Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
General TopicsAncient HistoryMedieval PeriodBritish HistoryWhat IfArchaeology
War History
War HistoryWorld War IIUS Civil War
HistoryKB.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

History Forum / General / What If / July 2008



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Jesse Helms never elected to US Senate

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Stan Boleslawski - 06 Jul 2008 04:09 GMT
With the recent passing of former Sen. Jesse Helms, I am surprised to
see no new WIs done
yet on the infamous North Carolina curmudgeon and "last segregationist
in the Senate". Helms
is no stranger to AH, having wound up as POTUS in a Steve Erickson
short story, and has
undoubtably come up in SHWI before.

So, I thought of my own POD regarding "Senator No":

Helms' Dem opponent, Congressman Nick Galiflinakis (D-Durham), defeats
Helms in
1972 for the Senate. Helms won by a 54-46 margin ; let's say that
Jesse's "He's one
of us" doesn't work, and that the McGovern campaign galvanizes
students in Chapel
Hill, Raleigh, and Durham to vote for Galiflanakis enough to offset
Helms' fame on
WRAL. Don't know much about Galiflanakis, but there's a pretty
interesting knock-on
here:

"The support of Jesse Helms, alongside Raleigh-based campaign
operative Tom
Ellis, was instrumental in Ronald Reagan winning the 1976 North
Carolina primary
and later presenting a major challenge to President Gerald Ford at the
1976
Republican National Convention. According to author Craig Shirley, the
two
men, after Reagan and Nevada Senator Paul Laxalt, deserve the most
credit
"for breathing life into the dying Reagan campaign."[6]

Going into the North Carolina primary, Reagan lost all the opening
primaries of
the year, including in New Hampshire where he had been favored, and
was two
million dollars in debt with a growing chorus of Republican leaders
calling for his
exit. A massive grassroots effort formed by Ellis and backed by
Senator Helms
was able to deliver an upset victory in North Carolina, with Reagan
taking 100,984
votes (53.4%) to President Ford's 88,249 (46.6%.) Despite the
financial woes of
the national Reagan campaign, the momentum generated in North
Carolina
carried Ronald Reagan to primary wins in Texas, his home state of
California
and other critical states, throwing Ford back on his heels and forcing
undeclared
delegates to choose the nominee at the 1976 convention.

Despite the loss for Reagan at the 1976 Republican National
Convention, several
contend that the intervention of Senator Helms and Tom Ellis arguably
led to the
most important conservative primary victory in the history of the
Republican Party,
and was the victory that enabled Ronald Reagan to contest the 1976
Republican
Presidential nomination, and later to win the Presidential nomination
at the 1980
Republican National Convention and then the Presidency of the United
States.
According to Craig Shirley,

"Had Reagan lost North Carolina, despite his public pronouncements,
his
revolutionary challenge to Ford, along with his political career,
would have
ended unceremoniously. He would have made a gracious exit speech, cut
a deal with the Ford forces to eliminate his campaign debt, made a
minor
speech at the Kansas City Convention later that year, and returned to
his
ranch in Santa Barbara. He would probably have only reemerged to make
speeches and cut radio commercials to supplement his income. And
Reagan would have faded into political oblivion."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Helms

So, does no Helms as US Senator mean that Reagan exits the 1976 race
and with it, electoral politics? Any impact on Ford's campaign if
Reagan's
insurgent challenge gets shut down early? Could this be enough to get
Ford re-elected, as he wouldn't have to deal with a challenge from
within
his own party?

Is a loss for the Senate going to cure Helms of the political bug? The
only
position he'd previously held was on the Raleigh City Council.
Perhaps
Helms runs against Jim Hunt for governor in 1976 or against Jim Green
for Lieutenant Governor that same year? Or runs for the Senate to
fill Sam Erwin's seat in 1974? Any ideas?

Best
Stan B.

ObWI: The USSR shoots down KAL 015 (the plane carrying Helms to a
conference in South Korea) rather than KAL 007 (the plane just ahead
of it by 15 minutes) on September 1, 1983. Who does Governor Hunt
appoint to fill Helms' seat? Terry Sanford, perhaps?
The Old Man - 06 Jul 2008 16:09 GMT
On Jul 5, 11:09 pm, Stan Boleslawski <boleslaw...@forpresident.com>
wrote:

> So, does no Helms as US Senator mean that Reagan exits the 1976 race and
> with it, electoral politics? Any impact on Ford's campaign if Reagan's insurgent
> challenge gets shut down early? Could this be enough to get Ford re-elected,
> as he wouldn't have to deal with a challenge from within his own party?

I'm not sure. Ford alienated a number of people with both his pardon
of Richard Nixon and his conditional pardon of the Vietnam war
resistors (although not as much as Carter's eventual UNconditional
pardon).
According to Wiki, "(i)n the end, Carter won the election, receiving
50.1% of the popular vote and 297 electoral votes compared with 48.0%
and 240 electoral votes for Ford. The election was close enough that
had fewer than 25,000 votes shifted in Ohio and Wisconsin – both of
which neighbored his home state – Ford would have won the electoral
vote. Though he lost, in the three months between the Republican
National Convention and the election Ford managed to close what was
once a 34-point Carter lead to a 2-point margin. In fact, the Gallup
poll the day before the election showed Ford held a statistically
insignificant 1-point advantage over Carter."
So maybe, if Reagan hadn't butted in and had either given Ford an open
field or, as postulated, lost North Carolina, there is a good chance
that Ford could have been re-elected.
Question then - How does the Iranian Hostage Crisis play out with Ford
at the Helm (no pun intended)?
Stan Boleslawski - 07 Jul 2008 07:59 GMT
> On Jul 5, 11:09 pm, Stan Boleslawski <boleslaw...@forpresident.com>
> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> resistors (although not as much as Carter's eventual UNconditional
> pardon).

The conditional pardon seemed to be a compromise that didn't satisfy
either those sympathetic to the draft resistors nor those antagonistic
to the draft resistors.

> According to Wiki, "(i)n the end, Carter won the election, receiving
> 50.1% of the popular vote and 297 electoral votes compared with 48.0%
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> poll the day before the election showed Ford held a statistically
> insignificant 1-point advantage over Carter."

Close enough that Ford getting re-elected is possible.

> So maybe, if Reagan hadn't butted in and had either given Ford an open
> field or, as postulated, lost North Carolina, there is a good chance
> that Ford could have been re-elected.
> Question then - How does the Iranian Hostage Crisis play out with Ford
> at the Helm (no pun intended)?

Considering those around Ford - Henry Kissinger, Donald Rumsfeld,
George H.W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and, in lower level positions, Paul
Wolfowitz and Richard Perle, there's a very good chance Iran is going
to be bombed to hell. There won't be much left of Tehran afterwards.
Unfortunately, the hostages will probably wind up as "collateral
damage".

However, if the First Gulf War is any indication, it's doubtful that
the US
would actually invade Iran in order to topple the mullahs (given that
many of these personages held office during said war). In any case,
Saddam Hussein would be a very lucky man. The US will give him
carte blanche to invade Iran and gobble up swaths of Iranian
territory,
with full backing and support. Perhaps a deal is made so that if the
Iraqi forces are able to topple Khomeini and put in some sort of
military dictatorship, the US will look the other way regarding
Saddam's
designs on Kuwait?

All the other problems of the Carter administration will take place in
the
Ford administration. I don't see another Republican being elected in
1980 in TTL, After the failures of an old style Midwestern New Dealer
(Humphrey), a leader of the party's left wing (McGovern) and a
Southern
moderate (Carter), it seems time for the party to look to the
Northeast
or the West for a candidate. Jerry Brown and Henry Jackson
(representing
Western liberals and moderates respectively) seem to be certain
contenders, and from the East, Ted Kennedy is likely to run. (As for
an Eastern moderate, perhaps Daniel Moynihan?)

Not sure who else - John Glenn, maybe? Mondale? As for who'd be the
Southern candidate, maybe Sanford, Hunt, or, in TTL, Galiflinakis (if
he wins
re-election to the Senate in 1978)? Or does Robert Byrd try again
after the crash and burn of his campaign in 1976? As far as the
possibility of candidates who in OTL ran in later Dem elections, Gary
Hart's possible, but Gephardt and Biden, while constitutionally
eligible,
would be too young in 1980 to be considered. Gore isn't eligible to be
POTUS yet.

As for the GOP candidate - Dole would seem to have a lock on the
nomination. Not sure who'd be his VP, though.

Best,
Stan B.
Teejay - 07 Jul 2008 10:14 GMT
> Considering those around Ford - Henry Kissinger, Donald Rumsfeld,
> George H.W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and, in lower level positions, Paul
> Wolfowitz and Richard Perle, there's a very good chance Iran is going
> to be bombed to hell. There won't be much left of Tehran afterwards.
> Unfortunately, the hostages will probably wind up as "collateral
> damage".

Iranian revolution would have likely not occurred if Ford was president
instead of Carter, Carter pressured the Shah regime from cracking down
on the revolutionaries before they could topple the Shah. The Shah would
still been in power, with no Iranian revolution the whole history of the
Middle East would be quite different.

Also there would be no oil crisis of 1980 either, triggered by the
Iranian revolution.
David Tenner - 07 Jul 2008 19:52 GMT
>> Considering those around Ford - Henry Kissinger, Donald Rumsfeld,
>> George H.W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and, in lower level positions, Paul
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> Also there would be no oil crisis of 1980 either, triggered by the
> Iranian revolution.

I think you are underestimating the effects of the Shah's illness (and the
serious question of whether, even if he himself had been able to delay the
revolution until his death in 1980, his young son would then be able to
cope with the situation)--I assume that the election of Ford in 1976 is
not going to cause a miraculous remission of the Shah's cancer.

I have suggested elsewhere that perhaps the best POD for stopping the
Iranian Revolution would be to have the Shah not get cancer (or have it
detected early enough to be stopped).  He made a whole series of erratic
decisions in 1978 which transformed a not-necessarily-hopeless situation
into a revolutionary one.  It has been argued that either (a) depression
due to his illness or (b) the effects of medication might have been
partially responsible for these decisions.

The mistakes began early in the year, with the official press publishing
a violent attack on Khomeini, who until then had only been one of a number
of prominent opposition clerics.  This attack led even relative moderates
like Ayatollah Shariatmadari to rally to Khomeini's defense; it also led
to militant demonstrations which immensely added to Khomeini's prestige,
especially because of the violence the police used in breaking them up.  
Later in the year, there was a confused and contradictory mixture of
repression and attempts to reach out to oppositionists.  I don't think you
can blame the Shah's indecisiveness entirely or even primarily on mixed
signals sent by the Carter administration.  And finally, Carter was
certainly not responsible for what was probably the Shah's worst mistake
of all:  requesting Saddam Hussein to kick Khomeini out of Iraq.  Once in
Paris, Khomeini found it immensely easier to communicate with Iranians
than he did in Iraq...

Signature

David Tenner
dtenner@ameritech.net

The Horny Goat - 09 Jul 2008 16:23 GMT
>The mistakes began early in the year, with the official press publishing
>a violent attack on Khomeini, who until then had only been one of a number
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>Paris, Khomeini found it immensely easier to communicate with Iranians
>than he did in Iraq...

Heh heh - well I think that the Iranian revolution was about more than
the ability of the Islamicists to reproduce more cassette tapes of
Khomeini in Paris than Iraq!

(Which is arguably what the biggest impact of Khomeini being in Paris
was)

In my opinion had the Shah in 1976 or so had the mentality he had in
the 1965-70 era would have worked hard to find some method of
co-opting the ayatollahs and would have made whatever adjustments were
necessary to bring them on side. I well remember the National
Geographic spreads on Susa and the "2500th anniversary of the Persian
Empire" that were so spectacular but alienated so many Iranians. Not
quite Emperor Bokassa scale but close.

All that stuff looked good in the West but cost him heavily at home.
Certainly the extra revenue caused by the quadrupling of oil prices in
1973-74 seems to have gone to his head and led to several dubious
decisions.

By no means do I think the overthrow of the Shah was inevitable - I'd
argue it was more self-inflicted than part of the grand scheme of
history.
Stan Boleslawski - 07 Jul 2008 20:53 GMT
> > Considering those around Ford - Henry Kissinger, Donald Rumsfeld,
> > George H.W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and, in lower level positions, Paul
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> instead of Carter, Carter pressured the Shah regime from cracking down
> on the revolutionaries before they could topple the Shah.

However, all the forces and factors that eventually would lead to
OTL's
Revolution would still be in place. The Shah's health, all else
remaining
the same, would be quite poor in TTL's late '70s. Perhaps no Iranian
Revolution in the late '70s might lengthen the Shah's lifespan by a
few years, but once he dies and his son Reza becomes Shah, I suspect
these tensions will become unleashed. So, TTL doesn't prevent the
Iranian Revolution, it just postpones it until the early 1980s, when
another US president will be in office.

The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan is still going to occur on time -
would
Ford be persuaded by Charlie Wilson to back the Islamist militias
against
the Soviets as Carter was? I would think so, and they'll probably get
backing
on the greater level that occurred under Reagan in OTL. I don't see
Ford
choosing either to stay out altogether or choosing to back the
royalist militias
instead of the Islamists.

The stagflation of the late '70s still exists, and the decline of
America's
industrial heartland is under way enough to be noticeable. The economy
is still recovering from the first oil crisis, and not that well. Dole
may have
a better chance to be elected in TTL than Carter had to be re-elected
in
OTL, but there seems to be a probability (although not a certainty)
that
a Dem would be elected in 1980.

The Shah would
> still been in power, with no Iranian revolution the whole history of the
> Middle East would be quite different.

IMO, it will be different but not that different, because the same
events
that happened in OTL will happen later in TTL. he major change I see
in TTL is no Hezbollah, changing the dynamics of Lebanon's civil war,
and thus no US invasion of Lebanon, but if the Iranian revolution
happens
late and the mullahs triumph to the detriment of the secular forces,
there
eventually will probably be something like a Hezbollah. Now, if the
Shah is
able to brutally suppress the opposition, this won't happen for a
number
of years. Totally altering the politics of the Mideast probably
requires
an outcome in which Reza Pahlavi is able to achieve some sort of
successful democratization or even semi-democratization a la Morocco-
a utopian outcome in a part of the world in which belief in utopias
is foolhardy.

Alternately, a military dictatorship could arise to overthrow
the Pahlavis (who beneath the monarchical trappings were essentially
military dictators). Somehow I see a Pakistan-type outcome arising in
this case - with SAVAK as the true power behind the Iranian government
and perhaps vying with the ISI and Zia al Haq to fund its own militias
fighting against the USSR in Afghanistan. With Shia militias equally
well funded just like Sunni militias, there seems potential for the
moujahideen to fight each other as much as the Russians - perhaps
bringing about a Soviet victory?

> Also there would be no oil crisis of 1980 either, triggered by the
> Iranian revolution.

Again, postponed IMO. The next president (whether Dole or a Dem) will
have
to deal with an oil crisis if Iran explodes, no matter who winds up
coming
out on top.

Presumably, Dole would deal with Iran just as Ford would have - but
how would, for example, Ted Kennedy or Jerry Brown deal with Iran
blowing up and a major oil crisis?

Best
Stan B.
Good Habit - 08 Jul 2008 11:37 GMT
Stan Boleslawski schrieb:

> However, all the forces and factors that eventually would lead to
> OTL's  Revolution would still be in place. The Shah's health, all else
> remaining the same, would be quite poor in TTL's late '70s.

So, one option might be that a US that is more supportive of repression
would lead to the Shah's resignation in favor of a military junta.
Legitimation, of course, would be poor... So a continuing technocratic
secular dictatorship has to keep it's hands free...

> The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan is still going to occur on time -

There is no guarantee for that - the Iranian military dictator has no
interest in any kind of Islamic Guerrilla anywhere nearby - they might
find common ground with the Afghan secular dictatorship in suppressing
Islamists, and they don't have an interest in openly annoying the USSR.

So a deal between Tehran, Kabul, and Moscow might seem possible, where
Tehran takes the part of convincing the US that supporting Islamists is
a bad thing. This block might as well recruit Egypt and Israel to lobby
the same way, and therefore, people in Islamabad might hear the demand
to pull the plug on the Mujaheddin.
john0714 - 08 Jul 2008 01:25 GMT
> On Jul 5, 11:09 pm, Stan Boleslawski <boleslaw...@forpresident.com>
> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
> Question then - How does the Iranian Hostage Crisis play out with Ford
> at the Helm (no pun intended)?

What makes you think there would be an Iranian Hostage Crisis if
Carter is never POTUS?
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.