AHC: U.S. Republican Party from 1986 to 1995 — The Center Holds?

I'd argue that sort of in between that of the Senate Republican coalition, you sort of probably had that of Bob Dole in a unique position in terms of that. Dole was similar to that of Ford in terms of economic issues (if I recall in reading while he worked on trying to balance the budget as Senate Majority Leader, he got constantly annoyed at Reagan for blowing the deficit up when they were trying to lower taxes and cut spending), but he arguably did fit in among some of the more Democrats on the left in terms of certain things in terms of social welfare (for example he was a strong supporter of food stamps and with McGovern got the McGovern-Dole Food Stamp Act which got rid of the Extended Purchase Requirement, and in '88 did support the creation of a federal childcare program if I recall reading through something in there).

Dole was in a good position to tack just a bit further towards the middle and become the standard bearer for old line GOPers but his failures in 1980 and 1988 are indicative both of how hard it was for him to translate that into presidential politics (without, say, the effect of being Ford's VP in a second term ;)) and also that a lot of Republican establishment figures didn't like Dole that much personally because he could be a temperamental dick when he wanted to (it's another mark of McGovern's underestimated legislative skills that he worked so well with Dole.)
 
Still think there's potential in '86, '87, '88, '89 as we transition from Reagan to post-Reagan.

Maybe Reagan's pragmatism is praised. And the younger generation of Republicans talk openly and easily about a healthy interchange between theory and practice. There might even be a clever, humorous phrase for people who fixate on "perfect" theory.

And the phrase "You can't lead people from three miles down the road" gains currency for a year or two, meaning that of course you start with the status quo and take medium steps from there. And by the way, this is one definition of conservatism which goes all the way back to Edmund Burke and probably further.
 
Danforth feels like the best bet. Grassley's career plots to a course on the axes of grumpiness and diminishing returns, and DeConcini has that scandal (his love child with Paul Laxalt's much younger daughter) waiting for some Gingrich type to backstab him with it. Danforth might have been a figure to rally round, if he'd put his mind to it.

DeConcini was always a Democrat.

And it was Pete Domenici (R-NM) that had the extramarital affair with Paul Laxalt's daughter.
 
DeConcini was always a Democrat.

And it was Pete Domenici (R-NM) that had the extramarital affair with Paul Laxalt's daughter.
*smacks forehead* yes he was, that's both of us in the original exchange who swapped the names -- what does it say about me that I call my daughters by their sisters' names all the time but I'm more concerned about name-swapping US Senators?
 
Dole was in a good position to tack just a bit further towards the middle and become the standard bearer for old line GOPers but his failures in 1980 and 1988 are indicative both of how hard it was for him to translate that into presidential politics (without, say, the effect of being Ford's VP in a second term ;)) and also that a lot of Republican establishment figures didn't like Dole that much personally because he could be a temperamental dick when he wanted to (it's another mark of McGovern's underestimated legislative skills that he worked so well with Dole.)

I've always had the thought of how the Republican primary in '88 might've went if Dole had won NH after Iowa. I just always view Dole as one of the more interesting characters among the Republicans at this point in time, considering the public view of him and then also what he tried doing legislatively and supported in terms of policies.
 
Reagan gets more scrutiny over Iran Contra and the stock market crash of 87 is deeper, causing a recession in 1988. A Democrat (who isn't Dukakis) beats Bush handily in '88 and produces decent coattails down ticket. There's a mini Republican revolution in 1990, but on the whole, the early 90s run more smoothly economically than OTL and said Democratic President is re elected in '92 against Dole. Losing twice and still being in the minority in congress forces the GOP to the center and they win the Presidency back in '96 or 2000.
 
Dole was in a good position to tack just a bit further towards the middle and become the standard bearer for old line GOPers but his failures in 1980 and 1988 are indicative both of how hard it was for him to translate that into presidential politics (without, say, the effect of being Ford's VP in a second term ;)) and also that a lot of Republican establishment figures didn't like Dole that much personally because he could be a temperamental dick when he wanted to (it's another mark of McGovern's underestimated legislative skills that he worked so well with Dole.)

Dole was too grumpy. Anger plays well when you have a large number of voters who feel excluded and ignored. Times were relatively good in 1988 and 1996.
 
Reagan gets more scrutiny over Iran Contra and the stock market crash of 87 is deeper, causing a recession in 1988. A Democrat (who isn't Dukakis) beats Bush handily in '88 and produces decent coattails down ticket.

Even with a worse economy, you still need Lee Atwater gone more to win. Dukakis just was easy meat.
So who? Mondale? still had the stink of 1984's drubbing over him
Gary Hart? <snigger>
Jesse Jackson?
Ted Kennedy?
Joe Biden?
Gephardt?
Arwater would wreck any of them
 
Even with a worse economy, you still need Lee Atwater gone more to win. Dukakis just was easy meat.
So who? Mondale? still had the stink of 1984's drubbing over him
Gary Hart? <snigger>
Jesse Jackson?
Ted Kennedy?
Joe Biden?
Gephardt?
Arwater would wreck any of them

Yep. You really didn't have any heavyweights willing to step up that year. 1988 wasn't perfect, but the economy was better than it was in 1980 and the Cold War was wrapping up in our favor.
 
Even with a worse economy, you still need Lee Atwater gone more to win. Dukakis just was easy meat.
So who? Mondale? still had the stink of 1984's drubbing over him
Gary Hart? <snigger>
Jesse Jackson?
Ted Kennedy?
Joe Biden?
Gephardt?
Arwater would wreck any of them

Yep. You really didn't have any heavyweights willing to step up that year. 1988 wasn't perfect, but the economy was better than it was in 1980 and the Cold War was wrapping up in our favor.

Bush, for a sitting VP of a popular President, wasn't guaranteed the nomination and faced more opposition in the primary than Al Gore did in 2000 and more than Nixon did in '60, and Atwater wasn't all that invincible either. Bush lost Iowa to Dole and was planning on firing Atwater if Dole were to beat him in New Hampshire as well. I could conceivably see a messier primary if a Reagan White House is more damaged by Iran Contra and has to deal with a recessionary economy to boot. Heavyweights in the Democratic party would be more likely to step in the race in this scenario as well, and keep in mind Dukakis had a 17 point lead over Bush in the summer of '88 OTL. With this in mind, '88 wasn't a done deal for the GOP.
 
Even with a worse economy, you still need Lee Atwater gone more to win. Dukakis just was easy meat.
So who? Mondale? still had the stink of 1984's drubbing over him
Gary Hart? <snigger>
Jesse Jackson?
Ted Kennedy?
Joe Biden?
Gephardt?
Arwater would wreck any of them
With Dukakis, if Sasso along with his team of media consultants wasn't fired, I always imagined a Dukakis victory or a very close Dukakis defeat against Bush.
 
Even with a worse economy, you still need Lee Atwater gone more to win. Dukakis just was easy meat.
So who? Mondale? still had the stink of 1984's drubbing over him
Gary Hart? <snigger>
Jesse Jackson?
Ted Kennedy?
Joe Biden?
Gephardt?
Arwater would wreck any of them

Cuomo, maybe
 
DeConcini was always a Democrat.

And it was Pete Domenici (R-NM) that had the extramarital affair with Paul Laxalt's daughter.
Thank you. :)

Yes, I was thinking of Senator Pete Domenici (R-New Mexico), who was also chair of the Senate Budget Committee for a while.
 
Roe v. Wade. . .
Yes, I'll admit that makes it tough for my 1986 and later POD.

But what if one of the major evangelists, like Pat Robertson, or James Dodson, or Billy Graham, took up the cause of a Plan B. That one of them talked about that what he's learned is that a Constitutional Amendment is really, really difficult. And that we need to start talking about reducing the incidence of abortion, and that has to include offering tangible, practical support to pregnant women.

And maybe this same evangelist discovers the issue of the slow erosion of middle-class jobs, and he talks openly and repeatedly about this, too.
 
Last edited:
So, my big philosophic POD is that the majority of Republicans embrace Reagan's pragmatism, maybe even double down on it, and maybe in part as a way to distinguish themselves from libertarians and other pie-in-the-skyers.

And as far as a policy POD, maybe the immigration reform bill which passed in 1986 is considerably more successful?
 
Top