SCREENPLAY HELP! :-D

[sm04life]

Ladies and Gentlemen-
Looking to start up an intelligent discussion about the domino effect in the 1960s if the Kennedy assassination were to have failed and/or not taken place at all. I realize that LBJ took over many programs and initiatives that JFK began so perhaps the dominoes wouldn't be as far stretching as I might think. Some things to consider:

- Vietnam
- Civil Rights
- RFK's political career (also perhaps not assassinated?)
- JFK's potential obsession with discovering those responsible for the attempt
- Nixon's political career, including Watergate
- the Cold War and US relations with the USSR

I've thought a lot about all these but am anxious to get others' ideas and thoughts. Please either repost in this thread or feel free to email me. I'm a serious screenwriter and am very interested in putting together this story - separate from what H.Turtledove is doing on the subject. Thanks in advance for your help.

Sincerely,
-Justin
stumpkat@yahoo.com

 

[Mr_ Bondoc]

Some Quick Thoughts...

-First, with the issue of Southeast Asia, consider that in October 1964, the Chinese government detonated a nuclear weapon at Lop Nor, Xinjiang. With the pull out of American troops as "military advisors" from South Vietnam, Republicans led by Senator Barry Goldwater (R-AZ) would be calling the Administration the one "that lost Indochina to the Communists...". In response, General Curtis E. LeMay, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, citing a report by Lt. General John K. Gerhart (2/8/1961) calls for the nuclear armanment of SEATO allies in the region, with the possibility of nuclear weapons to be granted to the Indian and Pakistani governments....

-Second, with the second presidential attempt since 1950, under President Truman, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover proposes that the FBI should be granted the right to act as primary protection for the president, with the Secret Service serving as a secondary measure. Many officials, including Attorney General Robert Kennedy would be concerned as to the sudden power grab by Hoover....

-Third, with the Cuban sympathizer-ties of Lee Harvey Oswald, including his time in the Soviet Union in the 1950s, there is a sudden "clear and present danger" posed by Cuba. There is the possibility of CIA assassination and/or invasion of Cuba as a "preemptive strike" against the Castro government. The 1963 Oswald assassination attempt, the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, and even reports of the 1962 Bay of Pigs Invasion might be used to create a scenario, as compelling as the 2002 case for the invasion of Iraq.....

 

[ColeMercury]

Something I saw once in a documentary about RFK: if JFK hadn't been assassinated, RFK might not have gotten involved in civil rights as much as he did and might not have been a candidate for President in 1968. Having less of a public profile means he might not have been assassinated.

Also, re. LBJ continuing JFK's programs - if JFK hadn't died, some of those initatives might never have seen the light of day. The fact that they were "JFK's plans" and that the nation was grieving helped them to get passed.

 

[sm04life]

awesome thoughts guys, i love the way you think. most of that i'd never even considered (except the bit at the end about LBJ). anyone who has anything else, i welcome with open arms.
-justin

 

[Alcuin]

Third, with the Cuban sympathizer-ties of Lee Harvey Oswald, including his time in the Soviet Union in the 1950s, there is a sudden "clear and present danger" posed by Cuba. There is the possibility of CIA assassination and/or invasion of Cuba as a "preemptive strike" against the Castro government. The 1963 Oswald assassination attempt, the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, and even reports of the 1962 Bay of Pigs Invasion might be used to create a scenario, as compelling as the 2002 case for the invasion of Iraq.....

While it's certainly possible that Kennedy would always see Cuba as a "clear and present danger", I'm not so sure about this. To me, the best way of avoiding the assassination of JFK is to have Oswald's earlier attempted assassination, (The assassination on 10 April 1963 of former general Edwin Walker) succeed, so that Oswald is in prison by November 1963.

 

[Mr_ Bondoc]

Then Again...

While it's certainly possible that Kennedy would always see Cuba as a "clear and present danger", I'm not so sure about this. To me, the best way of avoiding the assassination of JFK is to have Oswald's earlier attempted assassination, (The assassination on 10 April 1963 of former general Edwin Walker) succeed, so that Oswald is in prison by November 1963.

I certainly understand the premiose that you are seeing, but I am assuming the assassination attempt in Dealy Plaza takes place, but fails because of , any number of factors that could mess up the shot, including the wind, the number of trees in the plaza, fellow workers at the Texas Schoolbook Depository, et al.

 

[sm04life]

FYI - i dont subscribe to the magic bullet or single shooter theories.

 

[Mr_ Bondoc]

Could Be Bad...

FYI - i dont subscribe to the magic bullet or single shooter theories.

Consider the idea that this as a scenario wherein the CIA and FBI are manipulating the investigations and the information, in an effort to justify a "preemptive strike" against Cuba. If George W. Bush, with shoddy information and evidence can convince the Congress to go to war against Iraq in 2002, consider how much easier it would be to fool the Kennedy administration into a war to overtake the Castro government. Just remember that JFK and RFK had already authorized Operation MONGOOSE to assassinate Fidel Castro in 1961....

Only in hindsight, with a rebellious insurgency, would an invasion be seen as a bad thing....

 

[Alcuin]

I certainly understand the premiose that you are seeing, but I am assuming the assassination attempt in Dealy Plaza takes place, but fails because of , any number of factors that could mess up the shot, including the wind, the number of trees in the plaza, fellow workers at the Texas Schoolbook Depository, et al.

How about Oswald accidentally shooting the shooter on the grassy knoll?

 

[Electric Monk]

Other people are better suited to most of your questions, but politics I can handle:

Assuming JFK wins in 1964 (likely, but not certain) against Goldwater or Rockefeller then we come to 1968. There are a lot of what ifs here, though.

If Viet Nam is a minor issue and JFK remains reasonably popular (no sex scandals, no revealing of his health problems—which is iffy) then the Democratic field is entirely different then OTL:

LBJ is the front runner, for sure, and RFK isn't going to run (he lives, of course, because of butterflies but still he would have been a better president then his brother IMO) and without Viet Nam neither McGovern nor McCarthy are major figures.

Humphrey on the other hand still is, but against LBJ it seems unlikely that he'd run or win.

So I imagine LBJ gets the nod.

If Viet Nam is a major issue then it's LBJ against McCarthy (maybe McGovern), probably, with Humphrey as a compromise candidate. Humphrey is in a much better position without being shackled by LBJ, LBJ probably does believe in JFK's Viet Nam war and so has that as a drag.

Nixon wouldn't run in 1964, but it seems quite likely he'd still gear up for 1968.

Rockefeller may do one of several things (depend if he ran and lost in 1964, or if he lost to Goldwater in the primaries): follow OTL plan of supporting George Romney, and then forced to enter the race himself because Romney wasn't that great; enter the race himself, give the nod to NY Mayor John Lindsay who didn't run in 1968 because he wasn't willing to go without Rockefeller's blessing.

Goldwater won't run again (regardless of whether he win or loses the '64 nomination he isn't going to win the general), and it's too early for Reagan.

Likely match-ups:

LBJ versus Nixon

It's LBJ's to lose on the following: Viet Nam, JFK's popularity, quality of campaign, and support from popular JFK, southern support, Chicago convention/riots.

Any of those go wrong in a big way and Nixon may win.

LBJ versus Rockefeller. Similar to above, except that Rockefeller is likely a better general candidate in the North, and weaker in the south—depending on VP to a moderate extent.

LBJ versus Lindsay. Lindsay is not as well known, but is otherwise similar to Rockefeller.

Humphrey is a weaker candidate then LBJ in all areas except Viet Nam. Nevertheless he has a decent shot against Nixon, assuming events go differently then OTL.

McCarthy and McGovern are noticeably weaker candidates in all areas except Viet Nam; they would likely lose any hypothetical '68 match-up against a Republican candidate.

The collection of what ifs expands massively if I have to go into 1972, but let me know.

Even if Nixon is in the White House the probability of Watergate is less likely as that depended on a lot of odd factors, and Nixon winning again in 1972 which is not as likely in a JFK lives universe.

As President:

Humphrey, McCarthy, McGovern, and Nixon (Rockefeller and Lindsay might, but would be more dependant on advisors) would all move to end Viet Nam if ongoing—I remain unsure about LBJ. Democrats would likely carry on with Civil Rights/Great Society type programs. Nixon would likely still go to China, and ignore domestic problems.

The possibility of a negative income tax replacing welfare/social security is likely under Nixon if he supports the replace part (as he didn't in OTL) and the Republicans have more Congressional strength. This is very much a good thing as regards economic growth and budgets.

Rockefeller/Lindsay are Teddy Roosevelt Republicans and would likely enact additional civil rights/some government spending. Lindsay, in particular, would pay attention to urban issues which the US badly needed at the time (not urban redevelopment like LBJ's Great Society, but local government money and new ideas. If butterflies make him read Jane Jacob's The Death and Life of Great American Cities the US may have some truly excellent cities going forward).

Rockefeller has no problem with government spending. Lacking Viet Nam he can also pay for it without major deficits like OTL, he may move to end Viet Nam if ongoing.

No one but Nixon would likely go to China, as most are less focused on foreign issues excepting ongoing Viet Nam.

 

[sm04life]

Wow, you guys are amazing. This stuff rocks. I have one followup question. What are the chances and/or circumstances surrounding Joseph Kennedy's involvement in setting up his children as a new american dynasty of president, i.e. pushing RFK to run for pres after 8 years of a JFK whitehouse? He died in 69 but would've been a strong pull politically to have his family's positioned strengthened. What do you think?

 

[Mr_ Bondoc]

The problem...

Wow, you guys are amazing. This stuff rocks. I have one followup question. What are the chances and/or circumstances surrounding Joseph Kennedy's involvement in setting up his children as a new american dynasty of president, i.e. pushing RFK to run for pres after 8 years of a JFK whitehouse? He died in 69 but would've been a strong pull politically to have his family's positioned strengthened. What do you think?

The big problem is that in December 19, 1961, Joseph P. Kennedy suffered a major stroke, which paralyzed the right half of his body, and robbed him of the ability to speak. This would certainly have limited any influence that he would have had ove the family...

Another idea to consider is to "butterfly" certain events away. On June 19, 1964, Senator Birch Evans Bayh II (D-IN) and Ted Kennedy (D-MA) narrowly survived a plane crash during a foggy night in near Springfield, Massachusetts. To make things harder to predict, consider whatif Ted Kennedy dies in 1964, forcing Robert Kennedy to take his place in the U.S. Senate.....

 

[DocOrlando]

If JFK lived, I don't see RFK entering politics on any level, except at whatever behest his brother would make. I actually believe he might resign as AG in JFK's second term in order to pursue a career more open to direct public service.

On the other hand, I think Ted would probably remain in his Senate seat, as he had no particular ambition heretofore and a virtually assured meal ticket to a career.

One thing that I don't think has been considered is the social impact of both Kennedys' survival (and I agree, RFK's death indeed would be butterflied). Jack's murder has often been considered the "end of Camelot" or the "end of innocence" or words to that end; it was the impetus for much disillusionment for the teenagers who admired the young president. When those teens reached college age, they got hit by the the murders of both MLK and RFK.

JFK knew that Vietnam was a morass; immediately after the coup against Diem, he was looking for an exit strategy, and that was for the (relatively minimal) USAF, Green Berets and "advisors" in country. Unfortunately, JFK's military advisors were LBJ's military advisors, and I don't see much changing in the short term. American involvement in Vietnam was still "popular" as long as it was played as stemming the spread of communism. It lost its support at home as LBJ was forced to throw more and more green troops in to try and hold the line...sound familiar? Kennedy would railroaded into the same situation, convinced that just a few thousand more troops would buy us the time to find an exit solution...and failing again and again.

I think the two points of contention will be: What would JFK's reaction to the Tonkin Incident be, and would he send the initial cadre of Marines in May 1965?

Ironically, considering the snafu that was the coup against Diem, the smartest thing for Kennedy to have done was to ditch South Vietnam under the premise of a corrupt RVN government colluding with the North. While it would be a dishonorable act, the reality of the situation is that the truth probably wasn't so far off that it couldn't be stretched to accommodate. Ho Chi Minh was more interested in a reunited, independent Vietnam. A fast American exit in the mid-60s, though it would likely have meant the "fall" of S. Vietnam, would have also sped along rapprochment and possibly improved stability of SE Asia.

 

[sm04life]

i never considered the social implications of his death. do you think the turbulence of the 1960's would've been put off or prolonged in the event of his survival?

 

[Ibn Warraq]

Ladies and Gentlemen-
Looking to start up an intelligent discussion about the domino effect in the 1960s if the Kennedy assassination were to have failed and/or not taken place at all. I realize that LBJ took over many programs and initiatives that JFK began so perhaps the dominoes wouldn't be as far stretching as I might think. Some things to consider:

- Vietnam
- Civil Rights
- RFK's political career (also perhaps not assassinated?)
- JFK's potential obsession with discovering those responsible for the attempt
- Nixon's political career, including Watergate
- the Cold War and US relations with the USSR

I've thought a lot about all these but am anxious to get others' ideas and thoughts. Please either repost in this thread or feel free to email me. I'm a serious screenwriter and am very interested in putting together this story - separate from what H.Turtledove is doing on the subject. Thanks in advance for your help.

Sincerely,
-Justin
stumpkat@yahoo.com

One thing to keep in mind is that while JFK is incredibly popular now, largely because people's perceptions of him have been colored by his assassination and the hope/wish that he'd have survived and made everything better.

However, at the time, his approval rating was hovering around 50% and three years into his term most of the legislation he'd backed had been completely stymied.

Now, in OTL, LBJ was able to capitalize on the support for the democratic party that came about in the wake of Kennedy's assassination and with both that support and his own knowledge of the Senate and skill at exploiting Congress was able to push through the Voting Rights and Civil Rights Acts of 1963 and 1964, but even then just barely.

Would these acts have been passed if Kennedy had be left alive and uninjured in the aftermath of the assassination? Probably not. A failed assassination as envisioned problably wouldn't have helped him any more than Ford was helped by his own assassination attempt. Moreover, Kennedy had never utilized LBJ to pass any bills and always treated him like someone to hold his coat for three years, and there's no reason to think his attitude would have changed.

Without the sympathy generated by a successful Kennedy assassination or LBJ's famed arm-twisting it's doubtful the aforementioned civil rights acts would have passed and this would have probably had rather extreme consequences for race relations in the US.

 

[DocOrlando]

i never considered the social implications of his death. do you think the turbulence of the 1960's would've been put off or prolonged in the event of his survival?

Absolutely. It would have been diminished at the very least, because the youth of America would not have lost the icons of both Kennedy brothers. And while I couldn't say with certainty that MLK's assassination would be butterflied away, I'd say his chances of survival would greatly improve.

Kennedy wanted to engineer a smaller US ground role in Vietnam, or better still, extricate us entirely. He had already ordered the pullout of 1000 military personnel by the end of 1963, but LBJ countermanded that order upon his succession. JFK remaining in office would have assured that a pullout would have begun. After the '64 election, he could have sped up the process.

With no high-profile assassinations and no need for the draft, America's youth would have remained far less radical. The only remaining hot-button issue would be civil rights, which JFK was already starting to address. However, it's accepted that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was only passed on the coattails of JFK's assassination. Without that impetus, it's likely that the bill would have died in committee. Kennedy wouldn't really be able to bulldog civil rights legislation until after the 1964 election, lest he risk alienating Southern voters. It would be interesting to consider what would happen, and on what timeline.

 

[luakel]

With no high-profile assassinations and no need for the draft, America's youth would have remained far less radical. The only remaining hot-button issue would be civil rights, which JFK was already starting to address. However, it's accepted that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was only passed on the coattails of JFK's assassination. Without that impetus, it's likely that the bill would have died in committee. Kennedy wouldn't really be able to bulldog civil rights legislation until after the 1964 election, lest he risk alienating Southern voters. It would be interesting to consider what would happen, and on what timeline.

That's assuming that there aren't any of either. Sure, JFK isn't killed, but with a more violent and bitter civil rights movement (MLK loses the govt.'s support once he starts speaking out against Vietnam) then that could be a catalyst for unrest instead. King might get shot a few years earlier, and if Malcolm X goes around the same time then things will get bloody as the radicals take over the movement. And as far as Vietnam... any major withdrawal before the end of 1964 is impossible. And by that point, JFK has likely made many of the same decisions as his successor did- decisions that will force him onto the same path. In the first few months of 1965, he will sadly announce to the public that their husbands, fathers, and sons are needed in Vietnam, but only for a few months until the situation is pacified and they can leave...

Another thing is that the Great Society gets butterflied away. Much of it was passed with JFK's memory, but I'm not so sure he would've supported the programs if still alive. This could lead to a split between him and LBJ- the latter lambasting him for concentrating on that "damn war" while there are problems at home. The youth of America will be angry as well; their idol has sent troops into 'Nam while the streets are exploding with unrest, and this disillusionment will cause social activism.

That's not even considering all the scandals with the potential to be leaked to the press.

Another idea to consider is to "butterfly" certain events away. On June 19, 1964, Senator Birch Evans Bayh II (D-IN) and Ted Kennedy (D-MA) narrowly survived a plane crash during a foggy night in near Springfield, Massachusetts. To make things harder to predict, consider whatif Ted Kennedy dies in 1964, forcing Robert Kennedy to take his place in the U.S. Senate.....

Assuming having Teddy's brother live won't affect his travel plans, that could happen.

 

[Mr_ Bondoc]

Consider This...

-In regards to Civil Rights, things are going to get pretty rough. Consider that 7 months before the 1964 election (4/3), you have the Malcolm X "Ballot or the Bullet" speech in Cleveland, Ohio. The rise of Malcolm X would have certainly brought up the issue that African-American Civil Rights were also a problem in the North. This is going to get worse with the 1965 assassination of Malcolm X (2/21) in New York City, NY, sparking massive civil unrest and violence.

-1965 is going to severely test teh commitment of the Kennedy administration to Civil Rights. First in 3/7, you have "Bloody Sunday" wherein state troopers broke up civil rights demonstrations in Selma, Alabama. The second would be the Watts Riot (8/11-8/16) in Los Angeles, California, wherein federal troops are called into the area.

 

[sm04life]

What do you guys think of this... I found it on a website:

Dean Acheson, former Secretary of State and one of JFK's top advisors, observed that Kennedy "did not have incisiveness and he was out of his depth where he was. I hate to say this because I know it's going to be misunderstood, but his reputation is greater because of the tragedy of his death than it would have been if he had lived out two terms...he did not seem to me to be in any sense a great man. I did not think that he knew a great deal about any of the matters which it is desirable that a Chief of State or a President of the United States should know about. He was not decisive."
To quote from Professor Thomas Reeves, "During the Thousand Days, Kennedy arrogantly and irresponsibly violated his covenant with the people. While saying and doing the appropriate things in the public light, he acted covertly in ways that seriously demeaned himself and his office."
With the appointment of his brother as attorney general, he tried to found a political dynasty, abhorred by the Founding Fathers. "The metaphor of Camelot, after all, is ultimately un-American and undemocratic, conjuring up images of crowns and dashing young princes and noble birth."

 

[Electric Monk]

It's customary to link back to your source, by the way.

The quote? Too harsh on Kennedy, I'd argue, but he has been heavily romanticized because the following presidents brought Viet Nam and Watergate. I'd also completely disagree with the characterization of trying to found a dynasty: RFK had always been Kennedy's sword and shield and it was only natural to keep using him that way.

Apparently the real meaning of Camelot is also beyond the professor: it's not about princes and crowns and noble brith (although America has always had classes, it's just not as obvious as Britain, say) but about a better America, a more perfect union (if I felt like stealing), and the shining city on the hill. That's that's the standard use of the metaphor as it applies to Kennedy (not some silly political nobility thing) and I feel that the standard use is the correct one.

None of the above is to say that Kennedy was a great president or anything, and the first and second paragraphs you reference are harsh but generally true—it just goes off the rails in the third paragraph.

As mentioned above I'd tend to agree with the others that Civil Rights/Great Society would be watered down or not passed—however pretty much all the Democratic candidates for President would be for those policies. The Senate, of course, is a different story given Southern Democrats and Kennedy's weakness in those kinds of politics (amusingly LBJ's greatest strength, of course, but Kennedy didn't like LBJ much). Therefore they don't pass (at least not before a theoretical LBJ presidency) and if they pass, they'll do so only in a weaker form.

I'll agree that JFK living means RFK doesn't get into politics, at least not elected office politics. In my dream world he teams up with Theodore White and Jane Jacobs and saves American cities, but that's rather unlikely.

I'd argue with Mr_Bondoc in that the events he references are in the future (of the ATL, anyway) and so are quite possibly butterflied away. Some are still likely—Malcom X getting assassinated for one—but others could easily have not happened or gone differently, and so the specific events are, at best, guides to the kind of change ongoing in America.

Any other political stuff you need discussed, commented on, or more detailed (and boring, to most, I gather) electoral politics discussion?

If not I have an urge to nuke the godless communists back to the stone age (Defcon is awesome) or, perhaps, teach the capitalists the true power of the Soviet Union!