Carter Re-elected

What if, a few weeks prior to the Presidential election in 1980, it was revealed that Reagan was having secret negotiations with the Iranians to only release the US Embassy Hostages after the election. Furthermore, the US Press decides to run with this story, thinking they have a huge scandal. Within hours, the media are calling it "Irangate" & are putting it on a level akin to Watergate. As a result, Carter wins the 1980 election, not because of his recent track record (or lack thereof), but because of Reagan’s involvement in Irangate.

So what happens? Are the US Hostages still released? If not, what does Carter do?

Similarly, what’s Carter’s second term like? Are there any notable achievements?

What happens to Reagan in the meantime?

And what after-effects does a 2nd Carter term mean for the USA & the world in general?

Anything else?

Discuss
 
Carter would have more time to consider a longer term startegy to secure the hostages' release. He cannot use the Soviet Union because he burnt his bridges there when he boycotted the 1980 Olympics. So probably France is his best bet. There is no Reagan so the hypocritical 'no arms for hostages' credo is irrelevent.

Reagan will not be prosecuted. The American criminal system is notoriously corrupt when it comes to high political figures being held responsible for their actions. I suspect some functionaries on his election staff and perhaps some lower level political figures in congress will be put behind bars to satisfy the populace.

If Carter continues to push for American values in foreign affairs (like prefering democracies to dictatorships and shunning bribry and not turning his back on human rights abuses) then a very different world will emerge.
 
there'd have to be absolute proof of Reagan's shenanigans, or there will be a big amount of disbelief among the US population.... you can bet that if there isn't absolute proof, it will be seen as an Iranian attempt to influence the election and smear the name of the next possible president... Iran just wasn't trusted by anyone back then....
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
Strong environmental laws and progressive energy policies continue to be enforced under a second Carter administration. As a result, the United States is not nearly as dependent on foreign oil by the 1990s, and does not need to fight two wars in the Middle East.

Because of the lack of American interference in the Middle East, tensions with Islamic militants are not inflamed. No 9/11. Osama bin Laden is a name utterly unknown to the American people.

Reagan's pro-corporate policies never come to pass, so the economic globalization of the post-Cold War world takes a very different form (what it would be is anyone's guess).
 
Anaxagoras said:
Strong environmental laws and progressive energy policies continue to be enforced under a second Carter administration. As a result, the United States is not nearly as dependent on foreign oil by the 1990s, and does not need to fight two wars in the Middle East.

Because of the lack of American interference in the Middle East, tensions with Islamic militants are not inflamed. No 9/11. Osama bin Laden is a name utterly unknown to the American people.

Reagan's pro-corporate policies never come to pass, so the economic globalization of the post-Cold War world takes a very different form (what it would be is anyone's guess).

Very interesting. Perhaps Carter would use US influence to ensure fairer pay and decent conditions for workers in developing countries. He may even impose trade barriers to bar goods manufatured by slave or prison labour or even child and grossly exploited labour. This would set China's growth back somewhat and preserve industries like textiles in some western countries.

Of course the gap between rich and poor in the US and other western countries would not be as large as it is now and Thatcher would not have her dottery ally in the US. Their revival of nineteenth century economic nonsense would not have global consequences.
 

Xen

Banned
How would the hostage negotiations go? I can't imagine Iran wanting to hold them much longer, perhaps three to six more months and Iran releases them.
 
We'd all be f*cked: absolutely f*cked.

Economic stagnation, weak leadership by an absolutely clueless man.

USSR not collapsing. People still strapped to beds on islands in the Aral Sea so the KGB can test biological weapons on them. The KGB still continuing its reign of interference and misery in the third world.

The mind boggles.
 
Wozza said:
USSR not collapsing. People still strapped to beds on islands in the Aral Sea so the KGB can test biological weapons on them. The KGB still continuing its reign of interference and misery in the third world.
On the flip side, there'll be a world in which:

*Russians are actually getting paid for a day's work (didn't always happen under Yeltsin)

*the oligarchs we are so familiar with are merely mid-level scumbags of little consequence

*the industries are actually working to support the state instead of their respective owners

*we don't worry about every Abdul Jihad and Rashid Hamas getting ahold of a black-market WMD

*Central Asia and the Caucasus aren't filled with barely functioning kleptocracies who gleefuly murder their minorities and smooze with whoever's signing cheques at the moment

*a Third World that promises to be as equally fucked up as OTL's Third World

Sorry to unload like this, this issue is one of my "hot button" topics.
 

Xen

Banned
Wozza said:
We'd all be f*cked: absolutely f*cked.

Economic stagnation, weak leadership by an absolutely clueless man.

USSR not collapsing. People still strapped to beds on islands in the Aral Sea so the KGB can test biological weapons on them. The KGB still continuing its reign of interference and misery in the third world.

The mind boggles.


I dont think we'd be that bad off, the USSR I believe would still collapse, its just a matter of when and how. The economy was F*cked up beyond all belief, unless the Soviets ended up getting a Gorbachev like figure in the early 1980's, it will likely fall by 1995. Worst case scenario we will have the USSR surviving in a similiar manner to the Peoples Republic of China, like everything else there will be positives and negatives that go along with that.

Even if Carter is as horrible as you believe, he only has 4 years afterwards, if he even makes the full term. I think its likely he would be shot, continuing the zero factor for American Presidents.
 
Ivan Druzhkov said:
On the flip side, there'll be a world in which:

*Russians are actually getting paid for a day's work (didn't always happen under Yeltsin)

*the oligarchs we are so familiar with are merely mid-level scumbags of little consequence

*the industries are actually working to support the state instead of their respective owners

*we don't worry about every Abdul Jihad and Rashid Hamas getting ahold of a black-market WMD

*Central Asia and the Caucasus aren't filled with barely functioning kleptocracies who gleefuly murder their minorities and smooze with whoever's signing cheques at the moment

*a Third World that promises to be as equally fucked up as OTL's Third World

Sorry to unload like this, this issue is one of my "hot button" topics.

Good points, all true. But would you rather live in the Soviet Union or the Former Soviet Union?
I know some people do prefer the former, but I think they remember the good days with tasty Latvian deserts rather than long queues and no bread
 
DMA, since 'Irangate' never actually happened, you'll need another reason for Carter to win the election. With this you have Iran appearing to side with Jimmy Carter for any of several reasons the American people will NOT like.

Humans rights take a major hit as Carter continues his trend of beating up on allies while ignoring more serious violations in enemies. To a large portion of American/Western opinion, 'human-rights' becomes slang for attacking non-leftist regimes, democratic or otherwise.

Democracy continues to die in the world.

Most Central American nations go into authoritarian regimes in response to Soviet-sponsored meddling in their internal affairs, starting with El Salvador and Honduras. Possibly Nicaragua actually invades Honduras and the US responds by conquering Nicaragua in 1985.

The collapse of democracies in South America under Carter also continues.

Japan, other allies of the US begin military build-ups in response to perceived American weakness. Possible nuclearization in Japan or Taiwan.

British loss of Falklands war causes 'hard-left' Labor government in UK, US bases closed. US quits NATO in 1985 unless...(see USSR below).

Carter attempts to carry out secret arrangements with Arabs during second term. Israel reoccupies Sinai, Camp David falls apart. Relations between US and Israel improve dramatically when GOP Dole(?) blames Arab leaders/Carter for dishonest dealing, Congress canceled all Egyptian aid anyway in 1982.

Soviet atrocities bordering on genocide in Afghanistan go unchecked. In the 1990s, following Soviet pull-out the Afghan mujahedin become prominent in terrorism; when asked about perceived lack of compassion for civilians they ask where compassion for the Afghan people was during ten years in hell.

Soviet collapse either takes place on schedule, or Soviets launch WWIII in attempt to force US and Western Europe to subsidize the Soviet economy. Either way, the world in the next 20 years is a poorer place in many ways.

Ask the then-Soviet Foreign Minister, Eduard Sheverdnadze, what might have happened if the Soviets saw ANY alternative to what they KNEW would be a time of agony for them, at best.

Carter's dishonest means of arranging environmental laws leads to a national backlash that erases most/all of his achievements, or worse. Possibly this includes a more energy self-sufficient US as nuclear power plants are built in the 1980s.

By 1984 Carter's second term he is a joke in most of the world and a disgrace in the US. Unable to pass any treaties, even with a Democratic majority in the Senate, the world's leaders become aware that Carter will deliver nothing and working with him may make enemies in the US.

Domestically the Democratic Party is in chaos as many are driven from office and more move to the right in self-defense. In effect, the US will have three major parties by @1988, a Carter Party, a South/Midwest Party, and the GOP which is the only national party. As the South/Midwest Dems begin to work with the GOP a super-majority forms, ironically leaving the GOP with far less need for the religious right.

***Alternative: Carter and allies keep control, the realignment under Reagan includes a higher percentage of the Catholics and union members, also a third or more of the Jewish vote.

Intense struggle within Democratic Party in 1990s between Carter/McGovern core and Clinton/Gore moderates. Possible split of party, 2-4 elections with no legitimate alternative to GOP.

Bloody carnage in Iran-Iraq War continues, no doubt mujahedin also comment on utter lack of Western concern for 2 million+ death toll. Ends in late 1980s when Iranian attempts to block oil tankers leads to US reprisals and Iran sues for peace. Much talk about how the US was 'on Iraq's side' all along later.
 
Wozza said:
Economic stagnation
The president gets the credit when the economy does well and the blame when it does poorly. The truth is, the president's control over the economy is limited at best.

Wozza said:
weak leadership by an absolutely clueless man.
Carter was a lot more clueful than Reagan was. He's smart. Reagan was stupid.
Wozza said:
USSR not collapsing. People still strapped to beds on islands in the Aral Sea so the KGB can test biological weapons on them. The KGB still continuing its reign of interference and misery in the third world.

The mind boggles.
Why do people insist on crediting Reagan with the breakup of the USSR? He had nothing to do with it! The USSR broke up because Gorbachev instituted reforms which enabled other politicians to effectively carve up the country.
 
Grimm Reaper said:
DMA, since 'Irangate' never actually happened, you'll need another reason for Carter to win the election. With this you have Iran appearing to side with Jimmy Carter for any of several reasons the American people will NOT like.

Humans rights take a major hit as Carter continues his trend of beating up on allies while ignoring more serious violations in enemies. To a large portion of American/Western opinion, 'human-rights' becomes slang for attacking non-leftist regimes, democratic or otherwise.

Democracy continues to die in the world.

Most Central American nations go into authoritarian regimes in response to Soviet-sponsored meddling in their internal affairs, starting with El Salvador and Honduras. Possibly Nicaragua actually invades Honduras and the US responds by conquering Nicaragua in 1985.

The collapse of democracies in South America under Carter also continues.

Japan, other allies of the US begin military build-ups in response to perceived American weakness. Possible nuclearization in Japan or Taiwan.

British loss of Falklands war causes 'hard-left' Labor government in UK, US bases closed. US quits NATO in 1985 unless...(see USSR below).

Carter attempts to carry out secret arrangements with Arabs during second term. Israel reoccupies Sinai, Camp David falls apart. Relations between US and Israel improve dramatically when GOP Dole(?) blames Arab leaders/Carter for dishonest dealing, Congress canceled all Egyptian aid anyway in 1982.

Soviet atrocities bordering on genocide in Afghanistan go unchecked. In the 1990s, following Soviet pull-out the Afghan mujahedin become prominent in terrorism; when asked about perceived lack of compassion for civilians they ask where compassion for the Afghan people was during ten years in hell.

Soviet collapse either takes place on schedule, or Soviets launch WWIII in attempt to force US and Western Europe to subsidize the Soviet economy. Either way, the world in the next 20 years is a poorer place in many ways.

Ask the then-Soviet Foreign Minister, Eduard Sheverdnadze, what might have happened if the Soviets saw ANY alternative to what they KNEW would be a time of agony for them, at best.

Carter's dishonest means of arranging environmental laws leads to a national backlash that erases most/all of his achievements, or worse. Possibly this includes a more energy self-sufficient US as nuclear power plants are built in the 1980s.

By 1984 Carter's second term he is a joke in most of the world and a disgrace in the US. Unable to pass any treaties, even with a Democratic majority in the Senate, the world's leaders become aware that Carter will deliver nothing and working with him may make enemies in the US.

Domestically the Democratic Party is in chaos as many are driven from office and more move to the right in self-defense. In effect, the US will have three major parties by @1988, a Carter Party, a South/Midwest Party, and the GOP which is the only national party. As the South/Midwest Dems begin to work with the GOP a super-majority forms, ironically leaving the GOP with far less need for the religious right.

***Alternative: Carter and allies keep control, the realignment under Reagan includes a higher percentage of the Catholics and union members, also a third or more of the Jewish vote.

Intense struggle within Democratic Party in 1990s between Carter/McGovern core and Clinton/Gore moderates. Possible split of party, 2-4 elections with no legitimate alternative to GOP.

Bloody carnage in Iran-Iraq War continues, no doubt mujahedin also comment on utter lack of Western concern for 2 million+ death toll. Ends in late 1980s when Iranian attempts to block oil tankers leads to US reprisals and Iran sues for peace. Much talk about how the US was 'on Iraq's side' all along later.

What's the basis for all these conclusions?
 

Straha

Banned
Carter was too uncharismatic to pull off reelection in 1980 even if Reagan was caught in bed with a dead woman and a live boy. Carter was THAT sad.
 
Straha said:
Carter was too uncharismatic to pull off reelection in 1980 even if Reagan was caught in bed with a dead woman and a live boy. Carter was THAT sad.
Actually, though, could the Dems keep the Religious Right in this scenario?
 

Straha

Banned
Wendell said:
Actually, though, could the Dems keep the Religious Right in this scenario?
Not likely. without reagan we'd see both parties being more moderate. The dems would have conservative and populist wings wing and the GOP would have rockefeller republicans and libertarians in addition to OTL's GOP/dems.
 
Straha said:
Not likely. without reagan we'd see both parties being more moderate. The dems would have conservative and populist wings wing and the GOP would have rockefeller republicans and libertarians in addition to OTL's GOP/dems.
Well, it was during Carter that the shift began to really occur...
 
Top