AHC: Ruin Reagans Legacy

[Æsir]

Why should they do that? Foreign popular opinion of American presidents doesn't matter. That's like asking random Americans what they think about David Cameron or Hollande.

As an American, I strangely enough like both of them. Although I realize I really shouldn't like Cameron. And it's more just not really knowing much about what they're doing, actually...

You could have him narrowly defeat Jimmy Carter in 1976, be unable to deal with the malaise of the nation, and get whipped in 1980 by ... someone else

He thought of that though, and limited it to PODs after Reagan was elected, so...

Bonus Points!!! - Carter runs against Reagan again in '80, wins, and starts the country toward the economic recovery we experieced in the 80's into the early 90's, 80's popculture stays the same, Carter Reelected in 84 and his VP elected in 88, Soviet Union collapses on time. :c)

Jimmy Carter being as revered by the public as Reagan would be awesome.

 

[MerryPrankster]

Hmm...aid to the Mujahadeen provokes a Soviet invasion of Pakistan, which leads to WWIII?

In the aftermath, whoever's left standing might blame Reagan as being excessively provocative.

 

[BigWillyG]

If he was impeached over Iran-Contra that would do it. Coupled with his union-busting, the closing of mental hospitals, and the hiking of the federal deficit it is highly unlikely he would be seen today as St. Ronnie and more in the neighborhood of a more senile Nixon.

Are we talking a successful impeachment? Assuming this goes the way of the Clinton impeachment his legacy will be even better since his critics will be seen as using impeachment as a political stunt.

Or even the Johnson impeachment for that matter. He may not be seen as a good president but those who brought the impeachment proceedings are looked poorly on as well.

 

[RGB]

Hmm...aid to the Mujahadeen provokes a Soviet invasion of Pakistan, which leads to WWIII?

In the aftermath, whoever's left standing might blame Reagan as being excessively provocative.

Talk about extreme measures!



I didn't really think the challenge required anything that drastic.

 

[serbrcq]

Or even the Johnson impeachment for that matter. He may not be seen as a good president but those who brought the impeachment proceedings are looked poorly on as well.

Really? I've never heard anyone discuss Johnson outside AH.com and he seems to be down there with Wilson among the Presidents this board despises. Haven't seen anyone picking on the Radical Republicans.

 

[BigWillyG]

Really? I've never heard anyone discuss Johnson outside AH.com and he seems to be down there with Wilson among the Presidents this board despises. Haven't seen anyone picking on the Radical Republicans.

Johnson is certainly seen as a failure but most histories I've read on the period and talking with people who know anything about the period aren't terribly big on Radical Republicans either, at least with regards to the impeachment since it's seen as either a political stunt or a waste of time better spent on actually helping Freedmen and keeping Reconstruction going.
General consensus I've seen is Johnson was at best a "meh" president but he didn't deserve impeachment.

 

[LHB]

Are we talking a successful impeachment? Assuming this goes the way of the Clinton impeachment his legacy will be even better since his critics will be seen as using impeachment as a political stunt.

Or even the Johnson impeachment for that matter. He may not be seen as a good president but those who brought the impeachment proceedings are looked poorly on as well.

It would REALLY depend on why he's getting let off the hook. If it's due to any lack of evidence that could be tied to him directly and no Cabinet members get sacked (considering the scale of the scandal there is NO WAY it was confined to JUST the White House) then it would look politically motivated. If Reagan himself is spared due to lack of evidence but someone important and visible from the cabinet, possibly even George Sr., goes down that could lead to people questioning his basic competence before his second term ends. If Ronny Ray-gun takes the stand and looks and sounds like he is completely out of it people WILL be openly questioning his competence. If he survives impeachment under such circumstances I could see the first successful removal of a president from office on the grounds of competency which would pretty solidly kill his legacy.

If Reagan is impeached and removed from office by the Senate that would make him the first (and only) US President to be impeached and removed from office. That by itself would effectively kill any chance of his proverbial beatification by the mainstream GOP, probably sink a good chunk of the Reaganite wing of the party, and likely butterfly away the Clinton impeachment proceedings entirely assuming Bill Clinton is still nominated in 1992.

 

[MerryPrankster]

Talk about extreme measures!



I didn't really think the challenge required anything that drastic.

It could be a limited war that doesn't wreck much of the planet. Maybe back-channel diplomacy keeps the war limited to Southeast Asia and the war ends with Pakistan being dismembered by India and the USSR.

Or perhaps the Pakistanis do something a bit more provocative on their own, leading to a Soviet invasion with the U.S. staying out (albeit no doubt providing lots of arms and money to the Pakistanis to bleed the Soviets as much as possible) since, after all, the Pakistanis brought this on themselves and a nuclear war would be too much of a risk.

Reagan will be remembered in the short run as the man whose recklessness led to the loss of a major U.S. ally in Asia, although in the long run, people might think an end to the Partition was a good thing.

(Of course, the obvious response is that Reagan didn't INTEND to reunite India.)

 

[BigWillyG]

It would REALLY depend on why he's getting let off the hook. If it's due to any lack of evidence that could be tied to him directly and no Cabinet members get sacked (considering the scale of the scandal there is NO WAY it was confined to JUST the White House) then it would look politically motivated. If Reagan himself is spared due to lack of evidence but someone important and visible from the cabinet, possibly even George Sr., goes down that could lead to people questioning his basic competence before his second term ends. If Ronny Ray-gun takes the stand and looks and sounds like he is completely out of it people WILL be openly questioning his competence. If he survives impeachment under such circumstances I could see the first successful removal of a president from office on the grounds of competency which would pretty solidly kill his legacy.

.

Would anything that doesn't end in his removal from office hurt him more than it hurts his critics though? Clinton ended up admitting to sleeping with an intern and lying under oath and all did was just make him more popular and the impeachment look even more of a politically motivated hatchet job. An acquittal of any sort for Reagan probably is seen in the same way, especially since many will agree with what he was did just as they do with Clinton's affairs. Late Cold War Iran-Contra is easy to spin in a good light.

 

[serbrcq]

Would anything that doesn't end in his removal from office hurt him more than it hurts his critics though? Clinton ended up admitting to sleeping with an intern and lying under oath and all did was just make him more popular and the impeachment look even more of a politically motivated hatchet job. An acquittal of any sort for Reagan probably is seen in the same way, especially since many will agree with what he was did just as they do with Clinton's affairs. Late Cold War Iran-Contra is easy to spin in a good light.

Yes, but if somebody as high up as the Vice President is arrested over Iran-Contra it becomes much harder to argue that the President didn't know about this major element of foreign policy - and if he didn't, maybe he's got bad Alzheimer's and everyone else is making decisions for him.

 

[BigWillyG]

Yes, but if somebody as high up as the Vice President is arrested over Iran-Contra it becomes much harder to argue that the President didn't know about this major element of foreign policy - and if he didn't, maybe he's got bad Alzheimer's and everyone else is making decisions for him.

Good point, hard to make it go that high though. If the Alzheimer's angle is played I could see Reagan getting a different but still positive legacy as a sickly president who's illnesses/injuries deprived him of his presidency a la William Henry Harrison, Garfield, maybe even JFK if the stress of impeachment kills him in office or creates butterflies leading to him being killed by his OTL attempted assassinations.

 

[LHB]

Would anything that doesn't end in his removal from office hurt him more than it hurts his critics though? Clinton ended up admitting to sleeping with an intern and lying under oath and all did was just make him more popular and the impeachment look even more of a politically motivated hatchet job. An acquittal of any sort for Reagan probably is seen in the same way, especially since many will agree with what he was did just as they do with Clinton's affairs. Late Cold War Iran-Contra is easy to spin in a good light.

Part of what helped Clinton's reputation was how minor the charges he was being impeached over were. If Reagan gets off for treason but Bush Sr. still gets impeached and frog-marched out of office people are going to question if Reagan is really in charge or ever was in charge in the first place. That might score him some personal sympathy points but I don't think that sympathy would outweigh the argument that a president who had his full mental capacities wouldn't have missed his VP committing treason under his nose.

Another major difference is Clinton's scandal was mostly a personal one. Iran-Contra involved a LOT of players in the Executive Branch, if that chain of players goes all the way up to the VP it would be a completely different ball game. Lying about a blowjob and being a personal sleazeball is not even remotely comparable to knowing nothing about a treasonous conspiracy penetrating some of the most secure levels of the government you are supposed to be in charge of.

For bonus points if evidence connecting Reagan to delay the release of the hostages from Iran surfaced during the investigations even if he got off he would go down in history as worse than Nixon. That would also put Carter in a new light, although whether or not that is a completely positive one I am unsure.

 

[BigWillyG]

For bonus points if evidence connecting Reagan to delay the release of the hostages from Iran surfaced during the investigations even if he got off he would go down in history as worse than Nixon. That would also put Carter in a new light, although whether or not that is a completely positive one I am unsure.

Isn't that kinda ASB to create though? Everything I've read on the Iran Hostage Crisis talks about the Iranians releasing the hostages when they did basically as a way to give a final "screw you" to Carter. I could see accusations about that being made but the complete lack of evidence would make the accusers look bad more than Reagan with the conspiracy theory vibe it would give off.

 

[LHB]

Isn't that kinda ASB to create though? Everything I've read on the Iran Hostage Crisis talks about the Iranians releasing the hostages when they did basically as a way to give a final "screw you" to Carter. I could see accusations about that being made but the complete lack of evidence would make the accusers look bad more than Reagan with the conspiracy theory vibe it would give off.

Good point, that would be a huge "if" flying right into ASB turf.

With just the impeachment would Carter's reputation get any kind of rehabilitation?

For a POD for Iran-Contra sinking Reagan we could have Mehdi Hashemi, the Iranian who leaked information of the program to the Lebanese media, get fed up with the arrangement sooner and go to the press soon enough for the information to hit the press in early October at the latest. If the story is in front of the public for at least a month before the election that would make Iran-Contra THE top issue of the mid-terms leading to a more firmly Democratic Congress that is out for blood and starts investigating the moment they get into office.

 

[MerryPrankster]

Maybe something about AIDS?

AIDS was destructive as it was for many reasons, but according to And the Band Played On, the federal government wasn't especially interested in dealing with AIDS for quite some time.

 

[Orville_third]

Well, there is also the AIDS issue. According to Reagan's physician, he didn't know what it was until the time Rock Hudson was diagnosed. (Though, ironically, his reaction to it was a lot nicer than some on the Right.)

 

[BigWillyG]

Well, there is also the AIDS issue. According to Reagan's physician, he didn't know what it was until the time Rock Hudson was diagnosed. (Though, ironically, his reaction to it was a lot nicer than some on the Right.)

Maybe the cure for AIDS is discovered during the presidency of H.W. Bush or Clinton, leading to people asking why it wasn't cured earlier? Not sure what else you can do with an "act of God" event like AIDS short of having most of the population believe conspiracy theories about AIDS being created by the government.

 

[Derek Jackson]

Bonus Points!!! - Carter runs against Reagan again in '80, wins, and starts the country toward the economic recovery we experieced in the 80's into the early 90's, 80's popculture stays the same, Carter Reelected in 84 and his VP elected in 88, Soviet Union collapses on time. :c)

I assume that if Reagan won in 1976 the Democrat candidate would NOT be the one who ran in 76

 

[Alex1guy]

Have it shown his staff

Have him show his staff

Sorry that was terrible.

 

[Plumber]

Iran-Contra + crack epidemic. The CIA helped the Contras bring in cocaine to be used to make crack, after all.

The only PODs needed are recognition. Or you could just wait a generation or two.