Who would be in the cabinet? My guess is that Muskie, Humphrey, or Scoop Jackson would have been Secretary of State and one of the others would have been Secretary of Defense. Would Kissinger have played any role in that administration?
Well I think he would have thrown Thomas Eagleton a bone: Head of the Interior or Attny General. I’d expect Eugene McCarthy to have a role, maybe as Secretary of State or head of HEW, or Agriculture.
I doubt Humphrey or Kissinger would play : McGovern was (essentially) going to flat out bug out of Vietnam* & neither would be a party to that.
(*The plank he wrote at the convention – that was narrowly defeated - called for : an immediate bombing halt, a reduction of offensive military operations in South Vietnam, a negotiated troop withdrawal and negotiations to establish a coalition government in Vietnam).
BTW CA delagates to the convention included Norm Mineta – maybe he could have been the longest serving Cabinet Mamber ever … starting 20 years before he did.
I could see some of the Carter picks of 4 yrs later like Cy Vance, Harold Brown, Andy Young & Joe Califano play roles in '72
…that purports to be an account of the first year of the McGovern Adminstration. If I find it, I’ll run down the Cabinet choices for you. As I recall, there were some real surprises in there.
By some pseudonym, BTW.
Vance maybe. Definately not Young, who was elected to his first term in Congress in 1972.
Muskie would be a probable Sec of State. Scoop Jackson would definately NOT have accepted a post within a McGovern Presidential administration.
Eugene McCarthy might have been offered an Ambassadorship, but not a seat in the Cabinet.
As an (admitted) hijack, who do the Reps run against McGovern in 1976, and would Watergate have been investigated with Nixon out of the White House?
Admitting that we are arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin: I don’t see why McCarthy would be unacceptable for the cabinet. This whole thread pre-supposes McGovern would swing 17 million Americans to his view of Vietnam. McCarthy co-wrote the booted plank & was (in this timeline) 4 years ahead of his time on the War.
I agree on Young. I thought he was in Congress in '72.
How about this blast from the past for Secretary of State: Mike Mansfield.
Watergate would test the canard:* It’s not the crime it’s the cover-up*. My gut says with no Nixon, there is no hearings, no Dean flip, no tape revelation and the story dies with Liddy. While the country deals with the Vietnam pull out and decriminalization of MJ [ :rolleyes: ] takes center stage
I think Reagan would have easily captured the 1976 Republican nomination.
Here’s what Nicholas Max (no idea who this is a pseudonym for) has to say in PRESIDENT MCGOVERN’S FIRST TERM (DOUBLEDAY AND CO., 1973):
State: Frank Church
Treasury: Wilbur Mills
defense: William Proxmire
A.G.: Herman Badillo
Postmaster: Jean Westwood
Interior: Fred Harris
Agriculture: James Symington
Commerce: Henry Kimmmelman
Labor: Larry O’Brien
HEW: Wilson C. Riles (Who?)
HUD: Shirley Chisholm
Transportation: James Gavin
Many of these surprise choice turn out to play important roles in the fantasy that then develops. It’s a pretty good book, at least for embittered supporters of McGovern in '72, of whom I was one.
Possibly forever depriving us of the one thing that Wilbur Mills is now most remembered for:
*Mills is best known for being disgraced by scandal after a drunken incident in October 1974 with an Argentine stripper known as Fanne Foxe. Mills was stopped by Washington, D.C. police late at night and found to be intoxicated. His face was bloody from a scuffle with Fox. When police approached the car, Fox leapt from the car and jumped into the nearby Tidal Basin. Mills was forced to resign his seat on the Ways and Means Committee and did not seek reelection in 1976. *
The man was way ahead of his times…
While we’re at it, who would have pitched game 1 for the Mets, if they’d made the 1962 World Series?
And how much would 2 + 2 equal, if it didn’t equal 4?
Riles was the California Superintendent of Public Instruction, in charge of the California educational system, and he had previously been Chairman of a Nixon task force on Urban Education.
Cap’n: Thanks
Astorian: I think Stengel would have gone with Al Jackson in the opener, for a number of reasons. He’d withheld Whitey Ford, like Jackson an effective small lefthander in Game One against the Pirates two years earlier, and it probably cost him the Series and his job with the Yankees. Also Jackson was unusually well rested, not having started any of the season’s six final games (maybe he was hurt, but I never heard about it if he was–probably Stengel was just testing out some kids once the pennant was finally out of reach.) Also Houk’s Yankees, whom I’m assuming you intend for them to face in your hypothetical, were of course unusually left-handed (Maris and Berra in particular) so Stengel would have tried to start Jackson early in the Series so he could use him late in the Series with good rest. If it would have gone seven games, I project the Mets’ starters as Jackson-Craig-Hook-Cisco-Jackson-Craig- Jackson. Stengel probably would have avoided starting Bob Milller, though Miller had comes on strong at the end of the regular season, finally getting a win after 12 straight losses, but Stengel was notoriously shy about using untested rookie pitchers in big post-season spots. Of course, Jackson was a rookie, too, but he’d pitched more than Miller, and was a little older as well. So Jackson would be my clear favorite for starting Game One.
This was fun. Thanks for the opportunity. I’ll leave up to the mathematically inclined to handle your final brainteaser.
Interesting premise.
Howsabout this - McGovern pulls out of Viet Nam and Watergate never happens. The North Vietnamese spend the next couple years rebuilding their military, as they did in the “real” timeline. Do they still invade South Viet Nam? Does McGovern do anything about it?
My scenario is that they do invade, and McGovern talks a lot but does nothing. There is a huge backlash against him and the Democrat doves. As a result, Reagan wins the 1976 Republican nomination and crushes McGovern in the general election. And the 80s happen four years earlier, except without the automatic assumption of scandal that started with Watergate. The Republicans might even have taken over Congress in the 80s instead of the 90s.
Hard on the people of Viet Nam, but other than that…
Regards,
Shodan
astorian: That’s easy. 2 squared.
As another hijack:
If George Wallace is elected President in 1968, who does he appoint to his Cabinet?
Actually, with similar economic problems in 1980, I’d see a very tough Reagan vs Ted Kennedy election.
*Originally Posted by Shodan
Interesting premise.
Howsabout this - McGovern pulls out of Viet Nam and Watergate never happens. The North Vietnamese spend the next couple years rebuilding their military, as they did in the “real” timeline. Do they still invade South Viet Nam? Does McGovern do anything about it?
My scenario is that they do invade, and McGovern talks a lot but does nothing. There is a huge backlash against him and the Democrat doves. As a result, Reagan wins the 1976 Republican nomination and crushes McGovern in the general election. And the 80s happen four years earlier, except without the automatic assumption of scandal that started with Watergate. The Republicans might even have taken over Congress in the 80s instead of the 90s.
Hard on the people of Viet Nam, but other than that…
Regards,
Shodan*
Slight hijack:
With Reagan elected in '76, may we presume he would have been the victim, not the beneficiary, of the Ayatollah’s revnge in 1980? If nthe Shah had needed medical treatment under Reagan, don’t you think he would have been just as accomodating as Carter was? Would Reagan have enacted any policy that would have prevented a hostage situation from taking palce on his watch?
I think Iran would have turned out the same way. Not sure about the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. No chance of a Camp David.
I am assuming that Reagan would have implemented his rebuilding of the military, deregulation of oil, and more “assertive” foreign policy initiatives in 1976.
So even if the Shah developed cancer earlier than he did, it may have been the case that the Iranian militants would have been more reluctant to f*ck with Reagan than they were with Carter. And I can see no reason why Reagan would have hesitated to do in Iran what he did in Grenada.
If you interpret the release of the hostages in 1981 as a gesture of good will by the Iranians, I don’t think they would be any less conciliatory to Reagan at the beginning of his second term than the beginning of his first. Reagan knew enough to cut his losses in Lebanon; he would likely have done the same with the shah in Iran.
I am presuming a big, “anti-peacenik” reaction against the invasion of South Viet Nam under President McGovern, remember. A pro-military, conservative President like Reagan would be acting against that backdrop, and would likely use it as a reason to implement a military build up in 1977 as he did in 1981.
On the other hand, dalej42 is probably correct that the Camp David accords between Egypt and Israel would never have happened. And thus no assassination of Sadat, perhaps. But I bet the invasion of Afghanistan would proceed nonetheless. So would the Sandanistas in Nicaragua. But then, the Iran-Contra scandal might or might not have occurred, and if it did, would not have had Watergate to resonate off.
Of course, I am picking and choosing what world situations would change and what would not. Fun, ain’t it?
Regards,
Shodan
The Reagan in '76 stuff makes one assumption I would quibble with: that the Shah would have fallen under Reagan (that & I think a moderate candidate would have emerged: Bush? Dole? a moderate would have had a fairly good shot at the GOP nomination there was a bare majority of the party uncomfortable with him – depending on what a McGovern Presidency wrought).
Carter’s folks vacillated between, pushing for reform, pushing the Shah to stand tough, and pushing the thinking “Oh well as long as it isn’t the Communists, how bad can it be…” I suspect Reagan/Dole/Bush would have firmly supported the Shah, & made sure the Western World did too & supported whatever draconian sh6t the Shah pulled to save his as$… Would it have made any difference? Maybe… Maybe enough that at least so that the Shah wouldn’t have fallen in ‘79
OTOH: There would certainly have been no canal treaty & that might have gotten ugly too. I’ll go so far as to say *would * have gotten ugly - what that meant long term - I’m not sure