We all know how President Reagan resigned from office at the start of 1987 after it was announced that Congress would be launching an investigation into the Iran-Contra affair. After that, Vice President George H.W. Bush was sworn in as the new president, but his part in the affair completely soured any chances he had at running in the 1988 election, as he narrowly lost to democratic nominee Michael Dukakis. But what if things had gone differently? What if President Reagan never resigned from office? Could George H.W. Bush might've been able to win the 1988 election as well? What do you think would've happened? Let me know below what you think.
DBWI: President Reagan Hadn't Resigned after the Iran-Contra affair?
- Thread starter SomeGuyOnline
- Start date
The conventional wisdom is that Reagan's resignation and subsequent pardon just kept alive the idea that he must've been up to his neck in the shenannigans, and then Bush just made things worse with his bombastic denials of involvement, eg. "Read my lips! I wasn't there!!".
Of course, Ronnie's apologists have always argued that he was just a well-meaning but clueless old codger who got strung along by his sinister underlings. Maybe if some real hearings had been conducted, and that narrative had gotten verified, the public would just shrug it all off, since Reagan was already on his way out, and Bush coulda run the kind of campaign he wanted to run before being put on the defensive.
Of course, Ronnie's apologists have always argued that he was just a well-meaning but clueless old codger who got strung along by his sinister underlings. Maybe if some real hearings had been conducted, and that narrative had gotten verified, the public would just shrug it all off, since Reagan was already on his way out, and Bush coulda run the kind of campaign he wanted to run before being put on the defensive.
Assuming Reagan finishes out his term, he's not eligible for a third; Bush just doesn't have his charisma, and now he's not even the incumbent, just the VP. He would almost certainly lose to Hart as in OTL.
That old fool knew his goose was cooked. He wouldn’t have resigned otherwise; he didn’t want to end up raked over the coals by Congress, so he gave up. I’m just glad all the shit came out before Reagan’s second tax cut was going to pass; Congress wouldn’t touch it because they were too busy nailing Reagan. That one was a doozy.
Bush got nailed by Dukakis, but Dukakis got nailed by Saddam and ended up getting roasted by Bob Dole in 1992, so the Dems managed to fuck up two administrations in a row after GOP torchbearers resigned. It took Al Gore and his calm, level-headed demeanor to get the Dems back on track in the 2000s, although his “October surprise” of killing bin Laden right before the 2004 election helped.
Bush got nailed by Dukakis, but Dukakis got nailed by Saddam and ended up getting roasted by Bob Dole in 1992, so the Dems managed to fuck up two administrations in a row after GOP torchbearers resigned. It took Al Gore and his calm, level-headed demeanor to get the Dems back on track in the 2000s, although his “October surprise” of killing bin Laden right before the 2004 election helped.
While it's usually a coin toss on whether the end justify the means, the past decades have made it clear that the means certainly do not justify the ends. The fallout of the Iran Contra affair set a precedence of spineless inactivity in American policy for the better part of two decades, which significantly eroded America's international influence and prestige.
Moral virtue isn't worth the paper it's written on, and for countries it's better to be cursed for being a perpetrator than praised for being a victim.
Moral virtue isn't worth the paper it's written on, and for countries it's better to be cursed for being a perpetrator than praised for being a victim.
I'm presuming the POD is that the deal between Reagan's campaign team and Iran to scuttle the freeing of the hostages in 1980 doesn't come to light? Then Reagan probably survives until 1989, and Bush may even be elected in his own right, and Americans are much less cynical about politics.
Well, we might have had a major arms reduction treaty. Reagan had a lot of chemistry with Gorbachev, which neither Bush, or Dukakis had. The Cold War might also have ended well before it did and in a less bloody way. I also wonder how Bush would have handled Iraq’s invasion and annexation of Kuwait. Couldn’t have been much worse than Dukakis.
Deleted member 145219
Bush's "Read my lips," is about was bad as Ford's eastern European gaffe.
The problem with Iran Contra was that so much came out so quickly that the Reagan administration could not handle the flow of information. Unfortunately, President Dukakis was to cautious with the Middle East, not wanting to get bogged down in a Vietnam esque quagmire. As as a result, we got Bob Dole. Dole was a great President, despite my disagreements with some of his agenda. He got the country back on track after a difficult time.
Then we got twelve good years of Gore and Gephardt.
Dukakis, in attempt to keep wooing Saddam, actually rolls over and just accepted Saddam's explanation of Kuwait being always part of Iraq until "Colonialism", is kind of cringey, but in return, arguably paved the way to current peaceful climate in the Middle East.
Trading Kuwait for Iraq recognizing, and making peace with Israel is either one hell of brilliant move, or a silver lining on a botched clusterfuck.
He even managed to get the majority of the popular vote overcoming the post 1988 Democratic popular vote curse for the first and only time. You all know the saying "Democrats can't win the popular vote except if they kill a terrorist"
Elections would still involve policy differences instead of being literally all about personal power/cliques, or it'd at least take until the 2000s or 2010s for politics to develop late roman republic style personalized politics.
When was the last time elections even mentioned party platforms at all? 1992? 1996?
When was the last time elections even mentioned party platforms at all? 1992? 1996?