AHC Pat Robertson 1996

nickboy000

Banned
Simple, have Pat Robertson win the 1996 election. What I'm thinking is have the world trade center bombing succeed and Muslim nations applaud it, and have the Supreme Court rule against under god in the pledge to affirm the Culture War notion. Would this be enough?
 
Considering the only plausible event among those three is a successful WTC bombing, no, I don't think that's enough. I can't imagine the global response to it would be any different from 9/11, when all but a handful of governments condemned the attack.
 

nickboy000

Banned
Considering the only plausible event among those three is a successful WTC bombing, no, I don't think that's enough. I can't imagine the global response to it would be any different from 9/11, when all but a handful of governments condemned the attack.

I understand the second one is far fetched, but the third one almost happened. It took dodges from the Supreme Court to make it not happen. They probably dodged it because of the possible political ramifications, but what if they hadn't and ruled it unconstitutional. Would this and the first part be enough? Is the second part really asb?
edit: You really don't think you could get O'Connor and Kennedy to rule it unconstitutional? The same ones that upheld the central holding of Roe in Casey?
 
I understand the second one is far fetched, but the third one almost happened. It took dodges from the Supreme Court to make it not happen. They probably dodged it because of the possible political ramifications, but what if they hadn't and ruled it unconstitutional. Would this and the first part be enough? Is the second part really asb?

I'm aware of one Supreme Court case concerning that part of the pledge, but it was from the mid-2000's. Is that what you were thinking of, or was there something similar in the mid-90's?
 

nickboy000

Banned
I'm aware of one Supreme Court case concerning that part of the pledge, but it was from the mid-2000's. Is that what you were thinking of, or was there something similar in the mid-90's?
I was thinking of that case when writing the comment, but I was thinking what if came in 1995 or 1994 and they ruled it unconstitutional. Wouldn't it be helpful for Robertson because the blowback would be much larger then than in the 2000s
 
I was thinking of that case when writing the comment, but I was thinking what if came in 1995 or 1994 and they ruled it unconstitutional. Wouldn't it be helpful for Robertson because the blowback would be much larger then than in the 2000s

In that case, it was the liberal justices who led the charge to, well, dodge the main issue. The opinion was written by John Paul Stevens. With that in mind, it seems beyond unlikely to me that those same justices, the newest of whom reached the Court in August 1994 and everyone else before that year, would willingly take such a contentious stance. Like, why would they do it, despite the certainty of blowback?
 

nickboy000

Banned
In that case, it was the liberal justices who led the charge to, well, dodge the main issue. The opinion was written by John Paul Stevens. With that in mind, it seems beyond unlikely to me that those same justices, the newest of whom reached the Court in August 1994 and everyone else before that year, would willingly take such a contentious stance. Like, why would they do it, despite the certainty of blowback?

I know it was a different court but the blowback from Roe v Wade and school prayer is greater than what they would face from this. I don't think it's unbelievable for them to have taken another stance against religion. If they did it would this and the 1st thing I mentioned enough for Robertson? I think it is because this is 4 years after the Culture War speech and this plays right into it.
 
I was thinking of that case when writing the comment, but I was thinking what if came in 1995 or 1994 and they ruled it unconstitutional. Wouldn't it be helpful for Robertson because the blowback would be much larger then than in the 2000s

While that would certainly piss people off it wouldn't be nearly enough to make Pat Robertson president. For him to become President we'd need SCOTUS to do something way outside the mainstream like legalize same sex marriage and then have an asteroid slam into San Francisco, an earthquake destroy New York City and a raging firestorm burn Hollywood to the ground.

Then maybe a majority of Americans will agree with Pat that God is punishing America for its sinful behavior and elect him president.
 
I know it was a different court but the blowback from Roe v Wade and school prayer is greater than what they would face from this. I don't think it's unbelievable for them to have taken another stance against religion. If they did it would this and the 1st thing I mentioned enough for Robertson? I think it is because this is 4 years after the Culture War speech and this plays right into it.

I still find it highly unlikely that such a radical departure from their OTL decisionmaking would fly. Hell, most Democrats would probably oppose such a ruling.

And no, even if that and the bombing happened, it still wouldn't be enough. The latter would overshadow the former by an extreme margin, especially if it meant more US involvement overseas afterwards. And like W IOTL, Bill would receive a significant sympathy vote from it in the short term. And otherwise, I think a successful WTC bombing would be more beneficial to Republican neoconservatives rather than evangelicals. With that in mind, I don't think Robertson could even get the Republican nomination. He flamed out fast in 1988 IOTL, and since then he wrote a highly controversial book full of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. He'd be dismissed as a crank, and one who would badly tarnish the party brand if he became their standard bearer.
 

MrP

Banned
I know it was a different court but the blowback from Roe v Wade and school prayer is greater than what they would face from this. I don't think it's unbelievable for them to have taken another stance against religion.
For the record, that wouldn't have been a "stance against religion", but one in favour of the separation of church and state. But even then, as already pointed out, it would have been a nonstarter with the Supreme Court.
 

nickboy000

Banned
For the record, that wouldn't have been a "stance against religion", but one in favour of the separation of church and state. But even then, as already pointed out, it would have been a nonstarter with the Supreme Court.

What do you mean "nonstarter"? The 2 things you mentioned aren't mutually exclusive.
 
What do you mean "nonstarter"? The 2 things you mentioned aren't mutually exclusive.

Well, he refers to what I said about the issue, and how unlikely I find it that the five Justices who wrote the Elk Grove ruling would have written a far different decision a decade earlier. I think the root of our disagreement is that you seem to think it would be no big stretch for those Justices to have struck down that part of the Pledge, while for me, that would have been a radical departure from what happened IOTL.

For Stevens and the others, I rather doubt they would have bothered hearing the case at all had the Appeals Court ruled in favor of the school district. They did it to defuse the potential precedent of making the Under God phrase unconstitutional, not to endorse it. The difference between the majority opinion and that of Rehnquist was that the latter wanted to rule that the Pledge was constitutional as it was, whereas Stevens et al wanted to neutralize the threat without unduly offending people who sympathized with the plaintiff.

Honestly, given the OTL circumstances, I think for you to make a convincing argument for this different ruling, you first need to marshal evidence that John Paul Stevens and other Justices think that that part of the Pledge is unconstitutional. Have they said anything to that effect under other circumstances, or do you simply assume they believe such by dint of their liberalism?
 

nickboy000

Banned
I still find it highly unlikely that such a radical departure from their OTL decisionmaking would fly. Hell, most Democrats would probably oppose such a ruling.

And no, even if that and the bombing happened, it still wouldn't be enough. The latter would overshadow the former by an extreme margin, especially if it meant more US involvement overseas afterwards. And like W IOTL, Bill would receive a significant sympathy vote from it in the short term. And otherwise, I think a successful WTC bombing would be more beneficial to Republican neoconservatives rather than evangelicals. With that in mind, I don't think Robertson could even get the Republican nomination. He flamed out fast in 1988 IOTL, and since then he wrote a highly controversial book full of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. He'd be dismissed as a crank, and one who would badly tarnish the party brand if he became their standard bearer.
1) You can be a neocon and an evangelical. Neocon are defined by their hawkish foreign, you can still believe in Religious Liberty and be a hawk. Proven by Ted Cruz, who won the 2016 Iowa caucus (won because of his support from evangelicals)and is a foreign policy hawk.

2) Bill Clinton's sympathy vote is dramatically overstated because Democrats are portrayed as weak on Foreign Policy , so he could be potrayed as to have been the cause. Just imagine Fox News if 911 happened under Gore.....

3) Terror attacks have profound effects on Republicans. Remember that in July 2002 Bush had a 99 percent approval rating from Republicans. Despite signing the patriot act which goes against the idea of small government. So I think the reaction from Republicans would have been more grand in the 90s during the peak of evangelicalism.

4) Pat Robertson would just have to tone down the anti-Isreal rhetoric. He would be unpalatable to the establishment but I think he wins with the base especially if there's a crowded field.

5) The 2 things would be probably enough to win the geneal but if not, just have Bill Clintons sex scandals come earlier. Then you would have a 2000 effect where people vote for Robertson because of his "Moral Strength "
 

nickboy000

Banned
My problem is that I think the Justices dodged it not because they think it is Constitutional but because of the blowback. So I don't think it's ASB for them to go from let's not stir things up to let's just deal with it.
 
My problem is that I think the Justices dodged it not because they think it is Constitutional but because of the blowback. So I don't think it's ASB for them to go from let's not stir things up to let's just deal with it.

Again, do you have any evidence whatsoever? The liberalism of the Justices involved is insufficient, especially when one of them is Kennedy.
 
re: the Pledge.

Texas V. Johnson, which was AT LEAST as much of an outrage to right-thinking sensibillities as nixing Under God would be, was decided during the GHW Bush administration, with Bush making his opposition to the decision a major part of his political persona. Didn't do him much good in the subsequent election.
 
1) You can be a neocon and an evangelical. Neocon are defined by their hawkish foreign, you can still believe in Religious Liberty and be a hawk. Proven by Ted Cruz, who won the 2016 Iowa caucus (won because of his support from evangelicals)and is a foreign policy hawk.

2) Bill Clinton's sympathy vote is dramatically overstated because Democrats are portrayed as weak on Foreign Policy , so he could be potrayed as to have been the cause. Just imagine Fox News if 911 happened under Gore.....

3) Terror attacks have profound effects on Republicans. Remember that in July 2002 Bush had a 99 percent approval rating from Republicans. Despite signing the patriot act which goes against the idea of small government. So I think the reaction from Republicans would have been more grand in the 90s during the peak of evangelicalism.

4) Pat Robertson would just have to tone down the anti-Isreal rhetoric. He would be unpalatable to the establishment but I think he wins with the base especially if there's a crowded field.

5) The 2 things would be probably enough to win the geneal but if not, just have Bill Clintons sex scandals come earlier. Then you would have a 2000 effect where people vote for Robertson because of his "Moral Strength "

1) Yes, you can, but what's relevant is that Al Qaeda is very clearly a foreign threat, and not something endemic to American society. Robertson and his ilk would be rather alone in attributing the attack to domestic societal rot. It would make them seem disconnection from reality, and honestly disrespectful to the dead if they tried arguing that the attack was reason for America to focus more on religious virtue to prevent future incidents.

2) Just as well Fox didn't exist until October of 1996, then. Otherwise, the rally around the flag effect doesn't seem to discriminate historically. And any weakness of Clinton's on the foreign front is harmful to Robertson, more below.

3) You shouldn't overestimate how much Republican voters (or leaders, for that matter) really care about small government. Government spending has risen continuously since the immediate post-WW2 aftermath, and yet no Republican President has been held accountable for their part in the expansion. I agree that a terror attack would have profound effects, and help Robertson...if he was already President. But he isn't here, so we finally get to the real heart of the problem.

4) Yeah, no, it wouldn't be that simple. This isn't a stray remark here or there we're talking about. In 1991, five years before our election, he wrote a book in which he described a shadow conspiracy that secretly controls the world. Including all the usual suspects, among them Jewish bankers. That is not something he can casually disavow, and Bob Dole and others would hammer him relentlessly on it. Now, there is some good news for him here: in the event of an early War on Terror, Pat Buchanan's isolationism would go nowhere. But that's the only good news. The bad news is that when Buchanan scared Dole in Iowa and New Hampshire IOTL, the rest of the Party promptly rallied behind Dole. That suggests that the more successful Robertson is, the less crowded the field will become.

And Dole is also very attractive on his own: a Senate leader for years, and a WW2 vet with an inspiring life story. The perfect foil to draft dodging Clinton in a foreign policy election. The Democrats did much the same thing with Kerry in 2004, after all. In the meantime, Robertson's Antisemitism would make him seem like an enemy of Israel...right when we're getting more involved in the Middle East and need all the help we can get. Throw in the GOP's shift towards Hegelian idealism after the fall of the Berlin Wall, and Robertson's Huntington-esque chauvinism would be dangerously off-brand. Remember, the Bush Administration strongly disavowed the notion that America was at war with Islam.

There's no Fox or Twitter to carry his words, AIPAC would be up in arms against him, and the whole Party would be willing to denounce him, whereas they didn't endorse Trump in 2016, but otherwise treated him with kid gloves during the primaries. Robertson would be eaten alive.

5) One of those things you haven't made a case for beyond "It's what Anthony Kennedy secretly wanted," and the other would benefit Robertson's primary rivals more than him. And Bill had sex scandals throughout his Administration. There's a reason the eventual Evangelical President we got was softer and less overbearing about his virtue. The extremists offend too many people to take the spotlight.

Honestly, I don't think you quite appreciate just how far outside the mainstream Robertson's brand of chiding, authoritarian fundamentalism was, or how figures like him aren't really supposed to occupy the spotlight. They're niche figures, who rely on alliances with more inclusive bodies like the Republican Party to wield real power instead of just getting marginalized. You need something like Rumsfeldia to make an environment where he could actually win through.
 
Last edited:

nickboy000

Banned
1) Yes, you can, but what's relevant is that Al Qaeda is very clearly a foreign threat, and not something endemic to American society. Robertson and his ilk would be rather alone in attributing the attack to domestic societal rot. It would make them seem disconnection from reality, and honestly disrespectful to the dead if they tried arguing that the attack was reason for America to focus more on religious virtue to prevent future incidents.

2) Just as well Fox didn't exist until October of 1996, then. Otherwise, the rally around the flag effect doesn't seem to discriminate historically. And any weakness of Clinton's on the foreign front is harmful to Robertson, more below.

3) You shouldn't overestimate how much Republican voters (or leaders, for that matter) really care about small government. Government spending has risen continuously since the immediate post-WW2 aftermath, and yet no Republican President has been held accountable for their part in the expansion. I agree that a terror attack would have profound effects, and help Robertson...if he was already President. But he isn't here, so we finally get to the real heart of the problem.

4) Yeah, no, it wouldn't be that simple. This isn't a stray remark here or there we're talking about. In 1991, five years before our election, he wrote a book in which he described a shadow conspiracy that secretly controls the world. Including all the usual suspects, among them Jewish bankers. That is not something he can casually disavow, and Bob Dole and others would hammer him relentlessly on it. Now, there is some good news for him here: in the event of an early War on Terror, Pat Buchanan's isolationism would go nowhere. But that's the only good news. The bad news is that when Buchanan scared Dole in Iowa and New Hampshire IOTL, the rest of the Party promptly rallied behind Dole. That suggests that the more successful Robertson is, the less crowded the field will become.

And Dole is also very attractive on his own: a Senate leader for years, and a WW2 vet with an inspiring life story. The perfect foil to draft dodging Clinton in a foreign policy election. The Democrats did much the same thing with Kerry in 2004, after all. In the meantime, Robertson's Antisemitism would make him seem like an enemy of Israel...right when we're getting more involved in the Middle East and need all the help we can get. Throw in the GOP's shift towards Hegelian idealism after the fall of the Berlin Wall, and Robertson's Huntington-esque chauvinism would be dangerously off-brand. Remember, the Bush Administration strongly disavowed the notion that America was at war with Islam.

There's no Fox or Twitter to carry his words, AIPAC would be up in arms against him, and the whole Party would be willing to denounce him, whereas they didn't endorse Trump in 2016, but otherwise treated him with kid gloves during the primaries. Robertson would be eaten alive.

5) One of those things you haven't made a case for beyond "It's what Anthony Kennedy secretly wanted," and the other would benefit Robertson's primary rivals more than him. And Bill had sex scandals throughout his Administration. There's a reason the eventual Evangelical President we got was softer and less overbearing about his virtue. The extremists offend too many people to take the spotlight.

Honestly, I don't think you quite appreciate just how far outside the mainstream Robertson's brand of chiding, authoritarian fundamentalism was, or how figures like him aren't really supposed to occupy the spotlight. They're niche figures, who rely on alliances with more inclusive bodies like the Republican Party to wield real power instead of just getting marginalized. You need something like Rumsfeldia to make an environment where he could actually win through.

I'm sorry Dole is not attractive to people, lets remember that he ran in 88 and 80 and got destroyed. He only got the nomination because the race wasn't competitive. Lets say Juanita Broaddrick comes out earlier the race would intensifier and the Republicans wouldn't allow Dole to be unopposed. Buchanan got around 25 percent of the vote in 92 and 96, those voters I think are likely Robertson voters. IF 1996 doesn't have a clear establishment favorite like in 2016, you may get a Trump effect where Robertson gets 35 to 40 percent of Republican voters and the rest fight to be the candidate that opposes him. If 1996 plays out like 2016, it would be do late for the chosen establishment candidate to oppose Robertson. Also if he was smart would attribute the Supreme Court's stances against religion to American societal rot, not the attacks. I think if these things happen, you would get someone extreme, but it may not be Robertson. His anti Israel stance may damage him too much.
 
I'm sorry Dole is not attractive to people, lets remember that he ran in 88 and 80 and got destroyed.

He wasn't the only loser in the 1988 primaries, but I suppose we've decided to ignore that.

He only got the nomination because the race wasn't competitive. Lets say Juanita Broaddrick comes out earlier the race would intensifier and the Republicans wouldn't allow Dole to be unopposed.

He was hardly unopposed. There were four other Senators, two Governors, and a Congressman, in addition to Forbes and Buchanan. Granted, more candidates could potentially have run, but that doesn't obviously follow from any of the POD's you've suggested so far.

Buchanan got around 25 percent of the vote in 92 and 96, those voters I think are likely Robertson voters.

Closer to 20 percent in 1996. For his trouble, he only won three states, though, and Dole won nearly three times as many votes.

IF 1996 doesn't have a clear establishment favorite like in 2016, you may get a Trump effect where Robertson gets 35 to 40 percent of Republican voters and the rest fight to be the candidate that opposes him.

A significant reason that happened at all was because the other Republican candidates feared the consequences of overtly attacking Trump. Robertson would have one of the most notoriously effective lobbies in Washington on his back from the beginning, so he'd hardly get the kid gloves in the same way.

If 1996 plays out like 2016, it would be do late for the chosen establishment candidate to oppose Robertson. Also if he was smart would attribute the Supreme Court's stances against religion to American societal rot, not the attacks. I think if these things happen, you would get someone extreme, but it may not be Robertson. His anti Israel stance may damage him too much.

I still await some evidence that Anthony Kennedy actually wanted to change the Pledge of Allegiance. If nothing else, he is the swing vote on contentious cases. Otherwise, I think a more likely ATL nominee might be someone like Cheney or Rumsfeld, someone who would primarily speak to national security concerns, which would be at the forefront under the circumstances we've discussed here.
 
Top