Bush 40 Administration: 1981 –- 1989

MrHola

Banned
For a few months now, I’m busy with a what-if scenario with Reagan’s assasination as the POD. This makes George H.W. Bush the 40th President of the United States. I’m kinda stuck on what Bush would do in his two terms. Here are a few assumptions;

1) The top priority in 1981/1982 was to kill off inflation. That was done by the Federal Reserve, so the recession would be the same and the subsequent skyrocketing economy still happen. Bush gets the credit regardless of the "voodoo economics."

2) I don't see much changing with the USSR, given the age of Brezhnev, Chernenko, and Andropov. Gorbachev was nearly inevitable. However, the level of animosity between the US and USSR (deploying the cruise missiles, joking about starting the bombing) would not have been as bad. But the USSR economy was doomed anyways.

3) Though George Bush was very able in international relations, more able than any president since Truman (though Nixon's opening of Red China was quite masterful), he would never have allowed Iran-Contra, or blatenly support Afghan rebels. We would see, in a two-term Bush a move closer to Bush's ideal of a world government. The relationship between the US and the UN would be much stronger. Bush would very easily win the 1984 elections. Not as easy as Reagan, but Mondale would not have won.

So what DOES change? For starters, no support for the Contras, and I assume no Iran-Contra affair. Also, the assassination would lead to passage in 1982 of the Brady Bill, only now called the Reagan-Brady Bill in memory of the slain president. Since Bush did not get along well with Reagan’s California buddies, I could see a major cabinet reshuffle early on. Also, with Reagan out of the picture, the Religious Right would have gone four years without access to the White House.

Now for the questions;

- What does Bush do about Lebanon? In OTL, Reagan pulled back all US troops stationed in Lebanon after the 1983 attacks. I can see Bush managed to pull a gradual pull-out through Congress instead of the rapid pull-out that Reagan ordered. And what about Grenada?

- While Bush would not have been so open about supporting the Afghan rebels, he would still use some covert operations to provide a lot of support. What do you think?

- Reagan managed to break the back of the unions in 1981 when he crushed the PATCO strike. Would Bush go that far?
 
As Ronald Reagan was the 40th president of the USA, wouldn't Mr. Bush still be number 41 if he suceeded Reagan following an assasination in 1981. IIRC Hinckley's (sp?) attempt took place in March, after the inauguration which would have been in late January.
 
How about as a POD Bush gets the nomination.

This might be a result of Reagan maybe not capturing New Hampshire early in the campaign, or maybe some scandal.

It gets more interesting if it´s Bush from the beginning, because by 81 if Reagan has had a year he has made the policy and picked the cabinets.

Bush would probably be a lot more moderate than Reagan, and the conservative revolution would be very different and maybe not really taking off.
 
1) The top priority in 1981/1982 was to kill off inflation. That was done by the Federal Reserve, so the recession would be the same and the subsequent skyrocketing economy still happen. Bush gets the credit regardless of the "voodoo economics."

Voodoo economics concerned the Kemp-Roth 30% tax cut / belief in the Laffer curve.

Further without Reagan's magic it's not certain that Reagan's post-tax raise tax cutting / deregulation agenda gets passed with some good and some bad knock-on effects for the US economy.

2) I don't see much changing with the USSR, given the age of Brezhnev, Chernenko, and Andropov. Gorbachev was nearly inevitable. However, the level of animosity between the US and USSR (deploying the cruise missiles, joking about starting the bombing) would not have been as bad. But the USSR economy was doomed anyways.

Actually Reagan ignored his neoconservative advisors in forging a relationship with the USSR due to his belief that "Evil Empire" USSR did not preclude their redemption. Bush is less likely to defy the conservative/Republican consensus and thus relations are probably poorer (he would never consider, as Reagan did, getting rid of all the nukes when Reagan and Gorbachev met in Iceland).

That said the broad outlines remain the same in all likelihood.

3) Though George Bush was very able in international relations, more able than any president since Truman (though Nixon's opening of Red China was quite masterful), he would never have allowed Iran-Contra, or blatenly support Afghan rebels. We would see, in a two-term Bush a move closer to Bush's ideal of a world government. The relationship between the US and the UN would be much stronger. Bush would very easily win the 1984 elections. Not as easy as Reagan, but Mondale would not have won.

The guy (or his administration) told Saddam that he was cool if Iraq invaded. I think you're overestimating Bush's skills.

Congress pushed the Afghan rebel support (and Carter had already agreed, as did Reagan) so that will probably go ahead even if Bush didn't want to push it—I do think he would have pushed it, though.

Bush wouldn't be able to get better UN relations through Congress. The Republicans and Southern Democrats would likely prevent that from even getting off the ground. The appearance of better relations, probably, but actually paying UN dues or anything tangible… I doubt it.

Simple butterflies do mean that Kennedy or Gary Hart might win the nomination in 1984 and Kennedy at least strongly threatens the blue collar union Democrats that kept Reagan in power IOTL.

Put Irish Kennedy against Yale Bush….

So what DOES change? For starters, no support for the Contras, and I assume no Iran-Contra affair. Also, the assassination would lead to passage in 1982 of the Brady Bill, only now called the Reagan-Brady Bill in memory of the slain president. Since Bush did not get along well with Reagan’s California buddies, I could see a major cabinet reshuffle early on. Also, with Reagan out of the picture, the Religious Right would have gone four years without access to the White House.

I agree on Iran-Contra, 50/50 on the Brady Bill (NRA dolled out a lot of money in the 80s, and Republicans/Southern Democrats still wouldn't pass the bill unless Bush blew a lot of capital pushing it which is kinda unlikely as he needs pro-gun voters for '84), and totally agree on the cabinet shuffle.

The born-agains (who, let us remember, voted for Carter in '76) only ever appeared to have a friend in Reagan—he never really did much for them. I think that Bush would actively have to court them if he wanted to win a second term.

- What does Bush do about Lebanon? In OTL, Reagan pulled back all US troops stationed in Lebanon after the 1983 attacks. I can see Bush managed to pull a gradual pull-out through Congress instead of the rapid pull-out that Reagan ordered. And what about Grenada?

Grenada was to look good after looking very bad, a different Lebanon butterflies that out. As for Lebanon itself the whole issue is tricky… anything you feel like happening probably has a decent chance of happening.

- While Bush would not have been so open about supporting the Afghan rebels, he would still use some covert operations to provide a lot of support. What do you think?

He would have been pretty open about supporting them, since Congress would still be pushing hard.

- Reagan managed to break the back of the unions in 1981 when he crushed the PATCO strike. Would Bush go that far?

Nope.

Bush would probably be a lot more moderate than Reagan, and the conservative revolution would be very different and maybe not really taking off.

Reagan was beloved of conservatives because he said all the right things but growth of government (non-defence) merely slowed a little under Reagan—it was not reversed. Further he only cut taxes after raising them, and he never paid more than lip service to social conservatives.

Bush, while not as conservative as Reagan, was plenty conservative—he just never looked it.
 
Actually Reagan ignored his neoconservative advisors in forging a relationship with the USSR due to his belief that "Evil Empire" USSR did not preclude their redemption. Bush is less likely to defy the conservative/Republican consensus and thus relations are probably poorer (he would never consider, as Reagan did, getting rid of all the nukes when Reagan and Gorbachev met in Iceland).

That said the broad outlines remain the same in all likelihood.

Aye, the broad outlines will remain the same. But I have to say that Bush was a lot more practical in these cases than Reagan. As Head of the CIA he knew that the SU had it's time and was on the verge of collapse.
 
Aye, the broad outlines will remain the same. But I have to say that Bush was a lot more practical in these cases than Reagan. As Head of the CIA he knew that the SU had it's time and was on the verge of collapse.

He was DCI for a single year (30 Jan. 1975 - 20 Jan. 1976) and he mostly focused on restoring the CIA's morale. This is before Afghanistan and just after Viet Nam at a point in time where the US (and NATO) is dropping rapidly comparative to the USSR in military power which will not be reversed until Carter and Reagan's heavy defence spending takes hold in the early '80s.

Reagan was not remotely practical in his dealings with the USSR—that's why it worked. The consensus was that the USSR was there for the foreseeable future, that it was the "Evil Empire" and that the USA had to directly oppose them and not talk to them. Bush practically lived in that consensus space given his previous jobs and position on the Republican spectrum.

Frankly Reagan defied all advice in his dealings with the USSR and although Gorbachev deserves the lion share of the credit if it was Bush instead I don't think things would have gone as well.
 
Top