As I mentioned, Hugh Carey, and I'd also add Mondale, Reubin Askew, Lloyd Bentsen, Frank Church could also give it a go as well.
1980s Culture Under a Democratic US President
- Thread starter Amadeus
- Start date
Any President elected in '76 would've faced the same problems as Carter (economy, Iran, etc). The difference is how they might've risen to the occasion to face the challenges of the time.
I don't think it's impossible for someone to rise to the occasion to face the challenges of 1977-81. That said, I think very few would've achieve a significantly better result than Carter did OTL (I agree Ford would've done better, but not much better, certainly not well enough to save his party from defeat in 80) and would still have a tough fight in 1980. I feel the same way about 2004 that I feel about 1976.
There's a lot of potential butterflies and divergences between 1976 and 1980, the Iranian revolution might transpire differently or might be aborted, which could mean the incumbent party politically and the economy are in much better shape in 1980. People are generally way too deterministic on here about points of outcome which are literally years away from a POD. I don't even think any president elected in 1976 would have necessarily faced the same problems, let alone been as bad at handling them as Carter.
I think whichever Democrat wins in 1980 would govern as center left socially and a moderate new dealer economically, at least through the early 80s. I think the Dems would still moderate on the whole through the rest of the 80s and 90s, but not to the extent of OTL, nor do I think the GOP will be as Conservative, though a Republican elected as early as 1988 would still likely govern to Ford's right.
16-20 years of the dems taking advantage of the post-early 80s recovery would shift things ALOT to the left on econ and to a lesser extent social issues but NOT identity politics stuff, remember a combo of new deal revivalism+various 70s center left stuff not OTL's post-clinton/obama dems. not full-on social democracy but well leftwards of our america.
It would be left of today's America, but I think a rightward shift in the political landscape was gonna happen sometime between 1988 and 2000. Far milder than OTL, but one would still happen none the less.
I think this would even be the case if a Republican other than Reagan were sitting in the White House in 1981.
Well yes we'd see a rightwards shift in 1996 or 2000, but it'd be different than Reaganism.Why? 1) more secularized US 2) a bigger welfare* state to get nativist over 3) neoliberalism proven to be ah iffy in the UK/Chile. Think more Trump and less Reagan/tea party.
* Obamacare expanding healthcare coverage and Trumpism becoming a thing later aren't unconnected
I'd give Mondale a fair shot. He'd probably include Carter in his administration I reckon. Frank Church would likely be a one-term president given he would die in 1984. Granted, maybe being President would hasten that or allow the pancreatic tumor to be noticed sooner.
I don't think there's much reason to believe Bentsen would go anywhere based on the non-performance of his 1976 campaign, where he basically only had senatorial looks and money going for him and went nowhere. Same goes for Askew from 1984, I'd imagine. (Particularly if he still runs as an anti-abortion Southern Democrat)
I'm not sure about Mondale. He wanted to run in 1976 OTL, but was aghast at the demands of fundraising and dropped out early. He just may not have the desire for a national campaign.
It could be someone relatively left-field considering this is still fairly early in the life of the primary/caucus system, and strong or even competent campaigns weren't a given. Most of the field for the Democrats in 1976 demonstrate that well enough, and Bob Dole and John Connolly in 1980 for the Republicans. Hart is possible, (But he's up for re-election in 1980) or Biden if Carey doesn't run. Biden particularly I think has the skills to bridge the yuppie/blue collar/rise of the boomers divide which was so obvious in Mondale-Hart and which should be emergent by 1980.
I'm not sure about Mondale. He wanted to run in 1976 OTL, but was aghast at the demands of fundraising and dropped out early. He just may not have the desire for a national campaign.
It could be someone relatively left-field considering this is still fairly early in the life of the primary/caucus system, and strong or even competent campaigns weren't a given. Most of the field for the Democrats in 1976 demonstrate that well enough, and Bob Dole and John Connolly in 1980 for the Republicans. Hart is possible, (But he's up for re-election in 1980) or Biden if Carey doesn't run. Biden particularly I think has the skills to bridge the yuppie/blue collar/rise of the boomers divide which was so obvious in Mondale-Hart and which should be emergent by 1980.
Last edited:
Mondale would be 1980's John Edwards - he'll have name recognition, but he'd be too tainted by 1976 to win. Actually, Bob Dole ran in 1980 after losing the Vice-Presidency in 1976 and his candidacy tanked hard.
Hmmm... maybe Frank Church in 1980 and Mondale in 1984 if Church still dies in OTL?
I disagree with your interpretation of Brown. He wasn’t a centrist, he was like a liberal on a budget. That wasn’t very popular in 1992, but it would probably work a lot better for the American people of 1980. He’s a little like if JFK had gone through the ‘70s and emerge very fiscally conscious.
I don’t think too much divergence has ever been a problem on this site. People regularly post lists that begin with Abraham Lincoln losing in 1860 and those butterflies leads all the way to Hillary Rodham winning the presidency in 2012. A PoD in 1860 means that Clinton, born in the over 80 years later, keeps her last name as she wanted to IOTL? Too much divergence has never been much of an issue.
It is very possible for Iran to descend into a civil war between leftists and Islamists or for the leftists to be able to purge the Islamists instead of the other way around. I’ve been working on a project where a leftist government coming from the Workers’ House (a sort of national union that IOTL Iran had to suppress the will of the workers by making them members of a toothless organization, but this one gains enough power and influence for general strikes, etc) and that government holds on for a few years before being couped by the US. The Workers’ House is still in power but purged of leftists and existing basically as a pro-business nationalist organization that gives token support to the impoverished and unemployed while being Western aligned and making overtures to democratic republicanism (even though their leader is a dictator with emergency powers) and religious dogma without being an actual Islamic Republic.
I think each of these guys plus John Glenn and Dick Lamm are most of the major contenders with a shot.
Instead of singing, "Carter power will soon go 'way," what would the lyric be in this ATL 1980? "Ford power will soon go 'way"? (Note: The song was released in June 1979).
This is at least more accurate than 'centrist' as a descriptor of the 1992 campaign. That run was all about angry populist outsider-ism; a flat tax, campaign finance reform, etc. A funhouse mirror of centrism.
The key thing about Jerry of course, is that he's wandered all over hell's half acre during his career. There are constants, but a lot of guises. The problem with him in 1980 is not so much political per se as the sheer idiosyncrasies of where he was heading personally. This is only a few years before he hits his mid-life journey of discovery outside the country.
His big chance, in terms of races he actually ran in, was 1976, not 1980, incumbent Dem or not.
A lot of people been going on about the Iranian Revolution. The thing is it been in the works for an long time, even as far back to the coup itself of 1953. The White Revolution simply anger everyone on every side and the Shah was becoming more and more despotic to fuel his ego.
The Shah is the emperor with no clothes and everyone sees it. No one going to be following his orders soon enough. The Shah is also alredy in poor health and likely died as in OTL, or close to it, exile, or not.
It is true Jimmy Carter truly screwed up over Iran, and anyone else such as Ford would have done an better job.
I also doubt Iran would descend into a civil war between leftists and Islamists. The Tudeh was not popular with the middle classes given how far left they was, and SAVAK smacking them down since the ealry 70s didn't help them. (And they was just too much of a puppet of Moscow to act Independently.) Also the Islamic radicals only took power because the moderates let them, and the Islamics only came to power thanks to Ayatollah Khomenini coming back to Iran/was still alive by 1978-1979.
The key to Iran is stopping Khomeini from coming back at all. He alone poisoned the relationship between the Westernized elite, anti-Shah activists, and the conservative Muslims. Iran can become a secular, democratic republic lead a by National Front coalition government. (While dealing with civil strife cause by the tension of between the traditional Muslims, conservative Islamists and the Western oriented elite and middle class for a while.) If the cards are played right.
Any revolution would still see oil prices rise as in OTL too which would affect the 1980 election and ealry 80s.
The Shah is the emperor with no clothes and everyone sees it. No one going to be following his orders soon enough. The Shah is also alredy in poor health and likely died as in OTL, or close to it, exile, or not.
It is true Jimmy Carter truly screwed up over Iran, and anyone else such as Ford would have done an better job.
I also doubt Iran would descend into a civil war between leftists and Islamists. The Tudeh was not popular with the middle classes given how far left they was, and SAVAK smacking them down since the ealry 70s didn't help them. (And they was just too much of a puppet of Moscow to act Independently.) Also the Islamic radicals only took power because the moderates let them, and the Islamics only came to power thanks to Ayatollah Khomenini coming back to Iran/was still alive by 1978-1979.
The key to Iran is stopping Khomeini from coming back at all. He alone poisoned the relationship between the Westernized elite, anti-Shah activists, and the conservative Muslims. Iran can become a secular, democratic republic lead a by National Front coalition government. (While dealing with civil strife cause by the tension of between the traditional Muslims, conservative Islamists and the Western oriented elite and middle class for a while.) If the cards are played right.
Any revolution would still see oil prices rise as in OTL too which would affect the 1980 election and ealry 80s.
Great post but the oil thing was only tangentially because of Iran. Saudi Arabia wanted to keep oil prices low while OPEC wanted to crank them for cash in 1978-79 (Saudis lost) and when Iranian problems happened on top of that Wall St—like the sane, brilliant, far future oriented people they are—panicked. If the Iranian Revolution and OPEC collapse are either farther apart, or if US deregulation of oil is fast (or perhaps wage & price controls), then possibly Wall St will not panic over less than 5% of global oil supply lol.
Oil prices will rise because OPEC is broken, but it’s very easy to model a shorter and shallower oil price boom—with interesting domestic side effects in oil producing states like New Mexico and Louisiana.