Reagan Assassinated
- Thread starter SargentHawk
- Start date
Since Bush wouldn't have a useless Soviet policy in his first term, Gorbachev could come to power earlier. The Cold War probably ends a couple of years earlier.
Monetarism, not supply-side. Because of the cuts, 1982 looks like 2010.
The Religious Right doesn't get as much power.
1988 goes to the Democrats.
Monetarism, not supply-side. Because of the cuts, 1982 looks like 2010.
The Religious Right doesn't get as much power.
1988 goes to the Democrats.
Could've sworn this has been discussed before. *shrugs* anyway... Reagan gets the Lincoln/Kennedy treatment and becomes a Martyred president. Naysayers become more willing to forgive and forget the flaws and bad choices made during his presidency.
But what I'm wondering about... is how would this effect the attitude of the US circa 1980's?? How would this effect Hollywood?? The guy who kills him claims to have been inspired by both Taxi Driver and Jodie Foster. Hell, who knows... perhaps this would usher in an age of intensive censorship that would make even Mary Whitehouse blush??
*shrugs*
But what I'm wondering about... is how would this effect the attitude of the US circa 1980's?? How would this effect Hollywood?? The guy who kills him claims to have been inspired by both Taxi Driver and Jodie Foster. Hell, who knows... perhaps this would usher in an age of intensive censorship that would make even Mary Whitehouse blush??
*shrugs*
I think there's one underlying word to all of this: Moderation. Bush wasn't the Conservative that Reagan was, Neo-, Religious Right, Supply Side, or whatever else. He was more Moderate, and I suspect he will govern more moderately.
Not necessarily. Kennedy and Lincoln actually were in office. Reagan could end up more....what's the one guy who died like a month into the Presidency? Plus, people really weren't into his ideology. He won on being "Not Carter" not as Ronald Reagan.
Not necessarily. Kennedy and Lincoln actually were in office. Reagan could end up more....what's the one guy who died like a month into the Presidency? Plus, people really weren't into his ideology. He won on being "Not Carter" not as Ronald Reagan.
He is more likely to become a latter-day William Henry Harrison/James Garfield and be largely forgotten, except for those on the far right to whom he is a martyr. Two months in office is simply not enough time to assess a Presidency in any meaningful degree; he becomes a huge "what if?" in the history books and thus a popular topic for AH fans.
Bush takes office and Volcker fixes the economy more or less as in OTL after a bad midterm in 1982. It could well lead to a resurgence of moderate Republicanism, particularly if Bush has the same kind of progress on arms control and the USSR implodes more or less as it did OTL.
Two things that would/could be different:
Firstly, Reagan would not be mythologized. His Presidency made into a myth by a very aggressive, very thorough, and very good GOP and Conservative PR operation starting when he left office, and carrying on throughout the 90s. The GOP has since been running on this myth ever since; the idea that Reagan carried out this extremely Conservative program, without compromise, which was a raving success, and which everyone loved and agreed with. In truth, Reagan overreached on many of his policies, such as the tax cuts, which lead him to raise taxes 11 (I think it was 11) times, being the biggest tax raise in history, and he carried out a policy that was moderately Conservative compared to the GOP today, did work with his Democratic rivals (and the Soviets, for that matter). The majority of the nation also disagreed with almost every single policy position of President Reagan and the Conservatives, though most did like him personally, but of those that said they liked him personally, 70% said (pre-1984 election) that they would not be reelecting him. And the reason he did get reelected was that the economy rebounded in time for 1984. And still, most people did not agree with the positions on issues he and the Conservatives had. His administration's approval rating overall was decidedly average, and his administrations actions were quite mixed (deregulation has led to problems which caught up with us in 2008, and continue).
That myth is something very unique, because while other Presidents are idolized, the Reagan myth is so so distant from the actual man and history. And I don't mean that to slander Reagan, but it is what it is, and he is a man of mixed results. And this is something the modern Republican party and Conservative movement have been running on since at least the 90s. Its the gasoline that powers the modern GOP, and says whats ok and what isn't. So without Reagan, and with a moderate like Bush, you will not have that myth, and that seems like it'd create a more moderate GOP.
Secondly, Liberalism could bode better. The reasons include no Reagan myth, a Moderate rather than Conservative administration and national policy in the 1980s, and perhaps the Democrats keeping a better head, and being able to be in a better position in 1988. 1988 was really the last hurrah of Liberalism; Dukakis was beaten badly (though looking promising in some polls in the race), Bush won, and the next Democrat would be a Centrist. The reason the Democrats went more Centrist in time, and were willing to fall in line with more conservative policies than liberal ones if pushed, was because they made the mistake of thinking that Reagan's victories and personal popularity meant the public liked the Conservative ways of the GOP. Which is not true, as I pointed out earlier; the public disagreed across the board, and would agree with the Democrats on their positions on the issues (even on issues you might think the public would be against, such as affirmative action and womens' issues). But, the Democrats got dumb, and turned their backs on that thinking the public was in a place it wasn't. The Democrats fumbled the ball there, and I'd hypothesize that's why the Democrats have had the Bejesus whipped out of them many a time since Reagan left office. So if there is a Moderate in the White House, the Democrats may not go out to the wilderness, and may see fit to stay closer to their tried and true positions. Which I think would do them better than trying to be GOP-Lite.
On a quick aside, if anyone reading this is combating my statements with the assertion "Well, why did Reagan win and Bush win if the public didn't like what they said", its the 4 words that won Clinton the White House: "It's the Economy, Stupid". The public is like a mass in many areas, and one of those is the polls; it is diverse, but it gets happy where good things are and upset from where bad things are. When things are good, approval ratings go up, when they're bad, approval ratings go down. The economy was starting to get better in time for 84, approval ratings go up. Things are ok in time for 1988, Bush wins. The economy tanks under Bush, Clinton wins in 1992.
Firstly, Reagan would not be mythologized. His Presidency made into a myth by a very aggressive, very thorough, and very good GOP and Conservative PR operation starting when he left office, and carrying on throughout the 90s. The GOP has since been running on this myth ever since; the idea that Reagan carried out this extremely Conservative program, without compromise, which was a raving success, and which everyone loved and agreed with. In truth, Reagan overreached on many of his policies, such as the tax cuts, which lead him to raise taxes 11 (I think it was 11) times, being the biggest tax raise in history, and he carried out a policy that was moderately Conservative compared to the GOP today, did work with his Democratic rivals (and the Soviets, for that matter). The majority of the nation also disagreed with almost every single policy position of President Reagan and the Conservatives, though most did like him personally, but of those that said they liked him personally, 70% said (pre-1984 election) that they would not be reelecting him. And the reason he did get reelected was that the economy rebounded in time for 1984. And still, most people did not agree with the positions on issues he and the Conservatives had. His administration's approval rating overall was decidedly average, and his administrations actions were quite mixed (deregulation has led to problems which caught up with us in 2008, and continue).
That myth is something very unique, because while other Presidents are idolized, the Reagan myth is so so distant from the actual man and history. And I don't mean that to slander Reagan, but it is what it is, and he is a man of mixed results. And this is something the modern Republican party and Conservative movement have been running on since at least the 90s. Its the gasoline that powers the modern GOP, and says whats ok and what isn't. So without Reagan, and with a moderate like Bush, you will not have that myth, and that seems like it'd create a more moderate GOP.
Secondly, Liberalism could bode better. The reasons include no Reagan myth, a Moderate rather than Conservative administration and national policy in the 1980s, and perhaps the Democrats keeping a better head, and being able to be in a better position in 1988. 1988 was really the last hurrah of Liberalism; Dukakis was beaten badly (though looking promising in some polls in the race), Bush won, and the next Democrat would be a Centrist. The reason the Democrats went more Centrist in time, and were willing to fall in line with more conservative policies than liberal ones if pushed, was because they made the mistake of thinking that Reagan's victories and personal popularity meant the public liked the Conservative ways of the GOP. Which is not true, as I pointed out earlier; the public disagreed across the board, and would agree with the Democrats on their positions on the issues (even on issues you might think the public would be against, such as affirmative action and womens' issues). But, the Democrats got dumb, and turned their backs on that thinking the public was in a place it wasn't. The Democrats fumbled the ball there, and I'd hypothesize that's why the Democrats have had the Bejesus whipped out of them many a time since Reagan left office. So if there is a Moderate in the White House, the Democrats may not go out to the wilderness, and may see fit to stay closer to their tried and true positions. Which I think would do them better than trying to be GOP-Lite.
On a quick aside, if anyone reading this is combating my statements with the assertion "Well, why did Reagan win and Bush win if the public didn't like what they said", its the 4 words that won Clinton the White House: "It's the Economy, Stupid". The public is like a mass in many areas, and one of those is the polls; it is diverse, but it gets happy where good things are and upset from where bad things are. When things are good, approval ratings go up, when they're bad, approval ratings go down. The economy was starting to get better in time for 84, approval ratings go up. Things are ok in time for 1988, Bush wins. The economy tanks under Bush, Clinton wins in 1992.
Last edited:
John Fredrick Parker
Donor
I'd add that a big difference b/w TLs where Reagan simply isn't elected* and this is that, aside from "I'm in charge" Haig, Bush is going to keep Reagan's cabinet. He may also possibly most of his Council of Economic Advisors (where Martin Feldstein may or may not still come to chair), could well decide to keep on CoS James Baker, and will definitely be under pressure to (at least appear to) keep Candidate Reagan's campaign promises.
At minimum, Bush will continue to support the Kemp-Roth based ERTA, and with the country in mourning, it will still pass -- which is not to say President Bush won't start to feel comfortable leaving his distinct mark on policy after a period (maybe starting with the 82 SOTU). Really though, the most obvious domestic policy changes I can think of will come later, as arch-social-conservatives like Edwin Meese and Bill Bennet don't rise to prominence.
*eg Ford wins in 76, Dem wins 80
At minimum, Bush will continue to support the Kemp-Roth based ERTA, and with the country in mourning, it will still pass -- which is not to say President Bush won't start to feel comfortable leaving his distinct mark on policy after a period (maybe starting with the 82 SOTU). Really though, the most obvious domestic policy changes I can think of will come later, as arch-social-conservatives like Edwin Meese and Bill Bennet don't rise to prominence.
*eg Ford wins in 76, Dem wins 80
Paul V McNutt
Banned
Bush will support the tax and budget cuts but he engages the Soviets. Kissinger could have replaced Haig. The economy was good in 1988, so Dole could have won.
RamscoopRaider
Donor
This means that the Curse of Tippecanoe is not broken, thus whoever is elected in 2000 dies in office as well
John Fredrick Parker
Donor
Kissinger returning to State under Bush, huh? Can't think of any reason it wouldn't be a strong possibility, but I can't shake the feeling it isn't...
Well, let's figure out who it is first -- I happen to agree a moderate Republican like Dole is likely to win in 88, but if so, he's likely to be a one-termer...
GHWB President 1981-1988?
Lot of interesting points brought up here. James Baker was extremely closely to Bush, his lawyer and a mentor, so he might have been Chief of Staff, Attorney General, or Sec/State immediately...remember Bush was an outsider in the Reagan Cabinet and knew at least as many potential cabinet officers, I think there would have been a lot of changes in the first couple of years. Dick Cheney, George Schultz, Casper Weinberger, Kissinger (Bush would have known him somewhat from heading the CIA and Ambassador to China during Henry's glory years, help or hurt?) Ford cabinet guys, Milton Friedman for that matter are still around.
Given Bush had an Economics B.S./Yale and called Supply Side "voodoo economics" pretty sincerely, son of a banker (Prescott/Union Bank) as well, I think we'd have had a different take although Presidents routinely take credit or blame for economic decisions made far from their reins of control.
I think a marked difference would have been Bush's familiarity with the oil industry, OPEC, and the House of Saud while Reagan just didn't seem that interested in energy and certainly had little background in it despite coming from a major oil producing state (California.) I think we'd have had an National Energy Policy in part to rebut Carter's just fading one as the oil guys really hated most of the Carter Administration's energy research/plans (and a lot of it would take decades to commercialize, a lot of what Obama talks about now were seed-funded and started under Carter, the junior nuclear physicist from MIT.) Fuel economy standards, opening more of the country to domestic exploration, very savvy diplomacy to fragment OPEC and cut our enemies more out of the oil market (Reagan was using grain and arms shipments more), investing in offshore platform technology and refining efficiencies...we'd have sent a lot fewer dollars out for petroleum and probably made fewer dumb, enormous loans to Latin America to pay for imported oil (the big bank crisis of the 1980's, not to be confused with the savings and loans.)
I think he'd have done reasonably well and grown the moderate Republican contingent as others here have already noted. A second term would be a likely shot, you have to really, really screw up not to get the second term and the media was slightly less rabid back then (nostalgia always makes them seem more balanced and astute back then.) Who would be the 1988 nominees with Bush there is really intriguing. Maybe this would have been Howard Baker's real chance on the Republican ticket and perhaps Mario Cuomo as NY's Gov. would have run against a Congressional Republican. Either of those two or others for that matter would have been a formidable obstacle for Clinton coming from a tiny state (Bill as Senator or a Cabinet Officer in a Democratic Administration (Sec. Ag?, Sec HUD/HHS?) would be more likely.)
How Bush would have dealt with the Rust Belt factory closures of the 1980's, the Wall Street messes of the 1980's (junk bonds, leveraged buyouts, corporate raiders, shareholder as all that matters, mergers & acquisition fever) is hard to tell without the hardened ideology later on about free markets vs. regulation.
Boy this is more intriguing the more one thinks about it.
Lot of interesting points brought up here. James Baker was extremely closely to Bush, his lawyer and a mentor, so he might have been Chief of Staff, Attorney General, or Sec/State immediately...remember Bush was an outsider in the Reagan Cabinet and knew at least as many potential cabinet officers, I think there would have been a lot of changes in the first couple of years. Dick Cheney, George Schultz, Casper Weinberger, Kissinger (Bush would have known him somewhat from heading the CIA and Ambassador to China during Henry's glory years, help or hurt?) Ford cabinet guys, Milton Friedman for that matter are still around.
Given Bush had an Economics B.S./Yale and called Supply Side "voodoo economics" pretty sincerely, son of a banker (Prescott/Union Bank) as well, I think we'd have had a different take although Presidents routinely take credit or blame for economic decisions made far from their reins of control.
I think a marked difference would have been Bush's familiarity with the oil industry, OPEC, and the House of Saud while Reagan just didn't seem that interested in energy and certainly had little background in it despite coming from a major oil producing state (California.) I think we'd have had an National Energy Policy in part to rebut Carter's just fading one as the oil guys really hated most of the Carter Administration's energy research/plans (and a lot of it would take decades to commercialize, a lot of what Obama talks about now were seed-funded and started under Carter, the junior nuclear physicist from MIT.) Fuel economy standards, opening more of the country to domestic exploration, very savvy diplomacy to fragment OPEC and cut our enemies more out of the oil market (Reagan was using grain and arms shipments more), investing in offshore platform technology and refining efficiencies...we'd have sent a lot fewer dollars out for petroleum and probably made fewer dumb, enormous loans to Latin America to pay for imported oil (the big bank crisis of the 1980's, not to be confused with the savings and loans.)
I think he'd have done reasonably well and grown the moderate Republican contingent as others here have already noted. A second term would be a likely shot, you have to really, really screw up not to get the second term and the media was slightly less rabid back then (nostalgia always makes them seem more balanced and astute back then.) Who would be the 1988 nominees with Bush there is really intriguing. Maybe this would have been Howard Baker's real chance on the Republican ticket and perhaps Mario Cuomo as NY's Gov. would have run against a Congressional Republican. Either of those two or others for that matter would have been a formidable obstacle for Clinton coming from a tiny state (Bill as Senator or a Cabinet Officer in a Democratic Administration (Sec. Ag?, Sec HUD/HHS?) would be more likely.)
How Bush would have dealt with the Rust Belt factory closures of the 1980's, the Wall Street messes of the 1980's (junk bonds, leveraged buyouts, corporate raiders, shareholder as all that matters, mergers & acquisition fever) is hard to tell without the hardened ideology later on about free markets vs. regulation.
Boy this is more intriguing the more one thinks about it.
John Fredrick Parker
Donor
I think Baker's likeliest to stay on as Chief of Staff.
Ah, but he's also coming on fresh from a Presidential assassination -- I think he's likely to keep on as many cabinet members as possible for at least the first year, where most of the big policy decisions will be made anyway. However the second term, at least, will be a whole other story...
CONSOLIDATION: On the Curse of Tippercanoe, how does this list look:
Ronald Reagan (R) 1981*
George Bush (R) 1981-88
Bob Dole (R) 1989-92
Al Gore (D) 1993-2000
Jed Bush (R) 2001-03*
Mitt Romney (R) (2003-08)
*assassinated
Was thinking butterflies get Jed Bush elected Florida Governor in 1986, and Mitt Romney either Senator or Governor in 1994.
Last edited:
I would doubt that Jeb would ever run. He and W ran to "avenge" their father's loss. If you want a Floridian, I would suggest Senator Connie Mack. He had been considered for VP in 1996.
John Fredrick Parker
Donor
^^Hm, well it was a thought. I like the idea of whoever gets elected in 2000 not surviving the term; also the idea of Romney winning a Mass election in 94, leading to an earlier contendership. Now that I think of it, there are some interesting Kennedy parallels if he got the 2000 nod... 
EDIT ADD: Also, the Connie Mack suggestion gives me another idea for Jed Bush -- have him run and win Governor in 86, have Democrats keep the Senate seat in 88, leaving the race open for Jed to take it after eight years in Tallahassee. Considering he still won't necessarily run for President, it's a small detail for the TL, but it still intrigues me, since I can see George W doing worse...
EDIT ADD: Also, the Connie Mack suggestion gives me another idea for Jed Bush -- have him run and win Governor in 86, have Democrats keep the Senate seat in 88, leaving the race open for Jed to take it after eight years in Tallahassee. Considering he still won't necessarily run for President, it's a small detail for the TL, but it still intrigues me, since I can see George W doing worse...
Last edited:
RamscoopRaider
Donor
As for a divergence point have Nancy Reagan not get interested in Astrology and other paranormal ideas, that way she does not break the curse of Tippecanoe
Paul V McNutt
Banned
Ronald Reagan (R) 1981*
George Bush (R) 1981-88
Bob Dole (R) 1989-92
Al Gore (D) 1993-2000
Jed Bush (R) 2001-03*
Mitt Romney (R) (2003-08)
I see:
Ronald Reagan 1981
George HW Bush 1981 - 1989
Bob Dole 1989 - 1993
Bill Clinton 1993 -2001
George W Bush 2001 - 2009
Barack Obama 2008-
Reagan's death does not butterfly away Gore's son's accident. Gore still does not run for president in 1992. It also does not change the results of the Florida Governor's race in 1994. In 2000, George W Bush is still the senior office holder in his family. Jeb still does not run. It also does not change the economic collapse in 2008, so a Democrat wins. It would not change the selection of the Democratic 2004 Convention Keynote speaker. Obama still wins the nomination in 2008.
George Bush (R) 1981-88
Bob Dole (R) 1989-92
Al Gore (D) 1993-2000
Jed Bush (R) 2001-03*
Mitt Romney (R) (2003-08)
I see:
Ronald Reagan 1981
George HW Bush 1981 - 1989
Bob Dole 1989 - 1993
Bill Clinton 1993 -2001
George W Bush 2001 - 2009
Barack Obama 2008-
Reagan's death does not butterfly away Gore's son's accident. Gore still does not run for president in 1992. It also does not change the results of the Florida Governor's race in 1994. In 2000, George W Bush is still the senior office holder in his family. Jeb still does not run. It also does not change the economic collapse in 2008, so a Democrat wins. It would not change the selection of the Democratic 2004 Convention Keynote speaker. Obama still wins the nomination in 2008.