I think that the 1980 election is a good point to stop and look back at how things went differently from 1968 onward.  We started out with Humphrey elected, which given how close the election was is plausible enough.  But then some odd things happened.  Reagan was nominated eight years earlier and went down in defeat, and then was defeated in the Republican primary in 1980.  Senator Dole was nominated in 1976, with Kemp as his vice-presidential candidate!  Some people will be crying out, "What do you mean Senator Bush, he never was a Senator!" or "Who is this Galifianakis character?"  So here is where I try to explain some things.

Humphrey's Administration

    President Humphrey would be a good president, not a very great one, and because he avoids anything like Watergate that will be enough for the American people.  He will get the country out of Vietnam, he will pass some legislation that embraces the spirit of the New Deal when dealing with encouraging economic growth through government spending, he will expand the Great Society into a war against hunger, and he will try to make the world safer by working with the Soviet Union.  Humphrey's two policies related to agriculture, the expanded system to fight hunger and trade deals with the Soviet Union, are important that Reagan's opposition to them will cost him the Dakotas and rural support in the Mid-West, one of his downfalls in 1972.  Reagan in 1972 will not only be a different person, but will be trying to appeal to a different America, than in 1980.
    But Humphrey won't be a great president.  Instead of reforming the entire welfare system he will just add on to it with the Negative Income Tax, which is mostly similar to the Earned Income Tax Credit (Enacted 1975 in our history.)  The focus is on keeping unemployment down, but unlike Nixon he is willing to do this through government spending and not manipulation of the money supply.  And perhaps the largest negative is that Humphrey's drug policy doesn't work at all, and in fact encourages the growth of a larger conservative grassroots movement that will explode in Muskie's administration into a huge lobby group.

Elections of 1972 and 1976

    As stated before, Reagan will be a different candidate in a different country.  1980 is not 1972, and that is especially true with Humphrey as President.  In a period in which Humphrey is trying to negotiate arms limitation agreements and work with the Soviet Union after the Vietnam War, Reagan will be looking to take a tougher stance.  When the government is still seen as a possible solution, with the farmers having a very good time because of the policies taken to fight hunger, with unemployment low due to national make-work projects, Reagan will be calling for a reduction in the size of government.  Reagan will run a good campaign, and it is possible for him to have been elected despite all this.  I even am considering doing another timeline in which Reagan defeats Humphrey in 1972, but for this one I decided to have Humphrey re-elected.
    Muskie was Humphrey's Vice-President, and given his strong eight years as president there is a good chance that he would support Muskie and this would be enough for him to be nominated.  Washington was followed by Adams, Reagan by Bush, and Humphrey by Muskie in this history.  And like Adams and Bush, Muskie will be a single-term president.  But that is discussed below.  Senator Dole at the time is a party centrist, a well known figure who has worked with the Humphrey administration on some things but will attempt to be different in other areas.  Kemp is a conservative more like Reagan, wanting large tax cuts and large spending cuts.  He is there to please the supporters of Reagan.  But the result is that Dole is running on a platform and a voting history that supports with some of Humphrey, and disagree with other parts.  He offers only a modified echo, not a real choice, and with the letter controversy also hurting his showing towards the end the race is handed to Muskie rather easily.
    On the Democratic side the selection of Galifianakis as Vice-President will aid in appealing to the South and rural areas.  In 1972 North Carolina had an open Senate seat that went eventually in Helms, who was then a radio talk show host.  But in this alternate history the Democratic candidate is able to pull off a narrow win, and so Galifianakis is a Senator.  In 1976 the ticket needs a moderate, and so he is chosen.  In 1970, Bush was elected as a Senator from Texas, which he failed to do in our history.

Muskie's Administration

    Carter was mostly an honorable man, a trustworthy man, one who cared about the American people and wanted to do good.  He ended up as a one term president, re-nominated after a strong attempt to depose him by Senator Kennedy, and then being crushed in the electoral vote by Reagan.  Muskie handles things only a little bit better.  Calling on the American people to have compassion, he would want to treat drug-users as victims of a disease, he would try to rebuild the welfare system to be kind towards families, he would fight for a universal health care system for the poor and others left behind, he would respect democracy even when it produced radical results in foreign countries, and he would use the marvels of modern science to cut down on the use of imported energy.  But in the end, he would fail.
    Like Carter faced opposition from his own party, Muskie will also.  Although Carter's opposition often came from the left, Muskie instead will face opposition from the right.  On drugs there will be a coalition of Southern and Suburban Democrats against him, on health care a similar coalition, and on foreign policy mostly Southern and more Hawkish Democrats like Scoop Jackson.  Only his energy policy and the Family Assistance Plan goes through Congress without a degree of fighting, the first instead sparking opposition locally concerning nuclear energy.  With each battle against the Southern and Suburban Democrats he continues to add to the growing grassroots movement in the Republican Party.

Election of 1980

    A word on the Republican Party.  Fusionism was the name of the game when talking about Goldwater and Reagan, the goal of uniting traditionalists and libertarians into one ideology.  With Eisenhower, Nixon and Dole (of this alternate history) you have a more pragmatic approach to things, supporting fiscal responsibility and balanced budgets over tax cuts and supply-sided economics.  Bush is from this pragmatic side but has to pander to the two camps of the fusionists to a degree.  But the twelve years of extended Democratic rule have changed some things.
    The drug epidemic and other things, such as a more liberal court, are the root cause of a larger traditionalist grassroots movement in the Republican party.  But these traditionalists include a large number of former Southern and Union Democrats, voters who don't mind government for what they see as positive good.  They are supportive of FAP, of make-work projects, generally they are anti-liberal, not anti-government, and view government as a way to rebuild America's social character.
    But the rise of the social conservatives, the traditionalists, in the Republican party has also hurt the libertarians in the party.  Fusionism was to appeal to both groups, uniting their votes so Reagan or a similar candidate would be able to take the nomination away from the more pragmatic conservatives like Nixon or Bush.  With the rise of the traditionalists, the balance was destroyed the growth of anti-choice, anti-gay, and other issues that would alienate the 'low tax liberals' that make up most of Libertarian Clark's voting base.
    Pragmatics like Bush were able to take advantage of this.  By appealing to the traditionalists, they could continue to be nominated over more libertarian candidates.  Bush and others like him support fiscal responsibility, they will support higher taxes if that balances the budget.  Spending can be slashed in some areas, but not the complete rollback of government as both traditionalists and the pragmatics view government as a possible solution to some problems.  And combined with Muskie's image as a tax and spend liberal, the making of a strong Libertarian showing in the election was the result.  But what is important is that Reagan was unable to hold onto his two bases of support, they started trying to run candidates who appeal only to them, or he lost grown to people like Crane who were trying to run on a platform like his but without the baggage of having lost in 1972.  And so he is not nominated.
    And that hopefully explains the 1980 election, which is really very interested.  There is a large movement of voters from the Republican party that don't like the traditionalist pathway the party is taking, and their willingness to accept government as good, to the libertarians.  At the same time there is a large movement of voters from the Democrats party that don't like how the party is all tax and spend, despite agreeing on social issues.  Another factor is that Bush was going to win, that was very clear in the campaign, and that allowed people to vote for a third party without having to care if doing so would switch the election's results.
    Bush's base of support is built on the traditionalists and the party establishment, he was also able to appeal to a large number of formerly Catholic Democrats in the Mid-West.  A strategy in the campaign of opposing the nuclear plant system supported by Muskie has resulted in him appearing to be more pro-environment than Muskie, despite his support of expanded oil drilling.  The appeal of the Libertarian candidate in the West Coast combined with Bush's opposition to forcing hydroelectric dams on the people to give him California and Oregon, with Washington very narrow.  Again making him appear almost 'green.'  But can he keep up the image?  Things are going to be interested for him!
 
Return to Bush's Presidency, Part I.