A US President kills himself

My God, what a fascinating question! I'd have to say that Nixon is our most likely candidate, though I'm not sure suicide was in his nature.

So, say he shoots himself. The first problems are that a whole lot of people will hear the shot, and that it will be clear to any emergency personnel at the scene that the President is bleeding from a great, murdering head wound. The coroner's inquest into the death will still be required, President or not, and, just like the examination of JFK's body, will be totally impossible to keep from the press. Especially given the scandal engulfing the White House at the time, the inquest will be handled in the biggest fishbowl in the world.

There's no way the coroner can call it a heart attack. He will have three solutions: Nixon shot himself, somebody else shot him, or he died accidentally while "cleaning his gun". The fact that the bullet which killed Nixon came from the gun found at the scene, and that there was no one else in the Oval Office at the time, nor any signs of forced entry will rule out foul play. And, I think we can expect even a fairly irresponsible coroner to avoid making up a fictional murder of a President, no matter what the political pressure. The choice will really come down to: accident or suicide?

Here is where the political pressure plays a role. Absolutely everyone will want to avoid a verdict of suicide. The Republicans would not want the "taint". The family would not want to hear that answer, and would probably dispute very publically if it was the verdict. The Democrats don't want it either, because they don't want a Nixon legend to grow, nor the onus of possibly having "driven him to it". Even the coroner doesn't really want it; coroners are notoriously reluctant to find suicide as a cause of death, which is why there are so many people killed in mysterious one-car accidents every year.

Based on this, the coroner will bend the laws of physics as far as he has to, and will find the death accidental. Everyone will breathe a sigh of relief, and the American people will buy it, because they want to. They, too, don't want to face the kinds of emotions the suicide of a President would invoke. All in all, much easier to believe he just died in a firearm accident, and avoided prosecution and impeachement by a quirk of fate.

Conspiracy theorists won't buy this, of course. They will come in three varieties: Republican theorists who think vengeful Democrats (or hippies, or commies) did it, Democrat theorists who think Republicans did it to spare an impeachment, and people who think it was a suicide. The suicide theorists will likely be the smallest group. Although suicide fits the evidence better than any other cause of death, it just isn't as dramatic or politically useful as a murder conspiracy.

Watergate will fizzle out, much as it did due to Nixon's resignation, but more completely. Ford, however, will not have the onus of having pardoned Nixon. Nor will the Republicans be seen as negatively as in OTL. Indeed, a certain vague sense of guilt over the whole thing may grip a lot of people. All of this will probably give the election of '76 to Ford rather than Carter.

Ford will face the crises of the late '70s. Whether he will do better than Carter in OTL is anyone's guess. My guess is that he will do a bit better, but it won't save his Presidency. The precedent set by LBJ will mean that Ford will be eligible to run in 1980. He will, and a Democrat will beat him, most likely Ted Kennedy.

Kennedy in the '80s will be a very different President than Reagan. He will not deregulate a lot of industries, benefiting the consumers, but hurting those industries and slowing technological innovation. There will not be the boom for the upper and upper-middle classes that happened in the '80s. On the other hand, the poor, working, and lower-middle classes will be better off than they were OTL. With the strong backing of the White House, unions will do better than they did. Likewise, there will be fewer big plant closings than there were in OTL. Most likely, the first few will happen, and then Kennedy will do something to make later ones harder and more expensive to automakers and other large companies. This will prevent a lot of them. And that will keep a lot of working class Americans in a MUCH better position than in OTL. OTOH, the companies involved will be badly hurt by this, and will stay uncompetitive, which will eventually lead to rancor with Japan, Germany, and other countries. This rancor will be minor in the long-term, but still could present the risk of trade wars, if not handled well.

Other economic trends: the oil glut of the '80s, the beginning of Boomer investment in stocks and retirement funds, and so on, will lead inflation to decline, just as under Reagan. As interest rates return to lower, though historically still very high, levels, and prices stabilize, Kennedy will get much of the same credit of "restoring prosperity" that Reagan got. This will get him victory in the 1984 elections, in all likelihood beating the aforementioned Ronald Reagan.

Kennedy will still boost defense, but not as much as Reagan. He will probably be reluctant to arm the Afghan mujihaddin, though they will still get a fair amount of support. The Russians will be less worried - economically, or militarily - than in OTL. This will mean that Romanov will probably be selected to replace Chernyenko, instead of Gorbachev. Romanov, despite his name, was a fairly hard-line Communist. Circumstances will still force him to reform, but very slowly, and in ways that have little impact. Relations with the West will improve, however, because the USSR will be just too exhausted and troubled to be able to compete, and will need good relations with America. This desire for good relations will be shared by the Kennedy Administration,and so negotiations will go well, and superpower tensions greatly decline.

1988 will be the year of a moderate Republican, probably Papa Bush. His Presidency will be a lot like a continuation of Kennedy's, though there will be a certain amount of deregulation and increased military spending. However, in OTL, Bush only embraced Reaganomics after becoming Vice President. Here, he stays closer to the center, and so his policies mostly just balance out those of Kennedy. The rather boring conditions of modest prosperity for all will continue. Saddam Hussein will still have fought the Iran-Iraq War, and will still need a good way to pay his war-debts. So, chances are, he still goes into Kuwait in 1990. The US will secretly consult with the Russians before acting, and will receive an assurance that they can indeed act on the matter, provided they don't go all the way to Baghdad. As a result, the Gulf War will happen. A less built-up U.S. military will mean more American casualties, but the "maneuverists" will still have done their work, based on avoiding anything like Vietnam, and so the war will still be an American walkover, and will end almost identically to OTL.

President Bush will not face either the 1990-1992 recession, nor the boom of the '90s we had in OTL. A more stable economy, plus a victorious war, will win him re-election in 1992.

The winter of 1992-93 will be a turning point in the USSR. The economic situation there will have become so bad that demonstrations will grow, demanding economic reforms. Romanov wil try to suppress these demonstrations, which will then trigger riots on a very large scale. The Red Army will be called out to suppress the riots. The generals, however, will be shocked to hear that soldiers are deserting and joining the rioters. This will decide them on a radical course of action. The generals depose Romanov, and replace him with.......Gorbachev. And so Russia will begin moving down the same path as in OTL, eight years later.

A democrat, probably not Bill Clinton, will win the elections of 1996, and probably 2000. And, in 1998, a retired Los Angeles police detective named Mark Fuhrmann will publish a book going into the death of Nixon in detail, and at last proving that it was indeed a suicide, and neither homicide nor accident. This book will be denounced by conspiracy theorists, embraced by many, especially in law enforcement, and ignored by most Americans.
 
That's probably one of the best takes on the issue. However, the election of 1984 would NOT have been easy for Ted Kennedy, even though he has the economy on his side. Ronald Reagan is still a popular person and could possibly ride his popularity to victory, much like Schwarzeneggar used it to get to the governor's office, or bring the closest election in American history with Kennedy coming out on top.

The reason I say this is because any time any President from the opposing party shows any form of popularity or success, he is usually reviled. Big business won't like Kennedy because he's labor friendly and Reagan would use that sentiment in attempts to label Kennedy as a closet communist. Like Reagan or not, he proved to be a big factor in rebuilding American confidence. Whether or not American confidence will be any different with the suicide death of Richard Nixon is another question entirely.

But I'd also like to ask what happens with Grenada in 1983? Does Kennedy take the same hard line as Reagan did?
 
Impressive TL, Rua. I'd be surprised if Bush would get the nomination in '88, without being the VP, but he may still be a player in the GOP without that office.

As for the consequences of Nixon's death, that was very well thought out.

Grenada is another question. I'm not sure if Ted Kennedy would go in....but it may not be much of a big deal if he doesn't go in.
 
Interesting as always: minor quibble on Soviet stuff. Wouldn't depend on the Soviet Union "following the same path" as in our TL: Gorbachev is coming into power with the backing of the army and rather more of a mandate for radical change, while at the same time inheriting an economy even more screwed up. Could end up like it did here, or considerably more messily.

Note by getting rid of Reagan, you seem to have preserved the post-new deal consensus on strong government social services, intervention vs business to help the working man, etc: in other words, prevented the triumph of neoliberal economics, with global economic effects as well as those here at home. Or is it just delayed?
 
B_Munro said:
Interesting as always: minor quibble on Soviet stuff. Wouldn't depend on the Soviet Union "following the same path" as in our TL: Gorbachev is coming into power with the backing of the army and rather more of a mandate for radical change, while at the same time inheriting an economy even more screwed up. Could end up like it did here, or considerably more messily.

Note by getting rid of Reagan, you seem to have preserved the post-new deal consensus on strong government social services, intervention vs business to help the working man, etc: in other words, prevented the triumph of neoliberal economics, with global economic effects as well as those here at home. Or is it just delayed?

You may be right about the Russians. It could get uglier. Or, maybe, Gorby actually will do better, given that the apparatchniks have been near-totally discredited. There will not, frex, be anything much like OTL's coup attempt. Anyone likely to try has been given strict orders to retire by the army, and they are now resting in their dachas, remembering their lost glory days. On the third hand, the Soviet economy was such a mess that I can't see Gorby reaching any kind of genuine success, even without the coup. If his reforms don't work, and they probably won't unless they are much more radical than anything Gorbachev tried in OTL, the army may well remove him. I would guess from there you see a Red/Brown regime - officially Communist, but actually imposing a sort of authoritarian capitalism. Whether this keeps the USSR together, I have no idea.

As for the triumph of neoliberal economics, what has really happened is that their triumph has been neither prevented entirely, nor delayed. Instead, neoliberal economics have _partially_ triumphed, and have in many respects reached a point of compromise with the New Deal consensus. Neoliberal reforms have been allowed to correct the excesses of Euro-socialism, and also of American Liberalism, but the basic idea that government can intervene in support of the poor and the working man has been preserved. There is an understanding of the potential and also the limitations of social programs, and a search for more cost-effective and intelligent ways to use government money and power.

I should also note that the Second Kennedy Administration had very different results in Central America. Kennedy did not give support to the Contras, and he gave support to the governments of Guatemala and El Salvador only on condition that they clean up the corruption of their governments and their human rights records. The Sandinistas were given American recognition, aid, and trade agreements, but only on condition of greater democracy. They did not keep their end of the bargain, and the United States essentially cut off aid and trade. With little trade or support, except from Cuba and the USSR, and even that very limited, the Sandinistas essentially withered on the vine, until they allowed democratic reforms. They remained in power through the 1990s, but in steady retreat, and have only recently been voted from power. The civil wars in Guatemala and El Salvador came to an end about when they did in OTL, but with greater government consessions in areas like land and agricultural reform, as well as greater power for trade and labor unions. Nicaragua is better off than in OTL, though still far from paradise. Although it was under Communist rule for longer, it avoided the vicious and destructive war of OTL.

Kennedy also recognized AIDS as a real problem far earlier than the Reagan administration did. By 1983, it was receiving about the same effort as Legionaire's Disease, which is several times what it got in OTL. This allowed research to go farther, drugs to be discovered earlier, and prevention efforts to operate on a much larger scale. AIDS is still not cured, but it is expected that a vaccine may well be available in 3-5 years. Of course, that has been said before. The early start of prevention efforts, however, had a serious impact, and has saved the lives of between 50,000 and 100,000 Americans.
 
Coriolanus said:
Impressive TL, Rua. I'd be surprised if Bush would get the nomination in '88, without being the VP, but he may still be a player in the GOP without that office.

As for the consequences of Nixon's death, that was very well thought out.

Grenada is another question. I'm not sure if Ted Kennedy would go in....but it may not be much of a big deal if he doesn't go in.

Thanks for the compliment. Yeah, everybody pretty much ignored Grenada to death. The Marxist regime held power for a number of years, and then, as aid from the Soviets dried up, also dried up, and blew away. A more moderate government took power, and began to mend Grenada's relations with its neighbors.

Bush had a very different history than it OTL. In this TL, he never served as head of CIA, but was a power broker in GOP politics. His connections with Nixon were less of a problem than they were in the OTL 1970s, and he was able to build a power base as a candidate between the Rockafeller and Reagan wings of the Republican Party, but acceptable to both.
 
Admiral Matt said:
Great as always Aed Rhua. I only wish you'd post more often...

What can I say? I work for a livin'. I only post when I'm on hold on the phone or something like that...........
 
Top