Democratic President Ronald Reagan

Although this is perhaps a little bit of fun, it certainly proposes an interesting scenario.

In 1952 the Los Angeles County Democratic Central Committee declined to endorse Reagan for an open House seat as they considered him too liberal. Let's say they decide his anti-Communism (six years at this point) makes up for him being a liberal.

Reagan wins the seat, and becomes Democratic Representative Ronald Reagan.

In 1958, OTL, Senator Knowland of California is giving up his Senate seat to run for Governor in order to control the delegation in 1960, deny the Presidency to Nixon, and bid for the nomination himself. The sitting Republican Governor, Goodwin J. Knight, is "persuaded" by the party heavies to run for Knowland's Senate seat and not contest the nomination for Governor. Knight then wins that nomination. All three of Nixon, Knowland, and Knight have been fighting for control of the California Republicans—Knight's the moderate, Knowland the conservative, and Nixon (as, amusingly, in 1968) in-between.

The Big Switch, as this move is forever known in political circles, fails. Knowland loses to Pat Brown for Governor, Knight loses to Clair Engle for the Senate seat.

In the ATL we now have Reagan, who doesn't have vast experience at this point but presumably six years of being in Congress have refined his speeches to a liberal shine much as the GE speeches of OTL helped create and polish his conservatism.

So. Let's say butterflies make Knight decide to fight for his Governorship. Since he stepped aside IOTL he was probably vulnerable, so Knowland still wins and then loses to Pat Brown later in the year.

However that leaves Knowland's Senate seat up for grabs. I think it's entirely plausible Reagan goes for it and then defeats Clair Engle in the general election.

Reagan is now the junior Senator from California. He's of the American liberal anti-Communist tradition, and is probably liberal in a general sense as well.

I'm going to say butterflies result in Nixon winning in 1960. It's pretty reasonable, given how close it was IOTL, and sets up some interesting situations for later.

So. In 1962 IOTL Pat Brown faced, and easily beat, Nixon for Governor. In the ATL let's say Knowland gives it another shot and perhaps with Nixon's support as President he wins in 1962. Note that Nixon is supporting a foe, but a beaten one. It's unlikely that Knowland could challenge in 1964 for the nomination, and so Nixon would prefer Knowland over Brown in California.

Nixon was never a terribly strong general election candidate so let's say JFK goes for a rematch in 1964 and wins. Reagan as VP? It's possible, but I don't think terribly likely. He's up for re-election which makes joining the ticket risky and he still has only a single term under his belt.

Who is the VP? Probably not Johnson. Possibly someone like McGovern or Frank Church or Ralph Yarborough (though he was up for re-election in 1964 as well). Maybe the Governor of a big state.

Anyway I think Nixon isn't going to do anything exciting in his term, and perhaps voters suffer buyers remorse. With JFK a few years older and with a different VP I think he can win.

That said by 1964 JFK's sex scandals and the fact that he's sick is probably closer to leaking out. In all likelihood it does leak out, and I could see it taking down his Presidency—or, rather, wrecking it enough so that he loses in 1968. That's not for sure or anything, but it could easily have come out IOTL and four years of Nixon being Nixon have probably changed reporter's attitudes quite a bit.

Nixon back in 1968? Possible, but it may be too soon. Goldwater or Rockefeller (along with perhaps Romney, Mayor Lindsay, and a few others) are the likely suspects.

Regardless I think it's another Republican single term. By this point the Republicans have ruled from 1952 to 1964, and 1964-68. Plus the historical conditions of OTL 1968 may have been delayed by Nixon instead of JFK, and no Viet Nam War (or, perhaps, a later start) but they'd still be there and like it brought down Johnson I consider it quite probable that they could take down a Republican Presidency. (Perhaps, if it's Nixon again, we get an early Watergate.)

Meanwhile Senator Reagan is kinda bored of being in Congress, and so in 1966 runs for Governor of California. He wins easily enough in the primaries and beats Knowland in the general.

1972 rolls around and guess who is the leading candidate for the Democratic Presidential nomination? Former Congressman, former Senator, and current Governor of California—Ronald Reagan.

Remember that in the ATL there are few major Democratic figures since they've held the Presidency for one term in five. JFK is gone, Humphrey was probably never VP, JFK's VP may or may not be tainted by JFK, John Connally (Gov. of Texas) is too conservative, and so on.

The ATL Reagan is quite liberal—though strongly anti-Communist—and controls California. His main opposition may well be conservative John Connally, though there are a few other plausible candidates.

Let's say he wins. President Reagan in 1972. He has more political experience than OTL Reagan. He has Viet Nam? He may have a better economy than OTL (no Viet Nam? No Great Society). Civil Rights are probably at the JFK level of OTL (i.e. pre-Johnson and the 1965 bill).

Who does Reagan beat in 1972 (and '76?)? Who is Reagan's VP?

What happens next?

Very interesting scenario -- I can't believe it never got noticed, before. (I was in New Zealand, so I'm exempt.)

My main problem with the TL is the rate of turnover and 'second chances'. JFK probably wouldn't be given a second chance in 1964, if he lost; it would be considered just another sign that a Catholic could never win public office. It would probably be Johnson who won in 1964, considering that he was the de facto national figure of the party.

It also doesn't take into account butterflies in social terms and policy; as in, how does a Vietnam handled by Nixon affect his successor? How does the counter-culture develop under Tricky Dick? Politics can't just be in terms of electoral success -- politics and society influence, rather than reflect, each other.

But given the scenario you've given, what happens next? Gough Whitlam, that's what. Which is to say, Reagan takes office just as the long liberal ascendency ends, and the 'Golden Age' of post-war capitalism falls victim to successive oil shocks and monetary reform. So Reagan comes to office with all these grand, liberal schemes of reform -- universal health care, education reform, a mini-Great Society (although not to the same degree as Johnson; maybe a Decent Society) -- which can never be accomplished, because of the economic turbulence of the 1970s.

So he ends up being, just like our Gough, a 'what might have been' figure, lionised by the left and demonised by the right -- and a one-term president.

BlackMage said:

My main problem with the TL is the rate of turnover and 'second chances'. JFK probably wouldn't be given a second chance in 1964, if he lost; it would be considered just another sign that a Catholic could never win public office. It would probably be Johnson who won in 1964, considering that he was the de facto national figure of the party.

It also doesn't take into account butterflies in social terms and policy; as in, how does a Vietnam handled by Nixon affect his successor? How does the counter-culture develop under Tricky Dick? Politics can't just be in terms of electoral success -- politics and society influence, rather than reflect, each other.

But given the scenario you've given, what happens next? Gough Whitlam, that's what. Which is to say, Reagan takes office just as the long liberal ascendency ends, and the 'Golden Age' of post-war capitalism falls victim to successive oil shocks and monetary reform. So Reagan comes to office with all these grand, liberal schemes of reform -- universal health care, education reform, a mini-Great Society (although not to the same degree as Johnson; maybe a Decent Society) -- which can never be accomplished, because of the economic turbulence of the 1970s.

So he ends up being, just like our Gough, a 'what might have been' figure, lionised by the left and demonised by the right -- and a one-term president.

Click to expand...

Well I was having fun, and glossed over the social and policy stuff.

Nixon or JFK winning is a toss-up, but I can't see Nixon winning two terms. Four years of Nixon and I feel the public would be chafing for "new" and "change" and regretting picking Nixon over JFK. Johnson doesn't fulfil the mantle of change the way JFK still would.

I imagine that Nixon's term would be much like a third Eisenhower term. Quiet. The Soviets aren't going to screw with Nixon the way they did with JFK. Nixon may not even commit forces to Viet Nam—after all Eisenhower never did.

Without (or with a delayed) JFK, without Viet Nam, the counterculture is dealt a harsh blow. It may stay much like the '50s where the beatniks were a quiet and limited counterculture.

(JFK is, I believe, popular enough that he can comeback in 1964—Adlai did it, though he lost; Nixon did it, though with a four year pause; Reagan did of course with '68, '76, and 1980. Also remember that the 60s was a funny time for the Democratic Party. Eisenhower's reign and Adlai's double defeat basically eliminated most of the major figures of the Democratic Party.

JFK, despite losing, almost certainly remains the most likely Democrat to run/win again in 1964. He may skip it, but if he wants a rematch (and I believe he would) I'm pretty sure he can take the nomination from Johnson who is not well liked.)

Further (possibly) no Viet Nam and no Great Society means the liberal ascendency is not inflicted with mortal wounds. IOTL the liberal dream died when they realized that no, Government cannot do everything. ITTL the Great Society is certainly gone, and Viet Nam may well be off the board. That leaves liberalism in a strong position, but the problems with it are also clear if one wanted to try and fix them. Cities & Race, with the subsection of education are what I see as the most important things to take on.

A rather different picture than our 1972.


A Reagan Presidency might have the last window for radical liberal reform, that is not the conventional liberalism of OTL 70s/80s. For example, A Bold Experiment to Fix City Schools, by Matthew Miller

The Atlantic Monthly said:

In the 1960s affluent districts routinely spent twice what nearby poorer ones did, and sometimes four or five times as much. To Coons and his colleagues, such inequity in a public service was indefensible. Beginning with Private Wealth and Public Education, a book that he, Sugarman, and Clune published in 1970, Coons has denounced the system eloquently. It's worth sampling his arguments, because the left's case for choice is usually drowned out by the right's cheerleading for markets, or by urban blacks' cry for help. In a 1992 essay, "School Choice as Simple Justice," Coons wrote,

"This socialism for the rich we blithely call "public," though no other public service entails such financial exclusivity. Whether the library, the swimming pool, the highway or the hospital -- if it is "public," it is accessible. But admission to the government school comes only with the price of the house. If the school is in Beverly Hills or Scarsdale, the poor need not apply."

Click to expand...

Ending school busing, eliminating property taxes, and bringing in school vouchers would be a radical reform of the education system, would dramatically strengthen the soon to be crumbling inner cities of OTL America, would reverse the flight of whites to the suburbs, would do more to foster black/white relations (through simply living together and going to the same schools, minus the polarizing busing) than most things, and would be a bold—yet can be considered liberal—move that in a broad stroke would alter the landscape of America in a way I think would be beneficial.



Anyway a liberal Reagan is a figure with such possibility, considering his conservative self IOTL, that I imagine he looms large in the 60s/70s of the ATL.

This is very interesting. It would also have big effects on political allignments in the USA; the approach which Scoop Jackson was in favour of (moderate-to-liberal politics at home, hawkishness abroad) would likely become mainstream, mabye even dominant.

I would love to see a timeline based on this POD.

Electric Monk said:

A Reagan Presidency might have the last window for radical liberal reform, that is not the conventional liberalism of OTL 70s/80s. For example, A Bold Experiment to Fix City Schools, by Matthew Miller



Ending school busing, eliminating property taxes, and bringing in school vouchers would be a radical reform of the education system, would dramatically strengthen the soon to be crumbling inner cities of OTL America, would reverse the flight of whites to the suburbs, would do more to foster black/white relations (through simply living together and going to the same schools, minus the polarizing busing) than most things, and would be a bold—yet can be considered liberal—move that in a broad stroke would alter the landscape of America in a way I think would be beneficial.

Click to expand...

It would be interesting to see the idea of school choice siezed upon as a liberal racial equality imperative. Back then, the predominant thought in the first world favored big government and big business solutions, so no one in power would be supporting school choice under libertarian grounds.

Today, of course, the Democratic party is perceived as a wholly owned subsidiary of the teachers' unions, so even minor school choice programs are fought in the legislatures and courts. In the sixties, though, perhaps the members of both parties in favor of social justice would have united to "save the children."

Or maybe the Reagan revolution happen in the Democratic party. It might be interesting,

Berra said:

Or maybe the Reagan revolution happen in the Democratic party. It might be interesting,

Click to expand...

Any ATL Reagan revolution would have to be on liberal grounds. That said one could easily make the case for a innovative interventionist government. School vouchers where the full cost per student is paid by the government in the form of a voucher, and the parents can pick whatever public or private school they want (in this case public merely means run by government, as they get the money to operate from vouchers). A fair draft and expansion to national service instead of just the military; combined with a new GI Bill to further education as long as you serve your country. Capping all property tax[1] and using a national sales tax (with exemptions for necessities & rebates for the poor) to fund what property tax used to pay for. A negative income tax to provide a guaranteed annual income in place of welfare/social security/medicare.

Etc…. An interventionist "liberal" government dedicated to new ideas has a wide range of options.


[1] i.e. a rich district could tax at 1% and raise more money than a poor district at 5%. The poor pay more per capita and wind up with less money to use. A cap at say 1% plus money from a national sales tax dedicated to infrastructure (including schools) could solve that.

Electric Monk said:

Any ATL Reagan revolution would have to be on liberal grounds.

Click to expand...

Why? Per definition? A OTL Reagan in the Democratic party would be different.

I very much like the spin on Reagan's social policy. To some extent, butterflies and different leaders may avoid some of what the economic stagnation of the OTL 1970s. Also, Reagan will be in place to enact environmental reforms (EPA, Clean Air/Water Acts) and perhaps do so more sweepingy or in more effective manners: for example, rather than the current procedure for the Endangered Species Act whereby the owners of property cannot build if endangered species are found on the land, a Reagan adminsitration which seems more attuned to market forces, may go for full board condemnation using the power of eminent domain. While this is more costly, it provides the owner an economic way out, rather than the incentive to hide all evidence of animal habitation.

My question is this: if TTL's Reagan revolution is the rebirth of liberal social policy (school choice, negative income tax, national infrastructure, national service), what does the Republican party and the forces we know as the Conservative Movement do? Firstly, Reagan's revolution is that many of these reforms change the shape of the Federal government, but in ways that small government folks might find amenable. Might. One could easily see school choice becoming reviled and, ironically, the teachers begin to support the Republicans who campaign for the rights of school districts. Similarly, there's now national service and a strong department of education. And a national sales tax and wealth transfers. So there's all sorts of room for the Republicans to be angry about high taxes and strong centralized government. Detente will push the Republicans into being relative foreign policy doves, along the lines of Taftian isolationism, rather than neoconservative hawks.

TTL Democratic social policy may appeal to the Chistian coalition, but the big question is abortion. By playing around with the counterculture and with so many presidential elections, we probably don't get Roe v. Wade, but the issue will probably come up. Now will Democrats of Reagan's vein support or oppose the issue? Will the issue be any where near as divisive with a weaker counterculture? In the context of a weaker counterculture, something like an Equal Rights Amendment may find its way into the Constitution, which futher muddles the picture. The only thing I think can say is that the issue probably does not become synonymous with judicial theory: that is, perhaps rather than a Supreme Court case to invalidate the law, a new state law is passed. The issue then becomes a matter of variant states laws, where an activity legal in one state is a crime in another. Without as much of a feeling of judicial fiat, both sides of the coin may be muted.

I also suppose the impact depends on which party the South blames for Civil Rights. We've muted the counterculture of the war years, but we've also butterflied away the circumstances behind the OTL Civil Rights Act of 1964 (and the Voting Rights Act of 1965). Perhaps Nixon in 1960 does this just as OTL he favored environmental reforms? This might help the Democrats defeat the Republicans in 1964, but it won't necessarily help JFK get the Democratic nomination. The issue here is whether the Solid South breaks from the Democratic party, eventually to migrate into the Republican Party's base. Personally, I'd like to engineer a situation which leaves the South with more competitive parites, since IMO the South has been a one-party region for most (if not all) of its history.

Now maybe we could have it than both the Republicans and the Democrats piss off the South: Nixon passes the Civil Rights Act (or an equivalent), but JFK the voting rights act? There might be a more active third Party bid, but evenutally the South would find itself outvoted. It would really be a Second Reconstruction. Maybe we also have the Republican in 1968-72 fall on the Voting Rights Grenade, rather than JFK. Hence the power of a Democratic Reagan: the school choice solution probably offends far less than any of the previous movements. The South also benefits tremendously from a national infrastructure fund.

Reagan could find himself with a strong support coming from the religious parts of the South, because of his more amenable views on race relations, his economic policy, his foreign policy, and his rhetoric. Thus the TTL Reagan Revolution could have the effect of preserving a two-party system without a clear liberal/conservative split.

Berra said:

Why? Per definition? A OTL Reagan in the Democratic party would be different.

Click to expand...

Because Reagan went conservative IOTL 1950s, and in the ATL '50s he would go liberal.

Same person, different view of policy. It might be in the same general direction (i.e. market oriented) but with a liberal interventionist spin.

Nicomacheus said:

I very much like the spin on Reagan's social policy. To some extent, butterflies and different leaders may avoid some of what the economic stagnation of the OTL 1970s. Also, Reagan will be in place to enact environmental reforms (EPA, Clean Air/Water Acts) and perhaps do so more sweepingy or in more effective manners: for example, rather than the current procedure for the Endangered Species Act whereby the owners of property cannot build if endangered species are found on the land, a Reagan adminsitration which seems more attuned to market forces, may go for full board condemnation using the power of eminent domain. While this is more costly, it provides the owner an economic way out, rather than the incentive to hide all evidence of animal habitation.

Click to expand...

I was trying to come up with something that could be spun as liberal, that was interventionist, and that wasn't the essentially conventional liberalism of the OTL Truman-Nixon administrations (domestic policy only, obviously they differed on foreign policy, but the postwar consensus held for a long time domestically).

Trees cause pollution! I imagine liberal Reagan will almost certainly not support property rights anywhere near as much as OTL administrations did.

Use eminent domain to build high speed rail in the 70s because of the oil shocks?

Nicomacheus said:

My question is this: if TTL's Reagan revolution is the rebirth of liberal social policy (school choice, negative income tax, national infrastructure, national service), what does the Republican party and the forces we know as the Conservative Movement do? Firstly, Reagan's revolution is that many of these reforms change the shape of the Federal government, but in ways that small government folks might find amenable. Might. One could easily see school choice becoming reviled and, ironically, the teachers begin to support the Republicans who campaign for the rights of school districts. Similarly, there's now national service and a strong department of education. And a national sales tax and wealth transfers. So there's all sorts of room for the Republicans to be angry about high taxes and strong centralized government. Detente will push the Republicans into being relative foreign policy doves, along the lines of Taftian isolationism, rather than neoconservative hawks.

Click to expand...

Sure. The Republican line would probably be neoliberal (markets/free trade = teh awesome) while the Democratic spin is more like the US before WW2 (do whatever it takes to win, screw free markets/trade. Also the OTL attitude of most successful economies: Japan, Korea, Germany, US pre-WW2, Britain pre-Napoleon, etc…. It's only when you're on top that you go for free trade/free markets—UK 19th Century, US 2nd half of the 20th).

I imagine a Democratic administration would work towards increasing the saving rate, controlled inflation, limited budget deficits and so on.

Republicans would want higher consumption, balanced budgets and no inflation.

Nicomacheus said:

TTL Democratic social policy may appeal to the Chistian coalition, but the big question is abortion. By playing around with the counterculture and with so many presidential elections, we probably don't get Roe v. Wade, but the issue will probably come up. Now will Democrats of Reagan's vein support or oppose the issue? Will the issue be any where near as divisive with a weaker counterculture? In the context of a weaker counterculture, something like an Equal Rights Amendment may find its way into the Constitution, which futher muddles the picture. The only thing I think can say is that the issue probably does not become synonymous with judicial theory: that is, perhaps rather than a Supreme Court case to invalidate the law, a new state law is passed. The issue then becomes a matter of variant states laws, where an activity legal in one state is a crime in another. Without as much of a feeling of judicial fiat, both sides of the coin may be muted.

Click to expand...

Hmm. It's a good question. Ideally of course abortion is legalized to some extent (perhaps not to my native Canada, which has no law governing abortion) but the coat hangers and Mexican doctors of OTL is a nasty thing we'd like to avoid.

I'm not sure I see a way out of this one.

Nicomacheus said:

I also suppose the impact depends on which party the South blames for Civil Rights. We've muted the counterculture of the war years, but we've also butterflied away the circumstances behind the OTL Civil Rights Act of 1964 (and the Voting Rights Act of 1965). Perhaps Nixon in 1960 does this just as OTL he favored environmental reforms? This might help the Democrats defeat the Republicans in 1964, but it won't necessarily help JFK get the Democratic nomination. The issue here is whether the Solid South breaks from the Democratic party, eventually to migrate into the Republican Party's base. Personally, I'd like to engineer a situation which leaves the South with more competitive parites, since IMO the South has been a one-party region for most (if not all) of its history.

Click to expand...

The way to do this would probably centre on busing. In my stab at it the Democratic Party ends busing in order to support the inner city and prevent the segregation of black city/white suburb of OTL (and the 1970s collapse of the city), but it doesn't matter why they do it—the South will like it nonetheless.

Combined with education choice (and, I imagine) de facto segregated schools in the South for a few decades, this might balance out the loss of voters over abortion & civil rights.

The main difference in these segregated schools is that they'd have exactly the same per capita funding.

Would it work? I don't know.

Nicomacheus said:

Now maybe we could have it than both the Republicans and the Democrats piss off the South: Nixon passes the Civil Rights Act (or an equivalent), but JFK the voting rights act? There might be a more active third Party bid, but evenutally the South would find itself outvoted. It would really be a Second Reconstruction. Maybe we also have the Republican in 1968-72 fall on the Voting Rights Grenade, rather than JFK. Hence the power of a Democratic Reagan: the school choice solution probably offends far less than any of the previous movements. The South also benefits tremendously from a national infrastructure fund.

Click to expand...

That could explain one-term Nixon, and one-term JFK. Nixon passes Civil Rights, and loses votes to JFK. JFK passes Voting Rights, and combined with scandal? is unable to win in '68. Republican '68 is forced to introduce busing by the Supreme Court and, naturally, faces the same fate as Nixon.

Reagan dodges the Supreme Court how? Does vouchers and private school expansion essentially invalidate the ruling? Do they change their ruling on a challenge?

Anyway we could certainly spread the impact of civil rights across multiple administrations.

Nicomacheus said:

Reagan could find himself with a strong support coming from the religious parts of the South, because of his more amenable views on race relations, his economic policy, his foreign policy, and his rhetoric. Thus the TTL Reagan Revolution could have the effect of preserving a two-party system without a clear liberal/conservative split.

Click to expand...

What I think this does is keep the Border States competitive. The Old Confederacy is probably going to abandon the Democratic Party over social policy albeit slower and in a more haphazard fashion. I could easily see the Republican South lasting for only a decade before it once again becomes a fair fight.

Given the slow nature of federal and state Congress turnover this likely means both parties remain competitive in the South but the Republicans get 2-3 Presidential elections in a row of sweeping the Old South with the Border States still up for grabs.

Electric Monk said:

Trees cause pollution! I imagine liberal Reagan will almost certainly not support property rights anywhere near as much as OTL administrations did.

Click to expand...

This may be Reagan's motivation, but it can be seen as having a greater respect of property rights to condemn the land and hold it as a natural preserve, since it still entitles the owner to just compensation, rather than barring him from ever reaping economic gain from the property.

Electrick Monk said:

Use eminent domain to build high speed rail in the 70s because of the oil shocks?

Click to expand...

I was thinking something like that might happen! Of course, it's unclear whether the oil shocks happen precisely per OTL, but not unlikely. A big public works project like TGV for Amtrak would appeal to Reagan's FDR roots. He could also start a big research project for maglev lines, similar to his attempt at Star Wars and SDI. Of course, if he tries to do that too then I shudder at the deficits!

Electric Monk said:

The way to do this would probably centre on busing. In my stab at it the Democratic Party ends busing in order to support the inner city and prevent the segregation of black city/white suburb of OTL (and the 1970s collapse of the city), but it doesn't matter why they do it—the South will like it nonetheless.

Combined with education choice (and, I imagine) de facto segregated schools in the South for a few decades, this might balance out the loss of voters over abortion & civil rights.

The main difference in these segregated schools is that they'd have exactly the same per capita funding.

That could explain one-term Nixon, and one-term JFK. Nixon passes Civil Rights, and loses votes to JFK. JFK passes Voting Rights, and combined with scandal? is unable to win in '68. Republican '68 is forced to introduce busing by the Supreme Court and, naturally, faces the same fate as Nixon.

Reagan dodges the Supreme Court how? Does vouchers and private school expansion essentially invalidate the ruling? Do they change their ruling on a challenge?

Anyway we could certainly spread the impact of civil rights across multiple administrations.

Click to expand...

Well, school choice doesn't exactly redress the problem of intergration for its own sake, which was what prompted busing OTL, but it does address the equal protection argument: if everyone's entitled to a voucher which means that all pulpills have same amount of resources, then there's can't be disparity between schools (or even between districts). Now, the Supreme Court won't, IMO, rule that in this scenario all schools must be bused to attain the same demographic in each one. However, they will probably be faced with some kind of ruling regarding discrimination in the acceptance of vouchers: i.e. a white school is seen as refusing to admit black students for no reason other than race.

This would mean that there would have to be a fairly well understood mechanism to apply to a given school as well as accepted criteria for the school to use in making its decision. Most important for the issue of busing is that the entire idea of school choice is you get to pick your child's school. Reagan has added equality to the mix, but choice is still essential. Hence, even if there develop magnet schools, etc, there will probably not be a backlash on the animus of "why can't my child go to the school across the street," because the entire system is run by a market. In short, things admit of enough gradulaism and enough choice that the reaction is probably more muted.

Private schools will still become an issue, but I could see it becoming illegal to deny admission to any school on the basis of race. One could add the hedge any school that accepts public vouchers: this leaves room for mavericks, but the majority even of Southerners will succumb to the economic pressure. There is however a further issue: what if the kid is rejected because he doesn't meet admission criteria? Affirmative Action is probably not going to play well in this environment, because the premise of the entire system is an equal start for all. It can be argued that the 13th Amendment authorizes Congress to not only abolish slavery, but abolish all the badges and impediments that ever arose from slavery, including the disparity in education and income between blacks and whites. But I think this is where TTL Reagan Democrats might draw the line: the Federal government can't wave a magic wand and make slavery go away. There can still be Affirmative Action in employment and other areas perhaps, but it would be a messy line to tow. Also, it might take care of itself, since most educators maintain that a diverse student body makes for a better school.

Also, the domino effect on Nixon and JFK was precisely what I was thinking! Great minds methinks (or similar mental illness).

What I think this does is keep the Border States competitive. The Old Confederacy is probably going to abandon the Democratic Party over social policy albeit slower and in a more haphazard fashion. I could easily see the Republican South lasting for only a decade before it once again becomes a fair fight.

Given the slow nature of federal and state Congress turnover this likely means both parties remain competitive in the South but the Republicans get 2-3 Presidential elections in a row of sweeping the Old South with the Border States still up for grabs.

Click to expand...

I think you're probably right. Note, however, that Reagan's economic policies have a good chance to bring poor southern whites back into the Democratic Party relatively quickly. Rather than OTL's situation, in which Dems must ask for their support so that they can enact programs to lift them out of poverty, in TTL, they will vote for the Dems because they depend on those programs.

Also, I think if the abortion debacle starts as a federalism issue, rather than as court case, it's harder for the Republicans to really get going. True, the OTL example of gay marriage suggests otherwise, but there's a difference. The Constitution is completely silent on how to work out the problem of competiting regimes of legality, but it does allow for Congress to regulate the manner in which marriage licenses are translated natioanlly (via the Full Faith and Credit Clause). If abortion is not a court case, then the key will not be to appoint judges of a certain point of view, but to win elections and/or popular support. IMO, this mitigates the trend toward polarization exerted by the emergence of the Conservative Movement iOTL.

Nicomacheus said:

This may be Reagan's motivation, but it can be seen as having a greater respect of property rights to condemn the land and hold it as a natural preserve, since it still entitles the owner to just compensation, rather than barring him from ever reaping economic gain from the property.

Click to expand...

In this specific case, yes, but I certainly see the Republicans making a fuss over property rights in general (what was that case a year or so back OTL?).

Nicomacheus said:

I was thinking something like that might happen! Of course, it's unclear whether the oil shocks happen precisely per OTL, but not unlikely. A big public works project like TGV for Amtrak would appeal to Reagan's FDR roots. He could also start a big research project for maglev lines, similar to his attempt at Star Wars and SDI. Of course, if he tries to do that too then I shudder at the deficits!

Click to expand...

For high speed rail what matters is the track—high quality, straight, gentle turns. Once you have that you can just build faster and faster trains, no need to redo the track.

I'm sure the US will give maglev a look but a better idea might be subway expansion. In an ATL with less suburbs and more rail both subway expansion and the bringing back of streetcars (see: Toronto & the Save Our Streetcars campaign) for better mass transit systems. Interestingly Toronto, a mid sized (though excellent ) city at best, is North America's third most heavily used transit system, after only New York City and Mexico City.

An interesting sidenote: what happens to the US carmakers? ITTL they're squeezed not only by the Japanese but also by greater proliferation of rail & mass transit.

Another sidenote: nuclear power. No Carter and an actual effort to adapt to oil shocks means nuclear power leaps to the top of the agenda for energy expansion.

Nicomacheus said:

This would mean that there would have to be a fairly well understood mechanism to apply to a given school as well as accepted criteria for the school to use in making its decision. Most important for the issue of busing is that the entire idea of school choice is you get to pick your child's school. Reagan has added equality to the mix, but choice is still essential. Hence, even if there develop magnet schools, etc, there will probably not be a backlash on the animus of "why can't my child go to the school across the street," because the entire system is run by a market. In short, things admit of enough gradualism and enough choice that the reaction is probably more muted.

One could add the hedge any school that accepts public vouchers: this leaves room for mavericks, but the majority even of Southerners will succumb to the economic pressure. There is however a further issue: what if the kid is rejected because he doesn't meet admission criteria? Affirmative Action is probably not going to play well in this environment, because the premise of the entire system is an equal start for all. It can be argued that the 13th Amendment authorizes Congress to not only abolish slavery, but abolish all the badges and impediments that ever arose from slavery, including the disparity in education and income between blacks and whites. But I think this is where TTL Reagan Democrats might draw the line: the Federal government can't wave a magic wand and make slavery go away. There can still be Affirmative Action in employment and other areas perhaps, but it would be a messy line to tow. Also, it might take care of itself, since most educators maintain that a diverse student body makes for a better school.

Click to expand...

What about class based Affirmative Action? Obviously race based will play even poorer under a voucher program and national service/GI Bill situation where, essentially, if you're willing to spend four years building rail or in the military you get a free education. (If you get called up by the draft/lottery do you still get the GI Bill? I'd say yes, but what if you don't want it/already have a degree? A pension doesn't have the same appeal in a country with a guaranteed annual income. Straight up cash bonus, equal to half the amount of the GI Bill? We're sorry you're drafted, but you get an education or a bunch of money? A military that doesn't have to pay for pensions and the VA is in a way better situation operating income wise.)

As for overall admittance—schools expand to meet demand. Universities managed fine post-WW2 with quadruple or more the number of students, I see no reason the school system (private, public, university/college) wouldn't adapt again.

What I'm not sure about is locality. If you live nearby, is your automatically accepted on the basis of community? I can't see it being as much of a problem as OTL (where property near good schools is way above property near bad schools) as all schools will have the same per capita resources so I'd tentatively say yes, if you live nearby you get in automatically (or on a preferred basis). I'd certainly agree that any school accepting public vouchers is forced to not discriminate.

Further the voucher system encourages focused schools: imagine art, music, science, whatever but at the high school level. You do all the standard stuff, of course, but the primary focus even at the high school level could be on specific disciplines. You hate it, you can transfer. You love art, well spend your non-mandated school time on art courses alone.

Another thing: public vouchers for everybody almost certainly means national standards (like, well, most other developed countries). How well that will go over with Republicans is probably a major source of contention.

I imagine the ATL Republicans sound a lot like the UK's Lib Dems today: local control as much as possible.

Nicomacheus said:

I think you're probably right. Note, however, that Reagan's economic policies have a good chance to bring poor southern whites back into the Democratic Party relatively quickly. Rather than OTL's situation, in which Dems must ask for their support so that they can enact programs to lift them out of poverty, in TTL, they will vote for the Dems because they depend on those programs.

Click to expand...

Possibly. I could easily see the South sticking with the ATL Republican's overt federalism/local control agenda though, but overall the South is going to far more in play.

Conversely the Democratic Party is not getting 90% of the black ITTL, nor is it going to keep a stranglehold on the cities (more whites, less loyal blacks, higher overall population in cities versus suburbs), but of course the Democrats will probably be in a better position against the Republican Party in the less populated suburbs of TTL.

Nicomacheus said:

Also, I think if the abortion debacle starts as a federalism issue, rather than as court case, it's harder for the Republicans to really get going. True, the OTL example of gay marriage suggests otherwise, but there's a difference. The Constitution is completely silent on how to work out the problem of competiting regimes of legality, but it does allow for Congress to regulate the manner in which marriage licenses are translated natioanlly (via the Full Faith and Credit Clause). If abortion is not a court case, then the key will not be to appoint judges of a certain point of view, but to win elections and/or popular support. IMO, this mitigates the trend toward polarization exerted by the emergence of the Conservative Movement iOTL.

Click to expand...

My problem with this is that it still leaves the 16 year old girl in Alabama who wants an abortion with the pretty bad choice of taking a road trip way north (or, possibly, south to Florida); or visiting the back alley coat hanger doctor.

The problem is that the anti-abortion people are also the anti-birth control people (which, given teenage hormones, is a little odd to me[1])—is there some way to separate the two?

Is there any way that the cultural norm of the US among adults (not even just religious adults), "sex before marriage = bad", can be changed to "babies before marriage = bad"? I mean it already is, but can we shift emphasis? Try and tackle both the unwed mother problem, and the birth control problem at the same time? I suspect that that is impossible in America, but still.



[1] Also I'm Canadian. Our abortion law is that there is no abortion law. Assuming you could find a doctor willing to do it (massive if) there is no law stopping a woman from having an abortion at nine months. That's a little much for me, but I also can't get on board with no abortions at all position; as much as I regret the idea that anybody has abortions (assuming birth control is widely available) outlawing abortions just leads to the back alley coat hangers of earlier times.

That said, not being from the USA certainly leaves me out of the rather impassioned arguments that seem to occur over the issue. I will do my best to tiptoe, I'm certainly not trying to stir up debate over a rather contentious issue.

1) American Auto industry and High Speed Rail (HSR)

A very good question, since it will also dictate the shape of Reagan's support base. OTL, the industry began to show signs of problems in the 1970s, with the bailout of Chrysler. Today American car companies suffer from, IMO, two problems: first, the burden of fixed-benefit pension and health care costs, which leaves them with huge overhead liabilities. Second, decades of stagnant leadership and innovation. A negative income tax and a stronger welfare net might solve this problem because they allieviate the companies sole responsibility for retirement pension.

I would actually say that stronger oil shock might be a good idea for a Reagan presidency. High speed rail and mass transit will negatively impact airline and automotive industries, whose unions Reagan may count on as part of his political base. Without a strong incentive, it will be very controversial for a Democrat to back high speed rail. The solution may be that it is his response to OPEC demand: the United States will be energy independent within a decade. This means more support of nuclear power, more mass transit, and high speed rail. It also might give Reagan to opportunity to give Detroit a carrot and stick to prompt innovation: in short, we might a push for hybrid and electric cars much sooner.

National high speed rail itself will probably languish: the US is just to big for rail to connect the nation. It will have good impact in California, in the Pacific Northwest (between Portland and Seattle), in the Midwest (around Chicago and Ohio), in the Northeast (all the way to VA, potentially to FL), and in Texas (between DFW, Houston, and Austin/San Antonio). There will still need to air travel between the coasts and in the West, without a much faster rail system (like a maglev). High Speed rail will have a very interesting effect on the Democrats' support base: some of the big labor unions may shift their support to the Republicans, while Democrats will make inroads in the middle class (OTL suburban classes) who are now benefiting from rail and a new urban lifestyle.

2) School Choice

I agree that such a system probably entail national standards and specialization of function at the high school level. The problem of locality is definitely an issue, but only insofar as local schools are "the educators of last resort," as it were. Also, if the high schools do differentiate, who decides who gets to be an artist or a scientist? There may therefore be an argument for a parallel system of magnet schools which leaves local schools intact while creating new schools for specialized curricula. The income disparity usually created by local districts is supplanted because of the voucher program. There is still "zoning," but I think we might solve that issue with an application of multi-member theory. As in a multi-member single constituency system, children will be "zoned" to a number of different schools (for each level) and thus have the ROFR (right of first refusal) for seats on those campuses. If there's a problem with space beyond that, there are two potential solutions: competitve applications and a lottery. You'd probably have a lottery at primary and middle schools, with competitive applications in high school.

There may still be a problem that some schools will not get many students and thus not have the resources (potentially) to invest in the kind of improvements necessary to bring the students back. Firstly, this problem will be allieviated by the market seeking the best student-teacher ratio. Secondly, you might have some sort of fund, administered like NIH grants, for capital improvements to schools.

The one problem with a line of "every pupil has the same per capita resources" is how to deal with private schools. Making it illegal for private schools to spend more per capita I don't think will fly; it's just too socialist. So you still might have a class problem where rich parents can afford to send their kids to schools that charge more than the voucher price. I think the solution to that, as you suggest, comes from progressive tax system and a guarantee that everybody has a pathway to a free education (via national service). There is also the valid argument that there isn't always a direct correlation between educational quality and per captia education spending (see Washington, DC, as an example).

3) Guns v. Butter

Okay, so we've got a huge increase in federal spending and federal programs. We're pretty sure they work better than OTL, so that may be okay, but we still have a problem: if Reagan is to be the hawk that he was OTL, how is he going to spend money on the military? One answer may be that he's hawkish diplomatically (Tear down this wall) rather than by spending wise. The problem with that is it's the spending that really forces the Soviet's hand, as they just can't compete after a certain point. Hence, we might have it that Reagan's plans are in fact more progressive than we've outlined above (vouchers graduated on the basis of income, even higher marginal tax rates, etc.), but in negotiations with Congress (may the Senate is Republican?), he has to make compromises.

4) What happens next?

So the summary of TTL goes as follows:

1960-4: Nixon narrowly elected. Kruchev decides against placing missiles in Cuba. Nixon passes Civil Rights Act through a parliamentary dirty trick (vote at the last second before Thanksgiving recess?).

1964-8: JFK elected. Passes Voting Rights Act.

1968-72: Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr, narrowly defeats JFK due to George Wallace third party bid in Deep South. {You'd left this one open. Lodge seemed an interesting choice to run against JFK: another Massachusetts family. He was Nixon's VP nominee in 1960}. Lodge does something scandalous. He also begins detente.

1972-1980: Ronald Reagan (D) elected president, beating RFK in the primary? School Choice, Tax Reform passed. Oil shock prompts New Energy Deal: HSR, EPA, CAFE standards.

What happens next? Who is Reagan's VP?
I was originally thinking it might be a Kennedy, but I think the real power would be if Reagan had a Texan. LBJ is too old. There are two choices: Ralph Yarborough and Lloyd Bentsen. Yarborough may be too dovish for Reagan foreign policy wise. Bentsen on the other hand beat Yarborough in the Democratic Primary in 1970 OTL by opposing Yarborough's opposition to Vietnam and by playing on fears of urban violence. He may fit better with Reagan's policy. Accordingly, I'd say Bentsen wins in 1980.

By 1984, I think the Republicans will be spoiling for a fight and parts of Reagan's coalition may be fraying. How funny would it be if a young southern governor won: maybe TTL Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter is a Republican! That'd be funny. Alternatively, perhaps Gerald Ford? I personally prefer Carter in 1988 because having a dove in office 1988-1990 may either provide an opening for a reformist Soviet Union (if Gorbachev still finds his way to power) or for non-intervention as the USSR crumbles. All of this assumes it still takes until 1989-90ish for the iron curtain to crumble; with an earlier hawkish Reagan maybe it happens sooner.

The Democratic and liberal Reagan would have the same economic problems as in OTL so he wouldn't have the opertunity to make the big projects. He would still be a good politician so he focus on what he can do. I think he would go for social policies.

The worst case senario is a continued stagflation.

Electric Monk said:

Because Reagan went conservative IOTL 1950s, and in the ATL '50s he would go liberal.

Same person, different view of policy. It might be in the same general direction (i.e. market oriented) but with a liberal interventionist spin..

Click to expand...

The original question specified liberal so let's discuss that.

Berra said:

The Democratic and liberal Reagan would have the same economic problems as in OTL so he wouldn't have the opertunity to make the big projects. He would still be a good politician so he focus on what he can do. I think he would go for social policies.

The worst case senario is a continued stagflation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Electric Monk
Because Reagan went conservative IOTL 1950s, and in the ATL '50s he would go liberal.

Same person, different view of policy. It might be in the same general direction (i.e. market oriented) but with a liberal interventionist spin..

The original question specified liberal so let's discuss that

Click to expand...

Electric Monk's original suggestion is that to get Reagan to be a liberal Democrat requires tinkereing around the timeline before 1980: Richard Nixon wins in 1960, etc. as described above. These changes likely vastly effect US monetary policy and international trade patters: 1) without LBJ terrorizing them, the Federal Reserve probably does not pursue stagflationary policy (lowering interest rates to encourage artificial growth and thus job creation only to have high inflation), though the Fed will still have the problem of discovering Volker's combination of steady growth and low inflation (up until then they were though mutually exclusive goals), 2) without the precise nature of the Middle East conflicts, an Arab oil embargo may not happen or may take a very different shape or North Sea Oil may be discovered sooner (and thus attentuate the effect of the oil shock as OTL it helped to bring oil prices down), 3) without LBJ's Great Society and Vietnam in the 1960s, the US has not enacted any new social programs since Truman (no Medicare or Medicaid).

Thus in order to have a liberal Ronald Reagan, as I beleive we describe above, the economic problems of TTL's 1970s will look very different. Also, *School Choice is not the Republican proposal we know today: it is *Reagan's response to school busing and poor educational standards. It represents a near complete nationalization of public education. That's pretty liberal if you ask me.

Nicomacheus said:

1) American Auto industry and High Speed Rail (HSR)

A very good question, since it will also dictate the shape of Reagan's support base. OTL, the industry began to show signs of problems in the 1970s, with the bailout of Chrysler. Today American car companies suffer from, IMO, two problems: first, the burden of fixed-benefit pension and health care costs, which leaves them with huge overhead liabilities. Second, decades of stagnant leadership and innovation. A negative income tax and a stronger welfare net might solve this problem because they allieviate the companies sole responsibility for retirement pension.

Click to expand...

Yeah, not having to pay for pensions and healthcare costs (or, at least, less of both) is a major boon to the USs manufacturing base in total, not just the car industry. Further, being squeezed by rail and the Japanese at the same time might just force them to be innovative longer than OTL where they adapted to small cars and then stagnated again.

Nicomacheus said:

I would actually say that stronger oil shock might be a good idea for a Reagan presidency. High speed rail and mass transit will negatively impact airline and automotive industries, whose unions Reagan may count on as part of his political base. Without a strong incentive, it will be very controversial for a Democrat to back high speed rail. The solution may be that it is his response to OPEC demand: the United States will be energy independent within a decade. This means more support of nuclear power, more mass transit, and high speed rail. It also might give Reagan to opportunity to give Detroit a carrot and stick to prompt innovation: in short, we might a push for hybrid and electric cars much sooner.

Click to expand...

That's a really good point, I forgot about the unions (especially given their strength in the 70s). I would think that urban Democrats & Republicans should heavily support high speed rail simply because of the pork that will flow into their districts.

Airlines might well be deregulated (or, ITTL, re-regulated under a new standard) by Reagan in the mid-70s instead of Carter/Reagan as per OTL a bit later. Their competitiveness will drop faster and fuel efficient planes (i.e. the Boeing 787, albeit earlier) will become more important than jumbo jets. Prop planes too, might make a resurgence, if local airports (my stab at the Republican position versus rail) become more important.

Nuclear power solves the main problem with fuel cells—where do you get all that hydrogen? Likewise a non-polluting energy grid covers electric cars much better than the current mix.

Nicomacheus said:

National high speed rail itself will probably languish: the US is just to big for rail to connect the nation. It will have good impact in California, in the Pacific Northwest (between Portland and Seattle), in the Midwest (around Chicago and Ohio), in the Northeast (all the way to VA, potentially to FL), and in Texas (between DFW, Houston, and Austin/San Antonio). There will still need to air travel between the coasts and in the West, without a much faster rail system (like a maglev). High Speed rail will have a very interesting effect on the Democrats' support base: some of the big labor unions may shift their support to the Republicans, while Democrats will make inroads in the middle class (OTL suburban classes) who are now benefiting from rail and a new urban lifestyle.

Click to expand...

Yep, it will be the golden age of cool names for rail. The Pacific Coastal Express on the Sacramento-San Francisco-Los Angeles-San Diego line. The Atlantic Line from Boston to D.C. (later to Miami?). The Great Lakes Traveller from Chicago to New York CIty. Etc….

I'm not entirely sure the unions will abandon the Democrats, what becomes the Republican position? Anti-rail? Pro small airports & planes for fast local connections?

What could make a comeback is suburban streetcar lines & local rail. It's quite interesting because there are a number of towns in southern Ontario that used to have streetcar lines in-between each other. Kind of like the slow/cheap version of suburban light rail. You could hop on a streetcar and spend an hour going to the next town over. Replaces much of the use of cars if you can hop streetcars, local rail, and finally get into the mass transit systems of the major urban centres.

A mix between inter-twon streetcars, medium towns direct to cities, and the subway/LRT/streetcar/bus grid of a major city.

Nicomacheus said:

2) School Choice

I agree that such a system probably entail national standards and specialization of function at the high school level. The problem of locality is definitely an issue, but only insofar as local schools are "the educators of last resort," as it were. Also, if the high schools do differentiate, who decides who gets to be an artist or a scientist? There may therefore be an argument for a parallel system of magnet schools which leaves local schools intact while creating new schools for specialized curricula. The income disparity usually created by local districts is supplanted because of the voucher program. There is still "zoning," but I think we might solve that issue with an application of multi-member theory. As in a multi-member single constituency system, children will be "zoned" to a number of different schools (for each level) and thus have the ROFR (right of first refusal) for seats on those campuses. If there's a problem with space beyond that, there are two potential solutions: competitve applications and a lottery. You'd probably have a lottery at primary and middle schools, with competitive applications in high school.

Click to expand...

I like your zoning idea, perhaps you get a local school, a "local" art school, a local "science" school and so on. Beyond that, I agree with the lottery system although perhaps combined with a waiting list—i.e. if you don't get in the first year you're fast-tracked for year two (that would matter more for the specialized schools).

I think you could keep the lottery even for high school—I'm not sure middle school students would have competitive applications.

As for specialized schools, the kids pick. Perhaps Junior High is standardized as 6-9 and 10-12 are the years where you may choose a specialized school and if you don't get in for 10 you'll get in for 11 since you'll be bumped in priority. It's not ideal, but it allows a lot more freedom in subjects than the limited programs even a good school offers.

Nicomacheus said:

There may still be a problem that some schools will not get many students and thus not have the resources (potentially) to invest in the kind of improvements necessary to bring the students back. Firstly, this problem will be allieviated by the market seeking the best student-teacher ratio. Secondly, you might have some sort of fund, administered like NIH grants, for capital improvements to schools.

Click to expand...

Yep & yep. Investment capital for education is covered under the national sales tax infrastructure fund I imagine. What could happen for small schools is a bonus for schools under say, 100 people, (i.e. alternative schools—I'm not sure how it works in the States, but in Toronto there are a number of alternative primary and high schools that have smaller class sizes, and different teaching methods). Therefore they can get a higher teacher-student ratio and can serve as the innovate/experimental edge of education trying out new practices to see how well it works. The (IMHO overrated) Montessori schools of OTL but with more than just that type.

T

Nicomacheus said:

he one problem with a line of "every pupil has the same per capita resources" is how to deal with private schools. Making it illegal for private schools to spend more per capita I don't think will fly; it's just too socialist. So you still might have a class problem where rich parents can afford to send their kids to schools that charge more than the voucher price. I think the solution to that, as you suggest, comes from progressive tax system and a guarantee that everybody has a pathway to a free education (via national service). There is also the valid argument that there isn't always a direct correlation between educational quality and per captia education spending (see Washington, DC, as an example).

Click to expand...

I think you just leave private schools alone and make it simple—if you go to a private school you don't get the voucher.

Nicomacheus said:

3) Guns v. Butter

Okay, so we've got a huge increase in federal spending and federal programs. We're pretty sure they work better than OTL, so that may be okay, but we still have a problem: if Reagan is to be the hawk that he was OTL, how is he going to spend money on the military? One answer may be that he's hawkish diplomatically (Tear down this wall) rather than by spending wise. The problem with that is it's the spending that really forces the Soviet's hand, as they just can't compete after a certain point. Hence, we might have it that Reagan's plans are in fact more progressive than we've outlined above (vouchers graduated on the basis of income, even higher marginal tax rates, etc.), but in negotiations with Congress (may the Senate is Republican?), he has to make compromises.

Click to expand...

Hmm. Remember that TTL will not have entitlements indexed to inflation, and in fact social security/welface/medicare are going bye-bye (probably with Republican support in exchange for education/negative income tax[1]/national service). Therefore the very rapid increase in spending forced by Nixon's indexing of OTL will not occur.

I imagine we can easily change a lot of military spending. Perhaps Nixon winning means the Missile Gap stuff is not important. Hence the US rationalizes conventional military spending along different lines than OTL (avoiding the F-111 would be nice, and a gun armed manoeuvrable fighter as well as OTL F-4 Phantom would be good for the Air Force/Navy) and spends a lot less on nukes. After all the US is way ahead in 1960, and money spent on boomers later is better than big holes in the ground in the Midwest earlier. No Viet Nam alone will mean a lot more money for the military, when they don't have to pay for pensions….

Hmm. Marginal tax rates almost certainly drop under JFK (and probably Nixon), and the negative income tax is progressive even at a flat tax rate (bye-bye most of the IRS). The perceived tax burden might well go way down, even well the actual amount of money coming in is around the same (once you count the national sales tax).

Nicomacheus said:

4) What happens next?

So the summary of TTL goes as follows:

1960-4: Nixon narrowly elected. Kruchev decides against placing missiles in Cuba. Nixon passes Civil Rights Act through a parliamentary dirty trick (vote at the last second before Thanksgiving recess?).

1964-8: JFK elected. Passes Voting Rights Act.

1968-72: Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr, narrowly defeats JFK due to George Wallace third party bid in Deep South. {You'd left this one open. Lodge seemed an interesting choice to run against JFK: another Massachusetts family. He was Nixon's VP nominee in 1960}. Lodge does something scandalous. He also begins detente.

1972-1980: Ronald Reagan (D) elected president, beating RFK in the primary? School Choice, Tax Reform passed. Oil shock prompts New Energy Deal: HSR, EPA, CAFE standards.

Click to expand...

Henry Cabot Lodge? Nice. Quite possible, though I imagine it depends on Rockefeller. Other options would be Scranton and perhaps John Lindsay (Mayor of NY). Goldwater as the VP to reassure the conservatives? No, I don't think he'd do it. Um. An early Southern Republican? Scranton himself?

I doubt RFK would run without his brother's death. At that time in the Democratic Party I can see Scoop Jackson (squeezed out by having the same-ish positions as Reagan), a conventional liberal—Muskie? Humphrey? McGovern even?—and somebody interesting…

Nicomacheus said:

What happens next? Who is Reagan's VP?
I was originally thinking it might be a Kennedy, but I think the real power would be if Reagan had a Texan. LBJ is too old. There are two choices: Ralph Yarborough and Lloyd Bentsen. Yarborough may be too dovish for Reagan foreign policy wise. Bentsen on the other hand beat Yarborough in the Democratic Primary in 1970 OTL by opposing Yarborough's opposition to Vietnam and by playing on fears of urban violence. He may fit better with Reagan's policy. Accordingly, I'd say Bentsen wins in 1980.

By 1984, I think the Republicans will be spoiling for a fight and parts of Reagan's coalition may be fraying. How funny would it be if a young southern governor won: maybe TTL Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter is a Republican! That'd be funny. Alternatively, perhaps Gerald Ford? I personally prefer Carter in 1988 because having a dove in office 1988-1990 may either provide an opening for a reformist Soviet Union (if Gorbachev still finds his way to power) or for non-intervention as the USSR crumbles. All of this assumes it still takes until 1989-90ish for the iron curtain to crumble; with an earlier hawkish Reagan maybe it happens sooner.

Click to expand...

Governor John Connally. He wouldn't become a Republican ITTL. Bentsen wasn't well known in 1972. Connolly might well be a Senator, actually, ITTL which would make him a solid choice for Reagan.

I'm not entirely sure Connally (or Bentsen) would win, and who is their VP? I suggest Daniel Patrick Moynihan as their VP (he supported Nixon's Negative Income Tax in OTL) since I think he would fit in much better with the ATL Democrats than he ever fit in with either party OTL.

That said, who do the Republicans have? Bush won't have the profile of OTL. Connally is still a Democrat. Anderson is too liberal. Dole is unlikely unless he was the VP nominee in 1976. Ford is possible if the Republicans gain the House and he becomes Speaker (he almost quit OTL before Nixon picked him for VP). Howard Baker? Actually I like Howard Baker. Senate Minority or Majority Leader, moderate, widely considered (OTL) the best person to run the government in the 1980s, and of course he's from Tennessee.

Howard Baker paired with… Perhaps whoever the highest profile Republican from New York/California is. Actually if James L. Buckley makes it to the Senate in New York he'd be a great choice. Solidly conservative, but (like OTL Reagan) not scary to moderates about it.

I could see Baker beating either Connolly or Bentsen in 1980, since both would seem on tack with Reagan's foriegn policy but off side on domestic issues (they're more conventionally conservative/liberal mix). Perhaps they opt for the actual Republican instead of the look-alikes.

However Baker is still a moderate, he's not going to go wild. I imagine he seeks to restore some local control in education (I can't see a reversal), balances the budget (if it wasn't before), more anti-inflation, and so forth. Odds are the economy slows in the 80s but puts the US government's finances in much better shape.

I could see Baker getting two terms, beating Moynihan or somebody in 1984. Ted Kennedy? Odds are RFK goes off to do something else, perhaps Governor of New York? However Ted will certainly stay in the Senate.

Assuming Mario Cuomo does well ITTL he might well rise to the top for 1988, alternatively Moynihan sits out 1984 because he becomes Senate Majority Leader? and runs in 1988 and beats Buckley or whoever.

ATL Republican's probably lean to the non-interventionist in world affairs position (America's strong, don't screw with us we won't screw with you) so if the USSR collapses in the 80s Baker can handle it.



[1] Actually the negative income tax will find strong support from conservative economists as long as the other social safety nets are eliminated. i.e. the NIT is the only thing both Milton Friedman and John Kenneth Galbraith ever agreed on.

Could libeReagan remove labour market regulation and put the responsebility in the hands of the unions and to some extent the employers?

This TL's Reagan still likely attracts the support of neoconservatives. Expect the Scoop Jackson-Joe Lieberman Democrats to be stronger within the party ITTL.

Everything that's been written so far is, pretty much, spot on, and I can't quibble with it -- the detail, in particular, is great.

But I don't think Henry Cabot Lodge would run in 1968, nor could he win -- especially against Kennedy. He'd be 68, which would make him, I think, the oldest president elected in TTL (slightly older than Harrison), and with a particular New England aristocratic demeanour that didn't even sell well in Massachusetts, in 1952. Too old, too uncharismatic, and probably without a great base of national support even if Nixon had won.

But luckily there's a whole bunch of other Republicans who can be used, more or less indistinguishable: Rockefeller, Scranton, Lindsay, or any number of congressmen. (Why don't congressmen ever get elected President?)