AHC: Paleoconservative US President (1988 to 2008)
- Thread starter John Fredrick Parker
- Start date
-
- Tags
- american politics
No. The only major cross-over between them and Perot was on the NAFTA issue and general anti-globalisation. On other issues, Perot was potentially actively antagonistic towards some of their sacred cows. I mean, he was even happy to diss the almighty constitution!
Last edited:
President Buchanan - Part 4
2011-12: President Pauken runs for re-nomination unopposed. The Democrats battle it out between NY Senators John F. Kennedy Jr. and Hillary Clinton. Kennedy wins after a long primary and picks IL Senator Barack Obama as his VP.
The general election is a close run thing with Kennedy defeating Pauken narrowly 49.2-48.7%. Despite Kennedy's victory, the GOP keeps control of Congress despite losing seats.
2013-14: President Kennedy's first two years are fairly uneventful and his popularity remains high.
The midterms saw Republicans gains a few seats in the House while the Dems gained in the Senate. Former President Pauken was elected to his old seat in the Senate.
2015-present: President Kennedy wins renomination unopposed. Former Vice President Vernon Robinson won the Republican nomination over a very crowded field.
Kennedy and Robinson run a tough race and Kennedy narrowly wins re-election.
2011-12: President Pauken runs for re-nomination unopposed. The Democrats battle it out between NY Senators John F. Kennedy Jr. and Hillary Clinton. Kennedy wins after a long primary and picks IL Senator Barack Obama as his VP.
The general election is a close run thing with Kennedy defeating Pauken narrowly 49.2-48.7%. Despite Kennedy's victory, the GOP keeps control of Congress despite losing seats.
2013-14: President Kennedy's first two years are fairly uneventful and his popularity remains high.
The midterms saw Republicans gains a few seats in the House while the Dems gained in the Senate. Former President Pauken was elected to his old seat in the Senate.
2015-present: President Kennedy wins renomination unopposed. Former Vice President Vernon Robinson won the Republican nomination over a very crowded field.
Kennedy and Robinson run a tough race and Kennedy narrowly wins re-election.
It should be noted that Donald Trump has kept a few Paleoconservative beliefs for his entire life (such as skepticism of global alliance systems bankrolled by America, skepticism of trade especially with low cost provider nations in East Asia, and enforcement based anti-crime policies), but that many of his other beliefs have been amorphous. I don't think he would be some kind of Paleocon choice earlier than say, 2010.
The best chance I think is for Pat Buchanan to run in 1996 and get the endorsement of Ross Perot, and run a fusionist Reform-Republican ticket, and have a bunch of Clinton scandals come out right before the election, along with perhaps a less aggressive Gingrich in '95. Perot and Buchanan overlapped on issues of trade, immigration, crime, skepticism of multilateralism and global security systems after the Cold War. They differed on issues of gun rights, abortion, and other hot button social issues. But I think there was more overlap than differences, and perhaps Perot could have been persuaded to run as Vice President or merely to endorse Buchanan if, say, he had health issues.
The best chance I think is for Pat Buchanan to run in 1996 and get the endorsement of Ross Perot, and run a fusionist Reform-Republican ticket, and have a bunch of Clinton scandals come out right before the election, along with perhaps a less aggressive Gingrich in '95. Perot and Buchanan overlapped on issues of trade, immigration, crime, skepticism of multilateralism and global security systems after the Cold War. They differed on issues of gun rights, abortion, and other hot button social issues. But I think there was more overlap than differences, and perhaps Perot could have been persuaded to run as Vice President or merely to endorse Buchanan if, say, he had health issues.
I realize the reasons to avoid discussing what paleoconservatism is, but you really have to or else, for example, you get Jack Kemp or Norman Podhoretz thrown in as examples of paleoconservatism.
This commentator had a pretty good definition:
"Paleoconservatism is nationalistic, anti-trade, anti-immigration, anti-liberal (in the sense of liberal internationalism), very culturally conservative in a more tribalistic fashion. They're anti-intervention and anti-internationalist in foreign policy as well."
Think of the Republican Party in the 1920s.
Btw, though somewhat visible, paleoconservatism really has been pretty marginal since the Great Depression/ World War II, arguably even more marginal in US politics than socialism.
This commentator had a pretty good definition:
"Paleoconservatism is nationalistic, anti-trade, anti-immigration, anti-liberal (in the sense of liberal internationalism), very culturally conservative in a more tribalistic fashion. They're anti-intervention and anti-internationalist in foreign policy as well."
Think of the Republican Party in the 1920s.
Btw, though somewhat visible, paleoconservatism really has been pretty marginal since the Great Depression/ World War II, arguably even more marginal in US politics than socialism.
I also agree with the earlier commentator who said that you all were overthinking this.
His suggestion was that Reagan nominate a paleoconservative as his VP, who then succeeds Reagan. That is close, but I have a simpler suggestion.
My suggestion is that Ronald Reagan himself is your paleoconservative President. He did have paleoconservative types in his administration, most notably Pat Buchanan himself. No other late 20th/ early 21st President has done this, including Donald Trump (pretty much all the paleoconservatives in the Trump Adminstration were gone after a few months).
In this scenario, Reagan still does not have GHW Bush as his VP. This is because with Bush came alot of establishment Republicans filling high positions in the administration, most notably James Baker who definitely would not be there if Bush wasn't there. In this scenario, Bush doesn't win Iowa and exits the race as an also-ran early.
IOTL, Reagan dominated the 1980 Republican primaries, and Bush was the only other candidate to get any traction against Reagan, by winning six contests. Reagan got almost 60% of the total votes and Bush something like 23.6%. There are two ways you can go with this. Have Reagan be even more dominant and win all the states, in which case he has no need to reach out to the globalist/ internationalist/ establishment wing of the GOP and has more of a free hand in selecting his running mate and staffing his administration.
There is an alternative scenario that could work in that the runnner up in the 1980 Republican primaries is a pol somewhat less aligned with globalism than Bush, with Dole and Connally being the best president (there are no high profile paleocon politicians, but from a paleocon perspective either Dole or Connally are better than any of the Bushes, McCain, or Romney). Maybe Connally becomes Reagan's VP and Dole winds up in the administration as Secretary of State instead of Haig/ Schultz.
Both scenarios presume that Reagan himself is more sympathetic to paleoconservatism than he really was, so lets go with that.
So that is the AHC. Make Ronald Reagan more of a paleoconservative, and he doesn't have to compromise as much with the internationalist wing of the GOP because he either completely dominates the nomination process or the runner-up is less of an internationalist than Bush. At the least this pushes the Bushes into obscurity -they disappear into the corporate sector- so both Bush administrations are butterflied away and there is a good chance the Clinton administration gets butterflied away as well.
His suggestion was that Reagan nominate a paleoconservative as his VP, who then succeeds Reagan. That is close, but I have a simpler suggestion.
My suggestion is that Ronald Reagan himself is your paleoconservative President. He did have paleoconservative types in his administration, most notably Pat Buchanan himself. No other late 20th/ early 21st President has done this, including Donald Trump (pretty much all the paleoconservatives in the Trump Adminstration were gone after a few months).
In this scenario, Reagan still does not have GHW Bush as his VP. This is because with Bush came alot of establishment Republicans filling high positions in the administration, most notably James Baker who definitely would not be there if Bush wasn't there. In this scenario, Bush doesn't win Iowa and exits the race as an also-ran early.
IOTL, Reagan dominated the 1980 Republican primaries, and Bush was the only other candidate to get any traction against Reagan, by winning six contests. Reagan got almost 60% of the total votes and Bush something like 23.6%. There are two ways you can go with this. Have Reagan be even more dominant and win all the states, in which case he has no need to reach out to the globalist/ internationalist/ establishment wing of the GOP and has more of a free hand in selecting his running mate and staffing his administration.
There is an alternative scenario that could work in that the runnner up in the 1980 Republican primaries is a pol somewhat less aligned with globalism than Bush, with Dole and Connally being the best president (there are no high profile paleocon politicians, but from a paleocon perspective either Dole or Connally are better than any of the Bushes, McCain, or Romney). Maybe Connally becomes Reagan's VP and Dole winds up in the administration as Secretary of State instead of Haig/ Schultz.
Both scenarios presume that Reagan himself is more sympathetic to paleoconservatism than he really was, so lets go with that.
So that is the AHC. Make Ronald Reagan more of a paleoconservative, and he doesn't have to compromise as much with the internationalist wing of the GOP because he either completely dominates the nomination process or the runner-up is less of an internationalist than Bush. At the least this pushes the Bushes into obscurity -they disappear into the corporate sector- so both Bush administrations are butterflied away and there is a good chance the Clinton administration gets butterflied away as well.
I think that we are using the term Paleoconservative in a way I'm not used to. In the US, there were conservatives in the 1950s and 60s. Robert Taft was Mr. Conservative. Barry Goldwater was his successor. William F. Buckley was the media leader. In the late 1960s, there were a group of intellectuals who rejected the left and joined the conservative movement. These were the Neoconservatives. Norman Podhoretz and Irving Kristol. You also had anticommunist Democrats like Richard Perle and Jeanne Kirkpatrick.
I'm used to Paleoconservative meaning not Neoconservative. This thread seems to be creating a third category, basically putting Pat Buchanan in a different category then Ronald Reagan. I am asking for an example of a prominent paleoconservative politician. Pat Buchanan is a commentator. Running for President was a business decision. It was also an anti Bush move.
John Fredrick Parker
Donor
@daveg1967 Buchanan was a different category than Ronald Reagan; this thread is not creating a new category, but using a widely accepted term understood to mean a distinct ideology. Yes, Paleocons may see themselves as the "true" conservatives, but if so Reagan certainly wasn't one of them (Neocon driven FP, amnesty, etc).
Now Buchanan was indeed a commentator, and his decision to run OTL may well have been motivated by branding and anti-Bush sentiments (I don't know myself); but if so, that's why the thread is an AH challenge, and is not somehow evidence for paleoconservatism not existing.
Now Buchanan was indeed a commentator, and his decision to run OTL may well have been motivated by branding and anti-Bush sentiments (I don't know myself); but if so, that's why the thread is an AH challenge, and is not somehow evidence for paleoconservatism not existing.
Paleoconservatives are essentially the modern incarnation of the "Old Right" in American politics, a movement/philosophy which largely died off and gave way to the "New Right" in the 1950s and 1960s as a result of the escalating Cold War. Taft and Goldwater actually illustrate this divide well - both men were "conservatives" in that they broadly opposed the New Deal* and organized labor, while favoring laissez-faire economic policy and a strict interpretation of the Constitution regarding powers of the Federal Government. In foreign policy, however, Taft was an old-fashioned Midwestern isolationist of the "America First" variety who opposed both U.S. involvement in WWII (at least prior to Pearl Harbor) and NATO, while Goldwater was a Cold Warrior "hawk" who went so far as to express a willingness to use tactical nuclear weapons in Vietnam. Taft was also a cultural/social conservative, while Goldwater was more of a liberal/moderate in this regard, at least in his later years.
The most prominent paleoconservative politician that I can think of would probably be Ron Paul. He's often grouped in with the libertarians as his advocacy of strict constitutionalism and a limited federal government leads them to share some common goals (e.g. no drug war or PATRIOT Act), but his conservative political positions at the state level would put him at odds with many libertarians (i.e. he would be okay with his home state of Texas criminalizing drug use or homosexuality, but would oppose federal laws forcing Texas to do so).
* Taft apparently received some flack from the right for his limited support of New Deal programs such as social security, public housing and federal aid to education.
Last edited: