Jesse Helms never elected to US Senate
|
|
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?
|
|
|