JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Jon Banks on November 22, 2022, 02:58:57 PM
-
On the 59th anniversary of the tragic events of 11-22-63, let's play a game.
What are your thoughts on how the rest of Kennedy's Presidency would've played out if he wasn't killed?
I'll start:
- Kennedy defeats Goldwater to win a second term.
- He doesn't go through with his plan to withdraw troops from Vietnam but he continues to resist full scale escalation
- The Civil Rights Act fails to pass in Congress
- Nixon defeats Lyndon Johnson in the 68' Presidential election
- JFK is remembered as a mediocre President
-
On the 59th anniversary of the tragic events of 11-22-63, let's play a game.
What are your thoughts on how the rest of Kennedy's Presidency would've played out if he wasn't killed?
I'll start:
- Kennedy defeats Goldwater to win a second term.
- He doesn't go through with his plan to withdraw troops from Vietnam but he continues to resist full scale escalation
- The Civil Rights Act fails to pass in Congress
- Nixon defeats Lyndon Johnson in the 68' Presidential election
- JFK is remembered as a mediocre President
That sounds about right. JFK was largely a do-nothing President remembered fondly mostly because he took a good picture and looked the part. LBJ did more in his first 100 days as president than JFK did in his entire political career. JFK did almost nothing for Civil Rights which was the issue of his age and it was not a priority for him. He was only interested in foreign affairs. Absent the assassination at his youthful age, he would be remembered as a mediocre president.
-
That sounds about right. JFK was largely a do-nothing President remembered fondly mostly because he took a good picture and looked the part. LBJ did more in his first 100 days as president than JFK did in his entire political career. JFK did almost nothing for Civil Rights which was the issue of his age and it was not a priority for him. He was only interested in foreign affairs. Absent the assassination at his youthful age, he would be remembered as a mediocre president.
The historian Richard Reeves in "President Kennedy: Profile of Power" (a really good book on his presidency):
"Kennedy was decisive, though he never made a decision until he had to, and then invariably he chose the most moderate of available options. His most consistent mistake in governing, as opposed to politics, was thinking that power could be hoarded for use at the right moment - but moments and conditions defied reason. He had little ideology beyond anti-Communist and faith in active, pragmatic government...What convictions he did have, on nuclear proliferation or civil rights or the use of military power, he was often willing to suspend, particularly if that avoided confrontation with Congress or the risk of being called soft."
I do think he deserves credit for normalizing relations with the USSR, for abandoning Eisenhower's first use policy and mitigating the possibility of a US/USSR conflict. He recognized, unlike a lot of people around him (not just the military), that a nuclear war was simply unthinkable, that it couldn't be limited or constrained.
It's remarkable that many conspiracy believers - the Stone/Garrison crowd for example - promote JFK as a Arthurian/great leader who was going to drastically change America for the better - not just in Vietnam or in foreign policy but domestically as well - and it was for this that he was struck down by the powerful forces he threatened. Then along comes LBJ who did far more to change America than JFK ever dreamed off. So these elements killed JFK to stop this change and then LBJ comes along and does all of the things, and more, that JFK wanted to do? It makes no sense but in conspiracy world it doesn't have to make sense; it just has to help promote the idea of a conspiracy.
The Kennedys simply didn't know how to pass legislation much less show interest in it. Working the Congress, making deals, cajoling and threatening members. LBJ knew how to do all of that; he acted quickly after the assassination to use the death of JFK to promote civil rights. Then after his landslide election he acted quickly to pass the Great Society. He knew he had to use that power to act immediately. JFK, as Reeves says above, wasn't interested in that.
-
It's remarkable that many conspiracy believers - the Stone/Garrison crowd for example - promote JFK as a Arthurian/great leader who was going to drastically change America for the better - not just in Vietnam or in foreign policy but domestically as well - and it was for this that he was struck down by the powerful forces he threatened. Then along comes LBJ who did far more to change America than JFK ever dreamed off. So these elements killed JFK to stop this change and then LBJ comes along and does all of the things, and more, that JFK wanted to do? It makes no sense but in conspiracy world it doesn't have to make sense; it just has to help promote the idea of a conspiracy.
We can say that with 20/20 hindsight of course. However, in JFK's time, he had lots of enemies who hated him and were happy that he was killed.
So while yes, LBJ maybe surprised some people (who could've predicted that a bigoted white southerner would enact the greatest Civil Rights policies in US history?), I don't think it was predictable prior to Kennedy's death how Johnson's presidency would play out other than the facts that he was more hawkish on Vietnam and more imperialistic than Kennedy was.
For example, unless the alleged conspirators had a crystal ball, how could they have predicted that LBJ would choose to cover-up evidence/rumors of Oswald's links to the Soviets and Cuba (in order to avoid nuclear war) rather than escalate the Cold War?
I think it's fair to say that Johnson's presidency turned out in ways that no one could've predicted.
-
(https://www.snopes.com/uploads/2016/07/lbj-racist-quotes-2.jpg)
-
JFK dumps LBJ and changes his last name from Kennedy to Arthur and is declared the new King. He then trades the Lincoln limo in for a golden carriage that Queen Elizabeth II is jealous of. Ho Chi Minh realizes that he doesn’t stand a chance against the newest King Arthur and joins the empire. And they all lived happily ever after…
-
"Circling back to the quote with which we started, it wouldn't have been
entirely out of character for LBJ to have said something like, "I'll have
those niggers voting Democratic for 200 years," but on balance we have
to question its authenticity." -- Snopes
U.S. Presidents Have a Long History of Saying, Doing Things Called Racist (Link (https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2019/07/30/us-presidents-racist-history/39868649/) )
-
"Circling back to the quote with which we started, it wouldn't have been
entirely out of character for LBJ to have said something like, "I'll have
those niggers voting Democratic for 200 years," but on balance we have
to question its authenticity." -- Snopes
U.S. Presidents Have a Long History of Saying, Doing Things Called Racist (Link (https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2019/07/30/us-presidents-racist-history/39868649/) )
I don't know if the quote is real or not but we do know that Johnson was known to use the n-word in Congress and the White House.
Lyndon Johnson was a civil rights hero. But also a racist.
https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/lyndon-johnson-civil-rights-racism-msna305591
So it's not exactly a leap to say that few could've predicted that his presidency would be so important to advancing Civil Rights.
-
If JFK wasn’t killed, RFK probably wouldn’t have run for President in 1968 which means he probably wouldn’t have been killed as well.
-
I wonder if RFK would have stayed the entire eight years as AG or whether he would've bailed at some point to pursue office.
-
I wonder if RFK would have stayed the entire eight years as AG or whether he would've bailed at some point to pursue office.
In 1968, after JFK's second term, he would have been 43. Could he have run for president from the AG's office? Or would he need a more serious office to run from? He was so important as an enforcer/confidant for JFK that I don't see who could have replaced him as AG?
Maybe in '68 he runs for the Senate and not WH? But then who follows JFK? Assuming he has a successful second term - that's an open question - who does JFK give his support to?
-
In 1968, after JFK's second term, he would have been 43. Could he have run for president from the AG's office? Or would he need a more serious office to run from? He was so important as an enforcer/confidant for JFK that I don't see who could have replaced him as AG?
Maybe in '68 he runs for the Senate and not WH? But then who follows JFK? Assuming he has a successful second term - that's an open question - who does JFK give his support to?
I don't see RFK running in 68' if his brother served a second term. Maybe a few years later RFK would run for President, but it would've been difficult for him politically to run while his brother was still in the White House.
-
I don't see RFK running in 68' if his brother served a second term. Maybe a few years later RFK would run for President, but it would've been difficult for him politically to run while his brother was still in the White House.
He leaves the AG position, say after three years?, to run. If not him then who does JFK support in '68? Clearly not LBJ but then who else? Trying to think of an alternative choice that JFK would support.
Re successful second JFK term: I think the idea that JFK would/could have simply pulled out of Vietnam after being re-elected ignores the consequences of such an act. The South falls - in a year? two? - and then the entire region goes up in flames. The people in the South flee to Cambodia, that causes internal problems for them that spill over into the entire region. The Pathet Lao and Khmer Rouge are emboldened. Remember, Khrushchev - who showed little interest in supporting Hanoi; he thought it would benefit Mao and China - was replaced in 1964. The new leadership was much more supportive of Hanoi. So an aggressive, Soviet-aligned Hanoi is in power. Can he just leave?
JFK would have had a mess to deal with; just as LBJ did. Trying to muddle through with half-measures, as LBJ tried (bombing and pause, bombing and pause, restricted bombing zones), didn't work. But a full out war, no bombing restrictions, would be a hard sell. Would JFK recognize this early on? It's all a guess.