Inasmuch as anybody still talks about George Wallace today, he seems to be almost universally remembered for his staunch defense of segregation and his role in helping the codify the “law and order” playbook in national politics. However, in the later stages of his life, Wallace did try to make amends for his past, apologizing for his support of Jim Crow and courting the African American vote in Alabama. (Whether you think that this was a sincere change of heart on his part or a cynical attempt to stay relevant and salvage his legacy is outside of the scope of his population.) However, nothing that he did could permanently erase his earlier reputation, hence the nature of his reputation today.
However, what if Wallace had been elected President of the United States after he had reformed? Imagine a scenario where he performs somewhat better in the early part of the 1976 Democratic primary season, winning in Massachusetts and eclipsing Carter in the South. His momentum eventually gives him the nomination, and he narrowly defeats Ford in November. Wallace’s term in office is not so dissimilar from Carter’s in our world - perhaps a bit more pugnacious, and obviously discussion of his disability will linger in the background, but he basically governs as a well-meaning centrist who tries to unite the country in the wake of Watergate, and attempts to atone for his past by nominating a large number of African Americans to important positions. He still loses to Reagan in 1980, and broad arc of history unfolds in roughly the same manner afterwards.
In this scenario, would Wallace’s presidency have been enough to rescue his legacy to the broader American public, or was 1976 too late? Was he doomed to be remembered as a reactionary regardless?
However, what if Wallace had been elected President of the United States after he had reformed? Imagine a scenario where he performs somewhat better in the early part of the 1976 Democratic primary season, winning in Massachusetts and eclipsing Carter in the South. His momentum eventually gives him the nomination, and he narrowly defeats Ford in November. Wallace’s term in office is not so dissimilar from Carter’s in our world - perhaps a bit more pugnacious, and obviously discussion of his disability will linger in the background, but he basically governs as a well-meaning centrist who tries to unite the country in the wake of Watergate, and attempts to atone for his past by nominating a large number of African Americans to important positions. He still loses to Reagan in 1980, and broad arc of history unfolds in roughly the same manner afterwards.
In this scenario, would Wallace’s presidency have been enough to rescue his legacy to the broader American public, or was 1976 too late? Was he doomed to be remembered as a reactionary regardless?