President Goldwater

[Paul V McNutt]

I saw an interview with Barry Goldwater where he was asked what would you have done if in the White House if President Nixon had named you Vice President instead of Jerry Ford. Goldwater with a surprised look on his face said in 1975 I would have used the Air Force to make a swamp out of Vietnam. I also remember reading that Ford gave Goldwater a courtesy call to tell him he was about to pardon Nixon. His reaction was anger. So that means from 1974 - 1977 we have a President that does not pardon Nixon and uses the Air Force to save South Vietnam. Remember that the War Powers Act allows the President to use military force for 90 days without Congressional approval. 89 days of bombing could do alot of damage. Maybe if it was making a difference, Congress might approve. One more change, I don't see Ronald Reagan challenging Goldwater in the 1976 primaries. Infact considering that since Goldwater picked an ideological soulmate as running mate in 1964, he might pick Reagan as Vice President. I know that a Democratic controlled Congress might not approve Goldwater, but there is a way around that barrier. Former Vice President Nixon testified before the committee that drafted the 25th amendment. He suggested that they have reconvened Electoral College choose the new Vice President. If Nixon got his way, most of the 517 Republican electors would have voted for Goldwater

 

[Paul V McNutt]

If any of you remember Wendell who made over 13, 000 posts on this site. He was a big fan of Barry Goldwater. It makes me sad that he is not here to read this.

 

[Paul V McNutt]

I was wrong. Wendell was here as recently as the 18th. So if you are reading this Wendell. It is good to meet up with you again and we miss you on the new OTL.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

Interesting...

Maybe I'm getting to ahead of the thread here, but say Goldwater becomes President in 1974, and is re-elected on a ticket with Reagan in 1976. He decides not to run again in 1980, and the Republican party dutifully nominates his former actor VP.

Now, ITTL, Republicans have controlled the White House for 12 years already, which included one of their own resigning in disgrace. Seems that gives the Democrats quite a leg up. So first question: who do they nominate to take advantage of these fundamentals?

Second question: can a Pres. Goldwater realistically do anything to hasten the USSR's downfall by, say, 1984? If not, does it still fall about the same time as OTL? And if so, does Goldwater's successor then get the kind of credit Reagan gets OTL?

 

[Blitzhund]

Given that Congress forbid the use of funds for military purposes in Cambodia and Vietnam on the 10th of March in '73 there's not much Goldwater could have done to continue propping up S Vietnam. Especially considering that by 8th of August '74 when Nixon resigned there were no operational US ground forces left in Vietnam. So, even if possible, what would bombing the North (and a big chunk of the occupied South) achieved? IMHO only even more bitter memories of Vietnam by America and a longer time to heal.
Goldwater would not have saved South Vietnam (and why should he have? The US had achieved it's original goal and stopped the supposed 'Domino effect' in Southeast Asia) and he would not have hastened the end of the Cold War.
As well, if Goldwater had bombed the South into a swamp this would have been extremelly unpopular in the USA and lent support to a Democrat victory in '76.
User in the Carter era in any event.

 

[Paul V McNutt]

With his unpopular views and the bad economy, I see no way Goldwater wins in 1976.

 

[Corbell Mark IV]

Given that Congress forbid the use of funds for military purposes in Cambodia and Vietnam on the 10th of March in '73 there's not much Goldwater could have done to continue propping up S Vietnam. Especially considering that by 8th of August '74 when Nixon resigned there were no operational US ground forces left in Vietnam. So, even if possible, what would bombing the North (and a big chunk of the occupied South) achieved? IMHO only even more bitter memories of Vietnam by America and a longer time to heal.
Goldwater would not have saved South Vietnam (and why should he have? The US had achieved it's original goal and stopped the supposed 'Domino effect' in Southeast Asia) and he would not have hastened the end of the Cold War.
As well, if Goldwater had bombed the South into a swamp this would have been extremelly unpopular in the USA and lent support to a Democrat victory in '76.
User in the Carter era in any event.

If Goldwater hadn't pardoned Nixon, perhaps he would have more political capital to use. Maybe a TV appeal to voters to pressure congress? Maybe combined with a Supreme Court case to fullfill treaty obligations?

As for what to accomplish, by this point the invasion forces are not guerillas, but convential forces with significant armor. Just the type of target the US military was built for.

With at least strategic suprise, the intial invasion forces would likely suffer high losses, likely enough to save the South from that invasion.

 

[Corbell Mark IV]

Interesting...

Maybe I'm getting to ahead of the thread here, but say Goldwater becomes President in 1974, and is re-elected on a ticket with Reagan in 1976. He decides not to run again in 1980, and the Republican party dutifully nominates his former actor VP.

Now, ITTL, Republicans have controlled the White House for 12 years already, which included one of their own resigning in disgrace. Seems that gives the Democrats quite a leg up. So first question: who do they nominate to take advantage of these fundamentals?

Second question: can a Pres. Goldwater realistically do anything to hasten the USSR's downfall by, say, 1984? If not, does it still fall about the same time as OTL? And if so, does Goldwater's successor then get the kind of credit Reagan gets OTL?

Now that's a good question. What oppertunies would a more aggressive US anti-communist policy have to pursue at this time?

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

With his unpopular views and the bad economy, I see no way Goldwater wins in 1976.

His views were similar to Reagan's weren't they? And in 1976, Gerald Ford only lost by a 2.1% margin.

What am I missing here?

 

[Dave Howery]

His views were similar to Reagan's weren't they? And in 1976, Gerald Ford only lost by a 2.1% margin.

What am I missing here?

You're missing a hostage crisis in Iran, a Russian invasion of Afghanistan, and an oil embargo. It was these three things that turned US voters to Reagan and his policies more than anything else...

 

[Corbell Mark IV]

You're missing a hostage crisis in Iran, a Russian invasion of Afghanistan, and an oil embargo. It was these three things that turned US voters to Reagan and his policies more than anything else...

Wasn't Ford a relatively weak campaigner? And he had that pardon on his record that I believe was fairly unpopular.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

You're missing a hostage crisis in Iran, a Russian invasion of Afghanistan, and an oil embargo. It was these three things that turned US voters to Reagan and his policies more than anything else...

Well, Ford had to deal with the oil embargo, and even as a weak campaigner (thanks Corbell), he OK. Beyond that, the question now seems to be, could the views of Goldwater/Reagan win a national election prior to the events of 1979.

I think they could; a more libertarian brand of conservativism got a big boost in the 1970's; Reagan did surprisingly well as a primary challenger to Ford, despite the latter's incumbency. If Goldwater held the reigns at this time, it certainly looks do-able.

 

[Corbell Mark IV]

Well, Ford had to deal with the oil embargo, and even as a weak campaigner (thanks Corbell), he OK. Beyond that, the question now seems to be, could the views of Goldwater/Reagan win a national election prior to the events of 1979.

I think they could; a more libertarian brand of conservativism got a big boost in the 1970's; Reagan did surprisingly well as a primary challenger to Ford, despite the latter's incumbency. If Goldwater held the reigns at this time, it certainly looks do-able.

Something else to consider, will there be a primary challange TTL?

If not that really helps Goldwater/Reagan. Primary challanges consume funds and shows weakness that carry over to the actual election.

Any such challanger would come from the moderate wind TTL, I would think.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

Any such challanger would come from the moderate wind TTL, I would think.

Yes, but historically (and please correct me if I'm wrong) primary challengers to incumbent Presidents have been from the wings of their parties. Beyond Reagan, I can think of Ted Kennedy against Carter for things like abandoning health care, and the Radical Republicans against Grant (OK not exactly a primary challenge, but same difference).

 

[Corbell Mark IV]

Yes, but historically (and please correct me if I'm wrong) primary challengers to incumbent Presidents have been from the wings of their parties. Beyond Reagan, I can think of Ted Kennedy against Carter for things like abandoning health care, and the Radical Republicans against Grant (OK not exactly a primary challenge, but same difference).

That is my impression to, at least for the modern era. Although Goldwater did have a lot of resistance from the more liberal Republicans. (Rockefeller)

Still, a primary fight seems unlikely.

 

[Paul V McNutt]

His views were similar to Reagan's weren't they? And in 1976, Gerald Ford only lost by a 2.1% margin.

What am I missing here?

Reagan never called for field commanders to be able to use nukes. People would still remember that 12 years later. Reagan did not vote against the 1964 Civil Rights Bill, that also would still be a sticking point.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

Reagan never called for field commanders to be able to use nukes. People would still remember that 12 years later. Reagan did not vote against the 1964 Civil Rights Bill, that also would still be a sticking point.

Ah! So, in a nutshell, Goldwater would never be able to recover from his disastrous 1964 campaign.

That actually makes sense

 

[Blitzhund]

If Goldwater hadn't pardoned Nixon, perhaps he would have more political capital to use. Maybe a TV appeal to voters to pressure congress? Maybe combined with a Supreme Court case to fullfill treaty obligations?

As for what to accomplish, by this point the invasion forces are not guerillas, but convential forces with significant armor. Just the type of target the US military was built for.

With at least strategic suprise, the intial invasion forces would likely suffer high losses, likely enough to save the South from that invasion.

By the time this TL diverges there was no money available for military operations in Vietnam and there were no significant forces in Vietnam outside of the US controlled area in Saigon near the Embassy.

The US Armed forces never actually lost a battle with the NVA or the VC. The Vietnam War was lost at home. And by 1974/75 with 58,000 American soldiers dead and nothing to show for it the war was HUGELY unpopular. Any move made by Goldwater to get the USA reinvolved in Indochina on the ground would have been political suicide and possibly resulted in his impeachment. It most certainly would have resulted in civil unrest at home.

 

[Corbell Mark IV]

By the time this TL diverges there was no money available for military operations in Vietnam and there were no significant forces in Vietnam outside of the US controlled area in Saigon near the Embassy.

The US Armed forces never actually lost a battle with the NVA or the VC. The Vietnam War was lost at home. And by 1974/75 with 58,000 American soldiers dead and nothing to show for it the war was HUGELY unpopular. Any move made by Goldwater to get the USA reinvolved in Indochina on the ground would have been political suicide and possibly resulted in his impeachment. It most certainly would have resulted in civil unrest at home.

Most of this discussion has been about a large scale bombing campaign aimed at the invasion forces. Plus militar aid.

Not ground forces.

 

[Blitzhund]

Most of this discussion has been about a large scale bombing campaign aimed at the invasion forces. Plus militar aid.

Not ground forces.

Sure, but there's still no money or appetite amongst the politicians or the public for it.