Vidal
Donor
This topic has gotten some attention on the boards, but most of the comments were along the lines of "People trust government more" and called it a day. I'm hoping to begin a more earnest discussion based on a few central questions.
Point of Divergence: IOTL, the Watergate burglary was foiled by some plain-clothed cops who arrived in an unmarked vehicle as the original officer was at a bar drunk. (All the President's Men the film posits that he was getting gas, but Garrett Graff's new book has the full story). Let's assume that some misdemeanor earlier in the night means that cop never makes it to the bar. He gets the call to go to the Watergate and arrives in his cruiser. Alfred Baldwin, on lookout across the street, notices the cruiser, and successfully radioes to the burglars inside, who get out in the knick of time. It appears there may have been some kind of a break-in, but it appears just as likely that Frank Wills is misremembering removing the tape on the door... no one can say for sure.
Nixon learns of the close call the next day, Liddy is reprimanded for using people so closely connected to CRP and the White House in the burglary, and it isn't until the mid-2000s when a seemingly obscure White House tape is released and there's vague mention of something at the Watergate the night before that historians realize there really may have been some kind of a break-in and that CRP may have been involved.
With all of that in mind... I invite you to consider some or all of the following questions (and pose your own):
What happens to the other Nixon-era scandals? The Pentagon Papers, the Segretti dirty tricks, and the dairy pricing come to mind. Without a concrete center for the investigation, do any of these scandals evolve into a serious threat to the Nixon administration?
It seems unlikely to me that they ever amount to anything as serious as a Special Prosecutor or a Congressional investigation as the extent of them only became known through the investigations that began with the break-in. I think it would take some kind of a whistleblower to make them come to light earlier, and that seems unlikely to me given that most of the Watergate whistleblowers (think John Dean) had little trouble doing questionable deeds on Nixon's behalf and only came to see the light once their own livelihoods were threatened with prison time.
What happens to Agnew? In my opinion, Agnew is still likely to be doomed. That investigation was happening separately and would likely have followed along the OTL trajectory. The timing might change a bit, but Agnew is still likely to be centered in it. The question is if there's enough pressure on him to resign if there's not a belief that Nixon is going down, too. IOTL, the idea that his scandal might blow up right before or right after Nixon's own troubles came to light motivated Elliott Richardson to pursue the resignation plea bargain. It seems semi-likely to me that without Watergate, Agnew chooses to fight the indictment, though he is almost certainly confirmed. This would raise questions about whether or not Nixon decides to pardon him (probably not right away, but seems quite plausible he does it on 01/20/77).
Assuming Agnew still goes down, who succeeds him? It seems totally likely that without the dairy price fixing scandal emerging, Connally could get the nod, as Nixon wanted. Ford is unlikely to be seriously considered ITTL, and it's also possible that Democrats feel less inclined to accommodate Nixon's nominee with tame hearings. You could see a real knock-down fight in Congress over the nomination, or at least a slow one that limits the amount of time the new vice president has to build goodwill before trying their own presidential run. George Bush seems at least semi-plausible as an alternative vice presidential candidate here. What about Reagan?
What are Nixon's second term focuses? IOTL, Nixon's second term was totally dominated and eclipsed by Watergate. Even the Yom Kippur War is often told through the lens of his own domestic policy struggles. It seems clear Nixon intended to spend most of his second term on foreign policy. Are there areas where he may have been able to negotiate new peace agreements?
On the domestic policy side, it's hard to say what he'd do. I don't think he was particularly motivated to work with Congress any more than he was during his first term, and his desire would likely be even less given that he doesn't have reelection to worry about. Hopes of a healthcare bill, etc. seem more like liberal wish fulfillment than serious possibilities, but perhaps I'm wrong.
What happens in '76 and beyond? Assuming that Agnew still leaves the vice presidency, it's likely that the incumbent vice president to a reasonably popular Nixon is the Party's 1976 nominee, provided they have some political chops. I think a Vice President Bush or a Vice President Connally could beat Reagan in a primary campaign.
Who do the Democrats nominate? I know the consensus is that Carter was a direct result of Watergate, and that's definitely true to an extent, but there's no doubt that he will run. He was already planning on a campaign before Watergate broke, and there's also no question he's going to work his ass off, doing the kind of retail politicking that enabled him to win Iowa and New Hampshire IOTL. The question is if some of those voters are more trusting of Washington insiders, which, of course, they would be. In my opinion, Birch Bayh is the Democrat most likely to benefit in this scenario. I would expect him to win Iowa or get a closer second place finish, but I also think Carter puts up a reasonably strong showing - enough to make him a serious vice presidential contender.
And, of course, trust in government will be different. Watergate has obviously played a dramatic part in altering the American public's relationship with government. I don't think you can really overstate that. Even if Reagan were to win in '76, I think a statement like "Government is not the solution to our problems, government is the problem..." would land totally different if its said at all. Though, I think forecasting this question is a little hard to do without a theory of who is in the White House and how they got there.
What of the Nixon legacy? It's interesting to consider that Nixon's legacy may unfold in a sort of atypical fashion. I think he'd likely go out on top only to be increasingly remembered as a flawed president and would-be tyrant as more and more records of his presidency are revealed and historians dig in to the archives of his time in the White House. While we often see history be kinder to presidents who leave office while unpopular, like Truman and Carter, as time goes on, we less often see presidents who leave with respectable popular support be seen as worse with time. Wilson comes to mind as one example. I think you could maybe argue Bill Clinton, too, but that carries a sort of ideological flavor to it moreso than I think a reexamination of Nixon come the 2000's and 2010's would...
Of course, part of the answer to this question relies on how you answer "What are Nixon's second term focuses?" Maybe, he doesn't leave office on a high note at all...
Anywho -- hoping for a robust conversation here about Tricky Dick and what America may be like without the Watergate scandal as its known today.
Point of Divergence: IOTL, the Watergate burglary was foiled by some plain-clothed cops who arrived in an unmarked vehicle as the original officer was at a bar drunk. (All the President's Men the film posits that he was getting gas, but Garrett Graff's new book has the full story). Let's assume that some misdemeanor earlier in the night means that cop never makes it to the bar. He gets the call to go to the Watergate and arrives in his cruiser. Alfred Baldwin, on lookout across the street, notices the cruiser, and successfully radioes to the burglars inside, who get out in the knick of time. It appears there may have been some kind of a break-in, but it appears just as likely that Frank Wills is misremembering removing the tape on the door... no one can say for sure.
Nixon learns of the close call the next day, Liddy is reprimanded for using people so closely connected to CRP and the White House in the burglary, and it isn't until the mid-2000s when a seemingly obscure White House tape is released and there's vague mention of something at the Watergate the night before that historians realize there really may have been some kind of a break-in and that CRP may have been involved.
With all of that in mind... I invite you to consider some or all of the following questions (and pose your own):
What happens to the other Nixon-era scandals? The Pentagon Papers, the Segretti dirty tricks, and the dairy pricing come to mind. Without a concrete center for the investigation, do any of these scandals evolve into a serious threat to the Nixon administration?
It seems unlikely to me that they ever amount to anything as serious as a Special Prosecutor or a Congressional investigation as the extent of them only became known through the investigations that began with the break-in. I think it would take some kind of a whistleblower to make them come to light earlier, and that seems unlikely to me given that most of the Watergate whistleblowers (think John Dean) had little trouble doing questionable deeds on Nixon's behalf and only came to see the light once their own livelihoods were threatened with prison time.
What happens to Agnew? In my opinion, Agnew is still likely to be doomed. That investigation was happening separately and would likely have followed along the OTL trajectory. The timing might change a bit, but Agnew is still likely to be centered in it. The question is if there's enough pressure on him to resign if there's not a belief that Nixon is going down, too. IOTL, the idea that his scandal might blow up right before or right after Nixon's own troubles came to light motivated Elliott Richardson to pursue the resignation plea bargain. It seems semi-likely to me that without Watergate, Agnew chooses to fight the indictment, though he is almost certainly confirmed. This would raise questions about whether or not Nixon decides to pardon him (probably not right away, but seems quite plausible he does it on 01/20/77).
Assuming Agnew still goes down, who succeeds him? It seems totally likely that without the dairy price fixing scandal emerging, Connally could get the nod, as Nixon wanted. Ford is unlikely to be seriously considered ITTL, and it's also possible that Democrats feel less inclined to accommodate Nixon's nominee with tame hearings. You could see a real knock-down fight in Congress over the nomination, or at least a slow one that limits the amount of time the new vice president has to build goodwill before trying their own presidential run. George Bush seems at least semi-plausible as an alternative vice presidential candidate here. What about Reagan?
What are Nixon's second term focuses? IOTL, Nixon's second term was totally dominated and eclipsed by Watergate. Even the Yom Kippur War is often told through the lens of his own domestic policy struggles. It seems clear Nixon intended to spend most of his second term on foreign policy. Are there areas where he may have been able to negotiate new peace agreements?
On the domestic policy side, it's hard to say what he'd do. I don't think he was particularly motivated to work with Congress any more than he was during his first term, and his desire would likely be even less given that he doesn't have reelection to worry about. Hopes of a healthcare bill, etc. seem more like liberal wish fulfillment than serious possibilities, but perhaps I'm wrong.
What happens in '76 and beyond? Assuming that Agnew still leaves the vice presidency, it's likely that the incumbent vice president to a reasonably popular Nixon is the Party's 1976 nominee, provided they have some political chops. I think a Vice President Bush or a Vice President Connally could beat Reagan in a primary campaign.
Who do the Democrats nominate? I know the consensus is that Carter was a direct result of Watergate, and that's definitely true to an extent, but there's no doubt that he will run. He was already planning on a campaign before Watergate broke, and there's also no question he's going to work his ass off, doing the kind of retail politicking that enabled him to win Iowa and New Hampshire IOTL. The question is if some of those voters are more trusting of Washington insiders, which, of course, they would be. In my opinion, Birch Bayh is the Democrat most likely to benefit in this scenario. I would expect him to win Iowa or get a closer second place finish, but I also think Carter puts up a reasonably strong showing - enough to make him a serious vice presidential contender.
And, of course, trust in government will be different. Watergate has obviously played a dramatic part in altering the American public's relationship with government. I don't think you can really overstate that. Even if Reagan were to win in '76, I think a statement like "Government is not the solution to our problems, government is the problem..." would land totally different if its said at all. Though, I think forecasting this question is a little hard to do without a theory of who is in the White House and how they got there.
What of the Nixon legacy? It's interesting to consider that Nixon's legacy may unfold in a sort of atypical fashion. I think he'd likely go out on top only to be increasingly remembered as a flawed president and would-be tyrant as more and more records of his presidency are revealed and historians dig in to the archives of his time in the White House. While we often see history be kinder to presidents who leave office while unpopular, like Truman and Carter, as time goes on, we less often see presidents who leave with respectable popular support be seen as worse with time. Wilson comes to mind as one example. I think you could maybe argue Bill Clinton, too, but that carries a sort of ideological flavor to it moreso than I think a reexamination of Nixon come the 2000's and 2010's would...
Of course, part of the answer to this question relies on how you answer "What are Nixon's second term focuses?" Maybe, he doesn't leave office on a high note at all...
Anywho -- hoping for a robust conversation here about Tricky Dick and what America may be like without the Watergate scandal as its known today.
