It depends on the Democrat. If it's a liberal like Hugh Carey, then you'd see universal health care in addition to public works in order to stimulate the economy. However these policies would be paired up with deregulation, which was implemented in every major Western country including France which was governed by the Socialists at the time. Even Ted Kennedy praised deregulation in his famous 1980 DNC speech. (For a good parallel to what the 1980's might look like under a liberal Democrat, look at Australia under Bob Hawke).
If it's a conservative like Lloyd Bentsen, then you'd see business-friendly economic policies no different from Carter or Clinton.
If it's a conservative like Lloyd Bentsen, then you'd see business-friendly economic policies no different from Carter or Clinton.
The "Reagan economy" was the byproduct of Chairman Paul Volcker's reforms solving the inflation crisis.
Would Ford nominate Volcker? Would a different person make the same choices? Maybe. That'll make the larger impact at this time in history.
Would Ford nominate Volcker? Would a different person make the same choices? Maybe. That'll make the larger impact at this time in history.
Deleted member 109224
Who is the Democrat?
If Ford wins while losing the PV, Carter may just come back in 1980 - in which case you basically have a continuation of what was happening.
Jerry Brown? Probably not that liberal
Ted Kennedy or Hugh Carey? Much more liberal, although Carey cut corporate taxes in NY IIRC.
If Ford wins while losing the PV, Carter may just come back in 1980 - in which case you basically have a continuation of what was happening.
Jerry Brown? Probably not that liberal
Ted Kennedy or Hugh Carey? Much more liberal, although Carey cut corporate taxes in NY IIRC.
GeographyDude
Gone Fishin'
Like most people trying to solve a practical problem, Paul used a variety of tactics.
I’m not saying you’re doing this, but a lot of people put forward Volcker as some one-dimensional person who drove up unemployment in order to bring down inflation. And that’s just too simple by a country mile.
Even some journalists seem to do this.
GeographyDude
Gone Fishin'
U.S. GDP growth rate over time.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/A191RO1Q156NBEA
Each Christmas quarter compared to last year's Christmas quarter, each first quarter compared to last year's first quarter, etc.
At the site, you can hover your arrow and see numeric values.
As you can see GDP cratered in the late 1970's, I don't see how that would change under Ford whose economic policies were generally similar to those of the conservative Carter.
GeographyDude
Gone Fishin'
Yes, the U.S. economy was going alright until the energy crisis hit full-fledged the Summer of ‘79, which was a major contributing factor to the double-dip recession of 1980 and 1982.
And like you, I’m not sure Ford could have done any better job than Carter.
Tax cuts and deregulation but more on an "economic rationalist" bend, probably a serious attempt at universal health care. Dunno how PATCO would have gone down.
How about US President Bill Clinton's Earned Income Tax Credit-esque welfare and the work-to-welfare policies ?
Clinton's welfare reforms were Republican policies, which he was able to disguise by using liberal rhetoric to justify their implementation. That was the triangulation strategy he and Dick Morris cooked up to get Bubba re-elected in 1996. A 1980's Democrat, who is basically a neoliberal version of a New Dealer, wouldn't have pushed for those policies. Especially when you consider the change in circumstances under the POD: the Republican Party is more moderate in the 80's thanks to Ford's win, and the Democrats would only need to act on conservative proposals if they faced disaster in the 1982 midterms. This second part I find unlikely as the 1994 Revolution came about under very special circumstances (unusually high level of Democratic retirements, an unpopular incumbent, failed healthcare push, the moderate wing of the GOP discredited by Bush's 1992 loss, etc). As I mentioned above I think a 1980's Democratic administration would be similar to Bob Hawke's government in Australia: universal health care combined with neoliberal reforms. IMO, had RFK lived a 1970's Kennedy administration would've unfolded similarly. (I don't think he'd have been elected in 1968, but he could have won in 1972 or 1976 which was when UHC and neoliberalism were both growing in popularity).
History Learner
Banned
A serious issue facing any President in the early 1980s is the Mexican debt crisis, which threatened to not only collapse Mexico's economy but also much of the American banking sector.
GeographyDude
Gone Fishin'
I like it when we go international on economic discussions, and thank you. In fact, there’s a talk on C-SPAN on some of this.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?421923-2/ronald-reagan-cold-war-global-politics
Please see 3:30 into video.
1) Paul Volcker raised interest rates in the early ‘80s and rich investors from Europe and Japan bought up a lot of U.S. treasury notes and so forth,
2) therefore, less international capital available for Eastern Europe and Latin America, and
3) this lead to democratization movements in these countries. // I really disagree with this last point! But okay, it’s a discussion worth having.
-------------------
And so, 1980s economics might be a lot more butterfly-prone than we usually give them credit for.
Last edited:
Without reagan imo full-on neoliberalism of OTL's sort wouldn't happen in the US, at least in the 80s to mid/late 90s at earliest. Limited, more obviously politically favored deregulation sure but not full on neoliberalism.
Other countries that did it in OTL's 80s/90s/00s would probably do it in a much more limited fashion with only two exceptions. New Zealand bc of "rogernomics" and Chile because of Augusto "Helicopter Man" Pinochet.
Other countries that did it in OTL's 80s/90s/00s would probably do it in a much more limited fashion with only two exceptions. New Zealand bc of "rogernomics" and Chile because of Augusto "Helicopter Man" Pinochet.
So how will the US Democratic President fair well with foreign policy, specifically cases such as the South African Apartheid government.
If Carter loses 1976, he isn't having another shot. 1976 should have been a safe win for Democrats, and he'd be the one blamed.
Ah yes, Rogernomics. A low point of post-WWII 'social democracy' (if you can call Rogernomics that).
The mistake that the likes of Thatcher and Reagan made from a political POV was not so much the substance of their policies but the fairly obnoxious and rather gleeful way in which they implemented them (particularly in the case of Thatcher). As mentioned above, someone like RFK (who was never much of an economic statist) could have been a compassionate neoliberal reformer in the 1980s.
He'd be much tougher than Reagan, for sure. It's worth pointing out that Reagan's opposition to anti-apartheid legislation wasn't out of character given that he opposed both the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. (Even Southern segregationist Democrats who opposed the Civil Rights Act like George Smathers and Al Gore Sr supported the Voting Rights Act).
Without Carter to bring human rights as a new focus, South Africa's apartheid would be a far lower priority for the us.