Streams

What Can We Learn From an Alternate History?

Tuesday, March 08, 2011

Welcome to Politics Bites, where every afternoon at It's A Free Country, we bring you the unmissable quotes from the morning's political conversations on WNYC. Today on the Brian Lehrer Show, Jeff Greenfield, senior political correspondent for CBS News and the author of Then Everything Changed: Stunning Alternate Histories of American Politics: JFK, RFK, Carter, Ford, Reagan, offers alternate histories of modern American history.

What if things had turned out differently?

Jeff Greenfield has attempted to show how the smallest details in history can (and could have) yield to big changes. He calls it the "butterfly effect." Greenfield said, we can learn something from how history didn't turn out, as well as how it did.

Let's say Gerald Ford had been elected in 1976 instead instead of Jimmy Carter. Greenfield said it wouldn't have taken much for this scenario to play out.

This one is just a case of the slip of the tongue being corrected which changes just enough votes in my scenario to elect Ford. He only needed about a switch of 6,000 votes in Ohio and a few thousand in Mississippi and he would have won the electoral vote.

The "slip of the tongue" Greenfield referred to occurred during a presidential debate between Ford and Carter in 1976. Ford said of Poland and a few other countries in eastern Europe that, "there is no Soviet domination in Eastern Europe and there never will be under a Ford administration," he said. Well, he was wrong. (Even when the moderator, Max Frankel gave him a chance to correct himself, he didn't take it.)

So, what if things had gone differently? Here's Greenfield's take.

All he needed to do was say, as for Poland and the other occupied nations, of course they're dominated Mr. Frankel, I'm the commander-in-chief. I know how many Soviet divisions are there, but why are they there? Because of their hearts and minds and souls they, like we, will never concede the moral right of the Soviet empire to dominate them. And what happens? Instead of a week of backing and filling, instead of eastern European immigrants really angry at Ford for not understanding what they had escaped, he recovers. He corrects himself right at that moment, it's not a big deal, that's the important thing, and it just changes a tiny fraction of people's minds enough to get him elected.

In 1979 – in real life – the Middle East was on the hot plate with the overthrow of the Shah of Iran, but Greenfield's alternate history has another outcome. To create this alternate history, he conducted many interviews to try and build plausible outcomes. For example:

Brent Scowcroft, who was Ford's national security adviser, said flatly, we never would have let the Shah fall, that Carter was sufficiently consumed by kind of Vietnam guilt or angst as he called it, that he didn't feel that we should be heavy handed. He said, Ford wouldn't have had that problem.

In Greenfield's re-write of this moment in history, the Ayatollah Khomeini is involved in a car crash under mysterious circumstances and he dies. Power is then transferred to Khomeini's more moderate and secular deputy, Montazeri, all of which leads to a different kind of coalition regime. Greenfield says his alternate history isn't too far off-base considering the real circumstances of the time.

You got to remember back in Iran in 1979 it wasn't just the Islamists, it was business people, it was students, it was radical lefties, it was part of the army, all of whom were opposed to the Shah, and my alternate history says okay, he leaves because he has to... but he leaves it in the hands of a very different Iranian government.

In another breakdown of history, Greenfield picked apart a little-remembered assassination attempt on President-elect John F. Kennedy in 1960. In the real history, a suicide bomber sat outside Kennedy's Palm Beach home with a car-load of dynamite, but he didn't detonate the bomb because Jacqueline Kennedy came to the door to see the her husband off to church. The bomber was caught four days later. The Secret Service Chief wrote at the time that the U.S. was only moments away from having the President elect blown to bits.

I was most interested in exploring the possibility that a Cuban missile crisis would develop for slightly different reasons and that in that meeting of people deciding what to do. You would not have had a skeptical John Kennedy and an even more skeptical Robert Kennedy... and then reading through books about Johnson, interviewing one of his top aides and trying to figure out how the character, the personality, the fears of Lyndon Johnson would have affected his decision-making process at the most crucial time in the last half century.

So, what should we take from these alternate histories? Greenfield says we have to remember that our control of how things play out in life and in politics is not a tight grip.

My feeling is two-fold, one is to understand that the efforts to impose these broad patterns of how history develops, that effort needs to be footnoted heavily by the notion that fate plays a heavy role. And the other part about that is...that you need to be aware of the contingency of history just as you need to be aware of it in your own life. There's an old Yiddish proverb, and I think every culture has it. Want to hear God laugh? Make a plan. And so there's a point about this that says, the more I think you know how little history can be controlled, maybe the less effort you think to try to impose your own vision of what history should be.

Ford's famous gaffe:

Tags:

More in:

Comments [10]

When considering counterfactuals, Scylla is the notion that everything would have turned out pretty much the same regardless and Charybdis that which would have us believe that a butterfly's wing of a change will inevitably produce an hurricane of a difference.

All I can venture is that whatever would have happened, it would have looked natural to most surviving it, and inevitable to a good chunk of them.

(My favourite counter-factual: Lenin's older brother not killed by the Tsar's secret police, Vladimir Ulyanov lives to an old age as a respectable lawyer and perennial crank candidate for a reactionary party in the Duma...unless he's killed by a Georgian bank-robber first.)

Mar. 08 2011 12:23 PM

When considering counterfactuals, Scylla is the notion that everything would have turned out pretty much the same regardless and Charybdis that which would have us believe that a butterfly's wing of a change will inevitably produce an hurricane of a difference.

All I can venture is that whatever would have happened, it would have looked natural to most surviving it, and inevitable to a good chunk of them.

Mar. 08 2011 12:20 PM

Isn't this more in keeping with dinner party talk after several bottles of wine have been consumed?

Mar. 08 2011 11:43 AM

What if. What if I hadn't eaten that last piece of pie? Would I weigh less? Would there be more pie to share? Really, this discussion is just as relevant as my comment! Greenfield doesn't have anything else to write about? How about uncovering FACTS instead of making things up and spinning those theories?

Mar. 08 2011 11:38 AM
LCM from LI

This seems a little flakey to me. It has some fundamental problems not least that the "what ifs" being discussed canot be dealt with in isolation. For example, take the Iran discussion. One could argue that the rise of the Ayotollah could have been avoided if the Shah had not been imposed on the country following an American backed deposing of a popular democratically elected government

Mar. 08 2011 11:27 AM
DarkSymbolist from NYC!

Fate? He is supposedly a serious journalist and he is talking about "fate" playing a part?

Mar. 08 2011 11:22 AM
Jay F.

This is a waste of time.

What about a show on what happens in the Middle East and the rest of the world if President Obama doesn't act quickly and forcefuly.

Mar. 08 2011 11:21 AM
Jack Jackson from Central New Jersey

Ooh! Ooh! Can I play??

Bernard Shaw (of CNN): Mr. Dukakis, if your wife, Kitty, were raped and murdered would you still be against the death penalty?

Michael Dukakis: Bernard! That's a horrible and provocative question to pose during a debate for our highest national office! If Kitty were attacked in such a manner and I knew who had perpertrated those heinous acts, I would need to be physically restrained from taking personal revenge on the murderer. But...We are a country of laws and if the perpertrator were convicted and sentenced to life in prison, I would have to be satisfied with that societal response.

Mar. 08 2011 11:20 AM
Patricia Zumhagen from NYC

Just in case you want some info on Bronx Science these days. It is renowned for its English Dept. these days. Many think that dept, surpasses the science dept. . . can't vouch for that. But, could be that a journalist could do well there.
pat zumhagen

Mar. 08 2011 11:17 AM
Bernard from Bronx

Greenfield's pursuit is a fool's errand. There is just no way to intelligently predict an alternative outcome especially in politics where countless variables come into place. Case in point: who would have thought that Reagan would have been such a big spender and a foreign affairs compromiser? Those were certainly not the values that he publicly championed.

Mar. 08 2011 10:50 AM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.

The Morning Brief

Enter your email address and we’ll send you our top 5 stories every day, plus breaking news and weather.

Sponsored

About It's A Free Country ®

Archive of It's A Free Country articles and posts. Visit the It's A Free Country Home Page for lots more.

Supported by

WNYC is supported by the Charles H. Revson Foundation: Because a great city needs an informed and engaged public.  Learn more at revsonfoundation.org.

Feeds

Supported by