The bill that the Camp Arthur discussion, and then further discussion in the White House, eventually arrived at was far from the great restoration of labour’s rights that MacArthur had hoped for. It would not touch Section 14b, or the requirement that unions declare themselves to not be supporters of the Communist Party, or even the ability of employers to spread anti-union messages. What it did do was guarantee strikers the right to a jury trial, should they desire one, in the event of labour disputes, repealing one injustice of Taft-Hartley that unions had been vocal about since 1948.
Lol, just make Mac look as decked out like some North Korean General or like Zhukov at the 1945 victory parade. Then the moniker of an American Caesar shall be complete!Be easier to just download the list of every medal the Army ever made haha ... Mac won something like all but one of them that he possibly could have.
I am officially onboard with the Tricky Dick fanclub in this timeline. Screw it.Nixon glanced at the note he had just written, and suddenly he had an idea. Maybe this was what he was looking for all along. He decided he would discuss this with MacArthur after all.
That would be hard to do, seeing as don't know a lot of what was in those files. It would take a lot of conjecture, I would think.
Yeah, at the very least they won't stand in its way. When Nixon was saying "the South hates you" he's making a bit of a generalisation. Though only a bit.Southern Democrats might actually be ok with this provision. Setting the precedent now that people accused of violating federal court orders are entitled to a jury trial will strengthen the South's case down the road for insisting that a similar right to a jury trial in contempt cases be included in any future civil rights legislation.
I'm not even half done yetThen the moniker of an American Caesar shall be complete!
Welcome on board!I am officially onboard with the Tricky Dick fanclub in this timeline. Screw it.
I like to think of Nixon ITTL becoming a less paranoid and much happier person than his OTL counterpart (albeit still a schemer!).Nixon as attorney general is a very interesting figure, and this is in itself before his own well... sway towards the right in terms of his rhetoric and such which happened after 1960 and 1962. Now that also begs one to wonder.... will we ever see Dick Nixon into the White House?
I've been planning the Hoover saga for a long time. Should be funNixon uses reverse Watergate. We'll have to see how this pans out.
Blue Skies in Camelot had an entertaining version of it: https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...-60s-and-beyond.431559/page-195#post-17579790
Time to get Tricky in Dick's house. Oh god the amount of bullcrap that could happen between Willoughby and Hoover would be absolutely legendary, all the while Nixon is sitting in the corner, calling all of the shots while he is enjoying himself and not being a total crook. Absolutely marvelous.Two men enter, no one leaves.
Tricky Dick's Thunderdome
My apologies for taking so long to respond. I was reading a book which goes into a significant amount of detail on the topic at hand (the split between the liberal and conservative wings of the GOP in the 1960s), and I thought it best for me to finish reading it first. I would recommend you read it, William F. Buckley's The Unmaking of a Mayor. Its his account of the 1965 New York City mayoral election, and he spends a lot of it specifically describing the lack of unity in the party.I feel the significance of the Southern Strategy is massively overblown. African-Americans had been trending Democratic long before 1968 (or 1964). (Even Eisenhower in 1956, an immensely popular president running against a Democratic candidate who was lukewarm on civil rights, could only get about 1/3 of the African American vote in the south side of Chicago and Harlem), and the south had been starting to shift to the GOP since the 1950s. (Eisenhower had done very good in the south in both 1952 and 1956 and even Nixon won 4 southern states and came within a whisper of winning Texas in 1960.) 1964/65 was important not because the Republicans started courting the segregationist vote (again over 80% of GOP senators voted for the Civil Rights Act) but because with segregation gone, southerners had less reason to vote on the civil rights issue and thus were more likely to vote on other issues like economics or foreign policy (where they tended to side more with the Republicans.)
But again how competitive is the GOP going to be with African American voters. If both parties are supporting civil rights, then that issue is a wash, which means African-American voters are most likely going to vote with the party that favors their economic interests, and that's going to be the Democrats. (Which is why Eisenhower performed so poorly with African-American voters even when he was otherwise winning landslide elections.)
Hugh Scott was the GOP Senate Leader after Dirksen. Romney, Rockefeller, and Scranton were all Governors of important states. Schweiker was seen as important enough to be made Reagan's veep in 1976. There were plenty of influential liberal Republicans in the party.
Dominated is overstating things. Bush, Dole, and Baker were all very influential figures in the GOP at the time, and they weren't exactly adamant conservatives.
Well I guess it depends on what you mean by a split. The conservative block will absolutely oppose "big government" programs even from the GOP. (As demonstrated by their opposing Taft's housing and education bills or Nixon's welfare reform program.) But that doesn't mean they'll refuse to support a moderate (or even liberal) GOP candidate otherwise. The conservative block still came out and voted for Eisenhower in 1952, Nixon in 1960 and again in 1968, Ford in 1976, and Bush in 1988 after all. (As you yourself have alluded to there's enough common ground on other issues like national defense and pro-business policies which both wings of the party support.) Thus I don't think there's going to be a fatal breach between the two wings of the party. I just don't see the conservative block being willing to support an activist government either.
Fair enough. I would agree that the conservative block would probably be receptive to something like a true Negative Income Tax, but what is the likelihood the liberal Republicans would support something like that?