Effects of No Reagan Revolution?

I've posted similar topics on this issue before, but I've never made a topic outright asking what would happen to the future of the country without the Reagan Revolution occurring. As Reagan himself is viewed by many as the savior of the 1980s and has had a massive effect on not only the GOP, but Democrats (Obama even acknowledges that he altered the country), what do you picture happening to the state of politics, culture, society without the revolution?
 
scaled.reddawn1984.jpg
;)
 
Honestly, the United States would probably be better off. The gargantuan runaway deficit that Reagan created would probably not have been nearly as catastrophic. The oil price shocks had essentially worked their way out of the system. You would have seen an economic revival no matter what, after the 1983 recession. An actual industrial policy might have kept jobs in America. And you might not have seen the massive transfer of the nation's wealth from the middle class to the 0.01%.

At the very least, there would be a half million people killed in central america that would have been alive.

The Soviet Union was going to dissolve anyway. Basically, the politburo was aging out.
 
The 1980s wouldn't be anywhere near as dramatic. The Reagan Revolution really was a revolution. The recovery from the recession, I think, would not have been anywhere near as celebrated without Reagan, nor would the other events of the decade. You'd have a calmer America, in other words, without Reagan's domineering charisma.
 

Deleted member 1487

The 1980s wouldn't be anywhere near as dramatic. The Reagan Revolution really was a revolution. The recovery from the recession, I think, would not have been anywhere near as celebrated without Reagan, nor would the other events of the decade. You'd have a calmer America, in other words, without Reagan's domineering charisma.
Celebrated? No, not if a Democrat is in charge, the right wing never likes to give them any credit.
 
Celebrated? No, not if a Democrat is in charge, the right wing never likes to give them any credit.

It depends which ideology is dominant, really. I'm assuming someone like Bush is in charge. In that event, instead of the charismatic Reagan, you'd have the more technocratic Bush, and Bush would not cause the same emotions that Reagan caused.
 
Honestly, the United States would probably be better off. The gargantuan runaway deficit that Reagan created would probably not have been nearly as catastrophic. The oil price shocks had essentially worked their way out of the system. You would have seen an economic revival no matter what, after the 1983 recession. An actual industrial policy might have kept jobs in America. And you might not have seen the massive transfer of the nation's wealth from the middle class to the 0.01%.

At the very least, there would be a half million people killed in central america that would have been alive.

The Soviet Union was going to dissolve anyway. Basically, the politburo was aging out.

I dont think what you are proposing would work as well as you believe.

1) keeping industrial jobs means trade barriers with the Japanese and Koreans. This probably keeps inflation higher than OTL, which would have continued to hurt economic growth, particularly investment and R&D.
2) No tax cuts and no deficit spending but an economic revival? Not likely. You need at least one of them and, given where we were in 1980, I actually do think both were important catalysts to the economic recovery.
 
A lot of it depends on who would have won in 1980 ITTL. George Bush/John Anderson/Jimmy Carter/Ted Kennedy/whoever would have his own unique style of dealing with the issues.
 
1) keeping industrial jobs means trade barriers with the Japanese and Koreans. This probably keeps inflation higher than OTL, which would have continued to hurt economic growth, particularly investment and R&D.

Having an actual industrial policy would have made a big difference.

As to economic growth, typically, after a recession, there is a recovery. The magnitude of the recovery may be questionable. On the other hand, it appears that much of the new wealth created by the recovery was captured by the 0.01%. The middle and working class started taking two jobs per family, burning through their savings and running up credit cards.

Thirty years later, we're still paying Reagan's debts. Things could have been handled better.
 
Top