically
  • Morse had impressed McGovern with his outspoken opposition to the Vietnam War on constitutional grounds. By choosing Morse, McGovern would reinforce his campaign’s anti-war message to sharply contrast the Republican ticket’s support for the war
Morse became McGovern’s running mate, capping off quite the political journey. Born on a Wisconsin farm at the start of the 20th Century, Morse had originally been elected to the Senate in 1944 as a progressive Republican. When conservative leader Robert A. Taft was nominated for President in 1952, Morse protested by leaving the Republican Party to become an Independent. After a few years of not having a party affiliation, the Oregon Senator joined the Democratic Party which in 1964 nominated him for Vice President by voice vote.

With the nomination of the McGovern-Morse ticket, the convention concluded on Thursday, August 27th with McGovern’s prime time acceptance speech. Scoop, who by this time had taken refuge at Camp Ewing, didn’t watch the speech on television (whether he read the speech afterwards remains unclear). At age 42, McGovern became the first Democratic Presidential nominee to be born after the bloodbath of World War One (Malcolm Forbes was the first on the Republican side). War was very much on the South Dakota Senator’s mind as he walked up to the rostrum to address the convention. After all, it was war which had led to this historic moment. “Tonight,” McGovern humbly began, “I accept your nomination with a full and grateful heart.”
He called his nomination “precious” because “it represents the determination of the people to end the troubles of these last three years and to begin anew. To all those who have lingered on the brink of despair I have this solemn pledge to make: next January I will restore hope to all the people of this land.”
He portrayed himself as the candidate “who listens to the will of ordinary Americans” and painted Forbes as someone “who listens to the will of the privileged few on Wall Street” – a reference to the fact that his campaign’s economic advisor was a well-known and well-connected wealthy Wall Street banker named C. Douglas Dillon. “I am here as your candidate tonight in large part because of a war in Southeast Asia which has been forced upon this nation.”
That was how McGovern brought up the Vietnam War, which was a major theme of his acceptance speech. “I want to end that war. And I make this pledge above all others: that war will be ended.”
The Democratic standard-bearer warned the American people that a vote for Forbes would be a vote to continue Jackson’s “senseless” war which had resulted in “our sons coming home from Vietnam in coffins.”
A vote for McGovern on the other hand would be a vote “for a plan for peace.”
Under his plan which he revealed to the convention audience, he would reach a ceasefire agreement with the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong within three months of his inauguration in January 1965. “By the end of my first 100 days as the President of the United States, every American soldier will be out of the jungle and home in America where they belong. Let us then resolve that never again will we send the precious young blood of this country to die trying to prop up a corrupt military regime abroad.”
Turning to the domestic front, McGovern made the case that ending the Vietnam War promptly “will allow us to focus our attentions on the rebuilding of our own nation, which has been permitted to fall into disarray by those who stand on the status quo.”
With Vietnam no longer the main issue in American life, President McGovern could shift the focus to addressing domestic issues like “schools for our children, the health of our families, the safety of our streets, and the condition of our cities.”
“The highest single domestic priority of the next administration will be to ensure that every American able to work has a job to. That job guarantee will and must depend on a reinvigorated private economy, freed at last from the uncertainties and burdens of war, but it is our firm commitment that whatever employment the private sector does not provide, the Federal Government will either stimulate or provide itself.”

He attacked Republicans for blocking the Medicare bill in 1961 – and Forbes for going along with it – and vowed to fight hard for the establishment of government-run health insurance for the elderly. Once that had finally been achieved, he would then push for the establishment of “a system of national health insurance so that a worker can afford decent healthcare for himself and his family.”
McGovern concluded his acceptance speech:
“So join with me in this campaign. Lend Senator Morse and me your strength and your support, and together we will end war. Together we will end military spending so wasteful that it weakens our nation. Together we will end prejudice based on race and sex. Together we will end the loneliness of the aging poor and the despair of the neglected sick. Together we will move our country forward.”

The next day, convention delegates began to leave Atlantic City for home. With the conventions now over, people began to turn their attentions elsewhere. Across the country that weekend, moviegoers flocked to the theaters to see the new Walt Disney film “Mary Poppins” starring Julie Andrews and Dick Van Dyke. The lightheartedness of the Disney film, which featured dancing cartoon penguins among other things, provided a timely escape from the drama of the past week. With the Republicans having nominated Forbes and the Democrats having nominated McGovern, people naturally assumed that was it; that the fall campaign would be a fight between these two sides. One man begged to differ. On Monday, August 31st, Governor Wallace issued the announcement to a roomful of reporters that he would be a third party candidate for the Presidency. He would run on the Dixiecrat ticket, with former Mississippi Governor Ross Barnett as his running mate. Barnett was chosen because he was seen in some quarters as a martyr of states’ rights who had been forced by the heavy-handed Federal Government – allegedly at gun point – to desegregate the University of Mississippi in 1962. Traditionally Southern Democrats solidly supported their Party’s Presidential nominee; but in 1964 the old Solid South had collapsed because of civil rights gains. As it was made clear at the convention, Southern Democrats had little appetite to support a Northern liberal like McGovern. This opened the door for Wallace to mount a third party run since he was the South’s overwhelming favorite candidate. Looking ahead to taking on Forbes and McGovern in the fall, he remarked that when it came to civil rights “there’s not a dime’s worth of difference between them.”
Given his championing of segregation and the Southern orientation of the Dixiecrat ticket, it would have been easy to dismiss Wallace as being simply a regional candidate. However, the Alabama Governor couldn’t be dismissed so easily because he had demonstrated appeal outside the South. During the primaries, Wallace cultivated support in the North among blue-collar workers and ethnic voters who opposed having to compete with blacks for jobs, housing, and education. This support manifested itself at the convention when Northern delegates cast their votes for Wallace instead of Jackson or McGovern. Although Wallace came in third place, it was a warning sign to the two major party candidates that he would be a formidable third party candidate. Forbes and McGovern would have to take him seriously, especially in blue-collar states like Ohio, Illinois, and Michigan. With Wallace’s entry into the race, the battle lines had been drawn. It would be Forbes versus McGovern versus Wallace, with the winner becoming the 39th President of the United States.
 
Last edited:
  • 1
  • 1Like
Reactions:
For some reason, "All the way with MSF!" just doesn't have the same ring as "All the way with LBJ!" :p Should have been all the way with RFK! ;)
 
Yay! McGovern won. Good that Wallace lost this battle. I do fully believe Forbes will win, the question is who will get second place... I guess it depends if McGovern can get the more liberal parts of the country to support him over Forbes. Poor Jackson is now relegated to the history books as a failed President. A good man who sucked at being President (kinda like Carter).
 
Shylock from Merchant of Venice said it.

Well, this turned out how I expected. I wonder if Forbes can win in a popular vote blowout like LBJ in 64. I feel like he has a lot of tailwind that can push him towards 60%. Seeing as I don't think the anti war sentiment is that strong amongst the public but racial backlash is, Wallace has a good shot at beating McGovern in my book. If he did, I suppose the question would be whether that resulted in Wallace's side re establishing control of the Democrats or if they make a third party that dominates the South since Forbes doesn't seem the type to go with a Southern Strategy.

That shit McGovern tried to pull with that compromise on the Mississippi delegation really bothers me. Radicalism on anti war issues and economics but let's compromise with segregationists is so typical of these white leftists. Honestly it makes me think of what I said earlier about a Goldwater-McGovern-Wallace race.
With the mixture of the three extremely devoted fanbases of these men it would be an odd race. I could see a lot of Dem voters lose enthusiasm and with an ultra segregationist demagogue on one side and lily white Plain Stater lefty who snatched the nomination from an extremely proactive Civil Rights president, Goldwater could even do well with African Americans this time around
Forbes is in an even better position to take advantage of this since he can easily appeal to the center, center left, and center right.

Glad for a new post, really need the escapism of alternative history right now.
 
As has been said above, it is clear McGovern is only principled in some areas and is prepared to be a complete arse in others. But then if you hang around with Kennedys that is a known risk, if anything Rickover was far, far too generous in his assessment of the younger members of that clan.

Campaign should be fascinating, as has been said Forbes is the clear favourite but seeing McGovern trapped between the two side of civil rights should be interesting. Its not an issue you can triangulate or compromise on, for instance either your are for or against segregation, its not an issue you can sit on the fence about and still look like a competent, electable, politician.
 
In short: my money is on Forbes.
 
volksmarschall: I can’t imagine RFK being President TTL. He probably would have been historically had he not been assassinated in that hotel kitchen.

jeeshadow: As it turns out, at the 1972 Democratic National Convention, the top three finishers were McGovern, Jackson, and Wallace in that order. Funny how history repeats itself.

So far McGovern is doing better than he did historically. He avoided the Eagleton disaster and was able to give his acceptance speech in prime time instead of the wee hours of the morning.

I think Scoop will end up doing poorly in Presidential rankings. I don't think he'll be hanging out with Harding and Buchanan at the very bottom, but I think his accomplishments in civil rights will be outweighed by all the problems and scandals that plaqued his tenure in office.

SirNolan: Ah. Thanks for the explanation.

I don’t see Forbes winning 60% of the popular vote like LBJ did in 1964 because Johnson after all was running against Goldwater (who scared the hell out of the country). Plus you have a formidable third party candidate in the race. I think it will be more like 1992, where Clinton won with only 43% of the vote because Perot won 19% of the vote. Bush (who beat Dukakis in 1988 54%-46%) came in second with 38%.

For Dixiecrats, I think we’ll see them drift politically for the next couple elections. They aren’t going to support the mainstream Democratic candidate and Forbes certainly isn’t going to pursue a Southern Strategy like Nixon did. Perhaps if a conservative Republican like Ronald Reagan comes along in the 1970s that is more willing to court the South, we could see the Dixiecrats start to move more into the Republican camp. At the same time though, we’ll see the rise of New South Democrats like Carter and Clinton, so there is that.

The liberals at the 1964 convention really did try to make both sides of the Mississippi seating issue happy by evenly dividing the number of seats between the two delegations. That compromise fell through and only two blacks ended up being seated in the Mississippi delegation. In this alternate history, the entire segregationist delegation walked out so the integrated delegation got seated in its’ entirety.

Given that Forbes is a political moderate, it could help him appeal to Democratic voters turned off by the leftist McGovern and the segregationist Wallace.

I know what you mean. It’s nice getting a break from real life, especially with all the drama going on around you-know-who.

El Pip: JFK tried to have it both ways when it came to civil rights, giving blacks some things in order to make them happy while not pissing segregationists off too much in order to get other legislation passed. Blacks weren’t happy with Kennedy’s token support and segregationists didn’t give him much legislation anyway. Needless to say, trying to have it both ways didn’t work for Kennedy.

Kurt_Steiner: Which is kinda funny, considering Forbes was really wealthy in real life.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The 1964 Presidential Campaign: Part One
In the fall of 1964:
  • The Big Three television networks launched their 1964-1965 season with returning shows and new shows including “The Addams Family” (ABC), “The Munsters” (CBS), and “Gilligan’s Island” (CBS).
  • The 1964 Summer Olympics were held in Tokyo, Japan. The first Olympics held in Asia and the first to be telecast internationally using satellites instead of tapes, Tokyo hosted nearly 5,200 athletes from over 90 nations. One nation that was absent was South Africa, which had been banned indefinitely by the International Olympic Committee as punishment for her apartheid system of racial segregation (the ban wouldn’t be lifted until 1991). Another nation that was absent was the Republic of China, which boycotted the Games of the XVIII Olympiad citing open hostilities with the host nation.
  • In the United Kingdom General Election of 1964, the ruling Conservative Party (in power since 1952) maintained their majority in the House of Commons. During the campaign, Conservatives emphasized the country’s economic prosperity and Prime Minister Rab Butler’s firm standing up to China over Hong Kong. Harold Wilson, the Leader of the Labour Party since February 1963, said afterwards that he never expected to beat Butler.
  • Former President Herbert Hoover (1929-1933), who presided over the beginning of the Great Depression, died in New York City at the age of 90. President Henry M. Jackson attended Hoover’s funeral service, along with the two living former Presidents Thomas E. Dewey and John Sparkman.
  • The Verrazano-Narrows Bridge, connecting the New York City boroughs of Staten Island and Brooklyn, opened to traffic. With a central span of 4,260 feet, the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge became the longest suspension bridge in the world (it would hold that distinction until 1981).

For eight weeks that fall, three men campaigned across America for the nation’s highest elected office: moderate Republican Malcolm Forbes, liberal Democrat George McGovern, and segregationist Dixiecrat George Wallace. They were all seeking to succeed Jackson, who became the first President since Chester A. Arthur in 1884 to be dumped by his political party after one term. Scoop had been dumped by the Democrats because he turned out to be a poor President who had alienated the Party’s liberal and Southern wings. After twelve years in the political wilderness, the Republicans had their best shot at winning back the White House. According to the Gallup Poll taken at the start of September, Forbes was ahead of McGovern by seven points. He was also ahead of McGovern in fundraising, who in his stump speeches often took the fact that he was being outspent during the campaign as proof that Forbes “is the candidate of the Big Business interests on Wall Street.”
Ever since the convention in San Francisco, Forbes had strived vigorously to unite the GOP, which in the past had been badly divided along ideological lines. He in particular reached out to pro-Goldwater grassroots supporters, who had worked hard to win the Presidential nomination for the staunchly conservative Arizona Senator but had fallen short of their goal. By fall, Forbes’ efforts at building party unity had produced mixed results. The endorsement he received from Barry Goldwater – who regarded his former rival as someone his side could work with – and his selection of conservative Congressional leader Everett Dirksen as his running mate helped broaden his base of support on the Right. Still, some grassroots supporters were irreconcilable and they stubbornly refused to vote for the man who had beaten Goldwater for the nomination. Forbes of course could count on the support of his fellow moderate Republicans like Michigan Governor George W. Romney and Pennsylvania Governor William Scranton. The one noticeable exception was New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller. The two men had been archrivals for the leadership of the Eastern Establishment wing of the party and didn’t really get along with each other. As a man who hated to lose, Rockefeller couldn’t bring himself to back Forbes during the campaign (he was also that way with William F. Knowland in 1960). This strained their already icy relationship, ensuring that the New York Governor would have no role in a Forbes Administration.

(Malcolm Forbes and his wife Roberta campaigning with California Senator Richard Nixon, who was also on the ballot seeking a second term)
Whereas Forbes looked poised to score the first Republican Presidential victory since Dewey's re-election in 1948, McGovern never really had a shot at winning. He trailed Forbes in the polls throughout the entire campaign – ultimately by double digits – and he struggled to gain traction with the voters. The McGovern campaign faced two major headwinds, neither of which it overcame. The first major headwind was the discontent of the general electorate towards the Democrats. The early 19th Century saw the domination of the Democratic-Republican Party (which became simply the Democratic Party in 1828) from 1801 to 1829, producing three Presidents from Virginia and one from Massachusetts. The election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860 ushered in an era of mostly Republican dominance of the Presidency which lasted from 1861 to 1913. From 1913 on, no political party controlled the White House for more than three consecutive terms. In 1964, the Democrats had been in power for three consecutive terms. The general electorate had grown tired of them being continually in power and was in the mood for change. They may not have wanted Jackson for a second term, but they weren’t eager for McGovern either. By becoming the Democratic standard-bearer in 1964, McGovern inherited the same problem a re-nominated Jackson would have had to face: the general electorate did not want another four years of the Democrats. It was one of the reasons why Forbes led the polls throughout the campaign: he belonged to the other party.

(McGovern arriving in New York to campaign)
The second major headwind was ironically his bread and butter issue: the Vietnam War. McGovern was the anti-war candidate who vowed as President to end the war and bring all American troops home from Vietnam by the end of his first 100 days. His campaign speeches denouncing the war as unnecessary and calling for its’ swift end however were being undermined by news from the battlefront. After suffering a string of losses earlier in the year (which aided McGovern during the primaries), the Americans in the fall of 1964 were turning the situation in Vietnam around. On September 12th, General Alexander Haig recaptured the strategically important central highland position of Pleiku. Then for the next three weeks (September 14th – October 4th), the Americans and the South Vietnamese Army engaged the North Vietnamese Army in a series of skirmishes which became collectively known as the Battle of Quang Tin. The fighting there ended on October 4th in a victory for the US side. Having stopped the North Vietnamese from taking Quang Tin, and with 90,000 men under his command, General Maxwell Taylor launched an offensive on October 14th to retake Da Nang. Meanwhile in the Gulf of Tonkin, the US Navy gave the North Vietnamese a taste of their own medicine by sinking one of their light cruisers and one of their destroyers. After three days of fighting, Da Nang was once again under South Vietnamese control. At the beginning of November, the Americans and the South Vietnamese stood ready to attack the Viet Cong base at Saravane and fight to liberate the Imperial City of Hue from North Vietnamese occupation.

The string of victories in Vietnam that fall greatly damaged McGovern’s credibility on the issue. Although he held onto support from like-minded dovish liberals who opposed America’s involvement in that war no matter what, he lost support among Average Joe voters. These voters found it difficult to reconcile the South Dakota Senator’s portrayal of the war as a lost cause that should be abandoned immediately with what they were reading in the newspapers and seeing on the evening news shows. The media was presenting the Vietnam War as a military conflict that America was currently winning, which was completely at odds with McGovern’s defeatist view of the war. Unable to reconcile these two conflicting portrayals, these voters finally concluded that the Democratic candidate didn’t know what he was talking about. Forbes, who was running on staying the course in Vietnam, attacked McGovern as being unfit to be President because he stubbornly refused to see the reality of the situation on the ground. During their single Presidential debate in early October, Forbes made the well-remembered remark that McGovern was the candidate who “wants defeat at any price.”
In the final weeks of the campaign, McGovern looked absolutely hopeless. He was struggling on the campaign trail and was sinking in the polls, making his left-wing candidacy all but dead. In fact, certain Democrats wrote him off as a lost cause not worth supporting. Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley for instance controlled the powerful Cook County political machine and could have helped out McGovern in Illinois the way he had helped Sparkman and Jackson carry the state in the past two elections. Instead he refused to lift a finger for “that barefoot prairie boy”, viewing any effort to turn out the vote for him to be a wasted effort. Others worried that McGovern would not only go down in defeat but would take down-ballot Democrats down with him. When it was pointed out to him that their Party’s candidate “is in a pretty bad spot”, Democratic National Committee Chairman John F. Kennedy (1917-1968) replied matter-of-factly “We’re in there with him.”

(1964 became the first Presidential election in which residents of Washington, D.C. were allowed to vote)
In those final weeks, Forbes didn’t worry about McGovern...he worried about Wallace. At first glance it was hard to see why. As the candidate of the third party Dixiecrat ticket, Wallace was running on a pro-segregationist platform that was unlikely to win him the Presidency. Martin Luther King Jr. (who on October 14th was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for leading nonviolent resistance against racism in the United States) and other civil rights leaders condemned Wallace and protesters often showed up at his campaign rallies to vocally express their opposition. But it was where those rallies were being held and who was attending them that worried Forbes. Wallace held rallies in 33 cities, most of them in non-Southern cities stretching from Boston, Massachusetts to San Diego, California. He focused especially on the Midwest, where he had cultivated support during the primaries among blue-collar and ethnic voters. These voters deeply resented African-Americans increasingly moving into their neighborhoods, taking their jobs, and going to their schools...racial resentments Wallace shamelessly exploited. He told these voters that only he cared about them and that only he would put their interests before those of blacks’. The other two wouldn’t. “When you look at the candidates in the two major parties, there’s not a dime’s difference between them.”
In Chicago, where the “Chicago Sun-Times” reported that Wallace enjoyed the support of 44% of white steelworkers, the Alabama Governor received approving applause when he declared that the way to restore law and order in the country was first to “get all those Negroes off our streets!”
Evidence that blue-collar workers were flocking to the Wallace campaign was widespread. For example, according to an AFL-CIO internal poll, one-in-three of their union members were supporting the Dixiecrat candidate. In response to this poll, the leadership of the AFL-CIO – the nation’s largest federation of unions which normally supported the Democratic Presidential candidate – chose to be officially neutral in the 1964 campaign. Like Daley, they weren’t exactly all that keen on propping up a struggling McGovern and many of their rank-and-file members favored Wallace anyway. That Wallace was running stronger than expected in Northern states worried Forbes. Despite the fact that he was leading in the national polls, the Republican candidate believed that Wallace would siphon off a significant number of votes in states like Ohio, Illinois, New Jersey, Michigan, and Wisconsin where there was a significant presence of blue-collar and ethnic voters. The backlash to civil rights – which Wallace represented – could potentially throw those states in any which directions, prompting Forbes to fret about his chances even in his home state of New Jersey.

(Wallace addressing his audience in Detroit, Michigan)
When looking at pictures and footage of Wallace’s campaign rallies today, it is easy to make the assumption that every white person in the crowd supported him. Looks of course can be deceiving. The Dixiecrat candidate was an entertaining campaigner who never gave a performance on the stump that was dry and dull. He could make genuinely funny remarks and became known for throwing barbs at whoever was irking him at that particular moment. As the fall campaign wore on and word of Wallace’s style of campaigning spread, you often found people who opposed his candidacy going to his rallies just so they could hear what he had to say next. He did not disappoint. When a heckler in the crowd at one rally shouted that he was a Fascist, Wallace – a World War Two veteran who served in the United States Army Air Corps – memorably shouted back:
“I was killing Fascists when you were in diapers with snot hanging out of your nose!”
Referring to an incident at the University of California, Berkeley where college students protesting for free speech on campus surrounded a police car to prevent it from hauling one of their own off to jail, Wallace pledged that “If any anarchist stands in front of my automobile, it will be the last automobile they ever stand in front of!”
Not even the Fab Four were safe from a Wallace barb. After their historic first visit to the United States in February 1964 (which ushered in the British Invasion), the Beatles returned to America that fall for a 30-concert tour of 23 cities. Booked to perform in Jacksonville, Florida, the band cancelled the show at the last minute. Why? John Lennon publically gave the explanation that he and his band mates refused to go on stage before a segregated audience. When word of the Jacksonville cancellation reached Wallace, he couldn’t resist hitting the enormously popular British band. “These bugs,” he told a crowd, “Should go back home and get a haircut before they get squashed!”
Manager Brian Epstein, not wanting the Beatles to get into a war of words with Wallace, ordered his band to ignore him. Though forced to oblige, Lennon never forgot feeling Wallace’s sting. He eventually rebuked the Alabama Governor and the hate he stood for through song.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Welp, looks like Forbes is set to win, the question is by how much. While Wallace is running somewhat strong, he almost certainly can't win, although if he threw the election to McGovern that would be hilarious. I doubt that would happen though so we are headed to a Forbes victory. Should be interesting in a Forbes Presidency. I expect he would be a bit of a pragmatist like Nixon but not as sociopathic and probably do things because he supported it, and not just because it would benefit his election chances.
Regarding Jackson, I agree, he wouldn't be regarded as very great. He would probably be in the middle of the pack. His support for Civil Rights will count for quite a bit probably. Also he seems to have avoided presiding over too bad a time in Vietnam, although if the war ultimately turns out poorly, it will drag down his legacy. On the other hand, if it ends up going well, his reputation will likely go up in the future.
 
Well, Forbes is going to go to the White House and Vietnam seems to be on the right path... let's see what debukes that Asian corner...

If the Black Panthers are ever born, I wonder what would Wallace (too many "w") say about them.
 
Last section seemed ominous, it read like a setup for Forbes worrying so much about Wallace that he does something stupid. It seems like all he has to do is hold his nerve and it will work out, but I can see if you are in the midst of an election everyone 'expects' you to win you feel under pressure not to screw it up. And doing nothing is one of the most valuable, but rarest and least practiced political skills.
 
jeeshadow: It would be hilarious if a rabid Southern segregationist became the election savior of a lily-white Northerner.

One possibility is that Wallace screws up the election enough that no one crosses the 270 electoral vote line needed for victory. The election would then be thrown into the House of Representatives, which is solidly controlled by Republicans. If Forbes doesn’t win on Election Day, then it would be up to the GOP House to elect him.

I think Forbes as President would be a bit of a pragmatist like you said, giving Conservatives some of the things they want in order to get some of the things he wants like welfare reform.

If Forbes wins in 1964, then he will be up for re-election in 1968 which historically was a very rough year for America. You had the Tet Offensive, LBJ dropping out of the race, MLK and RFK being gunned down, the Democrats having a mess of a convention in Chicago, and Nixon winning by a narrow margin. It will be interesting to see what TTL 1968 looks like.

That’s a good point. After all, it was his decision to go in.

Kurt_Steiner: What does “debukes” mean?

Wallace would use the Black Panthers as proof that the liberals are allowing blacks to run amok in society without any regard for law and order. He would argue that only he can save the day by putting blacks back into their place.

El Pip: I have a lot of content to cover in the 1964 Presidential campaign, so I decided to break it up into several parts. Part One gives the basic outline of the election, setting up another Part which will cover the last few weeks of the campaign.

Forbes has to watch his back. Even though he’s the clear frontrunner to win the election, he can’t ignore the fact that Wallace has a strong presence in the North which could tilt states any which ways.

One of the worst things you can do in an election is just assume you are going to win. Just ask Thomas E. Dewey in 1948 or Hillary Clinton in 2016. If you just assume you are going to win, then it is going to be difficult to make course corrections when your tide starts to ebb. Since Forbes is not assuming he is going to win, he still has time to try to take the wind out of Wallace’s sails.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 1964 Presidential Campaign: Part Two
In mid-October 1964, the international spotlight shined brightly on Tokyo, Japan as the Japanese capital hosted the Games of the XVIII Olympiad. For the first time ever, people around the world could watch the Summer Olympics live because the use of satellites had eliminated the need to wait for taped footage of the various sport competitions to arrive. It was during this time that a minute-long television ad was aired in America showing a black-and-white photo montage of daily life in Tokyo. Viewers naturally assumed this had something to do with the Olympics, given the daily focus on it. Then, to their complete shock, a still shot of the Tokyo skyline suddenly dissolved into film footage of a nuclear bomb explosion. An ominous male voice intoned:
“The Chinese have issued several threats to attack Japan, but George McGovern said at the recent Presidential debate quote ‘China does not pose a threat to anybody.’ Vote for Governor Forbes on November 3rd. He knows what the stakes are.”
What viewers just saw was the “Tokyo” ad, put out by the Forbes campaign. Introduced in 1952 as a way for Presidential candidates to get their points across the new medium of television, campaign commercials had since become a permanent fixture in elections. The “Tokyo” ad came about when McGovern dismissed the threat posed by China’s growing military might during said Presidential debate. Forbes quickly jumped on that and put out an ad visually demonstrating just how dangerous McGovern’s view was and what could happen if he was elected President. Upon being aired, the ad became notorious for its shock value. The McGovern campaign vigorously protested the ad, complaining that the Republicans were shamelessly trying to scare voters with this “horror movie commercial” which was inappropriate during the Tokyo Olympics and “has no place in the campaign.”
The Forbes campaign never ran the controversial ad again, but they didn’t need to. Subsequent news coverage of the “Tokyo” ad kept it in the public spotlight even after it had been taken off the air.

(It was in October 1964 that Japan inaugurated her first high-speed bullet train or Shinkansen line, connecting Tokyo and Osaka)
The most famous - or infamous - commercial of the 1964 Presidential campaign, the “Tokyo” ad was part of Forbes’ strategy of using McGovern’s own words against him. As he explained to the Madison Avenue advertising agency producing his TV ads, the Republican candidate wanted to show the general electorate just how outside the mainstream his Democratic opponent’s views were. The result was several ads which took things that McGovern said and presented them in such a way that voters literally saw that he was a left-wing fringe candidate consistently at odds with how they thought. Providing another reminder that McGovern didn’t view China as a threat, the “Southeast Asia” ad showed a tank of water labeled “China” looming ominously over a map of Southeast Asia. Keeping the water in the tank was a plug labeled “USA”. While the male narrator read McGovern’s statement that America shouldn’t be involved in that part of the world, a hand appeared in the camera frame and proceeded to remove the plug. The result was that water gushed out of the tank and completely drenched Southeast Asia. The visual point of the ad was that without America’s involvement in Southeast Asia (which Forbes supported), the Chinese would take over the entire region. To appeal to Democrats who were reluctant to support their side’s candidate who was making statements that seemed to be detached from reality, there was the four-minute “Confessions of a Democrat” ad. It featured a sitting Democratic voter “from a family that has voted for Democrats for as far back as I know” who lamented his Party’s choice of McGovern. “Now I follow the news. I see what is going on out there in the world. I know what the problems are. So when I hear one of McGovern’s statements saying that China doesn’t really pose a problem or that we are losing the war in Vietnam or whatever it is, I can’t follow him. How can he say that when the news I am watching is saying something different? Is he not paying attention to what is going on? Does he not care? I just don’t get it.”
This visibly frustrated Democrat finally made up his mind that he was going to vote for Forbes “because at least he sees what I see. I can’t vote for McGovern. I can’t vote for someone who shuts his eyes and says things that don’t go with what I see. I just can’t.”
In addition to these ads, Forbes put out ads about what he wanted to do as President. One ad listed his accomplishments as the two-term Governor of New Jersey that he was ready to repeat on the national level. To promote his plan for welfare reform, Forbes put out a stark ad showing a poor black woman living in a rundown slum neighbor receiving a welfare check in the mail. This ad visually brought home to viewers Forbes’ argument that the current welfare system wasn’t working because welfare checks alone weren’t lifting people out of poverty. To lift people out of poverty, the welfare system should be changed to focus more on stimulating job creation which would open up greater opportunities for people trapped in miserable lives. Lastly, there were ads aimed at Republicans emphasizing party unity. Ever mindful that his party lost elections whenever it wasn’t united, Forbes ran ads in which former rivals Barry Goldwater, Richard Nixon, and George W. Romney expressed their support for Forbes and urged their supporters from the primaries to get behind him as well. The Goldwater endorsement ad in particular was part of Forbes’ constant efforts to reach out and win over those grassroots conservatives who were unhappy that their hero lost the Presidential nomination to this member of the much-resented Eastern Establishment.

(A screenshot from Goldwater’s endorsement ad)
As the candidate with the most money, Forbes could afford to hire one of the leading advertising agencies on Madison Avenue in New York City to produce campaign commercials that had that professional polish. McGovern could not. Since he was always behind in fundraising, the Democratic candidate was much more limited in the amount of money he could put into his campaign commercials. The result was that McGovern’s ads looked rather old-fashioned compared to Forbes’ high production ones. McGovern decided to focus his ads on establishing himself in the voters’ minds as being “the peoples’ candidate”. He was often filmed talking informally to groups of people, listening to their concerns and showing his empathy for them. One ad showed him with a group of mothers who expressed their worries about their young sons being sent into combat in Vietnam. McGovern said that he shared their worries, assuring them that as President “I will never send your sons to fight someone else’s war. I’m just not willing to do that.”
To a group of union workers, McGovern reminded them that the last time the Republicans controlled both the White House and Congress, they gave the country the Taft-Hartley Act which put restrictions on the activities and power of labor unions. Meeting with a group of 18-year-olds, McGovern heard complaints from them that it was unfair that they were allowed to enlist in the military at their age but they weren’t allowed to have a voice in their own government. He agreed wholeheartedly that it was unfair and promised as President to push vigorously to lower the legal voting age from 21 to 18 so “you can vote for the people whose decisions will affect your lives.”
McGovern came across as being compassionate in his campaign commercials, but that didn’t get him any closer to the White House. Throughout the 1964 campaign, the South Dakota Senator was always behind in the polls. His “I am the peoples’ candidate” ads proved to be ineffective in his ongoing struggle to add voters to his central core of liberal Democratic support. As Republican National Committee Chairman William E. Miller mockingly observed:
“Senator McGovern has been going around the country telling the American people that he is their candidate. The more the people hear that he is their candidate, the more votes he loses.”

(McGovern aboard his campaign plane with Massachusetts Senator Robert F. Kennedy, who was on the ballot seeking a full term of his own after serving out the remainder of his brother John’s second term)
Bringing up the rear was Wallace. As a third party candidate, Wallace lacked the national political infrastructure to put out his ads. Indeed, it was difficult to find an advertising agency even willing to make ads for the Dixiecrat candidate given his pro-segregationist platform. The Wallace campaign ended up taking matters into their own hands, producing cheaply-made campaign commercials in which the Alabama Governor stood behind a podium and spoke directly into the television camera. In his minute-long ads, Wallace straightforwardly outlined his plans to push back against the Civil Rights Movement which he saw as being detrimental to a stable society. In one ad, Wallace reminded viewers about his battle against the Federal Government over forced school integration and promised that “as President, I shall turn back the absolute control of the public school systems to the people of the respective states.”
In another ad, he vowed to pursue law-and-order policies in order to combat the rise of crime in America which he blamed on blacks and their liberal white enablers. Wallace’s ads didn’t stray much from his central campaign message of rolling back civil rights gains; but given that he had strong support among Americans across the country who regarded civil rights as posing a threat to their livelihood, he had a message that was attractive (enough so to make frontrunner Forbes not take victory for granted).

(A screenshot from a Wallace ad)
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I have to get this off my chest first, that photo of RFK and McGovern looks really badly photoshopped. I'm sure it's real, cameras were rubbish back then, but it just doesn't look right.

With that utter triviality out of the way, the campaign is turning out as I expected. Forbes is looking professional and promising, the other two aren't and are looking unelectable. I suppose if Vietnam takes a dramatically bad turn for the worse things might change, but even then McGovern just isn't exciting. Aside from anti-war what is the point of his candidacy? Some foreign policy options (which probably don't matter as domestic matters win elections), lowering voting age and some scare-mongering about trade union rights, and if a Democrat candidate at this point can't get the union vote stitched up he's in trouble.

That said I do hope he manages a revival, the more votes the two main candidates get, the more the racist Wallace is smashed into the ground.
 
As I recall Reagan was Secretary of Labor in the Sparkman (or was it Jackson) administration. Time for him to come back for a "Time For Choosing" speech? Interesting integration of the various factions of the Republican Party here (no pun intended).

I do wonder if this earlier split in the Democrat Party (and a strong Wallace showing in the North, potentially) might prevent the 1965 Immigration Act from coming to pass (speaking of, where's Pat Buchanan?).

Also, what if Wallace finds out certain things about Governor Forbes' alleged, erm, proclivities?

Speaking of populist/nationalist/whatever insurgents, how much longer can Butler stay in power? I'm wondering what all political conflicts are being repressed in Butlerian Britain (ofc, this is just because I'm always interested to see how people deal with Enoch Powell, who was one of those rare birds that almost defies any pigeonholing).

Speaking of, which President is the Smoking Man going to kill in TTL?

(That said, very satisfying and interesting updates, as always. Keep up the sterling work!)
 
Last edited:
By the way, (this is just a personal question because I took a class on the History of Taiwan), what happened to Taiwan? Since TTL Chaing collapsed by the Cairo Conference (IIRC) I don't think he'd have any standing to demand it. Any chance it became independent? It is, in point of fact, culturally and historically quite distinct from China (and, in the Tokyo Peace Settlement, it was declared that the fate of Taiwan would be left up to the Taiwanese people (for the record, MacArthur wanted it independent)). (As it happens, the history of Taiwan under the KMT was not particularly happy).
 
It was during this angry wave of denunciations that Republican Senator Richard Nixon of California uttered his famous quote. Speaking on the floor of the Senate, the junior Senator jabbed an index finger into the air and proclaimed:
“Just because the President does something does not mean it is legal!”

OH THE IRONY! As a sidenote, I could see Nixon either as a President or an AG in this timeline, (or hell, if you really want a trip, why not a Supreme Court appointment?)

08.gif_zpszti19nrt.jpeg

How fares the Dana Carvey show TTL?

I'm always mildly amazed that people keep accepting being Vice President, unless the President dies or resigns you are stuck in a job that is notoriously pointless and is statistically fairly unlikely to lead to you becoming President in an election. It's not like it's even a job for people who like to keep their heads down and do the job, there's isn't a job aside from campaigning during the election.

I mean, to be fair, Vice Presidents have a much better than normal chance of becoming President, if only because we tend to either gun-down, impeach, or worry our Presidents to death.

The VRA next went to the House Rules Committee, known as "the traffic cop of Congress" for deciding if and when legislation will get sent to the House floor for debate and how that debate will play out. With the membership of the House Rules Committee disproportionately in favor of the Republicans, the Ranking Democratic Member Howard W. Smith of Virginia could only fight a delaying action against consideration of the bill. On March 11th, the House Rules Committee released the VRA to the floor and the lower chamber began to debate it five days later. For once, the Southern opposition was completely powerless. No amendments were allowed at all, meaning that opponents couldn’t water down the VRA with proposed changes. As a matter of principle as well as a matter of his legacy as Speaker, Halleck wanted the full House to pass the strongest voting rights law possible

So, no Title IX TTL? Interesting butterfly, to say the least, might make some things better in the battle of the sexes.

Also, no General Walker at Oxford?

And more on the Vietnam thing, is John McCain gonna blow up a carrier TTL too?

(McCain/Palin 2008, "The Forrestal Was Overrated")

Anyway, I just finished out the rest of the updates I hadn't read, sorry for the multiple posts...
 
Last edited:
OH THE IRONY! As a sidenote, I could see Nixon either as a President or an AG in this timeline, (or hell, if you really want a trip, why not a Supreme Court appointment?)

I don't really want Nixon as President, for originality reasons, but he needs to some sorta national hero! A politician who is trusted XD. Maybe a VP at some point? Attorney General is an idea I like as well XD.
 
I don't really want Nixon as President, for originality reasons, but he needs to some sorta national hero! A politician who is trusted XD. Maybe a VP at some point? Attorney General is an idea I like as well XD.

Chief Justice, or maybe President of the General Assembly of the UN
 
Oh, George Wallace. Any chance Forrest Gump got to see him at university? :p
 
Real interesting so far, I've speedily read through this all, and now I hope to hop on for the next stretch.
 
El Pip: I can assure you that the McGovern-RFK photograph is indeed real. McGovern supported RFK during his run for the Presidency in 1968 and the photograph in question was taken a few weeks before RFK was assassinated.

McGovern was a lousy candidate in 1972, his opposition to the Vietnam War winning him just one state. Heck, Alf Landon won two states in 1936 and his candidacy was utterly useless. In this alternate history, McGovern isn't proving to be doing much better.

As for smashing the racist Wallace into the ground, we shall see.

H.Appleby (1): It was the Jackson Administration. Scoop was trying to cover all the political bases when he was putting his cabinet together and since Reagan was a Conservative Democrat at the time, he got the Secretary of Labor job. As for his famous "Time For Choosing" speech, I have read it a couple times. I could do a version of it, but it would have to be reworked to fit the circumstances of the story.

Given that there is no Great Society TTL, the 1965 Immigration Act could be one of the real life laws that gets the ax as the Conservative Republicans in charge may not be in the mood to pass a flurry of legislation. As for Pat Buchanan, he may or may not show up in this AAR.

I highly doubt Wallace would find out about "that". The media in the 1960s didn't dig into Presidents' private lives, which is why JFK got away with his notorious womanizing. The only person Forbes would have to fear is J. Edgar Hoover, who knew everything about everybody and wasn't afraid to let you know that he knew what you didn't want other people to know.

I think Butler can stay in power as long as he can keep Hong Kong in British hands. It is a big pillar of his premiership after all. If, after all the military resources he put into defending the island, the Chinese still manage to take it over, I think it would be very hard for him to recover.

The Smoking Man killing a President? I have no idea what you are talking about. :confused:

Thank you for the compliment, H.Appleby.

H.Appleby (2): Taiwan is still known as Formosa TTL and it is controlled by the ROC government in Nanjing. Since the Communists never took over postwar Mainland China, the Nationalists were never driven onto Formosa and forced to set up their Taiwan government there. When I re-established Nationalist China in my HOI game in 1947, Formosa went to the Nationalists automatically because of the territorial claims.

H.Appleby (3): I'm considering Nixon to be Forbes' Attorney General, given Nixon's law background. The Supreme Court appointment is an interesting idea.

I didn't know Dana Carvey had a show.

We never had a Vice President become President through impeachment. That reminds me: I read an alternate history story in which President Nixon decided not to resign in 1974 and decided to fight impeachment instead. He got impeached anyway and was whisked out of office by the Secret Service under the cover of darkness. Vice President Ford meanwhile was sworn in as the new President.

The Voting Rights Act had nothing to do with Title IX.

I wasn't aware that General Edwin Walker had any involvement with Oxford.

We will see John McCain in the future (although McCain didn't cause the Forrestal fire).

It's okay, H.Appleby.

jeeshadow: I don't plan on doing a Nixon Presidency for this AAR. I don't see a viable path to the White House for him. Without a Nixon Presidency in the 1970s, we probably wouldn't get either Ford (who took over after Nixon resigned) or Carter (who was elected President in reaction to Watergate).

H.Appleby (4): How about putting Nixon in charge of the Empire in the Star Wars films? Why have lists of your enemies when you can just mentally choke them to death?

volksmarschall: It's funny you mentioned Forrest Gump, volksmarschall. When I was writing my University of Alabama showdown update, I included a mention of that scene from the movie. I ended up cutting it out. I do have a scene in my head of Gump meeting Scoop at the White House instead of JFK.

alxeu: Welcome aboard, alxeu.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 1964 Presidential Campaign: Part Three
At 9:00 PM EST on Monday, October 5th, 1964, Malcolm Forbes and George McGovern walked into a New York City television studio. After politely shaking hands, the two men parted to take their positions behind a pair of podiums. On cue, Quincy Howe of ABC News, who sat behind a desk positioned between the two men, spoke directly into the television camera and welcomed viewers to the first and only Forbes-McGovern Presidential Debate of the 1964 campaign. Broadcast on all three television networks, over 60 million Americans tuned in to see panelists Frank Singiser of Mutual News, John Edwards of ABC News, Walter Cronkite of CBS News, and John Chancellor of NBC News ask the two Presidential candidates a series of domestic and foreign policy questions. The two men were wearing dark-blue suits so they would both stand out against the light-tan background on black-and-white television. They had also taken the previous day off from the campaign trail so they could rest for the debate. Neither candidate wanted to repeat the mistake William F. Knowland made four years earlier when he went into his first debate with Henry M. Jackson after a day of vigorous campaigning. He came across on TV as looking rather tired, a look that was exacerbated by hastily-applied television makeup. Knowland looked bad enough that his concerned running mate Prescott Bush called him up afterwards to ask if he was okay.

(Quincy Howe, moderator of the 1964 Forbes-McGovern Presidential Debate)
Before the 1960s, debates between political candidates were a rare sight in America. In the 1858 Illinois Senate race, there were seven debates between Republican Abraham Lincoln and incumbent Democratic Senator Stephen A. Douglas over the hot-button issue of slavery. Scattered across the state, these debates captured the nation’s attention at a highly contentious time, helping to propel Lincoln to the Presidency two years later. In May 1948, President Thomas E. Dewey agreed to do an hour-long radio debate with perennial GOP primary candidate Harold Stassen over Dewey’s decision not to ban the Communist Party in the United States (he regarded such a ban as being an act of martyrdom for the Communists). During the 1956 Republican primaries, leading candidates Henry Cabot Lodge Jr. and Sherman Adams debated each other for an hour over domestic and foreign policy issues. Lodge was widely seen as being the winner of that debate, which gave him momentum towards winning the Presidential nomination. Then came 1960 and the three Jackson-Knowland Presidential Debates, which were a reflection of television becoming the dominant medium in peoples’ lives. By then TV sets were in over 90% of American homes and more Americans were watching television than were listening to radio or reading newspapers. By debating each other on this medium, Jackson and Knowland would reach tens of millions of more people than they would through the normal stump speeches on the campaign trail. Their groundbreaking debates would have a permanent effect on Presidential elections. “Before 1960,” an historian has noted, “You could run for President without ever once seeing your opponent. After 1960, it became almost a requirement for you to see your opponent.”

(In the fall of 1964, more than half of NBC’s shows were in color. ABC and CBS shows meanwhile were still mostly black-and-white)
From 1960 on, every election would see Presidential candidates debate (Vice Presidential candidates would start debating in 1976). Unlike later debates which would be held at different venues like university campuses, the early debates took place at television studios. In the case of the 1964 debate, it took an act of Congress to get it on the air...literally. Under Section 315 of the Communications Act, television stations were required to give equal time to political parties in order to avoid the appearance of having a bias. If someone from one political party spoke on air, stations had to give someone from another party the same amount of time. In order to allow the Republican and Democratic candidates to debate without having to give equal time to third party candidates like George Wallace, Congress passed legislation in September 1964 temporarily suspending the rule. Meanwhile, the Forbes and McGovern campaigns negotiated the framework in which they would debate. With the Tokyo Summer Olympics set to dominate television coverage in mid-October, the only time they could debate was at the beginning and end of October. McGovern wanted to have two debates, one in each of those timeframes. Forbes on the other hand would only agree to an early October debate. Given how behind McGovern was in the campaign, Forbes felt that a second debate at the end of the month would be a waste of time. It wouldn’t add to his lead and his opponent would be too far gone anyway. With the Republican candidate refusing to do a second debate, the Democratic candidate was forced to settle for just one.

So on October 5th, the New Jersey Governor and the South Dakota Senator met face-to-face for their single prime time debate. For the next hour, the two men proceeded to offer viewers sharply contrasting views on the leading issues of the day. On Medicare for example, McGovern pressed his case for the Federal Government to establish a health insurance program for the elderly. Instead of setting up another Government-run welfare program as his liberal opponent wanted to do, Forbes took his Party’s conservative position of providing the elderly tax credits “so they can best meet the costs of their medical and hospital insurance.”
Believing that defense spending in the Jackson years had become excessive, McGovern called for an across-the-board 37% reduction in defense spending to be phased in over the course of three years. Forbes opposed unilaterally cutting the country’s defense spending, warning that doing so would put the country at a dangerous disadvantage against the Soviet Union whose immense military strength would remain intact. As President, he would only agree to make reductions in defense if the Soviets made mutual reductions as well. That meant sitting down at the negotiating table with Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev (who in October 1964 had no compelling reason to be removed from power). “Mr. Khrushchev only respects one thing: strength. If we sit down at the table from a position of strength, I think we can get him to come to the table and talk. But if we sit down at the table from a position of weakness, he isn’t going to come to the table. Why should he? He would then be stronger than us.”
The issue of welfare caused sparks to fly between the two candidates. Despite the fact that the United States of America was the richest nation in the world, millions of Americans lived in poverty. Forbes blamed this on Democrats and what he regarded as their lack of imagination. “For thirty years since the New Deal, the Democratic Party has insisted that all we have to do is give those who are down and out money and all their problems will go away. The fact that this has never worked unfortunately has not prompted the Democrats to re-think how they do things. They simply go on handing out checks year after year, not trying anything new.”
That was why he was advocating welfare reform. Under his plan, Forbes wanted to shift the focus of the welfare system from providing welfare checks to providing job creation and job training. He argued that doing so would address the root cause of poverty, which was a lack of opportunities in the poor areas of the country. “A job can do a lot more for a person than a check in the mail.”
For the Democratic standard-bearer, having his party be blamed for the country’s poverty problem was fighting words and he came back swinging. McGovern attacked Forbes’ assertion that welfare checks have not worked as absurd:
“The money people receive in the mail each month is their only source of income. It is this money which has allowed them to pay their rent and pay for the food and things which they need to get by.”
McGovern defended his Party’s handling of poverty, saying that the Democratic Party has done more to help those who were impoverished than the Republican Party. In his view, Forbes’ welfare reform plan was a reflection of the Republicans’ typical “lack of compassionate concern for those who are unable, through no fault of their own, to provide adequately for themselves.”
Instead of taking away peoples’ welfare checks and leaving them to fend for themselves as he claimed his opponent wanted to do, McGovern would double-down on them. He proposed giving an additional $1,000 to everyone who was receiving a welfare check, to be paid for by raising taxes on those who were well-off. Forbes lightly shook his head at hearing this, rebutting that McGovern had just proven his point. Instead of trying something different, McGovern just wanted to do more of what his Party had always done “which did not work thirty years ago and will not work now. You cannot eliminate poverty simply by shifting money around.”

Because of the Voting Rights Act of 1963, many African-Americans would be voting in 1964 for the first time. They remembered how Scoop had shown the political courage to stand up to the South on their behalf – something no other Democratic President had done before. They remembered how at the Democratic National Convention he had come out in favor of the ad hoc integrated Mississippi delegation when they challenged the floor seating of the official all-white Mississippi delegation. They also remembered how McGovern had supported a failed compromise in which seating would be evenly divided between the two delegations. Blacks therefore were listening intently when the South Dakota Senator was asked about it at the debate. McGovern defended the compromise, explaining that of course he wanted to see blacks be seated but at the same time he wanted to be fair to the segregated delegation. His answer didn’t sit well with blacks who had a rather dim view of Northern Democrats. “I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion,” Martin Luther King Jr. complained, “That the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Councilor or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to ‘order’ than to justice, who constantly says, ‘I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action,’ who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom. When the white moderate says ‘Wait’, it has almost always meant ‘Never’.”
For years African-Americans had been told by Northern Democrats to show patience in their demands for civil rights. For years they had seen Northern Democrats defer to their Southern colleagues who had a major hold on the Party...at their expense. As time went on, blacks found it increasingly hard to just sit there and wait like Northern Democrats wanted them to. By defending his compromise with the segregationists as a matter of fairness, McGovern struck them as being just another spineless Northern Democrat who wouldn’t take on the South the way Scoop had. When African-American voters went to the polls a month later, many of them would vote for the Party of Lincoln.

(Although MLK voted for Forbes in 1964, he didn’t identify himself as a Republican the way his father did. “I’m not inextricably bound to either party,” King declared)
On foreign policy, two issues dominated the debate: the Vietnam War and the Republic of China. On both issues, McGovern came across badly. On the former, he was asked whether he would continue running on his platform of immediately ending the Vietnam War in light of American victories on the battlefield. Absolutely, he replied. It made no difference to him whether America was winning or losing battles against the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese Army. “Vietnam is not our war. We should never have gotten involved...and I fully intend to bring every American soldier home from the jungle by the end of my first 100 days as President.”
Forbes defended the Vietnam War as being “necessary” in order to help protect the independence of South Vietnam. He reminded viewers that China had already taken over Laos and had set up a puppet regime there “and they will not stop until all the governments in Southeast Asia are run by them.”
He attacked McGovern for being hell-bent on withdrawing completely from Vietnam regardless of the consequences or consideration of the situation on the battlefield. “To pull out abruptly will sacrifice all the gains we are currently making and demoralize our men who will then feel that they had been fighting for nothing.”
Forbes concluded with the line that became well-remembered:
“Now I have heard some people say that Senator McGovern wants peace at any price. I think it is more accurate to say that he wants defeat at any price.”
“Defeat at any price”
: those four words came to define McGovern in the minds of voters. While there were certainly people on the Left who wholeheartedly shared his views on the Vietnam War, abandoning the war proved to be a hard sell for middle-of-the-road voters. They didn’t want to see the lives of American fighting men be sacrificed for nothing and America withdraw from a war she was currently winning. That McGovern wanted “defeat at any price” became the first thing people thought of when they thought about him...much to his detriment. The answer he gave on China further added to the perception that he was out of touch with mainstream thinking. When asked how he would deal with the threats China was posing against her neighbors, McGovern disputed the question, stating that “China does not pose a threat to anybody.”
He blamed the tensions on the other side of the Pacific Ocean not on the Chinese but on the Americans and the British. It was the Anglo-American military buildup in Asia and the Western Pacific, he contended, that was threatening the peace in the region and was causing China to build up her military in self-defense. His “Blame America and England First” response prompted Forbes to shoot him a look as if to say “What planet are you living on?” He then verbally rebuked:
“Senator McGovern has just said that China does not pose a threat to anybody. I know the people of Asia would disagree with him about that. If you ask the Japanese, the Koreans, the Filipinos, anybody really, they will all tell you the same thing: they are afraid of the Chinese. It is not difficult to see why. The Chinese view the continent of Asia and the Pacific Ocean as being theirs. They have said so publicly.”

Following the debate came the natural question: who won? The general consensus gave the win to Forbes. He came across on the black-and-white television screens as offering fresh ideas on domestic issues and knowing what the stakes were in foreign policy. McGovern on the other hand was seen as being the defender of the stale domestic status quo who didn’t know what he was talking about when it came to the world. In the wake of the debate, Forbes opened up a decisive 13-point lead over McGovern in the polls. In the final days of the 1964 Presidential campaign, a Republican victory seemed secure. So why was the Republican candidate so nervous going down the home stretch?
 
Last edited:
  • 1Like
Reactions: