What if Richard Nixon won the 1960 US election?

[Circle of Willis]

The 1960 American election was famously extremely close, with only a difference of about 100,000 votes between the two candidates (and only a few thousand separating them in states such as Illinois & Texas). In the end, JFK barely defeated Nixon; but, what if it had gone the other way, and it was Eisenhower's VP who scored a narrow but undeniable victory over the charismatic young Senator from Massachussetts? How would an earlier President Nixon have dealt with Cuba, Vietnam, civil rights, the risk of assassination and other issues which the USA had to face through the bulk of the 60s?

 

[stevep]

The 1960 American election was famously extremely close, with only a difference of about 100,000 votes between the two candidates (and only a few thousand separating them in states such as Illinois & Texas). In the end, JFK barely defeated Nixon; but, what if it had gone the other way, and it was Eisenhower's VP who scored a narrow but undeniable victory over the charismatic young Senator from Massachussetts? How would an earlier President Nixon have dealt with Cuba, Vietnam, civil rights, the risk of assassination and other issues which the USA had to face through the bulk of the 60s?

I have seen suggestions elsewhere Nixon might be more likely to go for an invasion or at least bombing of Cuba which could end up disastrously for everybody. Assuming this is avoided.

At that stage the Democrats were still largely the party of whites in the south so its possible that Nixon might have taken up the civil rights cause. After all the 1st Republican president was an A Lincoln. That would reverse one of the big developments of OTL, whereas the Democrats, especially under Johnston took up civil rights and Nixon then went for the southern white vote. Its possibly going to be even messier in terms of fighting for civil rights, especially in the south.

Vietnam he might go in a bit harder than Kennedy did originally but that is just a guess. However its unlikely to become a controversal issue until after 64 so it would only really become important for him if he stands and wins in 64. If he does then since this would be clashing with both the Russians and China would this prevent him doing the visit to China to isolate the Soviets?

One issue is that this would have meant 12 years of Republican rule so depending on how things go you might see a Democrat winning in 64 but a lot would depend on how things go.

I have heard of one possible POD for this scenario. In 1960 was the first televised debate between the candidates. Nixon refused the use of a make-up artist, which meant under the hot lights he sweated significantly and according to a number of reports came across as shady and untrustworthy. Possibly if he had accepted aid that might have been enough to switch the election for him to win.

 

[Circle of Willis]

I have seen suggestions elsewhere Nixon might be more likely to go for an invasion or at least bombing of Cuba which could end up disastrously for everybody. Assuming this is avoided.

Wouldn't a Bay of Pigs that's provided with heavy American air support, or an outright invasion by the Marines, be more likely to succeed? Granted, Cuba could be a serious hot zone of insurgent activity later, but I'd imagine that in the short term (at least Nixon's first term) the US would have no trouble toppling Castro and installing a pliant regime in his place. Probably not one led by Batista since he's already badly tainted, but I could see Nixon recalling Carlos Prio to be Cuba's provisional president until new elections can be held, or something like that.

At that stage the Democrats were still largely the party of whites in the south so its possible that Nixon might have taken up the civil rights cause. After all the 1st Republican president was an A Lincoln. That would reverse one of the big developments of OTL, whereas the Democrats, especially under Johnston took up civil rights and Nixon then went for the southern white vote. Its possibly going to be even messier in terms of fighting for civil rights, especially in the south.

Agreed. I think Nixon would have a harder time passing civil rights legislation than JFK or LBJ did, simply because he's a Republican - the real-life LBJ pushing through the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and '68 seems to have been, ironically, a domestic Democratic equivalent of 'only Nixon could go to Red China'. Without LBJ being the main pusher, I think Nixon will have a steeper hill to climb against a more steadfastly segregationist Democratic Party, although public opinion will be increasingly on his side as time goes on so it may not matter all that much in the long run. That ball's already started rolling with Brown v. Board of Education, Eisenhower's use of federal troops to enforce desegregationist court decisions, and the Civil Rights Act of 1960 after all.

The idea of a GOP that retains the black vote, having been the party of emancipation and now civil rights, without the Great Society (as I doubt Nixon or any Rockefeller Republican successor of his, no matter how liberal, would go to the lengths LBJ did in that regard) is one that I find intriguing - they'd have to work to retain and grow the black middle class instead to keep those voters on board economically. Perhaps we'd see the evolution of the Democrats into a socially conservative (in general - ex. on abortion, gay marriage, drugs, etc., not segregation or at least not exclusively) and economically populist party to survive after segregation becomes a settled issue, while the GOP comes to resemble a libertarian party writ large on both social and economic issues?

Vietnam he might go in a bit harder than Kennedy did originally but that is just a guess. However its unlikely to become a controversal issue until after 64 so it would only really become important for him if he stands and wins in 64. If he does then since this would be clashing with both the Russians and China would this prevent him doing the visit to China to isolate the Soviets?

I think it might be the other way around if Nixon goes all-in on Cuba. If he's busy fighting Cuban insurgents, he might keep a lighter hand in Vietnam relative to the Kennedy and especially Johnson administrations, with US troops in the country never numbering more than a few thousand 'advisors'. Whether that'd be enough to keep SV afloat is certainly debatable though, especially if Nixon leaves Ngo Dinh Diem alive, which I've heard conflicting things about: on one hand Diem was quite corrupt and exacerbated domestic tensions with his efforts to impose Catholic primacy over the Buddhist majority, but on the other he was South Vietnam's only leader with genuine nationalist credentials (as someone who opposed French and Japanese rule) and when he was killed IOTL, Ho Chi Minh was quoted as having said something along the lines of 'I can scarcely believe the Americans would be so stupid'.

One issue is that this would have meant 12 years of Republican rule so depending on how things go you might see a Democrat winning in 64 but a lot would depend on how things go.

I can't imagine Nixon would lose reelection unless he really messes up, but I do think a Democratic victory in 1968 is highly likely. Then again, maybe not if support for segregation craters outside the Deep South and the Democrats tie themselves to that ship too tightly - and defeat here would provide that party with the impetus to finally attempt a realignment away from diehard segregationism. Perhaps a defeat for Lester Maddox or George Wallace in '68, then a still-Democratic Reagan defeating the Republican incumbent (perhaps George Romney, who was known to be dovish moderate and an early frontrunner in the real 1968 GOP primary) in 1972 on a more broadly conservative and less overtly sectional platform?

I have heard of one possible POD for this scenario. In 1960 was the first televised debate between the candidates. Nixon refused the use of a make-up artist, which meant under the hot lights he sweated significantly and according to a number of reports came across as shady and untrustworthy. Possibly if he had accepted aid that might have been enough to switch the election for him to win.

Fully agreed, that debate seems to have been one of the most prominent missteps of Nixon's 1960 campaign.

 

[stevep]

Wouldn't a Bay of Pigs that's provided with heavy American air support, or an outright invasion by the Marines, be more likely to succeed? Granted, Cuba could be a serious hot zone of insurgent activity later, but I'd imagine that in the short term (at least Nixon's first term) the US would have no trouble toppling Castro and installing a pliant regime in his place. Probably not one led by Batista since he's already badly tainted, but I could see Nixon recalling Carlos Prio to be Cuba's provisional president until new elections can be held, or something like that.


Agreed. I think Nixon would have a harder time passing civil rights legislation than JFK or LBJ did, simply because he's a Republican - the real-life LBJ pushing through the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and '68 seems to have been, ironically, a domestic Democratic equivalent of 'only Nixon could go to Red China'. Without LBJ being the main pusher, I think Nixon will have a steeper hill to climb against a more steadfastly segregationist Democratic Party, although public opinion will be increasingly on his side as time goes on so it may not matter all that much in the long run. That ball's already started rolling with Brown v. Board of Education, Eisenhower's use of federal troops to enforce desegregationist court decisions, and the Civil Rights Act of 1960 after all.

The idea of a GOP that retains the black vote, having been the party of emancipation and now civil rights, without the Great Society (as I doubt Nixon or any Rockefeller Republican successor of his, no matter how liberal, would go to the lengths LBJ did in that regard) is one that I find intriguing - they'd have to work to retain and grow the black middle class instead to keep those voters on board economically. Perhaps we'd see the evolution of the Democrats into a socially conservative (in general - ex. on abortion, gay marriage, drugs, etc., not segregation or at least not exclusively) and economically populist party to survive after segregation becomes a settled issue, while the GOP comes to resemble a libertarian party writ large on both social and economic issues?

I think it might be the other way around if Nixon goes all-in on Cuba. If he's busy fighting Cuban insurgents, he might keep a lighter hand in Vietnam relative to the Kennedy and especially Johnson administrations, with US troops in the country never numbering more than a few thousand 'advisors'. Whether that'd be enough to keep SV afloat is certainly debatable though, especially if Nixon leaves Ngo Dinh Diem alive, which I've heard conflicting things about: on one hand Diem was quite corrupt and exacerbated domestic tensions with his efforts to impose Catholic primacy over the Buddhist majority, but on the other he was South Vietnam's only leader with genuine nationalist credentials (as someone who opposed French and Japanese rule) and when he was killed IOTL, Ho Chi Minh was quoted as having said something along the lines of 'I can scarcely believe the Americans would be so stupid'.

I can't imagine Nixon would lose reelection unless he really messes up, but I do think a Democratic victory in 1968 is highly likely. Then again, maybe not if support for segregation craters outside the Deep South and the Democrats tie themselves to that ship too tightly - and defeat here would provide that party with the impetus to finally attempt a realignment away from diehard segregationism. Perhaps a defeat for Lester Maddox or George Wallace in '68, then a still-Democratic Reagan defeating the Republican incumbent (perhaps George Romney, who was known to be dovish moderate and an early frontrunner in the real 1968 GOP primary) in 1972 on a more broadly conservative and less overtly sectional platform?

Fully agreed, that debate seems to have been one of the most prominent missteps of Nixon's 1960 campaign.

My concern would be that wasn't there already nukes on Cuba and if some of them are used in its defence then things could degenerate quickly.

My thinking on civil rights is it would be more difficult for Nixon as it would keep most of the south [except possibly a few liberal areas and those where blacks and in the majority and you can get the vote out] Democrat while it would probably also maintain a control on some significant areas of the north, at least at 1st. However that's possibly what you mean.

In terms of S Vietnam I can't see it surviving unless the US is not only willing to give a lot of support but also can get a good leader who's not corrupt or dividing the country. Even then it will be very difficult with continual attacks from a north supported by both Russia and China. Especially given communist infiltration into Laos and Cambodia which enable them to flank the southern defences. Plus you definitely need someone with more brains than Westmoreland in charge of the US military effort. However I can see that being the issue for a Democrat President in 68 onward.

Yes unless Nixon does something stupid or is very unlucky he's likely to win in 64, especially with a political success in Cuba under his belt. [Would be ironic if he has Kennedy's luck and gets shot by Oswald but butterflies would make that unlikely I suspect.]

 

[Circle of Willis]

My concern would be that wasn't there already nukes on Cuba and if some of them are used in its defence then things could degenerate quickly.

My thinking on civil rights is it would be more difficult for Nixon as it would keep most of the south [except possibly a few liberal areas and those where blacks and in the majority and you can get the vote out] Democrat while it would probably also maintain a control on some significant areas of the north, at least at 1st. However that's possibly what you mean.

In terms of S Vietnam I can't see it surviving unless the US is not only willing to give a lot of support but also can get a good leader who's not corrupt or dividing the country. Even then it will be very difficult with continual attacks from a north supported by both Russia and China. Especially given communist infiltration into Laos and Cambodia which enable them to flank the southern defences. Plus you definitely need someone with more brains than Westmoreland in charge of the US military effort. However I can see that being the issue for a Democrat President in 68 onward.

Yes unless Nixon does something stupid or is very unlucky he's likely to win in 64, especially with a political success in Cuba under his belt. [Would be ironic if he has Kennedy's luck and gets shot by Oswald but butterflies would make that unlikely I suspect.]

I don't think the Soviets put nukes on Cuba until 1962, so Nixon has a decent window of time to put together a more successful Bay of Pigs & topple Castro. Once that's done, Khrushchev's own window of opportunity to plant nukes on the island will be firmly shut.

Yeah, that's pretty much what I was getting at - a Nixon administration that takes a more firmly integrationist stance on civil rights, or even just stays Eisenhower's moderately liberal course, would find the Solid South staying solidly (D) for much longer. It won't matter overmuch if Nixon can still count on the North and West though, and if he doesn't go overboard with things like bussing (as I doubt he would, Nixon said he was against busing IRL and while more moderate than the Goldwater-Reagan types, he wasn't exactly a Rockefellerite liberal either) he could also retain the Buckley/Bozell-style non-Southern conservatives who had turned against segregation in his coalition.

Fair enough, that makes sense. I wonder if Nixon could exacerbate and exploit the mounting Sino-Soviet split earlier than OTL to weaken NV, although it seems like that only reached its fever peak in 1969. So, as you said, an issue more for Nixon's successor to deal with than Early-Nixon himself.

I know I mentioned it could've been '68 before, but I could see 1964 being the year where the Democrats run an arch-segregationist who's totally unelectable outside of the Deep South against Nixon, promptly crashing and burning, and deciding to run a more generally agreeable candidate in the next election cycle - a reverse of Johnson vs. Goldwater, basically. Perhaps that means 1968 will be a Democratic Reagan's year. I agree it wouldn't be much fun for Nixon to get assassinated just like Kennedy at the exact same time, that feels like a lazy and overly deterministic way to end his presidency.

 

[WolfBear]

Wouldn't a Bay of Pigs that's provided with heavy American air support, or an outright invasion by the Marines, be more likely to succeed? Granted, Cuba could be a serious hot zone of insurgent activity later, but I'd imagine that in the short term (at least Nixon's first term) the US would have no trouble toppling Castro and installing a pliant regime in his place. Probably not one led by Batista since he's already badly tainted, but I could see Nixon recalling Carlos Prio to be Cuba's provisional president until new elections can be held, or something like that.


Agreed. I think Nixon would have a harder time passing civil rights legislation than JFK or LBJ did, simply because he's a Republican - the real-life LBJ pushing through the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and '68 seems to have been, ironically, a domestic Democratic equivalent of 'only Nixon could go to Red China'. Without LBJ being the main pusher, I think Nixon will have a steeper hill to climb against a more steadfastly segregationist Democratic Party, although public opinion will be increasingly on his side as time goes on so it may not matter all that much in the long run. That ball's already started rolling with Brown v. Board of Education, Eisenhower's use of federal troops to enforce desegregationist court decisions, and the Civil Rights Act of 1960 after all.

The idea of a GOP that retains the black vote, having been the party of emancipation and now civil rights, without the Great Society (as I doubt Nixon or any Rockefeller Republican successor of his, no matter how liberal, would go to the lengths LBJ did in that regard) is one that I find intriguing - they'd have to work to retain and grow the black middle class instead to keep those voters on board economically. Perhaps we'd see the evolution of the Democrats into a socially conservative (in general - ex. on abortion, gay marriage, drugs, etc., not segregation or at least not exclusively) and economically populist party to survive after segregation becomes a settled issue, while the GOP comes to resemble a libertarian party writ large on both social and economic issues?

I think it might be the other way around if Nixon goes all-in on Cuba. If he's busy fighting Cuban insurgents, he might keep a lighter hand in Vietnam relative to the Kennedy and especially Johnson administrations, with US troops in the country never numbering more than a few thousand 'advisors'. Whether that'd be enough to keep SV afloat is certainly debatable though, especially if Nixon leaves Ngo Dinh Diem alive, which I've heard conflicting things about: on one hand Diem was quite corrupt and exacerbated domestic tensions with his efforts to impose Catholic primacy over the Buddhist majority, but on the other he was South Vietnam's only leader with genuine nationalist credentials (as someone who opposed French and Japanese rule) and when he was killed IOTL, Ho Chi Minh was quoted as having said something along the lines of 'I can scarcely believe the Americans would be so stupid'.

I can't imagine Nixon would lose reelection unless he really messes up, but I do think a Democratic victory in 1968 is highly likely. Then again, maybe not if support for segregation craters outside the Deep South and the Democrats tie themselves to that ship too tightly - and defeat here would provide that party with the impetus to finally attempt a realignment away from diehard segregationism. Perhaps a defeat for Lester Maddox or George Wallace in '68, then a still-Democratic Reagan defeating the Republican incumbent (perhaps George Romney, who was known to be dovish moderate and an early frontrunner in the real 1968 GOP primary) in 1972 on a more broadly conservative and less overtly sectional platform?

Fully agreed, that debate seems to have been one of the most prominent missteps of Nixon's 1960 campaign.

Yes, I expect the US would invade Cuba in this scenario and succeed in this regard due to the use of US troops and Cuba being much closer to the US than to the USSR, which probably won't directly intervene here. With Nixon becoming emboldened as a result of a Cuban victory, he might subsequently seek to contain Communism elsewhere, such as in Laos and/or in South Vietnam. In our TL, Laos was becoming a huge crisis but then JFK made a deal with the USSR to neutralize Laos in 1962. Would a President Nixon that just "won Cuba back for the free world" actually be willing to make a similar deal with the USSR in regards to Laos? Or does he decide "We crushed the Commies in Cuba, so we might very well be able to do so in Indochina as well?"

Agreed that Nixon might focus on securing the black middle class for the GOP even if the black working class might be harder for the GOP to permanently keep. I think that the analysis of a populist Democratic party and a libertarian Republican party might be spot-on, in which case the Republican party might be more pro-immigration than the Democratic party, who will be more pro-worker and seek to avoid rapid cultural and demographic changes. So, we could eventually see populist Democrats criticizing the corporate-friendly libertarian GOP over the "Great Replacement" and about how the GOP's corporate greed is seeking to "replace the historical American nation" and "undermine the quality of life of American workers" or something like that. Basically, eventually see the Democratic Party become Trumpist, only genuinely more populist as opposed to merely being pseudo-populist like the Trumpist GOP is.