Any Conceivable Way to Prevent Reagan Revolution in the 1980s?

Have LBJ choose his Great Society over the Vietnam War and have Martin Luther King, Jr., avoid being killed in Memphis. LBJ also must give his speech in New Orleans on race and the need for the South to look beyond racialist politics. Maybe have King there alongside him in front of that majority white crowd.
 
Have LBJ choose his Great Society over the Vietnam War and have Martin Luther King, Jr., avoid being killed in Memphis. LBJ also must give his speech in New Orleans on race and the need for the South to look beyond racialist politics. Maybe have King there alongside him in front of that majority white crowd.
The Reagan Revolution was in many ways caused by the collapse of the postwar economic order, which assumed scarcity not to exist (and which was proven so very wrong in the 70s), but also by a growing distrust with the state on matters of the role of the judiciary, the perceived coddling of criminals in a country with shockingly violent and growing crime problems in the 70s, and more nebulously, a desire for optimism, positivity, and a break with the painful recent past.

The crisis of the Welfare state and of the idea of industrial policy are two issues that, had LBJ devoted a lot more resources to, might have merely exacerbated the inevitable crash back to earth after the OPEC crisis. The government was already crowding out investment with its existing tax rates, but add more entitlement programs and a universal basic income (which King proposed) to it, and the American economy is likely going to get even harder hit by the German and Japanese competitive wave in the making.

As for King, keep in mind that King, much like JFK, is remembered so fondly partially because he was assassinated. King's popularity in 1964-1965 were at very high levels nationally, among people of all races. After 1966, after the radicalization of SNCC and the growth of the Panthers and the idea of Black Power, his popularity among African American activists in particular dropped. After he came out against the Vietnam War, many liberals who had previously supported him began to rethink things and his popularity dropped further. Fundamentally he was losing popularity and losing it quickly.

Defining how the Vietnam War is "not chosen" might be important here as well. South Vietnam after all was not in real danger of being overrun until the NVA got into the fight. However, once they did, without American air power and ground support, they probably do not last all that long.
 
I think the view that the postwar United States was undergoing some moral and societal breakdown is ridiculous. If change means breakdown then I want more breakdowns in the world. Blacks were affirming their rights of citizenship, students were demanding more than just the corporate line, and women were asking for a seat at the table. The death penalty for every possible offense was still in full effect — what coddling of criminals was going on? The Reagan Revolution was a reactionary movement sadly fueled by an economic transition and downturn, as well as foreign crises. Had there been none of the economic mess, I think Reagan’s message would’ve been seen for what it was — a racist, sexist, and foolish means by which to govern. The Neshoba County Fair debacle should’ve proved that to the world.

The crisis of the Welfare state and of the idea of industrial policy are two issues that, had LBJ devoted a lot more resources to, might have merely exacerbated the inevitable crash back to earth after the OPEC crisis. The government was already crowding out investment with its existing tax rates, but add more entitlement programs and a universal basic income (which King proposed) to it, and the American economy is likely going to get even harder hit by the German and Japanese competitive wave in the making.
I wouldn’t contend that it was the welfare state that had any issue. An American welfare state was still in its infancy, and conservative forced wanted to drown it before it took its first steps. There were indeed kinks in the system, but it can’t be said that increased welfare spending would’ve drove the economy into crisis. Several factors led to the economic crisis of the 70s that could have easily been curtailed. First, was the level of federal spending. I don’t think it was crazy to spend money on welfare programs, millions of Americans were living in extreme poverty, but deficits were expanding nonetheless. See the ridiculous military spending going on between the United States and Soviet Union. Second, the tax cut proposed by Kennedy and pushed through by Johnson. There wasn’t a cut in spending to correspond with the tax cut, setting the economy up for an inflationary situation. There also was the Vietnam War. Now those three things could have been avoided easily, or at least two of the three. Industrial transitioning was going to happen regardless, and Germany and Japan were going to be economic titans, regardless of whether the United States developed a robust welfare state or not. There is some real argument that a more ambitious Great Society would’ve blunted the blow of automation and foreign competition.


As for King, keep in mind that King, much like JFK, is remembered so fondly partially because he was assassinated. King's popularity in 1964-1965 were at very high levels nationally, among people of all races. After 1966, after the radicalization of SNCC and the growth of the Panthers and the idea of Black Power, his popularity among African American activists in particular dropped. After he came out against the Vietnam War, many liberals who had previously supported him began to rethink things and his popularity dropped further. Fundamentally he was losing popularity and losing it quickly.
The only think King and Kennedy shared was that they were both adulterers. Kennedy was a face, King was a figure. King put a moderating face on the Civil Rights Movement, and once he was out of the picture the radicals like Stokley Carmichael (Kwame Ture) were able to seize power. Carmichael called for violence in the wake of the assassination of King, and he wasn’t taken seriously until then. SNCC was kept in union with the SCLC because of King, and really did not begin to radicalize until after his death. Now I don’t know what major liberals outside of Johnson and the other Cold War hawks started opposing King after he came out against the Vietnam War, but he didn’t lose popularity among African Americans in any sense. When the pictures of broken and dead bodies picked up on folks’ televisions I’m sure anyone who disagreed with him would’ve found themselves back at the side of King.
 
Sorry but both Germany and Japan had welfare states which were always more comprehensive than that of the US.

The problem were high military spending and Vietnam War.
Germany and Japan had substantially smaller populations, a lot less interethnic economic inequality, and companies substantially less reliant on government industrial policy for their success. America and Britain had a ton of deeply noncompetitive state supported industries going into the 80s that were just not sustainable and in need of reform. America in particular did however, as you note, have to pay for collective western defense.

The economic issues of the late 70s were not driven, however, by the Vietnam War or high military spending (and this is of course totally ignoring how high military spending was crucial in allowing the SunBelt's economic growth to occur; you can't just assume military spending to be money thrown down a well with no repercussions anywhere else on the economy; WW2 if anything proved that wrong).
 
Easy, just prevent Carter v. Ford and have Reagan lose in a massive blowout in 1976. You could have a Carter v. Reagan election, but Carter turned a massive landslide into one of the closest elections in history with his dumbass playboy interview and inability to get his message across. So say Carter never gets 2nd place in Iowa and Church beats him to get the nomination. Meanwhile Reagan gets the nomination with some better performances up north (say Charles Mathias runs) In the general, Church crushes Reagan based on a platform of change and swinging to the center against the “radical” Reagan.

After such a blowout and 1964 still stuck in their minds, the Republicans turn away from the Right and elect Bush/Dole/Baker/Percy in 1980
 
Last edited:

samcster94

Banned
Is a Reagan-lite revolution, where Reagan himself doesn't run in 1980, but Bush Sr/Bob Dole/some other Republican does the same role, but is a tad less religious or something similar possible?
 
"No watergate" strikes me as the easiest way to prevent a Reagan revolution. POD is simple: Bremer shoots Agnew instead of Wallace, but because of (Even more) butterflies Agnew dies. Nixon is convinced to put some establishment guy, make it Bush or Ford as VP. Without scenting blood from Agnew's scandals, combined with butterflies affecting the news cycle it takes 30 years for the Watergate story to fully come out, during which time Nixon has gained a rep

Basically you get a GOP that's 1) "center-right" instead of being a Movement Conservative party 2) gains a populist wing due to an earlier GOP move in dixie+faster pickup of northeastern white ethnics. Essentially GOP economic policy stays standard postwar consensus, but with an eye on budgets+still retaining anti-labor stuff. No room for "Voodoo Economics".

You could combine this with AH.com's perennial "democratic revolution in the 80s" type worlds -- simply make Ford/Bush/Conally have a bad enough term 1977-81 that some democrat wins in 1980...
 
Well if Carter doesn't appoint Volcker then there's a reasonable chance the economy causes Reagan to be defeated in 1984, at which point he'd likely be seen as a failed president and the party drift back to a more moderate direction.

Keep Carter out of office completely. Take away the Democratic majority in Congress.
 
People are forgetting the global shift towards fiscal conservatism, privatization, and a host of neoliberal policies in the 1980's. Remember, Margaret Thatcher had just been elected in the United Kingdom the previous year, and a similar trend (economic liberalism) developed in Australia with Hawke/Keating and Rogernomics here. If, by chance, Reagan was assassinated, I would not be surprised if Bush engaged in spending cuts and modest reductions of the top tax rate. Reagan virtually ignored the ballooning deficits throughout his presidency, Bush would most certainly would not. I mean, the man increased taxes to remedy the outlays in federal spending (if my memory serves me right).
 
People are forgetting the global shift towards fiscal conservatism, privatization, and a host of neoliberal policies in the 1980's. Remember, Margaret Thatcher had just been elected in the United Kingdom the previous year, and a similar trend (economic liberalism) developed in Australia with Hawke/Keating and Rogernomics here. If, by chance, Reagan was assassinated, I would not be surprised if Bush engaged in spending cuts and modest reductions of the top tax rate. Reagan virtually ignored the ballooning deficits throughout his presidency, Bush would most certainly would not. I mean, the man increased taxes to remedy the outlays in federal spending (if my memory serves me right).
Ok. How much momentum would that movement have in a context where it's just the UK/Australia/NZ/Chile doing it and not the more important of the 2 superpowers doing neoliberalism? I strongly suspect significantly less than OTL.
 
That sounds more like a POTUS Kemp scenario to me. Bush whether winning in 1980 or succeeding reagan in '81 doesn't strike mas the type to go for monetarism.
 
I think part of the problem here is that some of the specifics of the Reagan revolution can be cast aside, but the overall trajectory of it cannot without massive other butterflies. or example, the effects of decolonization on world markets, and the dynamics of the cold war make "the era of bi government" as Bill Clinton put it, untenable, especially once China begins reopening to the war, and internal divides in the INC start to show the shortcomings of the Licence Raj.
 
Well if we're talking Clinton remember that he got VERY/ lucky OTL. Change the timing of his bimbo eruptions a bit, and you'd get Cuomo as the guy in charge from 93 to 97/01. Cuomo's attitude re: "Big Government" was slightly different than Clinton. Clinton is relevant here, since alot of the policy shifts/overton window shifts credited to Reagan were actually clinton-era.
 
Top