I want to respect your question as asked. I'm assuming you mean what would have happened if the Japanese plan at Pearl went exactly as planned destroying the carriers meant to be there?

If so, my answer is
Politically speaking, FDR's Administration could be forced to resign. America re-inforce Isolationism and kill Interventionist/Imperialist aspirations, at least in the Pacific.

As long as the Carriers were still operational, FDR could insist on the support of the Navy as well as scapegoat responsibility to others. But if the carriers were casualties as well, no Administration should expect the continued support of the Navy.
The Isolationists were more influential in America at the time than the Interventionists/Imperialists. FDR wouldn't survive without the Navy's support and if the carriers were lost as well, that would be far, far less likely. An Isolationist Presidency might be able to end the war by negotiation in time to save the American army and airforce and control of the Philippines. It all becomes a domino effect, a rippling effect like a drop of water in a pond. Those carriers were alot more important even politically than some might think.
Unlike the Japanese who hid their Midway losses from the public, America couldn't do that so easily.

However, even if negotiations were resolved to each side's satisfaction, it would take far, far more time and effort to repair Nippon-American relations after that, even if the declaration of war had been delivered on time than say how long it took Anglo-American relations to get back to normal after the Americans invaded Canada or the British burned down the White House in the War of 1812. But for the Japanese, it would be the lesser of two evils given the status quo.

Strategically speaking...without carriers to challenge them, the IJN would probably win more of the Pacific faster, Guadalcanal, Solomons even Port Moresby. Whether this 'Victory Sickness' would make them crazy enough to try for even more than origninally planned, as in Australia. At the very least they would extend their ability to blockade Australia/NZ from the Americas, no doubt. Whether the loss of the carriers and this would force the British to seek terms for Australia with Japan as well, who knows? Britain did have it's hands full at the time.

However, IF, the carriers weren't too badly damaged in the attack, IF they didn't blow up and were just holed and sunk, then 6-12 months later those that could, would be raised and ready for action again just like most of the battleships. Even if that was possible, it would set the Allied Pacific capabilities back at least another 6 months to year over historical, at least. The USN lost a large % of their total torpedo stockpiles just in one base at the Philippines. It wasn't just fuel that would burn up if the tanks had been destroyed, it would have been the munitions and vital port facilities themselves. The heat alone could be a problem.

That's the failing of the Pearl Harbour attack. In a sense, they did the US a favour planning it that way.
Like the Italian ships sunk by the RN at Taranto, they should have known they could be raised again.
The plan incredibly prevented attacks on the Pearl fuel and munitions stores which their destruction alone could have set the US back at least 6 months to a year and to some US Admiratly, have forced the US to return the Home Base of the Fleet from Hawaii(which was considered a provocative move by the Japanese) back to San Francisco?(West Coast).

The IJN could have done far better to take on and destroy the US fleet at sea, where the sunken ships couldn't be raised and used again.
For those here who will invariably say the USN couldn't lose the Pacific War no matter what happened,
the below is a neat English documentary series using USN interviews on the issue.
If the link I try to post isn't allowed here, do a search on YouTube for 'Unsolved History, Myths of Pearl Harbor' I think it's called.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=599oB...related&search=