Erase One Major U.S. Event

[Helvidius]

If you could go back in time and erase one major U.S. event what would it be? Why was that your choice? How do you think that incident changed America and how would America be different today had it never happened?

ex: U.S. involvement in a war, an act of legislation/government program, etc

**Not looking for answers involving specific people/politicians. For example, nothing about how you wish so and so had never been elected President. Not looking for Civil War as an answer either.**

 

[tacomancer]

Bill Clinton getting a blowjob from Lewinski.

We would have likely ended up Gore for president and avoided a wasted decade or at least lessened the impact of some of the mounting problems.

 

[hazlnut]

Bill Clinton getting a blowjob from Lewinski.

We would have likely ended up Gore for president and avoided a wasted decade or at least lessened the impact of some of the mounting problems.

That's actually a great answer.

I'll go with 9/11.

*no credit bubble caused by fear-based spending
*no billions spent on HLS illusion of safety
*no unfunded war in Iraq
*no bigotry towards muslims

But Bush still would have won a second term. Kerry was a weak ticket.

 

[Helvidius]

Bill Clinton getting a blowjob from Lewinski.

We would have likely ended up Gore for president and avoided a wasted decade or at least lessened the impact of some of the mounting problems.

haha hilarious; i have to say that never occured to me. i'm not sure that was gore's downfall though. i would probably go with intervention in WW1. I think that really started America's "police the world" mentality. Not to mention everything Wilson did during the war with censorship and what not. Creation of the Federal Reserve would be up there too.

 

[Orion]

I would have sunk the Mayflower.

All problems solved.

 

[hazlnut]

I would have sunk the Mayflower.

All problems solved.

You're a genius.

I love it.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

I would have sunk the Mayflower.

Oh yeah? I would have prevented the destruction of the Vinland colony.

 

[samsmart]

If you could go back in time and erase one major U.S. event what would it be? Why was that your choice? How do you think that incident changed America and how would America be different today had it never happened?

ex: U.S. involvement in a war, an act of legislation/government program, etc

**Not looking for answers involving specific people/politicians. For example, nothing about how you wish so and so had never been elected President. Not looking for Civil War as an answer either.**

This is something I'd have to seriously think about. So far, it'd either be the Compromise of 1877 (the ending of Reconstruction is what I'd erase, not the election of Rutherford B. Hayes) or every instance in which alternative systems of voting that would allow third-party representation were struck down by the courts. Gotta think about it.

 

[Orion]

Oh yeah? I would have prevented the destruction of the Vinland colony.

My parents are from Newfoundland I've been to L'Anse aux Meadows twice. It's very interesting to walk around that place.

 

[hazlnut]

Watergate?

I mean, they still bugged the Dem offices, but they didn't get caught.

 

[Ned Racine]

The 1965 Immigration REFORM Act signed into Law by LBJ at the Statue of Liberty. Numerous politicians then decided in the Spirit of our Civil Rights Advancements here to Open the doors to more diverse peoples - they said the Cities would not fill up with Immigrants .

Guess What.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

I was thinking about this on the way home from work:

On June 5, 1968, after winning the California Democratic primary, Robert F. Kennedy left the Ambassador Hotel, taking a shortcut through the kitchen. On his way, through the crowd, a Christian Palestinian, Sirhan Sirhan, carrying a .22 fired at the Senator. The gun, however, jammed, and before the would be assassin was able to get off another shot, journalist George Plimpton, and decathlete Rafer Johnson wrestled him to the ground, subduing him and saving the candidate. Averting death, his campaign became even stronger, and, using the slogan "It's Fate", he swept through a calm and unified Chicago convention and defeated former Vice-President Richard Nixon in the November general election, becoming the 37th President of the United States.

So, what would this have done? Probably caused the greatest political scandal of all time to not occur. No Nixon, no Watergate. The significance of this is that Watergate did more to create mistrust and apathy in the government and especially politicians than, perhaps, any other event. People are far more cynical of those running for office, and going into public service is not seen as something honorable. It also opened the floodgates for the media to attack public officials, always looking for the next big scandal, rather than focusing on issues.

 

[Alvin T. Grey]

The war of independance.

 

[Ned Racine]

I was thinking about this on the way home from work:

On June 5, 1968, after winning the California Democratic primary, Robert F. Kennedy left the Ambassador Hotel, taking a shortcut through the kitchen. On his way, through the crowd, a Christian Palestinian, Sirhan Sirhan, carrying a .22 fired at the Senator. The gun, however, jammed, and before the would be assassin was able to get off another shot, journalist George Plimpton, and decathlete Rafer Johnson wrestled him to the ground, subduing him and saving the candidate. Averting death, his campaign became even stronger, and, using the slogan "It's Fate", he swept through a calm and unified Chicago convention and defeated former Vice-President Richard Nixon in the November general election, becoming the 37th President of the United States.

So, what would this have done? Probably caused the greatest political scandal of all time to not occur. No Nixon, no Watergate. The significance of this is that Watergate did more to create mistrust and apathy in the government and especially politicians than, perhaps, any other event. People are far more cynical of those running for office, and going into public service is not seen as something honorable. It also opened the floodgates for the media to attack public officials, always looking for the next big scandal, rather than focusing on issues.

That's doubtful. If you go State by State in 1968 and even removing George Wallace from the 3 way race(he carried 5 States remember) RFK would have had a hard time coming up with 270 Electoral Votes by the then breakdown.

California was no lock for Democrats as it is now and RFK might be mythical to some now , but folks forget that he had one debate where he was unprepared and got his "clock cleaned" - agaist thennew Calif. Governor Ronald Reagan in 1967 over Vietnam and other issues. He was totally pissed at staff for agreing to it.

Frank Mankiewicz and others believe he would have edged Nixon out in 1968. Pat Buchanan believes otherwise. LBJ helped Humphrey to an extent. He would not have helped RFK.

 

[Ned Racine]

To continue - RFK was not the kindly benevolent healing figure many today think of him as. In short his being President would not have healed this nation. He was a conniving little opportunistic Prick, who loved clandestine stuff. Loved wiretaps, and unofficial surveillance. He compiled dossiers and surely would have had his own "Special People" in the run up to 1972. His view of Political strategies was not much different than say Donald Segretti. In short almost anything was okay.

He got into the 1968 race only after LBJ was shown to be vulnerable after almost losing in New Hampshire in late February(post Tet/Post Pueblo) Then RFK tried to surplant Eugene McCarthy to the dismay of many True Liberals.

Also IF Elected POTUS with a solid Democratic Majority in both Houses he still would have had Vietnam on his plate with less manuevering room than Richard Nixon.Throw in the Opening to China in 1971. RFK would have had a substantially more difficult time doing it. Few will doubt this.

 

[Ned Racine]

Continuing Again - Watergate to some is Gettysburg. They Honestly believe our liberties were under assault and that Richard Nixon had the absolute worst intentions towards many in this land. Some on the New Far Left with McGovern attaining the 1972 nomination actually believe they would be swept in on the basis of the new Constitutional amendment lowering the Voting Age to 18. This was the Woodstock syndrome. They just KNEW Nixon was going to lose.

Obviously it didn't turn out that way and McGovern blew it Big time. Not for picking Eagleton, or for letting the Miami Convention get out of hand , but because he let those perceived as Enemies by most people be front & center in his efforts.

Nixon carried 49 States and got almost as much of a numerical majority as LBJ did over Goildwater 8 years earlier. After that the Real Hate set in, and other events eventually finished off Nixon. Events that came on not as devious attempts to destroy all opposition , but to counter new realities and tactics by the other side (their Street people) and a hostile media. In short without the Pentagon Papers BS and the May 1971 outrages in DC I sincerely doubt either Hunt or Liddy would have gotten any go ahead (albeit a quiet one) from John Mitchell.

 

[WI Crippler]

Woodstock, and all that other hippie garbage that happened in the late 60's.

 

[The_Patriot]

The Philadelphia Convention is the event I would erase. No current mess we have with an out of control government at all levels.

 

[pro-bipartisan]

FDR putting the Japanese in internment camps or the Trail of Tears.

 

[washunut]

FDR putting the Japanese in internment camps or the Trail of Tears.

The JFK assasination. Chances are we would not have gooten so deeply involved in Vietnam. The war really tore apart the country unlike Iraq and Afghanistan.

JFK was also a very inspirational figure. Sort of what like Obama was, the difference being that the good feelings did not wear out for him. Not only in America but the whole world.

He probably could not get passed all the "Great Society" stuff that LBJ a conservative from Texas did. There was good stuff from LBJ, but also we became much more a welfare state.

 

[Ned Racine]

One of the Great assumptions many have made over 40 years is that JFK would not have allowed Vietnam to overwhelm and consume any 2nd term he might have won. Possibly this is true BUT 2 weeks before his death JFK - along with the quiet consent of RFK & others - allowed the Military coup against the Diem's to go forward. Then the Dye was cast as they often say. No way We exit easily. Also common sense should have dictated that the Diem's would not have survived such a coup.

Also JFK & Bobby knew 1964 would not be easy and while JFK liked Goldwater and hoped he would be the GOP nominee both suspected Nelson Rockefeller based on Everything they knew about Politics ($$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$) would be the opposition. They were working on it as the Texas trip in November was considered. Against Nelson it would not have been a congenial contest.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

I'd erase our Slavery past right out of the picture
That set our whole current world in motion by paving the path towards intolerance, hypocrisy, lack of a functioning work ethic foothold which simply shifted the under-considered labor force from slaves to illegal immigrants.
In other areas of the world fostering the slave trade led to the dominance and financial flourishing of all the wrong ideas, constructs, values and beliefs.

 

[washunut]

One of the Great assumptions many have made over 40 years is that JFK would not have allowed Vietnam to overwhelm and consume any 2nd term he might have won. Possibly this is true BUT 2 weeks before his death JFK - along with the quiet consent of RFK & others - allowed the Military coup against the Diem's to go forward. Then the Dye was cast as they often say. No way We exit easily. Also common sense should have dictated that the Diem's would not have survived such a coup.

Also JFK & Bobby knew 1964 would not be easy and while JFK liked Goldwater and hoped he would be the GOP nominee both suspected Nelson Rockefeller based on Everything they knew about Politics ($$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$) would be the opposition. They were working on it as the Texas trip in November was considered. Against Nelson it would not have been a congenial contest.

Both true points. It is hard to say what might have happened if... So we will never know. My guess is that JFK would have won easier in 1964 than he did in 1960. The first time around he had a problem similar to what Obama did. Only he had to overcome anti- Catholic feelings that were around in 1860 and thoughts he would be beholden to the Pope.

I do not think that America has ever gotten over the killing of John, Martin and Bobby.

 

[Orion]

Woodstock, and all that other hippie garbage that happened in the late 60's.

I don't really have an opinion on it myself, but I'm just curious why you say that?

 

[Ned Racine]

Both true points. It is hard to say what might have happened if... So we will never know. My guess is that JFK would have won easier in 1964 than he did in 1960. The first time around he had a problem similar to what Obama did. Only he had to overcome anti- Catholic feelings that were around in 1860 and thoughts he would be beholden to the Pope.

I do not think that America has ever gotten over the killing of John, Martin and Bobby.

Well, He would have won easier because 1960 was Razor thin & questionable based on Illinois and it's then 27 Electoral Votes. Texas with it's then 24 EV's was also questioned based on certain Houston returns. As Nixon was advised shortly after "They Stole it - Fair and Square" To his credit he didn't go to the Courts.

If Goldwater was the 1964 Nominee he would have clearly done better than against LBJ simply based on the map, but Rockefeller (who was popular then) would have caused a hell of a fight in the Northeast. It was nowhere as Blue then as today.

With Rockefeller running against JFK - Wallace might have fully tried a Third Party route then instead of 1968, and might have hurt Kennedy more (??) because in 1960 some of the South thanks to Johnson held together for JFK.