Gov. Reagan loses enough middle America support from his poor response to Patty Hearst kidnapping?

I'm not a parent myself, but I'd say most parents at times probably do have the nightmare of what they might do if their child were kidnapped. And when there's a news story, it's something people can be pretty thoughtful and intelligent about.

And then Gov. Reagan was saying basically that the family should not pay the ransom.
http://www.nytimes.com/1974/03/01/a...st-food-is-peaceful-kidnappers-silent-no.html

Let's say he compounds this by further statements and shows what I think is kind of the truth, that he very much marches to his own drummer and at times can be a pretty clumsy individual.

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

How does this affect the timeline of the Republican party and American conservatism in the late 1970s and beyond?
 
Last edited:
Eh, he'll just blame it all on "Liberal Hollywood." If Trump can run a camping against Manhattan, Reagan can run a campaign against the Golden State. This was the Sixties. People were already saying California was only American in geography only. It won't butterfly away the Iranian Hostage Crisis, so in 1980, he can say he was waging the Culture Wars back before it was fashionable.

Basically, to derail a Reagan presidency with just his governorship alone, and without adding health issues, you need the proverbial deal girl or live boy in Ronnie's and Nancy's bed in the Governor's Mansion (Ron Reagan Jr. cold and/or scared doesn't count.). Not even losing the recall could work unless it causes a Rube Goldbergian chain of events that killls Khomeini by the mid 1970s.
 
Last edited:
I'm not a parent myself, but I'd say most parents at times probably do have the nightmare of what they might do if their child were kidnapped. And when there's a news story, it's something people can be pretty thoughtful and intelligent about.

And then Gov. Reagan was saying basically that the family should not pay the ransom.
http://www.nytimes.com/1974/03/01/a...st-food-is-peaceful-kidnappers-silent-no.html

Let's say he compounds this by further statements and shows what I think is kind of the truth, that he very much marches to his own drummer and at times can be a pretty clumsy individual.

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

How does this affect the timeline of the Republican party and American conservatism in the late 1970s and beyond?
I don't think it would have too much an effect on even Reagan's career, I mean, after a while it could be spinned as "We should not negotiate with terrorists."
 
. . . it could be spinned as "We should not negotiate with terrorists."
It certainly could be. It's all depends on how it plays in the court of public opinion, which can hinge on very specific emotional details.

In the big fields of war and peace, a large swath of our fellow citizens like "get tough" and almost make a willing choice not to dive into the details. So, for example, even though Israel is famous for "don't negotiate," in the '60s and '70s I think they did in fact negotiate at least a couple of times with terrorists, whatever their reputation.

However in cases of kidnapping, the average person just has thought it through much more, maybe first and foremost because of all the fictional crime shows on TV and secondarily because of actual news stories. As a more recent example, in the Mel Gibson movie Ransom (1996), the dad made a specific poker read that his chances of getting his son back were better if he didn't pay the ransom but instead put up double the money as a reward. The lead FBI agent recommended paying the ransom, but would continue doing first-rate police work whatever the dad's decision.

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

I was in elementary school in the early 1970s and I remember seemingly a shitload of kidnapping stories on Barnaby Jones, McMillan & Wife, Columbo, McCloud, Mannix, Harry O, etc, etc.
 
Well, I'm willing to go with Steven Jobs where he said, what we call the sixties really happened in the '70s.

Patty Hearst was kidnapped on Feb. 4, 1974.

Interesting thesis. I've actually been reaching a similar conclusion myself on my blog, where I'm exploring the idea that 1972 was actually an even more influential election than 1968, in shaping how the Parties and the public behave and see themselves to this day.
 
Reagan 'Botulism' A Joke, (UPI-Washington), Sarasota Journal [Florida], March 7, 1974.

https://news.google.com/newspapers?...AIBAJ&sjid=Oo0EAAAAIBAJ&pg=3520,1549906&hl=en

'California Gov. Ronald Reagan told a private luncheon Wednesday [March 6] an "epidemic of botulism" among recipients of the Hearst food handout would seem only just.

'An aide later said Reagan was only joking. . . '
And the fact that he an aide later said he was only joking could actually make it play worse.

It certainly could appear to many members of the general public that the mom and dad are simply doing their best to get their daughter back, and that Gov. Reagan is making it harder for them.
 
Last edited:
Eh, he'll just blame it all on "Liberal Hollywood." If Trump can run a camping against Manhattan, Reagan can run a campaign against the Golden State. This was the Sixties. People were already saying California was only American in geography only. It won't butterfly away the Iranian Hostage Crisis, so in 1980, he can say he was waging the Culture Wars back before it was fashionable.

Basically, to derail a Reagan presidency with just his governorship alone, and without adding health issues, you need the proverbial deal girl or live boy in Ronnie's and Nancy's bed in the Governor's Mansion (Ron Reagan Jr. cold and/or scared doesn't count.). Not even losing the recall could work unless it causes a Rube Goldbergian chain of events that killls Khomeini by the mid 1970s.
Eh, I don't think he would run against "Liberal California." Not when he spent eight years running the place. Not to mention California at the time wasn't that liberal, least not more so than OH or IL. Reagan isn't going to alienate a swing state. He'll probably just say that San Francisco doesn't count as "real California".
 
Years later when Reagan was president . .

On Oct. 23, 1983, while U.S. military forces were on a peacekeeping mission in Lebanon, there was a suicide bombing of a Marines barrack in which 220 marines, 3 U.S. Army soldiers, and 18 Navy sailors were killed. It was a real tragedy that people often forget these days. 241 U.S. personnel in total were killed. There was also a near simultaneous bombing at another location which killed 58 French military personnel.

https://books.google.com/books?id=D...s done as soon as you wish it would."&f=false

Reagan (about a year later) said:

"Anyone that's ever had their kitchen done over knows that it never gets done as soon as you wish it would."
Yes, Ronald Reagan could be a clumsy man at times. He certainly could be.

I think he got a lot of benefit of doubt because of how much grace under pressure he showed following the assassination attempt in 1981. And plus, even since the late 1970s in U.S. politics, conservatives have been the more vocal citizens and Reagan's one of their own.
 
Last edited:
If Reagan gets more widespread criticism for making it worse for a family in a kidnapping and especially if he makes it worse by trying to explain his way out of it (and admittedly, Reagan often did not make this second mistake),

his challenge to Ford in the Republican primary might sputter out relatively early. And I think this was the biggest reason Ford lost in 1976, that he was bloodied up during a long primary fight. So, in this ATL, Ford wins in '76 and faces the same headwinds Carter did.
 
Last edited:
And in May 1985, there was Reagan's visit to the cemetery in Bitburg, Germany. And his explanations beforehand.
Reagan Defends Cemetery Visit : Says German Dead Are Also Victims of Nazis
Los Angeles Times, Don Shannon, April 19, 1985.
http://articles.latimes.com/1985-04-19/news/mn-14900_1_concentration-camp

'WASHINGTON — President Reagan, under attack from Jewish and veterans groups and members of both houses of Congress, Thursday defended his plans to visit a German military cemetery, saying the soldiers buried there were "victims of Nazism just as surely as the victims of the concentration camps." . . . '
Yes, Ronnie Reagan could be a clumsy man at times.
 
Last edited:
and . . . If his challenge to President Ford flames out, say, early in 1976, I think that's the last we hear of Reagan on the national stage, other than his radio show.
 
Last edited:
I think you may be imagining a level of support for the Hearst's that wasn't there. They were/are, rich, privileged, and living a life utterly beyond what ordinary Americans could have. I don't recall much sympathy for them. Had it been the child of say, some small factory owner or someone more identifiable, it would have been different, IMO. As it was, any time you negotiate with a kidnapper or terrorist, chances are your kid is already a cold dead corpse somewhere, and giving in simply encourages more of the activity.
 

RousseauX

Donor
I'm not a parent myself, but I'd say most parents at times probably do have the nightmare of what they might do if their child were kidnapped. And when there's a news story, it's something people can be pretty thoughtful and intelligent about.

And then Gov. Reagan was saying basically that the family should not pay the ransom.
http://www.nytimes.com/1974/03/01/a...st-food-is-peaceful-kidnappers-silent-no.html

Let's say he compounds this by further statements and shows what I think is kind of the truth, that he very much marches to his own drummer and at times can be a pretty clumsy individual.

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

How does this affect the timeline of the Republican party and American conservatism in the late 1970s and beyond?
By 1980 people will be cheering him for "not negotiating with terrorists" tough guy and he "had the right ideas" to fight 70s terrorists
 
as an example of a shoot 'em up . . .

I think you may be imagining a level of support for the Hearst's that wasn't there. . .



From no less a source than the director Roger Corman!

From Big Bad Mama II (1987), the sequel to Big Bad Mama from the '70s. I only saw scenes from the retro on Roger Corman, but there's a scene in which the newspaper man played by Robert Culp is saying people have grudging admiration for bank robbing [especially involving Depression-era Texas!], but they tend to draw the line at kidnapping.

. . . and the ethics involved
 
Last edited:
By 1980 people will be cheering him for "not negotiating with terrorists" tough guy and he "had the right ideas" to fight 70s terrorists
if Ronnie flares out early and is embarrassed during his challenge to Ford in 1976, I don’t think he has any kind of inside track come 1980.
 
I am interested in the subject of what people admire, what people resent.

Basically on the theme, you scratch the surface, there can be a lot of craziness underneath.
 
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1802/18/se.01.html

' . . . People were screaming, yelling, cussing at us, pistol whipping people, jumping over counters, cocking shotguns at the back of our heads. You mother (inaudible) better put your heads in the dirt or we're going to blow your (inaudible) heads off.

'There was a young woman there that was pregnant that they beat her up and she lost her baby. And I remember putting my hand over my mouth so I wouldn't subconsciously or otherwise wouldn't allow any sound to come out. And then it was over.

I remember going to the kitchen and getting towels to try to pack Mrs. Opsahl's wounds. . . '
So liberation, my ass. All this is, is the worse features of society writ large.

And regarding this April 21, 1975, bank robbery by the "Symbionese Liberation Army," there were two separate victims: the young pregnant woman who lost her baby; and Mrs. Opsahl who had a shotgun thrust in her belly in an attempt to get her to move faster, and the gun then went off.

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

And by the way, someone who was a full-fledged mafioso or a halfway professional bank robber would never make these amateur hour mistakes if for no other reason than, we don't want the police to take the thing more seriously than they otherwise would.
 
Top