1980s Culture Under a Democratic US President

[CountDVB]

Reagan was the one who kicked off toy-based cartoons by deregulating the amount of advertisement time per show. Under the previous limits, shows like GI Joe or Transformers wouldn't have been allowed to be broadcast as they were considered advertisements. So, contrary to the idea that there would be more toy-based shows, I would argue that a Democratic President in the 1980s would completely kill toy-based cartoons from ever being created. A later President might support television deregulation similar to Reagan, but at that point you would have completely different toy-based cartoon shows.

I am guessing initially that toy-based cartoons would start out all right, but over a few years, a large fuss would be made about it and would raise it to court, maybe by 1985. It would not kill the shows per say, but it'd definitely cripple them, at least to where they would need to be changed. Some might change by making them into multi-media franchises like comic books. Given how Hasbro is connected to Disney, they'd probably be willing to make deals to make the shows better. Eisner was the one who led the charge to make better quality shows based on syndication right sales with the toys becoming an afterthought if everything was worth maintaining.

Granted, this is just Hasbro and I really only see My Little Pony surviving this and maybe Transformers if they decide to use the latter for video games or something.

 

[Don Corleone]

A Democratic administration might publicly address global warming by 1988 and make it an important political issue much earlier than OTL. (Though I doubt that serious action would be taken given how new the concept was).

Not even environmentalists had global warming as a high priority back then. The ozone hole was a major issue back then. Acid rain and air/water pollution (especially in the earlier part of the decade). Landfill space, nonrenewable resources, topsoil erosion.

Global warming took off later, especially in public discourse.

 

[CountDVB]

This would also cause some pretty big changes in comic books. We might not have the grungey 90s Dark age of comics. The Bronze age may continue and maybe a bit lighter. I reckon we'd still have Crisis of Infinite Earths, but it'd serve more to clean up continuity and not kill off as many characters. The potential lack of a Dark Age of comics would be interesting.

It does seem likely we'd still get Watchman though it'd either be more optimistic or maybe not published by DC comics and like by Image or something.

This would leave some Dark Age to be more underground or perhaps not as active in the US. Granted, that could change with the fall of the USSR or may have different contexts if the Democratic administration does things differently. Citing an example regarding corporations, that would be something to note.

 

[CountDVB]

Not even environmentalists had global warming as a high priority back then. The ozone hole was a major issue back then. Acid rain and air/water pollution (especially in the earlier part of the decade). Landfill space, nonrenewable resources, topsoil erosion.

Global warming took off later, especially in public discourse.

True, but it was still something on everyone's mind and if during the late 80s and early 90s, the Udall and or Mondale administration found out about Exxon's suppression, then it changes.

They would have evidence on the severity of the situation and that it was enough for Exxon to try and hide it or even plan a disinformation act about it. That would be a massive scandal that would change pop culture perception immensely. It'd force other governments to keep an eye on their companies and it would turn the general public against big corporations and how they'd screw their kids and grandkids over for short-term profits or even compare how the rich were hoarding money to survive the end times.

Not sure the probability of being caught, but given the changing political climate, it'd be something to mention. One possibility could be that, taking Frank Church's concerns over the NSA, the Democrat administration may put the squeeze on them down the line and if the NSA caught win of Exxon's dealings, would try and somehow expose it to show their relevance.

 

[Amadeus]

True, but it was still something on everyone's mind and if during the late 80s and early 90s, the Udall and or Mondale administration found out about Exxon's suppression, then it changes.

They would have evidence on the severity of the situation and that it was enough for Exxon to try and hide it or even plan a disinformation act about it. That would be a massive scandal that would change pop culture perception immensely. It'd force other governments to keep an eye on their companies and it would turn the general public against big corporations and how they'd screw their kids and grandkids over for short-term profits or even compare how the rich were hoarding money to survive the end times.

Not sure the probability of being caught, but given the changing political climate, it'd be something to mention. One possibility could be that, taking Frank Church's concerns over the NSA, the Democrat administration may put the squeeze on them down the line and if the NSA caught win of Exxon's dealings, would try and somehow expose it to show their relevance.

Let's say that the Democrats win in 1984 and 1988. In 1992 the GOP will be favored to win the White House. Who would be their nominee?

 

[CountDVB]

Let's say that the Democrats win in 1984 and 1988. In 1992 the GOP will be favored to win the White House. Who would be their nominee?

So 1980-1992 is the reign of the Democrats then? Let's say Mo Udall and then Walter Mondale for those 12 years.

Hmmm... the GOP would have a chance, though it’d be tricky. Though why? Just the political change as a result of the end of the USSR? Granted, the economy probably will not be as bad because there wasn't the tax cuts nor the massive increase in military spending. So it'd be a bit more of a long shot for the GOP to win.

It all depends on who the nominee would be. Udall was a very charismatic man who would've put in several reforms and very likely universal single-payer healthcare. Exxon may or may not be in trouble if climate scientists would propose their findings to the Democratic administration, especially under Mondale, though I am not an expert on these political figures.

I have no idea how the GOP would be like, frankly. Maybe the Rockefeller Republicans hang out longer. I don't see Reaganite Republicans being able to stick around, especially with the end of the USSR and Cold War and the Dems likely would've proven they're no pushovers with the Gulf War. The New Democrats would likely be unable to gain much of a foothold here.

Maybe they join Ross Perot in his Reform Party? That'd be interesting to see.

As for who would be in the GOP for the running? Well, they'd likely be more to the center since doubling down on right-wing issues would not win them any favors. Harold Strassen seems like he'd be a safe choice. John B. Anderson could bring inspire a wave of neo-Rockefeller Republicans, especially if they respect what the Dems did with healthcare and if they remain bipartisan with the Dems regarding climate change (this is if Mondale did not expose Exxon for the thing.)

 

[Amadeus]

As for who would be in the GOP for the running? Well, they'd likely be more to the center since doubling down on right-wing issues would not win them any favors. Harold Strassen seems like he'd be a safe choice. John B. Anderson could bring inspire a wave of neo-Rockefeller Republicans, especially if they respect what the Dems did with healthcare and if they remain bipartisan with the Dems regarding climate change (this is if Mondale did not expose Exxon for the thing.)

Stassen was a joke by 1992. Anderson on the other hand would be old news. I'd say that John Heinz would make a formidable candidate if his 1991 plane crash were to be butterflied away (entirely plausible if he is running for President).

 

[CountDVB]

Stassen was a joke by 1992. Anderson on the other hand would be old news. I'd say that John Heinz would make a formidable candidate if his 1991 plane crash were to be butterflied away (entirely plausible if he is running for President).

True, though this was a different decade, one without the Reaganites.

How would a Heinz presidency be?

one interesting idea could have Anderson win in 1992 and have Ross Perot and his Reform Party win 1996

 

[Amadeus]

How would a Heinz presidency be?

Fairly moderate, much like Eisenhower. But a bit more conservative as neoliberalism would be a popular idea by the 1990s and any GOP President would support deregulation.

one interesting idea could have Anderson win in 1992 and have Ross Perot and his Reform Party win 1996

That's not going to happen. Reform never had enough popular appeal or organizational strength to win at a national level, or even surpass one of the two major parties. A Democrat is more likely to beat Anderson than Perot. But if the economy is good in 1996 as in OTL the incumbent would be re-elected anyway.

 

[CountDVB]

Fairly moderate, much like Eisenhower. But a bit more conservative as neoliberalism would be a popular idea by the 1990s and any GOP President would support deregulation.

That's not going to happen. Reform never had enough popular appeal or organizational strength to win at a national level, or even surpass one of the two major parties. A Democrat is more likely to beat Anderson than Perot. But if the economy is good in 1996 as in OTL the incumbent would be re-elected anyway.

True, though neoliberalism would likely not be able to get into the Democrats, given the success of leftists like Udall and Mondale. Additionally, if the Exxon revelations came out, then corporations would be more distrusted and more regulation (or at least updated regulation) would be seen as more positive.

Neoliberalism rose as a result of the 12 years of neoconservative legislature by Reaganite Republicans, since it would be as going to central and compromising to win. Here, the positions are pretty reversed. With more leftist individuals winning and ruling for the 12 years, this has the Republicans move more to the center and compromising to win. I doubt someone like Gingrich would be able to get into office.

So, the reform party has no real chance then. I wonder if this means the New Democrats would end up in the Libertarian Party instead.

Hmmm... I do wonder how Mondale and or Heinz would deal with the Yugoslav Wars and what impact that would have. I know Blair (if still elected) tried to get NATO involved, but would the US want to and if so, how would that go?

 

[Roger II]

If we're talking global warming, one major thing is that based on what I understand to be the case it would be much less costly to curb emissions enough to reduce temperature rises-you'd need smaller cuts over a longer time(maybe the kind of things that are trivially achievable even with 80s tech and attitudes, or just treating Amtrak as a serious project and not legacy life support for trains) and that makes it itself easier politically to fix. Also, if this curbs existing temperature rises we could have interesting political consequences-how does 90s and 2000s-10s politics look without things like looming drought in the SE/SW, fewer California wildfires, or New Orleans less under threat? Does lower temperature rises slow desertification in the Sahara with consequences for the politics of Sudan or Niger/Nigeria?

Also, does Ford handle the Iranian Revolution differently, assuming that by 1976 the Shah is too far gone to survive? What happens with that will matter a lot.

 

[CountDVB]

If we're talking global warming, one major thing is that based on what I understand to be the case it would be much less costly to curb emissions enough to reduce temperature rises-you'd need smaller cuts over a longer time(maybe the kind of things that are trivially achievable even with 80s tech and attitudes, or just treating Amtrak as a serious project and not legacy life support for trains) and that makes it itself easier politically to fix. Also, if this curbs existing temperature rises we could have interesting political consequences-how does 90s and 2000s-10s politics look without things like looming drought in the SE/SW, fewer California wildfires, or New Orleans less under threat? Does lower temperature rises slow desertification in the Sahara with consequences for the politics of Sudan or Niger/Nigeria?

Also, does Ford handle the Iranian Revolution differently, assuming that by 1976 the Shah is too far gone to survive? What happens with that will matter a lot.

Well, the sooner the better pretty much. It'd be easier to convince Congress to do so since it was still bipartisan and if it's found out and exposed that Exxon not only suppressed the information but also planned an information campaign, it'd have the US put pressure on NATO and the UN while also putting additional scrutiny and suspicion on oil companies since it'd paint them in a bad light.

As such, things to curb emissions, making more fuel efficient cars and weaning down on oil (especially since many would point out the oil crises were the result of dependency on oil in the first place.) As for Amtrak, I am thinking that it could be pursued as a more serious project or at least expanded as a way to do more with maybe solar power down the line.

I figure Ford or even Reagan would have different approaches to 1976, but yeah, the Shahdom is pretty much done by that point I believe.

 

[Amadeus]

Also, does Ford handle the Iranian Revolution differently, assuming that by 1976 the Shah is too far gone to survive? What happens with that will matter a lot.

In the lead up to the crisis Carter was acting on the advice of Kissinger, who pushed Carter to grant the Shah asylum in the US. Ford probably wouldn't act much differently. But he may be more effective in negotiating a release of the hostages.

 

[Amadeus]

Neoliberalism rose as a result of the 12 years of neoconservative legislature by Reaganite Republicans, since it would be as going to central and compromising to win. Here, the positions are pretty reversed. With more leftist individuals winning and ruling for the 12 years, this has the Republicans move more to the center and compromising to win. I doubt someone like Gingrich would be able to get into office.

Actually neoliberalism was first implemented under Carter, and was supported by prominent left wingers like Ralph Nader and Ted Kennedy. By 1988 you'd see a bipartisan consensus in favor of deregulation. However, I do agree that the GOP would have to move to the center on issues like healthcare in order to win again.

 

[CountDVB]

Actually neoliberalism was first implemented under Carter, and was supported by prominent left wingers like Ralph Nader and Ted Kennedy. By 1988 you'd see a bipartisan consensus in favor of deregulation. However, I do agree that the GOP would have to move to the center on issues like healthcare in order to win again.

Carter was a more conservative Democrat though. I am going under the assumption that someone like Mo Udall would win in 1980, given how the more left-wing parties would seize the opportunity. Ted would still be haunted by his scandal and I am not sure on Jerry Brown. I picked Mo Udall because, beyond the more leftist views that'd make stand out, he has a strong charisma and charm to him that would likely propel him to victory in the 1980s.

While it would be pushed in by Carter, I am not sure if Carter would run again or gain the nomination in 1980.

I mean, he ends up losing to Ford in 1976 in what seems like it'd be an easier victory and with Ford's gaffes in 76-80, the leftists could gain more ground in response.

 

[Electric Monk]

I understand the temptation to use Mo Udall in 1980 post-Ford but he won’t run. His Parkinson’s was diagnosed and he was already having trouble with it back in ‘76. There’s an account by some Dem activists that Mo ‘80 had lost a step vs Mo ‘76, plus Mo’s then-wife was against it—indeed some of the staffers on his campaign in ‘76 really didn’t like her. The media of course would lose their minds as well, Parkinson’s was not well understood by most pre-Michael J. Fox days.

My Mo Udall timeline would be crazy easier in a Ford wins scenario, but it is incredibly unlikely.

 

[CountDVB]

I understand the temptation to use Mo Udall in 1980 post-Ford but he won’t run. His Parkinson’s was diagnosed and he was already having trouble with it back in ‘76. There’s an account by some Dem activists that Mo ‘80 had lost a step vs Mo ‘76, plus Mo’s then-wife was against it—indeed some of the staffers on his campaign in ‘76 really didn’t like her. The media of course would lose their minds as well, Parkinson’s was not well understood by most pre-Michael J. Fox days.

My Mo Udall timeline would be crazy easier in a Ford wins scenario, but it is incredibly unlikely.

He was still in Congress and did not retire until 1991 so I figure he would definitely still try and do so. I figure that it could encourage others to support him. Maybe Muhammad Ali would grant some support or reaching out because of Parkinson's.

 

[Electric Monk]

Don’t get me wrong I love Mo Udall, he should have been President and could have been a great one—but 1976 was his year. Best case running in 1980 scenario? Have him keep it close with Carter in the primaries, very much the “if only we had picked Mo / too many liberals” thought—by 1980 the liberals do in fact consolidate around him and Mo is forced into it with no Kennedy and no Bayh.

Man I miss @Andrew T, so more importantly, how does popular culture change? (More intriguing thoughts at the link)

Here's what's in and what's out:

TV: Obviously, there's no Family Ties, but I think we also lose shows that reveled in ostentatious greed, like the prime-time soaps (Dallas, Dynasty, Falcon Crest, etc.). We lose over-the-top Cold War paranoia shows like The Day After. Crime and legal procedurals are probably still popular, but I would expect them to be more socially conscious and message-driven, like L.A. Law and later, Law & Order, rather than the anything-justifies-getting-the-bad-guy mindset of shows like Hunter. Violence on TV is probably more regulated, so you probably miss out on TV wrestling and later shows like American Gladiators. On the other hand, sitcoms are probably largely unaffected, which means you still have Cosby; I think you also still have sitcoms like Diff'rent Strokes and Silver Spoons that play to liberal tropes. Children's TV continues to be regulated, so the next wave of cartoons would look more like Challenge of the Superfriends than OTL's toy-driven shows; you'd still have the Smurfs, but say goodbye to Transformers, G.I. Joe, He-Man and the like. That probably means that Robotech breaks out even more so than OTL
[…]

 

[V-J]

I understand the temptation to use Mo Udall in 1980 post-Ford but he won’t run. His Parkinson’s was diagnosed and he was already having trouble with it back in ‘76. There’s an account by some Dem activists that Mo ‘80 had lost a step vs Mo ‘76, plus Mo’s then-wife was against it—indeed some of the staffers on his campaign in ‘76 really didn’t like her. The media of course would lose their minds as well, Parkinson’s was not well understood by most pre-Michael J. Fox days.

My Mo Udall timeline would be crazy easier in a Ford wins scenario, but it is incredibly unlikely.

Nuance of analysis on post-1900? Devil, get behind me.

 

[dw93]

I've always believe Hugh Carey would be a strong contender for 1980 in a Ford wins 76 scenario. He did save New York after all.