Iran Contra Affair, Long Term Impacts?

Basically, what would happen in the long run if the Iran-Contra Affair fully blew up? It gets fully exposed, shown, all that.

What are the long term cultural impacts? Would the US populace have their faith in government demolished somewhat? A return of the counterculture movement to some extent? How would the GOP be affected by it in the long run? To top things off, does this nip the religious right in politics in the bud?
 
I suppose that the most likely scenario for Iran-Contra to be bigger is that Oliver North's documents are discovered before they are destroyed. This will probably implicate Bush, as well as Reagan to a greater extent than he already was.

First off, the Democratic leadership in Congress was reluctant to push for impeachment. Many of them (Tip, Jim Wright) were around for Watergate and saw how it tore the nation apart. They were none too eager for a repeat performance. Impeachment probably won't happen, but there will be callings from the Democratic left to do so, and Reagan's approval ratings will fall.

The 1988 election will be much better for the Democrats. Bush will probably not run for the White House, and if he does will probably lose out to Bob Dole. The Democratic nomination may be slightly different, but Dukakis is still the likely winner given the conditions. Regardless, the Democrat will probably narrowly defeat Bob Dole for the White House. The Democrats will also cement their gains in Congress.

As for personal legacies, Bush and Reagan will be damaged. Reagan probably won't be the white knight among Republicans and conservatives that he is today. He will still be quite popular, but not to the same extent. Essentially, he wouldn't be the gold standard that all Republican presidential candidates would have to aspire towards. Bush's legacy will be permanently damaged. His role in the affair was far greater than known at the time, and like I said earlier I doubt that he would be the GOP's nominee in 1988. He will retire into obscurity, and his sons will be hard pressed to take any Governor's mansions.
 
With no George H. W. Bush, a lot of things might happen after he loses the nomination. Lee Atwater would likely take over at the RNC, though he'd likely not be working on the Dole campaign. With no Bush, there will be no April Glaspie whose stupid comments gave Saddam a green light for going into Kuwait. I can see greater Democratic majorities in 1988, thus greater disarmament. I could see NATO dissolving when the Warsaw Pact and USSR dissolve. The right will still be around, just discredited. Clinton will likely get some domestic policy nod in Dukakis's administration, though if Dukakis spends time investigating AIDS, Clinton's role in the Arkansas Prison blood scandal may hurt him. Perhaps if any Republicans are willing to stand up against Bush, it might help them look better? (BTW, didn't Ron Paul seek the Libertarian nod in 88 or so?)
The CIA and others will likely be looked on more suspiciously.
 
Hold on, wouldn't this rip apart the nation regardless? If they don't punish Reagan, it gives the impression that the President is, "above the law," while if they do, you get something somewhat similar to Watergate.

Additionally, what about the CIA? I can't imagine it ever being trusted again by the public considering the amount of controversies that just exploded from it in the space of two decades.
 
Why would it nip the Religious Right in the bud? The RR was too strong at this point and the ones most likely to go down--either Inside the White House or Inside Congress implicates George H.W. Bush as being the mastermind--are less associated with it.

(Unless Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell was involved somehow, which I've never heard of.)

That comes off as wishful thinking on your part.
 
Well, two things.

1. Wouldn't this hurt them as a movement, because they lose a candidate they were betting on a fair amount?

2. Even with that, we have a situation where things like the CIA are going to be even less trusted than OTL.

The latter, to me at least, is going to hurt the right wing in general for awhile. I'm not saying they'll never recover, but it is going to force a re-organization of the GOP.

From this, I'd argue the GOP turns into the right-wing libertarian party, which isn't exactly going to cater as much to the religious right. So, the religious probably turn to another party, perhaps the Dems become a Populist Party, and
from this, they'll never dominate a party like they did with the GOP in OTL.
 
If it hurts the Religious Right because it hurts the Republicans in general, it'll hurt the right-libertarians as well.

Given Pat Buchanan's isolationism, I imagine this would strengthen HIM. He went after Bush OTL and now he's got another arrow to use--the fact that I-C was illegal. He could claim foreign entanglements are undermining the rule of law Rome-style or something like that.

I simply do not find your argument that it would hurt the Religious Right specifically even superficially convincing.

You'd need a Religious Right figure involved for this to hurt them, and I don't think there were.
 
Wasn't Reagan somewhat representative of them... wait, I forget. He had to go through a Romney transformation.

But okay, interesting. However, okay, would it be fair to say this leads to, bizarrely enough, an isolationist Republican Party?
 
But okay, interesting. However, okay, would it be fair to say this leads to, bizarrely enough, an isolationist Republican Party?

It might strengthen Buchanan if he uses that as a club to beat on Bush with, but if he's seen as joining in with Democrats to attack another Republican, that could hurt him.

(Given how the Democrats aren't attacking Bush on culture-war issues, Buchanan's attacks on him from that front don't have the same treacherous quality.)
 
Hmm. Actually, now what happens to the GOP is more of an open question.

Besides that, what happens to the CIA in the long run? Does it have to get re-organized, perhaps with more congressional oversight, or what?
 
My Buchanan train of thought is still running...

Buchanan's economic views are more in line with union-type Democrats than with Republicans, his cultural views are more in line with Religious Right Republicans, and his foreign-policy views are more in line with the antiwar left.

If he attacks Bush on Iran-Contra and is in turn attacked by the GOP, maybe he goes over the Reform Party earlier?

However, some Googling seems to indicate he was the White House press secretary during the scandal and defended Oliver North.

Frex:

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2012/02/ta_022312.html

Unless what is revealed by Oliver North's documents not being shredded is a major game-changer, he's not going to use Iran-Contra against Bush.

Even if Buchanan doesn't lead an isolationist GOP movement in reaction to a worse Iran-Contra, someone else might.
 
Well, some religious Right leaders were willing to funnel aid to Central America, like Pat Robertson.
As for an opponent on the Right, I pick the 1988 Libertarian nominee, Ron Paul.
 
Honestly, judging by where he's placed, my intial prediction isn't totally off. As you said, any GOP member in Washington could get at least somewhat tarred from this, which I'd argue would cause the GOP to re-organize itself a lot, to say the least.

Now, this could go either way. On one hand, it could turn into a Populist style right wing Party that may have more leftist economic views, and additionally, will be extremely isolationaist. On the other hand, it could turn into a right wing libertarian party headed by people like Ron Paul. Either way, it isn't going to be like the party of OTL.
 
Republicans lose all credibility as a political party for some time, until the Democrats finally overreach themselves. The GOP's Reaganite wing takes as bad a hit as the Nixonians did.
 
If Bush is implicated then he does not win the nomination. In the good economic times Dole probably wins the election. I think things don't change much.In the bad economic times of 1992, Dole loses probably to Bill Clinton. If his father was never elected does George W Bush get the nomination for governor in 1994?
 
Not much? This practically butterflies the modern GOP as we know it. This isn't even taking into account the HUGE costs this has to the US government having any sort of credibility.
 
Top