WI: George H. W. Bush won in 1980?
- Thread starter rick007
- Start date
I've seen some threads like this before. Bush probably picks a right winger to be his running mate (Paul Laxalt, Jack Kemp, etc...) to balance the ticket. Unless this produces enough butterflies (namely the hostages being released), Bush beats Carter, but not by as big of a margin as Reagan did. As for his cabinet, think of a mix of Ford's, Reagan's, and Bush's of OTL. Hinckley shooting him would be a mystery to me, it could happen, it may not. Does he get a second term? It depends, if he cans Volker, that can delay or even prevent the economic recovery and hurt him politically, so could a scandal. On the other hand, the Democratic party was a mess in the 1970's and '80s so a bad nominee or a divided party could give Bush a win in '84.
How does it change the world? The cold war may end sooner, but no later than it did OTL. I doubt Bush would be as reckless as Reagan was in his first term OTL. Both political parties are more moderate today without Reagan, nor is the religious right a political force to be reckoned with. The debt and deficits would be smaller to.
OK, I can't resist recycling this one:
***
George Herbert Walker Bush thought back on the long campaign that led him to
where he was now--the Republican national convention in Detroit where he was
now the party's presidential nominee. He felt certain he could defeat Carter
in November, what with the poor state of the economy and the Iranian hostage
fiasco and Russian troops in Afghanistan. How fortunate that Reagan, a bit
too overconfident of his one-on-one debating ability, had agreed to a two-man
debate in New Hampshire. Had Reagan insisted on letting Bob Dole and Howard
Baker and the other candidates in, either Bush would have had to agree (and
let the anti-Reagan vote be split) or else insist on keeping the others out,
which would make him look bad--an "Establishment" candidate out to muzzle all
naysayers.
But there was no point in dwelling on the past. His victory against Reagan,
both in New Hampshire and subsequently, had been narrow--but he *had* won.
Now there was one more big decision left--who would his running mate be? It
had to be a conservative, to satisfy the Reaganites. But not someone like
Reagan himself, or even Jack Kemp. They had their own power bases, and they
could defy him--even openly--if they felt his administration wasn't
conservative enough. No, he needed someone who was young, who was very much
of the Right, but whose loyalty he felt he could count on. A good debater
who could really cut into Mondale in the vice-presidential debates.
Suddenly, a name occurred to him: Congressman Robert Bauman of Maryland! A
New Right conservative, and a Catholic, too. He would be just perfect for
wooing the "family values" people...
Fast forward through election and John Hinckley's assassination of President
Bush in 1981. We proceed to a day in the summer of 1981 when President
Bauman, faced with an ugly threat of blackmail by someone with surveillance-
camera footage of an encounter Bauman had thought was secret, makes a
television address to a stunned nation. "My fellow Americans: I have
something to say which may shock you. Indeed, in a sense it is a shock
to me, because I now realize that I have been living in denial
for many years..."
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.history.what-if/AKp-NhSmKJ4/ecRz2Olg5csJ
***
George Herbert Walker Bush thought back on the long campaign that led him to
where he was now--the Republican national convention in Detroit where he was
now the party's presidential nominee. He felt certain he could defeat Carter
in November, what with the poor state of the economy and the Iranian hostage
fiasco and Russian troops in Afghanistan. How fortunate that Reagan, a bit
too overconfident of his one-on-one debating ability, had agreed to a two-man
debate in New Hampshire. Had Reagan insisted on letting Bob Dole and Howard
Baker and the other candidates in, either Bush would have had to agree (and
let the anti-Reagan vote be split) or else insist on keeping the others out,
which would make him look bad--an "Establishment" candidate out to muzzle all
naysayers.
But there was no point in dwelling on the past. His victory against Reagan,
both in New Hampshire and subsequently, had been narrow--but he *had* won.
Now there was one more big decision left--who would his running mate be? It
had to be a conservative, to satisfy the Reaganites. But not someone like
Reagan himself, or even Jack Kemp. They had their own power bases, and they
could defy him--even openly--if they felt his administration wasn't
conservative enough. No, he needed someone who was young, who was very much
of the Right, but whose loyalty he felt he could count on. A good debater
who could really cut into Mondale in the vice-presidential debates.
Suddenly, a name occurred to him: Congressman Robert Bauman of Maryland! A
New Right conservative, and a Catholic, too. He would be just perfect for
wooing the "family values" people...
Fast forward through election and John Hinckley's assassination of President
Bush in 1981. We proceed to a day in the summer of 1981 when President
Bauman, faced with an ugly threat of blackmail by someone with surveillance-
camera footage of an encounter Bauman had thought was secret, makes a
television address to a stunned nation. "My fellow Americans: I have
something to say which may shock you. Indeed, in a sense it is a shock
to me, because I now realize that I have been living in denial
for many years..."
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.history.what-if/AKp-NhSmKJ4/ecRz2Olg5csJ
Bush
If he picked Kemp as VP and his Inner Circle rallied around his Presidency I could see him easily pull 2 terms.
The Dems were not centered enough in the 80s to pull a win. With his CIA past he would likely not be put in position to get shot by Hinkley and would no doubt
have dirt on most everyone in government. In effect, he would be his own J. Edgar Hoover. The USSR would fold quicker and Kemp would win a succersor term as VP
and 2 term it as the Soviet Union falls apart. Supreme Court would be hard right for many years to come and society would suffer rights violations and slide fast
to rioting by the mid 90s due to a flailing economy. Supply side never works for the mass of the population. Reforms would be hard to happen with the SCOTUS in
place so heavy handed suppresion from 94-96 leads to a suspension of the 96 election "till a less troubled time" in President Kemp's words. A failure for the Republican
party as they get swept out of office in State and Local elections and force an emergency Presidential election in the fall of 97. As President Clinton takes office he
has Carte Blanche with super majorities in both Senate and House, he calls for Impeachment of 4 SCOTUS Justices and no one can stop it. By 2000 the SCOTUS is hard Left
and sweeping reforms take root. The Single Payer health system is a major relief to the masses and VP Gore's reforms to environmental law stimulate a new economic growth
in Renewables and Education. After a long long national nightmare the sun shines again and no one ever misses the GOP.
If he picked Kemp as VP and his Inner Circle rallied around his Presidency I could see him easily pull 2 terms.
The Dems were not centered enough in the 80s to pull a win. With his CIA past he would likely not be put in position to get shot by Hinkley and would no doubt
have dirt on most everyone in government. In effect, he would be his own J. Edgar Hoover. The USSR would fold quicker and Kemp would win a succersor term as VP
and 2 term it as the Soviet Union falls apart. Supreme Court would be hard right for many years to come and society would suffer rights violations and slide fast
to rioting by the mid 90s due to a flailing economy. Supply side never works for the mass of the population. Reforms would be hard to happen with the SCOTUS in
place so heavy handed suppresion from 94-96 leads to a suspension of the 96 election "till a less troubled time" in President Kemp's words. A failure for the Republican
party as they get swept out of office in State and Local elections and force an emergency Presidential election in the fall of 97. As President Clinton takes office he
has Carte Blanche with super majorities in both Senate and House, he calls for Impeachment of 4 SCOTUS Justices and no one can stop it. By 2000 the SCOTUS is hard Left
and sweeping reforms take root. The Single Payer health system is a major relief to the masses and VP Gore's reforms to environmental law stimulate a new economic growth
in Renewables and Education. After a long long national nightmare the sun shines again and no one ever misses the GOP.
I know that Kemp was right but I don't think he would be that bad. And having Bush I in office for the '80s would be better than Reagan, I feel.
Paul V McNutt
Banned
I am thinking Kemp is the running mate. Of course, with the recession and the hostage crisis, they win. He is obligated to press for the Roth Kemp Tax and budget cut like Reagan did. He probably engages the Soviets more. In the good economic times of 1984. Kemp wins in 1988 thanks to the continued prosperity.
The Republican Party might still be sane without having the Reagan Myth to distort reality.
GeographyDude
Gone Fishin'
I think this is a fair enough and important question:
Was it the tax cuts and deficit spending of the Reagan administration which helped to pull the U.S. economy out of recession?
=======
And maybe Bush decides to forget this whole "balance" the ticket business, and offer the VP spot to someone a lot like himself who he feels he can work with and who he feels is fully capable of stepping into the presidency on day one.
Was it the tax cuts and deficit spending of the Reagan administration which helped to pull the U.S. economy out of recession?
=======
And maybe Bush decides to forget this whole "balance" the ticket business, and offer the VP spot to someone a lot like himself who he feels he can work with and who he feels is fully capable of stepping into the presidency on day one.
Last edited:
I have the feeling, Bush didn´t saw the Vice-Presidency as an element of "balancing the ticket", but as an element of patronage, with whom you give fine young men with the right family background a career boost. He himself tried to become VP several time under Nixon and Ford and I think this attitude explain Dan Quayle. So I think he would chose somebody like Quayle.
If you haven't seen the video "What if Reagan never became president" by AlternateHistoryHub go watch it because it details everything quite nicely
Assuming that Bush would just so happen to be in the exact same place at the exact same time as Reagan, and that Hinckley would somehow manage to get as close to Bush as he did Reagan. Both of these are not terribly likely, and Bush dying is even less so. There's a reason that no U.S. President has been assassinated since JFK: after Dallas, the Secret Service beefed up security so much it's extremely hard to kill a President. In the event that Bush wins in 1980, he is highly unlikely that he assassinated. If the economy still improves in 1983-84, then Bush serves two terms and keeps the Republican Party in a more moderate direction than it took under Reagan.
Yeah, no. He was Director of the Central Intelligence for all of 357 days–not even a full year–in large part because, as I understand things, he was an outsider and considered a safe pair of hands in the wake of the Church Committee. It was the 1980s not the 1950s and '60s with Bush as a new Hoover. The idea that he had access to 'dirt on most everyone in government' would seem to be rather disproved by the troubles the Reagan and Bush administrations ran into in our timeline.
This scenario really fascinates me. Even if Bush is not assassinated, having Bob Bauman as Veep brings up some serious consequences in 1980's America...
Hinckley is probably butterflied away, Bush attempts to restrain the budget deficit, which slows economic growth, but you probably still see a recovery from the early 1980s recession in time to get him reelected in 1984. Bush pursues a foreign policy that's more or less similar to Reagan, but pursues a much more moderate social policy. There's no Bork nomination, and consequently judicial nominations in general are much less contentious. Bush's stance on abortion was considered middle-of-the-road in 1980, and there were still a fair number of pro-life Democrats at the time, so you might not see the pro-life movement crystallize around the Republican party as much as it did IOTL. Bush probably isn't any better than Reagan on AIDS (Reagan personally knew gay people and doesn't seem to have had a problem with them, whereas Bush would probably have had the typical attitude of a conservative WASP born in the 1920s).