John F. Kennedy lives

[Futurist]

What would have been the effects had John F. Kennedy (JFK) lived and gotten reelected in 1964? I know that there is VERY serious speculation that JFK would have pulled the United States out of Vietnam by 1965 like he planned to do at the time of his death:

http://bostonreview.net/us/galbraith-ex ... gy-vietnam

https://www.thenation.com/article/archi ... eculation/

https://whowhatwhy.org/2017/09/26/jfk-o ... -evidence/

https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/3446

Anyway, just how else would JFK have been different from Lyndon B. Johnson (LBJ) had he lived on domestic and/or foreign policy? For instance, I know that JFK adopted a more hardline position on Israel's nuclear program than LBJ did, fearing that it would spark a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. I also wonder how JFK would have handled African-American civil and voting rights at home, immigration reform, and both Khrushchev's 1964 ouster and the 1968 Prague Spring abroad. In addition, I wonder if the United States would have still accepted anywhere near as many Vietnamese refugees as it did in real life had South Vietnam fallen to the Vietnamese Communists a decade earlier than it did in real life.

Thoughts on all of this?

1 This is starting from the very questionable assumption that JFK would have defeated Goldwater in 1964 .
2 The speculation that JFK would have pulled US out of Vietnam is not serious at all :
Galbraith worked for Kennedy and it was thus in his interest to say that there would be no Vietnam defeat with JFK and that everything was the fault of Johnson and I am not convinced of the seriousness of The Nation and of History news .The Nation is a left,liberal,Democratic magazine that has does all interests to absolve JFK from the responsibility of the Vietnam debacle .The same for the History News network .
And : do you have a source for JFK's hard line attitude on Israel's nuclear program ?

Here are some sources in regards to JFK's hard line on Israel's nuclear program:

https://www.google.com/search?q=jfk+isr ... e&ie=UTF-8

As for Galbraith, it was his father--not he himself--who worked for JFK, I believe.

[ljadw]

1 The attitude of JFK was not very important as it did not change the Israeli nuclear program , thus : no Dallas would not change Israel's nuclear program .Besides : opposite to what are claiming still today the media : no Dallas would not mean the reelection of Kennedy .
2 Galbraith worked for Kennedy and Johnson .And, it is natural that Galbraith jr was defending Kennedy ,for whom worked his father .

[KDF33]

1 This is starting from the very questionable assumption that JFK would have defeated Goldwater in 1964 .

That's hilarious.

2 The speculation that JFK would have pulled US out of Vietnam is not serious at all :
Galbraith worked for Kennedy and it was thus in his interest to say that there would be no Vietnam defeat with JFK and that everything was the fault of Johnson and I am not convinced of the seriousness of The Nation and of History news .The Nation is a left,liberal,Democratic magazine that has does all interests to absolve JFK from the responsibility of the Vietnam debacle .The same for the History News network .

That's not a rebuttal. That's character assassination and paranoia.

[ljadw]

1 The advance of JFK on Goldwater in the polls in 1963 was very small .
2 The Nation endorsed in 2016 and 2020 Sanders for President .This proves the political ideas of The Nation .
3 History News Network has the same opinions
4 Galbraith was considered as Mister Liberal : the defender of Big State ,Big Business and Big Unions . He wanted to impose governmental interventions in the US and US interventions in the rest of the world .

[KDF33]

1 The advance of JFK on Goldwater in the polls in 1963 was very small .

Citation needed.

2 The Nation endorsed in 2016 and 2020 Sanders for President .This proves the political ideas of The Nation .
3 History News Network has the same opinions

That's not an argument. Everyone has opinions. That has no bearing on whether or not the articles cited are correct.

4 Galbraith was considered as Mister Liberal : the defender of Big State ,Big Business and Big Unions . He wanted to impose governmental interventions in the US and US interventions in the rest of the world .

"Impose". Galbraith was opposed to Vietnam, by the way. So much for interventionism.

Again, more confused mischaracterization and character assassination, tinged with conspirationism.

[ljadw]

1 The advance of JFK on Goldwater in the polls in 1963 was very small .

Citation needed.

2 The Nation endorsed in 2016 and 2020 Sanders for President .This proves the political ideas of The Nation .
3 History News Network has the same opinions

That's not an argument. Everyone has opinions. That has no bearing on whether or not the articles cited are correct.

4 Galbraith was considered as Mister Liberal : the defender of Big State ,Big Business and Big Unions . He wanted to impose governmental interventions in the US and US interventions in the rest of the world .

"Impose". Galbraith was opposed to Vietnam, by the way. So much for interventionism.

Again, more confused mischaracterization and character assassination, tinged with conspirationism.

Galbraith worked for Kennedy and for Johnson and did not protest against the war in Vietnam .Neither did Bob Kennedy in 1965 .
See :The Boston Review : Letters from Chomsky and Galbraith on Kennedy and the war in Vietnam .

[KDF33]

1 The advance of JFK on Goldwater in the polls in 1963 was very small .

Citation needed.

Galbraith worked for Kennedy and for Johnson and did not protest against the war in Vietnam .Neither did Bob Kennedy in 1965 .

Citation needed. That's not what's in the article from the Boston Review.

See :The Boston Review : Letters from Chomsky and Galbraith on Kennedy and the war in Vietnam .

Applying your standard for sources, Chomsky is a well-known leftist with an agenda. So is Joshua Cohen, the editor of the Boston Review. So, under the bus?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Regarding JFK's stand in the polls:

In March 1963, 74% expected him to be reelected – he held a whopping 67%-27% lead over Barry Goldwater in a Gallup test election. The country was heavily Democratic (54% compared with 25% Republican), as it had been since the 1930s and would remain until the Reagan years. The Democrats were seen as more likely to keep the country prosperous than the Republicans (49% to 20%), but they were not as dominant as the party that would keep the country out of a war (32% to 23%)…. And very unlike the modern era, as many people said they were liberals (49%) as conservatives (46%).

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2 ... s-america/

The numbers aren't as close as ljadw implied above, it seems to me.

[ljadw]

About Kennedy against Goldwater in 1964 : see ,on JSTOR,''The Goldwater candidacy revisited 1963-1964 ''
Kennedy almost lost in 1960 and won only with the help of Johnson ( a man he despised ) .Bobby Kennedy supported the Vietnam war in 1965 , Galbraith opposed the Vietnam War openly only in 1968, when everyone knew that the war was lost .
In a letter to Bayliss on September 15 1967 , Bob Kennedy still defended the war in Vietnam .
About Galbraith : when he was ambassador in India, US was fighting in Vietnam and he did not resign .
During WW II US government obtained an enormous power over the average US citizen . In 1961, Galbraith demanded an other war ;war on poverty ,which also would increase the power of the government at the cost of the freedom of the citizen .
In Europe, Galbraith would have been a far left socialist, in the US he was a far left liberal .
In 1984 ( 5 years before the collapse of the USSR ) he praised the Soviet economy .
In 1973,he said that Shanghai had a better medical service than New York .
In 1945 he said that the outcome of the war proved the superiority of American liberal capitalism .
Thus it is only natural that he wanted to export this system abroad and to increase government power (at the cost of the citizen ) at home .

[ljadw]

Regarding JFK's stand in the polls:

In March 1963, 74% expected him to be reelected – he held a whopping 67%-27% lead over Barry Goldwater in a Gallup test election. The country was heavily Democratic (54% compared with 25% Republican), as it had been since the 1930s and would remain until the Reagan years. The Democrats were seen as more likely to keep the country prosperous than the Republicans (49% to 20%), but they were not as dominant as the party that would keep the country out of a war (32% to 23%)…. And very unlike the modern era, as many people said they were liberals (49%) as conservatives (46%).

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2 ... s-america/

The numbers aren't as close as ljadw implied above, it seems to me.

The article in JSTOR is disagreeing with you .
That 74 % expected him to be reelected is not a prove that he would be reelected .In 1936 and 1948 the polls gave the GOP as expected winner .
In 1960, with the help of a Southern running mate, JFK lost several Southern states and in 1964 the Democratic Southern sitting president lost 5 Southern states .
In 1960 with the help of Johnson Kennedy got Texas , with an advance of ..2 % on Nixon .If he had lost Texas, Nixon was president . And in 1963 the South was much more hostile to Kennedy than in 1960 .In 1960 Johnson was succeeded as senator by a Republican .

[Futurist]

JFK would have been the incumbent in 1964, which he was not in 1960. Incumbents often get an advantage.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Regarding JFK's stand in the polls:

In March 1963, 74% expected him to be reelected – he held a whopping 67%-27% lead over Barry Goldwater in a Gallup test election. The country was heavily Democratic (54% compared with 25% Republican), as it had been since the 1930s and would remain until the Reagan years. The Democrats were seen as more likely to keep the country prosperous than the Republicans (49% to 20%), but they were not as dominant as the party that would keep the country out of a war (32% to 23%)…. And very unlike the modern era, as many people said they were liberals (49%) as conservatives (46%).

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2 ... s-america/

The numbers aren't as close as ljadw implied above, it seems to me.

The article in JSTOR is disagreeing with you .
That 74 % expected him to be reelected is not a prove that he would be reelected .In 1936 and 1948 the polls gave the GOP as expected winner .
In 1960, with the help of a Southern running mate, JFK lost several Southern states and in 1964 the Democratic Southern sitting president lost 5 Southern states .
In 1960 with the help of Johnson Kennedy got Texas , with an advance of ..2 % on Nixon .If he had lost Texas, Nixon was president . And in 1963 the South was much more hostile to Kennedy than in 1960 .In 1960 Johnson was succeeded as senator by a Republican .

You failed to address Gallup's test election results, though. A 40-pt lead in a trial run should not be overlooked or discounted. Additionally, Kennedy had a 58% approval rating in the last poll of his life, on 13 Nov.

JFK would certainly have run closer to Goldwater than did LBJ, given that the latter got a sympathy vote from JFK's murder leading to his blowout victory. But I don't think Goldwater had all that much traction outside of the GOP itself, especially given that America was getting pretty tired of the conservative 50s leadership.

In short, I think it's facile to argue that Goldwater would have easily defeated JFK. I think myself that JFK would have won without too much problem.

JFK would have been the incumbent in 1964, which he was not in 1960. Incumbents often get an advantage.

This too is a big factor.

[Futurist]

JFK would have been the incumbent in 1964, which he was not in 1960. Incumbents often get an advantage.

This too is a big factor.

Yeah, and the US economy was also in good shape in 1964.

[ljadw]

No one is saying that Goldwater would beat Kennedy, but a lot of people ( from Camelot and others ) are still claiming that JFK would have done better against Goldwater than did Johnson .
LBJ became unbeatable only after Dallas .Would Johnson have done better in 1960 than Kennedy ? Maybe , but no one knows ;the only thing we know is that with an other running mate,Kennedy would have lost in 1960 and in 1963 the Democratic party in the South was collapsing ,which was the reason why Kennedy visited Texas where there was a civil war between Connally and Yarborough .
And in 1968 LBJ was the incumbent, but preferred not to candidate .
It is also very questionable to talk about the 50's as a conservative period : Ike was more liberal than people assume, the New Deal was not abolished, but even slightly increased ,and Ike got more help from the Congressional Democrats than from the Congressional GOP.

[KDF33]

No one is saying that Goldwater would beat Kennedy

VS

This is starting from the very questionable assumption that JFK would have defeated Goldwater in 1964 .