Carter wins the 1980 election

[Amadeus]

On Eagle Claw, I'll repeat what I posted here a couple of months ago:

***

One thing that is often neglected in "what if Operation Eagle Claw had succeeded" discussions is that the time of the attempted rescue mission, there were still Americans who were walking around free in Iran. If Eagle Claw had succeeded, Iran could simply make them the new hostages.

Cyrus Vance pointed that out in objecting to the proposed rescue mission:

"I reminded the group that even if the rescue mission did free some of the embassy staff, the Iranians could simply take more hostages from among the American journalists still in Tehran. We would then be worse off than before, and the whole region would be severely inflamed by our action." http://books.google.com/books?id=RH5SZHYfMI4C&pg=PA82

Zbigniew Brzezinski, the leading advocate within the administration of a rescue mission, did pay some attention to this possibility. He argued "that we should consider taking prisoners back with us, so that we would have bargaining leverage in the event that the Iranians seized other Americans as hostages..." http://books.google.com/books?id=RH5SZHYfMI4C&pg=PA86

In any event, IMO even if the helicopters function perfectly, Eagle Claw is going to lead to a lot of US corpses, Delta and hostage, during the extraction at the stadium. Because of the tendency of US voters to rally behind the president at a time of crisis, it may nevertheless lead to a temporary boost in Carter's ratings, but no, it won't allow him to beat Reagan--the election after all is several months way and by that time the glow would be off the "victory" and people would be asking how Carter allowed the US to get into the hostage crisis to begin with, as well as devoting their attention to such issues as double digit inflation [1], rising unemployment, [2] the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan (and how the Carter administration's response via the grain embargo hurt US farmers) etc. The notion that Carter lost only because there still were hostages on Election Day seems implausible to me. (For one thing, people forget how low Carter's job approval ratings were before the hostage crisis gave them a temporary boost. https://content.gallup.com/origin/g...roduction/Cms/POLL/bn1a9jq9g0qlldcnggvpea.png For another, the Democrats are still going to have a severe unity problem, thanks to Edward Kennedy's challenge to Carter's renomination.)

[1] http://www.multpl.com/inflation/table

[2] It rose from 5.9 to 7.5 percent between November 1979 and November 1980. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/data/UNRATE.txt

It's clear that had Eagle Claw succeeded, Carter could still lose to Reagan due to the worsening economy. But he would lose much more narrowly. And Republican gains in Congress would be blunted. In the long term Carter would be seen more like George HW Bush: successful in foreign policy policy, but not so on the economy.

IMO, in order for a release of the hostages to re-elect Carter it would need to happen in October 1980 as Reagan had feared.

 

[ChadMachine999]

IMO, in order for a release of the hostages to re-elect Carter it would need to happen in October 1980 as Reagan had feared.

Perhapse in August or September Carter gives an ultimatum to Iran to release the hostages or face war. This is not something Carter would likely do. But he could win by doing it. Alternatively he could better handle the economic crisis by A) reducing the federal gasoline tax to make transportation cheeper and reduce inflation. And B) creating a public works program to build more Nuclear and Renewable energy than he did IOTL to reduce energy prices which would also reduce inflation.

 

[Derek Jackson]

WI The Shah died of cancer so that offering him asylum did not come up and the hostage crisis did not happen?

 

[Amadeus]

WI The Shah died of cancer so that offering him asylum did not come up and the hostage crisis did not happen?

That would help Carter, but he'd still lose due to the bad economy. But his loss would be much more narrow. He'd win the Northeastern and Southern states he barely lost in OTL, and Democratic Congressional losses would be reduced somewhat.

 

[Maeglin]

This is very difficult. As other posters have pointed out: Carter was his own worst enemy, and would often burn his political capital for a moral victory. Perhaps if he did the following:

-Didn't alienate the Democrats (who controlled both houses of Congress), and worked with them to pass legislation that addressed the economy..
-Didn't give the "Malaise" speech; essentially didn't blame Americans for the problems facing the country.
-Either encouraged the Shaw to end the repression in Iran and facilitate elections, or, failing that, taken stronger action in response to the Hostage Crisis.
-Put Ted Kennedy on the ticket in 1980 and promise him a voice in administration decisions.

Carter's inability to work with congressional Democrats was a problem, yes.

On your other points:

• The Malaise Speech was actually popular at the time (and doesn't use the word malaise).
• The entire point of the Shah was that he was a Western-installed tyrant.
• Ted Kennedy didn't want an executive office. He was only running against Carter because Carter had so alienated the Democratic Establishment. Oh, and Walter Mondale had actually done nothing wrong as Vice-President.

 

[Maeglin]

That would help Carter, but he'd still lose due to the bad economy. But his loss would be much more narrow. He'd win the Northeastern and Southern states he barely lost in OTL, and Democratic Congressional losses would be reduced somewhat.

Actually, it wouldn't help Carter. Carter was saved by a rally around the flag effect as the Hostage Crisis started - without it, he'd have lost the primary to Ted Kennedy.

 

[Amadeus]

Actually, it wouldn't help Carter. Carter was saved by a rally around the flag effect as the Hostage Crisis started - without it, he'd have lost the primary to Ted Kennedy.

Possibly. In that case, how well would Kennedy do against Reagan?

 

[Maeglin]

Possibly. In that case, how well would Kennedy do against Reagan?

I think he'd lose (economy, and personal baggage), but it wouldn't be a landslide. Not least because while Ted Kennedy would have been vulnerable on some issues, Reagan could not have used "are you better off now than four years ago" against him - which in OTL turned a narrow race into a landslide.

 

[David T]

WI The Shah died of cancer so that offering him asylum did not come up and the hostage crisis did not happen?

People seem to have forgotten how unpopular Carter was before the hostage crisis started (and gave him a temporary boost to his job ratings). For a reminder: https://content.gallup.com/origin/g...roduction/Cms/POLL/bn1a9jq9g0qlldcnggvpea.png

(The Iran hostage crisis began on November 4, 1979. Carter reached a job approval rating of 28 (!) percent twice in the summer and autumn of 1979 (6/26 and 10/02): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_approval_rating)

 

[GeographyDude]

Nope, for this thread. Geographydude was asking "what if there was a conversation about the lack of good jobs" and i provided an easy way to accomplish this.

This is a big topic of mine and thank you for bringing it up, although in this thread I was mainly just talking about the seriousness of the 1982 recession.

But on this important topic, maybe if we focused on “the Walmart department manager problem” (a name I made up). That is, the situation in which some people are paid a solid middle income, but asked to work 50+ hours, even 60 hours some week, while other persons are unemployed. Seems rather sub-optimal to me, and perhaps to you as well!

PS And yes, back in 1982, it would have helped if my mom or dador one of my friends’ parents had talked, just a little bit, about the overall economy.

 

[Mark E.]

PS And yes, back in 1982, it would have helped if my mom or dador one of my friends’ parents had talked, just a little bit, about the overall economy.

It sounds like you were a classic victim of the "Longwave," an economic theory developed by Russian economist Nicholas Kondratieff in the thirties to explain the up down cycles that predictably repeat in a 50-55 year cycle. A major recession happens when the activities that propelled the economy for decades go from growth to stasis. They don't collapse, they just don't grow as much. In 1930, it was railroads and steel. In 1982, it was petroleum resourcing and real estate management. What happens is that the mentor generation passes on advice that is a generation out of phase with the current economy. The young generation is hurt and must develop their own approach in the school of hard knocks.

Longwave is often treated with an air of superstition and mysticism, but in my opinion, it is driven by cause-and-effect. If the cycle holds, the next unexpected downturn will come in 2037. The commodity: mobility for a retiring Baby Boom. The turn-down: A Generation X too small to support continued growth. The result: too many retirement facilities and too few candidates.

 

[Aisha Clan-Clan]

This is a big topic of mine and thank you for bringing it up, although in this thread I was mainly just talking about the seriousness of the 1982 recession.

But on this important topic, maybe if we focused on “the Walmart department manager problem” (a name I made up). That is, the situation in which some people are paid a solid middle income, but asked to work 50+ hours, even 60 hours some week, while other persons are unemployed. Seems rather sub-optimal to me, and perhaps to you as well!

PS And yes, back in 1982, it would have helped if my mom or dador one of my friends’ parents had talked, just a little bit, about the overall economy.

The generations born from the GI generation, ending with mid-1970s births were and are some of the most anti-poor/"free market"/anti-"populist" generations so that line of being willing to think about the overall economy instead of using the recession to dig into a "loser" wasn't going to come uip then.

Remember, we're talking the "BOO TAXES" GI/silent/boomer/most of generation x crowd here.

 

[Mark E.]

I have a story of my own from the 1982-1985 period. I was still in my twenties and I had some money to invest. Interest rates in 1982 were in the 11-13% range. My broker said I could get at least 18% in a limited partnership called Petro Lewis. They operated producing oil fields and need investors to help them expand and lease more oil fields. There was a catch. The price of oil was something like $28 per barrel. These were older oil fields with a cost of production of about $22 per barrel. So, as long as the price of oil remained where it was, the operation was profitable. The broker, in a small group seminar, asked “Where is the future, raging inflation, creeping inflation, or deflation? A majority voted “raging inflation” because that what was happening at the time. (I voted creeping inflation.) I ended up making the “minimum” purchase of Petro Lewis of $5000. That was a bad investment. Oil fell to $19 per barrel as OPEC countries wanted the cash flow to grow their economies. Needless to say, Petro Lewis collapsed and I lost half of my investment.

The point here is that the mentor generation is almost always prepared to give advice that is out of phase for the young generation. I remember my father, a WW2 veteran, telling me that if I work hard and do my job, I would never have to worry about keeping a job. In 1982, I saw colleagues being laid off. I was OK, but it was a sobering experience. As recessions go, 1982 was not catastrophic, but the seriousness of its impact came because it was so unexpected.

 

[GeographyDude]

I imagine the bulk of the losses happened in the Rust Belt and Northeast parts of the country. This hit already struggling industrial areas, which pretty much kept it fairly quiet and to themselves. And it also devastated the declining black neighborhoods in cities, leading to the rise of a crack epidemic. But outside of that, I don't think it hurt the country that much.

Unemployment rates for 1982:

August 9.8%​

Sept. 10.1%​

Oct. 10.4%​

Nov. 10.8%​

Dec. 10.8%

and then things did start to . . slowly . . improve​

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/data/UNRATE.txt

================================

And this is the standard unemployment rate printed in newspaper, which doesn't count persons "marginally attached" to the labor force, nor does it count persons working part-time as partially employed and partially unemployed but instead counts them as fully employed.

I do very much agree that there are regional differences. Detroit would be the obvious case, but I'd also want to look at rust belt cities like Cleveland, Ohio, Philly, PA, and Trenton, N.J. In fact, I'd raise the question of whether persons living in such cities were actually facing depression-level rates of unemployment. I'm asking the question, I don't know the answer. The early '80s were a period of decline in American manufacturing (and esp. in manufacturing jobs).

And I agree that a big cause of drug addiction is when hope for the future drops below a certain threshold. And we humans pretty much all over the world don't often get real enthused about things which only marginally improve our circumstances.

 

[Electric Monk]

Yeah construction unemployment was 22% and auto unemployment was 24% end of 1982.

The only alternative offered at the time was wage and price controls, much tougher version of what Nixon did. So you’d need a President willing to do that instead of Reagan inflation stopping is your god—as usual thank Wall St.

 

[Max Sinister]

The OPEC decides for unknown reasons to double oil prices two years later?

 

[Mark E.]

The OPEC decides for unknown reasons to double oil prices two years later?

The good side. (Read my post above) I'd have enough money to buy a new car.
The bad side. Inflation rages, Carter is remembered as a Democratic version of Harding and Hoover combined and whomever the GOP nominates (hopefully Bush Sr., not Dole) has a free ticket to the White House.

 

[GeographyDude]

The only alternative offered at the time was wage and price controls, much tougher version of what Nixon did. . .

I’m not seeing where the article is saying Reagan seriously considered wage and price controls in the early 1980s.

 

[Amadeus]

The good side. (Read my post above) I'd have enough money to buy a new car.
The bad side. Inflation rages, Carter is remembered as a Democratic version of Harding and Hoover combined and whomever the GOP nominates (hopefully Bush Sr., not Dole) has a free ticket to the White House.

Why Harding? Carter is pretty much Harding's opposite in terms of personal integrity.

 

[Electric Monk]

I’m not seeing where the article is saying Reagan seriously considered wage and price controls in the early 1980s.

I said it was the alternative, not Reagan’s alternative lol. This is a thread about Carter winning, although you’d need no Volcker appointment for Carter to do wage and price controls.