George W. Bush’s first term without 9/11
- Thread starter Bomster
- Start date
Wins a peace and prosperity electionn in 2004. Red/Blue tribe formation starts over great recession instead of Iraq*. Youth even more alienated from leadership/normal politics than OTL 2020 due to Iraq's being a bipartisan thing instead of something that ends up a partisan battle.
* Invaded on schedule as a bipartisan thing, with "human rights" as the reason and not WMD.
* Invaded on schedule as a bipartisan thing, with "human rights" as the reason and not WMD.
I have a hard time seeing Iraq invaded without 9/11 kicking the US in the rear, much less it being more bipartisan than OTL. Yes Bush was focused on getting rid of Saddam and the board was set for a disastrous occupation, but it wasn't set in stone back then.
If Bush pushes an invasion of Iraq, say in 2002 without having to deal with Afghanistan, it's probably a unilateral affair with even less international and bipartisan support than OTL. He probably looses in 2004 thanks to increased backlash from the left. Ironically, without radial islamists being anathema, perhaps the US backs a fundamentalist Sunni group plus the Kurds to rule Iraq. I think this sort of invasion will eventually fuel a major terror attack on the US, but with one disastrous invasion already under their belt the public and administration will be less eager to get involved in a second. Recession still happens in 2008 with the Republicans or perhaps even an insurgent left Democrat taking over. Things still polarize and escalate politically, but the US is in somewhat better condition.
On the other hand say Bush never pulls together the support for an outright invasion and just maintains the status quo and contents himself with bombing every so often. Republicans probably get hurt in the '02 midterms, but Bush has a better chance of riding a decent economy to re-election in '04 than the previous scenario, but less than OTL. Absent war, I think he focuses on immigration reform (remember, he wanted to bring Latinos into the GOP coalition), and maybe advances his Social Security plans a few years (with similar disastrous results).
For this scenario, let's say Bush passes bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform with the DREAM act and Amnesty ~2001/2002 as he seemed to be on track to do so prior to 9/11. The far right is pissed, but the business wing supportive as are cultural conservatives. A slightly bigger tax cut than OTL's is passed, and though Enron drags the administration around, they do only a bit worse than OTL in the midterms and still get the house and Senate. Without the distraction of the wars, Bush tries to pass some sort of social security and welfare "reform," which goes down like a lead balloon and causes him to loose 2004 to another neoliberal Democrat.
Said Democrat rules as Clinton 2.0; raises taxes a bit, more doveish foreign policy, maybe invests in some infrastructure or green energy. Then the 2008 financial crisis happens, and the Democrats are shellacked, loosing to Mitt Romney who runs on a jobs platform. At this point, the Republicans are very competitive with the Latino and muslim communities, but Democrats still have a lock on African Americans. Mittens bails out the auto industry and the bipartisan congress staunches some of the bleeding, but like OTL the far right goes into a tea-party esque revolt while the left goes into revolt against corporate bailouts and low-wage immigrants. Capitalizing on the economic anger as well as white grievance and fears of immigration, Bernie Sanders wins an upset victory against Hillary Clinton in the 2012 primary and beats Romney on a blue collar platform of big government, reigning in corporations, tariffs, and restricting immigration.
This world would still be subject to some of the big trends we're seeing OTL: decline of the working class, rise of polarization, higher economic inequality, unfettered corrupt capitalism, and anti-globalization backlash. However, minus 9/11 and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan you have a less paranoid and scared united states (particularly on the Right) that makes the geopolitical transition to dealing with the rise of China and Russia's shenanigans far earlier. With a large growing Latino contingent the Republicans are less xenophobic and racist than OTL (low bar, I know), and in general there's more crossover between the parties. Rather than the moderate republicans becoming completely discredited with their base, the neoliberal democrats are, accelerating the rise of the democratic socialist left at the "price" of them being allied with the isolationist anti-trade anti-immigrant "white working class." Overall it'd be a somewhat better world than ours, but not a utopia by any means.
How about Al Gore runs again to avenge Bush v. Gore. Would he win? I don’t know if Bush would be all that unpopular, despite his flaws he was a mostly likable guy at first glance, but he is indeed the president with both the highest approval ratings in history... and the lowest.
It seems this broke out in October 2001, a month after a certain event occurred and was still dominating American consciousness. Perhaps it becomes a bigger headliner story? And how does it connect to Bush? Does it lead to significant loses in 2002?.
Enron scandal - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
The republican fanbois will not want to hear this but the economy was already in recession prior to 9-11. In TTL, Bush would get all the blame as his tax cuts for his rich friends would not pay for themselves as he had promised. (As in lied about) ITTL, any attempt to lie the country into a war in Iraq would result in impeachment proceedings once no weapons of mass destruction are found. Bush was a complete incompetent who had no business being president. BTW, the story that the corporate press buried because it came out the day after 9-11, that Bush actually lost Florida and the USSC gave it to him in one of the most nakedly partisan decisions in American history would be a huge deal.
Last edited:
Bush would certainly invade Iraq; the plans for it had been draws before Bush had even been elected, with the assumption that the next Republican would staff his administration with neocons-- after all, Rumsfeld, Cheney, et. al were confirmed before 9/11 even happened. The plan from there was to open up theaters in Libya, Syria, Lebanon, Sudan, and Somalia through which a number of American-oriented states might be set up. What I doubt is whether the neocons will be able to rally popular support the way they did-- while major parts of the military apparatus were against neocon plans, there was wide public support in favor of such measures that the Bush administration was able to stoke. Simply put, Bush's administration was going to be a war-oriented one, with or without 9/11.
I am fairly certain, however, that without Bush beating the drums of war the rally-around effect would simply not occur the way it did in 2004. I think Bush will be ousted, but the groundwork for the recession will be already set-- in 2008, I am fairly certain a conservative outsider (proto-Tea Party type, maybe) will win the nomination and pivot towards the neocons. 2008 will be a Republican year, and I see more interventions happening.
I am fairly certain, however, that without Bush beating the drums of war the rally-around effect would simply not occur the way it did in 2004. I think Bush will be ousted, but the groundwork for the recession will be already set-- in 2008, I am fairly certain a conservative outsider (proto-Tea Party type, maybe) will win the nomination and pivot towards the neocons. 2008 will be a Republican year, and I see more interventions happening.
I’m going to need some citations on that last one, cuz if its true good lord that will blow up.
Note, this is from a British newspaper, at the time any questioning of the legitimacy of Bush resulted in a flood of death threats from republicans.
Florida 'recounts' make Gore winner
Al Gore, not George Bush, should be sitting in the White House today as the newly elected president of the United States, two new independent probes of the disputed Florida election contest have confirmed.
www.theguardian.com
So if this broke out in late 2001, how would that affect Bush’s popularity? Maybe it becomes a partisan issue? Maybe Gore gives it another go in 2004?Note, this is from a British newspaper, at the time any questioning of the legitimacy of Bush resulted in a flood of death threats from republicans.
Florida 'recounts' make Gore winner
Al Gore, not George Bush, should be sitting in the White House today as the newly elected president of the United States, two new independent probes of the disputed Florida election contest have confirmed.
It'll rile up the Democratic base for sure and may impact 2002 and 2004, but by then the election was over and done with the Republicans solidly behind Bush. Gore certainly could give it another go in 2004; it may just depend on how much traction he gets with his environmental work. Not sure who'd win the nomination, Kerry and Dean don't have as much appeal without Iraq. Perhaps Edwards wins if his scandals don't come out.
I could see Iraq happening with a decent amount of domestic support, lots of folks thought the job was left unfinished after '91. I have a hard time seeing anyone getting behind invasions and occupations of more states though, maybe some bombing campaigns or raids, but nothing like OTL's occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. Without 9/11 there's just not going to be the justification for any sort of Middle Eastern campaign more extensive than Clinton's nation building in the 90's, which remember the Republicans at the time were mostly against.
bguy
Donor
The Republicans might be able to hold the House in 2002, but I can't see them holding the Senate absent 9-11. The South Dakota election was razor close even IOTL, so that one should certainly be won by the Democrats absent 9-11, and Paul Wellstone's death is probably butterflied. I can't see a surviving Wellstone losing reelection, so just changing those two elections leaves the Democrats in control of the Senate. (And they probably have good odds of winning the Georgia and New Hampshire senate races as well absent the post-9-11 swing towards the Republicans.)
With the Democrats controlling the Senate, I can't see Bush trying for social security reform. He probably just focuses on getting a prescription drug benefit added to Medicare (legislation that should have bi-partisan support) and tries to get another tax cut enacted (which most likely is killed by the Democrats in the Senate.)
Both GOP pickups in Missouri and Minnesota were impacted by deaths, but I'm not sure it's justifiable to butterfly them as neither were really linked to 9/11. The GOP pickup in Georgia is pretty safe at a ~7% margin, as is the Dem pickup in Arkansas. Without 9/11 the Democrats probably have a much better chance at retaining the senate, but if Bush is still popular the GOP may have a decent national environment, and only need to win one net seat to get control of the Senate. I do agree that Bush would probably try and stick to more bi-partisan proposals in his first term, but without foreign policy sucking up so much of the air he may advance his domestic agenda by a few years.
The question of if Bush truly won in 2000 would be a bigger issue for the remainder of Bush’s term. Democrats would be motivated to turn out to vote in 2002 and 2004 by this. Gay rights might be an even bigger issue, but Bush might stick to being a more “compassionate” conservative. Religious conservatives who aren’t nativist might have more power in the GOP. Trade would be a bigger issue, especially with China’s entry into the WTO in December. The 2004 Democratic nominee might blame Bush for the end of the dot-com boom and the lack of a recovery. We might see a bipartisan effort to end racial profiling and even to end the use of secret evidence in terrorist trials. Arab voters may remain more Republican. Lieberman would probably remain a Democrat. Hillary and Kerry would have better reputations with the Democratic base. Biden might run in 2004 with Kerry’s endorsement. China and Russia would probably be bigger issues for Rice, Powell, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz. Star Wars: Episode II: Attack of the Clones might keep Padmé’s deleted anti-war speech. No “Palpatine is Bush” interpretations of Star Wars. No Child Left Behind would be a bigger issue and the debate over school dress codes might continue. Paleocons might retain more influence in the GOP.
Without 9/11 and assuming the Democrats hold the Senate in 2002, what happens to the economy, and does the Great Recession still happen?
If Democrats control the Senate, no more tax cuts or attempts to privatize Social Security. The recession still happene unless Bush is defeated in 2004 by someone who’s strict about housing loans.