The easiest ways for this to happen are obviously Bush winning the nomination in 1980 over Ronald Reagan or John Hinckley Jr. successfully assassinating Reagan. Either way, how do you think a Bush 1981-1989 Presidency would unfold? Bush was considered more of a centrist, so I'd expect less conservatism for the decade, but still tax cuts on the level of Reagan and strong Cold War foreign policy. Do you think he could beat Walter Mondale in 1984 and do you think whoever his Vice President is could beat Michael Dukakis in 1988? Who do you think Bush would select as his vice president? Some common suggestions I've seen include, Congressman Jack Kemp or Senate Minority Leader Howard Baker.
 
I think you'd still see tax cuts, but they'd be a lot smaller and you'd have a much smaller deficit during the Bush administration.

Under Bush, foreign policy would be just as hawkish as under Reagan, if not more so. I'd expect that the invasion of Grenada, the strike on Libya, and the operations against Iran still happen, and the invasion of Panama might come earlier.

I've heard some people describe Bush in 1980 as a pro-choice candidate(?), but I've never seen anything on the matter from Bush the Elder himself. In general, with Bush being much more socially moderate than Reagan, the Religious Right wouldn't come to roost in the Republican Party, instead either shifting between the parties/candidates as seems to have happened in the past(?) or perhaps not even becoming a major political force at all.

Returning to fiscal issues, I'd imagine that Bush keeps Volcker on board just as Reagan did, so the economy recovers roughly as it did OTL, in time for the 1984 election. Where things get interesting, IMO, is what Bush decides to do with Volcker as his term goes on. In OTL, Reagan replaced Volcker with supply-sider Alan Greenspan in 1987. Bush, as I'm sure you know, was no fan of supply-side economics, hence there being smaller tax cuts. Would Bush keep Volcker on board to the end of his administration, or would he replace him? Either way, I'd imagine that supply-side economics are nowhere near as popular among the establishment/mainstream of the Republican Party, so that the GOP establishment stays closer to the legacy of Eisenhower on fiscal matters. I'd imagine that the Ted Cruz-type of ideological, movement conservatives would still advocate supply-side economics, though.

I'd like to see Kemp as Bush's VP. Kemp was a supply-sider, yes, but if Kemp runs as Bush's successor in 1988, then I imagine that he'd have to run closer to Bush, just as Bush in OTL's 1988 election ran as a continuation of Reagan.
 
Either way, I'd imagine that supply-side economics are nowhere near as popular among the establishment/mainstream of the Republican Party, so that the GOP establishment stays closer to the legacy of Eisenhower on fiscal matters.

I'd say it would be a lot more Nixon than Eisenhower. But yeah, I agree.

I'd like to see Kemp as Bush's VP. Kemp was a supply-sider, yes, but if Kemp runs as Bush's successor in 1988, then I imagine that he'd have to run closer to Bush, just as Bush in OTL's 1988 election ran as a continuation of Reagan.

I'd say Bush wouldn't choose Kemp as his VP because, if I can remember, Kemp was a social moderate. I'd say Bush would choose a social conservative like Rumsfeld or Laxalt, not Kemp.

Not to mention in 1988 the running mate's adherence to supply-side will be cause of concern. It's an open question whether the running mate would beat the Democrat.
 
A smaller tax cut happens, Bush gets more hawkish towards the Soviets in his early years(not to the extent of Reagan though), but then begins to engage them, similarly to Nixon (kind of like in my Ford wins in 1980 TL). The economy recovers as OTL ink large part thanks to Volker, so baring a strong third party candidate or primary challenge, Bush wins in 1984.

His conservative vp, Laxalt seems the most plausible to me, especially in a Hinckly kills Reagan POD, gets the nomination in 1988 and they'll have a tougher time in '88 than Bush did OTL, but it'll still be winnable for them, 50/50 depending on who the Democrats nominate.
 
Rumsfeld would be the last person Bush would pick given the enmity between them.

Bush would be in no position to alter Reagan's 1981 tax policy. Bush might be inclined to spend less elsewhere to offset the impact of the cut. Bush is not a believer in supply side economics. He'll be under no illusion that the cuts will magically cause enough growth to reduce the deficit or even for them to be deficit neutral. Bush also believes that "deficits matter"

All of which suggests marginally lower levels of military spending at least after 1981. Bush has to spend more than Carter did to avoid upsetting Reagan conservatives-but he might not be forced to carry out the precise build up Reagan did.

Where Bush Will probably differ from Reagan the most in domestic ternas is at the level of Presidential appointments. Conservatives will demand Bush's loyalty to Reagan's Tax cuts-but they may not care as much who Bush appoints to various bureaucratic positions and to judicial positions below the Supreme Court. Theoretically this could lead to real changes-particularly since Reagan has not had time to establish the precedent of using those kinds of appointments to advance the conservative agenda.

In foreign policy Bush's hands will be a bit tied in his first term. The decline in US-Soviet relations dates to the Carter administration. Bush might not antagonize the Soviets further-but undoing the impact of Carter and what Reagan did in 1981 is difficult. Still Bush might make things less tense on the margins and thereby avoid the close calls of the early Reagan era. If nothing else the Soviets might think Bush is not as likely as Reagan to initiate WWIII.

In the long term US-USSR relations depend on a factor outside of Bush's control. Does Gorbachev still come to power or does yet another member Gerontocracy assume the leadership of the Politburo in the mid 1980's? (Gromyko?) If Gorbachev comes to power he's likely to pursue similar policies. The USSR's economy will still be a mess. The USSR's bad economy had more to do with the inherent problems of a command economy and the post-1970's decline in Oil prices than Reagan's military build up. Gorbachev is still a believer in the idea that Soviet Socialism can be "reformed" He'll still be wary of falling victim to Kruschev's fate and will take measures to weaken the rest of the Politburo and the rest of the party more broadly.

The big question presuming Gorbachev is in power is whether Bush will be as interested in Reagan in eliminating nuclear weapons when he and Gorbachev meet. If he is a deal is somewhat more likely since he will not insist on SDI at the expense of that kind of agreement.

Bush will be more willing to use military force than Reagan was where the issue does not concern US-Soviet relations directly. We probably invade Panama sometime in his second term.

At the same time Bush is more of a realist than Reagan was-which makes the Iran-Contra scandal less likely-if only because Bush will not feel as compelled to save the hostages and will therefore reject the initial idea of selling arms for hostages in the first place.

Even if Bush pursues what we know as the Reagan doctrine his adminstration will not have the proceeds from sales to the Iranians to use to fund the Contras. Even if his adminstration wants to work around an alternate Boland amendment they will do so in some other way.

In his second term he'll have more leeway in domestic terms. Since then deficit will be larger without the tax increases that historically occurred in Reagan's first term Bush is likely to push for some kind of deficit reduction deal along with tax reform in the period between 1985 and 1986. Bush will probably push for the kind of increased tax level he couldn't in his first term.

In turn this will likely offend conservatives who will say Bush is betraying Reagan's memory.

In turn this will hurt whoever Bush's designated successor is in 1988-perhaps enough for a Democrat to win.

Since Bush's rhetoric will be less impressive than Reagan's and because the Conservative movement will view him with skepticism at best he'll be viewed more positively by historians than the public at large. There will not be a Bush myth to take the place of the Reagan myth.
 
Top