Bicentennial Man: Ford '76 and Beyond

To be fair, Rockefeller's Republicanism was never that consistent, but it's not like they were RINOs. They wanted less to implement some version of Liberalism like the Democrats and more some inconsistent pragmatic technocratic program where there was room for big spending and tax increase when it was necessary. That's how people like Brooke and Rockefeller liked to describe themselves. It was more of a brand of standing for what Eisenhower believed and than opposing whatever the right wing of the GOP was spewing, rather than a consistent set of policies.


I don't know who could recreate the "Nixon brand", but they could try to do the "Moderate but Liberal in some positions" stick again (Connally? James Thompson perhaps?)

It's really common in this and other threads set in this era to see people who I assume are personally left of center try and stop the Republican party from becoming "more Conservative*" but there were very good reasons why "Moderate but Liberal in some positions" Republicans normally lost primaries in OTL and will lose them in most well written ATL's for the same reason that Conservative Democrats rarely win, the primary system encourages candidates to be positioned in the middle of their party, which is generally to the right or left of 75% of the country because that's where the midpoint of a party that represents 50% of the population lies.

*I would actually question whether calling the Reagan era GoP more Conservative than when they were nominating someone like Taft is really accurate, Eisenhower is the outlier of the post Teddy Roosevelt Republican Party. For a century it's been and remains a broad church right of centre party with a nativist populist wing (Buchanan, Trump), a libertarian wing (Goldwater, Paul Ryan) and a moderate wing (Eisenhower, Rockefeller, Romney father and son) that always exists but normally loses internal battles.
 
For a century it's been and remains a broad church right of centre party with a nativist populist wing (Buchanan, Trump), a libertarian wing (Goldwater, Paul Ryan)
Goldwater wasn’t a “libertarian” until later in his career. During the 60s in the peak of his political career he was a populist conservative firebrand in the same vein as Reagan and Trump. And Paul Ryan is not a libertarian lol

It’s really all about branding when it comes to conversations like these. For example Nixonianism is really not all that different in terms of policy to Rockefeller Republicanism as we know it to be other than the way Nixon and Rockefeller advertised their messages. In the north and midwest there absolutely will be a market for socially conservative republicans that are economically pragmatic especially after Carey’s economic programs get the credit for the 82-84 recovery.

The conservatism that republicans adopt overall will likely be similar to John McCain’s, lean socially conservative especially on crime but not married to fundamental conservative economic theory
 
Last edited:
Some areas I’d like to see covered:

Africa - will Carey be harsher on apartheid, in contrast to Reagan using the Namibians as a bargaining chip against the Soviets? And is the situation with Gaddafi going to be any different?

Latin America - what is to happen with the military dictatorships? Given Carey and the American public’s willingness to sanction the bloodshed in Panama and Central America, I could see him not taking as much of a human rights-based approach to the region. And he or a successor government can probably be expected to invade Grenada as in OTL. Maybe even an attack on Nicaragua justified by the Soviet attack on Sweden.

South and East Asia - I can see the Indians remaining the allies of a persisting Soviet Union, especially if the Soviets give the thumbs up to India pushing their territorial dispute with a weakening China. Pakistan might in turn pivot toward the US and its Gulf Arab/Iranian alliance. Meanwhile who knows what’ll happen with Indochina (especially Pol Pot), the Philippines and East Timor.

Pop culture - Reagan’s presidency had a huge impact on this, because many of the people producing pop culture did not like Reagan. I don’t know much about movies, but I did hear that Reaganomics directly inspired They Live and other satirical films. What I do know about is music, and I’m pretty sure the absence of Reagan would butterfly away (or greatly diminish) the commercial success of acts like Metallica, R.E.M. and the Dead Kennedys, all of whom got big off of albums either satirizing or lamenting or raging against the state of American politics under Reagan. We’re probably still getting acts like NWA and 2Pac though because Carey isn’t gonna do shit to improve the prospects of the inner city.
 
Some areas I’d like to see covered:

Africa - will Carey be harsher on apartheid, in contrast to Reagan using the Namibians as a bargaining chip against the Soviets? And is the situation with Gaddafi going to be any different?

Latin America - what is to happen with the military dictatorships? Given Carey and the American public’s willingness to sanction the bloodshed in Panama and Central America, I could see him not taking as much of a human rights-based approach to the region. And he or a successor government can probably be expected to invade Grenada as in OTL. Maybe even an attack on Nicaragua justified by the Soviet attack on Sweden.

South and East Asia - I can see the Indians remaining the allies of a persisting Soviet Union, especially if the Soviets give the thumbs up to India pushing their territorial dispute with a weakening China. Pakistan might in turn pivot toward the US and its Gulf Arab/Iranian alliance. Meanwhile who knows what’ll happen with Indochina (especially Pol Pot), the Philippines and East Timor.

Pop culture - Reagan’s presidency had a huge impact on this, because many of the people producing pop culture did not like Reagan. I don’t know much about movies, but I did hear that Reaganomics directly inspired They Live and other satirical films. What I do know about is music, and I’m pretty sure the absence of Reagan would butterfly away (or greatly diminish) the commercial success of acts like Metallica, R.E.M. and the Dead Kennedys, all of whom got big off of albums either satirizing or lamenting or raging against the state of American politics under Reagan. We’re probably still getting acts like NWA and 2Pac though because Carey isn’t gonna do shit to improve the prospects of the inner city.
Carey will definitely be harsher on Apartheid, he kinda has to be considering how important Black voters are to his base.

LatAm is going to get much, much worse from here.

Stay tuned on South Asia... India is going to be in for a ride. Pakistan, meanwhile, to me is interesting since Zulfikar Bhutto was such an enigmatic figure, both buddy-buddy with Nixon but also fairly Soviet-friendly, and he had the Shah as his guest in Lahore after the Revolution.

My pop culture thinking around TTL's 1980s, at least the early portion, is that it is sort of a hangover of the 70s (you can sort of see this in its fashion) rather than the fairly clean break of OTL you got circa 1982ish
Does IBM still adopt MS-DOS for the IBM PC in this timeline?
Don't see why not, this is way outside my wheelhouse of expertise
 
Brace for Impact - Part III
Brace for Impact - Part III

Few countries in the world had come closer to outright revolution than Iran in 1977-79; indeed, instability there had been a major factor in heightened oil prices during the late 1970s recession, even if events in Panama, Venezuela and Saudi Arabia had arguably contributed just as much if not more. By late 1981, however, the country was, largely, at peace, with the Islamist and Communist Tudeh forces largely reduced to simmering but fairly controllable insurgencies in the countryside (though their continued open cooperation concerned the SAVAK and the West), and the spirit of reform under the new "Young Shah" was in full bloom.

To the frustration of Iranian liberals and even a great many soft-Islamist conservatives, however, the new era of Iranian openness seemed to them to look a lot like previous "false springs" of the past. A great deal of noise was made by the government about new, more dynamic leadership, but longtime interrogation chief Parviz Sabeti was made head of the SAVAK, and the Chief of the Army Staff was Fereydoun Djam, a career soldier and ambassador who had retired out of disputes with Mohammed Reza but was not considered particularly threatening to the clique of officers who were viewed as being largely in charge behind the scenes via the National Moderation Council, the new name for the old "Regency." Sabeti and Djam were not the same thugs who had helped nearly end the Iranian monarchy through their ineptitude, but they were not exactly the kinds of fresh faces that the protestors of 1978 had hoped for. Nor was the new Prime Minister appointed in late October 1981, Jafar Sharif-Emami, who was perhaps even more of a backwards-looking choice - after all, not only had he briefly served as Prime Minister for nine months in the early 1960s, but after that had spent 14 years as President of the Iranian Senate and was by the time of his first retirement in 1978 regarded as one of the former Shah's most trusted and reliable confidants. As a near-septuagenarian henchman of the despised late Shah, turning the page, he was not. [1]

It would be remiss to suggest that the young Shah Reza did not understand how much Sharif-Emami was a creature of his father's regime when he appointed him, or that he was an obvious favorite of the military officials who were trying to rebrand Pahlavism while keeping its benefits to them intact. But what such analysis misses is that Sharif-Emami was nonetheless a clever man, who with fifty years of experience in the Iranian government was easily the most decorated civilian official who had the trust of the murkiest corners of the establishment but who had not held real formal power in two decades. Nor does it consider, for that matter, that despite being close with Mohamed Reza personally and politically, Sharif-Emami had also always been one of the few people in the late Shah's inner circle who was willing to tell him things he did not want to hear, including when he thought he was wrong. In that sense, Sharif-Emami became the surprising man of the moment, and in his nearly six years as Prime Minister he would surprise to the upside in what he was able to accomplish.

Indeed, his reforms starting in the last months of 1981 and the first months of 1982 came fast and furious. One of the things that spoke in his favor was that he was a social conservative who was close to the clerics who had sympathized with the attempted revolution of 1977-79, but only those who had not themselves fomented it, and as such he held some sway with mullahs who in their sermons would in the end decide the fate of the regime if they decided to follow the hardliners dotted throughout the Iranian mountains into the brink at some point. He announced the closure of all the country's casinos from the holy city of Qom, and cultivated an image of a frugal grandfather who lived in his own one-bedroom flat in central Tehran and spent much of his time traveling to the Iranian countryside to meet ordinary citizens, albeit always with copious bodyguards. Crucially, Sharif-Emami took the step that his predecessors Amir-Abbas Hoveyda and Jamshid Amouzegar had refused to countenance and dissolved the Rastakhiz Party that had ruled Iran for decades, which while on its own not ushering in liberal democracy nonetheless signaled the end of the old Pahlavist order and something approaching a constitutional monarchy. [2]

The transition from 1981 to 1982, and an improving Iranian economy with falling unemployment but also lacking the supply bottlenecks and inflation that had plagued it in the late 1970s, thus marked a major opportunity not just for the regime but the opposition, and here the more confident Sharif-Emami government that was composed of conservative, pro-Western technocrats were blessed by a serious split emerging between the more moderate Mehdi Bazargan of the Freedom Movement and the duarchy of Shapour Bakhtiar and Karim Sanjabi at the National Front. The eminently pragmatic Bazargan had always harbored more monarchist sympathies and was, with the dissolution of Rastakhiz, finally seeing that which he had demanded for years being fleshed out; after the near-collapse of 1978, he was unwilling to too aggressively test Iran's capacity for social cohesion again so soon and thus saw the changes being made as largely responsive to the protests of that year, and pledged to work closely with the regime moving forward, hopefully with an eye towards one day being appointd PM himself over a truly liberal, reformist Cabinet. Bakhtiar and, especially, Sanjabi were less convinced, and the latter maintained his firm republican convictions and even began advocating that the National Front, which dated its founding to Mossadegh, start to collaborate more thoroughly with communist-sympathetic clerics, which deeply alarmed Bakhtiar to the point that he considered abandoning the National Front in favor of Bazargan's Freedom Movement. In his view, a clerical-communist alliance would rip Iran to shreds, as he highly doubted that the Islamists and Tudeh could collaborate long after overthrowing the military. [3]

Comprehensively, then, late 1981 saw Iran's democratizing but still-autocratic, military-steered government begin the process of opening up the economy and society while conceding to the desires of many of the more conservative protestors who had rocked the country in 1978, while the opposition debated internally about how to proceed and figures who had once worked hand-in-hand started to find new paths forward. Beyond mere domestic politics, this meant Iran was stable and secure at a critical moment in Middle Eastern history and became the point of reliance for the West more than ever as events began to spiral out of control in the start of 1982...

[1] This is all true, fwiw
[2] This largely maps to Sharif-Emami's actual program in his brief four-month stint as PM in late 1978 OTL. The one thing I'm missing here is repealing the Imperial calendar that Mohamed Reza (who was a seriously weird guy) instituted, which my thinking is that they wouldn't have waited until 1981 to do that
[3] It's really remarkable how similar 1979 in Iran was, with both Bazargan and Bakhtiar thinking they could work with Khomeini initially, to Russia in 1917 and Kerensky, Guchkov, etc assuming the same of Lenin
 
I'm definitely open to ideas on alt-computer development history, whether it be Commodore and Acorn taking off, or whatever
Fun possibilities:

IBM buys Atari instead of the PC project, as nearly everyone at the company assumed IBM couldn’t make a consumer facing computer for a reasonable price. This wipes out the clones, kills the Wintel duopoly, turns Atari video games into a huge question mark, but doesn’t alter the Commodore caused Crash and consolidation—it does however leave the window open for Amiga (perhaps as a console, original plan, with Atari owned by IBM) and gives Apple a moderately better position. It also should speed up file compatibility, Microsoft makes the most sense—MS Word for Apple/IBM/CP/M and so forth but the files all look the same in Word and open without any work. That’s a killer feature and without clones it looks like the market will have 3-4 platforms even post crash.

If you hate or love Apple their entire existence is like a massive POD every year or two for decades, easy enough to wipe them out or make them bigger earlier. (Or in a twist of fate they kill themselves by allowing cloning to fight IBM.)

Acorn has ARM developed by Roger Wilson and friends who basically made every single right call and failed because Acorn just wasn’t a big enough company and in a tough market. This is where you can loop in Wilson’s visit to Bill Mensch’s Western Design Center (aka the dude that made Commodore possible) where he’s busy laying out by expletive deleted hand computer chips that are better than everybody else in the 16-bit sphere. So perhaps Apple finds out about ARM earlier than OTL because of this visit to the WDC, buys Acorn, launches Macintosh with ARM chip, rules world.
—This scenario could potentially work with multiple companies in different ways, say WDC chips and switching to ARM for I dunno Amiga or Commodore or what not.

I suppose the main question is what kind of computing market would be fun for you? :)
 
Iran keeping Stability *should* remove some of the pressure for the Iran-Iraq war iTTL. But if he does, the US is likely to give the Iranians a fairly blank checkbook. The question is whether Iran, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia can agree on anything incluing the color of the sky. OTOH, we could have a successful Assassination attempt on King Hussein bringing in an 18 year old Abdullah II (as of 1980). (or both). And then of course there is Lebanon...

So many choices...
 
Carey will definitely be harsher on Apartheid, he kinda has to be considering how important Black voters are to his base.
That's good.

LatAm is going to get much, much worse from here.
That's bad. Oh boy.

Stay tuned on South Asia... India is going to be in for a ride. Pakistan, meanwhile, to me is interesting since Zulfikar Bhutto was such an enigmatic figure, both buddy-buddy with Nixon but also fairly Soviet-friendly, and he had the Shah as his guest in Lahore after the Revolution.
Hoo boy, Pakistan. I remember what I did with South Asia and now I'm wondering what you will do.

My pop culture thinking around TTL's 1980s, at least the early portion, is that it is sort of a hangover of the 70s (you can sort of see this in its fashion) rather than the fairly clean break of OTL you got circa 1982ish

Don't see why not, this is way outside my wheelhouse of expertise
Should be fun and hope to see what you will come up with. :)
 
Fun possibilities:

IBM buys Atari instead of the PC project, as nearly everyone at the company assumed IBM couldn’t make a consumer facing computer for a reasonable price. This wipes out the clones, kills the Wintel duopoly, turns Atari video games into a huge question mark, but doesn’t alter the Commodore caused Crash and consolidation—it does however leave the window open for Amiga (perhaps as a console, original plan, with Atari owned by IBM) and gives Apple a moderately better position. It also should speed up file compatibility, Microsoft makes the most sense—MS Word for Apple/IBM/CP/M and so forth but the files all look the same in Word and open without any work. That’s a killer feature and without clones it looks like the market will have 3-4 platforms even post crash.

If you hate or love Apple their entire existence is like a massive POD every year or two for decades, easy enough to wipe them out or make them bigger earlier. (Or in a twist of fate they kill themselves by allowing cloning to fight IBM.)

Acorn has ARM developed by Roger Wilson and friends who basically made every single right call and failed because Acorn just wasn’t a big enough company and in a tough market. This is where you can loop in Wilson’s visit to Bill Mensch’s Western Design Center (aka the dude that made Commodore possible) where he’s busy laying out by expletive deleted hand computer chips that are better than everybody else in the 16-bit sphere. So perhaps Apple finds out about ARM earlier than OTL because of this visit to the WDC, buys Acorn, launches Macintosh with ARM chip, rules world.
—This scenario could potentially work with multiple companies in different ways, say WDC chips and switching to ARM for I dunno Amiga or Commodore or what not.

I suppose the main question is what kind of computing market would be fun for you? :)
Could Acorn absorb Commodore, perhaps?
Iran keeping Stability *should* remove some of the pressure for the Iran-Iraq war iTTL. But if he does, the US is likely to give the Iranians a fairly blank checkbook. The question is whether Iran, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia can agree on anything incluing the color of the sky. OTOH, we could have a successful Assassination attempt on King Hussein bringing in an 18 year old Abdullah II (as of 1980). (or both). And then of course there is Lebanon...

So many choices...
Saudi has its problems with the Ikhwan ITTL and the Shia East, to me at least, would be unlikely to want to stick around to see what happens if those loons ever got power.

And don’t forget Saddam is lurking and needing some direction for his bottomless ambition…
 
That's good.


That's bad. Oh boy.


Hoo boy, Pakistan. I remember what I did with South Asia and now I'm wondering what you will do.


Should be fun and hope to see what you will come up with. :)
At minimum I think New Hollywood doesn’t die quite as quickly, especially since Heaven’s Gate wasn’t a gigantic disaster ITTL. So the trend of guys like Pacino and Hoffman being regarded as the titanic leading men of the age doesn’t quite have the sharp break at 1980 it did ITTL, and Richard Gere’s impressive early oeuvre before he got his teeth fixed and just pivoted to “sauve and handsome” for the easy paycheck is likely not interrupted either and he joins those two and De Niro on the New Hollywood Rushmore
 
Could Acorn absorb Commodore, perhaps?

Saudi has its problems with the Ikhwan ITTL and the Shia East, to me at least, would be unlikely to want to stick around to see what happens if those loons ever got power.

And don’t forget Saddam is lurking and needing some direction for his bottomless ambition…
Hmm. Let's see. Iraq borders Turkey, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iran.
Turkey *unlikely*, Syria *could be interesting*, Jordan *no idea*, Saudi Arabia *the US sends troops*, Kuwait *same question as OTL*, can we get troops there in time....
 
LatAm is going to get much, much worse from here.
events in Panama
*Insert obligatory question about how's Panama doing after Ford's invasion*
I'm kinda interested in how they're dealing in the immediate aftermath of it, because there is no absolutely no way in hell it goes anywhere near as well as Just Cause did for the US (the Panamanian population will be FAR more hostile to US occupation forces than they were IOTL). Plus there's the question of the fate of the canal and whether an alt-Torrijos-Carter treaty happens (I'd guess not, but we shall see), and it'd be interesting seeing how it factors into LATAM's general dysfunction (where Ford's intervention likely makes it one of the more notable basket cases in a region already full of them).
 
Besides South America, I would love to know what's happening in Italy ITTL
We know Aldo Moro wasn't kidnapped so the Historical Compromise was successful
However we also know the war in Sweden damaged the popularity of Eurocomunism.

So either Italy is somehow going to be the exception to the more conservative 90s, or a new rightwing political party is going to emerge.

I wonder if Mani Pulite is going to happen ITTL (the corruption system started well before Craxi), and how it could impact Italy if the PCI is still around
 
Could Acorn absorb Commodore, perhaps?
Privately held by (Canadian) Irving Gould who did not want to give up on it. As for Acorn they had to be bailed out in 1985 by Olivetti (an Italian computer maker), they really were small.

Maybe Olivetti has big dreams? Because they have the hardware, they’re in Europe with the dealer network, they picked up Acorn… all they really need is say the Amiga team to do software and collaborate with Acorn on hardware.

(Edit: it wouldn’t be *that* hard to have computing industry national champion software platforms for fun: maybe Apple/Sony for Japan, Amiga/Acorn/Olivetti Europe, IBM/Atari USA kinda thing.)
 
Last edited:
Top