AHC: Keep the GOP with a substantial Rockefeller Wing While Electing Reagan

What it says. Whaddya got?

Does it have to be in 1980?

I'd imagine the earlier you get Reagan elected, the more possible this is.

Perhaps he manages to beat Ford in the 76 primaries? If he wins the 76 election he'd face the same problems Carter did IOTL.

Any Reagan win in 1976 would be closer than his win over Carter in 1980, something that could dent his authority from the outset.

With the GOP in control of the Whitehouse for 12 years by 1980, the Dems would be favoured to retake presidencial control come November 80.

A Democrat oversees the 80's boom, winning reelection in 1984. Their Veep then goes on to win the 88 election. In 1992 the GOP base believe they need a moderate to win and more moderate Republicans are elected throughout the country.

Preventing Watergate from coming out could help too-giving Nixon a bit more influence in how things pan out.
Say Nixon serves 2 terms and Reagan is the nominee in 1976. If he then loses in 1980 the GOP may mold themselves in the Nixon image rather than the Reagan one, as Nixon is seen as more popular with the public at large.

A 1968 Reagan win is even better-Rockefeller is still active at this point and Reagan may be forced to be more moderate to keep his party on-side.

I think I've seen a TL based on this, a Rockefeller republican is elected in 1976 after Reagan's 2 terms, though they're booted out by the democrats under Ted Kenedy in 80. The Democrats are creddited with the economy in the 80's and social reforms, leading to a more liberal republican party in the early 2000's-at least more so than OTL.
I remember thinking how ironic it was that an earlier Reagan presidency caused the US to become more liberal in the 1980's...
 
Harry Truman manages a full-on UN victory in Korea, allowing him to win a landslide second term over Bob Taft in '52. Armed with a liberal Congress (one of the members of which is California Representative Ronald Reagan (D)), he passes single-payer health insurance and repeals section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act, among other things. The Democrats hold on to the White House in 1956 with Vice President Scott Lucas, and are finally put out to pasture in 1960 with the election of Nelson Rockefeller as President.

Rockefeller oversees much of the Civil Rights movement in America. Re-elected thanks to a booming economy in 1964 over Democrat George McGovern, Rockefeller's Viet Nam policy is much more Eisenhower and a lot less Kennedy. The sixties see balanced budgets and small increases to social program funding, but never the Great Society bonanza of OTL. In 1968, voters choose Vice President Charles Mathias over Senator Robert Kennedy of New York in a tight election, despite Kennedy winning the popular vote.

By 1972, however, the impulse for social reform on the economic side of things is running over. President Mathias makes gestures toward reform, but his expansion of the war in Viet Nam, combined with an unfair draft system and student protests eventually leads to his downfall in 1972 to California's liberal Governor, Ronald Reagan.

As President, Reagan embarks on the 'decent society' program which enacts a flurry of economic reforms. A national industrial policy is implemented to help save American manufacturing, environmental policies are enacted to contain the growth of pollutants in products, and a system of national service is instituted to correct the unfairness of the existing selective service program. Reagan's Viet Nam policy leads to a negotiated peace, and South Viet Nam is essentially preserved in an OTL Korea-like fashion.

Reagan is re-elected in 1976 over Republican Senator George H. Bush of Texas. By 1980, the GOP has moderated their stance on economics a bit, and wins the White House with Massachusetts Senator Ed Brooke, the first African-American President.

As of 2011, American politics is quite different from OTL. The Democrats remain the nation's majority party, and unions and American manufacturing are as strong as ever. The Democratic Party of TTL has quite a few differences from that of OTL 2011, however. It is a multiracial party, but there are a lot less African-Americans and a lot more 'white ethnics'; Democrats do not have a strangle-hold on the nation's cities, and the party is a bit more socially conservative. Basically, think OTL's Labour Party in Britain (with authoritarian-ish sorts of policies with regard to law and order) but a bit more left-of-center ala the German SPD.

The Republicans are more or less where the British Lib Dems are today. Most are Rockefeller-esque Republicans with conservative fiscal views and somewhat centrist to left-of-center views on social issues. President Hillary Rodham (R-IL) recently left office after eight years of somewhat even economic growth and balanced budgets.
 
Harry Truman manages a full-on UN victory in Korea, allowing him to win a landslide second term over Bob Taft in '52. Armed with a liberal Congress (one of the members of which is California Representative Ronald Reagan (D)), he passes single-payer health insurance and repeals section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act, among other things. The Democrats hold on to the White House in 1956 with Vice President Scott Lucas, and are finally put out to pasture in 1960 with the election of Nelson Rockefeller as President.

A more successful Harry Truman in this scenario may lead to Republicans running in 1956 against 24 years of Democrats in the White House. The GOP would probably nominate Tom Dewey, William Knowland or even John Bricker.

I agree that there would be fewer African-Americans in the Democratic Party (OTL, Republicans running for President during 1936-1960 could count on at least 28 percent of the black vote). Therefore, Republicans would still win at least a third of the African-American vote.
 
Debatable whether that isn't OTL depending on how you define such a thing. Look at the success of "moderates" like Mitt Romney, Scott Brown, Newt Gingrich, Jon Huntsman, John McCain, Dick Lugar, George Pataki, etc. Of course if you wanted a more "socially progressive" and Keynesian party you could have Reagan win in 1968 or 1976 and focus even more on dog whistle/"law and order" politics than he did in OTL (while leaving medicare and social security alone or expanding them like he did in 1983)... Or simply have Reagan's approvals never recover after his lows in 1982-1983 and no fairness doctrine allowing for modern talk radio and all that. Or have Pete Wilson, Colin Powell, etc. prove to be as successful as a lot of people thought they would be.
 
I'd argue that the key here would be to change the Democratic Party, to make it a distinctly secondary party with largely left-wing views and a marginal impact.

That would allow the GOP to be a broad tent, taking in centrists who would otherwise tilt to the Democrats.

In global terms, this shouldn't be difficult, theoretically. Most Western countries have a dominant center-right party and a more marginal left-wing one. The U.S. is unique in having two major parties - one right-wing and one center-left - that are broadly at parity.
 
Reagan tried to negotiate a deal with Ford, where Ford would be Reagan's running mate in 1980. Negotiations broke down because Ford was insisting on effectively a co-presidency arrangement, where Ford would get to nominate SecState and SecTreas and would be delegated a large portfolio of the President's authority and responsibility. Had Reagan accepted something like that, he likely still would have won the general election (perhaps with a larger majority than IOTL), but with a Rockefeller Republican as de facto co-President.
 
Top